Slashdot Mirror

So. If they'll support Moz, let 'em support Sunbird.

Sure, you can copy-and-paste anything you want into your URL bar, and hit enter. This takes time, and thought, and you have to look at the string in two different places, so it's reasonably secure based on that.

The only security problems that could arise would be if there were links that you could click on, or bookmark them. Try it here (slashdot won't let you write chrome:// URLs unfortunately). It doesn't work.

There are tons of security measures related to XPI/XUL, the Firefox team has IMHO taken an OVERLY aggressive approach to XUL/XPI issues. You know why there are several extra steps required in Firefox to install an XPI plugin? Because there were some theoretical exploits where someone might ask a user to click on a place on the screen over and over (eg. hit the monkey), and then display the XPI dialog there, and the user might end up clicking "yes, please install" before they realized that they were running potentially suspicious code. So now users have to wait a few seconds before being able to click.

Users CAN actually configure their browser to let remote sites do just about anything, include read/write files, change the clipboard, etc., because this is sometimes something that's useful that users might want from a few special sites. But it's a pain in the butt to get the several security configuration settings set properly, and again, as a developer, I think they might have overdone it.

And yeah, I'd love it if all meshed seamlessly into SunBird, Gmail, and iCal.

Not to mention Mozilla Sunbird for the OSS and Linux crowd.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/sunbird.h tml

Firefox:
Update to version 1.0.1.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

=

Firefox 1.0.1 Released
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/25/032 7235&tid=154&tid=164&tid=162&tid=1


The dup firefox /. article was brought to you by the firefox marketing campaign:

http://www.spreadfirefox.com/

I wonder if these major flaws that are discovered are reported to Mozilla for their Bug Bounty program...

The bugs have already been dealt with. From TFA: "If you have downloaded the Firefox 1.0.1 update, you have nothing to worry about". In other words, Firefox has already fixed these security bugs and all Firefox user have to do is upgrade to 1.0.1

Why is Slashdot linking to some guy's blog that no one has heard of rather than the actual Securnia advisories page? The blog entry doesn't even link there! I don't even see how this is a story since Firefox 1.0.1 has already been covered on Slashdot, and these vulnerabilites were announced then.

Is this the way Slashdot supports open source, fostering internal divides in exchange of ad eyeballs?

Ads? I don't see any ads on Slashdot. Oh wait, that's because I use Firefox with Adblock installed. :)

How is Flashblock heavy handed? You can run the flash or not. Works nicely.

And how is it too buggy? Firefox, as of this posting, has 6700 open bugs. Should we not use it either? (Note, Bugzilla does not accept links from Slashdot. Cut and paste the URL or block your referrer to see the list of open bugs)

And how does it *modify* the other plugin? All Flashblock does is changes when the other plugin is called... Flash still works normally, under all circumstances.

I have been using Flashblock reliably under Firefox and Camino for months now, with no issues whatsoever! Most of my coworkers saw it and installed it and I have not heard one complaint.

What else do you mean by getting control of Flash, if it is not just what Flashblock does?

Mozilla's trademarks are protected and not licensed for unrestricted use. You can use the Firefox name for your own versions under certain conditions. If your version doesn't meet these conditions, you can't call it Firefox.

Mozilla's Trademark Policy

They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running.

No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest.

And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.

Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded. Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help.

Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.

THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.

Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry.

My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most.

Final point...

Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.

If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows.

Firefox 2.0 will offer configurable keyboard shortcuts. Unfourtantly, Firefox 2.0 is a long way off.

Here you can see pageload times for Mozilla over the past 2 years (you can change the number of days shown). There are more machines running the tests:
Luna
Monkey
Creature

Note the dramatic improvements on btek and luna (linux)... the others improve as well.

Here you can see pageload times for Mozilla over the past 2 years (you can change the number of days shown). There are more machines running the tests:
Luna
Monkey
Creature

Note the dramatic improvements on btek and luna (linux)... the others improve as well.

Here you can see pageload times for Mozilla over the past 2 years (you can change the number of days shown). There are more machines running the tests:
Luna
Monkey
Creature

Note the dramatic improvements on btek and luna (linux)... the others improve as well.

Here you can see pageload times for Mozilla over the past 2 years (you can change the number of days shown). There are more machines running the tests:
Luna
Monkey
Creature

Note the dramatic improvements on btek and luna (linux)... the others improve as well.

Note that links directly to Bugzilla from Slashdot are blocked. It is necessary to put the URL into a new tab.

Only if you don't block sending the referrer info. Under about:config, change "network.http.sendRefererHeader" to 0 ... and you can then click here without any problems :)

However, the bug report was ignored. I got suggestions like "Every app is going to cause a crash if it's opened enough times." My use of browsers was characterized as "ungodly". Someone eventually characterized the bug as "works for me", even though he did not disclose how he tested.

Reading through the bug it seems as though the developers asked (albeit rather rudely) for some detailed debugging help which was never carried out. My reading of it was that if you submitted that info they'd look into fixing it - it's rather difficult to fix any bug if you can't reproduce it and the submitter can't provide anything to document it. If you couldn't be bothered doing that then that's fine, but don't blame the Firefox crew for it.

The problem with doing this is that you are cutting these people off from the many sites coded for IE. I use Firefox 95% of the time but I keep an IE around for sites that balk. Often it helps.

Ah, but there IS a way to take care of this, and it's something that, had I really cared to, could have accomplished in about five minutes, both to install it and to show the person how to use it.

A simple extension for Firefox called "Open this page in IE." It allows you to load any current page or link to a page into IE, all without you having to open any programs. It'll just open the window for you, load the page, and you can close it when you're done with it.

But the reason I didn't is mainly because I think your 95% assertion is incorrect. In most (>99%) cases, I think that the non-functioning aspect of the page has little to do with vital functions and more to do with things like fonts that aren't sized correctly, and in the other cases, it's usually a situation where it's not that important to the person and they won't bother to deal with it.

What's more, I can think of only one specific group of sites that don't at least FUNCTION in Mozilla/Firefox as opposed to IE, and that group is Microsoft-based pages. The MSDN library, MSN Gaming Zone, Windows Update and the like... Those are the only pages I can think of that have severe functionality issues in Firefox. And I view a LOT of different webpages. All the rest are minor cosmetic things that the average user wouldn't notice in the first place.

The preacher said: "You're assuming that Firefox has the same amount of bugs and vulnerabilities that IE does and it's not the case."

The choir replied : When we look at http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vul nerabilities.html, it says 27 security bulletins for Firefox this year. This little puppy is looking more and more like the old Mozilla we all know every day - buggier than a NYC hooker's apartment.

The preacher said: "and if there's a security flaw it's fixed a lot faster."

The choir replied : Ummm, you should try surfing to: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124646&cid=104 52959 , or any other aging security bug from the Netscape days, 22183 is a good example - still not fixed from 1999. Again, looking more and more like the old Moz every day.

Oh that's right: Mozilla 1.8 will serve as the code basis for Firefox 1.1.

No thanks. I'll keep what I got.

As far as I can tell roaming profiles hasn't been added yet, has it?

This bug seems to cover it, and it is marked as fixed/verified and was slated for 1.8 alpha 1, but doesn't look like it made it.

Any idea when it should make it?

I've tried Firefox many times, and I have it installed right now, but I keep going back to IE. Why? Because Firefox just doesn't "feel" right.

Minor things bug me, like "Bookmarks" in Firefox versus "Favorites" in IE. I don't really care what you call them, but I've trained my muscle memory to hit "alt-a" to open the "Favorites" menu. In Firefox, I have to consciously think about hitting "alt-b" (which is a more cumbersome chord than "alt-a", as well, given the placement of 'a' vs. 'b' on a qwerty keyboard). I could live with that, retrain my muscle memory, but there's a bigger problem once the menu is open. In IE, I can step through the entries by typing the first character. If I have three favorites starting with 'm', I can hit 'm' three times to get the third one. This works in Firefox, except when a bookmark starts with the same character as one of the accelerator keys ('b' to bookmark the page, 'm' to manage bookmarks, 'o' on a submenu to open all bookmarks in tabs (which seems like a stupid feature to me anyway, and why isn't it on the main menu page as well as submenus?)). If I have the same three bookmarks in Firefox starting with 'm' as I have favorites in IE, I can't quickly access them by typing 'm'. As soon as I do that, I'm taken to the window to manage my bookmarks. That sucks.

Another issue I have with Firefox is the installation of themes and extensions. Why must I restart the entire browser just to change a theme? I can understand having to do that with the installation of an extension (the same thing is necessary in IE), but for switching my theme? That's just silly. Still, that's a minor issue that's made worse by the fact that Firefox's default theme is pretty poor (the button icons are pretty amateur, and just don't look "right" to me). So, I go to find a better theme, and many of the listed themes don't have any preview image (side note: If you have a website dedicated to something visual like a browser theme, you had better have previews for every item -- I'm not clicking through and installing every theme that has no preview just to see if I like it or not). Once I find a theme I like (or not, as the case may be), and am able to install it (after a new release, good luck getting old themes to work), I still have to stop and restart the browser just to see what it looks like. Lame.

Perhaps I'm just too set in my ways to switch away from IE, but that's fine by me. I use SP2's popup blocker alongside my own custom-built blocker. I set the security permissions properly so I can block Flash crap. I have full control over cookies. I haven't had a spyware infestation in quite some time, and the last virus I got was back in 1994. In short, IE works for me, and I've long since gotten used to its minor problems. The utility I'd gain by switching to Firefox is not enough to outweigh the need to learn and get used to a whole new set of minor annoyances.

As far as the tab detaching, you can use Tab Clicking Options to assign a detach-like (duplicate tab to new window) action to happen depending on how you click a tab. It doesn't close the old tab, but it works.

It probably wouldn't be too hard to write a detach tab extension - maybe someone already has. Heck, you could probably modify the Tab Clicking Options extension so that it did close the old tab.

Maxthon Internet Browser software is a powerful tabbed browser with a highly customizable interface. It is based on the Internet Explorer browser engine (your most likely current web browser)...

The summary is not quite accurate regarding Firefox 1.1 being based on Mozilla 1.8; my understanding of the roadmap is that Gecko 1.8 - which is used in Mozilla - will form the base of the Firefox 1.1 program. Maybe just a technicality but it is different to say the base on which the programs will built is the same, rather than Firefox will be a stripped down version of Mozilla.

(also, can anyone please tell me what the "l10n" in "latest-aviary1.0.1-l10n" means?)

The location of nightlies are here.

Yes, FlashBlock

Have you tried creating a new firefox profile and seeing if the problem still persists?

Minimum Hardware

• Intel Pentium II or AMD K6-III+ 233 MHz CPU (Recommended: 500MHz or greater)
• 64 MB RAM (Recommended: 128 MB RAM or greater)
• 52 MB hard drive space

Windoze 98 IE rulez in my Pentium 66 MHz, 16 MiB RAM!!!

open4free ©

the >2GB yields negative file size and download speed bug (t3h bug). Looks like it won't happen until v1.1.

Here's the Bugzilla discussion on that:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23675 5

You have to copy and paste that, of course.

Browsing the changelog, I stumbled over this site, which lists security fixes in Firefox, Thunderbird and Mozilla Suite. One line I found interesting was in the Thunderbird section:

MFSA 2005-10 javascript: links launch Internet Explorer

Flashblock https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/morei nfo.php?application=firefox&version=1.0&os=Windows &category=Web%20Annoyances&numpg=10&id=433

Use the "Flash click to view" extention. No more autoplaying Flash for me.

I haven't had it installed lately because my adblock does a pretty good job of blocking flash that I don't want to see, but
flashblock is what I used to use... it blocks out flash until you click on it to view.

With Mozilla/Firefox these new ads are actually not a problem. Just use a userContent.css file to block them.

For example, I found some that use divs with IDs, so I just added something like:

div#GF__p_0,
div#floatpop { display: none !important;}

And, poof, they're gone. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out what to block, but the Webdeveloper extension can help quite a bit.

With Mozilla/Firefox these new ads are actually not a problem. Just use a userContent.css file to block them.

For example, I found some that use divs with IDs, so I just added something like:

div#GF__p_0,
div#floatpop { display: none !important;}

And, poof, they're gone. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out what to block, but the Webdeveloper extension can help quite a bit.

With Mozilla/Firefox these new ads are actually not a problem. Just use a userContent.css file to block them.

For example, I found some that use divs with IDs, so I just added something like:

div#GF__p_0,
div#floatpop { display: none !important;}

And, poof, they're gone. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out what to block, but the Webdeveloper extension can help quite a bit.

The installer is relatively new in the scheme of things, though it does seem to be the only version you can get your hands on easilly.

Win32 zip distribution:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox 1.0.1.zip

Torrent of the same:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox 1.0.1.zip.torrent

The installer is relatively new in the scheme of things, though it does seem to be the only version you can get your hands on easilly.

Win32 zip distribution:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox 1.0.1.zip

Torrent of the same:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox 1.0.1.zip.torrent

actually, (with 1.0.1 semi-officially released?) there's already files marked 1.0.2 on the ftp, like here, and in folders for the last couple of days. hmm any news on this, anyone? no one seems to have mentioned it. sorry if this is uh, a secret of some sort.

By the way, this is a screenshot from the thread of the now "FIXED" bug (and no, this behavior hasn't changed at all even in the latest 1.1 nightlies): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=173 180 (open in separate tab/window)

ah, this is probably because you're using a localised build like en-GB, and the site is detecting this, and this locale hasn't been updated yet, so you still get offered 1.0. that's what happened to me anyway, took me a second to realise what was going on and go for the full list - Firefox Setup 1.0.1.exe is what you want, although it may not exist for you yet - confusingly, this is the file name regardless of language.
to moz site designers: not ideal imho, maybe indicate there's an en-XX newer, and maybe include language in file name.

It's a hidden preference. It's not supposed to be exposed in the GUI. Go to about:config and look at all the hidden prefs. If they all had a front-end, the preference window would look like, well, the mozilla suite.

Think about it for a second. Your browser allows identical-to-the-eye domain names via a spoofing security issue. Your workaround is to put big "!!!" marks before and after the domain name when it's possible that the user could be spoofed. But really, some people would rather take the risk of getting tricked than have to look at those damn exclamation marks, so you give them a hidden preference.

Would you, a user interface designer, put this pref in the Options panel? If so, where would you put it?

If you answered yes to the first question, where would you put browser.blink_allowed? I'm sure somebody somewhere wants that pref exposed. How about browser.chrome.site_icons? "Man, if those little per-site icons don't drive me crazy. I wish I could turn them off, and heaven forbid I type the word chrome, because that's just not acceptable UI."

Without looking, can you tell me 5 of the options listed in IE's Advanced tab in it's options pane? Since you can't, does that make it good UI that they've exposed those prefs to the user? Don't you think that allowing a "hidden" feature, about:config, to play with all the prefs is an acceptable compromise to facilitate a simple, yet effective UI?

People like you are reasons why the suite is what it was a year ago. People like Ben Goodger are the reasons why Firefox is objectively better than the suite for almost all people.

If you've read this far, maybe you would read the Firefox Charter, with their stated goals.

Since you're linking to the en-US version anyway...
BitTorrent links in case the servers really go to crap. (Theirs, not mine)

screenshot

Sometimes it's a lot worse, like the text will appear more than a screen to the right, or at the extreme left of the window, undernead the links on the left.

I've seen it on Windows, Linux, and Mac, on Mozilla and Firefox. Using a proxy server seems to increase the probability of it happening. Most of the time things load fine.

It's just not on some mirrors.

Why not use the torrent?

Now if you're worried about putting too much strain on the Mozilla download servers, use the BT links!

Alternatively, this page lists translations and direct download links

Now if you're worried about putting too much strain on the Mozilla download servers, use the BT links!

Alternatively, this page lists translations and direct download links