On 7/31/2007 01:17 PM India Time, _Ron Hunter_ wrote:

> Vicks Rocz wrote:
>> On 7/31/2007 07:29 AM India Time, _Tom Liotta_ wrote:
>>
>>> Annailis wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're right but at the moment if I had to give up either Thunderbird
>>>> or Firefox, it would be the browser that would lose out. Switching
>>>> e-mail/newsreader clients is too much of a pain in the butt.
>>> At the moment, I agree. This is especially true for a few others who
>>> are "supported" by me -- e.g., my wife. My wife would be perfectly
>>> comfortable switching to IE from FF; but it's not so easy switching
>>> mail clients. She might not notice much if I reconfigured her PC to
>>> start a different browser.
>>>
>> I think there is not much to worry on this count.
>>
>> Thunderbird is already having the loveliest among all its extensions,
>> THUNDERBROWSE.
>>
>> Using that, we can surf within TB itself, not just by clicking on the
>> links received in the mails/ posts, but by entering our fresh urls in
>> the address bar in the TB. Now, it even has capability to open a new
>> window for browsing by pressing the keyboard shortcut (^w). You can open
>> multiple browsing windows. That supports Java and Javascript also. It
>> has History/ GET/ POST also, I think.
>>
>> THUNDERBROWSE developers are looking to incorporate tabs also in that
>> and bookmarks also and I hope we can see that working any time soon.
>> People have requested in greasemonkey googlegroup for a TB version of gm
>> and I think that will also come soon.
>>
>> The Achiless Heel is Logging In. Because TB doesn't support storing of
>> cookies, logging in to sites is not possible yet, but it is said to come
>> in TB 3.0. As soon as that code is released, I am sure THUNDERBROWSE
>> would cross that bridge also.
>>
>> Not that I have any grudge with FF, but when officials are looking for a
>> divorce, the kids will have to decide which of the parents they want to
>> go with.
>>
>> With Thunderbird+THUNDERBROWSE, why would you need Firefox?
>>
>> OK, OK. I understand why. But the major hurdle has been crossed and
>> other nitty gritty will also get attended. So I hope.
>
> Do you also insist on driving nails with a screwdriver? Why not just
> use Firefox, and have everything? Once it is open, it is just another
> window, and the two work flawlessly together here. Is it just the
> thrill of making something do what it wasn't intended to do?

I had not many problems with FF+TB that I have been using for years
but the problems that I do have are

- huge memory consumption by either of the software

- long loading time of either of them.

Now, with THUNDERBROWSE working in TB, I need to just keep TB launched
and running on my box thus freeing resources that were consumed by FF if
it had been running. Now, if I get a link in a mail/ post, or if I need
to quickly search something on Google, I can just put that in
THUNDERBROWSE's bar and surf that instataneously, not needing to wait
for FF to get launched, take eons to come up and consume lotsa memory to
do the same what this some 170 KB extension does.

But, as I clarified, THUNDERBROWSE's capabilities are still at some
nascent stage. Cookies are not yet supported due to limitations of
Thunderbird, thus we can't personalize site, nor log into them. Further,
the million of useful extensions have come up for FF are not running in
THUNDERBROWSE. Tabs are not yet supported in THUNDERBROWSE.

Still, THUNDERBROWSE is extremely good and very useful and very
convenient extension. I would recommend it as the best thought off among
all extensions that have been ever developed for any software till date.

I don't know, Ron, why you have problems with THUNDERBROWSE? It is just
a piece of code and you should be happy to use it if it gives you some
benefits. Why you are going to the extent of "something that it was not
intended to do" that sounds like Catholic purity?

--
Vicks

On 7/31/2007 01:38 PM India Time, _Bed_ wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Vicks Rocz wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2007 07:29 AM India Time, _Tom Liotta_ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Annailis wrote:
>>>>
>>> With Thunderbird+THUNDERBROWSE, why would you need Firefox?
>>>
>>> OK, OK. I understand why. But the major hurdle has been crossed and
>>> other nitty gritty will also get attended. So I hope.
>> Do you also insist on driving nails with a screwdriver? Why not just
>> use Firefox, and have everything? Once it is open, it is just another
>> window, and the two work flawlessly together here. Is it just the
>> thrill of making something do what it wasn't intended to do?
>
> I originally thought "hey COOL!" when I saw ThunderBrowse, "If I'm
> following a link from a feed page or email it won't switch windows".
>
> I use Opera, not firefox but the principal is exactly the same - I
> *always* open links in a new window and then continue on reading.
> Thunderbrowse breaks this. Comes back to what I was saying in the other
> group, there's a PULL client, and a PUSH client.

Have you tried recent Thunderbrowse versions?

You can now open every link a new window of Thunderbrowse. So, you got
what you always wanted.

would you elaborate on the concept of "PULL client, and PUSH client" please?
--
Vicks

Vicks Rocz wrote:
> On 7/31/2007 01:17 PM India Time, _Ron Hunter_ wrote:
>
>> Vicks Rocz wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2007 07:29 AM India Time, _Tom Liotta_ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Annailis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You're right but at the moment if I had to give up either
>>>>> Thunderbird or Firefox, it would be the browser that would lose
>>>>> out. Switching e-mail/newsreader clients is too much of a pain in
>>>>> the butt.
>>>> At the moment, I agree. This is especially true for a few others who
>>>> are "supported" by me -- e.g., my wife. My wife would be perfectly
>>>> comfortable switching to IE from FF; but it's not so easy switching
>>>> mail clients. She might not notice much if I reconfigured her PC to
>>>> start a different browser.
>>>>
>>> I think there is not much to worry on this count.
>>>
>>> Thunderbird is already having the loveliest among all its extensions,
>>> THUNDERBROWSE.
>>>
>>> Using that, we can surf within TB itself, not just by clicking on the
>>> links received in the mails/ posts, but by entering our fresh urls in
>>> the address bar in the TB. Now, it even has capability to open a new
>>> window for browsing by pressing the keyboard shortcut (^w). You can
>>> open multiple browsing windows. That supports Java and Javascript
>>> also. It has History/ GET/ POST also, I think.
>>>
>>> THUNDERBROWSE developers are looking to incorporate tabs also in that
>>> and bookmarks also and I hope we can see that working any time soon.
>>> People have requested in greasemonkey googlegroup for a TB version of
>>> gm and I think that will also come soon.
>>>
>>> The Achiless Heel is Logging In. Because TB doesn't support storing
>>> of cookies, logging in to sites is not possible yet, but it is said
>>> to come in TB 3.0. As soon as that code is released, I am sure
>>> THUNDERBROWSE would cross that bridge also.
>>>
>>> Not that I have any grudge with FF, but when officials are looking
>>> for a divorce, the kids will have to decide which of the parents they
>>> want to go with.
>>>
>>> With Thunderbird+THUNDERBROWSE, why would you need Firefox?
>>>
>>> OK, OK. I understand why. But the major hurdle has been crossed and
>>> other nitty gritty will also get attended. So I hope.
>>
>> Do you also insist on driving nails with a screwdriver? Why not just
>> use Firefox, and have everything? Once it is open, it is just another
>> window, and the two work flawlessly together here. Is it just the
>> thrill of making something do what it wasn't intended to do?
>
> I had not many problems with FF+TB that I have been using for years
> but the problems that I do have are
>
> - huge memory consumption by either of the software
>
> - long loading time of either of them.
>
> Now, with THUNDERBROWSE working in TB, I need to just keep TB launched
> and running on my box thus freeing resources that were consumed by FF if
> it had been running. Now, if I get a link in a mail/ post, or if I need
> to quickly search something on Google, I can just put that in
> THUNDERBROWSE's bar and surf that instataneously, not needing to wait
> for FF to get launched, take eons to come up and consume lotsa memory to
> do the same what this some 170 KB extension does.
>
> But, as I clarified, THUNDERBROWSE's capabilities are still at some
> nascent stage. Cookies are not yet supported due to limitations of
> Thunderbird, thus we can't personalize site, nor log into them. Further,
> the million of useful extensions have come up for FF are not running in
> THUNDERBROWSE. Tabs are not yet supported in THUNDERBROWSE.
>
> Still, THUNDERBROWSE is extremely good and very useful and very
> convenient extension. I would recommend it as the best thought off among
> all extensions that have been ever developed for any software till date.
>
> I don't know, Ron, why you have problems with THUNDERBROWSE? It is just
> a piece of code and you should be happy to use it if it gives you some
> benefits. Why you are going to the extent of "something that it was not
> intended to do" that sounds like Catholic purity?
>
From what you describe, it still seems like driving a nail with a
screwdriver. FF loads here in about 3 seconds, so I don't have a
problem with slow loading, and what were you going to do with that free
RAM anyway, keep it for posterity? IF you have an old, slow, small-RAM
machine, there might be some benefits to such an add-on, but is seems
severely limited to me.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

On Jul 31, 9:22 pm, Vicks Rocz wrote:
> On 7/31/2007 01:17 PM India Time, _Ron Hunter_ wrote:
>
>
>
> > Vicks Rocz wrote:
> >> On 7/31/2007 07:29 AM India Time, _Tom Liotta_ wrote:
>
> >>> Annailis wrote:
>
> >>>> You're right but at the moment if I had to give up either Thunderbird
> >>>> or Firefox, it would be the browser that would lose out. Switching
> >>>> e-mail/newsreader clients is too much of a pain in the butt.
> >>> At the moment, I agree. This is especially true for a few others who
> >>> are "supported" by me -- e.g., my wife. My wife would be perfectly
> >>> comfortable switching to IE from FF; but it's not so easy switching
> >>> mail clients. She might not notice much if I reconfigured her PC to
> >>> start a different browser.
>
> >> I think there is not much to worry on this count.
>
> >> Thunderbird is already having the loveliest among all its extensions,
> >>THUNDERBROWSE.
>
> >> Using that, we can surf within TB itself, not just by clicking on the
> >> links received in the mails/ posts, but by entering our fresh urls in
> >> the address bar in the TB. Now, it even has capability to open a new
> >> window for browsing by pressing the keyboard shortcut (^w). You can open
> >> multiple browsing windows. That supports Java and Javascript also. It
> >> has History/ GET/ POST also, I think.
>
> >>THUNDERBROWSEdevelopers are looking to incorporate tabs also in that
> >> and bookmarks also and I hope we can see that working any time soon.
> >> People have requested in greasemonkey googlegroup for a TB version of gm
> >> and I think that will also come soon.
>
> >> The Achiless Heel is Logging In. Because TB doesn't support storing of
> >> cookies, logging in to sites is not possible yet, but it is said to come
> >> in TB 3.0. As soon as that code is released, I am sureTHUNDERBROWSE
> >> would cross that bridge also.
>
> >> Not that I have any grudge with FF, but when officials are looking for a
> >> divorce, the kids will have to decide which of the parents they want to
> >> go with.
>
> >> With Thunderbird+THUNDERBROWSE, why would you need Firefox?
>
> >> OK, OK. I understand why. But the major hurdle has been crossed and
> >> other nitty gritty will also get attended. So I hope.
>
> > Do you also insist on driving nails with a screwdriver? Why not just
> > use Firefox, and have everything? Once it is open, it is just another
> > window, and the two work flawlessly together here. Is it just the
> > thrill of making something do what it wasn't intended to do?
>
> I had not many problems with FF+TB that I have been using for years
> but the problems that I do have are
>
> - huge memory consumption by either of the software
>
> - long loading time of either of them.
>
> Now, withTHUNDERBROWSEworking in TB, I need to just keep TB launched
> and running on my box thus freeing resources that were consumed by FF if
> it had been running. Now, if I get a link in a mail/ post, or if I need
> to quickly search something on Google, I can just put that inTHUNDERBROWSE'sbar and surf that instataneously, not needing to wait
> for FF to get launched, take eons to come up and consume lotsa memory to
> do the same what this some 170 KB extension does.
>
> But, as I clarified,THUNDERBROWSE'scapabilities are still at some
> nascent stage. Cookies are not yet supported due to limitations of
> Thunderbird, thus we can't personalize site, nor log into them. Further,
> the million of useful extensions have come up for FF are not running inTHUNDERBROWSE. Tabs are not yet supported inTHUNDERBROWSE.
>
> Still,THUNDERBROWSEis extremely good and very useful and very
> convenient extension. I would recommend it as the best thought off among
> all extensions that have been ever developed for any software till date.
>
> I don't know, Ron, why you have problems withTHUNDERBROWSE? It is just
> a piece of code and you should be happy to use it if it gives you some
> benefits. Why you are going to the extent of "something that it was not
> intended to do" that sounds like Catholic purity?
>
> --
> Vicks

Wow, a thread about Thunderbird going to be disowned, and yet
ThunderBrowse gets mentioned. I am quite surprised.

As I am the developer of ThunderBrowse, let me clarify a bit/clear up
some questions on some of the things being said:

Myth 1: Cookies are not yet supported due to limitations of
Thunderbird, thus we can't personalize site, nor log into them.

True: Cookies aren't supported officially in Thunderbird, however, you
can install the CS Lite Preview extension to make cookies work.
ThunderBrowse works with CS Lite when submitting login forms, CS Lite
keeps you login. However, replying to posts in google groups wont work
(mostly because somehow google keeps feeding weird things [like the
response to this request was given in firefox [google so far is the
only website doing this] The link to the preview version is on the AMO
page.

Myth 2: Further, the million of useful extensions have come up for FF
are not running in THUNDERBROWSE.

True: Of course not. Those were made for Firefox not Thunderbird.
However Adblock plus, Stylish, and a few other firefox extensions that
work in thunderbird might work with ThunderBrowse.

Myth 3: Java works in ThunderBrowse

False: Java doesn't work in ThunderBrowse as it is a plugin. However,
people who have modified their thunderbirds to run plugins will be
able to run things like flash and java (or so I am told, but I doubt
what I heard is true).

Myth 4: ThunderBrowse developers are looking to implement tabs and
bookmarks

False: Tabs are most likely not going to be implemented (however if
you can find the easter egg about tabs in ThunderBrowse you might find
it quite funny [there are several, and a reference to
homestarrunner.com] [SPOILERS]Hint:check the documentation pages
[tbit:] very very carefully[/SPOILERS]). As for bookmarks, originally
that was going to be a feature, but was later dumped as it didn't seem
like an important feature later on

Myth 5: ThunderBrowse is spelled THUNDERBROWSE or Thunder Browse

False: It's ThunderBrowse. Yet I don't care if you write it in all
caps, however Thunder Browse I believe is a product by avid asia
[whatever the hell that is]. Get over it.

Myth 6: People have requested in greasemonkey googlegroup for a TB
version of gm and I think that will also come soon.

False: No one requested this to me, but if someone else wants to take
the job they can. ThunderBrowse allows access to the current document
via javascript:content.document.

True: People have sorta requested it on the group. But it was more
like "maybe a greasemonkey will appear soon"

Myth 7: GET/ POST is supported too, I think.

True: both methods of requesting are supported however the second
method (POST) is limited in the aspect that you can't upload files.

Correction: some 170 KB
Actually, it's 109KB, and the next version is about 111KB, but I don't
care if you get it right. Just a side note.

Anyways, glad you love ThunderBrowse!

Peace out!