Slashdot Mirror

This is a very real bug that has been around for years.

Nobody seems to know exactly what causes it, but some theories are that it has to do with having lots of tabs open, or otherwise stressing the application.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13343 9

(have to copy/paste that since Bugzilla doesnt permit links from Slashdot)

This is a very real bug that has been around for years.

Nobody seems to know exactly what causes it, but some theories are that it has to do with having lots of tabs open, or otherwise stressing the application.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13343 9

(have to copy/paste that since Bugzilla doesnt permit links from Slashdot)

• The details of what the bug really is come from Mozilla. If he had looked one comment further down, he would have seen them working on a patch.
  
• On the day the bug was announced, they had a preliminary fix (albeit one that did not work)
  

It's not so much Firefox, as it is the Mozilla codebase upon which Firefox is built.

Just so people don't think that means the upcoming SeaMonkey release will be using shoddy code, I'd like to point out that code review for firefox-only code is significantly less thorough than review for suite-only code. In many cases, large Firefox patches have been checked in with no code review at all! On multiple occasions when porting features from Firefox to SeaMonkey, the patches were initially rejected due to code quality, and had to be fixed up.

only 2002? pfft!!!

this bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458
has been open since 1999 and has over 150 votes. and quite frankly, i don't think the votes mean much. i remember reading a quote from a major maintainer saying that he might consider how many votes a bug had if it was something in the tens of thousands. (this was about two years ago, regarding the most voted on bug in bugzilla, with a little over 500 votes. and still open, by the way...)

and as much as i like mozilla/firefox and appreciate the work that the developers are putting into it, i still find it ridiculous how they will frequently mass move bugs that they don't feel like fixing (even ones marked as release blockers) from one release to the next. the bug above was originally targetted for mozilla milestone M9...

No worries, the patch is here: http://www.mozilla.org/patch-to-fix-the-problem-wi th-firefox-where-long-URLs-with-lots-of-hypohens-c an-cause-bad-things-to-happen-like-the-browser-wil l-crash-and-stuff.html

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28986 4

Or is it fixed ?

nsStandardURL::BuildNormalizedSpec source code

Not sure about the actual bug, but the Noscript extension will protect you from the proof of concept.

Just use this Menu Editor extension to regain control of your Tools menu and your context menu. https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=710 This extension is great - it also lets you rearrange the order of menu items. I removed all the crap I don't use (put in mostly by other extensions) from both the Tools menu and context menu and am now much happier :)

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Between 2005-09-03 and 2005-09-06, there were several bugs reported to Mozilla that are now marked hidden. Expect one of them to become visible now that this is announced. (note: bugzilla blocks slashdot referer, so cut&paste is needed, watch out for the extra space)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30693 9
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30694 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30703 1
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30704 0
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30708 7

BTW, why is it necessary that so many bug reports be hidden? They can't all be valid security bugs, can they? Besides, full disclosure and an open development model go hand-in-hand.

-molo

Try here

If you look at the source code that reads that preference, it really looks like that fix is entirely bogus.

1259 /**
1260 * CacheMemoryAvailable
1261 *
1262 * If the browser.cache.memory.capacity preference is positive, we use that
1263 * value for the amount of memory available for the cache.
1264 *
1265 * If browser.cache.memory.capacity is zero, the memory cache is disabled.
1266 *
1267 * If browser.cache.memory.capacity is negative or not present, we use a
1268 * formula that grows less than linearly with the amount of system memory.
1269 *
1270 * RAM Cache
1271 * --- -----
1272 * 32 Mb 2 Mb
1273 * 64 Mb 4 Mb
1274 * 128 Mb 8 Mb
1275 * 256 Mb 14 Mb
1276 * 512 Mb 22 Mb
1277 * 1024 Mb 32 Mb
1278 * 2048 Mb 44 Mb
1279 * 4096 Mb 58 Mb
1280 *
1281 * The equation for this is (for cache size C and memory size K (kbytes)):
1282 * x = log2(K) - 14
1283 * C = x^2 - x + 2
1284 */

You're setting it to a higher value than what it would be have if you had 4GB of RAM.

Yup, bug it's not specific keywords... it's the "Mozilla Application Suite" product (see list here). It may get changed to SeaMonkey when someone at the Mozilla Foundation has time to reorganize the Mozilla Application Suite components into the SeaMonkey component setup we would like.

One of the new features in 1.5 is the support of tag (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Drawing_Grap hics_with_Canvas). I thought firefox was about being fast, having a small memory footprint and letting users add bloat features through extensions. <canvas> tag is currently supported only on Safari, is not a W3C standard (unlike SVG), and I don't see why do I need to load its support stub/code into memory every time I want to browse the web.

Can these sort of things be moved to extension land?

Those error pages have been a looooooong time coming. Bug 28586 which is just the meta bug for the whole issue, was opened in 2000!

  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586

(Copy and paste the URL as moz disables slashdot referrer).

It's great to see them finally enabled in a release and working well - one of the last remaining minor points where IE was preferable.

Congratulations and thanks to all those people who worked on delivering them!

Bug 9458 - Implement inline-block in layout.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

This is one of those golden-oldy bugs with a 4-digit bug number, so chances are it's really hard to implement.

Opened: 1999-07-08 15:25 PDT
Last modified: 2005-09-06 12:46 PDT

It looks like you might be able to get away with using both of the following rules:

display:-moz-inline-box;
display:inline-block;

The "Mozilla Suite" under that name is no more... the Mozilla Foundation isn't doing any more releases (well, security updates to 1.7, but that's all). However, a community group is continuing its development under the name SeaMonkey. It contains all the core improvements that went into Firefox 1.5 (pretty error pages, svg, canvas, performance improvements) and some new features of its own. Not all changes to Firefox go into the suite - SeaMonkey doesn't aim to be exactly like Firefox.

If you're interested in it, we'll be shipping 1.0 alpha very soon now (based on the code that would have been Mozilla 1.8 beta4), and nightlies are available here (you want the -mozilla1.8 directories at the bottom). We're hoping to ship within the next week or two (it's just an installer bug that we need to fix before release).

The "Mozilla Suite" under that name is no more... the Mozilla Foundation isn't doing any more releases (well, security updates to 1.7, but that's all). However, a community group is continuing its development under the name SeaMonkey. It contains all the core improvements that went into Firefox 1.5 (pretty error pages, svg, canvas, performance improvements) and some new features of its own. Not all changes to Firefox go into the suite - SeaMonkey doesn't aim to be exactly like Firefox.

If you're interested in it, we'll be shipping 1.0 alpha very soon now (based on the code that would have been Mozilla 1.8 beta4), and nightlies are available here (you want the -mozilla1.8 directories at the bottom). We're hoping to ship within the next week or two (it's just an installer bug that we need to fix before release).

First, make sure you have the Fx 1.5 Beta 1 (obviously). Now do you see these dialogs when going to my site (http://www.codedread.com/) or is it only local SVG files? If it is just local SVG files, see this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30358 1 that I filed with a workaround to fix this issue. If it solves the problem, go vote for that bug!

someone want to post screenshots of the new screens?

When bookmarking a web page with frames, only the top frame is bookmarked, and the location of the sub-frames won't be remembered. IE does this correctly.

I don't like sites which use frames, but it's still used. Example: Google groups. And I would like to be able to bookmark these pages too.

The bug in Bugzilla: Frame State Bookmarking (frameset bookmarks) (copy link and paste in new browser window, they don't allow linking from Slashdot). This bug exists since 2000... Please vote for it.

SessionSaver

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=436

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

Targetted quite a ways out. (1.9).

The Mozilla Suite is not dead - a group of hackers have gotten together and created the Seamonkey Project, dedicated to maintaing the Suite and bringing it into line with the core codebase used to create Firefox, Thunderbird, Nvu, Sunbird and the rest of the menagerie.

See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ for more info.

... and they still haven't fixed CSS floats. See the 5 year old bug report.

Right...

One example on the mozilla website:

http://developer.mozilla.org/presentations/xtech20 05/svg-canvas/SVGDemo.xml

On my newly installed FF 1.5 it just comes up as a form inside a single pixel black box. No gradient or anything...

What do other people see?

Does anyone think it might be because I had the Adobe plug-in installed as well???

. . . sadly. If you search a document for "words" and the document happens to contain "swords", it'll still match. And there's no way to make it not do it. It used to do it, back in the halcyon days of yore. But now it doesn't, and it annoys me no end.

The relevant bug appears to be this one:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14871 ... which you can't link to from Slashdot, because bugzilla disallows slashdot referrers, so copy that link and paste.

As a workaround, there is an extension called PDF Download which gives you the choice of viewing a PDF inside the browser window or to download it.

"Why does Mozilla show the source code instead of displaying my SVG?

There are two possible reasons for this. If there is a grey area above the source that says something like "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it", then your problem is probably that you haven't given your root tag an 'xmlns' attribute or that the value you gave it contains an error. The correct string is "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg". If you don't see a grey area above the source code then the problem is most likely that the server your SVG files are on hasn't been configured to send the correct MIME-type for files that have the file name extension ".svg" or ".svgz". Unless this has been set up, your server will probably send the value "text/plain" for the Content-Type HTTP header instead of "image/svg+xml". Mozilla quite properly respects what the server says and displays your files as text. Note that this is not a bug! Failing to respect the MIME-type sent by the server has been a source of security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Mozilla will not be changing this behaviour."

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/faq.html#sourc e

No, this still doesn't fix bug #154892: "Splitting Absolutely positioned frames not implemented - Missing second page of content when printing or print previewing this site"

This bug prevents many web sites from printing in any useful respect from Mozilla browsers.

Its existence keeps me from rolling out Firefox as the default. It probably keeps any organization that frequently prints web pages from considering Firefox.

But what really irks me is that this bug has existed since 2002!. The bug has been duplicated in dozens and dozens of bug reports. It has at least 70 votes in Bugzilla. Yet no one has fixed it, and there is NO INDICATION that it will be fixed in the foreseeable future, yet it directly affects the user's browsing experience.

The history and severity of this bug does not reflect well on the Mozilla browser or its open source development model. NOTE: I am actually, personally, quite impressed with the Mozilla project, but someone who wants an excuse to banish free software might start with something like this.

Finally, as a Firefox user, a personal plea: Somebody, please fix this! Please?

For more information:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15489 2

I haven't sucked it down yet (can't risk breaking my browser until the weekend), but the release notes say SVG it is there. Woohoo! I'm all over this, too.

I haven't sucked it down yet (can't risk breaking my browser until the weekend), but the release notes say SVG it is there. Woohoo! I'm all over this, too.

No. You can check the status @ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22090 0

I'd love to see the memory usage fixed too, but it looks like the fix in this beta for the XMLHttpRequest leak didn't actually work:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29507 4

(not linked because Bugzilla blocks slashdot)

The final comment on that bug added today is "reopening. this isn't fixed."

Oops!

Still, the new beta looks slick, especially the error pages. Haven't decided if I like the look of the new Options dialog though...

For the hell of it I clicked on view source on the provided link...

This was a comment in the code:

          Note to Editors of this Document!

          I have meticulously repaired the indentation here. DO NOT OPEN THIS
          DOCUMENT IN A WYSIWYG EDITOR OR (in the words of Robert DeNiro) I
          WILL BRING YOU DOWN! I WILL BRING YOU DOWN TO CHINATOWN!

            -Ben

nice.
-Vinod

I've really taken to the themes done by Aronnax -- especially GrApple (Zaphod). Absolutely makes Firefox feel like a part of the OS.

I've really taken to the themes done by Aronnax -- especially GrApple (Zaphod). Absolutely makes Firefox feel like a part of the OS.

See: Mozilla SVG Update and Mozilla SVG Status for some more info.

I've been running Deer Park Alpha 2 recently with no problems(SVG is kinda funky, but works great, and with the field testing it should be much better).

I hope SVG integrates with XUL ok. Gotta test out my XUL apps I have in the field for compatability too.

There's some changes Extension Authors need to check out too. Mozilla Developer News has the info and the big thing is XPCNative Wrappers will be on by default. (Yet more info on XPCNative Wrappers is available too).

I've been running Deer Park Alpha 2 recently with no problems(SVG is kinda funky, but works great, and with the field testing it should be much better).

I hope SVG integrates with XUL ok. Gotta test out my XUL apps I have in the field for compatability too.

There's some changes Extension Authors need to check out too. Mozilla Developer News has the info and the big thing is XPCNative Wrappers will be on by default. (Yet more info on XPCNative Wrappers is available too).

I've been running Deer Park Alpha 2 recently with no problems(SVG is kinda funky, but works great, and with the field testing it should be much better).

I hope SVG integrates with XUL ok. Gotta test out my XUL apps I have in the field for compatability too.

There's some changes Extension Authors need to check out too. Mozilla Developer News has the info and the big thing is XPCNative Wrappers will be on by default. (Yet more info on XPCNative Wrappers is available too).

Still waiting for basic keyboard shortcuts to work in any version of Windows lower than 2000.

Get the Anti-Pagination extension for Firefox, right-click on the Next link, choose Anti-Pagination->All, and scroll through the complete content without clicking another link.

Thanks for the note. This is a known problem with Firefox and the FlashBlock
extension. We are aware of the issue, but I'm afraid there's very little we
can do to fix a problem with a client browser. If I could adjust our HTML
to make things work, I would, but that doesn't appear to be possible.

I recommend uninstalling Firefox and doing a clean install without
Flashblock. From that I hear, that should fix the problem.

Best of luck,
Scott