Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Support for a Non-Commercial Software Product

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 10:03:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

With all the discussion about the beauty of open source,
non-commercial software, I thought I'd pass on my morning experience.

I seem to have picked up a nasty - AVG called it a virus, AdAware
called it spyware - and took the appropriate steps to clean it out.
For the "I told you sos" out there, the files removed (and first I
confirmed what they were with a Google search) with the cleanup
programs and some manual intervention to get rid of their folders
were:

edowpack.exe
ncasepackage.exe
optimize.exe
whagent.exe

So, after the cleanup and a reboot just for luck, I went to read my
mail and news. I use this antiquated Zipnews DOS program for a couple
of reasons. First, it works with the host system that I use in a way
that doesn't open a security hole there, and second, because DOS mail
programs don't get e-mail viruses.

Anyhow, I started that up and got the Windows message: "16-bit MS-DOS
Subsystem C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\AUTOEXEC.NT. The system file is not
suitable for running MS-DOS and Microsoftw Windows applicatins. After
a little digging and a run of sfc, I found AUTOEXEC.NT and put it back
where it belonged. That got the news and mail reader program working
again. This was just plain old "analog style" troubleshooting,
something that I can do around the studio, and apparently can do
around the computer, too.

But then I went to check my other mail account with Mozilla
Thunderbird (being the community-spirited guy that I am) and found
that was also hosed. After futzing around with that for a while, I
discovered that it had forgotten that it had to log into the mail
server, so I fixed that, and then I could receive mail.

When I replied to a message, however, my reply wouldn't go out. It was
complaining that it couldn't open the tempoary file NSMAIL.EML in the
(non-existent) \PROGRAM FILES\MOZILLA THUNDERBIRD\WINNT\TEMP
directory, and suggested that I check my "Temporary Directory"
setting. It didn't tell me which Temporary Directory setting - Windows
or Thunderbird, but in any case, I couldn't find one for either. I
couldn't find it anywhere either.

Now, I'm stumped. While I found a helpful reference to AUTOEXEC.NT in
the Microsoft (yes, the big bucks commercial Microsoft) knowledge base
that led me to the solution, I couldn't find anything useful in the
Mozilla knowledge base. So here I am, using Outlook Express and
waiting for some bright user to stumble across my question in the
support forum and help me out.

Now I've had plenty of frustrating experiences with Dell and AOL (and
lately Symantic) tech support, but, though it took some digging, when
I've had a Microsoft problem, I've always found the answer in their
knowledge base. They did a good job, and I think the reason is that
they use this same knowledge base for their paid tech support. It has
to be good. And they have the money to do it.

My big reservation about Linux is that if I had a problem, help
wouldn't be where I could find it quickly.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, which is too loud.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 4:22:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> But then I went to check my other mail account with Mozilla
> Thunderbird (being the community-spirited guy that I am) and found
> that was also hosed. After futzing around with that for a while, I
> discovered that it had forgotten that it had to log into the mail
> server, so I fixed that, and then I could receive mail.
>
> When I replied to a message, however, my reply wouldn't go out. It was
> complaining that it couldn't open the tempoary file NSMAIL.EML in the
> (non-existent) \PROGRAM FILES\MOZILLA THUNDERBIRD\WINNT\TEMP
> directory, and suggested that I check my "Temporary Directory"
> setting. It didn't tell me which Temporary Directory setting - Windows
> or Thunderbird, but in any case, I couldn't find one for either. I
> couldn't find it anywhere either.
>
> Now, I'm stumped.

An obvious thing to try is uninstalling and reinstalling Thunderbird.

There's a good chance that uninstalling the application will leave
your mail messages, folders, account settings, etc. intact[1]. There's
also a good chance that a subsequent reinstall will create whatever
files are missing that Thunderbird needs in order to do its job.

- Logan

[1] though, were I to uninstall, I would find those folders and make
a backup copy of the entire tree of whatever directory contains
my e-mail, just to be sure, before I did anything that *might*
nuke my e-mail messages.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 11:06:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <A9qqe.38596$PR6.12906@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

> An obvious thing to try is uninstalling and reinstalling Thunderbird.

What? And lose all of my settings? I've managed to avoid reinstalling
Windows for years and years.

> There's a good chance that uninstalling the application will leave
> your mail messages, folders, account settings, etc. intact[1].

Yes, but I don't know that. I actually don't think that it's a case of
a missing file, I think it's a case of something thinking that it's
supposed to do something with that file and won't give up until it
does.

> [1] though, were I to uninstall, I would find those folders and make
> a backup copy of the entire tree of whatever directory contains
> my e-mail, just to be sure, before I did anything that *might*
> nuke my e-mail messages.

Too much trouble to go through to save a program that I only like
because it's an alternative to the program that a lot of people say
makes trouble. I think that Microsoft has sufficiently patched
Outlook Express so that it's reasonably safe if I'm reasonably careful
with it. And if someone does come up with s solution to my Thunderbird
problem that works (and doesn't involve tearing down the house and
rebuilding it) then I'll go back to Thunderbird.

My point about this rant was not that my Thunderbird was broken, but
that because it's a user-built and user-supported program, it's harder
to find answers than it is with a commercial program where the authors
aren't scatterd all over the globe, and you have to find the right
author to get someone who can recognize the problem.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Related resources
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 11:44:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> With all the discussion about the beauty of open source,
> non-commercial software, I thought I'd pass on my morning experience.
>
> I seem to have picked up a nasty - AVG called it a virus, AdAware
> called it spyware - and took the appropriate steps to clean it out.

Have you not recently updated your AVG ?

It's a known bug that old versions of AVG incorrectly have been known to
identify AdAware ( an adware / spyware removal tool ) as a virus.

I have AVG set up on auto-update. I also have AdAware. No conflicts here.

Graham
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:00:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42AA8853.7B42E00@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> > I seem to have picked up a nasty - AVG called it a virus, AdAware
> > called it spyware - and took the appropriate steps to clean it out.
>
> Have you not recently updated your AVG ?

I check for updates every time I run it, which is usualy about twice a
week. I like to run it while I'm watching so I can see what it's
telling me. In fact, I had just updated it before running it when it
found this problem.

I prefer manual updating for the same reason - I know when it's
happening.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>> [1] though, were I to uninstall, I would find those folders and make
>> a backup copy of the entire tree of whatever directory contains
>> my e-mail, just to be sure, before I did anything that *might*
>> nuke my e-mail messages.
>
>
> Too much trouble to go through to save a program that I only like
> because it's an alternative to the program that a lot of people say
> makes trouble.


I disagree, and besides -- Deinstalling Thunderbird won't remove your
settings and cache anyway.




> I think that Microsoft has sufficiently patched Outlook Express so
> that it's reasonably safe if I'm reasonably careful with it.

Maybe. Do you feel lucky today? BTW, if/when you run into a serious
problem with OE or IE, you can not uninstall it. Really. No way, no
how. Well, if you are extremely persistent you can, but then your
Windows installation will be kaput.






> My point about this rant was not that my Thunderbird was broken, but
> that because it's a user-built and user-supported program, it's harder
> to find answers than it is with a commercial program where the authors
> aren't scatterd all over the globe, and you have to find the right
> author to get someone who can recognize the problem.

I've found the support I get in the Mozilla forums to be quite good.
<http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=39&gt;
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 7:43:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article <42AA8853.7B42E00@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > > I seem to have picked up a nasty - AVG called it a virus, AdAware
> > > called it spyware - and took the appropriate steps to clean it out.
> >
> > Have you not recently updated your AVG ?
>
> I check for updates every time I run it, which is usualy about twice a
> week. I like to run it while I'm watching so I can see what it's
> telling me. In fact, I had just updated it before running it when it
> found this problem.
>
> I prefer manual updating for the same reason - I know when it's
> happening.

Are you updating just the signature file or the 'engine' too ?
There's some slightly confusing info under Information - About.

The Program tab gives 'File version' 7.1.0.321

The Version tab gives

Program version 7.0.323 and 'Virus base' 267.6.7

That's the Free Edition btw.

Graham
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42AAF8A4.56A4B409@hotmail.com> rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com writes:

> Are you updating just the signature file or the 'engine' too ?
> There's some slightly confusing info under Information - About.

When I "Check for updates" in AVG (the free version) it tells me about
both new virus signature files and other updates. I usually get both
of them unless I'm in a hurry.

By the way, I got a response in the Thunderbird forum (by a moderator
no less) who gave me a logical suggestion which, when I checked it, was
as it is supposed to be. He also posted a dozen or so lines of code
from the program showing me where the "can't find the file" message
was generated and what it was doing at the time. I guess he was
suggesting that I was an experimenter or programmer and would
appreciate it. I'd just appreciate a solution that fixes the problem.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:40:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3h0kn6Fen8laU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> -- Deinstalling Thunderbird won't remove your
> settings and cache anyway.

But will re-installing it recognize those settings, or will it
replace them with defaults (or empty settings)?

The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
really irks me. If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
just one. Why can't I replace just that one file? I know one answer -
that a copy of the file doesn't exist untill I perform the
installation. (I didn't try "expand" on the setup file, maybe it can
be). I suspect that another equally valid answer is that nobody can
clearly analyze the problem sufficiently to be able to say "replace
CORRPUTFILE.XYZ and it'll work."

> I've found the support I get in the Mozilla forums to be quite good.
> <http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=39&gt;

I'm waiting to prove you right. So far it's zero for one.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 12:17:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>
> problem with OE or IE, you can not uninstall it. Really. No way,
> no how. Well, if you are extremely persistent you can, but then
> your Windows installation will be kaput.



Of course you can remove them. It's under disk cleanup; "Remove Windows
components you don't use" or something like that. Just uncheck 'em, da
end.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:01:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3h0kn6Fen8laU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>> Deinstalling Thunderbird won't remove your
>> settings and cache anyway.
>
>
> But will re-installing it recognize those settings, or will it
> replace them with defaults (or empty settings)?


It will recognize the settings, even from a different version or from
Mozilla Seamonkey (the Netscape-like integrated mail/news/browser
version that preceded Thunderbird and Firefox.)




> The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
> really irks me. If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
> just one. Why can't I replace just that one file? I know one answer -
> that a copy of the file doesn't exist untill I perform the
> installation. (I didn't try "expand" on the setup file, maybe it can
> be).

Yes, it can be if you knew which one you want to replace.



> I suspect that another equally valid answer is that nobody can
> clearly analyze the problem sufficiently to be able to say "replace
> CORRPUTFILE.XYZ and it'll work."

How deep do you want to go? It's an open source program, so you could
recompile it with all the debugging flags set and find out what's really
breaking. Try that with a Microsoft program...
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 4:37:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3h0kn6Fen8laU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

>> -- Deinstalling Thunderbird won't remove your
>>settings and cache anyway.

> But will re-installing it recognize those settings, or will it
> replace them with defaults (or empty settings)?

When I did this on the Mac, it preserved everything (settings,
address book, e-mail messages) just as if nothing had happened.
I would assume the same would happen on Windows.

> The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
> really irks me.

It doesn't make me happy, but it's a matter of the cost of
identifying the problem versus the cost of doing a reinstall.
The reinstall is going to make the computer do a lot more work,
but it requires *you* to do less work.

> If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
> just one. Why can't I replace just that one file?

You can, if you know which one it is. And if you're confident
that you know that the repair you do really fixes the problem.
A reinstall is probably safer in that it ensures you're starting
with a known good installation instead of taking a broken
installation and performing some stuff that *appears* to fix it,
but you don't really know unless you're an expert on how the
software works internally.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 4:51:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> My point about this rant was not that my Thunderbird was broken, but
> that because it's a user-built and user-supported program, it's harder
> to find answers than it is with a commercial program where the authors
> aren't scatterd all over the globe, and you have to find the right
> author to get someone who can recognize the problem.

I agree with you that it's nice to have a single vendor to bitch at
when things go wrong. (In fact, Sun Microsystems sells explicitly
hypes that aspect of buying a system from them. They make the
hardware, they make the operating system, and they have their own
customized versions of many popular third-party applications that
they supply bugfixes for even if the third-party developer doesn't
support the application.)

However, in the real world, tech support from the vendor is often
staffed by a bunch of clueless losers who couldn't get a better job
and documentation is incomplete or just flat wrong. In practice,
even though vendors *promise* they will support you, they actually
leave you high and dry a lot of them. So you have to rely on
third-party support *anyway*.

Also, in lots of cases, you can get commercial support for free software,
if that's important to you. For example, if you want commercial support
for Firefox, Thunderbird, or Mozilla, you can get it here:

http://support.decisionone.com/mozilla/mozilla_help_mai...

Personally, I wouldn't bother with that for personal use, but it can
be a reassuring thing if your usage of some third-party (free) software
is mission-critical for a business.

- Logan
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 7:51:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3h0kn6Fen8laU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>
>> -- Deinstalling Thunderbird won't remove your
>>settings and cache anyway.
>
>
> But will re-installing it recognize those settings, or will it
> replace them with defaults (or empty settings)?
>
> The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
> really irks me. If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
> just one. Why can't I replace just that one file? I know one answer -
> that a copy of the file doesn't exist untill I perform the
> installation. (I didn't try "expand" on the setup file, maybe it can
> be). I suspect that another equally valid answer is that nobody can
> clearly analyze the problem sufficiently to be able to say "replace
> CORRPUTFILE.XYZ and it'll work."
>
>
>>I've found the support I get in the Mozilla forums to be quite good.
>><http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=39&gt;
>
>
> I'm waiting to prove you right. So far it's zero for one.

Have you tried perusing.....

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird

and........

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird_:_Issues


FWIW, I too recently experienced a problem with Thunderbird and it
turned out to be a corrupted link file. Pretty much the solution (as
per the instructions at the above typed URLs) was to make a backup
directory and then nuke the original link files (which are regenerated
when Thunderbird is next booted up).....worked like a charm! :-)
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <CGLqe.42289$PR6.18961@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

> However, in the real world, tech support from the vendor is often
> staffed by a bunch of clueless losers who couldn't get a better job
> and documentation is incomplete or just flat wrong. In practice,
> even though vendors *promise* they will support you, they actually
> leave you high and dry a lot of them. So you have to rely on
> third-party support *anyway*.

Yes, I can spell D E L L, which is probably more than the tech support
people I've talke to there can do. However, usually the "third party"
ends up to be me.

By the way, I ended up fixing Thunderbird. The fix was obvious (the
error message told me what directory it couldn't write the file it was
trying to write in) but why the fix was necessary when the program
used to work as configured is still a mystery. To fix the problem, I
simply created the directory it insisted on using and then it used it.
This is a directory to write a temporary file, and it's supposed to
use the Windows TEMP directory as set in the enviornment. I checked
that, and I indeed had one (c:\winnt\temp) and it was accessable. What
it was trying to write to was

c:\program files\mozilla thunderbird\winnt\temp (which didn't exist).

Apparently it was appending the real TEMP path on to the program's
path and looking to write there.

A clue to what may be the actual problem is something that I had to
fix because I discovered that the program I'm using to read news here,
which is an old DOS program, didn't work. The error message I got
with that one pointed me to c:\winnt\system32\autoexec.nt (there
wasn't one) saying "the system is not suitable for running MS-DOS and
Microsoftw Windows 16-bit applications." I was unaware of the
autoexec.nt file but apparently it's an autoexec.bat file that sets
things up when running a DOS program. A search of the Microsoftw
Windows knowledge base got me to an explanation. I ran SFC, which gave
me a replacement version of autoexec.nt, and that made Zipnews work.
But since I don't have a copy of the batch file that previously
existed on the computer, perhaps it contained a path or environment
statement pointing to the temporary directory c:\winnt\temp.

I suspect that autoexec.nt got deleted either by the virus I had,
perhaps to prevent running a DOS program to clear the virus - pretty
tricky) or it came up on the list of programs that the virus checker
identified as needing to be zapped. I don't remember, but I didn't
look at that list too carefully, but trusted the program. I'll be more
careful next time.

So, next question - what's supposed to be in autoexec.nt? All this one
has (same as the similarly named file on my WinXP computer) is stuff
to set up the CD, network redirector, DPMI, and soundblaster.







--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3h1ttbFep4qfU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> > The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
> > really irks me. If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
> > just one. Why can't I replace just that one file?

> Yes, it can be if you knew which one you want to replace.

That's the trick, of course. When repairing a preamp, for instance, I
can trace through the circuit with a schematic and find the component
that needs to be replaced (or the joint that needs to be resoldered).
And if I couldn't do that, it (still) isn't too difficult to find
someone who could. But it seems that when it comes to repairing
software, that's a very rare skill. You pretty much have to find the
programmer because sufficient documentation to find the problem isn't
available to those with a working knowledge but not in-depth
knowledge.

One difference between Thunderbird and Windows is that when I had a
problem that was pretty clearly a Windows problem, I was able to
search the Microsoft knowledge base and find a path to the solution.
Searching the Mozilla knowledge base for clues to this problem yielded
more information about compiling the program.

> How deep do you want to go? It's an open source program, so you could
> recompile it with all the debugging flags set and find out what's really
> breaking.

This isn't part of my skill set, but I haven't found anyone who jumped
up and said "I can do that" and then does. (like Jim Williams often
does here when someone asks about a modification to improve
performance). I'll accept that I don't travel in the right circles.
Does this mean I shouldn't be using the program if I'm not equipped to
fix it myself?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3h1ttbFep4qfU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>
>>> The concept of replacing an entire installation when there's a problem
>>> really irks me. If the problem is a corrupt program file, surely it's
>>> just one. Why can't I replace just that one file?
>>
>>
>> Yes, it can be if you knew which one you want to replace.
>
>
> That's the trick, of course. When repairing a preamp, for instance, I
> can trace through the circuit with a schematic and find the component
> that needs to be replaced (or the joint that needs to be resoldered).

Schematic = source code. Different skill set, of course but at least
you have the complete diagram available. With today's software, the
code is gigantic, but then that's true for today's digital electronics
as well.


Glad you got the problem fixed.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> One difference between Thunderbird and Windows is that when I had a
> problem that was pretty clearly a Windows problem, I was able to
> search the Microsoft knowledge base and find a path to the solution.
> Searching the Mozilla knowledge base for clues to this problem yielded
> more information about compiling the program.

To be fair, Thunderbird 1.0 was released less than a year ago, while
Windows (even XP) has been around for much longer. I believe it's taken
quite a long time for MS to build up their knowledge base and to make it
usable.

The Mozilla site is not desperately easy to navigate, but I saw lots of
links for FAQs and self-help forums - if you were getting info about
compiling I think you were looking in the wrong place, and more
searching (including Googling both the web and the newgroups) would have
found what you needed.

--
Anahata
anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 9:47:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote in news:znr1118579236k@trad:

> That's the trick, of course. When repairing a preamp, for instance, I
> can trace through the circuit with a schematic and find the component
> that needs to be replaced (or the joint that needs to be resoldered).
> And if I couldn't do that, it (still) isn't too difficult to find
> someone who could. But it seems that when it comes to repairing
> software, that's a very rare skill. You pretty much have to find the
> programmer because sufficient documentation to find the problem isn't
> available to those with a working knowledge but not in-depth
> knowledge.

Your analogy with a circuit board is accurate. It's just that the
"circuitry" in any useful size program is enormous by comparison.

The collection of tools required to diagnose it (the development
environment) is just as specialized as your audio kit with its VOM, Scope,
etc., and varies widely according to the OS, program and chosen components.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <42ac6409$0$17035$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net> anahata@treewind.co.uk writes:

> To be fair, Thunderbird 1.0 was released less than a year ago, while
> Windows (even XP) has been around for much longer. I believe it's taken
> quite a long time for MS to build up their knowledge base and to make it
> usable.

It's a released program. I expect that it should be reasonably
supported. To be fair, I didn't pay for it.

> The Mozilla site is not desperately easy to navigate, but I saw lots of
> links for FAQs and self-help forums - if you were getting info about
> compiling I think you were looking in the wrong place, and more
> searching (including Googling both the web and the newgroups) would have
> found what you needed.

I looked in all the likely places, and I didn't find any information
about why what happened happened. It seemed that the User's Forum
would be the likely place to look, but it's full of messages about how
Thunderbird doesn't do this or doesn't do that, or how do you do this
or that. The only person who responded to my post in the forum about
my problem was a (maybe the) moderator.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:57:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3h3adiFf1pvqU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:

> Glad you got the problem fixed.

I wouldn't say that I got the problem fixed, but I got the program to
work. The problem was that it started looking for a different place to
write a temporary file than where it used to put it. I suppose if I
wanted to test my solution, I could remove the directory I created
that it wanted to use and see if that breaks it again, or if all it
needed was to clear its throat and then go back to normal operation.

It's possible that something in Windows changed and that it's really a
Windows problem, but my system engineering skills don't extend to
software engineering.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:57:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>
>> problem with OE or IE, you can not uninstall it. Really. No way,
>> no how. Well, if you are extremely persistent you can, but then
>> your Windows installation will be kaput.
>
>
> Of course you can remove them. It's under disk cleanup; "Remove Windows
> components you don't use" or something like that. Just uncheck 'em, da
> end.


All that does is remove the shortcuts from your desktop and start menu.

After you've 'removed' them, click start, run, and type 'iexplore' or
'msimn' and see what comes up...
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 6:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote:
>
> After you've 'removed' them, click start, run, and type 'iexplore'
> or 'msimn' and see what comes up...


I don't wanna try it in case I'm right and you're wrong! <g>

It *says* they can be removed to free up additional hard drive space.
Just removing the shortcuts wouldn't achieve that goal. Are they lying,
or is there some misunderstanding here?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:37:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> Are they lying, or is there some misunderstanding here?

I don't know anything about it, but the answer is "yes".

--
ha
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 2:43:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:37:53 GMT, walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Lorin David Schultz wrote:
>
>> Are they lying, or is there some misunderstanding here?
>
>I don't know anything about it, but the answer is "yes".

Arf! Sounds like some attempt to appear to comply with the
consent ruling back when the feds were all over them.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:51:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3h3adiFf1pvqU1@individual.net> kurt@nv.net writes:
>
>
>>Glad you got the problem fixed.
>
>
> I wouldn't say that I got the problem fixed, but I got the program to
> work. The problem was that it started looking for a different place to
> write a temporary file than where it used to put it. I suppose if I
> wanted to test my solution, I could remove the directory I created
> that it wanted to use and see if that breaks it again, or if all it
> needed was to clear its throat and then go back to normal operation.

That happens sometimes.

For what it's worth, the problem could conceivably be with the
"mail.compose.attach.dir" setting in prefs.js.

You could try something like the following:

(1) quit thunderbird
(2) use some find tool to locate thunderbird's prefs.js file.
(3) make a copy of prefs.js in case you screw it up.
(4) using a text editor on the file, delete the entire line
that contains "mail.compose.attach.dir"
(5) start thunderbird
(6) if that didn't fix it, stop thunderbird, then put your
saved copy of prefs.js back in place.

That's just off the top of my head, but with the
Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird family of products,
I have seen bogus values in prefs.js prevent the software
from being able to work right, so it's sorta plausible... :-)

- Logan
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:41:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <alPre.40711$j51.10864@tornado.texas.rr.com> lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com writes:

> For what it's worth, the problem could conceivably be with the
> "mail.compose.attach.dir" setting in prefs.js.

That appears to be the directory from where I got the last attachment
that I put in a message. It isn't a directory where it tries to put
something, and that's what the error message (can't remember now if I
posted the full text of the error message here) suggested.

The first line in the pref.js file is "Don't edit this file" (until
you read the documentation and know what you're doing).

> That's just off the top of my head, but with the
> Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird family of products,
> I have seen bogus values in prefs.js prevent the software
> from being able to work right, so it's sorta plausible... :-)

I suppose that could happen with any software. And (back to the
subject of this thread) with open source software, you're more likely
to get analysis at the code level from power users (which duffers like
me can't understand, at least on the first or second pass) but zilch
from an obvious "go to" web page. While I did get a clue that
eventually led me to what I think was the solution, in this case every
"do this" that I got from the Thunderbird User's Forum wouldn't have
fixed the problem.

Since you pointed me to it, I looked in the prefs.js file and didn't
see a pointer to what to use for temporary working files it creates
during message composition, but that's not to say that it isn't in
some other "prefs" file. But if the intent is to use the Windows
default directory (and I believe this is the case) it shouldn't have
to specify that, it should just go where Windows tells it to go - and
in this case, Windows was telling it to go somewhere that didn't
exist.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
!