Did I miss anything?
Bet you can fit two of them in the Slashdot cruiser, unless CowboyNeal loaded the trunk with hot grits.
Competition makes them good, and story may repeat itself. I remember using the native IE 4.x ports on Solaris and HP-UX back in the times when Netscape Navigator was THE browser (late '90). Then, once IE gained market, they disappeared at once.
There's a simplier answer to that: to be case-insensitive, you have to agree to a character encoding first, or write it down somewhere along with the name, and then you need additional code to deal with equivalences between characters in that encoding.
To be case sensitive, *nix-style, is straightforward: you just aren't allowed to use byte 0x00 (C string terminator) and 0x2F ("/" in ASCII encoding) when encoding file names. Everything else is just fine, regardless of encoding (and endianess, just in case you used multibyte characters). To compare names you just compare sequence of bytes up to the C string terminator, and two are names are equal if their bytes are equal. End of it.
This, and the fact that forcing down policies on file naming is a task better suited to user interfaces than kernels or system libraries (this way, an UI can always be as case-insensitive as it wants/needs to be).
Back in the day, I remember a setting on iBrowse (Amiga) that caused the browser to ask before accepting each and every cookie. I don't see that setting on my current browsers, though I may just be overlooking it
Firefox has such setting, with the option to ask what to do for every cookie a website tries to set/update (which quiclky gets annoying), plus an option in to remember your choice for all subsequent cookies from that website. It's there in Preferences->Privacy->History->Use custom settings.
It has to have an X-windows server since we use that remotely from our Windows
Just to clear out a misconception that arises from time to time: you do not need an X server on a server exactly in the same way you don't need a web browser on your HTTP server. To understand that, you can think of an X server as a "browser" for the X protocol. On the server you just need some support libraries (which help applications in talking the X protocol).
its still better than the in-the-address-bar approach
Anyone else here miss the days when ios meant Cisco?
Not really, but reading "Apple" next to "IOS" still makes me rise an eyebrow.
"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel