Slashdot Mirror

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

A few reasons for Firefox:

- NoScript: mostly to block potentially malicious active elements like Flash and Java. Better safe than sorry, especially with Adobe products.
- CookieSafe: Fine grained control over cookies.
- RefControl: Blocks referrers for selected sites. I don't need to stuff tracking information down everyone's throat, especially not YouTube (embedded videos).
- Xmarks: Lets you synchronize your bookmarks using your own HTTPS protected WebDAV share.
- FoxyProxy Standard: Use different proxies for different sites
- Redirector: Rewrite http:/// links into https:/// links for selected sites that don't default to https.
- Web Developer: Dissect web pages.

Is all this available in Chrome* browsers already?

Can you get by with changing your user agent in Firefox?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/

TabGroups Manager. It's not the only extension of its kind, though: There's also Tree Style Tabs that gives you hierarchical, if space-intensive, tabs and Tab Kit, which apparently offers both functionalities in one package - however, I haven't tested the it and can't say how well it works.

In case you're a beta user: Tree Style Tabs says it's 4.0b1-compatible; TabGroups Manager doesn't but works apart from a cosmetic issue (the tab group bar appears below the tab bar instead of above it).

TabGroups Manager. It's not the only extension of its kind, though: There's also Tree Style Tabs that gives you hierarchical, if space-intensive, tabs and Tab Kit, which apparently offers both functionalities in one package - however, I haven't tested the it and can't say how well it works.

In case you're a beta user: Tree Style Tabs says it's 4.0b1-compatible; TabGroups Manager doesn't but works apart from a cosmetic issue (the tab group bar appears below the tab bar instead of above it).

TabGroups Manager. It's not the only extension of its kind, though: There's also Tree Style Tabs that gives you hierarchical, if space-intensive, tabs and Tab Kit, which apparently offers both functionalities in one package - however, I haven't tested the it and can't say how well it works.

In case you're a beta user: Tree Style Tabs says it's 4.0b1-compatible; TabGroups Manager doesn't but works apart from a cosmetic issue (the tab group bar appears below the tab bar instead of above it).

This is part of the reason to switch to the new Jetpack extension API from the old JavaScript code soup extension model.

From the Jetpack FAQ:

The Jetpack SDK lets you write add-ons that run in Firefox, Firefox Mobile, and as stand-alone applications using only the familiar technologies of the Web (HTML, Javascript, and CSS). Your add-ons will be faster to code and debug, easier to maintain, and more stable due to the extensible code library and the instant save-refresh development cycle. Your add-ons will also enjoy a stronger, more understandable security model that will keep your users safe.

They've pulled a lot of the IO out of the GUI thread, which makes it way less frustrating. See here.

Where is such information? The information here is getting stale:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/

It's coming eventually as electrolysis

"things like double tap to fully justify a column of text in a webpage"
That's a very specific thing to be complaining about. I'm not even sure what you are getting at. Double tapping on the n900s browser zooms out the page (to the equivalent of being a 1280 width screen i believe). Double tapping again zooms in on that region. It's very intuitive and quick.
It's not what you're describing but it seems to achieve the same goal; Web pages are easily viewable on the n900. You can also install n900 versions of Firefox, Chromium or Opera if you don't like the default browser on the n900. So i don't see what you are getting at here.

As for the app store it's really just a repository, don't use the OVI store browser as that's redundant, use the App manager to browse for apps. You click app manager on the phone and you get a list of programs available from the repositories (including the commercial OVI store repository). Mame, SNES and Megadrive emulators, OpenSSH, ftpd, all the tux games, programs to turn you phone into a wireless access point, VOIP apps, all the major linux apps etc. are all downloadable from these official repositories. The n900's a full Linux system and the huge number of apps for the n900 reflects this.
I don't understand how you think there aren't many apps available. All i can think is that the official developer and extras repositories weren't added to the app manager and you browsed nothing more than the OVI store. Nokia open their phones so that there isn't one source of apps for the device, make sure you add the other well known sources. Note that's also why you never here about how Nokia killed app X for their phone. They aren't Apple. They couldn't stop a competing source of apps for their phones even if they wanted to and the OVI store is a small part of the ecosystem.

Here's some extra sources for n900 apps. Click these on your phone to add them to the App manager. The first link, the extras, is especially important as it's official and has a huge list of great apps with seemingly all the major linux apps represented. The rest i've linked here are a bit more specific and some are for beta version applications. But even if you just add the extras repository you should be giving the Android a run for it's money in the amount and quality of the applications available.
http://repository.maemo.org/extras/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-testing/
http://repository.maemo.org/extras-devel/
http://my-maemo.com/repository/
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mobile
http://www.amsn-project.net/maemo
http://b-man.xceleo.org/repo/maemo-nintendo-emulators/
http://qole.org/repository

Firefox 4 also adds an implementation of the Websockets API, a tool for enabling the browser and the server to pass data back and forth as needed

And there is talk of support for cross-domain comms and binary data - see hacks.mozilla.org. Who needs Microsoft (for poor security) when there are designs like this?

It is supposed to use Direct2D, just like IE9. I don't know if it does yet or if it is enabled by default

FF 4 beta 1 does that, but it is not enabled by default. Here are the instructions on how to enable it.

I think you're right: Mozilla is mastering the material, not studying for the test. The only thing that really keeps them from getting 100/100 is the lack of implementation of some SVG stuff. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490 , specially the last 10 or so comments. However, Mozilla publicly stated that they wanted to fully implement SVG 1.1. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/

I think you're right: Mozilla is mastering the material, not studying for the test. The only thing that really keeps them from getting 100/100 is the lack of implementation of some SVG stuff. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119490 , specially the last 10 or so comments. However, Mozilla publicly stated that they wanted to fully implement SVG 1.1. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/

True, but to be fully fair, resizeable textareas were available as a Firefox add-on since at least March 2007 via the Resizeable Textarea add-on, three months before Safari 3 was announced and released as a beta.

I tried that extension when I used Firefox. It was theoretically nice, but actually quite buggy, so eventually I disabled it. IIRC, when I used it, it would allow you to do things like squish text fields out of existence and seriously distort the page layout. The built-in WebKit implementation (and probably also the FF4 implementation) is much more polished.

I find this is usually the case with extensions vs. native features, for most software products. The original developers know what they're doing and have high production values, while extension developers usually just hack something up without serious design, review, or testing. So I avoid using third-party extensions for any of my software (browsers, server apps, etc.) if possible.

4.0 will be the first version with first class 64 bit support from Mozilla.
For some reason, the 64 bit builds aren't on the main download site, but are available here:
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0b1/

Linux and Mac only at the moment, I assume Windows 64 bit builds are to follow in later versions.
From the greatly improved performance scores, It appears that the tracing JIT is finally enabled on the Linux 64 bit version.

/me is happy.

Now where's my 64 bit flash adobe?

Bulky, and unnerving - when you're tired and accidentally point away from the jungle of menus, it closes. Willing to give it a try though, when they make it available to GNU/Linux.

There are Minefield builds available for Linux. Just don't rely on them for important stuff.

In any case, as long as they leave Firefox as an open box to customize, i'll continue using it. Nothing comes close to it for me.

I completely agree.

True, but to be fully fair, resizeable textareas were available as a Firefox add-on since at least March 2007 via the Resizeable Textarea add-on, three months before Safari 3 was announced and released as a beta.

I like it because of its right click->Validate feature, which sends the cached copy of the current page to the w3 validator.

There's a Firefox add-on called Page Validator that does that.

Get the YouTube Comment Snob addon for Firefox.

YouTube Comment Snob filters out undesirable comments from YouTube comment threads. You can choose to have any of the following rules mark a comment for removal:

* More than # spelling mistakes: The number of mistakes is customizable, and the extension uses Firefox's built-in spell checker.
* All capital letters
* No capital letters
* Doesn't start with a capital letter
* Excessive punctuation (!!!! ????)
* Excessive capitalization
* Profanity

Believe what you want. Safari and Firefox have been pulling which direction the CSS level 3 standard was going by creating live examples. Given the background of Webkit on supporting W3C code, the size of webkit share market share as compared to Firefox and Explorer, and the fervor that extensions have been happening, things call for cautious optimism. Not tin foil hats.

Do you remember the opacity css attribute? All modern browsers support -opacity now. Safari went from -khtml-opacity to -webkit-opacity to -opacity. You're playing with fire as long as you do not use the W3C official equivalent. Speaking of which, have you seen all the depricated mozilla css styles lately?

Just like the mozilla equivalents, the Safari equivalents were mostly created for internal usage. Why the hell do people think Apple was seriously pushing html as an alternative to native application development for the iphone? Does no one remember that Mac OS X dashboard widgets are written in html too? Selective memories I guess... Not really any different than the usage of the Mozilla extensions.

I'll say it again, but cautious optimism is called for. You act like a tin foil hat and people will ignore you.

But the truth is, sometimes you *have* to break the back button. Sometimes, you have to update portions of a page in order to keep it "fresh". Sadly, doing so breaks the back button.

A bit like how Gmail, Twitter, or many other sites don't use the document fragment identifier to do such a thing. Or a bit like how there's no such thing as history.pushState() to implement that (and because it doesn't exist, it doesn't work in Google Chrome, but if it did, it would work perfectly).

Yep, sometimes you have to break the back button.

the bulk of Firefox code is already platform- and toolkit-agnostic - for example, we already have Qt builds for Maemo 5.

Nice. Now we just need a qt firefox for my KDE desktop.

Note: I am on the Mobile Firefox development team.

Load time is definitely an issue on Maemo. The built-in MicroB browser uses "faststart" which means that it starts a process when the device starts up, and that process stays in memory even after you close the browser. Firefox 1.1 doesn't use faststart, but we and Nokia are working on it for version 2 which will be the default MeeGo browser.

The "fennec" process running after you close the window is a bug, and one that I don't think we've seen before. If you'd like to help us solve it, you can report it here or to bugzilla.mozilla.org. Thanks!

Note: I am on the FIrefox Mobile development team.

MeeGo for Handsets is actually based heavily on Maemo. From our point of view at least, it's an incremental change rather than a complete replacement. Firefox for MeeGo will be an evolution of Firefox for Maemo. Of course, it helps that the bulk of Firefox code is already platform- and toolkit-agnostic - for example, we already have Qt builds for Maemo 5.

There are some attempts to mitigate the problem, though you're right that it can be one. Some registrars are limiting the characters that can appear in their domain, and there's a push to make that more widespread. One approach is to limit to "local" scripts only, so e.g. Cyrillic or Latin in .ru, but no Telegu or CJK in .ru. That greatly limits the number of clashing pairs compared to allowing all of Unicode. Some registers also have policies on not permitting certain known clashes, such as allowing two domains to be registered that are identical, except for one having a Latin 'a' where the other has a Cyrillic 'a' (which look identical in most fonts).

Firefox and Opera will only display the internationalized Unicode name for TLDs that are whitelisted as having a "safe" policy on the subject, and will display the punycode for other domains. Here is Mozilla's current policy.

You can use a Firefox extension like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7902/.

It'll replace any word with another of your choosing. Very useful if you don't like seeing lower case i's every other paragraph.

Does Firefox use special Windows-only extensions which require a non-free edition of VS?

It turns out that you're right: Express is enough. I was just extrapolating from the problems that I have run into with some things other than Firefox, such as the Windows Mobile 6.x SDK not being available for Express Edition.

However did they compile the Linux version I'm using now?

Even if the Linux version can be compiled using tools in the Ubuntu repository (as listed here)

Does Firefox use special Windows-only extensions which require a non-free edition of VS?

It turns out that you're right: Express is enough. I was just extrapolating from the problems that I have run into with some things other than Firefox, such as the Windows Mobile 6.x SDK not being available for Express Edition.

However did they compile the Linux version I'm using now?

Even if the Linux version can be compiled using tools in the Ubuntu repository (as listed here)

Huh! They won't do that...

Were talking about Firefox here, not Safari. Of course, there's Flashblock

"If we could invent a "Go Back to where I wanted to be" button that the user clicked only once, this would be more useful but receive fewer clicks."

FF had that, more or less - note the little down-arrows adjacent to the back and fwd buttons here; they showed a dropdown menu of the history in each direction.

For some reason the allegedly "professional UX designers" (to quote someone upthread) thought combining the separate fwd and back buttons into a Vista-aping keyhole, removing those extra indicators, combining the separate histories into one, and accessing that combined history by right-click, was a step forwards.

Even worse was their decision to ape the butt-ugly Safari for the default OS X theme...

Is that in FireFox by default?

No. FireGestures is an addon like many other things people take for granted in firefox after long use.

I used to use StrokeIt (yes yes, get your jokes in now), a free program that basically allowed mouse gestures to work in Windows and any program opened in Windows. Unfortunately, when I went from XP to Vista it was incompatible, forcing me to grab FireGestures instead as an alternative for at least internet browsing.

And...looking it up thanks to being reminded by your post, I found this.

StrokeIt Updated After 4-Years; Works on Vista & Windows 7

Oh thanks god, now I don't need to click to open any programs ever again and I can get rid of FireGestures.

Only upto 1996, and then Netscape moved to the free model because Microsoft was giving-away Internet Explorer.

Navigator wasn't made free until the beginning of 1998.

Bullshit. IE has never been superior to any other browser.

The industry disagrees. IE4 was rapidly stealing marketshare from Navigator long before it was integrated into Windows 98. Heck, the _beta_ version was winning non-trivial numbers of people away from Navigator 3 (and the freshly released 4).

As for the unholy disaster that was Navigator 4.0, it's hard to imagine anyone saying it was better than _anything_ with a straight face, let alone IE4. They'd nearly made it tolerable by 4.5 or so, but by then it was pretty much game over.

For that matter Windows has never been superior to any other OS. I can't think of a single product Microsoft has ever made where I would label it "the best" product on the market.

Millions of people clearly feel Windows is the best option for them. I certainly do, and it has nothing to do with lack of knowledge or experience with the alternatives.

Certificate Patrol (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6415) watches for changes in SSL certificates and alerts you to those changes, so you can decide if someone is pulling an SSL MITM attack on you. If the Chinese routers are running SSL interceptors (e.g., Cisco's IronPort or Bluecoat's ProxySG), then you will see alerts that the SSL certs you last got from within the US are different in China.

Need to balance cheap-as-hell with this-might-get-me-arrested? Activists do it all the time. Here's a snip from an internal manual:

Use a "Virtual Private Network" service to avoid some snooping and beat censorship. This is a lightweight program running on your computer that encrypts all your online activity locally. In effect, it appears as though you are surfing from somewhere else... Until then you can use a free VPN called "Hotspot Shield", which is supported by ads. This is annoying, so we recommend a Firefox plug-in called AdBlockPlus, which blocks the ads. HotSpot Shield also gives you a random IP address, which will defeat most local censorship.

        * Download HotSpot Shield by AnchorFree: http://www.anchorfree.com/ Hotspot Shield
        * AdBlockPlus ( a plug-in for Firefox browser ) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

And will they please release the management utilities via open source?

From the article

A number of third-party tools have been developed over the years to simplify certain aspects of organization-wide Firefox roll-outs. One of those tools is the Client Customization Kit (CCK), which was developed by Firefox modification consultant Michael Kaply while he was employed by IBM. Kaply still actively maintains the tool and released an updated version for Firefox 3.6 in March. IBM is using it alongside other tools to ensure that its Firefox adoption plan goes smoothly.

IBM already has developed the initial version. CCK is currently Mozilla Public License 1.1 and I have not seen any notice that they're changing that so your question is answered.

K THX BYE

Anytime, brah.

We need a new instant mirror site for slashdot. Any suggestions?

Coral Cache fits the bill quite well, I have no idea why the editors don't use it. It'll create a mirror of any url you link to and navigate through, and they can take a slashdotting :)
Follow this link to check out the CCed version of the article.
If you're on Firefox the TADSEE extension provides a handy shortcut to a Coral Cache mirror when you right click a link.

This link does say FF4 Beta 1 Candidates, so it might be it.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/4.0b1-candidates/build1/win32/en-US/

So it might be what? A beta candidate. A beta candidate is a candidate for a beta release, not a beta release. I wonder why Firefox is the only application where users regularly mistake nightlies for betas. Is the versioning so confusing, or is it because Firefox is so popular with noobs?

The fact that Mozilla still gets the majority of money from Google doesn't mean they're not looking for other sources of income.

The Moz Foundation hasn't published a financial report since 2008. Tax Returns and Financial Information

It is really, really, tough to get good, hard numbers on the financial state of the Mozilla Corporation and the Mozilla Foundation

Have you tried Read It Later? Seems like that might fit your browsing model.

I would recommend the following:

1. Create a new profile and test a few flash heavy sites. If FF runs stable, change its preferences to what you used in your old profile, test again. If it still works, install any extension you have used one by one and test between each installation. Maybe one of your extensions or settings causes the problems, maybe your profile has become corrupted (likely if it is rather old).
2. If the problem persists, try a nightly build, first with your old profile (backup!!!), then with a fresh one.

Release versions have been quite unstable on Flash heavy sites some time ago. I have switched to nightly builds several months ago and - barring the occasional hiccup when new features are introduced - have found it to run incredibly stable and performant even with a larger selection of extensions installed.

Because it has not been released, if it was it would be where all the other betas are. ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ There would be an announcement to https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/announce-prerelease . There would be download links at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html What they are linking to is a possible build of Firefox 4 beta 1.

Because it has not been released, if it was it would be where all the other betas are. ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ There would be an announcement to https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/announce-prerelease . There would be download links at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html What they are linking to is a possible build of Firefox 4 beta 1.

Why has Mozilla Foundation avoided fixing the biggest bugs in Firefox, the memory leaks? Many, many people have complained about the memory leaks for the last 5 years, at least, as did the parent comment.

Firefox leaks memory and eventually crashes Windows, or makes Windows unstable. Apparently the Firefox memory leak bugs interact with some weakness in Windows XP SP3, and that causes Windows to become unstable. It seems that whoever debugs Firefox might also gain a good reputation from finding a major problem in Windows.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Every new version lists Crashes with evidence of memory corruption as one of the fixes. Those crashes are only the ones automatically reported by the crash reporter. Many of the crashes happen without invoking the crash reporter. Firefox is crashy.

We love Firefox because it has the add-ons we need. But we need it to be stable. I hope version 4 reverses the history of bad management at Mozilla Foundation. Remember, Foundation gets more than $50 million from Google every year to make Google the default search engine.

Mozilla Foundation has an enormous amount of cash: "Total assets as of December 31, 2008 were $116 million, up from $99 million at the end of 2007, an increase of 17% to our asset base." The foundation was run by Mitchell Baker, a lawyer with little or no technical knowledge and very limited social ability. Now that she is Chairwoman and no longer CEO, the management does not seem sufficiently improved.

The parent comment is currently marked "Flamebait". People have commented saying that they have no problems.

Some of the instabilities are difficult to debug because they don't always occur. Visit Mozilla Crash Reporter for more information. Some of the instabilities occur because of the interaction of Firefox with Microsoft Windows, apparently, when Firefox reaches the limit of installed memory and begins to require virtual memory. Firefox is more stable in Linux, apparently.

There is a web page discussing Firefox crashes and what users can do about it.

Look at the current crash statistics.

See the Top 300 Crashing Signatures in the current version of Firefox, 3.6.6.

It seems that an organization that has more than $100 million in assets could stop other work and address the instabilities.

Much more could be written, but that's enough for now.

This link does say FF4 Beta 1 Candidates, so it might be it.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/4.0b1-candidates/build1/win32/en-US/