Slashdot Mirror

and put the tabs above the address bar (not below)

That's a clear sign something's broken at Google. Tabs belong on the left or right edge so that once you have a number of them you can still allocate reasonable space to their title bars. Tree Style Tab and Vertigo are your friends. I have 40+ tabs open in the window I'm writing this in, and I can navigate through all of them easily. I wouldn't be able to if my tab bar were on the top of the window.

That's funny, because I recall having to fix pages when IE 5 came out, again when IE 5.5 was released, and again for 6 and 7. Each version of IE came with its own set of quirks and changes that caused non-trivial CSS layouts to render oddly. Conditional comments greatly aided the transition, but it was a transition nonetheless, so why not make a transition that actually makes web development more uniform for a change?

As for still requiring Microsoft's Java (because of JDirect or the com.ms.win32 stuff, I assume?) and IE6, IE8 is a moot point. If you aren't changing your environment either way, what does it matter what the rest of the world does?

Then again, there's no reason why your shop couldn't use Firefox with IE Tab and set your intranet domain to automatically revert to the IE renderer. Best of both worlds: local compatibility with global compatibility.

"It's only a matter of time before this gets pulled off Youtube."

Save a copy to repost or post elsewhere.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006

Have you tried using the IE Tab Extension?

No, I haven't. When it's available for Ubuntu let me know.

What's that you say? I should install Windows so that I can have IE so that I can view broken webpages? Or better yet, install a compatibility layer so that I can install the two-versions outdated IE6 against that software's EULA (I have no Windows license, remember) so that I can view broken webpages?

IE Tab is for people who want a woman with their current girlfriends clothes, yet with their old girlfriend's diseases.

Have you tried using the IE Tab Extension?

Spidermonkey

Interactive shell and supports shebang.

Rhino

Interactive shell but doesn't support shebang.

Spidermonkey

Interactive shell and supports shebang.

Rhino

Interactive shell but doesn't support shebang.

Context Search, Extended Status Bar and Distrust are small additions that could make a pretty large difference. Context Search is pretty much the same as the accelerators (allowing you to choose which installed search engine to use when searching the highlighted word) and Distrust is very similar to the privacy mode. I guess Extended Status Bar would be iffy, but the ability to see how long pages take to load could be useful to users (i.e. they could remember it for next time more easily).

Those ones are popular because they make huge noticeable changes (in most cases), but I'd argue that the best candidates for inclusion are the smaller ones that are more focused in their goals.

Context Search, Extended Status Bar and Distrust are small additions that could make a pretty large difference. Context Search is pretty much the same as the accelerators (allowing you to choose which installed search engine to use when searching the highlighted word) and Distrust is very similar to the privacy mode. I guess Extended Status Bar would be iffy, but the ability to see how long pages take to load could be useful to users (i.e. they could remember it for next time more easily).

Those ones are popular because they make huge noticeable changes (in most cases), but I'd argue that the best candidates for inclusion are the smaller ones that are more focused in their goals.

Context Search, Extended Status Bar and Distrust are small additions that could make a pretty large difference. Context Search is pretty much the same as the accelerators (allowing you to choose which installed search engine to use when searching the highlighted word) and Distrust is very similar to the privacy mode. I guess Extended Status Bar would be iffy, but the ability to see how long pages take to load could be useful to users (i.e. they could remember it for next time more easily).

Those ones are popular because they make huge noticeable changes (in most cases), but I'd argue that the best candidates for inclusion are the smaller ones that are more focused in their goals.

oh, forcristsake, people... Firefox cannot copy IE8 just because it has this feature as an add-on for long time already.

You can download Stealther from
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1306

have fun

I believe that Pencil (2D drawing and animation) and the Pencil Firefox add-on (GUI prototyping tool) are different applications. Both seem pretty cool though.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

Not true. I and other webdevelopers I know write standards-compliant code first (testing in FF, Safari, or Opera) and when everything works ok in those, they test it in IE. That's the propper order - write correct code first and THEN do the hackery IE requires. Do it otherwise and you sacrifice quality.

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

It's not a bonus. It's a basic prerequisite to make a standards-compliant website.

I do, and it's called Stealther.

'Browser Privacy is different from "clear private data when Firefox closes" in that apparently it protects you WHILE you are browsing'

Appariently the protection consists of a white/black of selected sites that the browser deems unsafe. Do these subscription feeds require a fee.

"Depending on your web browsing activity and sites visited, the amount of time it can take before such content is automatically blocked can vary widely. However, at any time, you can customize which third-party content is blocked or allowed though subscribing to InPrivate allow and block feeds"

privoxy noscript FoxTor ..

"I'm curious as to if that level of "private browsing" will make it into a full FF release as I believe Firefox's largest supporter (Google) wouldn't want it in. Can they use that leverage to stop it? and will they?"

I wonder will "private browsing" work with Hotmail, or will their be exceptions burried within the app. Besides, it's irrelevent as I have full control over my computer, not Mozilla or Google .. or Microsoft :)

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

Nonsense. IE remains the majority browser. Developers who want to actually produce a product that works correctly for the majority of users target IE first (because Firefox usually does the right thing when dealing with IE-isms, and IE-isms are easier to undo to target Firefox than vice versa).

No, developers use Firefox to do their development. Why? Because of extensions like Web Developer and Firebug and YSlow and Selenium and Firecookie and FirePHP and Venkman. To name a few.

The fact that Firefox is also highly standards compliant is a bonus.

After you've used all these tools to get your application working properly, that's when you check it out in IE and see if there are any problems that need further attention.

As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.

The Stealther extension for Firefox already does the privacy thing, and has done so for longer than IE 8.

(Speakin' of which, I wonder if the old Anonym.OS live cd is still useable...)

/P
 

Upgrading from IE7 to IE8 is going to be like polishing a turd. I run Firefox 3 with two plugins: Noscript IE Tab Oh yeah and Woot Watcher.

Firefox already has crash recovery feature, albeit through an addon.

You can use the "Session Manager" addon in Firefox.
It save and restores all the browser windows, either when you exit or when the browser crashes.

Here is the link to it.

Customize Google is one of my favorites, alongside Goolepedia which gives you a mini-sized frame with the relevant wikipedia entry on your google search. You can click on a link to show or hide the almost seamless frame from your google search.

Firefox has a security framework in place which is designed to prevent web pages from being able to manipulate the browser chrome (aka javascript code, UI, etc). So on the firefox level, pages can't access any add-on code to begin with. Up until recently pages could reference scripts or other chrome documents as urls but I believe this has been fixed in Firefox 3. The only possible exploits now would be if ubiquity explicitly registered javascript commands for any web pages to use to interact with ubiquity, and I don't believe there are any (actually ubiquity works exactly the opposite way, the user calls up ubiquity to interact with web page contents, not the other way around).

My understanding of the behind the scenes stuff in Firefox is rudimentary at best, so don't take my word for it. Mozilla has tons of documentation on their site.

CANT access? CANT? i think what you mean is "should not be able to access", as you should know with software, there is always a way around ssomething.

also, with the amount of data this is collecting when doing these tasks, whats to stop mozilla from lining its pockets with some nice targeted advertising?

This is what I thought until I looked more closely. EE definitely seems to serve different pages to GoogleBot, and appears to serve different pages to people referred directly from Google. I believe this is a distinct violation of Google's listing policy, and to be consistent with how they treat all the other website operators Google should be immediately de-listing Experts Exchange until it serves identical pages to Google as what it serves to everyone.

Try installing User Agent Switcher in Firefox, then browse to this URL. If it's like me, you'll get no comments at the bottom, but as soon as you switch to mimicing GoogleBot, you'll get a heap of responses.

EE is definitely serving different pages to people referred directly from Google. Try clicking through to a result from Google and you'll get the comments at the bottom. If you open a blank tab, though, and paste the same URL into that tab, you won't get the responses (unless you're pretending to be GoogleBot again). This is definitely what happens for me, anyway.

There's also something weird happening in the Related Solutions section of EE pages, which is probably to do with EE giving Google different URLs to crawl. eg. Take a look at the "Related Solutions" section of this page on EE, and look closely at the URLs. (I reached this EE page using the top result of the Google search that someone pointed out elsewhere in the thread.)

When I look at the URLs in the Related Solutions section, they all point to what first looks like static HTML, but with "?eeSearch=true" appended to the end of the URLs. If I then go to the Google Cache edition, it looks similar but doesn't pass the eeSearch=true parameter.

I'm not sure what effect this has because with or without appending '?eeSearch=true', I still get the same behaviour which is to show comments on the page if I'm pretending to be GoogleBot, and not show them if I'm not. It's almost certainly something to do with tricking Google, probably to make Google think that they're static HTML pages when they're actually not.

Firefox has a security framework in place which is designed to prevent web pages from being able to manipulate the browser chrome (aka javascript code, UI, etc). So on the firefox level, pages can't access any add-on code to begin with. Up until recently pages could reference scripts or other chrome documents as urls but I believe this has been fixed in Firefox 3. The only possible exploits now would be if ubiquity explicitly registered javascript commands for any web pages to use to interact with ubiquity, and I don't believe there are any (actually ubiquity works exactly the opposite way, the user calls up ubiquity to interact with web page contents, not the other way around).

My understanding of the behind the scenes stuff in Firefox is rudimentary at best, so don't take my word for it. Mozilla has tons of documentation on their site.

That should be easy enough to do. But that's not the point -- it's supposed to be an "explorable" linguistic command line interface, and there are quite a few ways to explore. Oh, and right clicketyclick for context menu of all commands.

You can get a firefox extension to do this already folks :) It lets you list certain domains to block from results. (google returns full results, the extn uses regex I think to filter before showing the result set to you.

If you have Firefox, use the Customize Google add-on at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/743

Experts-Exchange was useful up until a couple of years ago...

Or, I don't know, mbox -- which actually is supported by far more things than CSVs. Which Thunderbird uses internally.

And you know what? That's in the FAQ. Something for you to try: Before flaming something, at least have the decency to check the FAQ to see if your accusation is actually true.

Whoa there! Who's flaming anything? I was answering a question posted by my original parent. Why the hate?

There are legitimate reasons for Outlook to export CSV, which I was pointing out. We store all of our ancient email in a database. I was also pointing out that any mail client that wants to can import CSV. Sure, I could build a CSV parser (and have in the past), but I don't use Thunderbird. So why would I build one?

Mbox is fine, but it's not the only publicly available mail format. No accusations, no flames. So please stop getting so defensive.

Every database interface I've seen can import a tab or comma delimited file.

Which is great, if you want to use MySQL as a mail client.

Every email app that wants to can build a parser to do so. It's not like it's hard to import tab or comma delimited files.

If it's that easy, Thunderbird is open source. Go for it.

The fault lies with other programs that don't support a fully compatible and importable format like csv's.

Or, I don't know, mbox -- which actually is supported by far more things than CSVs. Which Thunderbird uses internally.

And you know what? That's in the FAQ. Something for you to try: Before flaming something, at least have the decency to check the FAQ to see if your accusation is actually true.

Go with YesScript then https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922

It's like NoScript, but with a blacklist approach instead.

Or just install Stealther on Firefox. (And maybe NoScript also, so as not to get pwned by some iffy site.)

Actually, if JS gets fast enough, it could rival Flash.

Since the speed of Flash is largely due to it having a very fast ECMAScript engine, and since the same engine is the center of Mozilla/Adobe cooperation, I don't think expecting Mozilla's JavaScript implementation to become exactly as fast as Flash's ActionScript implementation is all that unreasonable.

There's a somewhat (sadly) unknown Firefox addon called SecureBrowse (disclosure: my idea, and my colleagues developed it; I don't grok JS!) that does something somewhat similar.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5967

We released an FF3 version, but it was sent back to the sandbox because it clashed with some other extension. We're looking into it but meanwhile you can get the FF3 compatible version from the sandbox (easy enough to find but I'll happily provide instructions if someone asks... sitaramc at gmail dot com or will even send it to you)

Oh, well if you want to bitch about something as trivial as that,
see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637

They won't.
Compatibility is checked server-side, as someone else already stated - see this and this Bug.

They won't.
Compatibility is checked server-side, as someone else already stated - see this and this Bug.

If the OS isn't supported they won't see the upgrade option: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418129

That's funny. When I went to addons.mozilla.org I got a download link that was not on noscript's website: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/downloads/file/35871/noscript-1.7.9-fx+mz+sm.xpi

Just because you don't think like a cracker doesn't mean you're not a honky.

Having browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace support restored would be nice, too. At least there's now an (experimental) add-on to fix it ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8511 )