Slashdot Mirror

Heeeey dude. First grab Stylish for Firefox. It's an extension that overrides the CSS of the page: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/2108

Then try some Slashdot overrides: http://userstyles.org/styles/search/slashdot

I used one of these and tweaked it a bit to fit my taste. Here it is:
http://pastebin.com/f1b780512 (backup link: http://pastebin.ca/1286782 )

All I can see here is classic Slashdot ;)

Well to be fair his BS meter probably went off over the "wipe your existing passwords" crap. I mean I have passwords in FF and Seamonkey going back 4 years, who the hell wants to deal with that for a stupid little test?

But for those that don't mind a tiny bit of extra work, and wouldn't mind a really nice backup extension when they are through, I would suggest that they download and use FEBE and have it do a full backup first. Then after taking the little test restoring all your passwords back is as easy as tools/FEBE/Restore/Usernames and Passwords. It is a great little extension if you are someone like me and has FF on a flash. With FEBE before I go out on a service call I can backup my FF and restore it on the stick so i have all my latest links in case I need them.

Which kinda brings me to my final point, which is this: Who really cares if your browser has a little better password manager or can render JScript quicker if I have to do everything YOUR way? With FF Mozilla just builds the basic browser and then gets the hell out of my way so I can make a browser that acts like how I WANT to surf and has the features that I WANT, not what Google or Apple thinks is best for me. If I don't want ads? Adblock makes them go bye bye whether Google would like it or not. With Noscript I don't need to worry about the "Javascript hole o' the day" which to me is a lot more important than whether my browser can render said hole 40% faster or not. FEBE, Cookie Culler, ForecastFox, and my "mission critical" iMacros which lets me script any repetitive web task in a few easy clicks straight from my flash, make the web just so much more pleasant for me to use.

So while I am glad there are plenty of free choices out there, and would never put anyone down for going with what works for them, for me there just is no comparison to FF. It lets me interact with the web on my terms without trying to fit me into a "one size fits all" solution. And that to me is more important than any password manager or JScript renderer.

Well to be fair his BS meter probably went off over the "wipe your existing passwords" crap. I mean I have passwords in FF and Seamonkey going back 4 years, who the hell wants to deal with that for a stupid little test?

But for those that don't mind a tiny bit of extra work, and wouldn't mind a really nice backup extension when they are through, I would suggest that they download and use FEBE and have it do a full backup first. Then after taking the little test restoring all your passwords back is as easy as tools/FEBE/Restore/Usernames and Passwords. It is a great little extension if you are someone like me and has FF on a flash. With FEBE before I go out on a service call I can backup my FF and restore it on the stick so i have all my latest links in case I need them.

Which kinda brings me to my final point, which is this: Who really cares if your browser has a little better password manager or can render JScript quicker if I have to do everything YOUR way? With FF Mozilla just builds the basic browser and then gets the hell out of my way so I can make a browser that acts like how I WANT to surf and has the features that I WANT, not what Google or Apple thinks is best for me. If I don't want ads? Adblock makes them go bye bye whether Google would like it or not. With Noscript I don't need to worry about the "Javascript hole o' the day" which to me is a lot more important than whether my browser can render said hole 40% faster or not. FEBE, Cookie Culler, ForecastFox, and my "mission critical" iMacros which lets me script any repetitive web task in a few easy clicks straight from my flash, make the web just so much more pleasant for me to use.

So while I am glad there are plenty of free choices out there, and would never put anyone down for going with what works for them, for me there just is no comparison to FF. It lets me interact with the web on my terms without trying to fit me into a "one size fits all" solution. And that to me is more important than any password manager or JScript renderer.

I use PasswordMaker for my password stuff. I don't really see password management as the browser's job anyway. Convenience can be an issue with this, but fortunately there is a plugin for Firefox that helps.

Isn't it time Firefox supported the Mac Keychain? :-/

Protocol latency is a big deal. If you have a large per-transaction overhead, then the overall throughput of a given medium will be very sensitive to the number of transactions it creates on the media, as opposed to the total number of bytes it needs to move.

That's part of the reason the HTTP sprouted request pipelining, since the round-trip-time between the endpoints of the connection figured largely in the startup latency of each connection.

It sounds like the typical PC implementation of USB relies heavily on the CPU to handle all but the lowest levels of the protocol. (I'm relying on hearsay here.) If this is indeed the case, then it'll be hard for USB to reach the max sustained speeds for storage devices, unless there's a mechanism for requesting large blocks of data (or large numbers of small blocks) in a single transaction.

For us old-school types, it's similar to the reason XMODEM didn't get much faster with faster modems over a certain speed. XMODEM didn't pipeline anything. It'd send a block, and then wait for an ACK. Since the latency of fancier modems was higher than the simple FSK 300 baud modems, the handshake turnaround time of the ACK swamped the gains made while sending the blocks. (Also, the tiny block size didn't help.) Thus, pipelined protocols like ZMODEM and large-block non-pipelined protocols (XMODEM-1K) came about to address this.

From the reports of other slashdotters the "scanning" stuff just pretends to scan - it even claims to find windows dlls on Linux machines :), then it says in effect "You have a problem, download and run this software to fix it".

On further investigation it seems like these scumbags try multiple means to get their software installed - human vulnerabilities (as above), and various browser vulnerabilities (IE, Firefox). I've also seen claims that some versions of the trojan exploit vulnerabilities in older versions of Sun's Java to do a "drive by" install.

As it is, my main point still stands - if the millions of people were running ubuntu, they'd still be infected, it's not really a problem with windows. Say they use firefox. If it's a vulnerable version of Firefox (there've been many critical firefox vulnerabilities and there will be many more[1]), the scumbags will exploit it. Otherwise, they'll get a message asking them to "download and install a firefox update" :).

Either way, they'll be infected. I don't really see a big difference, windows or not.

Currently windows is just the best target platform. If you want to DDoS someone, or send tons of spam the more machines you have the better. The linux home user market share is pitiful and there's no point DDoSing from 50 infected Linux machines behind a single corporate line.

Once Mac OSX reaches the 20-30% share mark, I think you'd see more malware authors targeting that platform. I believe there are already some signs of interest :).

OSX has stuff like perl preinstalled, which might make things a bit easier. TIMTOWTDDDoS :). The malware could google for new instructions and run "eval" on it :). Perl "windows style malware" could easily be written to run on OSX, Linux, *BSD. So Linux users may be hit as a "side effect" of targeting OSX. Most antivirus/antimalware software are still quite reliant on pattern recognition (despite what they claim ;) ), so it'll be interesting to see how they cope with stuff like perl (or even more "interesting" languages).

As for the registry - most "Windows class" users will have as much difficulty with /var/spool/cron/, /etc, initrd, linuxrc and more, as they would with the windows registry. My mom will have just as much difficulty removing malware entries in the registry as she would removing it from /etc and other places.

There's just so much you can expect the average person to do, you can design your tech accordingly but they will still be exploited from time to time. The internet just allows mass remote exploits.

The authorities should maintain a top 10 list. Work from the top, follow the money trail and take action on those within their juridiction. Many of these people are actually in the US despite their servers being elsewhere, even if they are not, their money might be there and thus seizable.

On Windows and Linux, I normally use a nonroot/admin user, but even in that account, I run firefox using yet another different user account (I used to work in IT security :) ). So if I get infected it's a lot easier to fix, and the malware cannot access my documents in my main user account. I tried to set this config up in XP for some relatives, but they couldn't cope with it. They also didn't like my suggested password formats and picked easy to guess passwords instead and share it freely (doh).

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox30.html
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox20.html

From the reports of other slashdotters the "scanning" stuff just pretends to scan - it even claims to find windows dlls on Linux machines :), then it says in effect "You have a problem, download and run this software to fix it".

On further investigation it seems like these scumbags try multiple means to get their software installed - human vulnerabilities (as above), and various browser vulnerabilities (IE, Firefox). I've also seen claims that some versions of the trojan exploit vulnerabilities in older versions of Sun's Java to do a "drive by" install.

As it is, my main point still stands - if the millions of people were running ubuntu, they'd still be infected, it's not really a problem with windows. Say they use firefox. If it's a vulnerable version of Firefox (there've been many critical firefox vulnerabilities and there will be many more[1]), the scumbags will exploit it. Otherwise, they'll get a message asking them to "download and install a firefox update" :).

Either way, they'll be infected. I don't really see a big difference, windows or not.

Currently windows is just the best target platform. If you want to DDoS someone, or send tons of spam the more machines you have the better. The linux home user market share is pitiful and there's no point DDoSing from 50 infected Linux machines behind a single corporate line.

Once Mac OSX reaches the 20-30% share mark, I think you'd see more malware authors targeting that platform. I believe there are already some signs of interest :).

OSX has stuff like perl preinstalled, which might make things a bit easier. TIMTOWTDDDoS :). The malware could google for new instructions and run "eval" on it :). Perl "windows style malware" could easily be written to run on OSX, Linux, *BSD. So Linux users may be hit as a "side effect" of targeting OSX. Most antivirus/antimalware software are still quite reliant on pattern recognition (despite what they claim ;) ), so it'll be interesting to see how they cope with stuff like perl (or even more "interesting" languages).

As for the registry - most "Windows class" users will have as much difficulty with /var/spool/cron/, /etc, initrd, linuxrc and more, as they would with the windows registry. My mom will have just as much difficulty removing malware entries in the registry as she would removing it from /etc and other places.

There's just so much you can expect the average person to do, you can design your tech accordingly but they will still be exploited from time to time. The internet just allows mass remote exploits.

The authorities should maintain a top 10 list. Work from the top, follow the money trail and take action on those within their juridiction. Many of these people are actually in the US despite their servers being elsewhere, even if they are not, their money might be there and thus seizable.

On Windows and Linux, I normally use a nonroot/admin user, but even in that account, I run firefox using yet another different user account (I used to work in IT security :) ). So if I get infected it's a lot easier to fix, and the malware cannot access my documents in my main user account. I tried to set this config up in XP for some relatives, but they couldn't cope with it. They also didn't like my suggested password formats and picked easy to guess passwords instead and share it freely (doh).

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox30.html
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox20.html

this may not be the ideal fix, but one solution is to get something like Tab Mix Plus, which allows you to restore all tabs AND windows. it also lets you merge all of your browser windows and move tabs between windows more easily. but all you really need to do is remember/restore opened tabs and windows to get the behavior you're talking about.

Consider MindTouch over Sharepoint. MindTouch offers many many other usability features, scalability and extensibility features compared to Sharepoint. Dramatically improve business automation and collaboration within your teams and departments. www.mindtouch.com MindTouch has millions of users and powers thousands upon thousands of public sites like: * http://developer.mozilla.org/ (Mozilla) * http://ipp.developer.intuit.com/ (Intuit) * http://baseswiki.org/ (Harvard-Kennedy Business & The United Nations & The World Bank) * http://soapedia.mysoapware.com/ (Doc.com) To name a few...

Me I'd just use display: -moz-box; --moz-box-align: horizontal; and -moz-box-flex: 1;, but that's very much non-standard.
Thing is, even if it's not strictly speaking tabular data, it's not a case of tablesoup either.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/380

Set it for Q/E/alt+W and disable in input forms.

How is this any different than a webpage that links to an external JS file (as most websites do)?

Did you or did you not just read that huge sequence I spelled out for you two posts ago? You know, the one that showed the exact string of actions that have to happen in order to load a JAR file vs. a set of Javascript files?

In both cases, you need to download the initial JS or JAR file before loading the rest on demand.

You don't need to do any such thing in Javascript. A JAR is a collection of ALL the files in the applet while Javascript loads and executes each file independently. This works because Javascript is a classless language. There is no object called "MyObject" that I need to download a class file for before I can use it. If I want an object in Javascript, I simply create it:

var STATES = {ALIVE: 0, DEAD: 1};
var myobject = {x: 10, y: 10, state: STATES.ALIVE};

I can fit hundreds of such definitions in a very small amount of space. Meanwhile, Java requires one of these for each object type:

public class MyObject
{
    public static final int STATE_ALIVE = 0;
    public static final int STATE_DEAD = 1;
 
    private int x = 0;
    private int y = 0;
    private int state = STATE_ALIVE;
 
    public int getX() { return x; }
    public int setX(int x) { this.x = x; }
    public int getY() { return y; }
    public int setY(int y) { this.y = y; }
    public int getState() { return state; }
    public int setState(int state) { this.state = state; }
}

As you probably know, you tend to need at least a couple of class files before you can get your program working. Even simple programs often reach a dozen class files or more. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Except that with Java, I need to download all of that before my program can start running. Javascript has no need for such gobs of metadata. Which makes it less powerful from a structural perspective, but makes it ideal as a compact web language that can load and execute as the browser loads the page.

Even more interesting is that I can do this:

<body>
Stuff goes here...
<script>
document.write("<div>Hello world!</div>");
</script>
More stuff goes here...
</body>

You cannot perform those sorts of inlined tasks with Applets. They're not designed for it.

FWIW though, it is possible to use Java as a replacement scripting language for Java. Look up the DOM bridge for Applets and the LiveConnect APIs sometime. If you're clever enough, you should understand how to hand-off control from Javascript to Java. Shortly thereafter, you should come to an understanding of why it is not a practical solution using the current Java runtime.

Don't forget Stealther!

That's what I've been using. For...um...nah I'm not even going to try.

This is the explanation of what they want to do with Ctrl-Tab. It has nothing to do with the Control and Tab key sequence, it is a overview over all tabs.

I've never liked that feature. I've always preferred switching tabs based on how they are arranged in the tab bar, not by most recently viewed, and it's more logical that way (to me) anyway. The Tabs Open Relative addon makes the feature useless as well. The most recently viewed thing was probably intended to make up for the default behavior of opening new tabs WAY THE FUCK TO THE RIGHT OF EVERY OTHER TAB, which jumbles everything up when you're doing multiple things at once and therefore makes it necessary.

For example, imagine that you run a photo-sharing website and want to let your users touch up their photos without leaving your site. Today, you could provide this feature using a combination of JavaScript and server side processing.

Or you could write an application that downloads the photo into the browser and manipulates it in a Canvas. It's not like these APIs are any huge secret. You'd think that someone working for Google would know about that. I won't even get into using the ubiquitous Flash 9 plugin to accomplish the same goal.

As you said, their example is AWFUL.

Foxtab:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8879

Coverflow styled ctrl+tab.

I suspect this is the reason: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/control_tab

A few bug reports I found:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459303
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463723
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445476 (This seems to suggest it can be disabled, but I haven't tried Fx3.1 yet)

I suspect this is the reason: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/control_tab

A few bug reports I found:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459303
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463723
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445476 (This seems to suggest it can be disabled, but I haven't tried Fx3.1 yet)

I suspect this is the reason: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/control_tab

A few bug reports I found:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459303
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463723
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445476 (This seems to suggest it can be disabled, but I haven't tried Fx3.1 yet)

I suspect this is the reason: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3.1/control_tab

A few bug reports I found:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=459303
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463723
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=445476 (This seems to suggest it can be disabled, but I haven't tried Fx3.1 yet)

If you read the link or any of the numerous pages about web worker threads, you'd understand.

If you read the link or any of the numerous pages about web worker threads, you'd understand.

If you read the link or any of the numerous pages about web worker threads, you'd understand.

Try Jquery. If you don't like it, try Prototype or the stuff from Yahoo. There are many dozens of other libraries to try if none of those are to your liking.

Mozilla Developer Center is a decent place to start as far as learning the language:

https://developer.mozilla.org/En/JavaScript

If you want to programmatically draw graphs you should check out the Canvas Tutorial

1. Activate it.
2. Surf.
3. Deactivate it.

It then deletes everything that happened between 1. and 3., but keeps what happened before you activated it.

but how much are people really missing out on by refusing the updates?

*shakes his head*.

This is still Slashdot is it? Here's a good one, security updates! Think browser exploits, here's a list.

I don't think there are any significant regressions in Firefox 3

Here's one.

Even a minor increase in 3.0 adoption would be worth it, as the phishing detection won't matter once google turns it off. I think Mozilla is doing well by making one last effort to move people towards Firefox 3.

How about fixing the bugs in Firefox 3 instead ? I'm not going to move to FF3 until this is fixed. Attempts to force the issue will, at most, result in me moving into another browser entirely.

Really, if you are having such problems moving your users to a new version, maybe it might be a sign that the new version sucks.

Ever tried, I dunno, Google?

Whitehart in all of it's ugliness is FF3 compatible, and as for Compact Menu, how about a replacement? That took me all of 3 minutes of searching, but I can see how it might be hard for someone. If they can't use Google, I guess.

Ever tried, I dunno, Google?

Whitehart in all of it's ugliness is FF3 compatible, and as for Compact Menu, how about a replacement? That took me all of 3 minutes of searching, but I can see how it might be hard for someone. If they can't use Google, I guess.

*ring ring ring*

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi

If you don't want to register to install it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi

If you don't want to register to install it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi

If you don't want to register to install it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi

If you don't want to register to install it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi

If you don't want to register to install it.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

Old location bar.

"I can't install it!"

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi If you don't want to register. This is a different extension from the other extension which only changed the appearance.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/364
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4550

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/364
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4550

oldbar is the closest approximation of the old location bar's function. Close enough that I finally made the jump to FF3 (the mid Dec deadline helped a little too).

I disable phishing protection as it's just a waste of bandwidth for me. Generally I have custom Stylish styles for the websites I visit to fix layouts and do other things, so when I see that those aren't enabled, well, it's probably a phishing website.

The addon NoUn Buttons fixes that.

Have you checked back to see if your extensions/scripts have been updated to work with FF3? I could see that being the case right around when it was released, but hopefully they should be updated by now (assuming that they are still actively developed).

There are a variety of themes that you can use to make FF less ugly - I don't like the default theme myself on Windows (the default Mac one is fine; I'm not sure about the default Linux theme). Personally, I like Qute when running on Windows (it was the default theme during the pre-1.0 days, if you were using FF back then). I'm sure there are other themes that make FF less ugly, as well.

Personally, on OS X at least, I've found FF3 to be much, much better than FF2. It's very stable, and uses a lot less memory. I only have about 5 extensions installed, but I haven't had any problems with it at all since its release (aside from some extension oddness, but that is hardly Mozilla's fault).

Thats nothing there are are at least 4 other ways to view the actual page:
view it over ssh
view it at the alternate address
a grease monkeys script
an addon

The fact that the ISPs didn't even look at what happened last time somebody used a transparent proxy to proxy Wikipedia doesn't inspire much confidence.

I know you're trolling, but: http://www.ieaddons.com/. (Mostly crap, but then, so is https://addons.mozilla.org/.)

Even better: http://www.bhelpuri.net/Trixie/. Trixie enables user scripts (ala Greasemonkey) in IE.

fucking support disable-output-escaping already

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168

your reason for not supporting it is arrogance:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XSL_Transformations_in_Mozilla_FAQ_(external)

Can I do disable-output-escaping?

This is actually pretty close to the question above. And in short, no. Disabling output escaping requires us to add a parsing step to our output generation, which we don't. In most cases, there are pretty easy workarounds. The only use cases we have seen are bad XML or bad XSLT. And RSS feeds. The latter is pretty much the only issue to us, and we're sorry that we can't support it. But mixing parsing with XSLT is brittle and we rather not support d-o-e than either crash or be even slower.

really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?

you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends

we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons

leave that kind of hatred for msie, ok? thanks

fucking support disable-output-escaping already

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168

your reason for not supporting it is arrogance:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XSL_Transformations_in_Mozilla_FAQ_(external)

Can I do disable-output-escaping?

This is actually pretty close to the question above. And in short, no. Disabling output escaping requires us to add a parsing step to our output generation, which we don't. In most cases, there are pretty easy workarounds. The only use cases we have seen are bad XML or bad XSLT. And RSS feeds. The latter is pretty much the only issue to us, and we're sorry that we can't support it. But mixing parsing with XSLT is brittle and we rather not support d-o-e than either crash or be even slower.

really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?

you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends

we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons

leave that kind of hatred for msie, ok? thanks

adblock + autopagerize

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/8551