OT : Gmail invites
Troy Daley
tfandan...@NOSPAMgmail.com (remove the "NOSPAM"s).
Sorry for the OT post!
-troy
Irina Rempt
> Hey, I have 6 gmail invites if anyone want's one. Please email me at:
Me too, though only 5 in my case (gave one away already). Only people I
know, please.
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 14-Jun-2004
Stephen
> Hey, I have 6 gmail invites if anyone want's one. Please email me at:
I'm sorry. Forgive my ignorance. What is gmail???
Zeborah
Google is now offering webmail -- by 'invitation' only, presumably so as
to control the speed at which people join up. It's a very good service.
Detailed information is at:
http://gmail.google.com/
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/about.html
(The second link has most info.)
It's still technically in beta-testing, so they're still adding features
and ironing out a few bugs. But most of that is frills around the edge;
the core features are working just fine.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
Charlton Wilbur
Z> Google is now offering webmail -- by 'invitation' only,
Z> presumably so as to control the speed at which people join up.
Although I count at least 18 invitations available recently, having
been offered by people in rasfc (myself included). So there's little
stopping people from having an account if they choose.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Brian M. Scott
<zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1gjfmb6.1ar94qmjg3a80N%zeb...@gmail.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Stephen <sbar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> I'm sorry. Forgive my ignorance. What is gmail???
> Google is now offering webmail -- by 'invitation' only,
> presumably so as to control the speed at which people
> join up. It's a very good service.
The amount of storage and the search feature do sound very
nice indeed, but I *really* don't like reading mail through
a web interface except in an emergency. I've a feeling that
I'd end up using only as storage and mailing the oddest
things to myself.
[...]
Brian
Zeborah
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:28:35 +1200, Zeborah
> <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:1gjfmb6.1ar94qmjg3a80N%zeb...@gmail.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> > Google is now offering webmail -- by 'invitation' only,
> > presumably so as to control the speed at which people
> > join up. It's a very good service.
>
> The amount of storage and the search feature do sound very
> nice indeed, but I *really* don't like reading mail through
> a web interface except in an emergency. I've a feeling that
> I'd end up using only as storage and mailing the oddest
> things to myself.
I don't like web interfaces usually either. The conversation thread
helps a lot with that, as does the clean interface and speed. (A lot of
webmail services are so clunked up with ads and images that it takes
forever to load a page and to move between views; that's a large part of
why I hate them.)
I still prefer mail on my computer -- I can take it with me where I
don't have internet access and write mails, queuing them to send later.
I am using Gmail a lot more than I've ever otherwise used webmail,
though admittedly mostly for storage and sending articles to myself from
work.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> nice indeed, but I *really* don't like reading mail through
> a web interface except in an emergency. I've a feeling that
> I'd end up using only as storage and mailing the oddest
> things to myself.
I'm considering using it as Another Offsite Backup for my writing.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Elizabeth
Nicoll)) wrote in <news:1gjem8u.1pg247z1lzcyriN%dark...@mindspring.com>:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> The amount of storage and the search feature do sound very
>> nice indeed, but I *really* don't like reading mail through
>> a web interface except in an emergency. I've a feeling that
>> I'd end up using only as storage and mailing the oddest
>> things to myself.
My SO is using his as an extra archive. He's got his real address
forwarding a copy of everything.
> I'm considering using it as Another Offsite Backup for my writing.
It works nicely for that, IMO. Even if it tries to find ads based on your
chapters (assuming they're in text form).
--
Elizabeth
polly.callan at earthlink dot net
http://home.earthlink.net/~polly.callan
http://www.livejournal.com/users/pollyc/
Irina Rempt
(cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net) wrote:
>>>>>> "Z" == Zeborah <zeb...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Z> Google is now offering webmail -- by 'invitation' only,
> Z> presumably so as to control the speed at which people join up.
>
> Although I count at least 18 invitations available recently, having
> been offered by people in rasfc (myself included). So there's little
> stopping people from having an account if they choose.
I think they also want a minimum of control over what *kind* of people
join up, by having their present account-holders give away further
accounts. If I'm a geek and I have at least one friend who is a geek,
it figures that the people I give my invites to are at least slightly
more geeky than average, i.e. less likely to abuse the service and more
likely to offer helpful advice and report bugs.
Zeborah
> I think they also want a minimum of control over what *kind* of people
> join up, by having their present account-holders give away further
> accounts. If I'm a geek and I have at least one friend who is a geek,
> it figures that the people I give my invites to are at least slightly
> more geeky than average, i.e. less likely to abuse the service and more
> likely to offer helpful advice and report bugs.
Though they were giving them en masse to Blogger.com users -- that's
where I got my original invite -- and from browsing through some of
those blogs, there are a great many, um, non-geeks.
(It's fun going through and announcing "Asian girl" at every pink page,
and then discovering that one is right. Usually flowers or fairies are
also involved. Also background music. I didn't know you could *do*
that on a blog, but apparently you can. Ick.)
David Langford
>Hey, I have 6 gmail invites if anyone want's one. Please email me at:
A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that the
wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't support good
old reliable IE5. (It lets you try, but something fails and the page
freezes with script errors while loading.) Undaunted, I switched to Opera,
and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/html/noactivex.html
... but see also ...
http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=415&session=
All right, it's Google's playground and they make the rules, but can there
be any really good reason for insisting on ActiveX?
Dave
--
David Langford
http://ansible.co.uk/
Latest book: =Different Kinds of Darkness= (collection, Cosmos, 2004)
Irina Rempt
wrote:
> A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
> reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that the
> wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't support
> good old reliable IE5. (It lets you try, but something fails and the
> page freezes with script errors while loading.) Undaunted, I switched
> to Opera, and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be
> enabled.
It doesn't support Konqueror either, so I rely on Firefox; its only
shortcoming is that the default font is very small and I've found no
way to set it to something larger except to make *all* my screen fonts
larger, which is not what I want.
David Langford
>On Thursday 02 September 2004 14:06 David Langford (ans...@cix.co.uk)
>wrote:
[a grumble about gmail not working with IE5 or Opera]
>It doesn't support Konqueror either, so I rely on Firefox; its only
>shortcoming is that the default font is very small and I've found no
>way to set it to something larger except to make *all* my screen fonts
>larger, which is not what I want.
Many thanks, Irina! I'll give that a go. Googling on "firefox browser" took
me straight there....
Brian M. Scott
<ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote in
<news:lb6ej0hcpmtutkrc5...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:37:32 +0200, Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>>On Thursday 02 September 2004 14:06 David Langford (ans...@cix.co.uk)
>>wrote:
> [a grumble about gmail not working with IE5 or Opera]
>> It doesn't support Konqueror either, so I rely on
>> Firefox; its only shortcoming is that the default font
>> is very small and I've found no way to set it to
>> something larger except to make *all* my screen fonts
>> larger, which is not what I want.
> Many thanks, Irina! I'll give that a go. Googling on
> "firefox browser" took me straight there....
I've been using the Windows version since 0.7 (now up to
0.9); I've become quite fond of it.
Brian
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>Undaunted, I switched to Opera,
>and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
Exterminate!
Anything that requires ActiveX to run is lame as hell and possibly
harmfull.
vlatko
--
http://www.niribanimeso.org/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
at htnet, not hinet
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>I rely on Firefox; its only
>shortcoming is that the default font is very small and I've found no
>way to set it to something larger except to make *all* my screen fonts
>larger, which is not what I want.
Since Firefox has extensions to do practically everything Opera can,
doesn't it have a zoom?
vlatko (Can't connect to update.mozilla.org at the moment.)
Irina Rempt
(vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr) wrote:
> Since Firefox has extensions to do practically everything Opera can,
> doesn't it have a zoom?
It does, but I have to zoom manually every time I start it; it doesn't
remember its last setting. I haven't found anything in the options to
increase the default font size either. This is one of the things that
make me not use it as default browser, though I like it a lot; the
other thing is that I like the browser to be my file manager (in
effect, being part of the Internet myself).
M-cube
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 18:47 Vlatko Juric-Kokic
> (vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr) wrote:
>
>> Since Firefox has extensions to do practically everything Opera can,
>> doesn't it have a zoom?
>
> It does, but I have to zoom manually every time I start it; it doesn't
> remember its last setting. I haven't found anything in the options to
> increase the default font size either. This is one of the things that
> make me not use it as default browser, though I like it a lot; the
> other thing is that I like the browser to be my file manager (in
> effect, being part of the Internet myself).
Tools -> Options... -> General -> Fonts & Colors
I discover now that there is also a "Minimum Font Size"
M.
--
Maurizio M. Munafo' / mmmu...@despammed.com
"Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you" (T.S.Eliot)
Irina Rempt
wrote:
> Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
>> On Thursday 02 September 2004 18:47 Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>> (vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr) wrote:
>>
>>> Since Firefox has extensions to do practically everything Opera can,
>>> doesn't it have a zoom?
>>
>> It does, but I have to zoom manually every time I start it; it
>> doesn't remember its last setting. I haven't found anything in the
>> options to increase the default font size either. This is one of the
>> things that make me not use it as default browser, though I like it a
>> lot; the other thing is that I like the browser to be my file manager
>> (in effect, being part of the Internet myself).
>
> Tools -> Options... -> General -> Fonts & Colors
>
> I discover now that there is also a "Minimum Font Size"
Not in the version I use (0.9.3 for Linux). There's not even Options
under Tools, but Preferences under Edit, and nothing about fonts and/or
colours.
Nate Edel
> On 30 Aug 2004 14:49:54 -0700, "Troy Daley" <tfan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hey, I have 6 gmail invites if anyone want's one. Please email me at:
>
> A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
>
> be any really good reason for insisting on ActiveX?
I have complained to a friend at Google; he insists that it really isn't,
although that's not his department.
AFAICT it IS if you use IE; I can get in to my gmail with Firefox, however.
Check your Opera settings to see if it's set up to say it's Internet
Explorer. Or try downloading Firefox.
--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
David Friedman
Irina Rempt <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote:
> > Tools -> Options... -> General -> Fonts & Colors
> >
> > I discover now that there is also a "Minimum Font Size"
>
> Not in the version I use (0.9.3 for Linux). There's not even Options
> under Tools, but Preferences under Edit, and nothing about fonts and/or
> colours.
No options under tools for 0.9.3 for Mac, either.
Neil Barnes
news:12a31fjjiu0cq$.3jyzon0...@40tude.net:
I concur; also the windows firefox works fine with gmail.
But... it lacks one particular touch which is unadvertised but
present in Opera; if a page has a link to 'next' or a small group
of similar phrases, such as yahoo groups does, then a hit on the
space bar moves to that page. Nice.
Neil
--
note - the email address in this message is valid - Hotmail have
improved their spam killing no end. Ignore previous suggestions
to use ntlworld.
Neil Barnes
news:1819366.A...@calcifer.valdyas.org:
> the other thing is that I like the
> browser to be my file manager (in effect, being part of the
> Internet myself).
<shudder> <bleagh> <yuck>
or to put it another way, what a strange way of looking at the
world :) One of the reasons I *hate* konqueror is that it doesn't
differentiate between local files and internet sites.
Sorry folks, but file managers and internet browsers are not the
same animal. I want kfm back :(
Charlton Wilbur
VJK> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:06:20 +0100, David Langford
VJK> <ans...@cix.co.uk>
VJK> wrote:
>> Undaunted, I switched to Opera, and was bounced with a stern
>> warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
VJK> Anything that requires ActiveX to run is lame as hell and
VJK> possibly harmfull.
Well, yes -- but Google doesn't *require* ActiveX in all cases, as I
am on a Mac and have no problems accessing it with Safari, Mozilla, or
Firefox.
It wouldn't surprise me if it required ActiveX for IE5, though, to
work around shortcomings in the browser.
M-cube
Ok. I was referring to Firefox 0.9.3 for Windows. But under Linux the same
panel is
Edit -> Preferences... -> General -> Fonts & Colors
I suppose in the Mac version it is in a similar position.
Edit -> Preferences gives you a window with some images on the left. General
is the top one. On the right, Fonts & Colors is the button in the second
block of commands. The obtained window makes you control all the fonts.
I hope this helps.
Irina Rempt
> [Firefox]
> Edit -> Preferences gives you a window with some images on the left.
> General is the top one. On the right, Fonts & Colors is the button in
> the second block of commands. The obtained window makes you control
> all the fonts.
Yes, that does help, thank you! I wonder why that was in a blind spot
all the time.
Boudewijn Rempt
> Sorry folks, but file managers and internet browsers are not the
> same animal.
I don't use konqueror as a file manager (much -- it's handy for the
occasional download from my digital camera), but as a file viewer. No
matter where the file I want to view is located, or what kind of a file it
is, I can read it. A bit like I used to use Outside-in in my Window 3.1
days.
> I want kfm back :(
I can offer you, for a small consideration, a SuSE install cd that gives you
precisely that.
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi
M-cube
> On Friday 03 September 2004 01:22 M-cube (mmmu...@despammed.com) wrote:
>
>> [Firefox]
>
>> Edit -> Preferences gives you a window with some images on the left.
>> General is the top one. On the right, Fonts & Colors is the button in
>> the second block of commands. The obtained window makes you control
>> all the fonts.
>
> Yes, that does help, thank you! I wonder why that was in a blind spot
> all the time.
>
You're welcome!
Actually it would have been very strange if you couldn't control fonts in
Firefox, because I suppose that it's one of the few things users want to
control and Firefox would not have been popular and widespread if it missed
such a basic option.
For example, I always use rather small fonts (13pt) and I prefer
having a 'Sans Serif' as default typeface, so that's the very first or
second thing I setup in a browser :)
Zeborah
> Well, yes -- but Google doesn't *require* ActiveX in all cases, as I
> am on a Mac and have no problems accessing it with Safari, Mozilla, or
> Firefox.
It requires it on my sister's computer. She's running Mac OS 9 and is
having lots of problems (as in, can't make it work with *anything*: see
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sasscat/55712.html )
I'm running Mac OS X and have had no problems, of course, but as far as
I know my computer/browser/pet elf might be running ActiveX in the
background. What is ActiveX, anyway?
(And does anyone know how to make Gmail work on Mac OS 9?)
Daniel Silevitch
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, yes -- but Google doesn't *require* ActiveX in all cases, as I
>> am on a Mac and have no problems accessing it with Safari, Mozilla, or
>> Firefox.
> I'm running Mac OS X and have had no problems, of course, but as far as
> I know my computer/browser/pet elf might be running ActiveX in the
> background. What is ActiveX, anyway?
If you're on a Mac of any sort, I seriously doubt that you have ActiveX.
It's a Microsoft Windows "feature" that allows programs and program
modules to be downloaded from remote servers and run on your machine. As
one might expect, it's a source of a whole raft of gaping security holes.
Anyone with a PC connected to the outside world is well advised to
disable ActiveX on their browswer.
-dms
David G. Bell
<87fz607...@mithril.chromatico.net>
cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net "Charlton Wilbur" wrote:
I can sort of see that it might require certain features which aren't in
IE5, and gets around that by ActiveX, but when so many other browsers
work, on non-MS platforms, what on earth do they need ActiveX for?
I've seen a lot of "IE/Windows" laziness in the ISP business.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Nate Edel
> It requires it on my sister's computer. She's running Mac OS 9 and is
> having lots of problems (as in, can't make it work with *anything*: see
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/sasscat/55712.html )
> (And does anyone know how to make Gmail work on Mac OS 9?)
What browser does she use? If she uses IE for Mac, has she tried using
something else?
Zeborah
> In rec.arts.sf.fandom Zeborah <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It requires it on my sister's computer. She's running Mac OS 9 and is
> > having lots of problems (as in, can't make it work with *anything*: see
> > http://www.livejournal.com/users/sasscat/55712.html )
> <...>
> > (And does anyone know how to make Gmail work on Mac OS 9?)
>
> What browser does she use? If she uses IE for Mac, has she tried using
> something else?
Darn, it doesn't say on her livejournal and she's gone out. She uses
either IE or iCab; I know she tried at least one other browser, and I
think that was Firefox.
Zeborah
I accidentally lied: she'd tried IE and Netscape, and I bullied her
into trying Firefox; which doesn't seem to have a Mac OS X version, but
while I was standing over her she got another version of Mozilla which
does work. So that's all good.
David Friedman
zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
> I accidentally lied: she'd tried IE and Netscape, and I bullied her
> into trying Firefox; which doesn't seem to have a Mac OS X version,
Firefox has an OSX version--it's what I use. Currently at 0.9.3.
Catja Pafort
> the windows firefox works fine with gmail.
>
> But... it lacks one particular touch which is unadvertised but
> present in Opera; if a page has a link to 'next' or a small group
> of similar phrases, such as yahoo groups does, then a hit on the
> space bar moves to that page. Nice.
While we're on browser features, on the off-hand chance that someone
reads this who'll develop one or complain to their favorite developers
what they want:
iCab (Mac browser) allows to open a page in a new window (at the top), a
background window or a new tab within the same window. The last two
features make browsing much easier - I can group URLs to browse en
block, and if I examine all links on a page like google results etc,
I'll end up with a neat stack of background windows instead of having to
jump backwards and forwards.
And lines of text are displayed with a little space between them; which
makes the text much easier on the eye; it would be my default broswer
for no other reason than this.
Catja
mike weber
<dd...@daviddfriedman.com> typed
Is there an Opera version? (I haven't checked)
But, of course, GMail doesn't like Opera, even when it lies and says
it's IE.
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Brian M. Scott
<kras...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<news:5r4kj0trpnv4j8fmn...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:47:42 -0400, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> typed
>>In article <1gjlnlp.1xbyxgc120x2q5N%zeb...@gmail.com>,
>> zeb...@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:
>>> I accidentally lied: she'd tried IE and Netscape, and I bullied her
>>> into trying Firefox; which doesn't seem to have a Mac OS X version,
>>Firefox has an OSX version--it's what I use. Currently at 0.9.3.
> Is there an Opera version? (I haven't checked)
Opera 7.54 for MacOS is specifically compatible with Mac OS
X; the folks at Opera say that users of OS 8 and OS 9 should
download Opera 6.03 for Macs.
[...]
Brian
Brooks Moses
> A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
> wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't support good
> old reliable IE5. (It lets you try, but something fails and the page
> freezes with script errors while loading.) Undaunted, I switched to Opera,
> and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
>
> ... but see also ...
> http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=415&session=
>
> All right, it's Google's playground and they make the rules, but can there
> be any really good reason for insisting on ActiveX?
If you read the "noactivex" page, it also says "your browser appears to
be Internet Explorer".
Note that Opera's default, for some reason, is to claim to web servers
that it is Internet Explorer, but this can be easily changed via the
"quick preferences" menu.
Given these bits of information, I would not be at all surprised if
GMail insists of ActiveX _when accessed via IE_, but not otherwise, and
that changing Opera to report itself as "Opera" to web servers would fix
the problem.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
Brooks Moses
> On Thursday, in article
> <87fz607...@mithril.chromatico.net>
> cwi...@mithril.chromatico.net "Charlton Wilbur" wrote:
> > Well, yes -- but Google doesn't *require* ActiveX in all cases, as I
> > am on a Mac and have no problems accessing it with Safari, Mozilla, or
> > Firefox.
> >
> > It wouldn't surprise me if it required ActiveX for IE5, though, to
> > work around shortcomings in the browser.
>
> I can sort of see that it might require certain features which aren't in
> IE5, and gets around that by ActiveX, but when so many other browsers
> work, on non-MS platforms, what on earth do they need ActiveX for?
They may need it, and enable it, specifically and only for IE5. Note
that Opera defaults to telling web servers that it _is_ IE5 (and thus it
will get the pages intended for such) unless you set it to do otherwise.
Brian M. Scott
<bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> wrote in
<news:413A2DF1...@cits1.stanford.edu> in
rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
[...]
> Note that Opera defaults to telling web servers that it
> _is_ IE5 (and thus it will get the pages intended for
> such)
Sometimes. Some sites check more closely and really do
insist on IE.
> unless you set it to do otherwise.
Brian
Irina Rempt
wrote:
> Some sites check more closely and really do
> insist on IE.
Which is usually reason for me to take my custom elsewhere, or if I
*really* need the site, to complain to the makers that they're
excluding a substantial part of their audience, and is that really what
they intend?
It earned me a very pleasant reply from a Dutch museum site, "no, of
course that's not what we intended, we shall speak to the people we
paid to build the web site at once!" And lo, a month later I could use
the site with anything at all.
Boudewijn Rempt
>
> I accidentally lied: she'd tried IE and Netscape, and I bullied her
> into trying Firefox; which doesn't seem to have a Mac OS X version, but
> while I was standing over her she got another version of Mozilla which
> does work. So that's all good.
Sure there's an OS X version of Firefox, I use it in preference to Safari,
although it makes me feel like I'm betraying khtml.
Brian M. Scott
<ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in
<news:1149396.K...@calcifer.valdyas.org> in
rec.arts.sf.composition,rec.arts.sf.fandom:
> On Saturday 04 September 2004 23:52 Brian M. Scott (b.s...@csuohio.edu)
> wrote:
>> Some sites check more closely and really do
>> insist on IE.
> Which is usually reason for me to take my custom elsewhere,
Yep.
> or if I *really* need the site, to complain to the makers
> that they're excluding a substantial part of their
> audience, and is that really what they intend?
Won't do any good with the one that I *really* have to use:
we're now required to turn in our grades on-line, which is
fine, but the software for which the university paid a
fortune requires IE on the other end.
Predictably enough, Hotmail is also fussy, but they lie:
when I use Firefox with cookies enabled, they tell me that
I'm not accepting cookies.
> It earned me a very pleasant reply from a Dutch museum
> site, "no, of course that's not what we intended, we
> shall speak to the people we paid to build the web site
> at once!" And lo, a month later I could use the site with
> anything at all.
Now that's uncommonly encouraging!
Brian
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Note that Opera's default, for some reason, is to claim to web servers
> that it is Internet Explorer, but this can be easily changed via the
> "quick preferences" menu.
>
> Given these bits of information, I would not be at all surprised if
> GMail insists of ActiveX _when accessed via IE_, but not otherwise, and
> that changing Opera to report itself as "Opera" to web servers would fix
> the problem.
Or you can tell Opera to report itself as any of several versions of
Mozilla (which includes Netscape), if you want to cater to sites that
demand either MSIE or Netscape.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Zeborah
Gleep, that was a braino; I meant it doesn't seem to have a Mac OS 9
version.
mike weber
<bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> typed
>Note that Opera's default, for some reason, is to claim to web servers
>that it is Internet Explorer, but this can be easily changed via the
>"quick preferences" menu.
The reason is that some pages that will, in fact, work perfectly well
with Opera will tell you to piss off if they think you are trying to
use anything other than IE or Netscape/Moxilla.
>
>Given these bits of information, I would not be at all surprised if
>GMail insists of ActiveX _when accessed via IE_, but not otherwise, and
>that changing Opera to report itself as "Opera" to web servers would fix
>the problem.
>
I just tried that. I got the following message:
"Gmail Sign In
Gmail does not currently support your browser.
See browser requirements for Gmail
or sign in anyway."
Brooks Moses
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:01:29 -0700, Brooks Moses
> <bmoses...@cits1.stanford.edu> typed
> >Note that Opera's default, for some reason, is to claim to web servers
> >that it is Internet Explorer, but this can be easily changed via the
> >"quick preferences" menu.
>
> The reason is that some pages that will, in fact, work perfectly well
> with Opera will tell you to piss off if they think you are trying to
> use anything other than IE or Netscape/Moxilla.
I know; this is the first time that I've actually seen a _direct_
problem caused by it reporting as IE.
Nonetheless, my habit is that when places tell me to do that, I just
take my purchasing power elsewhere -- if they figure they can afford to
ignore 2.5% of their customer base, I figure they can pay for that
choice. And I do think that Opera is propogating the problem by
reporting as IE; a lot of places justify their decisions on what
browsers to support by looking at server logs.
> >Given these bits of information, I would not be at all surprised if
> >GMail insists of ActiveX _when accessed via IE_, but not otherwise, and
> >that changing Opera to report itself as "Opera" to web servers would fix
> >the problem.
>
> I just tried that. I got the following message:
>
> "Gmail Sign In
> Gmail does not currently support your browser.
> See browser requirements for Gmail
> or sign in anyway."
So, did you "sign in anyway"? And, if so, did it work?
Neil Barnes
With opera reporting itself as any of the options - IE6, mozilla
three to five, or plain ole opry, it misbehaves...
If identified as IE6, it immediately complains that activex
(bleah) is disabled.
Moz whatever and Opera show the opening page with a warning
above; continuing permits log-in (and correctly handles login
errors) then downloads seventy k of something... and then goes to
a white screen.
Changing the user agent *after* the login produces an immediate
white screen - even if reloading the gmail home page - in all
cases except IE, where it complains about lack of activex.
They obviously get asked fairly often about using mozilla... if
you work through the help pages (searching 'opera' achieves no
hits!) you eventually get to a 'more' which includes a 'contact
us' which offers a pro-forma to request features. One of the
options is to request Opera.
I've also requested that they keep html well away from it...
You have to wonder a little... they've pushed this as a thing for
'geeks' - possibly the single group least likely to be using the
browser gmail prefer?
Neil
--
note - the email address in this message is valid - Hotmail have
improved their spam killing no end. Ignore previous suggestions
to use ntlworld.
Nate Edel
> Is there an Opera version? (I haven't checked)
> But, of course, GMail doesn't like Opera, even when it lies and says
> it's IE.
Lying and saying you're IE is generally a bad idea, unless it's the only way
to show a site at all. I don't use Opera for Windows, but until fairly
recent versions of Mozilla/Fire(Bird/Fox) it was the only tolerable browser
on Linux.
Charlton Wilbur
DB> I can sort of see that it might require certain features which
DB> aren't in IE5, and gets around that by ActiveX, but when so
DB> many other browsers work, on non-MS platforms, what on earth
DB> do they need ActiveX for?
Because they want feature X, and the implementation of feature X in
MSIE 5.whatever is buggy, so they include an ActiveX workaround.
DB> I've seen a lot of "IE/Windows" laziness in the ISP business.
Well, they can hit 90% of the world with that combination, and the
return on the investment required to hit the other 10% is minimal.
It's substantially easier to develop sites for IE/Windows than it is
to develop for standards compliance, because you need to know where
each browser varies from the standard.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Charlton Wilbur
IR> It earned me a very pleasant reply from a Dutch museum site,
IR> "no, of course that's not what we intended, we shall speak to
IR> the people we paid to build the web site at once!" And lo, a
IR> month later I could use the site with anything at all.
Much the same thing happened with my online bank site -- "sorry, we
didn't specify that it had to work with all browsers because we
thought they were smarter than that." And a few weeks later it was
fixed.
Troy Daley
out on the internet for all Google employees to read. Then, I read
that Neil Gaiman (http://neilgaiman.com) does the same thing, so we
must be on the right track!
-troy
excerpt from Neil Gaiman's journal:
More or less. There's an in-house backup of everything. I also tend to
copy the directories with things I've written on them to odd places
like onto my iPod (it's amazing how little room word processing files
take up compared to anything else - zipped, everything I've written in
the last 14 or 15 years, in multiple drafts and god-knows what else
only takes up around 40 meg), and I've e-mailed them to myself at my
gmail account. You know, if I got a slightly larger memory chip, I
could store it all on my phone...
sharkey
> I've been doing that, and then worrying about keeping confidential work
> out on the internet for all Google employees to read. Then, I read
> that Neil Gaiman (http://neilgaiman.com) does the same thing, so we
> must be on the right track!
I'd recommend using PGP or similar encryption on the email.
Compress your work first. Google currently seem to be good
about privacy, but come the Singularity, who knows?
(I for one welcome our emergent overlords!)
-----sharks
Julia Jones
<ans...@cix.co.uk> writes
>On 30 Aug 2004 14:49:54 -0700, "Troy Daley" <tfan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey, I have 6 gmail invites if anyone want's one. Please email me at:
>
>A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
>reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that the
>wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't support good
>old reliable IE5. (It lets you try, but something fails and the page
>freezes with script errors while loading.) Undaunted, I switched to Opera,
>and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
>
>http://gmail.google.com/gmail/html/noactivex.html
>... but see also ...
>http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=415&session=
>
>All right, it's Google's playground and they make the rules, but can there
>be any really good reason for insisting on ActiveX?
>
allow IE5 to run ActiveX. A peeved note about security issues went off
immediately, followed by downloading of Mozilla, which it seems to be
perfectly happy with on my machine.
--
Julia Jones
"We are English of Borg. Your language will be assimilated."
Philip Chee
Just to mention that in mozilla and mozilla firefox, you can tweak the
settings to make the password manager remember your gmail username/password.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Cereal Killer Strikes Again! Cap'n Crunch found dead...
* TagZilla 0.052
Brooks Moses
> In message <p01ej0dv1dkdibc6e...@4ax.com>, David Langford
> <ans...@cix.co.uk> writes
> >reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that the
> >wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't support good
> >old reliable IE5. (It lets you try, but something fails and the page
> >freezes with script errors while loading.) Undaunted, I switched to Opera,
> >and was bounced with a stern warning that ActiveX must be enabled.
> Following up slightly late - I have no trouble with IE5, as long as I
> allow IE5 to run ActiveX. A peeved note about security issues went off
> immediately, followed by downloading of Mozilla, which it seems to be
> perfectly happy with on my machine.
Speaking of Gmail, and ways of accessing it, I recently came across
something called GMailFS -- it lets you use a Gmail account as if it
were just another filesystem on a Linux computer. It turns out that
that's based on something called libgmail, which also has programs that
allow you to set up SMTP and POP3 access to a Gmail account, so you can
(after a bit of work and configuration-mucking) access it using a normal
email program.
Probably not directly useful, but still an entertaining example of the
sorts of things that happen in the back corners of computer-science
weirdness.
- Brooks
http://richard.jones.name/google-hacks/gmail-filesystem/gmail-filesystem.html
http://libgmail.sourceforge.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
> reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that
> the wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't
> support good old reliable IE5.
Does anyone know if it works with Lynx?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
James Angove
@panix3.panix.com:
> David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
>> reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that
>> the wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't
>> support good old reliable IE5.
>
> Does anyone know if it works with Lynx?
No. It requires Javascript.
--
James Angove
Joel Rosenberg
[Quick test]
Nope.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
(Reverse disclaimer: actually, everything I do or say is utterly
supported by Ellegon, Inc., my employer. Even when I'm wrong.)
Nate Edel
> David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> > A grumpy note on gmail. One of these zillions of invitations finally
> > reached me -- many thanks to Marcus Rowland! -- and I found that
> > the wretched site is so determinedly cutting-edge that it doesn't
> > support good old reliable IE5.
>
> Does anyone know if it works with Lynx?
At this time, it does not.
It requires a browser that supports Javascript, as well as IFRAMES; that
seems to rule out links2 as well -- I was able to log in with links2, but
not actually then get to my inbox.