Slashdot Mirror

The html got messed up somewhere along the line. Here's my original submission:

An article on Mozillanews.org is reporting on Google's registration of the domain Gbrowser.com (nothing to look at there yet). The article provides a summary of rumours that Google will release a branded version of Mozilla Firefox (along with some interesting speculation).

The Firefox project page validates.

XUL is a standard...[that] will in practice probably never be used as the only way to do something, just a way to enrich existing web UIs, whereas ActiveX is used as a crutch for things like delivering 'secure' video and audio content.

XUL has already been used to do things other than Web UIs.

There's Mozilla Thunderbird, the fabulous mail client. And there's also Mozilla Sunbird, the XUL-based calendar project.

XUL is a standard...[that] will in practice probably never be used as the only way to do something, just a way to enrich existing web UIs, whereas ActiveX is used as a crutch for things like delivering 'secure' video and audio content.

XUL has already been used to do things other than Web UIs.

There's Mozilla Thunderbird, the fabulous mail client. And there's also Mozilla Sunbird, the XUL-based calendar project.

Cookie to the first person who uses MathML" to show their favourite equation :)

javascript is a horrible hack thought up by some drunk, off-duty engineer on toilet paper one day while reading the graphiti over the urinal at work

Nice troll! Seriously, what exactly is your problem with JavaScript? It is a standardised language that is quite powerful enough to handle anything reasonably expected of it. It's easy to learn and quite pleasant to work with.

Perhaps your beef with JavaScript lies with the variety of interpretations of the API, and bastardisation thereof. Don't confuse a language with an impementation of an API. Obviously the developers of XUL think that JavaScript is worthy, and so they should. I'll be sideing with them, rather than your righteous self.

It's lousy, and not advancing

Taken from http://www.mozilla.org/js/js15.html: The next version of JavaScript will be the 2.0 release. 2.0 represents a rewrite of both the language specification and engine implementation... Your opinion that it's lousy is just that - your opinion. Please engage with some more considered argument before spouting your opinions.

Why can't a java VM be modularized so that language modules (javascript, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc) can be ported to the VM and let us use our language(s) of choice?

Yeap, because with a helthy dose of sarcasm, waiting half an hour for a VM load up which then consumes a tonne of system resources is really in the best interests of the user, not to mention that it's not complete overkill for simple maniplation of data and UI widgets.

If you DO file a bug report, it will probably never get fixed. Take a look here. See those orange, red and purple lines? They're the bugs that haven't been fixed yet, and they're increasing in number all the time. I make the count around 165,000 at the moment.

I've been noticing more here than anywhere else that some are confusing Firefox with the Mozilla Suite(Someone even mentioned being a user of FireFox 1.7.3). Firefox is not bloated and will never be bloated. Extensions are optional and if you are like me, you would only be installing about 5 small features to the default installation. The option is there to bloat to your wishes though ;).

Now the potential as a platform isn't really going to be Firefox. It's starting with firefox, and will become popular because of firefox, but the platform is under development as the XUL Runtime Environment (XRE). This is where the magic starts.

One will be able to develop executable applications seperate from Firefox that automatically run on Windows/Linux/Mac. Right now, noone wants to tie their developments to a browser although a few like to tinker with it on their own. When the XRE is released, people will then actively develop XUL/Javascript applications with an optional backend of their choice. You will be able to create .exe applications. You can make those one-click installations someone mentioned somewhere here. No need for the browser although the browser can be used if you want to. Bad news is the XRE isn't being actively developed as Firefox is. So, who knows when they'll release it. But when they do, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc will be complete XUL/Javascript Applications that run using the XRE and GRE. I don't know much about GRE, but that's most likely going to stay browser-specific, although I'm probably wrong.

I'm one of the people who has starting learning XUL and such, and although I have big plans for it. I do not plan on coding for a browser ;) XRE all the way!

(Assuming you mean just using the .htc's straight)

Because it's a hack, and not exactly matainable in the long run.

Appearently, stylesheet support in NS4 was done in JS... Just thought I'd bring that up ;) (see source tree, that csstojs.c looks especially suspicious.. But I havn't actually went through it.)

The best one I know of is xulplanet.com. You can also google for some of the stuff from IBM (I think there was a series of 3 on using XPCOM); see bottom of this page.

PDFs of the book Rapid Application Development with Mozilla (look for "Download ... in PDF" on that page) from the publisher might help too, if you prefer going through that - or buy the book or something.

Note, though: devedge.netscape.com (the Netscape developer's site) appears to have been taken offline recently; so you'll need to go through web.archive.org if you find any results on that that look interesting.

(The folks on forums.mozillazine.org are usually quite nice too, if you're civil about things. Might be a better place to ask.)

Firefox is great and all, but I think it's truly missing a lot of killer functions like an HTML editor, IRC chat client, newsgroup reader and e-mail client. If Firefox had these functions I think it'd be the killer platform to take on Microsoft's dominance. Why oh why can't someone integrate all these precious functions into one combined client of some sort?

Parent's clever humor exposes the heart of the matter: the newcomers who are clamoring for FF to become a 'platform' are jaw-droppingly ignorant (qv., Mozilla).

Sadly, none of the aforementioned newcomers will get the parent's joke...

They're called capabilities. Not exactly the same, but do the same thing. Just 'cuz there's no GUI, doesn't mean it isn't there.

"The MPL license, like the BSD license, means a company can incorporate Firefox into a commercial product"

I think you better read the MPL again, it hardly looks anything like BSD and more importantly you cannot incorporate MPL code into a GPL program but you can with the modified BSD license. You can see here what licenses are Free but incompatible with the GPL.

"Most of the Mozilla code base is trilicensed under GPL, LGPL and MPL. So although Firefox can't use GPL code, other GPL projects can use Firefox code."

This wikipedia article says Mozilla is released under the MPL and the GPL which indicates you are correct about it being released under the GPL. I don't see why they just don't stick with the GPL, the MPL doesn't offer anything above what the GPL already guarentees.

The thing about open-source projects is that they place much more QA into the hands of their users and other developers. If you don't file a bug report, it wil never get fixed.

Firefox will remain just a browser. It's XUL platform that article refers to which Firefox among other Mozilla apps (like Mozilla Suite, Thunderbird, ...) is built upon.

However, I'm becoming increasingly dismayed by the sheer amount of security holes being found. I mean - shockingly - if you look at sites like Secunia, there have been _MORE_ vulnerabilities in Firefox than IE in the last six months!

The reason there have been more security vulnerabilities is because of the security bug bounty, which rewards people monetarily for finding security bugs. They're simply trying to shake out the security bugs in advance, before it goes big.

Plus, there's been more interest in firefox recently from security firms who see it as a rising star, and think they can get some fame and draw to their consulting business by finding and
publicly revealing security bugs.

I doubt mozilla/firefox is as insecure as IE. It doesn't have the same structural design problems, like activex, and "zones".

I'm skeptical. Their roadmap suggests they were anticipating releasing two more release candidates - one on Oct 18 and one tomorrow. However, Oct 18 has come and gone. I think they are behind schedule and perhaps Mr. Ross was referring to the launch of the NY Times article, not the browser.

Not exactly the quickest response by Mozilla. Of course now it's gone all 'front page news' it's been fixed (in the nightly builds anyway).

Doesn't sound much different to the Microsoft approach IMHO. :)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12475 0

The ./ story, as well as the link (Portable Virtual Privacy Machine), say that it's 100% GPL, but at least the Mozilla parts (Firefox and Thunderbird) are under the Netscape Public License.

Huh? NPL is Gone. Dead. Buried. Mozilla has been (mostly, and the exceptions should be BSD etc. GPL-compatible) LGPL/GPL/MPL tri-licensed for quite a while now, the new licensing policy is over three years old.

Mozilla parts (Firefox and Thunderbird) are under the Netscape Public License

doesn't this look like XUL?

I bet there will be a website like Mozilla update's extension portion, and provide free downloading of millions, ah... sorry, maybe thousands, ah... maybe hundreds, never mind, of open source small applications! Brillian days of Apple are coming via these small applications! Maybe.

Doesn't MS is also doing something alike named XAML?

I'd like to buy some stock of Macromedia, dreamweaver may become a major developing tool in next ten years.

doesn't this look like XUL?

I bet there will be a website like Mozilla update's extension portion, and provide free downloading of millions, ah... sorry, maybe thousands, ah... maybe hundreds, never mind, of open source small applications! Brillian days of Apple are coming via these small applications! Maybe.

Doesn't MS is also doing something alike named XAML?

I'd like to buy some stock of Macromedia, dreamweaver may become a major developing tool in next ten years.

Lets see here is a brief list of some of the main software that I saw on that page. You can find information on those peaces of software at these sites.

Enlightenment Project: http://enlightenment.org/pages/main.html
Evolution: http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/
Gnome 2.8:http://www.gnome.org/start/2.8/
KDE 3.3:http://www.kde.org/
Thunderbird 0.8:http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/re leases/
XPDE 5.1:http://www.xpde.com/
YaST:http://www.suse.de/en/private/products/suse_l inux/prof/yast.html

Keep in mind that according to the roadmap, Firefox 1.0 for OS X is lagging behind 1.0 for the other platforms. So you're right, it's not ready on OS X, but they're not claiming that it is.

My website has never rendered correctly on mozilla's renderer for years (and I don't want to work around it) because of:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16740 8

but it has worked for years in IE.

I think the ad would be best if it were essentially this page without the right side.

You must not know about quirks mode? Firefox defaults into this mode unless specifically said not to...
Information about Quirks mode

The latest proposal by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software.

...but for all but the odd website here or there, I find firefox renders as the author intended.

Like Slashdot? Why hasn't the rendering bug been fixed in Firefox yet? It's been around since at least 0.8! ANNOYING! It says it's fixed, but it's still there.

By the way, here is a workaround for the Slashdot rendering bug.

The coloum overlap bug is being worked on, and I think they have it fixed for the next release.
see this Bugzilla page.

"The Foundation has been incorporated as a California not-for-profit corporation..."

Yes, you could complain that you're giving to a for-profit organisation. But you'd be wrong.

FireFox works fine and renders pages almost perfectly. I've used it since .5 and have only run into less and less problems the longer I use it. And when I run into a page that doesn't render correctly I just CTRL+U and it pops up the source and runs W3C's Tidy program thanks to the Html Validator extension, and it tells me right away if the are errors in the code. If so, e-mail the webmaster and ignore the site till they learn how to properly make a web page.

I have yet to know anyone, newbie or hardened veteran, who has used those. But the idea of being a few clicks away from Mouse Gestures has caused plenty of people to switch.

http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/

I have come across quite a few financial sites that have issues with FF. Luckily, my credit union and the integrated web bill pay functionality works great with FF. It even works with Lynx from a console if I select the frame links provided (easy slection as there are only a few frames on the site).

There is a FF plugin that provides a right click on link option to open the link with IE, it is IE View. You can still use FF for 99% of your browsing and have an easy method of opening links with IE.

Actually, unlike IE, pages render correctly in Firefox, including Slashdot. Just because a site isn't done properly and thus isn't displayed in Firefox as it is IE (which apparently will accept horseshit for HTML), doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with Firefox. I understand that this is not exactly what you implied, but it is a common misconception nonetheless.

On the other hand, there are VERY few pages that display weird in Firefox, with Slashdot being the only prominent example that I can come up with. However, many people are still only developing for IE, which is shit, and thus their pages are shit, and look like shit when rendered correctly in Firefox (though this is rare).

The bottom line is that you can't wait for the web to change. You have to make it change. Go download Firefox and at some point when browser usage is no longer 95% IE (and it already is much less on some sites), the web will change.

Actually... the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation.

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html

It's not exactly what you wanted, but at least this HTML validator extension for Windows or this validator bookmarklet doesn't require an $800 hardware key.

Admittedly, crashing isn't supposed to happen either, but I'd like to see one of these turned into an exploit before its declared an exploit. The argument that IE Buffer Overflow exploits are found and exploited in this manner doesn't mean that all program crashes are potential Buffer Overflow exploits - that's just does not follow.

It appears from other posters that the behavior depends on the OS you're running, which leads me to guess it might be an issue involving both the OS and the browser rather than just a browser issue.

Along those same lines, the security issue is going to be vastly different depending on the OS you're running the browser under. Mozilla may not provide the same security exploit under your OS as it does under Windows. Example: This bug fix (http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html) directed at fixing a *Windows Exploit*.

Finally, you'll not convince me Internet Explorer is a browser to use until its no longer a wide-open-gate for adware/spyware, virus and worms. Even then, I'm gonna have reservations based on IE's history.

Wanna be safe on the Internet? Use anything but IE.

Yep, the first mozilla_die entry crashes Mozilla 1.8a4 for me, too. Sounds like the tests are repeatable enough. Now quick, everybody rush to file bug reports and the winners can collect their $500!

(Besides which, as a user, I find it infuriating that Mozilla/Firefox are so stuck up on perfectly standard HTML that they just don't work with some web sites that are perfectly usable in IE anyway.)

(1) You'll have to copy+paste the URL, as bugzilla doesn't like slashdottings.

I personally use Firefox and have also installed it as the primary browser on all user computers I support (including family and friends). The amount of malware has dropped to almost zero, and what little bit does manage to get through it readily dealt with via Ad-Aware, Spybot, etc.

User education is also important. I've found that to be the case with viruses/worms as well.

Speaking of viruses/worms, in the same context as before, while IE is the predominant target of web-based malware, the predominant target of mail-based malware is, you guessed it, OE. So, don't use it!

I've switched to Thunderbird personally, though prior to that I was a solid Eudora user, which is what I have installed for family and friends. Honestly, if users are tied to the OE interface, Thunderbird should work fine for them. What mail-borne malware still makes it through, that's what antivirus is for.

Finally, look at the other common vectors, including the Windows Messaging service. There are a number of services such as this that should not be on (but are on by default). XP SP2 is highly recommended. Also, if you're on Win2k or XP, check out the benchmark scoring tools and guides available from CISecurity. Some of the recommendations might be too draconian for many locations, but the general advise in the benchmarks is dead on.

I personally use Firefox and have also installed it as the primary browser on all user computers I support (including family and friends). The amount of malware has dropped to almost zero, and what little bit does manage to get through it readily dealt with via Ad-Aware, Spybot, etc.

User education is also important. I've found that to be the case with viruses/worms as well.

Speaking of viruses/worms, in the same context as before, while IE is the predominant target of web-based malware, the predominant target of mail-based malware is, you guessed it, OE. So, don't use it!

I've switched to Thunderbird personally, though prior to that I was a solid Eudora user, which is what I have installed for family and friends. Honestly, if users are tied to the OE interface, Thunderbird should work fine for them. What mail-borne malware still makes it through, that's what antivirus is for.

Finally, look at the other common vectors, including the Windows Messaging service. There are a number of services such as this that should not be on (but are on by default). XP SP2 is highly recommended. Also, if you're on Win2k or XP, check out the benchmark scoring tools and guides available from CISecurity. Some of the recommendations might be too draconian for many locations, but the general advise in the benchmarks is dead on.

If you have Office, it makes it so much easier for the user because instead of having to learn ALL new programs, they just have to use a different internet browser. ..that is, if for some reason you don't have them using Firefox already. I switched my office a few months ago, everyone either loves it, or doesn't even notice they're using something different.

I didn't do this, but you could easily get away with making it have the blue "e" icon. Really no one would even notice.

No I can't see it, and since you use FireFox you shouldn't have to.

Praise the Adblock extension.

Darth Gates: Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

Moz Skybrwoser: Your overconfidence is your weakness.

Darth Gates: Your faith OSS is yours.

Darth Gates: Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design. Your friends, up there on the sanctuary website, are walking into a trap, as is your OSS Community. It was *I* who allowed the Alliance to think IE was full of holes, It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best coders awaits them! Oh, I'm afraid IE Longhorn will be quite operational when your friends arrive.

Darth Gates: As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the DRM of this fully armed and operational Operating System!

Dude. Even if you honestly haven't heard of Snopes (huh?)... Everyone and their mom has seen that list of quotes. Four years ago. Attributed to Al Gore. Or sometimes Bush. And even then everyone knew they were just old Quayle quotes, because everyone saw them years before that, AS QUAYLE QUOTES. I remember passing these things around in middle school in the mid-90's. As someone else already suggested, do a Google search for your own damned quote.

I honestly can't believe people are still attributing those quotes to whatever politician they don't like today, considering how many times the exact same quotes have gone around in previous elections.

Also, get a browser than blocks pop-ups.

The important thing right now is that we use this momentum, and that we continue to innovate. Here's some issues I believe are important:

• SVG support. It's incomplete - but I think it is unwise not to have at least some level of SVG support in mainline Firefox 1.0 builds. "Build it, and they will come": both web and Mozilla developers. SVG is really a key technology for next-generation web design based on open standards. As an example, Wikipedia has a nice extension called EasyTimeline for rendering graphical timelines. These are currently ugly, non-zoomable PNGs -- SVG would be perfect here, as it would allow timelines with a changing level of detail as you zoom in. Much of the stuff that is currently being done with Flash can be done with SVG.
• Leverage XUL. Whenever I show people demos like MAB and Robin, they tend to be impressed: easy, powerful, instantly deployable web applications. In my opinion, XUL should get a lot more exposure within Firefox - both the product and the website. Make a promise to XUL developers: If you use XUL to write open source applications, and it meets our quality standards, we will add it to the default Firefox bookmarks, and promote it on our website.
• New UIs. Tabs are great, but they're not the Holy Grail of UI design. For example, they don't scale - managing more than 20 or so open documents in one browser is not feasible because you just have lots of "..."s. At this point, I would rather have a vertical, scrollable list of open documents with a nice, dynamic (incremental) title search to instant-switch to a window of your choice, and some other cool navigation tools ("skip to next website from another domain than the current one" etc.). There's no reason why a modern browser shouldn't make it easy to manage 50 or 100 open documents.
• Better editing controls. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Keep Firefox lean. But having a good integrated text editor for things like wikis or even this form into which I'm typing into right now makes life a lot easier for the average user.

Now, if you really want a glimpse of the future, imagine, if you will, that a HTML textarea worked like SubEthaEdit and allowed you to invite other users to edit with your collaboratively, in real-time, a wiki page or weblog entry. But even this really just scratches the surface. The point is, the browser is an immensely important platform. With Firefox, we now have the chance to give an incredible amount of real power to end users. It's not "just a browser" - it's one of the key components of future information and collaboration devices.

Congratulations to the Mozilla project for getting us where we are right now. We still have a long way to go. I hope in 10 years, open source technology will be used by virtually everyone to access the rapidly growing digital commons.

The important thing right now is that we use this momentum, and that we continue to innovate. Here's some issues I believe are important:

• SVG support. It's incomplete - but I think it is unwise not to have at least some level of SVG support in mainline Firefox 1.0 builds. "Build it, and they will come": both web and Mozilla developers. SVG is really a key technology for next-generation web design based on open standards. As an example, Wikipedia has a nice extension called EasyTimeline for rendering graphical timelines. These are currently ugly, non-zoomable PNGs -- SVG would be perfect here, as it would allow timelines with a changing level of detail as you zoom in. Much of the stuff that is currently being done with Flash can be done with SVG.
• Leverage XUL. Whenever I show people demos like MAB and Robin, they tend to be impressed: easy, powerful, instantly deployable web applications. In my opinion, XUL should get a lot more exposure within Firefox - both the product and the website. Make a promise to XUL developers: If you use XUL to write open source applications, and it meets our quality standards, we will add it to the default Firefox bookmarks, and promote it on our website.
• New UIs. Tabs are great, but they're not the Holy Grail of UI design. For example, they don't scale - managing more than 20 or so open documents in one browser is not feasible because you just have lots of "..."s. At this point, I would rather have a vertical, scrollable list of open documents with a nice, dynamic (incremental) title search to instant-switch to a window of your choice, and some other cool navigation tools ("skip to next website from another domain than the current one" etc.). There's no reason why a modern browser shouldn't make it easy to manage 50 or 100 open documents.
• Better editing controls. Yes, I know what you're thinking: Keep Firefox lean. But having a good integrated text editor for things like wikis or even this form into which I'm typing into right now makes life a lot easier for the average user.

Now, if you really want a glimpse of the future, imagine, if you will, that a HTML textarea worked like SubEthaEdit and allowed you to invite other users to edit with your collaboratively, in real-time, a wiki page or weblog entry. But even this really just scratches the surface. The point is, the browser is an immensely important platform. With Firefox, we now have the chance to give an incredible amount of real power to end users. It's not "just a browser" - it's one of the key components of future information and collaboration devices.

Congratulations to the Mozilla project for getting us where we are right now. We still have a long way to go. I hope in 10 years, open source technology will be used by virtually everyone to access the rapidly growing digital commons.

That is enough for me and my small company. I am using Open Office and Mozilla full time now. Adios Bill.