what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
78 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Lee Revell
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:21 +1100, James Livingston wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:52 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > How do I get FF style ad blocking (right click, "Block images from this
> > server") in Epi?
>
> If that is really what you want to do, install Firefox, install the
> adblock extension, and then learn regular expressions.
>

I know REs, thanks.  I want to be able to just right click and select
"Block images from this server".  This works in FF with no extensions
installed.

>
> Most people don't actually want to do that, what they want is to block
> ads. Which usually entails downloading FilterSet.G, enjoying their
> mostly ad-free pages, and living with the occasional one that slips
> through.
>
> For those people, you use Tools->Extensions and check "Ad
> Blocker" (which comes with FilterSet.G).
>
>
> Alternately you could design a user interface for ad blocking that
> doesn't make you want to claw your eyes out, and submit that to the
> Epiphany developers - who might then consider adding a UI to ad
> blocking.

What's wrong with the way FF does it?  Works for me.

>
> Cheers,
>
> James "Doc" Livingston


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

James "Doc" Livingston
In reply to this post by James "Doc" Livingston
Sorry, accidently missed a bit out of my reply, by hitting send.

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:21 +1100, James Livingston wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:52 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > How do I get FF style ad blocking (right click, "Block images from this
> > server") in Epi?
>
> If that is really what you want to do, install Firefox, install the
> adblock extension, and then learn regular expressions.

Epiphany isn't the best browser for everybody. If you want to do that,
use Firefox - I'm not arguing against that.


Anyway, this debate is fairly pointless at the moment. Until we have a
fully working XULRunner, Epiphany needs Firefox installed for the Gecko
libraries.


Cheers,

James "Doc" Livingston
--
"It's times like this I wish I'd listened to my Mother."
"Why, what did she say?"
"I don't know, I didn't listen."

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Alejandro Bonilla Beeche
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:40 +1100, James Livingston wrote:

> Sorry, accidently missed a bit out of my reply, by hitting send.
>
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:21 +1100, James Livingston wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:52 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > How do I get FF style ad blocking (right click, "Block images from this
> > > server") in Epi?
> >
> > If that is really what you want to do, install Firefox, install the
> > adblock extension, and then learn regular expressions.
>
> Epiphany isn't the best browser for everybody. If you want to do that,
> use Firefox - I'm not arguing against that.
>
>
> Anyway, this debate is fairly pointless at the moment. Until we have a
> fully working XULRunner, Epiphany needs Firefox installed for the Gecko
> libraries.
>

FACT is, Firefox is much much much much(tell me when to stop) popular,
accepted and liked than Epi, for long. So, what is the point of putting
a not-that-popular browser as default?

Installing Epi instead of Firefox will make that 70% of our users
install/download/waste bandwidth and ubuntu bandwidth/ just cause some
people decided to not put the browser that people will eventually use.
Let's not decide with one fact. If it's more popular and used, then it
is what people looks for, downloads and what need. Numbers talk.

If ubuntu is used by 500K people and 400K want to use Firefox, then why
would we make 400K people download and waste everyone's/ubuntu's
resources?

What goes into the CD is what is most popular/needed/expected/wanted.

Am I wrong?

.Alejandro

>
> Cheers,
>
> James "Doc" Livingston


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

John Nilsson
On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:53 -0600, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> What goes into the CD is what is most popular/needed/expected/wanted.
>
> Am I wrong?

I think the argument is that Firefox in its current incarnation has some
usability flaws that Epiphany doesn't. So assuming a default
installation is most important for non-power users, Epiphany would do a
better job of providing the browsing service.

OTH Ubuntu is Linux, how many non-power users are going to install
Ubuntu on their own and then having problem with the browser?

The person administering the install should be responsible enough to be
able to choose what browser is best suited for the intended user.

Meanwhile the largest group of users confronted with a fresh Ubuntu
installation will, for the foreseeable future, be power-user (implied
firefox users), thus firefox is the most sensible choice.

Have I summarized the debate correctly?

Regards,
John


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

Peter Garrett
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:28:58 +0100
John Nilsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 19:53 -0600, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> > What goes into the CD is what is most popular/needed/expected/wanted.
> >
> > Am I wrong?
>
> I think the argument is that Firefox in its current incarnation has some
> usability flaws that Epiphany doesn't.

Where "usability flaws" appear to be in the same realm as "Gnome HIG
non-compliance." The way things are going... no I won't start down that
road, I'll just keep running Fluxbox, and try hard to smile benevolently,
in the Ubuntu Code of Conduct tradition...

I mean that the HIG is a great concept and all that, but it
seems to be a religion for some people. If you imagine that the default
Gnome file chooser is well designed, for instance, i invite you to watch a
new user trying to use it... Although I admit it's an improvement on
clicking " dot dot " to go up a directory... ;-)

> So assuming a default
> installation is most important for non-power users, Epiphany would do a
> better job of providing the browsing service.

I've installed GNU/Linux for people who have no clue how a browser works at
all - they quite happily click forward -back - home, and set up bookmarks
for their webmail and favourite sites. I don't know what the fuss is
about, frankly. Epiphany is an OK browser I guess, although those of
us who remember the 1.2.* series of Galeon might feel that , well ...
let's say, it isn't an improvement...

Where people get confused is when flash and java
don't work (so I set that up for them - it's a waste of time explaining
why they aren't there, at least until you have them working - at that
point you have a more receptive audience, and the occasional person who
will say "Well, I don't really need that I guess
- maybe I'll get rid of it". Hardly the "purist" approach to advocacy, I
know.
>
> OTH Ubuntu is Linux, how many non-power users are going to install
> Ubuntu on their own and then having problem with the browser?
>
> The person administering the install should be responsible enough to be
> able to choose what browser is best suited for the intended user.

See above. I haven't had any complaints about Firefox. Other applications,
yes. But Firefox just seems to do fine with "non" so-called "Power
Users" (I hate that term by the way.. it's so pretentious,
... no criticism of your use of it intended - it seems to have
become common usage, to my chagrin)
>
> Meanwhile the largest group of users confronted with a fresh Ubuntu
> installation will, for the foreseeable future, be power-user (implied
> firefox users), thus firefox is the most sensible choice.

See above. I think its a non-issue.
>
> Have I summarized the debate correctly?

Nice attempt, but I think the protagonists of the debate are out of touch
with a significant part of the  user base ;-)

This is how the people for whom I've installed Linux use it: they have web
mail. (Usually *shudder* Hotmail, sometimes Yahoo, or just the ISP
provided interface.) They neither understand, nor see any advantage in
using Evolution, Kmail, or the like. They have a handful of favourite
sites. They use OOo to type letters, resumes etc. They expect their
printer to work. They never use the Gimp, because they are quite happy with
snapshots of the children/grandchildren which they can view with eog,
Firefox or gthumb ( only the more "advanced" even *find* gthumb.) And so
on... The kinds of people I'm talking about have no interest in
"Evolution", because they have always used a pen, an address book and a
diary if they need that sort of thing. Remember those? They worked rather
well, for centuries...

For such people, Ubuntu is actually massive overkill. They don't realise
how much power is at their fingertips. Even if they did, few would care or
need to use that power. They use computers because they are a means of
communication (email, IM, requirements to produce documents etc). The
*major* advantage for the "admin" is the relative lack of calls saying "My
computer is broken/slow/jammed.... Doesn't Work (tm)"

Disclaimer: I wasn't going to reply to this thread, as I see clearly that
it is off-topic for ubuntu-devel, and probably should be on Sounder - but
then I thought, "even the "Gods of Ubuntu" need to be reminded occasionally
that there are some very ordinary mortals out there who use their stuff".

So I'll send it. I expect a deafening silence, incomprehension, or
accusations of one sort or another. Perhaps not. though. One can always
hope. If the list readership sees this as a troll, it has missed the point
- spectacularly.

I invite the elite to sup at the table of the humans for whom technology
is a mystery vouchsafed to them by wizards.

Epiphany or Firefox? They would not know the difference! And that is not
because they are stupid - they are wiser than those who indulge in these
petty debates. ( including me, of course ;-))

Sincerely,

Peter

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
In reply to this post by Christopher Houdeshell
On zo, 2006-02-12 at 19:49 -0500, Christopher Houdeshell wrote:
> To settling the debate about this vs. that, why not make it a choice
> in the installer?

Because the installer asks as few questions as possible.

--
Dennis K.
  - Linux for human beings: http://www.ubuntu.com
  - Linux voor iedereen:    http://www.ubuntu-nl.org

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *****[netclusive] SPAM-ERKENNUNG***** Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Sascha Morr
> Spam detection software, running on the system "mx1.netclusive.de", has
> identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
> similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
> the administrator of that system for details.


Please STOP spamming the list with this shit!!!

cheers
Sascha

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *****[netclusive] SPAM-ERKENNUNG***** Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Dennis Kaarsemaker
On ma, 2006-02-13 at 08:39 +0100, Sascha Morr wrote:
> > Spam detection software, running on the system "mx1.netclusive.de", has
> > identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
> > has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
> > similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
> > the administrator of that system for details.
>
>
> Please STOP spamming the list with this shit!!!

I already sent them a notice via http://netclusive.de/?go=kontakt

But no one stops you from doing the same (might be useful since german
is not my native language)
--
Dennis K.
  - Linux for human beings: http://www.ubuntu.com
  - Linux voor iedereen:    http://www.ubuntu-nl.org

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: *****[netclusive] SPAM-ERKENNUNG***** Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

Robert Stoffers
In reply to this post by Sascha Morr
Sascha Morr wrote:

>> Spam detection software, running on the system "mx1.netclusive.de", has
>> identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
>> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
>> similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
>> the administrator of that system for details.
>
>
>
> Please STOP spamming the list with this shit!!!
>
> cheers
> Sascha
>

And I got burned for a sec=unclassified.. Those stars and stuff are a
heck more annoying! I have an inbox full of the crap. Turn it off!

-- Robert Stoffers


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

John Nilsson
In reply to this post by Peter Garrett
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 17:02 +1100, Peter Garrett wrote:
> Epiphany or Firefox? They would not know the difference! And that is not
> because they are stupid - they are wiser than those who indulge in these
> petty debates. ( including me, of course ;-))

While most of your criticism was directer to others than me, you did
reply to my post. So I feel I should clarify what "usability flaws" I
meant.

The most obvious is that Firefox doesn't behave like a Gnome
applications, and sometimes surprisingly so. Thus breaking the rule of
least surprise. My biggest gripe with this problem is choosing
applications to handle downloaded files. The user you described wouldn't
know to look in /usr/bin, but might on their own take a stab at "Movie
Player" and succeed.

The second flaw is not so big but warrants a mention. When Firefox
crashes (yes is does happen) there is no way to restore it (without
extensions). Epiphany OTOH handles this situation gracefully.

So, not having been presented with Epiphany, they wouldn't know the
difference. But given the choice I think they'd take epiphany, exactly
because it's mostly equal for all other purposes (ignoring the power
features of Firefox).

Regards,
John


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

Michael Richter-5
On Wed, 2006-15-02 at 00:44 +0100, John Nilsson wrote:
> So, not having been presented with Epiphany, they wouldn't know the
> difference. But given the choice I think they'd take epiphany, exactly
> because it's mostly equal for all other purposes (ignoring the power
> features of Firefox).

When this debate first opened here, I installed Epiphany and switched to
it as my default browser for a week just to see what all the fuss was
about.  When the week trial was over, I gladly switched back to Firefox.
I think your last parenthetical comment is what makes all the
difference.

Your statement, essentially, boils down to "if you handwave away the
features that make Firefox superior Epiphany is just as good as
Firefox".  That is a truism and not really much of a stunning
observation, isn't it?  Because it is those "power features" that make
Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
make it superior to Epiphany.  The oft-touted "HIG" issues never entered
into things.  It's not as if GNOME apps are really anywhere near as
coherent in their execution as people want us to believe, after all.

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: [hidden email], [hidden email]
MSN: [hidden email], [hidden email]; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
[hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

Lee Revell
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:37 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> Because it is those "power features" that make
> Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
> missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
> Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
> me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
> make it superior to Epiphany.

Another one - I really missed the way FF remembers my form field
entries, so I don't have to type my email address over and over and
over.

Lee


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etc ad nauseam...

John Nilsson
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 22:37 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:37 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> > Because it is those "power features" that make
> > Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
> > missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
> > Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
> > me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
> > make it superior to Epiphany.
>
> Another one - I really missed the way FF remembers my form field
> entries, so I don't have to type my email address over and over and
> over.

Michael missed the premise that the user would not use obscure features,
would hardly alter the default configuration and would certainly not
install extensions.

The popup thing might be an issue though. Firefox comes with this
enabled right? It's possible to configure Epiphany to block popups, but
it does so in a way much less visual than Firefox. A small icon in the
lower left corner is the only indication there was a popup.

I didn't know that epiphany doesn't remember form inputs though. That is
a valid concern.

Regards,
John


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etcad nauseam...

James "Doc" Livingston
In reply to this post by Lee Revell
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 22:37 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 10:37 +0800, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> > Because it is those "power features" that make
> > Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
> > missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
> > Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
> > me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
> > make it superior to Epiphany.

Epiphany gained an ad-blocking extension in 1.9.something, so the
version in Dapper has it. Tools->Extensions, check Ad Blocker.

It also has popup-blocking, although I can't remember when that was
added (1.8?). It doesn't have the big "a popup was blocked" bar like
Firefox does though.


> Another one - I really missed the way FF remembers my form field
> entries, so I don't have to type my email address over and over and
> over.

Epiphany has done that for longer than I've been using it (since 1.6).
It sounds odd if it's not working for you.


This brings up another great thing about this debate, the two sides
usually haven't used recent versions of the other program heavily. A lot
of pro-Firefox people haven't used Ephy 1.9.x much, and a lot of
pro-Epiphany people (like me) haven't spent a huge amount of time using
Firefox 1.5.


Cheers,

James "Doc" Livingston
--
Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etcad nauseam...

Lee Revell
On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 15:01 +1100, James Livingston wrote:
>
> This brings up another great thing about this debate, the two sides
> usually haven't used recent versions of the other program heavily. A
> lot
> of pro-Firefox people haven't used Ephy 1.9.x much, and a lot of
> pro-Epiphany people (like me) haven't spent a huge amount of time
> using
> Firefox 1.5.

I've actually used both extensively in the past few months.

And I just confirmed that Epi 1.9.7, the current Dapper version, does
not remember form fields correctly.  I opened the browser, went to
google.com, did a search, then closed it.  I then reopened the browser
and started to type the same search, and it failed to auto-complete.

Lee


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etcad nauseam...

Michael Richter-5
In reply to this post by James "Doc" Livingston
On Wed, 2006-15-02 at 15:01 +1100, James Livingston wrote:
> > > Firefox for me.  I really missed my ad-reduced browsing.  I really
> > > missed my popup-free browsing.  I really missed being able to whitelist
> > > Javascript and not worry about malicious sites using Javascript to screw
> > > me over.  I really missed, basically, all the features of Firefox that
> > > make it superior to Epiphany.

> Epiphany gained an ad-blocking extension in 1.9.something, so the
> version in Dapper has it. Tools->Extensions, check Ad Blocker.

I'm not using Dapper, so that's not helpful, is it?  ;-)

> It also has popup-blocking, although I can't remember when that was
> added (1.8?). It doesn't have the big "a popup was blocked" bar like
> Firefox does though.

I just noticed lots of popups that I wasn't able to figure out how to
block.  Perhaps the ability was there, but if so, it was clearly not
very well-advertised -- meaning that HIG compliance isn't so great after
all.

> This brings up another great thing about this debate, the two sides
> usually haven't used recent versions of the other program heavily. A lot
> of pro-Firefox people haven't used Ephy 1.9.x much, and a lot of
> pro-Epiphany people (like me) haven't spent a huge amount of time using
> Firefox 1.5.

I'm not even using Firefox 1.5 and I think it's better than Epiphany.  I
think it's 1.07 I'm using.

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: [hidden email], [hidden email]
MSN: [hidden email], [hidden email]; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
[hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etcad nauseam...

Corey Burger
In reply to this post by Lee Revell
> I've actually used both extensively in the past few months.
>
> And I just confirmed that Epi 1.9.7, the current Dapper version, does
> not remember form fields correctly.  I opened the browser, went to
> google.com, did a search, then closed it.  I then reopened the browser
> and started to type the same search, and it failed to auto-complete.
>
> Lee

That is a bug not a feature. Be careful when you judge something, as
it may be a bug, not a feature. So when you judge something about a
specific feature/bug, rather than slaming it for not doing what you
want it to do, say "I noticed it doesn't do X, but I think this might
be a bug". This is part of the "looks like, smells like, is" test of a
bug.

My suspicion is that the vast majority of computer users think that
the internet is the big blue E and don't associate with a particular
browser. However, this may also be changing, due to all the mainstream
press Firefox has been getting, as well as the mainstream press that
IE security issues.

As for the specifics of this debate, the wiki page about Firefox vs.
Epiphany I think captures the debate quite well. I suggest we continue
there, rather than spam the -devel list, as nothing can be done until
xulrunner is mature anyway, as others have noted.

Corey

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Irrelevance of the debate: (was "Epiphany versus Firefox" etcad nauseam...

Lee Revell
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 20:29 -0800, Corey Burger wrote:

> > I've actually used both extensively in the past few months.
> >
> > And I just confirmed that Epi 1.9.7, the current Dapper version, does
> > not remember form fields correctly.  I opened the browser, went to
> > google.com, did a search, then closed it.  I then reopened the browser
> > and started to type the same search, and it failed to auto-complete.
> >
> > Lee
>
> That is a bug not a feature. Be careful when you judge something, as
> it may be a bug, not a feature. So when you judge something about a
> specific feature/bug, rather than slaming it for not doing what you
> want it to do, say "I noticed it doesn't do X, but I think this might
> be a bug". This is part of the "looks like, smells like, is" test of a
> bug.

OK, well, this never worked for me with any previous version so I
assumed it was a (missing) feature.  I still think the fact that it's
apparently so fragile is a problem.

Lee


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
1234