Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure how fast it is, but rhino can give you Javascript on the server side in a very effective manner. And it is shipped by default with the JRE.

So - deploy a standard Tomcat or other java based server environment, write a small controller servlet that intercepts requests and dispatches them into your Javascript handlers. It's easy to do, I've done it once before for slightly different reasons.

The only thing I can't really tell you about is performance - I've never used it for anything performance critical. But a beauty of it is that from your javascript you can call any native java api, so whatever needs speeding up you can just move into java itself.

5. If you're worried about this, just wait until you guys see the Storage APIs in HTML5. You're going to freak.

Firefox follows cookie policies for DOM Storage as well. Whatever preferences you set for cookies, it will be applied to DOM storage as well.

I can't find this on Google, but I did find an experimental add-on BetterPrivacy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6623 that "protects from LSO Flash Objects"

No. Firebug is a web development extension for Firefox.

Attila Szegedi maintains Rhino which is javascript on the Java virtual machine. As secure as you decide, fast and portable.

Rhino
Attila Szegedi

There's a firefox add on that does something similar to the new tab page. I've never used it, just happened to see it the other day.

Firefox has a search mechanism without using ctrl-f. Mostly I hit the "/" key to start searching, and then toggle through the page.

I just type. ctrl-f is too emacs-like for my taste

For tab switching I'm happy with ctrl-[shift-]tab

Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders.

I don't think the numbers at addons include upgrades...they only count "click on the download link".

That's the way they report downloads of Firefox.

Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders.

I don't think the numbers at addons include upgrades...they only count "click on the download link".

That's the way they report downloads of Firefox.

Firefox has a search mechanism without using ctrl-f. Mostly I hit the "/" key to start searching, and then toggle through the page. I found having to use ctrl-f in Chrome to be cumbersome, and I still have to close the find dialog. I do like its placement and fade-in effect, though.

Oh, and another thing I just realized...I used a FF plugin to make the tab switching behavior do most-recently-used. I hate cycling through tabs sequentially. I'd rather have it flip back and forth between two if I'm pressing ctrl-tab, and if I hold down ctrl let me switch through everything!

No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.

According to one source, there are about 1.5 billion Internet users in the world. Another source estimates that maybe 20%, or 300 million of them, are using Firefox.

Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders. Let's assume that a full one-half of all downloads are first-time users and not people upgrading from last week's version, and that 100% of downloaders actually use it. That means that Video DownloadHelper has about 16,000,000 users, or about 5% of Firefox's user base.

You like add-ons. I like add-ons. Objectively, though, we're a very small minority of users. The numbers look even worse for your position when you consider that the majority of Internet users are browsing with Internet Explorer, and therefore wouldn't miss add-ons were they to switch to Chrome.

There are a lot of reasons why people might not be using Chrome. The lack of add-ons is almost certainly not an important one, statistically speaking.

No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.

According to one source, there are about 1.5 billion Internet users in the world. Another source estimates that maybe 20%, or 300 million of them, are using Firefox.

Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders. Let's assume that a full one-half of all downloads are first-time users and not people upgrading from last week's version, and that 100% of downloaders actually use it. That means that Video DownloadHelper has about 16,000,000 users, or about 5% of Firefox's user base.

You like add-ons. I like add-ons. Objectively, though, we're a very small minority of users. The numbers look even worse for your position when you consider that the majority of Internet users are browsing with Internet Explorer, and therefore wouldn't miss add-ons were they to switch to Chrome.

There are a lot of reasons why people might not be using Chrome. The lack of add-ons is almost certainly not an important one, statistically speaking.

I tried it out and was very impressed with it and it would be my default browser but the dealbreakers are(in order of importance):

(1) Lack of NoScript and AdBlock plugins.
(2) No Linux version.
(3) Speaking of plugins, There's no clear Google-sponsored plugin site analagous to Mozilla's(googling "Firefox plugins" vs. "Google Chrome plugins"), so it lacks credibility.
(4) Speaking of lacking in credibility, GOOG are heavily into advertising - Incognito is a neat feature but what will GOOG do with our web records and even keystrokes? [/tinfoil hat]
(5) More of a suggestion, but Google should have given Chrome a bit more fanfare(Slashvertisements nothwithstanding :) ). Seems like they just released it relatively quietly hoping that it caught on, like they do with most of their other stuff.

If it satisfied (1) it'd be my primary browser on Windows and if it satisfied (2) then it'd be my primary browser, period. Damn shame.

This is either utter ignorance, or a mediocre troll (in the nicest way, of course).

Firstly, get rid of this idea of a "standard password". Get PasswordHasher and use your NEW standard password to access some highly complex passwords at no extra brain power.

Next, your next door neighbour can't plug into your router from their sofa if you use a cable and see you moving home pr0n between your laptop and your desktop.
If you're using WiFi then all that lovely data could be shared with them, if they have a sniffer program running and your network key.

Other things that go over your network in plain text that could be sniffed by your neighbour: Notice the httpS:// on Slashdot.org? Me neither. Your password would have been in a packet that they sniffed. Same for any site you visit. URLs to your bank, your fave pr0n sites, the software you're using and which versions. If they are as good as me (and I'm not even that good at this crap), they could wait for your browser to look for an update, have an already altered version of the last update with a backdoor in it, hijack the DNS request and punt you a file that rootkits your box. If your post wasn't a troll, you might need this: Rootkit.

Seriously, why do you think everyone talks about wireless security as if it was important? Are you the only one that is "in the know" and they are all wrong?

Exceptions do apply. NX, VPNs, SSH, and other encryption can be sent over totally open WiFi because the encryption is done before stuff hits the network card.

Opera features that Firefox lacks can be added via extensions.

Firefox features that Opera lacks can be pined for wistfully.

Fisheye views have existed for a looooong, long time. I use the Fisheye Tabs FF extension; https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4845

But whether the general idea means that Apple can't patent their specific implementation? I doubt it.

Now let's instead ponder Apple's insistence that only they should have a logo with an apple in it;
http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/10/07/apple.knocks.vsbt.logo/

RFC 2817 is pretty badly broken - basically you can MITM and drop the Upgrade: header, and various other problems. The real solution for random sites that just want to protect passwords is RFC 5054 SRP-TLS, however it's not well supported at the moment, and Mozilla don't seem to be interested in pushing it, preferring to make excuses about why they're sticking with 10-year old technology.

here, my friend: Better Gmail 2

i forgot that i do that via a ff plugin...

Anti-paranoia! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2001

F11
;-)
I also highly recommend the Tiny Menu extension for FF.

They were going to convert it to an animated PNG but they couldn't find any image editing software that could handle such an obscure and useless format~

You might want to update your site. The Mozilla HttpOnly cookie attribute for cross-site scripting vulnerability prevention bug is resolved now. Your site says "progress appears to have stalled".

hrmm... i was not aware of this. i thought XMLHttpRequest could not be executed across domains. this seems like a pretty serious security design flaw.

i mean, shouldn't the same origin security policy prevent XMLHttpRequest from making requests across domains? i remember when i wrote AJAX applications in the past that i couldn't even call XMLHttpRequest on a subdomain.

I did not see a link in the article to put it all one page. I understand the temptation to garner additional ad revenue for laying out the article this way, but I appreciate even more when they provide a "print this article" or "show on one page" link for those of us who. don't. like. interrupted. reading.

Here's a plug for the Firefox addon: Re-pagination. Just right click on the "Next" link at the top of the article and then select "Re-Pagination > All". Not perfect, but it gets the job done.

Alternatively, here are direct links to each of the pages in the article:

Chapter 1) In the Beginning
Chapter 2) Wiring the Web
Chapter 3) All About Email
Chapter 4) Welcome to the Social
Chapter 5) Online Media
Chapter 6) Web Property
Chapter 7) Web 1.0
Chapter 8) Web 2.0
Chapter 9) Law and Order
Chapter 10) Most Epic Fails

They gave credit at the end to some of the notable mentions that didn't make the final list.

There's an add-on for firefox that adds emacs keybindings to firefox. It added too many of the emacs keybindings for my taste, but it was easy to deactivate the ones I didn't like.

Unfortunatelly, I'm a mere mortal.. :(

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457011

actually, i wiki'ed Dhtml and that is where you get the 'cross browser' information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_HTML

seems like it's a fundamental flaw in CSS files, after adding noscript https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/722 to firefox add cssviewer https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2104

this allows you to find in the css the code that causes the clicking, and FWIW javascript does make the exploit massively easier, but is not needed, all one needs is to design a css file that does the desired clicks in a 0 pixel frame, and attach it to a nice little dancing pig flash game on that people will forward to all their friends.

actually, i wiki'ed Dhtml and that is where you get the 'cross browser' information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_HTML

seems like it's a fundamental flaw in CSS files, after adding noscript https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/722 to firefox add cssviewer https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2104

this allows you to find in the css the code that causes the clicking, and FWIW javascript does make the exploit massively easier, but is not needed, all one needs is to design a css file that does the desired clicks in a 0 pixel frame, and attach it to a nice little dancing pig flash game on that people will forward to all their friends.

FWIW, this isn't exactly a new idea. roc and I discussed it back in 2002.

I'm glad it's getting attention now, though. Any fix is likely to require changes to specs.

Sounds like this one:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2008/mfsa2008-40.html

wget http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.0.2&os=linux&lang=en-US :)

I've been using Thunderbird with IMAP along with Outlook on Windows, as Outlook doesn't work very nicely with mailing lists and GnuPG signatures... Along with Lightning (calendar extension) I'm sure this would be a good replacement. I know you can see calendars with Thunderbird (w/ Lightning) but haven't really tried using it (i.e. accepting, creating, etc.)

Overall Thunderbird if much faster than Outlook (my outlook datastore is ~2GB, 40000 emails and I imported them all in Thunderbird) and it doesn't need lengthy recoveries after power failures.

If you want to download full IMAP folders automatically, you need some manual tweaking - see this bug:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=329229

Install the ReloadEvery Firefox add-on. Right click and select how often you want to reload the Exchange web interface page.

This could get you by until your email app supports Exchange 2007.

There is no indication that Firefox sends any of the current browser cookies to Google in step #3.

Actually, they do (see bug 368255).

Google could certainly log IP addresses in step #3, which is the real privacy issue here.

According to http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/firefox3_privacy.html, they're logged and kept for two weeks.

Your www.terrorist.com example does not work very well.

Firstly, the downloaded list of dangerous sites contains only partial hashes. This means there are collisions. That's why the browser requests a full hash. So in step 3, all that Google can determine is that someone has visited www.terrorist.com or another site that has the same partial hash.

Furthermore, Firefox frustrates any such monitoring by sending not only the partial hash of the site you visited but also a few other nearby hashes from the dangerous sites list (see bug 419117 for details).

Finally, any such monitoring properly violates the privacy policy.

How would e.g. Rhino http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Rhino_JavaScript_Compiler compare to this (performance wise)?

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/FennecVision

and

http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/mozilla-fennec/

I think it is the fennec that is Mozilla's mobile browser project.it's available as an alpha for OS2008: Nokia's N800 model supports it.

Here:http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/mozilla-fennec/

and
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/FennecVision

The new mozilla based mobile, based on current mozilla techno + some additions for mobile, is already available in alpha.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Fennec

This is like Firefox with the ui completely redone.
It will also support extensions.
2010 is just 1.5 year away so having a non beta build for 2010 doesn't seem unrealistic.

I guess some optimisations made for mobile environnement will benefit everybody (like the optimization done for Firefox)
(and there's already a tracemonkey javascript for arm so this will be fast)

I'm in no doubt it will be a great software.
The only thing uncertain is if it will be shipped by default on some devices...

It seems to me that a mobile version of Chrome would end up almost easier than the desktop version. Since you can only view one page (or tab, if you will) at a time on a mobile browser...

Mozilla's Minimo running on my Windows Mobile-based phone already runs with tabbed browsing... Just because we're used to ridiculously high-resolution screens doesn't mean we should forget that early computer screens had lower resolutions than many current phone screens...

Actually, they already have been working on a mobile version for years. Not much progress though...

Here's what I got, so far. Sorry it's not tabbed and cross-referenced...

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/224230 -- in case anyone wants this page, too
http://www.quickref.org/
http://gotapi.com/
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ -- regular expressions
http://www.perlmonks.org/
http://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://perldoc.perl.org/
http://www.perlbuzz.com/
http://java.sun.com/reference/
http://forums.sun.com/index.jspa
http://developer.mozilla.org/ -- javascript
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Advanced.html
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/007/
http://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/learning
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/webmonkeys/book/c_guide/
http://cprogramming.com/
http://www.cplusplus.com/
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/cbook/
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
http://en.wikibooks.org/
http://developer.apple.com/
http://cocoadev.com/
http://www.cocoabuilder.com/

I use CS Lite myself.

Firefox is not licensed under the GPL

Er... yes it is. Actually, it's licensed under the GPL, the LGPL, and the MPL. clicky

Umm... GNU IceCat or Debian IceWeasel? Maybe Swiftfox or just compile a rebrand.

Not that I don't think this is stupid. But there are ways around this.

Man, they SERIOUSLY need that license notification...considering that last I checked, Firefox wasn't GPL (its MPL) and a lot of people here seem to think it is!

It's both. And also LGPL.

Mozilla source code is (and has been for several years now) completely tri-licensed. You can choose whether to use it under the terms of the GPL, the LGPL or the MPL, or any combination thereof.

see comment #12 at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604.
that's an attitude of "we're king of the hill, we want to do it this way, so FY everybody". i think this attitude is the worst part. oh, and you might consider voting on the bug ;)

Go vote on the bug report then:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604

Bug 439604 - FireFox 3.0 requires agreement of non-Free EULA

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=439604

Maybe if a few people vote for this bug, it will bring it to the attention of whoever thought it was a good idea in the first place...

The Firefox EULA outlines some quite important issues, not least of which is that it doesn't ship with a warranty. But what might be quite concerning to some, and is made clearish in the EULA, is that Firefox by default sends data to whatever 3rd party (Google) runs their anti-phishing. It's all to do with storing partial hashes rather than website addresses on the computer and in theory the 3rd party can't do anything useful with it and are legally required to not keep it. But some people still might find this quite concerning. More information on how Mozilla tries to make the data sent useless here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=419117