Firefox bookmarks lost

Dear 4chan,

2 hours ago I tried to burn a CD. Somehow, Nero fucked up. First, it got stuck at 99%. Then, the CD LED went red (which I had never seen before) and in a matter of minutes, I could not start a single window, and the existing ones were gradually not responding. I ended up hard rebooting.
After that I start Firefox and see that my search engines and bookmarks have disappeared and that the program always starts in an odd place of the screen and wrong sized. I had to delete my profiles directory, restore an old copy of my bookmarks and search engines, and reinstall extensions.
Now goes the question : I was able to recover today's bookmarks file (with a few more bookmarks in it than last backup) but the last lines are filled with what looks like binary data (starts with normal html, ends with ridiculous characters) so FF only understands 500 Ko worth of bookmarks instead of 700 (and 620 for the backup). Anybody knows what it is and how I could recover that ?

Also, anyone experienced this, wether they solved the problem or not ? (Just to know how I managed to crash my comp like that)

Love,
Anonymous

You have binary data in your file because rebooting like that does not flush buffers first, so the data that's supposed to be there simply wasn't physically written to disk yet.

Remove the binary data and manually fix the file if FF is not loading it correctly.

no. in the extended real numbers, you just add two points which aren't reals, and order them to be either greater or less than every real and then denote them using symbols -inf and +inf.
142    
Anonymous at 17 Apr 2006: 05:49

             ∧＿∧ fap fap
　fap 　　　（　´Д｀/"lヽ
　　　　　　/´　　　（ ,人）　
　fap 　　（　 ） ﾟ　 ﾟ|　　|　＜A/0
　　　　　　＼ ＼__, |　 ⊂llll
　　　　　　　 ＼＿つ　⊂llll
　　　　　　　 （　　ﾉ　　ﾉ
　　　　　　　　|　（__人_） ＼

143    
Anonymous at 17 Apr 2006: 16:04

the fact is, >>140 will never be math champion.
144    
Anonymous at 17 Apr 2006: 18:29

Still wondering why is Infinite different to Not-A-Number in my FPU. It means it thinks Infinite is a number.
145 (sage)   
Anonymous at 17 Apr 2006: 19:35

>>144
No, it just means the people who made the standard thought it would be a good idea to have division by zero give a distinct result.
PROTIP: Math is defined by mathematicians, not comput

www.opera.com

>>2
Makes sense.
I recovered what was written. I suppose I won't miss the few lost bookmarks.
Thanks for all the fish

>>4
It wouldn't solve my problem anyway, as I doubt that a program can save its data before a hard boot (well, maybe Opera keeps its bookmarks differently but I'll stick with FF anyway)

>>5
fag stop being wapanese
use opera it makes you a man

opera is terrible. really, it is. I tried it. I fought with the fucking thing for a week. just stop fanboying over opera and get a decent browser.

Anything decent Firefox has, it stole from Opera. How do I know? Simple. Opera came first.
www.firefoxmyths.com
Get educated, motherfuckers

>>5
I've never had Opera lose it's data. Ever. Infact, I've had power go out for three days (bushfire). Started up my PC, started up Opera. Lowa dn behold, the page I was browsing were loaded right back up. Even a message I was typing in a form as a reply was exactly how I left it.

My Opera bookmarks file has bookmarks in it from 01/1998.

Yes, the file is really that old. Never corrupted, never lost.

Also, >>8 is pretty close to the truth.

>>8
Devs never told Firefox invented the tabs. Users did.
Btw, some of your myths are unfounded : Opera has been ad-free for only a few months, and I challenge you to make Win98 run on a 486. Well, maybe it will run as good as games do on a P3 866. Minimal system requirement have always been bullshit.

Firefox haters are as stupid as Firefox fanboys. As usual, both sides feed they trolls with ignorance. Learn to know the advantages of all softwares (well, maybe not Gator) and let users make their choices once they're informed.

>>10
You're lucky to have the interweb since then.

Opera is pretty good for what it does, damned shame that what it does doesn't include blocking ads, including flash blocking tools or being widely supported by 3rd-party plug-in developers.

It does support blocking adds, which includes blocking flash as one smooth integrated site by site feature called 'block content'.
Opera doesn't need plugins; everything a browser should do, it does, with far less bloat than shit like Failfux.

Do we need this exact same argument every goddamn day?

Browsers are for noobs. Internet is gay. While you're on your computer, every day, your mom bangs the hell out of herself with a 20 inch dildo. Can't you hear her? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHGRGE

As usual, both sides feed they trolls with ignorance.

What about those of us who have used both extensively?

My dislike of FF is a sense of disillusionment combined with a crap piece of software. FF was supposed to be a lean and mean replacement of Mozilla, but what we got was some fucking slow POS overengineered "application platform" that includes the kitchen sink underneath.

I wanted to like FF. I really did. Free and GPL? Yay! I wanted to like Mozilla too (I ran almost every milestone). But FF quite simply stinks. The only thing that saves it from being complete and total garbage are the extensions, and they're a mixed blessing.

>>15
Another retard. How about the rendering engine performance and accuracy? You know, that's what the web is about, and Firefox is pretty good at that.

No, it's really not. Opera's engine is both faster and more accurate.

>>16
Well shit, gecko only works in Firefox, doesn't it?

Oh, wait, no it doesn't...

Well shit, gecko is the only decent renderer out there, isn't it?

Oh, wait, there are several others...

I hear good things abou trident.

www.firefoxmyths.com

"Legal Notice - Reproduction of this page in whole or in part is strictly forbidden. This guide and ALL versions thereof are protected by copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Feel free to link to this Guide."

A statement like that is unusual to see so prominently on a website, especially one discussing free software. It goes against the whole spirit of the free software movement, and to me, calls into question the validity of the information.

"there is no excuse for this except poor coding on Firefox's part."

this purports to be an informative site? that seems like an insult.

"Oops. We recently introduced a bug into the counter and it's being fixed. We're not quite there yet. Sorry for the confusion. We accidentally counted the 20 million people who updated from Firefox 1.5 to Firefox 1.5.0.1 this week."

NOT the style that a serious editorial/informative writer would use.

" Internet Explorer 6 supports Tabbed Browsing when used with the MSN Toolbar extension in Windows XP."

but see also "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions."

double standards there it seems. Firefox extensions are ignored, but IE extensions are considered?

These may seem to be minor issues, but they call into doubt the veracity of the entire page.

FirefoxMyths.com is a troll written by Bill Gates

Wishful thinking, Failfux Fags

>>20
LOL Microsoft is trolling on the internet. IE is using only 1kB of RAM, they fail to mention IE's version (IE 1.0?), they don't even mention IE's failure at the ACID test...

Hi, I've made the best browser, it takes like 192 KB RAM and like 4 KB of hard disk space. Oh it doesn't seem to be much standards compilant but it loads FAST!!!

>>24
Dillo?

>>20
Free software does not equate to open source software. When you get a clue, will we bother to read beyond your first paragraph.

Here, how about this. I give you my preferences in a browser, and then you tell me whats best that meets my needs?
1: Self-updating ab-block
2: A color picker
3: A mass Downloader
4: Mail notifiers
5: Easy switch to IE for those IE only pages
6: A set of web devoloper tools that allows me to highlight, disable, hide/show, and outline certian aspects of a page.

Oh, and the intergrated search, I need to beable to put my own searches into it too.


Thats what I want. I don't give a fuck about anything else.
Now, tell me, which one will give me all of that, and I will use that browser.
Until then, I will stick with what I have.

>>26
free software very nearly equates to open source. hence the terms foss /floss - free (libre) open source software.
the difference is that what is 'free software' is determined by the free software foundation, whereas what is 'open source' is determined by the open source initiative

firefox is covered by the 'MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT' which states that 'A SOURCE CODE VERSION OF CERTAIN FIREFOX BROWSER FUNCTIONALITY
THAT YOU MAY USE, MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE IS AVAILABLE TO YOU
FREE-OF-CHARGE FROM WWW.MOZILLA.ORG UNDER THE MOZILLA PUBLIC
LICENSE and other open source software licenses.'

the Mozilla Public License is defined by the fsf as Free Software, but incompatible with the GPL: see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

the MPL is also in the OSI's list of Open Source licenses at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

neither makes any mention of the 'MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT' (which seems to imply that there are components of firefox which are NOT free software or open source

but to suggest that firefox is open source but not free software, or even vice versa, is clearly wrong. Do your research before you insult other people.

Hey, >>28, reread the first two paragraphs of >>20, which is what >>26 was replying too.

Were you born stupid, or has too much penguin fucking caused your brains to rot from syphilis? lol religion

>>20
>>28
Same person. Still no clue. Didn't read.

let the thread die already

>>28
Who the fuck cares if it's compatible with GEE PEE EL? MPL is freer (less restrictive) than GPL, that's why GPL is not compatible with MPL.

Comparison of licenses:
MPL, BSD, etc.: "Do whatver you want, LOL"
GPL: *whine* *whine* *whine*

>>32
Th'only person whining around here is you. Get over yourself.