Slashdot Mirror

XPCNativeWrapper?

DOWNLOADING MORE SOFTWARE to intentionally disable part of a program that is supposed to work is 150% unacceptable.

The NoScript extension is just a frontend for Configurable Security Policies (CAPS). You don't even need extra software to implement its features. The script policies can be written in a text editor and saved as a user.js file.

DOWNLOADING MORE SOFTWARE to intentionally disable part of a program that is supposed to work is 150% unacceptable.

The NoScript extension is just a frontend for Configurable Security Policies (CAPS). You don't even need extra software to implement its features. The script policies can be written in a text editor and saved as a user.js file.

Just to make life easier, use FF with dev-tools (when installing select to install with dev-tools,) this gives you the DOM inspector. For JS itself install Venkman

Just to make life easier, use FF with dev-tools (when installing select to install with dev-tools,) this gives you the DOM inspector. For JS itself install Venkman

This report doesn't come as a surprise. I reported Bugzilla Bug 167315 [FIX] TITLE string should be "sandboxed" in September 2002, though the focus was then on not passing an infinite string to the window manager and crashing that. Title string bounding is pretty obvious, really.

Its https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31900 4 (copy/paste link, Bugzille doesnt like /. Links)

According to a Comment there a workaround is setting

user_pref("capability.policy.default.HTMLDocument. title.set","noAccess");

I can confirm that allowing scripts/plugin on this site crashed firefox and nuked my history file. So NoScript saves the day again!

Well.... if you want something done right, do it yourself!

Yeah, go ahead, assume any of us can dive right into the ginormous Firefox source tree and reimplement the entire history system overnight.

No thanks, I'm kind of waiting that the Mozilla folks finish designing and implementing the next generation stuff which should be million times better than the current absolute mess of different file formats. They know something more about this crap than I do.

Well.... if you want something done right, do it yourself! http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Download_Mozi lla_Source_Code It's open source for a reason.

There's a bug, there's no denying it. But to post a story about a crashing bug and say it's an exploit is just plain sensationalism. But then again, that's what 'trying to scoop!16155!%!!1' is about.

You can view the progress of the bug and patches here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31900 4

The NoScript extension itself.

thats what thet get for making an extension that runs explorer within firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?application=firefox&id=1419 *ducks*

As some other said, Clamwin is a wonderful software using an open source engine.

Although, (as they said) it doesn't have a on-access scanner (which some users find good because it's slowes down the system less and scan only when the user decided), it has a few interesting things :

- it comes with an outlook addin for scanning attachment.
- there's a firefox extension that can scan downloaded files.
- there are some POP3 proxies for other mail clients.
- most of your favorite P2P software & download managers allow to run a command after each download : you can use the function to launch clamscan/clamwin and scan files.

So clamav, even without on-access scanner, can be used to block virus at the most common entry points.
Now, all windows users need is a GAIM plugin to block "lol no its not a virus" IM worms too and will stop 99.99% worms out-there.

I can't find a cache of this, and I know you can't link from slashdot to bugzilla, so copy and paste this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=186 166

And that's right, I am no karma whore! Biz=atch!

There is also: mail.check_all_imap_folders_for_new in your user.js (and this neat extensions which helps you do it about:config

> Hmmm, it seems to still be there when I middle click (scrollwheel).

Aah you're correct and I should have qualified. You're talking about the *other* buffer. [1] Try copying and pasting using the hotkeys. In gedit that's ctrl+c.

Of course - in gnome-terminal it's ctrl+shift+c (ctrl+c does something else). I wish they'd standardised gnome on clipboard operations using WindowsKey + c, WindowsKey + x, etc. [2] Alternatively they could have used ctrl+shift as the meta for all clipboard operations everywhere. Instead of a nice standard like that we now have a system where the key you use for aborting an operation in a terminal is innocent in other places. Just imagine what new users think of this when they (graphically) fall in it.

I have a newish Mac and far prefer gnome to it in spite of all these things. But until things like this are fixed so that they work properly in a default install, affected distributions cannot be seriously considered to be ready for the desktop.

While I'm listing niggles, another one is the stop_at_punctuation setting in mozilla (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19061 5). The current behaviour is inconsistent with other platforms and reduces functionality yet the maintainers insist on keeping it. Another niggle in linux firefox is the way middle click tries to load the clipboard text in your window. So you try to middle click on a link to open in a new tab, miss by a bit, and find your browser changing document or bringing up dialog box errors.

Oh, and then there's the way that many distributions repeatedly ram custom settings down your throat. Every time I upgrade vim under gentoo, I have to go through and purge a set of custom (ie, non-standard to official vim distribution) keybindings that gentoo insists on wiring into my configuration. Debian and redhat each have their own versions of this sort of nastiness with vim, also.

Linux is my favourite operating environment but it's far from end-user-friendly.

> I would say that windows has the first problem too, for example, not handling
> line breaks without CR and LF when dealing with text from a unix box.

Yes, although I think that tends to be a series of application-based bugs rather than an environment problem. But the last time I looked (some time ago), notepad could indeed get quite upset about such things. But at least you can see that it's become upset and clean it up under most circumstances. Under this environment it acts as though there's no clipboard content.

[1] Having a single buffer would be far too simplistic for a unix-heritage GUI.

[2] For some reason on default installations of at least some distributions, the windows key behaves like a standard key rather than a meta key (why? why? why?)

What are you talking about? I can use any of:
http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/index.html
http://www.quirk.co.za/searchstatus/
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=262&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=570&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=193&application=firefox

The Page Rank Status extension has been around for awhile.

Now with all this talk of SEO how do I work my sites in? Financial websites, in a discussion about SEO. Umm...OK, just admit I want to SEO them:

http://investmentideas.co.uk/ http://moneyterms.co.uk/

Actually I do not believe links from /. help very much - not if you already have any decent incoming links anyway.

What are you talking about? I can use any of:
http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/index.html
http://www.quirk.co.za/searchstatus/
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=262&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=570&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=193&application=firefox

The Page Rank Status extension has been around for awhile.

Now with all this talk of SEO how do I work my sites in? Financial websites, in a discussion about SEO. Umm...OK, just admit I want to SEO them:

http://investmentideas.co.uk/ http://moneyterms.co.uk/

Actually I do not believe links from /. help very much - not if you already have any decent incoming links anyway.

What are you talking about? I can use any of:
http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/index.html
http://www.quirk.co.za/searchstatus/
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=262&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=570&application=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=193&application=firefox

The Page Rank Status extension has been around for awhile.

Now with all this talk of SEO how do I work my sites in? Financial websites, in a discussion about SEO. Umm...OK, just admit I want to SEO them:

http://investmentideas.co.uk/ http://moneyterms.co.uk/

Actually I do not believe links from /. help very much - not if you already have any decent incoming links anyway.

We can't ignore the fact that the exciting part of the web is moving away from documents and into applications.

It's possible to make DHTML/AJAX/Javascript applications act like desktop applications with respect to keyboard navigation (on IE and Firefox) and support for accessibility tools (currently Firefox only). This was part of the accessibility code that IBM contributed to Firefox.

Information and examples here:
http://www.mozilla.org/access/dhtml/

W3C roadmap for the developing standard here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/roadmap/DHTMLRoadmap11050 5.html

Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) is not a technology in itself, but is a term that describes a "new" approach to using a number of existing technologies together, including: HTML or XHTML, Cascading Style Sheets, JavaScript, The Document Object Model, XML, XSLT, and the XMLHttpRequest object. When these technologies are combined in the AJAX model, web applications are able to make quick, incremental updates to the user interface without reloading the entire browser page. This makes the application faster and more responsive to user actions.

-- quoted from http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX

In otherwords the technology is not new and isn't a Microsoft Technology. Although to give them due credit they did invent the XMLHttpRequest object which makes AJAX possible.

Personaly I think the article is nothing more a than an annoying rant. Every technology has it's weeknesses and it's strengths. And just as you should do with any technology you must weigh up the pros and the cons of using it for your specific goal before you do. Saying something is trash and that it should not be used at all for anything is down right stupid.

Yeah. These implementations speak:

XForms in Mozilla (with SVG integration)

WHATWG demos

And Jacques Surveyor speaks.

You may be interested in XUL then. Especially, in remote XUL.

Also, see Remote XUL Application Development with_Mozilla I and Remote XUL Application Development with Mozilla II.

You may even be able to create the UI XML files automatically from your interfaces, using a script, or introspection.

You can then send the data back to your host, using RPCs or a REST-like interface.

You may be interested in XUL then. Especially, in remote XUL.

Also, see Remote XUL Application Development with_Mozilla I and Remote XUL Application Development with Mozilla II.

You may even be able to create the UI XML files automatically from your interfaces, using a script, or introspection.

You can then send the data back to your host, using RPCs or a REST-like interface.

You may be interested in XUL then. Especially, in remote XUL.

Also, see Remote XUL Application Development with_Mozilla I and Remote XUL Application Development with Mozilla II.

You may even be able to create the UI XML files automatically from your interfaces, using a script, or introspection.

You can then send the data back to your host, using RPCs or a REST-like interface.

You may be interested in XUL then. Especially, in remote XUL.

Also, see Remote XUL Application Development with_Mozilla I and Remote XUL Application Development with Mozilla II.

You may even be able to create the UI XML files automatically from your interfaces, using a script, or introspection.

You can then send the data back to your host, using RPCs or a REST-like interface.

So, when you go to sue, you can't sue Mozilla Firefox

You sue the Mozilla Foundation. From the about page:

"the Mozilla Foundation exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project. The Foundation has been incorporated as a California not-for-profit corporation to ensure that the Mozilla project continues to exist beyond the participation of individual volunteers, to enable contributions of intellectual property and funds and to provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while participating in open-source software projects."

The Mozilla Foundation is incorporated, and exists in part to handle this exact eventuality. If you want to go after Firefox, that's who you sue.

I'm willing to bet that foXpose is a handy companion if you find yourself having lots of tabs open. The name pretty much speaks for itself. And if not, the screenshot certainly does.

Just installed this yesterday, so I can't comment on bugs or how useful it really is, but it seems neat.

You've got to be joking right?
Have you seen how much memory it uses?
Just as a challenge do this.
Get a fresh installation of FF then go to https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.php ?application=firefox&numpg=1000&category=All
to return ALL the extensions for firefox.
Now have a look at how much memory it takes. Its about 76Mb on my computer. Now do the same in Opera. Its about 30Mb.
Notice also how even if you close the page on FF the memory is not freed up (memory leak)
Tell me with a straight face that this is a smooth product and a worthy award winner.....

The SNI (server name indication) extention is considered to be a better solution for HTTP than SSL Upgrade and hopefully will soon be supported by browsers and servers. (Opera and mod_gnutls already do).

http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/VhostTaskForce#head-78 b8f803f17fa69b4333aa376a641b2e843c2cb3
http://www.outoforder.cc/projects/apache/mod_gnutl s/
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11616 8

If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL.

I guess then Firefox and Apache aren't open enough for you either.

I didn't say the CDDL "wasn't open enough", or even "wasn't open". In fact, I specifically stated, in the portion of my post that you quoted, that the CDDL is an open source license. I was explaining why other people fault Sun for taking active steps to reduce compatibility with other Open Source projects.

Firefox is in the process of being triple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL. See the relicensing FAQ for more information.

The Apache License is currently not GPL-compatible, but there are two factors that prevent a backlash against the Apache Foundation similar to the backlash against Sun. First, Apache is the clear industry leader in its niche, so those looking for code exchange are interested in conforming to them. This is not the case with Sun; OpenSolaris is the new kid on the block, as far as open source OSes go, and there are plenty of existing open source OSes that would love to exchange code with OpenSolaris. Second, people who like the GPL tend to think that the Apache license is actually superior, and I believe that one of the goals of the GPL v3 process is to achieve compatibility with the Apache License. So, incompatibility between GPL and Apache License projects will probably not last forever (for those GPL projects that use the "or later" clause of the license.)

A situation that does involve a similar backlash is the one that exists between the BSD license, from the perspective of the BSDs, and the GPL. Many BSD developers do not add GPL code to their projects in order to maintain license purity (which is not at all objectionable.) They give the GPL flak because if it were published under their preferred license, they could include GPL code in their projects without changing their own licenses, which would be useful to them.

Sun's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz announced that Sun will be opening its enterprise software in a manner similar to Solaris 10.

So... not very much then.

Looks pretty open to me. I can browse the source online or I can go download it.

And it's all under a license which is quite similar to the Mozilla Public License.

If you think this is "not very" open, could you be more specific about why and how?

So what ever happened to Sunbird? They apparently released their first official release, Sunbird 0.3 alpha1, on November 4th, and I don't remember even seeing a blip about it anywhere.

If calendaring is so important, why does no one support or pump this project?

Granted, Evolution is the obvious direct replacement for Outlook, but I personally like having one app that does a single task, but that can interop with my email, address book, etc easily. Considering the general trend of splitting the mozilla and open office suites from monolithic to standalone programs, I'd guess I'm not the only one.

I like the ReloadEvery Firefox extension.

Firefox as a 1.x product has existed for 1 year.
Firefox as a name, about 1.75ish years (Feb. 2004).
Firefox as a project about ~ 3 years. (Phoenix first released 2002-09-23, got that from here.)
Unlikely that it has bugs much older than that.

When you researched your post, maybe you didn't realize this "bug" was for the Mozilla Suite or possibly for the Gecko engine. Regardless, since the article said all Firefox security issues had been patched, I think maybe you just made it all up.

That's OK, most posts come out of people's posteriors.

Just use MR Tech Local Installs. It has options when installing to disable max version checking, which means it installs and enables anyway, even if it's not compatible. It also has a "Make compatible" option which forces the extension to be enabled.

Oh, and the fact that Firefox crashes when it encounters this bug... it reminds me of a good BOFH quote: "We came in this morning to find that our router had stopped a DDoS attack by crashing. It stopped that attack good!" (Actual quote may be different, this if from memory)

Note the vast majority of "bugs" in bugzilla that are labeled "enh" --> those ones are enhancements that users would like to see.

Instead of counting against Mozilla, the fact that they allow so much user input is a great OSS feature.

No one said OSS was free of bugs. Since end users are allowed to submit bugs, the only ones that should be counted are those that are confirmed.

Try the following list: bugs that are in Firefox, not marked "enh", and have an action priority (P1-P5). (note: copy/paste link since bugzilla refuses connectiosn referred by /.)

Only 179 bugs. Sure, those are only the ones that the Mozilla team deem necessary to work on; however, we've seen from their reactions with 1.06 -> 1.07 that they are very quick on figuring out what's important and patching it quickly. Sure, that's a lot of unpatched bugs. But: that list is publicly available. Any researcher can go in and say, "hmmm.... let's find the security flaws that Mozilla has left unpatched". And they do, trust me; the thing is, the Firefox team patches the bugs that cause security flaws. Other ones are cosmetic, user interaction, or feature-based in nature. They still appear as "bugs", even though they don't pose a security threat.

The issue is not that OSS has no bugs - that's an obvious farce. The issue is that Microsoft first misdiagnosed a critical bug, and then left it unpatched for 6 months and counting. The Firefox team consistently finds those bugs that do pose a threat, and they leave the work they do open and transparent so that security researcheres can check up on what happens. Microsoft - let's put it thise way: if security researchers never found the flaws in Microsoft's programs, Microsoft would save money and increase efficiency by not fixing them.

Why can't the Mozilla Software Foundation allt the 6300
Firefox Bugs? instead, they have to release a "new" version... just freeze the freaking lreleases and patch your bugs!

No, OSS is not free of bugs

Ah, capitalism and Open Source software. What a great combination.

The fix for this is here

My biggest problem with Firefox on OSX is the lack of emacs key shortcuts. This was easily fixed in 1.0 by editing an .xml file, but apparently they made it harder in 1.5. Arrgh!

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22947 3

All the Acid2-related work is going on in Gecko 1.9 which will probably form the basis of Firefox 2.0.

Nope - Firefox 2.0 is based on Gecko 1.8.1 - 1.9 isn't going to be ready for at least a year and will be used in Firefox 3.0 (probably..).

See the DRAFT Gecko 1.9 Roadmap - http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/gecko-1.9-roadmap.h tml

Quoting: "There are several major areas of development for Gecko 1.9, intended to serve both the applications built on top of it (chiefly Firefox 3)"

Eeeeeek.

You're probably not in the mood to try again, but here's some random thoughts anyway:

From the looks of that error message, you might be able to work around the problem by setting the environment variables CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS to something like '-fPIC -O2'; that'll have the effect of ensuring that all C and C++ source files are compiled as position-independent code, which will hopefully work around that error.

It's not a fix, though; it's a really tatty band-aid; it has the effect of compiling the whole silly browser with those flags set, which might cause something else to break. Actually, it almost certainly will cause something else to break.

Those source files look like Mozilla's in-tree version of zlib. You might be able to sidestep the issue completely by passing --with-system-zlib to ./configure; if memory serves, that encourages the Firefox build process to use your own zlib installation rather than statically linking its own copy. There are a few other --with-system options as well; ./configure --help will tell you what they are.

This page might be of some help too.

In any case, I'm aware that my experiences with building Firefox aren't really a fair comparison with yours, as I've got the benefit of the Debian build process to help me, as well as a better supported architecture (the sole advantage of the IA-32 architecture, IMHO). It shouldn't be totally insurmountable if you have the patience, though. A while back, I successfully managed a Mozilla suite build on NetBSD of all things, though it took a whole afternoon of fiddling, and frequent Playstation breaks.

-Stephen

--with-system-zlib

Adblock 0.5.2.056, is the latest, go to https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=10&application=firefox

on inspection of the http://www.mozilla.org/ website, it looks pretty official at this point, even so far as they've moved Firefox and Thunderbird from mozilla.org to http://www.mozilla.com/.

Win32 link - http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?prod uct=firefox-1.5&os=win&lang=en-US
Linux link - http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?prod uct=firefox-1.5&os=linux&lang=en-US
OSX Link - http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?prod uct=firefox-1.5&os=osx&lang=en-US

come on kids, get 'em while they're hot!

If you had gone to www.mozilla.org, you will see that they are promoting www.mozilla.com, which has the 1.5 download.

This extension will do what you want. It works exactly like opera.

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=1499

I agree this should be built in to the browser, though.

From http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:1.1_Product_Team:

FIREFOX 1.5 RC3

Firefox 1.5 RC3 was released on 2005-11-17.

If no showstopper issues are identified with this build, it will be released as Firefox 1.5 (Final)

This is the 3rd Release Candidate (RC3) for Firefox 1.5, addressing any regressions or other bugs uncovered in the 2nd Release Candidate (RC2). It is officially branded as Firefox 1.5 and has been released to the community for testing and quality checking. It is of production quality and is also a final opportunity for Extension, Theme, l10n and web application developers to finalize their support for Firefox 1.5 before final release.