| 1 |
On Monday 01 May 2006 10:50 pm, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 2 |
> lordsauronthegreat@×××××.com wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 30 April 2006 08:47 am, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> wu chuanwen wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > 2006/4/30, Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name |
| 6 |
> > that is (AFAIK) just a layer below TCP/IP. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Wrong. Besides: "just a layer below TCP/IP" makes no sense. |
| 9 |
> TCP/IP is a protocol family. Two of those members are IPv4 |
| 10 |
> and IPv6. Now, what's "just a layer below TCP/IP" supposed |
| 11 |
> to mean? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I didn't know. I'm not a network programmer. I will be sometime when I get |
| 14 |
the time to read up on it all, but until then, it was just a educated guess. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > I wouldn't |
| 17 |
> > remove it if I were you. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Why not? Why leave in things, which are not needed and which |
| 20 |
> are known to possibly cause problems? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
For me the "Why not?" is the part that I can't answer. I don't know what it |
| 23 |
does, therefore I don't mess around with it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Furthermore, I have never heard of it causing problems. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> >> Try a blank Firefox profile. To create one, run "firefox |
| 28 |
> >> -ProfileManager". |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > I don't see how that would help anything. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> It would help, if the problem is on his side, caused by bad |
| 33 |
> settings in his profile. If everything's faster with a blank |
| 34 |
> profile, he knows for sure, that the problems were caused |
| 35 |
> by his old profile. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I've never *ever* heard of a profile being corrupted. I'd be very surprised |
| 38 |
if that's the case. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Nonetheless, it is a good idea, if a bit debatable in the likelihood it fixing |
| 41 |
the problem at hand. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> Alexander Skwar |
| 44 |
> -- |
| 45 |
> It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I'd beg to differ. |
Archives