Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the default
app bug fixed?

I am pretty sure they won't.

For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
> default app bug fixed?
>
> I am pretty sure they won't.
>
> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>
>
>
>
Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward statements
imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward economic advisories
about how well a product operates, while hiding the short comings. Best
bet, if you have a good thing, make it better yourself.

On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>> default app bug fixed?
>>
>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>
>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward statements
> imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward economic advisories
> about how well a product operates, while hiding the short comings. Best
> bet, if you have a good thing, make it better yourself.

Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too that
those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid, stubborn
or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but still manage to
put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
I am not even talking about none working programs in the repositories
and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories, it’s a mad world.

And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning program
then 10 none functioning programs.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2/11/24 4:36 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>>> default app bug fixed?
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>>
>>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward
>> statements imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward
>> economic advisories about how well a product operates, while hiding
>> the short comings. Best bet, if you have a good thing, make it better
>> yourself.
>
> Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too that
> those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid, stubborn
> or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but still manage
> to put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
> I am not even talking about none working programs in the repositories
> and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories, it’s a mad world.
>
> And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning program
> then 10 none functioning programs.
>
>
Are you referring to the 'Preferred Applications' menu item? What
problem are you encountering?

On 2/11/24 11:08, Nic wrote:
> On 2/11/24 4:36 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>>>> default app bug fixed?
>>>>
>>>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>>>
>>>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward
>>> statements imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward
>>> economic advisories about how well a product operates, while hiding
>>> the short comings. Best bet, if you have a good thing, make it better
>>> yourself.
>>
>> Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too that
>> those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid, stubborn
>> or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but still manage
>> to put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
>> I am not even talking about none working programs in the repositories
>> and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories, it’s a mad world.
>>
>> And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning program
>> then 10 none functioning programs.
>>
>>
> Are you referring to the 'Preferred Applications' menu item? What
> problem are you encountering?

The same problem I tell here for the last 10 years or so, it does not
work. ( for web browsers )

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2/11/24 6:37 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On 2/11/24 11:08, Nic wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 4:36 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>> On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>>>>> default app bug fixed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward
>>>> statements imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward
>>>> economic advisories about how well a product operates, while hiding
>>>> the short comings. Best bet, if you have a good thing, make it
>>>> better yourself.
>>>
>>> Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too that
>>> those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid,
>>> stubborn or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but
>>> still manage to put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
>>> I am not even talking about none working programs in the
>>> repositories and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories,
>>> it’s a mad world.
>>>
>>> And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning program
>>> then 10 none functioning programs.
>>>
>>>
>> Are you referring to the 'Preferred Applications' menu item? What
>> problem are you encountering?
>
> The same problem I tell here for the last 10 years or so, it does not
> work. ( for web browsers )
>

When I pull down menu I have 3 choices here, FF, Opera, and Falkon, I am
not sure what the problem is. Are you saying that if I change to Opera,
then  Opera will be the default browser, so that when I click on a url
it will be Opera that opens the link.

On 2/11/24 15:41, Nic wrote:
> On 2/11/24 6:37 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 11:08, Nic wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 4:36 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>>> On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
>>>>> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>>>>>> default app bug fixed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward
>>>>> statements imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward
>>>>> economic advisories about how well a product operates, while hiding
>>>>> the short comings. Best bet, if you have a good thing, make it
>>>>> better yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too that
>>>> those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid,
>>>> stubborn or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but
>>>> still manage to put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
>>>> I am not even talking about none working programs in the
>>>> repositories and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories,
>>>> it’s a mad world.
>>>>
>>>> And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning program
>>>> then 10 none functioning programs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you referring to the 'Preferred Applications' menu item? What
>>> problem are you encountering?
>>
>> The same problem I tell here for the last 10 years or so, it does not
>> work. ( for web browsers )
>>
>
> When I pull down menu I have 3 choices here, FF, Opera, and Falkon, I am
> not sure what the problem is. Are you saying that if I change to Opera,
> then  Opera will be the default browser, so that when I click on a url
> it will be Opera that opens the link.

Any idea how many times I have explained it here in the last decade?
I did an update, clicked a link in a newsgroup and guess what?
Firefox opened it, not my default browser Brave.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2/11/24 10:08 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On 2/11/24 15:41, Nic wrote:
>> On 2/11/24 6:37 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>> On 2/11/24 11:08, Nic wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/24 4:36 AM, Edmund wrote:
>>>>> On 2/10/24 22:20, Nic wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/10/24 3:02 PM, Edmund wrote:
>>>>>>> Does anyone of you really think Mint Version 1000 will have the
>>>>>>> default app bug fixed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am pretty sure they won't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For fun - I know better - I checked if Mint 21.3 had it fixed. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps human technology has not advanced as much as forward
>>>>>> statements imply.  Some people believe the misleading forward
>>>>>> economic advisories about how well a product operates, while
>>>>>> hiding the short comings. Best bet, if you have a good thing,
>>>>>> make it better yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fine with me and now for real, don't you find it ridicules too
>>>>> that those silly cut and paste coder-clowns are simply too stupid,
>>>>> stubborn or both to fix this simple bug in more then a decade but
>>>>> still manage to put out 10 "new" releases with the same freaking bug?
>>>>> I am not even talking about none working programs in the
>>>>> repositories and people crying for MORE incompatible repositories,
>>>>> it’s a mad world.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then here I am, silly me who rather have one functioning
>>>>> program then 10 none functioning programs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are you referring to the 'Preferred Applications' menu item? What
>>>> problem are you encountering?
>>>
>>> The same problem I tell here for the last 10 years or so, it does
>>> not work. ( for web browsers )
>>>
>>
>> When I pull down menu I have 3 choices here, FF, Opera, and Falkon, I
>> am not sure what the problem is. Are you saying that if I change to
>> Opera, then  Opera will be the default browser, so that when I click
>> on a url it will be Opera that opens the link.
>
> Any idea how many times I have explained it here in the last decade?
> I did an update, clicked a link in a newsgroup and guess what?
> Firefox opened it, not my default browser Brave.
>
>
>

I noticed that in my experience with my example using Opera, from within
Opera Settings there is a place where I could make Opera the default
browser, I wonder if there is a similar place in Brave Settings?

Edmund wrote:
> I did an update, clicked a link in a newsgroup and guess what?
> Firefox opened it, not my default browser Brave.

From an article on 'directing' Tb how to open a link:

> Thunderbird usually passes the event off to your default web browser.
> Under normal circumstances, this all goes off without a hitch.
> However, if things go wrong, you need to know how to tell Thunderbird
> precisely which web browser you want it to use.
>
Then it goes on to explain how to use the about:config to adjust

network.protocol-handler.warn-external.http (and .https)

But the article's main purpose and aim is about Win and describes how to
choose a browser to open all the links of that type.

I booted an experimental live LM 21.3 and followed the instructions at
Brave to install it. Then I went to Settings and selected Brave as the
default browser. When I clicked on a link in a news message, Tb used
Brave for the link. So, for that part of the experiment, LM worked as
expected. Then I chose to follow the directions about
network.protocol-handler for Tb and changed both of the http & https to
True from False.

But, upon clicking a link, I didn't get anything different; Brave was
still the default browse which opened.

The article:
https://www.lifewire.com/change-the-default-browser-in-thunderbird-2532751
> How to Change the Default Browser in Thunderbird

Then I closed Tb and reopened it in case it needed a restart to follow
its config editor. When Tb opened, the system default browser, Brave
opened a page promoting Tb.

Then I changed the default browser back to Firefox in settings. When I
clicked a link in a news message, it opened in Firefox.

So, from that experiment, I would say that the Settings for default
applications worked as expected, but the Tb network.protocol-handler
config warn function did NOT.

--
Mike Easter

On 2/11/24 17:25, Mike Easter wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> I did an update, clicked a link in a newsgroup and guess what? Firefox
>> opened it, not my default browser Brave.
>
> From an article on 'directing' Tb how to open a link:
>
>> Thunderbird usually passes the event off to your default web browser.
>> Under normal circumstances, this all goes off without a hitch.
>> However, if things go wrong, you need to know how to tell Thunderbird
>> precisely which web browser you want it to use.
>>
> Then it goes on to explain how to use the about:config to adjust
>
> network.protocol-handler.warn-external.http (and .https)
>
> But the article's main purpose and aim is about Win and describes how to
> choose a browser to open all the links of that type.
>
> I booted an experimental live LM 21.3 and followed the instructions at
> Brave to install it.  Then I went to Settings and selected Brave as the
> default browser.  When I clicked on a link in a news message, Tb used
> Brave for the link.  So, for that part of the experiment, LM worked as
> expected.  Then I chose to follow the directions about
> network.protocol-handler for Tb and changed both of the http & https to
> True from False.
>
> But, upon clicking a link, I didn't get anything different; Brave was
> still the default browse which opened.
>
> The article:
> https://www.lifewire.com/change-the-default-browser-in-thunderbird-2532751
>> How to Change the Default Browser in Thunderbird
>
> Then I closed Tb and reopened it in case it needed a restart to follow
> its config editor.  When Tb opened, the system default browser, Brave
> opened a page promoting Tb.
>
> Then I changed the default browser back to Firefox in settings.  When I
> clicked a link in a news message, it opened in Firefox.
>
> So, from that experiment, I would say that the Settings for default
> applications worked as expected, but the Tb network.protocol-handler
> config warn function did NOT.
>

There is a menu in Mint, there is "default applications"
There one can select what Browser should be default.

Nothing more to say except is still doesn't work after more then a decade.

I know how to correct it, my point is that those lunatics releasing new
releases but never fix a single bug not even a dead simple one like this.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

Mike Easter wrote:
> The article:
> https://www.lifewire.com/change-the-default-browser-in-thunderbird-2532751

> How to Change the Default Browser in Thunderbird

From another section of the article dated '22 Jun:

There is a Tb setting found by searching on the term 'files' where it
provides a configuration for Content Type in one column and Action in
the 2nd column.

This allows to choose Use Brave Browser (default) or Always ask or Use
other -- or even 'delete action'.

The article also claims to be appropriate for linux as well as Win:

> On Linux, this change should work on your particular distribution
> with your specific desktop environment.

Something in all of that should enable you to get Tb to use Brave.

I can see from the article that Tb is 'built' to not necessarily use the
system's default browser for a particular file-type.

The Tb I was looking at for my testing was 115.5.0; that Tb is
distinctly different from this old one I use every day.

--
Mike Easter

Edmund wrote:
> There is a menu in Mint, there is "default applications"
> There one can select what Browser should be default.

As I have explained in the message after the one you are replying; Tb is
built to not necessarily use the system's default browser, by configuration.

--
Mike Easter

On 2/11/24 17:46, Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> The article:
>> https://www.lifewire.com/change-the-default-browser-in-thunderbird-2532751
>
>> How to Change the Default Browser in Thunderbird
>
> From another section of the article dated '22 Jun:
>
> There is a Tb setting found by searching on the term 'files' where it
> provides a configuration for Content Type in one column and Action in
> the 2nd column.
>
> This allows to choose Use Brave Browser (default) or Always ask or Use
> other -- or even 'delete action'.
>
> The article also claims to be appropriate for linux as well as Win:
>
>> On Linux, this change should work on your particular distribution with
>> your specific desktop environment.
>
> Something in all of that should enable you to get Tb to use Brave.
>
> I can see from the article that Tb is 'built' to not necessarily use the
> system's default browser for a particular file-type.
>
> The Tb I was looking at for my testing was 115.5.0; that Tb is
> distinctly different from this old one I use every day.
>
No problem mate, I certainly didn't think that the Linux community would
acknowledge or accept their religion is not perfect.
Ignore it deny it blame it on the user blame it on other programs
whatever. I know how it works.
Explain it away :-)

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

Edmund wrote:
> There is a menu in Mint, there is "default applications"
> There one can select what Browser should be default.
>
> Nothing more to say except is still doesn't work after more then a decade.
>
> I know how to correct it, my point is that those lunatics releasing new
> releases but never fix a single bug not even a dead simple one like this.

What you are describing is not a system/ LM condition/ fault/ problem;
it is a Tb fault/ condition/ problem.

That is, there is 'something wrong with' the 'condition'/configuration
of your Tb; not w/ a LM 'deficiency'.

It works OK on mine, OOTB, outofthebox.

--
Mike Easter

Edmund wrote:
> I certainly didn't think that the Linux community would acknowledge or
> accept their religion is not perfect.
> Ignore it deny it blame it on the user blame it on other programs
> whatever. I know how it works.
> Explain it away :-)

#1 there is no such one single thing as 'linux' -- here we are talking
about a particular user and a particular system of LM and a particular
app of that system/ distro/ app.

#2 there certainly are a continuing number of 'things' wrong w/
whichever of those you choose, the kernel, the 'linux' release, the
parent Deb release, the Ub 'spin' of the Deb release, the LM changes to
the Ub release, and the various and numerous Tb 'faults'. Of all of
those, I would say that Tb is the least 'dependable'.

#3 you are frequently hypercritical of 'linux' when sometimes the fault
which triggers your criticism is from your own internal situation's
'fault', as it looks like in this case

--
Mike Easter

On 2/11/24 18:27, Mike Easter wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> I certainly didn't think that the Linux community would acknowledge or
>> accept their religion is not perfect.
>> Ignore it deny it blame it on the user blame it on other programs
>> whatever. I know how it works.
>> Explain it away :-)
>
> #1 there is no such one single thing as 'linux' -- here we are talking
> about a particular user and a particular system of LM and a particular
> app of that system/ distro/ app.
>
> #2 there certainly are a continuing number of 'things' wrong w/
> whichever of those you choose, the kernel, the 'linux' release, the
> parent Deb release, the Ub 'spin' of the Deb release, the LM changes to
> the Ub release, and the various and numerous Tb 'faults'.  Of all of
> those, I would say that Tb is the least 'dependable'.
>
> #3 you are frequently hypercritical of 'linux' when sometimes the fault
> which triggers your criticism is from your own internal situation's
> 'fault', as it looks like in this case
>
I am not, I use it for years but I do mention bugs and I don't care you
cannot handle that, i really don't.
Never mind explain it away and wonder why bugs never get fixed.
Apart from the fact it is near impossible to even file a bug.
Have a nice day sir, I do mean that.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

Edmund wrote:
> Apart from the fact it is near impossible to even file a bug.

I have reported Tb bugs that were confirmed by others, which your
problem is not, and then confirmed and which even had a patch submitted
by some clever code writer, but which were *never* fixed.

- first there is an 'observation' by someone, such as yours
- then someone may report their observation as a bug and is expected
to submit the bug in a 'conventional' form, as if the user knew how
dev/s liked to read about something
- then hopefully someone who know how to speak dev, also confirms the
bug in a report of a conventional dev approved 'form'
- then maybe some real dev will actually look at the bug/report, but
that doesn't mean it will ever be 'fixed'
- that condition I just described is a 'feature' or shortcoming of Tb,
not LM or linux

--
Mike Easter

Edmund wrote:
> Ignore it deny it blame it on the user blame it on other programs
> whatever. I know how it works.

One of the alleged disadvantages of 'free' software is that there is no
competitive 'market' pressure to fix something, nor 'hirelings' to fix
something the 'boss' (or marketers) wants fixed.

One of the advantages of free as in libre open software is that all of
the code is available for you to inspect and fix it yourself if you are
able.

Cathedral bazaar dichotomy.

As far as I can tell in this thread, this is NOT a LM 'problem' or
condition. This is an Edmund problem.

--
Mike Easter

On 2/11/24 19:50, Mike Easter wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> Apart from the fact it is near impossible to even file a bug.
>
> I have reported Tb bugs that were confirmed by others, which your
> problem is not, and then confirmed and which even had a patch submitted
> by some clever code writer, but which were *never* fixed.
>
>  - first there is an 'observation' by someone, such as yours
>  - then someone may report their observation as a bug and is expected
> to submit the bug in a 'conventional' form, as if the user knew how
> dev/s liked to read about something
>  - then hopefully someone who know how to speak dev, also confirms the
> bug in a report of a conventional dev approved 'form'
>  - then maybe some real dev will actually look at the bug/report, but
> that doesn't mean it will ever be 'fixed'
>  - that condition I just described is a 'feature' or shortcoming of Tb,
> not LM or linux

Bent it anyway you like.
It IS a Mint bug, and I can prove that but I won't because it never
ends, it will NOT be fixed and the next time I mention it the same BS
come up and I have to explain it again and again, been there done that I
don't care.

Feel free to test yourself with something other then TB, stored webpages
other links whatever. Or just stick to your believe I don't care.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2/11/24 20:01, Mike Easter wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> Ignore it deny it blame it on the user blame it on other programs
>> whatever. I know how it works.
>
> One of the alleged disadvantages of 'free' software is that there is no
> competitive 'market' pressure to fix something, nor 'hirelings' to fix
> something the 'boss' (or marketers) wants fixed.
>
> One of the advantages of free as in libre open software is that all of
> the code is available for you to inspect and fix it yourself if you are
> able.
>
> Cathedral bazaar dichotomy.
>
> As far as I can tell in this thread, this is NOT a LM 'problem' or
> condition.  This is an Edmund problem.

I agree, as far as you can tell.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

Edmund wrote:
> It IS a Mint bug, and I can prove that but I won't because it never ends,

The only thing Mint and its DE such as Cinnamon 'have to do' with the
'browser situation' at all is the settings for default browser.

However, from what I've heard, your problem is what happens when you
click a browser link in *Tb* which has its OWN control of which browser
is used, separate from the system's or Mint's 'default' control.

All of the Tb updates and Mint updates in the world are not going to fix
a Tb *profile* problem.

If I were investigating this problem - which doesn't exist in my tests -
I would create a new Tb profile to check it out so that I wasn't using
the same old profile which has/had the problem.

--
Mike Easter

On 2/11/24 22:19, Mike Easter wrote:
> Edmund wrote:
>> It IS a Mint bug, and I can prove that but I won't because it never ends,
>
> The only thing Mint and its DE such as Cinnamon 'have to do' with the
> 'browser situation' at all is the settings for default browser.
>
> However, from what I've heard, your problem is what happens when you
> click a browser link in *Tb* which has its OWN control of which browser
> is used, separate from the system's or Mint's 'default' control.
>
> All of the Tb updates and Mint updates in the world are not going to fix
> a Tb *profile* problem.
>
> If I were investigating this problem - which doesn't exist in my tests -
> I would create a new Tb profile to check it out so that I wasn't using
> the same old profile which has/had the problem.
>
YOU bent it to be a TB only problem, not me.
Keep ignoring what I said, don't test it just stick to your beliefs.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 2024-02-11, Edmund wrote:
> [...]
> Any idea how many times I have explained it here in the last decade?

Nope :)

> I did an update, clicked a link in a newsgroup and guess what?

So you ran an update that happened to alter the defaults for some
reason. At this point, it's a question of "was it a global change", or
"was it just in thunderbird?"

If it was "just in thunderbird", well, sounds a lot like a thunderbird
problem, rather than a systemic thing.

If it was global, then was it during a big upgrade (e.g. Mint 13 -> 17),
or was it just a standard set of patches in the release cycle?

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>:
> As far as I can tell in this thread, this is NOT a LM 'problem' or
> condition. This is an Edmund problem.

As far as thinking individuals can tell...

Yrrah

Yrrah wrote:
> Mike Easter:
>
>> As far as I can tell in this thread, this is NOT a LM 'problem' or
>> condition. This is an Edmund problem.
>
> As far as thinking individuals can tell...
>
Edmund is reluctant or otherwise 'unable' to provide a decent
description of the problem alleging that he has told it many times
before; but I don't keep a 'dossier' on E's messages over time, so it
isn't possible to recreate sufficient background info of his problem.

Whenever I am going to present a problem to a newsgroup, I *assume* that
no one remembers anything I've ever said in the past, and I post my
problem 'comprehensively', that way hoping to get some kind of useful
input that might help me fix /my/ problem. If I had recently previously
presented the problem in a news message, I would include a link at
something like Howard Knight's archive to make ready access to my
earlier description.

I do NOT /assume/ that *my* problem is caused by something wrong w/ my
/system's/ construction, OS or linux distro. On rare occasions, less
rare w/ Tb, someone is aware of a Tb 'bug' and will point me to a report
about that.

--
Mike Easter