main

main@lists.alug.org.uk

10368 discussions

Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by Ricardo Campos 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> If a Netscape 6 should come floating by, I'll have a >go at that, but isn't it true to say that the higher a >version number is, the slower it runs on old hardware? I was lazy too, and was comparing Netscape 4.77 to "Mozilla 5". Mozilla won, of course. But this thread prompted me to upgrade to Netscape 6. What a *very* sensible thing to do!!!! I'm lucky in that hardware isn't a problem for me, but I must say that Netscape 6 is (so far) utterly robust, a doddle to expand (i.e. plugins), and the caching is the best I've seen. Netscape 6 gets my thumbs up. Bigtime. :) (And the Linux version seems much quicker than the windows version! Ha!) Ricardo -- Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org Powered by Outblaze

2 1

Highspeed access for everyone...
by Simon 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Well most of you guys will probably already have heard about this, but since I haven't seen any posts I thought I'd be first to get flamed/thanked... http://www.btopenworld.com/satellite/index.html BT are going to be rolling out a satellite solution 500k down 150k upstream, and (obviously) it's not area dependant.. Bit pricy though £140 +vat per month!! still it's a start, us who live in the outback can get a decent net connection before too long... Just been to the BT account manager for our company and he said that if a good case can be put forward it's easily possible to get it before the official roll-out date in April 2002.. Simon "It's hard to be fit as a fiddle when you're shaped like a cello"

1 0

Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by Edenyard 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:39:26 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > You might like to take a look at "dillo", which is a very fast browser that > will display pages, although it's still a long way from supporting enough to > render them all correctly. It also misses JavaScript, cookies, etc, so > you'll need another browser on-hand for some sites. > Sounds a bit like the state of play with this wretched DOS browser. Sort-of almost works, but.... > > Another option is to add an offline browsing cache, such as wwwoffle, to > your current setup. That has its own quirks, but it's quite useful. > Ah - that does sound interesting. I'll look into it. Thanks for the tips. Gerald. -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/

1 0

Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by Ricardo Campos 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> Dennis: > > Netscape 6 is very bloated and slow... [...] > > The latest 6.x is a lot better. I agree, the version of Netscape (6.2 I think) I downloaded on Sunday loads up faster, and parses web pages faster than Netscape 4.77. Ricardo -- Get your free email from www.linuxmail.org Powered by Outblaze

1 0

Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by MJ Ray 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Dennis: > Netscape 6 is very bloated and slow... [...] The latest 6.x is a lot better. > well thats what ive been told. [...] Untethered bungees are a good idea. ;-) > Try galeon (spelling?) its abit faster... or you could go for lynx if you > realy want some speed ;) Galeon is only faster if you run Gnome already. Otherwise skipstone, I think, or dillo if you really want speed, or w3m for text mode. -- MJR

1 0

Re: Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by Dryden 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> Fair enough! You know that a lot of what I do is based either on > laziness or ignorance and that's how I come to be using 4.77 - it came > with slackware 8! I did install the Mozilla that came with same, but that > seemed to take forever to load up and about the same time to actually do > anything. If a Netscape 6 should come floating by, I'll have a go at > that, but isn't it true to say that the higher a version number is, the > slower it runs on old hardware? Don't forget I'm on an ex- skip P166MMX. > before you groan and give up on me totally, let me tell you that this is > quite an upgrade from my trusty 486DX4100 which I use for my work. Netscape 6 is very bloated and slow... well thats what ive been told. Im also guessing that its got alot of problems as no distro i know of has it... but then im not 100% about that :) oh and im in hte same boat i upgraded from a 486DX4 100MHz to a P 133, and i agree mozila is very slow. Try galeon (spelling?) its abit faster... or you could go for lynx if you realy want some speed ;) Dennis Dryden ********************************************************************** IMPORTANT: This email and its attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please telephone us immediately. The contents of this email and attachments represent the views of the sender and are not necessarily the representative of the views of The College of West Anglia **********************************************************************

1 0

UK LUG Distribution specific mailing lists
by John Seago 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Some members of this list may not be aware of the existance of distribution specific mailing lists, listed as, `Support Mailing Lists', on this web site: http://www.lug.org.uk/ I would not like to be thought to be suggesting these as an alternative to ALUG. I am however suggesting that they may offer an extra level of support/interest to the members of the ALUG list. John Seago

2 1

Re: [Alug] box crash question
by Jenny_Hopkins＠toby-churchill.com 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

David Fairey wrote: >If you add "rtl8139" to the end of the "/etc/modules" file >it should load the module everytime the machine boots. Then >rest of the boot scripts will startup ifconfig and route >before samba does. I have the line options rtl8139 io=0xdc00 irq=10 in etc/modules, is this what you mean? It was put there by modutils when i ran update-modules. That is the only reference to rtl8139 though. >(Assuming you have all the correct entries in >/etc/network/interfaces file for eth0). The only thing i think I may be missing is ONBOOT=YES.....not sure if it is ok juist to plonk that at the end of /etc/network/interfaces for iface eth0 or not? Earl Brannigan wrote >do you have the modules.conf entries for rtl8139 ? if you have them then >whenever networking is brought up modprobe is able to start them. Shouldn't >the modules reside in /lib/modules/<version>/ ? Yes, I have just looked and rtl8139.o is present and correct in /lib/modules etc. >The daemons should be started by init. under /etc/init.d/ there should be a >script for each of the daemons you want started sometime or other. Under >/etc/rcN.d/ (where N is the runlevel) there should be a symlink to files in >the init.d directory. (man init should help). The daemons start ok, I just need to restart them after entering network information correctly. But I've just gone and looked at init.d and started to vaguely comprehend what is going on there. I could write any small script, (e.g. adding routes and modules if I can't figure it out the "proper" way?), plonk it here and symlink to it then? >Was an X session running at the time ? This was re. my weird box-locking up. No, I rarely use X on this box. Thanks for the suggestion though. Thanks! Jen.

3 2

Re: [Alug] Netscape 4.77 cache question
by MJ Ray 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

Edenyard: > I did install the Mozilla that came with same, but that > seemed to take forever to load up and about the same time to actually do > anything. Yes, Mozilla has only recently started to get fast enough for decent use. I'm not sure how it'll fare on a P166, but like Netscape 4 before it, memory is the real limit. You can dress Mozilla up in a light front-end such as Skipstone, which is something you couldn't do with NN4. You might like to take a look at "dillo", which is a very fast browser that will display pages, although it's still a long way from supporting enough to render them all correctly. It also misses JavaScript, cookies, etc, so you'll need another browser on-hand for some sites. Another option is to add an offline browsing cache, such as wwwoffle, to your current setup. That has its own quirks, but it's quite useful. -- MJR

1 0

Re: [Alug] ipchains replacement
by Laurie Brown 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Laurie Brown writes: > >>Richard Kettlewell wrote: >> >> >>>Laurie Brown <laurie(a)brownowl.com> writes: >>> > >>>>Hi, Ian: my pleasure. "Passim" is old-fashioned shorthand (Latin, >>>>actually) for "in the past" or "previous/ly". It means: look in >>>>the archives! >>>> >>>It means "here and there" or "throughout", nothing to do with the >>>past. >>> >>Granted that's its literal translation, but one would hardly archive >>something that hasn't been written yet. "ALUG passim" can only mean >>to look for something in the past. >> > > It's the definition given in English dictionaries as well as > English-Latin ones. "<foo> passim" to me implies multiple > occurrences, throughout <foo>, but "previously" or "in the past" might > only refer to a single occurrence. Granted. Luckily in this case, there are several occurrences in old ALUG stiff! Cheers, Laurie. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Brown laurie(a)brownowl.com PGP key at http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

main