<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Jesse Ruderman</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/d2dc9227eafcd0ec5ba3712ee4f19b75/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:38:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Mozilla &amp;#038; Firefox Market Share</title><link>http://johnlillyblog.disqus.com/mozilla_038_firefox_market_share/#comment-1419136</link><description>"What happens when we do security updates? (usage goes down as anti-virus software updates get propagated, but recovers over the following week or 2)"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Do you mean that anti-virus software is suspicious of the new version of Firefox and prevents it from running or from connecting to the Internet?  If so, eep!  What percent of Firefox users does that happen to?  How long does the effect last?  What can we do about it?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:57:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Progress on Firefox license issues</title><link>http://johnlillyblog.disqus.com/progress_on_firefox_license_issues/#comment-2408926</link><description>Sweet!  This will make it significantly easier to download Firefox nightlies on Leopard, especially with Safari.  Instead of (wait, click agree, wait, drag) it will just be (wait, drag).</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:38:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Painful Web Standard Decision from IE</title><link>http://inpursuitofmysteries.disqus.com/painful_web_standard_decision_from_ie/#comment-1265056</link><description>"Forget it. If there is a quirks mode and a standards mode, fine, but there should only be these two, existing, modes, not an endless plethora of them..."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Did you know that Firefox has 3 modes?  Quirks, almost-standards, and full standards.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:30:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Beta Users and Security Releases</title><link>http://inpursuitofmysteries.disqus.com/beta_users_and_security_releases/#comment-1265466</link><description>I think there should be a "Include beta versions" checkbox in Options - Advanced - Update.  mconnor didn't like the idea when it was proposed in &lt;a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=266994" rel="nofollow"&gt;https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26...&lt;/a&gt; but maybe you can convince him to change his mind.  (My argument would be: "I'd rather ship beta versions to a few too many users than ship beta-quality releases to everyone.")</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:04:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: This Old Vulnerability: Sendmail Debug Array</title><link>http://matasanochargen.disqus.com/this_old_vulnerability_sendmail_debug_array/#comment-2321015</link><description>Perhaps CVS blame + CVS commit messages could give you a hint as to why it was changed back to signed, and who changed it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:17:47 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>