Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #203792 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-02 12:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2019-01-11 16:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 12:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 15:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 15:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 17:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-02 21:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-03 01:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2019-01-02 22:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-02 23:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2019-01-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-02 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 10:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-01-03 12:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2019-01-03 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> - 2019-01-04 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 10:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 04:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gary Dale <garyndp@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 05:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server steef <debian.linux@home.nl> - 2019-01-03 16:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 17:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-03 20:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 21:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 22:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-03 23:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 04:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 09:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 12:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 23:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 21:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 21:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:40 +0100
Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-04 23:20 +0100
Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-03 16:10 +0200
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 10:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 12:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 14:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 13:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-05 15:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-05 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-05 20:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 01:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 13:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 14:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 16:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 17:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 17:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 19:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 19:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 20:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-10 11:10 +0100
Re: long page screenshots (was: Why choose Debian on server) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-01-07 01:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 01:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 19:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-08 01:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 20:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-09 21:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-16 00:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 18:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-01-06 19:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-10 21:40 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-07 02:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-07 15:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 19:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-06 16:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-08 14:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-01-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2019-01-04 22:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 23:10 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2019-01-04 22:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 22:20 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 22:50 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-01-04 16:00 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-01-04 19:30 +0100
Re: Why choose Debian on server francis picabia <fpicabia@gmail.com> - 2019-01-11 16:50 +0100
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-04 23:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) |
| Message-ID | <xcFYR-5P4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204042 |
deloptes composed on 2019-01-04 22:32 (UTC+0100): > Gene Heskett wrote: >> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's >> front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. >> And it works on other sites. > Same here SeaMonkey and Firefox both do this on Newegg.com, first selecting invoice, then clicking printable version, then printing. It is nothing like WYSIWYG, no way to get the bottom section(s) to show up on paper. I do very little printing of web pages due in large part to general incompetence of results going back decades. Trying to get usable results probably averages >12 sheets wasted for every usable one when the "page" is not actually a pdf. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-03 16:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: bad printing results (was: Why choose Debian on server) |
| Message-ID | <xIOKu-5nN-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204049 |
On 1/4/19, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote: > deloptes composed on 2019-01-04 22:32 (UTC+0100): > >> Gene Heskett wrote: > >>> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's >>> front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. > >>> And it works on other sites. > >> Same here > > SeaMonkey and Firefox both do this on Newegg.com, first selecting invoice, > then clicking printable > version, then printing. It is nothing like WYSIWYG, no way to get the bottom > section(s) to show up > on paper. > > I do very little printing of web pages due in large part to general > incompetence of results going > back decades. Trying to get usable results probably averages >12 sheets > wasted for every usable one > when the "page" is not actually a pdf. I know this is slightly older and also trailing more off-topic, but I just encountered this thread while Spring cleaning old Newegg ads in my inbox.... PDF files were what came to mind as a potential workaround. How do those do for you all as a (yeah, I know > *PITA*) first step before sending to physical printer? I've never had any problem printing at that site. I use a couple different browsers that come straight from their development website. That's a notable factor that might make a difference. I also print straight to file and not a physical printer. It sounds like *maybe* something was *possibly* slightly flubbed up in their HTML-type coding. For anyone not versed in web design, those printer definitions can be separately defined to help customers use precious printer ink only for necessary purchase receipt information instead of ALL the colorful picture ads, etc. I remember playing around with that. Part of that memory is about having lost a few hairs over *repeatedly* accidentally blocking out important information k/t *repeated* bad coding on my part. *My* experience has been that Newegg *does* respond by taking action without further interaction and/or by actually writing back if you click whatever method is available to contact them. My contact with them was about some serious, negatory shenanigans involving third party vendors. That's a notable point with respect to how phenomenally fast they were in emailing back AFTER they had already addressed the situation, i.e. zapped a bunch of product listings and I think also the vendor, in protection of their customers. Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with birdseed *
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 10:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcQhz-3Ap-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204037 |
On 2019-01-04, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote: > > My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's > front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. I saved the thread to a 7 page pdf file I can send you if you like (156K). > And it works on other sites. > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcS01-4Fy-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204076 |
On Saturday 05 January 2019 04:14:41 Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-04, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote: > > My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's > > front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. > > I saved the thread to a 7 page pdf file I can send you if you like > (156K). > Fire away. As a PM of course. > > And it works on other sites. > > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett Cheers, Gene Heskett --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcU1P-5Rb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204085 |
On 2019-01-05, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote: > On Saturday 05 January 2019 04:14:41 Curt wrote: > >> On 2019-01-04, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote: >> > My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's >> > front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. >> >> I saved the thread to a 7 page pdf file I can send you if you like >> (156K). >> > Fire away. As a PM of course. Done (from alpine; it's actually 6 pages because some fiddling was required to prevent text from getting cut off at the bottom of the page(s). Hope everything you need is there somewhere. >> > And it works on other sites. >> > >> > Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcSW5-5eZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204037 |
On 2019-01-04 21:11, Gene Heskett wrote: f course it is printable. Whatever you are doing is unknown. > > My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's > front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. > > And it works on other sites. > > Cheers, Gene Heskett what I do is drag the mouse over text copy/paste it into a text editor. Sometimes lose the formatting. mick -- Key ID 4BFEBB31
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcVhg-6xW-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204086 |
On 2019-01-05, mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2019-01-04 21:11, Gene Heskett wrote: > f course it is printable. Whatever you are doing is unknown. >> >> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the site's >> front page, never getting down to any of the text past the headline. >> >> And it works on other sites. >> >> Cheers, Gene Heskett > > what I do is drag the mouse over text copy/paste it into a text editor. > Sometimes lose the formatting. > > mick > I can confirm the 1 page Firefox printing snafu for the stackexchange thread on the most recent stable Quantum. I can also confirm that it is a *very* longstanding bug and that snafu is indeed the proper acronymic term. In Chromium, though, the problem is absent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcZkS-y3-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204089 |
On Saturday 05 January 2019 09:36:19 Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-05, mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2019-01-04 21:11, Gene Heskett wrote: > > f course it is printable. Whatever you are doing is unknown. > > > >> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the > >> site's front page, never getting down to any of the text past the > >> headline. > >> > >> And it works on other sites. > >> > >> Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > > what I do is drag the mouse over text copy/paste it into a text > > editor. Sometimes lose the formatting. > > > > mick > > I can confirm the 1 page Firefox printing snafu for the stackexchange > thread on the most recent stable Quantum. I can also confirm that it > is a *very* longstanding bug and that snafu is indeed the proper > acronymic term. > > In Chromium, though, the problem is absent. I think the question about is it on purpose on the part of stackexchange might be a prod to make on sign up for their spam, aka known as signing up and logging in. I did not, having been forced to sign up for cnczone to gain access to something I wanted, which trippled my incoming spam, with one of the spammers being so far out he scores 11.8 to spamd scanning the incoming mail. A new record here. And it started 30 seconds after I'd filled out their plain as hell phishing form. Cheers, Gene Heskett --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 20:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xcZEe-Uu-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204097 |
On Sat 05 Jan 2019 at 13:58:57 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 05 January 2019 09:36:19 Curt wrote: > > > On 2019-01-05, mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2019-01-04 21:11, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > f course it is printable. Whatever you are doing is unknown. > > > > > >> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the > > >> site's front page, never getting down to any of the text past the > > >> headline. > > >> > > >> And it works on other sites. > > >> > > >> Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > > > > what I do is drag the mouse over text copy/paste it into a text > > > editor. Sometimes lose the formatting. > > > > > > mick > > > > I can confirm the 1 page Firefox printing snafu for the stackexchange > > thread on the most recent stable Quantum. I can also confirm that it > > is a *very* longstanding bug and that snafu is indeed the proper > > acronymic term. > > > > In Chromium, though, the problem is absent. > > I think the question about is it on purpose on the part of stackexchange > might be a prod to make on sign up for their spam, aka known as signing > up and logging in. I did not, having been forced to sign up for cnczone > to gain access to something I wanted, which trippled my incoming spam, > with one of the spammers being so far out he scores 11.8 to spamd > scanning the incoming mail. A new record here. And it started 30 > seconds after I'd filled out their plain as hell phishing form. Words of wisdom I heard recently - TANSTAAFL. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xd4Nz-3Yk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204099 |
On Saturday 05 January 2019 14:12:44 Brian wrote: > On Sat 05 Jan 2019 at 13:58:57 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 05 January 2019 09:36:19 Curt wrote: > > > On 2019-01-05, mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 2019-01-04 21:11, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > f course it is printable. Whatever you are doing is unknown. > > > > > > > >> My copy of FF only prints 1 page, which is the top 3" of the > > > >> site's front page, never getting down to any of the text past > > > >> the headline. > > > >> > > > >> And it works on other sites. > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, Gene Heskett > > > > > > > > what I do is drag the mouse over text copy/paste it into a text > > > > editor. Sometimes lose the formatting. > > > > > > > > mick > > > > > > I can confirm the 1 page Firefox printing snafu for the > > > stackexchange thread on the most recent stable Quantum. I can also > > > confirm that it is a *very* longstanding bug and that snafu is > > > indeed the proper acronymic term. > > > > > > In Chromium, though, the problem is absent. > > > > I think the question about is it on purpose on the part of > > stackexchange might be a prod to make on sign up for their spam, aka > > known as signing up and logging in. I did not, having been forced to > > sign up for cnczone to gain access to something I wanted, which > > trippled my incoming spam, with one of the spammers being so far out > > he scores 11.8 to spamd scanning the incoming mail. A new record > > here. And it started 30 seconds after I'd filled out their plain as > > hell phishing form. > > Words of wisdom I heard recently - TANSTAAFL. Yep, perfect interpretation, Brian. Cheers, Gene Heskett --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdg2m-2sC-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204102 |
On 2019-01-06, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote: >> > > >> > > I can confirm the 1 page Firefox printing snafu for the >> > > stackexchange thread on the most recent stable Quantum. I can also >> > > confirm that it is a *very* longstanding bug and that snafu is >> > > indeed the proper acronymic term. >> > > >> > > In Chromium, though, the problem is absent. >> > >> > I think the question about is it on purpose on the part of >> > stackexchange might be a prod to make on sign up for their spam, aka >> > known as signing up and logging in. I did not, having been forced to >> > sign up for cnczone to gain access to something I wanted, which >> > trippled my incoming spam, with one of the spammers being so far out >> > he scores 11.8 to spamd scanning the incoming mail. A new record >> > here. And it started 30 seconds after I'd filled out their plain as >> > hell phishing form. >> >> Words of wisdom I heard recently - TANSTAAFL. > > Yep, perfect interpretation, Brian. The one-page only snafu is a well-known and long-standing Firefox printing bug impacting any number of web sites that affects neither Chromium nor its derivatives. As Chrome would appear to be the most popular extant browser (when counting across all platforms, as well as uniquely on the desktop) your stackexchange conspiracy theory looks to be leaking some significant credibility through a rather large hole. I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users too lazy or bewildered to try another browser is good enough for stackexchange, because, goddammit, you take what you can get. To that argument I have my own acronymic rejoinder, derived from the old Cockney dictum: YPYMAYTYC. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/28/magazine/on-language-you-pays-yer-money.html > Cheers, Gene Heskett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdgYp-31A-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204110 |
Curt wrote: > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users too lazy > or bewildered to try another browser is good enough for stackexchange, > because, goddammit, you take what you can get. Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not want to use it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument regarding 1 page printing in FF, because other sites do not have the problem, hence it is doable to overcome the issue from within the site (perhaps css definitions - I do not know what exactly the issue is and I do not care). If site developers may embed 100s of lines of code to check browser and version and can adapt their sites to IE,FF and Chromium the least, they could also take care of this "feature", so lazy is not me, but the one that does not care, test or provide proper support for printing from within FF. This is my opinion only, you may accept or not... and I agree with Gene - stackexchange is phony in their philosophy, but it is their right to be so and my right to qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a different opinion and I respect this. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdinw-409-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204112 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote: > Curt wrote: > > > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users too lazy > > or bewildered to try another browser is good enough for stackexchange, > > because, goddammit, you take what you can get. > > Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not want to use > it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument regarding 1 page > printing in FF, because other sites do not have the problem, hence it is > doable to overcome the issue from within the site (perhaps css > definitions - I do not know what exactly the issue is and I do not care). > If site developers may embed 100s of lines of code to check browser and > version and can adapt their sites to IE,FF and Chromium the least, they > could also take care of this "feature", so lazy is not me, but the one that > does not care, test or provide proper support for printing from within FF. > This is my opinion only, you may accept or not... and I agree with Gene - > stackexchange is phony in their philosophy, but it is their right to be so > and my right to qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a > different opinion and I respect this. Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web page. Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating his free lunch. Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and take a screenshot of the whole page. screenshot filename.png --fullpage Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file produced is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course, printable. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdixc-43c-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204117 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end > is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly > user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating > his free lunch. > My moral and informatical standards are quite a bit lower than some of you, so while you were evaluating the tricky technical and ethical aspects of this affair I sent the old codger the PDF. Yesterday. Bon appétit!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdiGS-46h-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204117 |
On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote: > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote: > > Curt wrote: > > > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users too > > > lazy or bewildered to try another browser is good enough for > > > stackexchange, because, goddammit, you take what you can get. > > > > Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not want > > to use it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument > > regarding 1 page printing in FF, because other sites do not have the > > problem, hence it is doable to overcome the issue from within the > > site (perhaps css definitions - I do not know what exactly the issue > > is and I do not care). If site developers may embed 100s of lines of > > code to check browser and version and can adapt their sites to IE,FF > > and Chromium the least, they could also take care of this "feature", > > so lazy is not me, but the one that does not care, test or provide > > proper support for printing from within FF. This is my opinion only, > > you may accept or not... and I agree with Gene - stackexchange is > > phony in their philosophy, but it is their right to be so and my > > right to qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a > > different opinion and I respect this. > > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web page. > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end > is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly > user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating > his free lunch. > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and > take a screenshot of the whole page. Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this magic key combo documented? > screenshot filename.png --fullpage And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out of their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its instructed to ask me, but rarely does. > > Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file produced > is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course, printable. Good to know. Cheers, Gene Heskett --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdj9T-4wu-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204121 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote: [...] > > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the > > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for > > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web page. > > > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end > > is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly > > user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating > > his free lunch. > > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and > > take a screenshot of the whole page. > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this > magic key combo documented? Tools --> Web Developer --> Developer Toolbar > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage > > And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out of > their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its instructed > to ask me, but rarely does. It tells you when the command is completed with ENTER. (BTW, filename is sufficient; the .png will be added to it). -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdjtf-4Df-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204121 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote:
> > > Curt wrote:
> > > > I suppose you could argue that the percentage of Firefox users too
> > > > lazy or bewildered to try another browser is good enough for
> > > > stackexchange, because, goddammit, you take what you can get.
> > >
> > > Please be nice - I am not lazy - I have Chromium, but I do not want
> > > to use it. I like FF more and I can not accept the argument
> > > regarding 1 page printing in FF, because other sites do not have the
> > > problem, hence it is doable to overcome the issue from within the
> > > site (perhaps css definitions - I do not know what exactly the issue
> > > is and I do not care). If site developers may embed 100s of lines of
> > > code to check browser and version and can adapt their sites to IE,FF
> > > and Chromium the least, they could also take care of this "feature",
> > > so lazy is not me, but the one that does not care, test or provide
> > > proper support for printing from within FF. This is my opinion only,
> > > you may accept or not... and I agree with Gene - stackexchange is
> > > phony in their philosophy, but it is their right to be so and my
> > > right to qualify it as such. OF course you have the right to have a
> > > different opinion and I respect this.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the
> > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for
> > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web page.
> >
> > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end
> > is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly
> > user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating
> > his free lunch.
> >
> > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and
> > take a screenshot of the whole page.
>
> Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this
> magic key combo documented?
I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the
control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite
different for other users.
For example, my fvwm uses Shift-F2 for speaker-volume-down because the
Lenovo-W10 system chose to engrave {Speaker]- on the key.
But if FF can take a screenshot itself, I would hope that you get
the whole page, not just the whole window (which is all the WM can
give you, of course) because configuring an application like scrot
can give you *much* more functionality.
> > screenshot filename.png --fullpage
>
> And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out of
> their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its instructed
> to ask me, but rarely does.
# find / -type f -mmin -10
for files created in the last 10 minutes, say.
> > Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file produced
> > is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course, printable.
>
> Good to know.
Yes, but some of the advice given seems to come with a lot of attitude.
Cheers,
David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdjWh-4NJ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204123 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:28:55 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 10:37:48 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 January 2019 10:17:16 Brian wrote:
> > > On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 14:42:08 +0100, deloptes wrote:
[...]
> > > Strictly speaking, the problem does not arise due a problem in the
> > > printing system. Firefox produces a PDF before dispatching it for
> > > printing and that PDF is not a true representation of the web page.
> > >
> > > Whether the issue is tackled by Firefox or at the stackexchange end
> > > is immaterial; this will take time. Meanwhile, there is an elderly
> > > user who had hoped to read and absorb the material today while eating
> > > his free lunch.
> > >
> > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and
> > > take a screenshot of the whole page.
> >
> > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this
> > magic key combo documented?
>
> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the
> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite
> different for other users.
No. FF uses SHIFT+F2.
> For example, my fvwm uses Shift-F2 for speaker-volume-down because the
> Lenovo-W10 system chose to engrave {Speaker]- on the key.
>
> But if FF can take a screenshot itself, I would hope that you get
> the whole page, not just the whole window (which is all the WM can
> give you, of course) because configuring an application like scrot
> can give you *much* more functionality.
There is no "if" about it; your hopes would also be fulfilled.
> > > screenshot filename.png --fullpage
> >
> > And pray tell, where does it stash this .png? FF it seems, goes out of
> > their way to select where it stashes a downloadable file. Its instructed
> > to ask me, but rarely does.
>
> # find / -type f -mmin -10
>
> for files created in the last 10 minutes, say.
>
> > > Use TAB to complete and move along the command line. The file produced
> > > is named filename-fullpage.png and is, of course, printable.
> >
> > Good to know.
>
> Yes, but some of the advice given seems to come with a lot of attitude.
Don't understand this. You would have to explain.
--
Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdk5Y-56t-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204124 |
On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: >> >> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the >> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite >> different for other users. > > No. FF uses SHIFT+F2. > It doesn't seem to here (on latest stable Quantum). Left-click the page and select "Take a Screenshot," or click the triple-dot ... in the address bar for the roll-down menu appears to be the way to go on my browser. Moderately awkward to capture a 7-pager.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <xdkpk-5d7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #204125 |
On Sun 06 Jan 2019 at 17:05:19 +0000, Curt wrote: > On 2019-01-06, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >> I was under the impression that taking screenshots was under the > >> control of the window manager, so the key combinations might be quite > >> different for other users. > > > > No. FF uses SHIFT+F2. > > It doesn't seem to here (on latest stable Quantum). >From an earlier post: > > > Maybe he would like to use SHIFT+F2 with Firefox (I have Quantum) and > > > take a screenshot of the whole page. > > Two questions then, Brian: Where in the FF menu's does one find this > > magic key combo documented? > Tools --> Web Developer --> Developer Toolbar > Left-click the page and select "Take a Screenshot," or click the > triple-dot ... in the address bar for the roll-down menu appears to be > the way to go on my browser. > > Moderately awkward to capture a 7-pager. Very awkward, I would say. Which is why it wasn't recommended. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web