Slashdot Mirror

In Firefox, bookmarks are stored in an html file, but browsing history (History sidebar and URL autocomplete) is in a Mork db. With Places, both will be stored together in a SQLite db.

In Thunderbird, Mork is used not only for the email summary files but also for the address books, which is much more frustrating. It's nearly impossible to find or write non-Mozilla code that can read or write Thunderbird address books, which is a serious impediment to synchonization tools. (Honorable mention to Dawn, which does a fair job of Mork address book conversion.)

I, too, believe that Thunderbird has far more to gain from the move to "Unified Storage" than Firefox does.

1) If this is correct, disappointing that the devs called the bookmarks file places.sqlite instead of bookmarks.sqlite so people know where the bookmarks are if you want to move them. Am I correct?

2) Is this new file now no longer human readable the way bookmarks.html?

3) Someone please tell me how this makes my life better as a normal Firefox user?

For quick annotating pages while browsing I use an extension called InterNote. It is part of the small details why I cant switch from Firefox to anOther PossiblE browseR Anyday.

Maybe something in Firefox one day that'll tell you that your bookmarking something again?

Ask and ye shall receive!

http://bookmarkdd.mozdev.org/

Or the Mozilla Addons page for it :

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/155 3

You need the Firefox extension https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/427 .
Helps you to save Web pages and organize the collection.

How to fix firefox. http://www.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/domain-guessi ng.html http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.enabled Short answer is... Disable: browser.fixup.alternate.enabled keyword.enabled

Did you mean any of these?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/102 6 (Outdated)
Or
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/317 3

Did you mean any of these?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/102 6 (Outdated)
Or
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/317 3

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/249 7

The usefulness of a scripts is often directly proportional to the privileges granted. Javascript is hobbled for use in browsers yet it plays a key role in the majority of browser security problems and what do you do when a script manages to break out of it's sandbox? Chroot or BSD jails are one thing but the average user will gladly grant a script extended privileges just to shoot the monkey.

We've heard this argument that sandboxing is the cure to scripting ills for years now, it isn't working. I say it's time to stop behaving like an old woman and tackle the problem directly ;-)

Less ads:

Adblock Plus

I don't mean any disrespect here, but you continue to use terms like "encoding" and "unicode" in ways that suggest you don't actually know this topic very well. Again, I don't intend this as an insult. We all have our great ideas on how to make the world a better place when we start dipping into new subjects. Please consider doing some more reading on what Unicode actually is, what a character set is, what an encoding is (and how it is different from a character set), how font (glyph) mappings work, how transliteration works, how IRIs work and how Unicode characters are embedded into them today, Punycode, etc.

I suspect you're going to find that some of your assumptions here are faulty.

Finally, consider the impact of your change. People aren't going to like having to stick a new identifier onto the end of their existing hostnames, and hostnames using the old syntax are going to have to continue to work. Every application that uses hostnames would seem to require changes to understand and properly filter characters. It also seems to be a partial solution in cases where the scripts are not similar to Latin1, since you have to identify the character set in ASCII, right?

I think a better solution is to advocate using URIs (IRIs) as things you use to locate resources, not as things you use to authenticate resources. I should never be tempted to glance up at the URL in the Location field of my browser and, from a visual inspection alone, "authenticate" the site I'm at as Paypal, or my bank. TLS/SSL certificates are quite capable of identifying a site using a real-world identity that can be vouched for by an authority qualified to do so. Perhaps the information in these certificates needs to be presented to the user as prominently as the URL? Sounds like a bug report I opened against Firefox nearly 5 years ago.

How about this -- antiphishing protection in FF2 exists mainly to allow harvesting data about FF's userbase by Google.
For instance -- bug 368255 is still not fixed; not only that - it looks like it is completely ignored by devs: "UNCONFIRMED" status is default for all new bugs.
Also, feel free to browse all bugs related with anti-phishing protection...

How about this -- antiphishing protection in FF2 exists mainly to allow harvesting data about FF's userbase by Google.
For instance -- bug 368255 is still not fixed; not only that - it looks like it is completely ignored by devs: "UNCONFIRMED" status is default for all new bugs.
Also, feel free to browse all bugs related with anti-phishing protection...

You're actually wrong there, Mozilla Products (Firefox, at least), are triple-licensed using the MPL, GPL and LGPL. Originally, they were only licensed using the MPL, but they went to some trouble to add the GPL and LGPL. See their relicensing FAQ

Is it not built in in Firefox? SeaMonkey has that functionality Edit->Preferences, Advanced->Scripts & Plugins, uncheck "Disable or replace context menus".

...or this.

Maybe they should turn this over to their intrepid band of lawyers.

I'd switch to Epiphany, but there isn't a rich library of extensions for it as there is for Iceweasel/Firefox.

That may be true, but then again you may ask yourself if you really need an extension to play an MC Hammer sample when you stop loading a page. Plus, it's pretty easy to write an Epiphany extension in C or Python yourself. No Javascript knowledge required.

The problem seems to be the same problem users complain about on the Opera forums with Opera.

Web-browser, advanced e-mail and newsgroup client, IRC chat client, and HTML editing made simple -- all your Internet needs in one application.

If you don't care about unpatched bugs, you can keep old Suse, Redhat or Windows O/Ses running as long as you have working hardware that supports it.

BUT today, lots of new server hardware already does NOT work with suse 9.1 or redhat 9 (both only about 3 years old). In contrast, you can still install Windows 2000 on them.

I wouldn't want to install Windows of course, but this is the Real World for you.

You might say, "you should then pay Suse/redhat for the Enterprise version". But if they go bankrupt you don't get new updates either, same frigging difference. Who do you think is paying the Linux developers to do what they are doing?

You're dreaming with your nonsense claims of OSS automatically having a better long term chances.

Sure the source code is all there, but who is actually capable of maintaining it? Already the very people who write Firefox don't seem to be able to do a good job of maintaining it-

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_for mat=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__ope n__&product=Firefox&content=crash

So what are the odds someone else could AND would step in and take over?

If you can't deal with QTL files then your quicktime or quicktime alt install needs to be reinstalled to fix up the file associations.

And/or you need to check your mime type application/x-quicktimeplayer opens with the OS default handler ( I used the MIME edit addon to fix firefox just now so I could watch this new trailer).

When it's working Quicktime will load it up, or Quicktime Alt will popup a menu asking what you want to do (download to location / download and play with MPC or WinMplayer / Stream)

Forcing .QTL to open with a browser, or directly with a media player doesn't work.

finally, if you download it, and have media player classic with coreAVC installed, rename the file to .hdmov and it will open with directshow and coreavc instead of quicktime, and playback speed will be much improved.

It's called Cacheviewer. It still needs a bit of tweaking, but as it is right now, it's already quite useful and imho beats reloading stuff with IE.

It's called Cacheviewer. It still needs a bit of tweaking, but as it is right now, it's already quite useful and imho beats reloading stuff with IE.

Sometimes I like to troll thru my "Temporary Internet Files" folder and pick out a few bits for posterity.

Well do I have just the extension for you! Last week I decided to search for an extension to see if I could do the very thing you wanted, and sure enough, someone had written one.

Yes, and it's doubly FUD because it's based on "anecdotal reports" from the kinds of people who thing that -funroll-loops makes your Linux kernel 20% faster. Firefox is and always has been faster (uses less CPU) and more efficient (uses less memory) compared to IE and even compared to Opera. Try the browser buster memory test and you will see that Firefox beats other popular browsers by a factor of 2x to 4x. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=240 026

If you just read the site (it's very small) you'll see that there are many no-obvious things you can detect with it. I personally do however consider it primarily a developer tool, but that might change. But even non-coding users can find out that the CDROM automounting polling is waking the CPU a lot, and disable that in battery mode, etc.

That's why God invented NoScript.

AMEN to that one. FlashBlock is another good one - wherever there is a flash animation, it will show a "play button". To run the flash, you just click the button. You can whitelist sites too, for when you come across a site that is "too cool for html".

eBay cannot simply release their plugin now

They released it on May 3.

They also cannot simply change their site functionality to break the student plugin, as they'll alienate customers who are using it.

Sure they can. They've got no obligation to support third-party extensions. From an eBay user's perspective, the eBay site will continue to work flawlessly but the extension will be broken. Who's the user going to blame?

You don't have to be a lawyer to figure out if the customer prefers better functionality.

You don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is an open-and-shut trademark infringement case. Go to the My eBay Fox website. It looks very similar to the official Firefox website. It uses the Firefox and eBay logos. There's a clear possibility that consumers will believe that My eBay Fox is a product of the Mozilla Corporation and eBay. This is exactly the situation trademark law is designed to deal with. If My eBay Fox has a security bug or is just plain crashy, there's a strong possibility it could reflect badly on Mozilla and eBay. Trademarks are all about trust and reputation. The developers of My eBay Fox don't have the right to hijack the goodwill associated with Mozilla and eBay and put it at risk.

While Firefox is open-source, the name Firefox and the logo are trademarked. If you want to distribute an extension with Firefox and call it Firefox, you have to get permission from the Mozilla Foundation. See the 'Extensions, Themes and Plugins' section of the Mozilla Trademark Policy for details. They'd be on much safer ground if they called it Steamdonkey or something. Of course, eBay are a more traditional company, so their trademark policy will be even stricter.

Either way, My eBay Fox will not continue to branded and marketed as it is at present for much longer.

Nope. If you don't want to do the testing yourself, and you still want to use XPIs safely then get them from here. There the extensions are tested for security and other flaws before they are released to the public. Of-course you still have to trust mozilla people not to screw you over. In any case how can you ever trust any code that you didn't write yourself? You can't. You can't even trust code that you wrote yourself but compiled with someone else's compiler. You have to write your own compiler, compile it on hardware you trust (another problem right there,) then compile all of your code with that compiler. This is the only way to be sure.

Seasoned readers may remember that when Netscape forked the code tree for the browser and made it open source, Wang, backed by Microsoft, sued for an alleged patent infringement. Mozilla.org put out a call for cases of prior art, received several hundred, and buried the case. If Microsoft is stupid enough to go ahead with a case for any of these so-called infringements, the chances are that every one will have prior art or one kind or another. Patents rarely stand up in court with the right amount of expert support.

Seasoned readers may remember that when Netscape forked the code tree for the browser and made it open source, Wang, backed by Microsoft, sued for an alleged patent infringement. Mozilla.org put out a call for cases of prior art, received several hundred, and buried the case. If Microsoft is stupid enough to go ahead with a case for any of these so-called infringements, the chances are that every one will have prior art or one kind or another. Patents rarely stand up in court with the right amount of expert support.

well, LeetKey uses Base64 to encode text encrypted by AES and DES algorithms, since they mostly produce output not readable as normal text.

Perhaps more significant is that it is GPL incompatible. Also, see the Mozilla Relicensing FAQ for details about their decision to triple license (MPL/GPL/LGPL), rather than modifying the MPL, to make Mozilla source compatible with the GPL.

AFAICT, the MPL is not a bad license, other than its GPL incompatibility.

Bugzilla's advanced search screen is indeed humongous, but the default simplified screen is definitely not hard to grasp. The plus side of trac seems to be very nice SVN integration.

Bugzilla's advanced search screen is indeed humongous, but the default simplified screen is definitely not hard to grasp. The plus side of trac seems to be very nice SVN integration.

what adds? oh yea, i have add block plus ;)

Start here:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Core_JavaScri pt_1.5_Guide

(Yes, those are the Netscape docs from 10 years ago. No one read them then, either.)

If you're brave, I also recommend the ECMA specs:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/sta ndards/Ecma-262.htm

All the Web APIs you need to go with that can be found at the source:

http://www.w3.org/

For those people who don't want to go out and search for it because they didn't have their daily shot of caffeine yet :P

Firefox Add-ons - PDF Download:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/636

I love static typing. It makes all the bad problems go away.

I suppose that maybe you were being facetious or sarcastic, or maybe you were simplifying, but static typing hardly "makes all the bad problems go away". Unfortunately, I don't remember who originally said it, so I can't properly attribute it, but, paraphrasing, "static typing is the compiler doing some cursory testing on your code". To raise your level of certainty that your programme is bug-free, you have to do a lot of testing. If you use a statically-typed language, then the compiler will do some testing for you--it'll tell you that every time you call a function, the arguments you pass are the correct type and the return value is stored in a variable of the correct type. It won't tell you whether or not your code contains a logic error. Passing the wrong object to a function is an error in the programmer's reasoning that is, arguably, akin to the traditional kind of logic error that compilers gleefully use to generate segfaults and buffer overruns. To catch these sorts of things you need unit tests and integration tests and the whole shebang.

I think, in the typical case of Javascript in the browser, the fundamental problem is the combination of incompatible implementations, the piss-poor development environment, and the apparently widespread belief that you can write Javascript code by cutting and pasting. For anyone interested in improving their Javascript development environment, I recommed the Venkman debugger (or Firebug, but I've never used it) and Selenium. Venkman (and, apparently, its heir, Firebug) provides a real, honest-to-goodness debugger that supports breakpoints, watchpoints, stack traces, etc. Selenium is a tool for running unit tests within all of the major browsers and it can be automated. (In a past life, I had a script that fired up a virtual X server, launched IE through Wine and ran tests on my app through Selenium. I plugged this into cron and had regular reports of the output emailed to me.)

Ian

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/401 4

How about this: the browser could highlight the domain in the URL. If you were browsing a page at www.amazon.com.evildomain.com, then evildomain.com would be highlighted. That would hopefully make it obvious that you're not at amazon.com.

Great idea. It wouldn't solve all the problems but it would help a little and it seems like it would be easy to program.

There's a Firefox extension that does this, of course:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/401 4

Good list. I also suggest Noscript.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722