Slashdot Mirror

display: inline-table was the most recent lacking I've run into. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18217 . It's been on bugzilla since 1999 :(. Effects like http://glish.com/css/1.asp are basically impossible if you slap a table width="100%" in the body next to the right side menu.

Please explain how tabs "aren't quite MDI", because they sure seem like it to me. Anyway, here's a short list of Firefox extensions that will give you the power you crave: LastTab Allows tab navigation in a most recently used manner. It modifies Ctrl-Tab to switch to recently selected tabs, rather than always go from left-to-right. It also focuses the most recently selected tab when a tab is closed. miniT Enables drag-and-drop tab re-ordering. Single Window Allows trapping of "new window" links so they open instead to new tabs. SubmitToTab Allows form submission to new tabs. As of right now, a total of 27 tabbed browsing extensions are available.

Please explain how tabs "aren't quite MDI", because they sure seem like it to me. Anyway, here's a short list of Firefox extensions that will give you the power you crave: LastTab Allows tab navigation in a most recently used manner. It modifies Ctrl-Tab to switch to recently selected tabs, rather than always go from left-to-right. It also focuses the most recently selected tab when a tab is closed. miniT Enables drag-and-drop tab re-ordering. Single Window Allows trapping of "new window" links so they open instead to new tabs. SubmitToTab Allows form submission to new tabs. As of right now, a total of 27 tabbed browsing extensions are available.

Please explain how tabs "aren't quite MDI", because they sure seem like it to me. Anyway, here's a short list of Firefox extensions that will give you the power you crave: LastTab Allows tab navigation in a most recently used manner. It modifies Ctrl-Tab to switch to recently selected tabs, rather than always go from left-to-right. It also focuses the most recently selected tab when a tab is closed. miniT Enables drag-and-drop tab re-ordering. Single Window Allows trapping of "new window" links so they open instead to new tabs. SubmitToTab Allows form submission to new tabs. As of right now, a total of 27 tabbed browsing extensions are available.

Please explain how tabs "aren't quite MDI", because they sure seem like it to me. Anyway, here's a short list of Firefox extensions that will give you the power you crave: LastTab Allows tab navigation in a most recently used manner. It modifies Ctrl-Tab to switch to recently selected tabs, rather than always go from left-to-right. It also focuses the most recently selected tab when a tab is closed. miniT Enables drag-and-drop tab re-ordering. Single Window Allows trapping of "new window" links so they open instead to new tabs. SubmitToTab Allows form submission to new tabs. As of right now, a total of 27 tabbed browsing extensions are available.

Please explain how tabs "aren't quite MDI", because they sure seem like it to me. Anyway, here's a short list of Firefox extensions that will give you the power you crave: LastTab Allows tab navigation in a most recently used manner. It modifies Ctrl-Tab to switch to recently selected tabs, rather than always go from left-to-right. It also focuses the most recently selected tab when a tab is closed. miniT Enables drag-and-drop tab re-ordering. Single Window Allows trapping of "new window" links so they open instead to new tabs. SubmitToTab Allows form submission to new tabs. As of right now, a total of 27 tabbed browsing extensions are available.

theres a firefox extension i like even better than that anyway, Googlebar extension theres also a clusty bar and a few others in there if you look around a bit.

Microsoft has a Tabbed Browser called ".NET SDK Documentation". Rather than being "basic", you can drag-n-drop the tabs and Z-Order works. In other words, they're more advanced than Firefox tabs and hopefully that's what they'll use for IE7.

Sorry, that's not particularly original to Microsoft. There are several extensions for Firefox that offer such features, as well as several other browsers based on the Mozilla renderer (Galeon tabs work really nicely out of the box). The concepts themselves are older than that.

Check out Mozilla Extensions

• RSS aggregator
• Bookmark search (probably not 'til Longhorn)
• Privacy Mode^W^W (I don't expect MS to copy this one)

• Better extension support
• Better theme support

MS innovation, at it's best!

Opera fans can chime in here too, if they want.

Sadly, there isn't a perfect answer - yet. The Mozilla wiki covers this problem in more detail here.

Firefox ADM partially covers this ground - here.

There's another tool similar to Firefox ADM, but I can't find info on it at the moment.

Summary: Firefox is almost there, but in most enterprise situations, there's still a few features (mostly in the lockdown, and setting default features department) that are lacking. I expect that will become a non-issue by the end of this year.

FirefoxADM is a way of allowing centrally managed locked and/or default settings in Firefox via Group Policy and Administrative Templates in Active Directory Latest news about FirefoxADM at http://spaces.msn.com/members/in-cider/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/firefoxadm

Unoffical Firefox MSI builds can be found at
http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/

Official Firefox Msi installers will be avaible in the 1.1 release nightly msi builds can be found at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/latest-trunk/ the nighlies are not ready for general use yet, but are availbe for testing.

Firefox has an extension for PDF Downloading which gives you the option to download a pdf link, in case opening pdfs in browsers bothers anyone.

PDF Download

it will be possible to deploy firefox in organizations via an .msi in one of the next versions. See here: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:1.5_Institutional_ Deployment

See this demo on mozilla.org or search for designmode on Google.

It's the thing that powers the Blogger interface.

the best places for xul reference:
http://www.xulplanet.com/references/elemref/ref_XU LElement.html
http://mb.eschew.org/
http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/xulref/
http://mozref.com/reference/
http://xulmaker.mozdev.org/xpath-evaluator/no_wrap /xul.xml
http://books.mozdev.org/html/index.html
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/04/12/28/21442 49.shtml

Schema Definition for xul (xsd)
http://xulmaker.mozdev.org/xpath-evaluator/no_wrap /xul.xsd

For live help you can try channel #xul on irc.mozilla.org. but please patient when asking questions, since most developers are probably very busy managing multiple xul projects.

Please don't make Thunderbird any more bloated than it alread is. Why must a calendar be integrated with e-mail anyways?

Had you read the Mozilla Lightning link, you would have seen that this is a "Thunderbird extension for tightly-integrated calendar functionality." A Thunderbird extension. (That said, I could see this eventually being an optional component included with the installer so that it's more Outlook-like and doesn't require users to go somewhere to download it, assuming they even know about it in the first place.)

The original Mozilla browser, first released as Navigator 1.0, was developed rapidly by a small team that was passionate about creating the next killer app -- and they succeeded wildly. Now that the web has evolved, Netscape has assembed the finest team available to redesign and redevelop the next generation layout engine upon which it will build future products. Gecko enables a pioneering new class of dynamic content that is more interactive and offers greater presentation control to Web developers, using open and recommended Internet standards instead of proprietary APIs.

Btw, FireFox didn't invent Gecko ... It's just a browser on TOP of Gecko

You might want to check out the pages on the Firefox 1.1 update system on the Mozilla wiki. It looks cool, but it remains to be seen if it actually works by release time.

I very much dislike it when a company engages in phony accounting. Can you imagine if Microsoft claimed each patch download as a new sale of Windows? Likewise, I dislike it when people misrepresent facts.

Hitting 80 million downloads is not as impressive as it sounds when a lot of those downloads are because FF does not have a patch infrastructure in place.

Please try not to misrepresent. Yes it's true, FF may be downloaded 80 million times, but a certain percentage of those downloads are users upgrading a minor revision, which is effectively downloading a patch.

The Mozilla foundation is not (or should not be) interested in maximizing the number of downloads of the software, but maximizing the number of happy users of their software. That's how they will accomplish their mission: "The mission of the Mozilla project is to preserve choice and innovation on the Internet." ref: http://www.mozilla.org/about/

Simple version: if you used the Firefox upgrade mechanism, they don't.

IIRC, it's slightly more complicated than that. Even so, the number is incredibly hard to guess: lots of people download more than once, and lots of people (think office rollouts or the like) download only once fore many machines. It's a guesstimate, and even if it were a good guesstimate it still is pretty meaningless, since it doesn't take into account how much people actually use the browser.

One of the people on http://planet.mozilla.org/ had a good post on this recently (that I can't find right now), what I've said here is pretty much a ripoff of my memory of what they said.

On second thought, it looks like bug 245392 still exists in 1.0.4 and won't be fixed until 1.1. Ouch.

Personally, instead of displaying the tiny unobtrusive update indicator as it currently does, I would love see Firefox do something like change the window color to red and display a system message dialog stating the problem with a link to the update. Maybe a good compromise?

Personally, instead of displaying the tiny unobtrusive update indicator as it currently does, I would love see Firefox do something like change the window color to red and display a system message dialog stating the problem with a link to the update. Maybe a good compromise?

There's a firefox extension that does the same thing: Flashblock (Note that mozilla.org will show you an upgrade page if your user an out of date version of firefox)

See bug 263595 (remember mozilla doesn't allow direct linking to bugzilla from /. -- copy and paste link)

user_pref("capability.policy.timerabuse.Window.set Timeout", "noAccess");
user_pref("capability.policy.timerabuse.sites", "http://forbes.com");
user_pref("capability.policy.policynames", "timerabuse");

so why the hell didn't they make it a bittorrent link?

Why the hell didn't they update the bittorrent link you mean.

Found this on the FTP Site. Didn't use it myself... maybe it'll solve the problem.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rele ases/1.0.4/update/win32/en-US/

You can get it here:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/2005-05-11-13-aviary1.0.1/

Could be the language you have installed. I noticed there is no 1.0.4 available from British English yet.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/all

Looks like they have an official site for torrents, but it hasn't been updated since 1.0.1.

When you upgrade to a new version of Firefox all of your Extensions and Themes will be disabled until Firefox determines that either a) they are compatible with the new release or b) there are newer versions available that are compatible. This is because Firefox changes from release to release and as such the ways in which some extensions integrate changes, meaning there can be problems when running an older extension with a newer version of Firefox. If you find that your favorite Extension or Theme has not been updated to be compatible with this release of Firefox, write the author and encourage them to update it.

Although I've been an enthusiastic mozilla/firefox user & supporter since the late 90s (yes I was browsing with a 'naked' gecko control, HA! :P) I was surprised to find I'd lost track of development to the extent that I didn't realise the trunk builds have a much more up-to-date gecko engine. The gecko in the 1.0.x series (inc. 1.0.4) are a year old! Those users who prefer livin' on the edge might prefer to get a faster, smaller, much less memory-leaky build from: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nigh tly/latest-trunk/

exploit fixed

Status Bar is blank if the link has an onMouseOver with return true and your javascript prefs don't allow "change status bar text".

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40838

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47838
Posted five years ago and still marked as "new" asking for the netscape 4 ability to paste a clipboard image straight into amozilla mail message. Lots of people pledged money but still zero interest.

There's a proposal about integrating this type of feature into the Bugzilla bug tracking system. The idea is that there would be an extra field on each bug page that would allow anyone to bid on that bug. One would think that the ones bidded the highest would be fixed first (after being superseded by critical bugs and the like, of course).

Internet Explorer Mobile used to be Pocket Internet Explorer. It has been around for a while. Hopefully soon Minimo will be available. How about Mozilla on your Pocket PC: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minimo/

I don't know why I even try explaining this to fanboys, but I'll try one last time.

Let me preface this by saying I have not looked at the code in question so if you have and feel you have a better understanding of the issue than Mozilla then please explain it to me. Until then I'll assume Mozilla themselves have the best understanding of this.

Mozilla has done a server-side fix to mitigate the risks posed by this bug for sites they control. For probably a fairly high percentage of FireFox users, this means they are now covered. However, there will be others who have added other sites to thier whitelist and could possibly still be at risk. This is why Mozilla themselves have suggested users removed any non-Mozilla sites for the whitelist and disable java script until a fix has been released.

OK, I'm not sure what more to say. Mozilla themselves admit there is still a bug and as of yet there is not a fix for it.

Now as I've stated earlier, I don't see this as a big deal. I have no plans to do either of Mozillas suggestions. Maybe that will come back to bite me, but I've looked at the facts and decided in my opionion the risk is so tiny that this will actually effect me that I'm not going to bother with Mozilla suggestions (especially the java script one as so many sites I visit us it).

Because there is no need to do anything to the client side version

Apparently Mozilla doesn't agree with you as they specifically say there are other things you should do on the client if you want to be 100% safe. Again, I've looked at it and have no plans to do these things but to lead others to think the bug has already been fixed or there is no longer ANY risk since Mozilla fixed thier sites is just a bold faced lie (or misunderstanding of the issue). Give people the honest facts and let them decide for themselves, don't just mislead them by saying its already fixed.

It sucks dealing with fanboys of any product. In this case at least if a MS$ fanboy said this shows FireFox is no more secure than IE, an arguement COULD be made for that. I don't think there is any evidence to support such a claim and personally wouldn't agree with it, but the arguement could be made without there being proof that it is just 100% wrong.

Those posting here argueing there is still a bug in the FireFox code cannot say that. To say there is no longer a bug or any risk (without implementing Mozillas suggestions) are just idiots or liars. Mozilla alert. This link tells you what you must do to be 100% safe. Even if you do this, there IS STILL A BUG in the FireFox code which will need to be fixed, but you should be 100% safe. Again, I don't plan to do this and I still think I'll be plenty safe (I'm a crazy risk taker ;-), but there is no need to just blatantly lie about there being no bug! Its software, all software has bugs. Big deal!!!! Do you really need to lie or mislead about it????

All real-world software has bugs. That a project as massive as Firefox has security bugs, even "extremely critical" ones, is not exactly a shocker. However, if you compare the frequency of security bugs in Firefox 1.0 with the frequency of security bugs in, say, Internet Explorer 4.0 or Netscape Navigator 4.0 (products with a similar code maturity as measured by invested developer-hours), Firefox still comes out smelling like roses.

For IE users just a few short years ago, there was new remote code execution bug in IE on about a monthly basis. Now that IE's had a lot of time to mature and there's no new development for it, the security bugs have mostly settled down since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Firefox, OTOH, has recently gotten popular enough that it's solidly entered the blackhat limelight. Naturally, this means that the blackhats are searching for low-hanging fruit. I actually find it rather assuring that, despite having fully public source code, it took a good 4 months before the first serious bug, and another month for the first pair of bugs that relate to the browser's actual security architecture.

Personally, I think that (a) writing the browser in XUL/Javascript was a security mistake on the level of IE's Zones, and that (b) whoever invented javascript: URLs should be drawn and quartered. However, what's done is done, and overall I still think that Firefox is on a more solid security footing than IE, especially thanks to the absence of an ActiveX-like auto-installing plugin architecture. I strongly doubt that the current pace of 1 major bug per month will hold true 6 months down the road, much less into the future beyond that. Because Firefox shares so much code with the Mozilla Suite, a lot of that buggy immaturity was stomped out during the Mozilla M18 through 0.9.x beta testing, about 4-5 years ago. I can't see any major shakeups happening with all that testing under Firefox's belt.

All real-world software has bugs. That a project as massive as Firefox has security bugs, even "extremely critical" ones, is not exactly a shocker. However, if you compare the frequency of security bugs in Firefox 1.0 with the frequency of security bugs in, say, Internet Explorer 4.0 or Netscape Navigator 4.0 (products with a similar code maturity as measured by invested developer-hours), Firefox still comes out smelling like roses.

For IE users just a few short years ago, there was new remote code execution bug in IE on about a monthly basis. Now that IE's had a lot of time to mature and there's no new development for it, the security bugs have mostly settled down since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Firefox, OTOH, has recently gotten popular enough that it's solidly entered the blackhat limelight. Naturally, this means that the blackhats are searching for low-hanging fruit. I actually find it rather assuring that, despite having fully public source code, it took a good 4 months before the first serious bug, and another month for the first pair of bugs that relate to the browser's actual security architecture.

Personally, I think that (a) writing the browser in XUL/Javascript was a security mistake on the level of IE's Zones, and that (b) whoever invented javascript: URLs should be drawn and quartered. However, what's done is done, and overall I still think that Firefox is on a more solid security footing than IE, especially thanks to the absence of an ActiveX-like auto-installing plugin architecture. I strongly doubt that the current pace of 1 major bug per month will hold true 6 months down the road, much less into the future beyond that. Because Firefox shares so much code with the Mozilla Suite, a lot of that buggy immaturity was stomped out during the Mozilla M18 through 0.9.x beta testing, about 4-5 years ago. I can't see any major shakeups happening with all that testing under Firefox's belt.

All real-world software has bugs. That a project as massive as Firefox has security bugs, even "extremely critical" ones, is not exactly a shocker. However, if you compare the frequency of security bugs in Firefox 1.0 with the frequency of security bugs in, say, Internet Explorer 4.0 or Netscape Navigator 4.0 (products with a similar code maturity as measured by invested developer-hours), Firefox still comes out smelling like roses.

For IE users just a few short years ago, there was new remote code execution bug in IE on about a monthly basis. Now that IE's had a lot of time to mature and there's no new development for it, the security bugs have mostly settled down since all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Firefox, OTOH, has recently gotten popular enough that it's solidly entered the blackhat limelight. Naturally, this means that the blackhats are searching for low-hanging fruit. I actually find it rather assuring that, despite having fully public source code, it took a good 4 months before the first serious bug, and another month for the first pair of bugs that relate to the browser's actual security architecture.

Personally, I think that (a) writing the browser in XUL/Javascript was a security mistake on the level of IE's Zones, and that (b) whoever invented javascript: URLs should be drawn and quartered. However, what's done is done, and overall I still think that Firefox is on a more solid security footing than IE, especially thanks to the absence of an ActiveX-like auto-installing plugin architecture. I strongly doubt that the current pace of 1 major bug per month will hold true 6 months down the road, much less into the future beyond that. Because Firefox shares so much code with the Mozilla Suite, a lot of that buggy immaturity was stomped out during the Mozilla M18 through 0.9.x beta testing, about 4-5 years ago. I can't see any major shakeups happening with all that testing under Firefox's belt.

1. Some sites that I've never been to don't support FF fully (The so-called /. bug doesn't affect much)
2. IE comes with Windows, but Gates wouldn't want to admit that that is the reason IE is "better", would he?

the bugs *are* fixed in a much shorter timeframe because the coders DO care about their product.

I'd like to believe this, but as much as i like firefox and appreciate the work that the mozilla foundation has done, the simple fact is that there are significant bugs that have been open for years because no one has cared enough to fix them.

see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458 for a major CSS 2.1 conformance isue that has been open since 1999. there are plenty of others too. it seems that whenever the mozilla guys decide they have to put out a release, they just grab all of the bugs marked as lockers and reassign them to the next release. i've seen bugs that have been marked as "blockers" for 3 or four consecutive releases, and sometimes they just close them silenty after a few releases without ever really fixing them...

Actually that was an accurate statement. A much improved update system is scheduled for 1.1: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox:1.1_Software_Updat e_Upgrades

You just touched a cord here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26739 0

Well, good that you are not running Firefox for Windows then. Else you'ld better update ASAP. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29330 2

http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/

network.http.sendRefererHeader