|
Home > Archive > Mozilla Browser > March 2007 > Need folder info for bookmarks
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Need folder info for bookmarks
|
|
| sam@nowwhere.com 2007-03-26, 1:14 am |
| I need to know in exactly which folder are my bookmarks supposed to be?
After updating to Firefox 2.0.0.3, I could no longer find them.
This download completely screwed up a number of things.
I do have Windows set to show all folders. So that ain't the problem.
I had the bookmarks backed up from a few days before. All I need now is
to know where to place them.
Thanks.
| |
| sam@nowwhere.com 2007-03-26, 1:14 am |
| On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:08:46 -0500, sam@nowwhere.com wrote:
>I need to know in exactly which folder are my bookmarks supposed to be?
>
>After updating to Firefox 2.0.0.3, I could no longer find them.
>
>This download completely screwed up a number of things.
>
>I do have Windows set to show all folders. So that ain't the problem.
>
>I had the bookmarks backed up from a few days before. All I need now is
>to know where to place them.
>
>Thanks.
Ignore this post. I forgot I had already posted this the day before and
had gotten answers.
| |
|
| sam@nowwhere.com wrote:
> I need to know in exactly which folder are my bookmarks supposed to be?
>
> After updating to Firefox 2.0.0.3, I could no longer find them.
>
Suggestion :
Why doesn't Firefox just store it's bookmarks and profiles in the main
directory?
| |
| John Thompson 2007-03-26, 7:13 pm |
| On 2007-03-26, Lukan <ydui@wvcbxdcvasch.com> wrote:
> Suggestion :
>
> Why doesn't Firefox just store it's bookmarks and profiles in the main
> directory?
Firefox is designed to be used on multi-user systems, and for
security reasons program directories on such systems shouldn't be
writable by mere mortal users. Many of the malware problems in Windows
can be attributed to writable system and program directories; that's why
for Vista Microsoft "innovated" some of the Unix security model in its
UAC (User Access Control) feature.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2007-03-26, 7:13 pm |
| Lukan wrote:
> sam@nowwhere.com wrote:
>
> Suggestion :
>
> Why doesn't Firefox just store it's bookmarks and profiles in the main
> directory?
Because then, every time you updated the program, you would trash your
profile.
Lee
| |
| Zaghadka 2007-03-27, 1:11 am |
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:49:55 +1200, in alt.fan.mozilla, Lukan wrote:
>sam@nowwhere.com wrote:
>
>Suggestion :
>
>Why doesn't Firefox just store it's bookmarks and profiles in the main
>directory?
Because, on any other operating system but Windows 98/ME, it's designed to work
in a multiuser environment, where each logon has its own set of config data in
its "home" folder (Usually /home/(username)/Mozilla/Firefox, IIRC).
Windows stores multiuser data in:
%SYSTEMDRIVE%\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\Application Data"
....and you'll find your Firefox stuff there in the "Mozilla\Firefox" folder.
"Application Data" is hidden from the user however, so you have to untick it's
"hidden" attribute to get at it without showing all hidden files and folders. I
highly recommend this, as critical config data is often stored there.
Short answer: Multiuser design is the standard, not single install. Only 6+
year old, poorly kludged together OS's use a single user design.
--
Zag
"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550
"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
| |
| Zaghadka 2007-03-27, 1:11 am |
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:50:04 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, John Thompson wrote:
>On 2007-03-26, Lukan <ydui@wvcbxdcvasch.com> wrote:
>
>
>Firefox is designed to be used on multi-user systems, and for
>security reasons program directories on such systems shouldn't be
>writable by mere mortal users. Many of the malware problems in Windows
>can be attributed to writable system and program directories; that's why
>for Vista Microsoft "innovated" some of the Unix security model in its
>UAC (User Access Control) feature.
Oh no. UAC isn't anything *like* as secure as ROOT is freaking ROOT. ;^)
--
Zag
"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550
"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2007-03-27, 1:11 am |
| Zaghadka wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:49:55 +1200, in alt.fan.mozilla, Lukan wrote:
>
>
> Because, on any other operating system but Windows 98/ME, it's designed to work
> in a multiuser environment, where each logon has its own set of config data in
> its "home" folder (Usually /home/(username)/Mozilla/Firefox, IIRC).
>
> Windows stores multiuser data in:
>
> %SYSTEMDRIVE%\Documents and Settings\%USERNAME%\Application Data"
>
> ...and you'll find your Firefox stuff there in the "Mozilla\Firefox" folder.
>
> "Application Data" is hidden from the user however, so you have to untick it's
> "hidden" attribute to get at it without showing all hidden files and folders. I
> highly recommend this, as critical config data is often stored there.
>
> Short answer: Multiuser design is the standard, not single install. Only 6+
> year old, poorly kludged together OS's use a single user design.
>
Both Windows 98 and ME support multiple user environments.
Lee
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2007-03-27, 1:11 am |
| Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Zaghadka wrote:
>
> Both Windows 98 and ME support multiple user environments.
>
> Lee
Indeed, here is the alternate profile location when multiple users are
invoked:
C:\Windows\Profiles\<Windows login/user name>\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<Profile name>\
| |
| John Thompson 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On 2007-03-27, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Short answer: Multiuser design is the standard, not single install. Only 6+
> year old, poorly kludged together OS's use a single user design.
Multiuser has been the default for Windows since NT, but it has been
implemented poorly. Lacking a convenient means of temporarily assuming
administrator privileges for tasks like installing software, the default
installation gives administrator privileges to the first (often only)
user and does not insist that a separate priveleged account be created.
Vista at least enforces creation of a separate administrator account,
but one-off administrator tasks are handled in such an intrusive manner
that I suspect many people will end up disabling UAC, leaving them no
better off than if they had stuck with an older version of Windows.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| John Thompson 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On 2007-03-27, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
> Both Windows 98 and ME support multiple user environments.
In a very superficial manner, however. There is no privilege separation
between users, only personal settings and preferences are supported.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Zaghadka 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:15:05 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, John Thompson wrote:
>On 2007-03-27, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Multiuser has been the default for Windows since NT, but it has been
>implemented poorly. Lacking a convenient means of temporarily assuming
>administrator privileges for tasks like installing software, the default
>installation gives administrator privileges to the first (often only)
>user and does not insist that a separate priveleged account be created.
>
>Vista at least enforces creation of a separate administrator account,
>but one-off administrator tasks are handled in such an intrusive manner
>that I suspect many people will end up disabling UAC, leaving them no
>better off than if they had stuck with an older version of Windows.
Exactly. It's a band-aid, when all they had to do was create a Windows
equivalent to "su." (No. Running an installer with alternate privileges is not
the same thing. You need an alternate, easily accesible, admin *environment*.)
By assuming the user is stupid, they've created yet more stupidity. My view is
if you're too dumb to use a computer, you have no business operating one, with
the understanding that most people, even people on the left end of the
intelligence bell curve, can use ROOT privileges properly if they're given half
the chance.
I'm an optimist. ;^)
--
Zag
"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550
"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
| |
| Zaghadka 2007-03-27, 7:12 pm |
| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:16:41 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, John Thompson wrote:
>On 2007-03-27, Leonidas Jones <Cap1MD@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>In a very superficial manner, however. There is no privilege separation
>between users, only personal settings and preferences are supported.
What he said. 98/ME's multi-user is just "preferences and settings." It's the
layered privilege, your apps being run from a context that can't be reached by
a user account, that really makes it multi-user.
98/ME is, to my mind, a single superuser environment with multi-user "themes."
--
Zag
"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550
"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
|
|
|
|
|