Slashdot Mirror

Also https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/636

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3199

This is particularly tricky because one of the nicer things with Outlook is the ability to send e-mails with meetings in them and receive feedback as people accept or reject the meeting request.

The Mozilla Lightning plugin for Thunderbird supports this feature.

I've recently become a fan of Google Calendar ever since I found out that it could be read from and written to within Thunderbird (using the Lightning calendar extension, and the Provider for Google Calendar add on). I wouldn't suggest it as a business solution, but for personal use, it works well. I'm not really a fan of the google calendar web interface, but now I don't really have to deal with it, and my changes are replicated to anywhere I've got the plugins installed.

Anyways, my $.02. More directions here.

I've recently become a fan of Google Calendar ever since I found out that it could be read from and written to within Thunderbird (using the Lightning calendar extension, and the Provider for Google Calendar add on). I wouldn't suggest it as a business solution, but for personal use, it works well. I'm not really a fan of the google calendar web interface, but now I don't really have to deal with it, and my changes are replicated to anywhere I've got the plugins installed.

Anyways, my $.02. More directions here.

Mozilla has an active callender project with Sunbird and Lightening

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/

Might be worth having a look at mozilla org's Sunbird

Really? it doesn't seem to be listed. Got a bugzilla bug #?

Adblock only blocks the ads that you see. This new Facebook feature works by letting other websites post information about you to your profile so your friends can see it. Therefore, blocking the ads with Adblock does not help here.

To prevent websites from being able to update your Facebook profile, install the BlockSite extension, and block this URL: http://*facebook.com/beacon/*

Credit for the above information goes to this blog.

Adblock Plus and Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper will take care of those text ads or any element on a website you want to hide. I had already been using ABP but found the Element Hiding Helper just to get rid of those damned things.

Adblock Plus and Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper will take care of those text ads or any element on a website you want to hide. I had already been using ABP but found the Element Hiding Helper just to get rid of those damned things.

Only problem with that is occasionally there's a vulnerability in firefox. I prefer KeePass for that reason. It sits nicely on a USB flash drive, it's open source (and significantly smaller than firefox if you actually wanted to go through the code), and it uses good encryption (AES/Twofish). It's really a nice little app

How is this much different than using Gspace or some equivalent to automatically sync a file in your google storage box? Besides better integration,

> On some of my machines, I just never installed it. Others, I have removed it. But, it is so damned pervasive that there are some web sites that simply don't work without flash

I repeat what you were already told. Install Flashblock add-on:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433

What does it do you ask? Well, it does everything you want. It disables all flash by default. You can whitelist a site (like youtube) to always show flash. Or you can simply single click the space where flash would normally be to play it. I seriously suggest that _everyone_ should try it. It is one of those add-ons that make like a lot easier.

> Point me to the "borked pages" code, and I'll be damn happy to remove it
> if it will give a huge performance boost

http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/parser/htmlparser/src/CNavDTD.cpp
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/content/html/document/src/nsHTMLContentSink.cpp

> Point me to the "borked pages" code, and I'll be damn happy to remove it
> if it will give a huge performance boost

http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/parser/htmlparser/src/CNavDTD.cpp
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/content/html/document/src/nsHTMLContentSink.cpp

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404645

Seems urlclassifier3.sqlite (nsUrlClassifierDBService.cpp) stores gzipped data in it's moz_classifier table. Kinda makes me glad I disable superfluous crap like this (google suggest and co).

Why didn't they contribute an upstream patch to support compressed databases in sqlite? This is why I don't work in software anymore; it makes me want to club baby seals to death or something!

Can anyone else verify this on Linux?

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404688

The best is when I try to download an XPI for thunderbird and firefox tries to install it. And get this: there's no save as! The solution, ironically, is to load up IE7 and do a save as.

Or you could use Password Hasher for Firefox?

Why don't you try out the beta? I think you'd be better off using a beta than using a "stable" version that no longer receives security updates.

I was poking around hoping to have a look see for myself, release candidates are available, but the link that digg posted is wrong, It points to the RC not the beta and browsing to the beta directory sends you here:

http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2007/11/07/were-happy-that-you-digg-us-but/

While I've been using FF for a long time, I have to admit I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I googled some of your terms and found a plugin for firefox. Is that what forces the others open? I tried both links. The first was "addon not found" and the second came back with a message saying "version 0.2.2 was not compatible with Firefox3.0b1." (A lite version.)

Do you happen to have instructions? I'm really serious in that I just want to revert back to the 2 versions...I have a powerful computer and don't really care about a few hundred megs, and my plugins are too important!

While I've been using FF for a long time, I have to admit I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I googled some of your terms and found a plugin for firefox. Is that what forces the others open? I tried both links. The first was "addon not found" and the second came back with a message saying "version 0.2.2 was not compatible with Firefox3.0b1." (A lite version.)

Do you happen to have instructions? I'm really serious in that I just want to revert back to the 2 versions...I have a powerful computer and don't really care about a few hundred megs, and my plugins are too important!

You know, for general web browsing I don't find the extensions that useful. I used to be a heavy extension user, but after a while I figured out I didn't really use all those extensions often enough to be worth it.

For web app development however, I agree that firefox is the absolute king of browsers because of the extensions. These are the dev extensions I can't do without:
- Firebug (duh)
- Remove cookies for site
- HTML Validator

There are a lot of extensions for IE as well, but they're much harder to find out about. I've recently been toying with DebugBar + Companion.JS on IE, and they're pretty useful. No comparison to firebug, that's for sure, but sufficient for me to not be constantly aggravated at the general uselessness of IE.

You know, for general web browsing I don't find the extensions that useful. I used to be a heavy extension user, but after a while I figured out I didn't really use all those extensions often enough to be worth it.

For web app development however, I agree that firefox is the absolute king of browsers because of the extensions. These are the dev extensions I can't do without:
- Firebug (duh)
- Remove cookies for site
- HTML Validator

There are a lot of extensions for IE as well, but they're much harder to find out about. I've recently been toying with DebugBar + Companion.JS on IE, and they're pretty useful. No comparison to firebug, that's for sure, but sufficient for me to not be constantly aggravated at the general uselessness of IE.

You know, for general web browsing I don't find the extensions that useful. I used to be a heavy extension user, but after a while I figured out I didn't really use all those extensions often enough to be worth it.

For web app development however, I agree that firefox is the absolute king of browsers because of the extensions. These are the dev extensions I can't do without:
- Firebug (duh)
- Remove cookies for site
- HTML Validator

There are a lot of extensions for IE as well, but they're much harder to find out about. I've recently been toying with DebugBar + Companion.JS on IE, and they're pretty useful. No comparison to firebug, that's for sure, but sufficient for me to not be constantly aggravated at the general uselessness of IE.

• This person merely provided a screenshot, and it's his memory cache that's the issue (and it's old): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213391#c38
• This is also a very old bug, but even the newer comments are finding >1GB in memory (or memory+swap): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51028 -- This is when loading massive testcases, however.
• Here's someone getting neat 1GB. Ad-Block was to blame: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358170
• No great detail here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389620

We know it's very possible for Firefox to break 1GB. Sometimes it's even reasonable for such a thing to occur. Sometimes it's not. Seems immature and counter-productive to declare that anyone who says they experience this is lying just because they don't put enough effort into helping us fix it.

I don't know what MikeBabcock is doing (and, yeah, if 'gigabytes' means 2+, I'm a bit sceptical, largely because it's quite unusual to have that much), but I don't have much cause to doubt his claim. Maybe he has Firebug or another memory-hogging extension installed (not Firefox's fault). Maybe he's browsing large photos or intense AJAX apps. When I want to use YouTube or browse photos on Flickr, I always open another browser, because otherwise I'll have to restart Firefox when it swells to using half my memory and that again in swap. If I had 2GB of memory, I suspect it would use more than 1GB. If I give it that much cache, I think it probably should. Unused memory is wasted memory. Unfortunately, setting config.trim_on_minimise=true and minimising only temporarily seems to release the memory, and doesn't release the swap.

stating FF leaks memory is worse than wrong: it's a malicious attack

That's strange. All over people are praising that over 300 leaks have been fixed in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 2 -> Firefox 3). So the current release has (or had--minor releases fix some) 300+ leaks, but it's worse than wrong to say it leaks memory?

The newest versions might not leak much, but we've had some maor leaks in the not-too-distant past. Gecko 1.8 (1.7?) had a huge leak that actually made me switch to Opera for the most part until it was fixed. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241518 ) That was a bit over a year ago, but there are obviously other, lesser leaks. Yes, most of the major problems are features (fbcache), memory fragmentation, or extensions, but there are still issues. For most of what I do, Firefox is good enough. If I spent all day browsing Flickr, I don't think it would be--certainly not under my current configuration + extensions. And that's a darn shame, because no other browser can match it, as far as I'm concerned.

• This person merely provided a screenshot, and it's his memory cache that's the issue (and it's old): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213391#c38
• This is also a very old bug, but even the newer comments are finding >1GB in memory (or memory+swap): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51028 -- This is when loading massive testcases, however.
• Here's someone getting neat 1GB. Ad-Block was to blame: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358170
• No great detail here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389620

We know it's very possible for Firefox to break 1GB. Sometimes it's even reasonable for such a thing to occur. Sometimes it's not. Seems immature and counter-productive to declare that anyone who says they experience this is lying just because they don't put enough effort into helping us fix it.

I don't know what MikeBabcock is doing (and, yeah, if 'gigabytes' means 2+, I'm a bit sceptical, largely because it's quite unusual to have that much), but I don't have much cause to doubt his claim. Maybe he has Firebug or another memory-hogging extension installed (not Firefox's fault). Maybe he's browsing large photos or intense AJAX apps. When I want to use YouTube or browse photos on Flickr, I always open another browser, because otherwise I'll have to restart Firefox when it swells to using half my memory and that again in swap. If I had 2GB of memory, I suspect it would use more than 1GB. If I give it that much cache, I think it probably should. Unused memory is wasted memory. Unfortunately, setting config.trim_on_minimise=true and minimising only temporarily seems to release the memory, and doesn't release the swap.

stating FF leaks memory is worse than wrong: it's a malicious attack

That's strange. All over people are praising that over 300 leaks have been fixed in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 2 -> Firefox 3). So the current release has (or had--minor releases fix some) 300+ leaks, but it's worse than wrong to say it leaks memory?

The newest versions might not leak much, but we've had some maor leaks in the not-too-distant past. Gecko 1.8 (1.7?) had a huge leak that actually made me switch to Opera for the most part until it was fixed. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241518 ) That was a bit over a year ago, but there are obviously other, lesser leaks. Yes, most of the major problems are features (fbcache), memory fragmentation, or extensions, but there are still issues. For most of what I do, Firefox is good enough. If I spent all day browsing Flickr, I don't think it would be--certainly not under my current configuration + extensions. And that's a darn shame, because no other browser can match it, as far as I'm concerned.

• This person merely provided a screenshot, and it's his memory cache that's the issue (and it's old): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213391#c38
• This is also a very old bug, but even the newer comments are finding >1GB in memory (or memory+swap): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51028 -- This is when loading massive testcases, however.
• Here's someone getting neat 1GB. Ad-Block was to blame: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358170
• No great detail here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389620

We know it's very possible for Firefox to break 1GB. Sometimes it's even reasonable for such a thing to occur. Sometimes it's not. Seems immature and counter-productive to declare that anyone who says they experience this is lying just because they don't put enough effort into helping us fix it.

I don't know what MikeBabcock is doing (and, yeah, if 'gigabytes' means 2+, I'm a bit sceptical, largely because it's quite unusual to have that much), but I don't have much cause to doubt his claim. Maybe he has Firebug or another memory-hogging extension installed (not Firefox's fault). Maybe he's browsing large photos or intense AJAX apps. When I want to use YouTube or browse photos on Flickr, I always open another browser, because otherwise I'll have to restart Firefox when it swells to using half my memory and that again in swap. If I had 2GB of memory, I suspect it would use more than 1GB. If I give it that much cache, I think it probably should. Unused memory is wasted memory. Unfortunately, setting config.trim_on_minimise=true and minimising only temporarily seems to release the memory, and doesn't release the swap.

stating FF leaks memory is worse than wrong: it's a malicious attack

That's strange. All over people are praising that over 300 leaks have been fixed in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 2 -> Firefox 3). So the current release has (or had--minor releases fix some) 300+ leaks, but it's worse than wrong to say it leaks memory?

The newest versions might not leak much, but we've had some maor leaks in the not-too-distant past. Gecko 1.8 (1.7?) had a huge leak that actually made me switch to Opera for the most part until it was fixed. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241518 ) That was a bit over a year ago, but there are obviously other, lesser leaks. Yes, most of the major problems are features (fbcache), memory fragmentation, or extensions, but there are still issues. For most of what I do, Firefox is good enough. If I spent all day browsing Flickr, I don't think it would be--certainly not under my current configuration + extensions. And that's a darn shame, because no other browser can match it, as far as I'm concerned.

• This person merely provided a screenshot, and it's his memory cache that's the issue (and it's old): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213391#c38
• This is also a very old bug, but even the newer comments are finding >1GB in memory (or memory+swap): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51028 -- This is when loading massive testcases, however.
• Here's someone getting neat 1GB. Ad-Block was to blame: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358170
• No great detail here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389620

We know it's very possible for Firefox to break 1GB. Sometimes it's even reasonable for such a thing to occur. Sometimes it's not. Seems immature and counter-productive to declare that anyone who says they experience this is lying just because they don't put enough effort into helping us fix it.

I don't know what MikeBabcock is doing (and, yeah, if 'gigabytes' means 2+, I'm a bit sceptical, largely because it's quite unusual to have that much), but I don't have much cause to doubt his claim. Maybe he has Firebug or another memory-hogging extension installed (not Firefox's fault). Maybe he's browsing large photos or intense AJAX apps. When I want to use YouTube or browse photos on Flickr, I always open another browser, because otherwise I'll have to restart Firefox when it swells to using half my memory and that again in swap. If I had 2GB of memory, I suspect it would use more than 1GB. If I give it that much cache, I think it probably should. Unused memory is wasted memory. Unfortunately, setting config.trim_on_minimise=true and minimising only temporarily seems to release the memory, and doesn't release the swap.

stating FF leaks memory is worse than wrong: it's a malicious attack

That's strange. All over people are praising that over 300 leaks have been fixed in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 2 -> Firefox 3). So the current release has (or had--minor releases fix some) 300+ leaks, but it's worse than wrong to say it leaks memory?

The newest versions might not leak much, but we've had some maor leaks in the not-too-distant past. Gecko 1.8 (1.7?) had a huge leak that actually made me switch to Opera for the most part until it was fixed. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241518 ) That was a bit over a year ago, but there are obviously other, lesser leaks. Yes, most of the major problems are features (fbcache), memory fragmentation, or extensions, but there are still issues. For most of what I do, Firefox is good enough. If I spent all day browsing Flickr, I don't think it would be--certainly not under my current configuration + extensions. And that's a darn shame, because no other browser can match it, as far as I'm concerned.

• This person merely provided a screenshot, and it's his memory cache that's the issue (and it's old): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213391#c38
• This is also a very old bug, but even the newer comments are finding >1GB in memory (or memory+swap): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51028 -- This is when loading massive testcases, however.
• Here's someone getting neat 1GB. Ad-Block was to blame: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358170
• No great detail here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389620

We know it's very possible for Firefox to break 1GB. Sometimes it's even reasonable for such a thing to occur. Sometimes it's not. Seems immature and counter-productive to declare that anyone who says they experience this is lying just because they don't put enough effort into helping us fix it.

I don't know what MikeBabcock is doing (and, yeah, if 'gigabytes' means 2+, I'm a bit sceptical, largely because it's quite unusual to have that much), but I don't have much cause to doubt his claim. Maybe he has Firebug or another memory-hogging extension installed (not Firefox's fault). Maybe he's browsing large photos or intense AJAX apps. When I want to use YouTube or browse photos on Flickr, I always open another browser, because otherwise I'll have to restart Firefox when it swells to using half my memory and that again in swap. If I had 2GB of memory, I suspect it would use more than 1GB. If I give it that much cache, I think it probably should. Unused memory is wasted memory. Unfortunately, setting config.trim_on_minimise=true and minimising only temporarily seems to release the memory, and doesn't release the swap.

stating FF leaks memory is worse than wrong: it's a malicious attack

That's strange. All over people are praising that over 300 leaks have been fixed in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 2 -> Firefox 3). So the current release has (or had--minor releases fix some) 300+ leaks, but it's worse than wrong to say it leaks memory?

The newest versions might not leak much, but we've had some maor leaks in the not-too-distant past. Gecko 1.8 (1.7?) had a huge leak that actually made me switch to Opera for the most part until it was fixed. ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241518 ) That was a bit over a year ago, but there are obviously other, lesser leaks. Yes, most of the major problems are features (fbcache), memory fragmentation, or extensions, but there are still issues. For most of what I do, Firefox is good enough. If I spent all day browsing Flickr, I don't think it would be--certainly not under my current configuration + extensions. And that's a darn shame, because no other browser can match it, as far as I'm concerned.

http://myportal.mozdev.org/

Though in practice I still don't use it.

Instead, you may just want to try this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1722 which makes your address bar a bit more flexible (searches matching bookmark names in addition to URLs).

Open "about:blank" repeatedly and watch the memory footprint rise and rise.

If you think that was bad, have a look at this... The amusement starts round about comment #38, two years in...

Also, I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were students barely scraping by, contributed some of their much needed money to the project. Apart from that I guess a ton of people donated money to Mozilla in the past few years thinking that they needed funding badly. Did Mozilla really need it or were they getting enough money from Google to run that ad by themselves? The fact that the CEO of Mozilla gets a compensation of half a million dollars makes it worse.

Does this also mean the users(who are contributing to the coffers with their use of Firefox) can demand fixes to the nagging bugs and not get a 'if you don't like it fork it' reply? Take a look at this very annoying image captions wrapping bug that plagued users and web developers and was unfixed for seven years despite even stalwarts like XKCD's Randall Munroe complaining in this bugzilla thread. Note that you need to copy paste because bugzilla doesn't allow links from Slashdot https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 [mozilla.org]

Haven't the bookmarks been stored in an HTM file since Netscape 2?

Yes.

Aren't they still stored in bookmarks.html?

No. FF3 includes "Places", a new SQLite-based backend for managing things like bookmarks.

There is a few new features in the DOM, CSS and Javascript (including a good subset of XPath and XSLT) which will help offload some parts of the big script libraries to the browser.... now if only they'd get up to speed on the things that Webkit is doing!

Not that it matters really when IE7 is still light years behind ;-(

As a Mac user, I've been eagerly anticipating the release of Firefox 3. For too long, the browser has felt like a foreign application that doesn't integrate nicely in to the OS X UI (Among other issues). With the abundance of third party extensions that greatly assist my general browsing and development experience; it's difficult to switch to an alternate browser.

Now, Firefox feels like it's apart of OS X utilising native widgets and dialogues. More importantly, the proposed Firefox3 themes for OS X look fantastic.

PS: This post was brought to you from Firefox 3 Beta 1.

This is a companion extension to Adblock or Adblock Plus and should be used in conjunction with it. This extension automatically downloads the latest version of Filterset.G every 4-7 days. Filterset.G is an excellent set of filters maintained by G...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1136

Basically, by law non-profits are restricted in the kind of activities they can perform, particularly in generating revenue. Every time Mozilla wanted to work on some project with a corporation (like the arrangements with their default search engines or the creation of customized partner builds for eBay and others), they had to consult lawyers to find out if it was legal. By performing most of their activities under a corporation, all this legal uncertainty, expense, and restrictions could be avoided. The downside to this was that they had to start paying taxes, but that can be considered a good thing in that it supports society.

IANAL, but I don't think it's much different than how a university might own an endowment, which consists of stock in various for-profit corporations. What makes something a non-profit is not what it owns but what it uses its assets for (generating revenue vs. furthering some public good).

The key part of Mozilla's arrangement is that the Foundation is the sole shareholder of the Corporation; the employees don't get any shares to sell off in some kind of IPO (though they'd make a ton of money doing so). This allows it to generate revenue easily through the Corporation, but requires that this revenue must then be used for non-profit purposes (i.e. supporting the project and the internet). The whole thing is kind of an "organizational hack", but it works.

I haven't personally observed any real changes in their overall mission since this change; it was mostly a change on paper. The increase in revenue, though, has been very fruitful to the project. They started with just 10 employees; now they're past 100. They have a whole QA team and are creating several automated test frameworks and test suites (much of the code had gone without tests since the start of the Mozilla project). The whole build and release process is being automated, resulted in much faster releases of security fixes. And so on.

See this blog post by Mitchell Baker and this official FAQ on the reorganization for more details.

Oh, and they just came out with their 2007 grant figures for those interested.

Use Firefox. Use the Greasemonkey script Google Groups Killfile to eliminate MI5 and whatever else from Google Groups.
http://www.getfirefox.com/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html