Slashdot Mirror

The difference is that the Linux trademark is much more free to be used than the Firefox trademark. Read Mozilla's trademark policy and you might see some of why Debian has a problem.

And of course, the Linux kernel does not, and never has, required patches to be submitted before they're used. Distros like Gentoo maintain a set of their own patches for the Linux kernel, with no problems. Debian also has their own kernel patches, last I checked.

Firesomething is an extension that keeps changing the name you see. It's for people who aren't willing to wait for the regular changes like m/b->Phoenix->Firebird->Mozilla Firebird->Firefox->whatever Debian calls it.

Although MNG support was removed, the code is still being maintained at http://mngzilla.sf.net/ and can be added back in very easily. They even have builds of Firefox with MNG support for download, so Konqueror is not the only available browser that natively supports MNG.

There's a lot of people who want MNG support back in Gecko, but the people with power are being huge assholes about it and completely ignoring them without explanation. You'd think having over 800 votes for a bug would be enough to get somebody's attention, but apparently not. See bug 18574 for more info: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574

As far as I remember, Mozilla removed MNG because of bloat and instability.

Ah, yes:
http://steelgryphon.com/blog/?p=14
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19528 0

I can certainly get a lot more "business" done with Firefox, thanks to Adblock.

SVG is not ignored by Firefox nor by Mozilla as a whole.

HTH

you can see how well BSD did with that.

Yeah, no kidding... I mean, there definitely aren't any successful BSD variants available and widely deployed. And there certainly aren't any other successful non-GPL projects out there. Yup, the GPL is definitely *the* only way to go if you want to make a successful open source project... assuming, that is, you're a single-minded zealot (or troll?).

That's not just a formatting change; that's a radical restructuring of the way you'd want to design the web site. I don't think you can accomplish all that with CSS.

Try Hit a Hint, it's a Firefox extension that lets you "click" with the keyboard. You press space (keep it pressed) and numbers (or any keys you configure, I prefer the home-row letters) appear on the clickable elements of the page (check the screenshot). Press the key(s) corresponding to the link you want, and it will "click" when you release the space bar. You can use the Ctrl key at the moment of the release to make it open in a new tab.

A paper on cross-site tracking is available here, along with two preventative extensions called SafeHistory and SafeCache.

To help safeguard from scripting attacks, I also use NoScript extension.

The CookieSafe extension will block and help you manage cookies better than Firefox's built-in manager. ...other interesting privacy tools are...
Stealther (prevents recording of history and blocks ReferentHeader)
Tor anonymizer + Foxyproxy extension
ImgLikeOpera can switch image prefs with ease
Flashblock (stops flash animations from running until you click them)

and probably much more

A paper on cross-site tracking is available here, along with two preventative extensions called SafeHistory and SafeCache.

To help safeguard from scripting attacks, I also use NoScript extension.

The CookieSafe extension will block and help you manage cookies better than Firefox's built-in manager. ...other interesting privacy tools are...
Stealther (prevents recording of history and blocks ReferentHeader)
Tor anonymizer + Foxyproxy extension
ImgLikeOpera can switch image prefs with ease
Flashblock (stops flash animations from running until you click them)

and probably much more

I use No Script a firefox plugin. Not sure if this protects against this kind of thing (anyone?). No-script lets me chose who's scripts are run by domain and I see plenty of sites trying to run in-browser scripts from third party domains. I leave all scripts off unless something doesnt work then I just allow the primary domain - if I trust it.

Can any web Guru's tell me if No-Script protects against what is outlined in the OP?

That did not stop anyone before, and it is not going to stop then now!

Firefox: Mozilla Public License

IE View

IE Tab

User Agent Switcher

There are plenty of solutions for Firefox for sites that allow IE only. I've heard that the UA switcher is the most invisible, though you do still have to change the UA yourself through the drop down menu. Personally, I prefer IE View. Go to a site that doesn't work, right click and open in IE. One extra click is a small price for better security.

Concerning proxy connections, I'd almost guarantee there's a solution for you if you look for it.

IE View

IE Tab

User Agent Switcher

There are plenty of solutions for Firefox for sites that allow IE only. I've heard that the UA switcher is the most invisible, though you do still have to change the UA yourself through the drop down menu. Personally, I prefer IE View. Go to a site that doesn't work, right click and open in IE. One extra click is a small price for better security.

Concerning proxy connections, I'd almost guarantee there's a solution for you if you look for it.

IE View

IE Tab

User Agent Switcher

There are plenty of solutions for Firefox for sites that allow IE only. I've heard that the UA switcher is the most invisible, though you do still have to change the UA yourself through the drop down menu. Personally, I prefer IE View. Go to a site that doesn't work, right click and open in IE. One extra click is a small price for better security.

Concerning proxy connections, I'd almost guarantee there's a solution for you if you look for it.

IE View

IE Tab

User Agent Switcher

There are plenty of solutions for Firefox for sites that allow IE only. I've heard that the UA switcher is the most invisible, though you do still have to change the UA yourself through the drop down menu. Personally, I prefer IE View. Go to a site that doesn't work, right click and open in IE. One extra click is a small price for better security.

Concerning proxy connections, I'd almost guarantee there's a solution for you if you look for it.

2. IE Only Sites. There's nothing more than I'd love than to put Firefox and remove IE from people's desktop. In fact, I do at every chance I get. But telling someone that if they come across a site that FF doesn't work with - the site isn't worth it for them, and it turns out their BANKING or STOCK site doesn't work ... well your credibility just got shot down.

The only problem is that in many cases it's not quite practical to throw away IE completely;

and the second point:

Firefox plug-in IE View

Description: Lets you load pages in IE with a single right-click, or mark certain sites to *always* load in IE. Useful for incompatible pages, or cross-browser testing.

I like the idea that you can tell users, if it doesn't seem to look right, try this...and then have them default the few non-compatible sites to use IE. Trains them that IE is 'different' and Firefox is more standard.

On the other hand, if you want Exchange support in Mozilla, vote for bug 128284.

OpenOffice.org and StarOffice shall include the Mozilla Foundation's Thunderbird and Sunbird (calendaring application) in the future.

TrackMeNot runs in Firefox as a low-priority background process that periodically issues randomized search-queries to popular search engines, e.g., AOL, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN. It hides users' actual search trails in a cloud of indistinguishable 'ghost' queries, making it difficult, if not impossible, to aggregate such data into accurate or identifying user profiles. TrackMeNot integrates into the Firefox 'Tools' menu and includes a variety of user-configurable options.

Neat idea. Sadly, the implementation as well as the idea is spectacularly flawed. If you want to be really safe (like the people actually engaging in child pornography) block all cookies, set the browser cache to zero, the browser history to zero, tell your browser not to save passwords/data forms/anything of any kind, run noscript, and run TOR. If this isn't enough, you might want to do all that in Knoppix at a WAP somewhere far from your home, and blow up the computer after you use it.

Just like security, there is no such thing as perfect anonymity, given the motivation law enforcement will track anyone down. Since the afore mentioned ideas will seriously reduce the usefulness of the Web, clearing private data when closing the webbrowser and TOR are probably enough for you.

Back to the reason this "flooding the data miners" idea is flawed, Bruce Schneier wrote:

One, it doesn't hide your searches. If the government wants to know who's been searching on "al Qaeda recruitment centers," it won't matter that you've made ten thousand other searches as well -- you'll be targeted.
Two, it's too easy to spot. There are only 1,673 search terms in the program's dictionary. Here, as a random example, are the program's "G" words...
The program's authors claim that this list is temporary, and that there will eventually be a TrackMeNot server with an ever-changing word list. Of course, that list can be monitored by any analysis program -- as could any queries to that server.
In any case, every twelve seconds -- exactly -- the program picks a random pair of words and sends it to either AOL, Yahoo, MSN, or Google. My guess is that your searches contain more than two words, you don't send them out in precise twelve-second intervals, and you favor one search engine over the others.
Three, some of the program's searches are worse than yours. The dictionary includes...
Does anyone reall think that searches on "erotic rape," "mailbombing bibles," and "choking virgins" will make their legitimate searches less noteworthy?
And four, it wastes a whole lot of bandwidth. A query every twelve seconds translates into 2,400 queries a day, assuming an eight-hour workday. A typical Google response is about 25K, so we're talking 60 megabytes of additional traffic daily. Imagine if everyone in the company used it.
I suppose this kind of thing would stop someone who has a paper printout of your searches and is looking through them manually, but it's not going to hamper computer analysis very much. Or anyone who isn't lazy. But it wouldn't be hard for a computer profiling program to ignore these searches.
Yes, data mining is a signal-to-noise problem. But artificial noise like this isn't going to help much. If I were going to improve on this idea, I would make the plugin watch the user's search patterns. I would make it send queries only to the search engines the user does, only when he is actually online doing things. I would randomize the timing. (There's a comment to that effect in the code, so presumably this will be fixed in a later version of the program.) And I would make it monitor the web pages the user looks at, and send queries based on keywords it finds on those pages. And I would make it send queries in the form the user tends to use, whether it be single words, pair

Just don't do it using MSIE.

Simple, eh?

Of the 4 browsers I have here, all are safer in JavaScript than MSIE (FireFox, SeaMonkey, Opera, Konqueror). Three of those are easily available for 'doze & even Konqueror can be made to work in it.

Er... sorry, I also have lynx, links & w3m available, plus Galeon and a few other GNOMEish built-ins kicking around. Spoilt for choice!

"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"

"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -turbo

The behavior now is a little confusing... the first time you click the shortcut, it will not open a window. Instead, it will make a Firefox icon appear in the tray. This confuses the holy fuck out of my wife (rightfully). However, subsequent clicks on the icon will give you instant Firefox. To make it cleaner, you can put a copy of the shortcut in your Startup folder. I don't do this because I hate startup programs :)

Fasterfox makes firefox load pages more quickly through various methods.
The Firefox Tweak Guide has many options for about:config and other tips for improving your specific experience.
Firefox Preloader will make Firefox load more quickly by making Firefox do the same thing Internet Explorer does. Firefox will use system resources before being specifically called. The application will remain resident in memory like IE does, waiting for you to click the little fox. In this way, IE loads faster but slows overall system performance.
How to use UPX to speed it up a little is what this article can tell you. Probably not the best way to go about it, but I have implemented this method on my HTPC.

It is VERY important to realize that the few seconds you wait around for the initial loading of Firefox are quickly surpassed by the lag you experience while using Microsoft's Explorer. Firefox ignores many advertisements right off the showroom floor, but can be configured to show NEARLY NO ADS AT ALL. FlashBlock, AdBlock, and NoScript will make your browsing much faster and cleaner.

Using Firefox, especially with these and other add-ons, will make your browsing incredibly secure. Explorer is left in the dust in comparison.

So the trade-off you seem to have made is this: A few seconds at load time in exhange for a combined several minutes waiting for ads to be displayed, just so you can fall victim to the shiny! new! IE exploit that seems to get barfed all over Slashdot once a week. This while using an underdeveloped, overpriced, practically featureless browser that has no database of expansions. Unless you are using the Vista beta (7 beta) you aren't even using tabs! Do you choose to commut on a horse? HOW DID YOU EVER SURVIVE THE PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION? BAH! Why did I bother?

Fasterfox makes firefox load pages more quickly through various methods.
The Firefox Tweak Guide has many options for about:config and other tips for improving your specific experience.
Firefox Preloader will make Firefox load more quickly by making Firefox do the same thing Internet Explorer does. Firefox will use system resources before being specifically called. The application will remain resident in memory like IE does, waiting for you to click the little fox. In this way, IE loads faster but slows overall system performance.
How to use UPX to speed it up a little is what this article can tell you. Probably not the best way to go about it, but I have implemented this method on my HTPC.

It is VERY important to realize that the few seconds you wait around for the initial loading of Firefox are quickly surpassed by the lag you experience while using Microsoft's Explorer. Firefox ignores many advertisements right off the showroom floor, but can be configured to show NEARLY NO ADS AT ALL. FlashBlock, AdBlock, and NoScript will make your browsing much faster and cleaner.

Using Firefox, especially with these and other add-ons, will make your browsing incredibly secure. Explorer is left in the dust in comparison.

So the trade-off you seem to have made is this: A few seconds at load time in exhange for a combined several minutes waiting for ads to be displayed, just so you can fall victim to the shiny! new! IE exploit that seems to get barfed all over Slashdot once a week. This while using an underdeveloped, overpriced, practically featureless browser that has no database of expansions. Unless you are using the Vista beta (7 beta) you aren't even using tabs! Do you choose to commut on a horse? HOW DID YOU EVER SURVIVE THE PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION? BAH! Why did I bother?

Fasterfox makes firefox load pages more quickly through various methods.
The Firefox Tweak Guide has many options for about:config and other tips for improving your specific experience.
Firefox Preloader will make Firefox load more quickly by making Firefox do the same thing Internet Explorer does. Firefox will use system resources before being specifically called. The application will remain resident in memory like IE does, waiting for you to click the little fox. In this way, IE loads faster but slows overall system performance.
How to use UPX to speed it up a little is what this article can tell you. Probably not the best way to go about it, but I have implemented this method on my HTPC.

It is VERY important to realize that the few seconds you wait around for the initial loading of Firefox are quickly surpassed by the lag you experience while using Microsoft's Explorer. Firefox ignores many advertisements right off the showroom floor, but can be configured to show NEARLY NO ADS AT ALL. FlashBlock, AdBlock, and NoScript will make your browsing much faster and cleaner.

Using Firefox, especially with these and other add-ons, will make your browsing incredibly secure. Explorer is left in the dust in comparison.

So the trade-off you seem to have made is this: A few seconds at load time in exhange for a combined several minutes waiting for ads to be displayed, just so you can fall victim to the shiny! new! IE exploit that seems to get barfed all over Slashdot once a week. This while using an underdeveloped, overpriced, practically featureless browser that has no database of expansions. Unless you are using the Vista beta (7 beta) you aren't even using tabs! Do you choose to commut on a horse? HOW DID YOU EVER SURVIVE THE PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION? BAH! Why did I bother?

You confuse Java and Javascript. Javascript comes from Netscape, not Sun, and it's certainly open source for the Netscape implementation (GPL even!). So "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis?"

-uso.

Stealther is a Firefox extension which temporarily blocks history, cookies as well as referrer header.

See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57351 . This problem has been known about for six years.

• to install NoScript FireFox Add-on and grant Javascript privilege only to the sites you trust
  
• Edit | Preferences | Privacy | Settings | [X] Clear Private Data When Closing FF
  

Try the noscript extension for firefox. That neuters myspace pages to a reasonable level for me.

each property I is an identifier (either a name, a number, or a string literal)

A JavaScript identifier must start with a letter, underscore (_), or dollar sign ($); subsequent characters can also be digits (0-9).

each property I is an identifier (either a name, a number, or a string literal)

A JavaScript identifier must start with a letter, underscore (_), or dollar sign ($); subsequent characters can also be digits (0-9).

var y = { 8388607: 1, 8388608: 3, 16777215: 5, 16777216: 7 };
document.write("8388607:"+ y[8388607] + "<br>");
document.write("8388608:"+ y[8388608] + "<br>");
y[8388608] = 4;
document.write("8388608:"+ y[8388608] + "<br>");
document.write("16777215:"+ y[16777215] + "<br>");
y[16777215] = 6;
document.write("16777215:"+ y[16777215] + "<br>");
document.write("16777216:"+ y[16777216] + "<br>");

8388607:1
8388608:undefined
8388608:4
16777215: undefined
16777215:6
16777216:7

8388607:1
8388608:undefined
8388608:4
16777215: undefined
16777215:6
16777216:undefined

8388607:1
8388608:3
8388608:4
16777215:5
16777 215:6
16777216:7

For those who've been watching livehttpehaders while looking at Yahoo! Mail Beta would have noticed something cool and awesome. Here's a snip from my dump.

http://us.f318.mail.yahoo.com/ws/mail/v1/soap?m=Ge tMessage&appid=...&wssid=...

<SOAP-ENV:Envelope xmlns:SOAP-ENV="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/en velope/"
...
<m:GetMessage xmlns:m="urn:yahoo:ymws"><;fid>Inbox</fid>...

The client to server protocol is SOAP and pretty much should be accessible with a standard soap library (I think). For those who all love GMail's once-quirky and now familiar features, this could mean modding opportunities to make it behave like gmail (think gmailui for it). And for those who want an outlook in a browser, there'll always be the current layout. The system's a bit slow still, but I think that is more due to the number of individual requests skyrocketing rather than something inherent to it. It would be really painful to use on say, something like a high latency VSAT trickle (like I ran into during my Himalayan trek), but for most people on broadband with a decent box, this should be a leap above the classic interface.

I'm just waiting for YDN to post the WSDL for the mail api so that I can start publishing my own clients (like one with *threading*) for Yahoo!. Though most probably, I'd rather write a Mozilla yahoo:// protocol for mail, mainly because the current API almost maps into IMAP. (I do work for Yahoo! and have done enough funky things with the new api)

And lastly, nobody seems to have noticed the anti-phishing seal on the new Beta login pages. I wouldn't have known it had been released if it weren't for the ycoolthing article.

Still, clicking through two ads is obnoxious, but not as bad as creating yet another "account" for no reason.

Sure, he deleted his cookies when he was done (I do too)

Think of the children...

I don't know if there's a real programming language behind it

Flash 9 is coded using ActionScript 3, which is tracking the still-in-progress ECMAScript 4 standard.

I actually find the multi-language of of the CLR to be a negative. I work at a fortune 500 and most of us use C# and/or Java. There are a few groups of "programmers" that have always been VB-only/ASP-Only "programmers". They have really no understanding of programming maintainable code.

I'm not sure I follow your logic... How would forcing your poor programmers to switch languages make them better programmers? I think the best that you could hope for is that they'd still be poor programmers, just in a different language.

Besides, the Java Virtual Machine has just as many, if not more lanugages available for it than the CLR. (Note that I said "available" not "supported.")

You're a known troll, and I'm pretty sure I've replied to a very similar troll of yours before, but I'll bite for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread.

1. Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build.
That's because dozens of bugs are fixed every day and there are usually a lot of days of development between the released version and the latest nightly builds at the time someone reports a bug. If it's not trivial to reproduce, it's not a good use of the developer's time, since hundreds of bug reports are filed daily. If each reporter takes 5 mintes to try a nightly build, the average per-user time is going to be 5 extra minutes. If developers have to try convoluted steps to reproduce per bug, it's going to be hours of wasted time per developer.... even if the steps to reprdoce are simple, if the developer doesn't experience the bug in a nightly build, it's a valid question. The bug is either fixed in that nightly build, or other factors make it a works-for-me for the developer (for example, a changed preference setting). The only way to tell the two apart is to ask the user to test in a newer build.

2. Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important.
What, you think that just because an icon that's off by one pixel somewhere bothers you a lot, they should fix that before they fix actual functionality issues, or accessibility issues, or crashes, or add new features that will benefit hundreds of thousands of users? What kind of stupid complaint is this? Everybody intelligent prioritizes tasks.

3. No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated.]
I've DEFINITELY responded to this before.

4. If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug.
I've responded to this too. I guess you just drop this list on any bug that mentions Mozilla. Anyhow, as I would have said before, do you think developers are clairvoyant? If you file a bug that says, "The URL bar is broken", what do you expect? If the developers don't have enough information to reproduce your bug, or can't reproduce it themselves, well, they need more information.

5. This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
I'm not going to point out further comments I've addressed before. This is a legitimate reason a bug is invalid. However, it is fair to complain that whoever closed the bug did not specify the bug #s. Do it in the bugs, not on slashdot, because it will be seen if it's in the bug report. Complain on IRC if it's specific people doing it.

6. You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
I don't recall seeing anyone say that. Where you deleting random files in the Firefox directory or something?

7. I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, I didn't read it or think about it.]
I don't recall seeing anyone say that. However, if your bug report is unreadable, it makes sense for the developer to move on to something he/she can actually understand...while at the same time letting the reporter know that he/she needs to write clearly for the problem to be understood so it can get addressed.

8. You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]
Well, if no developers can reproduce it and the symptoms/steps to reproduce don't make it apparent where the problem lies, they can't do anything unless someone who can reproduce it does use debugging

"Your profile must be corrupt."

How about fixing profile corruption?

        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?query_fo rmat=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__op en__&id=123929

(Link to Bugzilla bug report)

If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling.

The 1.5.0.4 version of Firefox was quite stable, if the Flashblock extension was installed. The 1.5.0.6 version is unstable again.

Making vulnerability reports public makes vulnerabilities easier to find and thus makes it more likely for them to be exploited. Security bugs should be reported privately, by checking the "This is a security problem that should be kept confidential until addressed (security policy)" checkbox when filing a bug in Mozilla software. And remember, if you're the first to report a security bug in Mozilla software (whether you check that box or not), you get a $500 Security Bug Bounty.

Making vulnerability reports public makes vulnerabilities easier to find and thus makes it more likely for them to be exploited. Security bugs should be reported privately, by checking the "This is a security problem that should be kept confidential until addressed (security policy)" checkbox when filing a bug in Mozilla software. And remember, if you're the first to report a security bug in Mozilla software (whether you check that box or not), you get a $500 Security Bug Bounty.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13343 9