Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla: The Good And The Bad
Rui del-Negro writes "According to this article at The Register, six security flaws in Mozilla were posted to BugTraq last weekend. They have not been added to the official Mozilla vulnerability list yet. But details can be found here, here, here and here (phew!).
Finally, two other bugs were found, relating to loading GIF files (in several Linux browsers) and Mozilla's (JavaScript) implementation of onUnload ( ).
Are they trying to prove they can beat Microsoft at their own game..? Or is someone just trying to win a prize?" On a brighter note, Zerbey writes "From Neil's Place here is 101 Things Mozilla can do which IE cannot. Very interesting reading and an excellent resource for convincing stubborn Internet Explorer users why they should switch. This article was also reported at Mozillazine. I'm still waiting for NTLM auth to be implemented so we can switch over at my workplace, the only reason we still have to use Internet Explorer."
Mozilla may have more bugs than a rainforest, but at least they're open about it, whereas Microsoft quietly releases patches over windowsupdate.
OK, 21669 to go :-)
Trolling using another account since 2005.
As of 1.2beta almost all of these are fixed. In general opensource is not a whole lot more secure than closed source (both are programmed by humans), they just are more open with information and quicker with fixes.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"...resource for convincing stubborn Internet Explorer users why they should switch..."
Should be:
- Provides a better subjective browsing experience
If that's not true, you'll never win.If you read ALL the way to the end of the article you'll note that 5 of the 6 bugs are already fixed in 1.0.1 which has been out for a couple months now. I believe the sixth is already fixed in the 1.2 nightlies.
However, also according to the article on the register, most of these bugs are in Mozilla 1.0, which makes this kind of old news. Mozilla 1.0.1 was specifically advertized as a security bug-fix release, and has been out for quite some time.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Fortunately, these are shallow bugs that will be found by many eyes. I'm guessing I won't have to wait more than a few hours for a patch that fixes any of these either. And while IE exploits tend to be devastating, since Explorer is integrated into the whole Windows OS, these security holes in Mozilla will, at most, crash your browser, a minor inconvenience. All this proves is that Open Source is (still!) better than proprietary software. Keep up the great work, Moz team!
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I tried countless times to send them patches for such egregious errors as allowing javascripted emails to both access files on the HD and automatically send out new messages but they said it was a feature people used. Yeah, used to crack machines. Idiots. I'll stick with IE if you don't mind.
When you're on a Linux machine, Mozilla is a fine choice for web browsing. And it has some nice features like tabbed browsing that soften the interface somewhat, and some like javascript privilege control which make the web more tolerable.
HOWEVER, the Mac versions are basically unusable and the Windows version is hurting. Mozilla still sucks when good web browsers exist on that platform.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
No way! The public knows about the issues now! That's automatic disqualification from Microsoft's Security Game!
Game Over, Man! Game Over!
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
This article is 6 months old! Sheesh.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
i just downloaded chimera for osx and this damn thing is fast! i have never seen pages render so quickly! mouse button suport--thank you, thank you! very nice job!
I am a stubborn IE user. I read through that list, and I haven't found a reason to switch. Seems whoever wrote it doesn't use IE that much either. No hotkey to change font sizes? I guess CTRL+Mousewheel doesn't count as a hotkey.
Now, is there a 10 Things IE Can Do That Mozilla Can Not such as run ActiveX properly if at all so one can go to most msn.com sponsored sites such as MSN Chat? Or how about properly running the Java plugin so Yahoo! Chat doesn't crash after a few minutes. I'm not making this up. This happens everytime.
Believe me, like the rest of you, I love Mozilla, and I live by the tabbed browsing. But unfortunetly, there are a lot of things I do on the Internet that still force me to crawl back to IE.
to have some bugs attached to you when you're a giant red lizard.
These bugs don't have the same implications that bugs in IE have. Not just because of market share either. Mainly because the softaware isn't tied to other programs (eg: mail being the biggest) that can then be used to distribute a viri.
Want to convince a new generation of young (pr0n) surfers to go with Mozilla? The only feature you need to point out which Mozilla has over IE is blocking those annoying pr0n pop-ups when you're trying to get to the good stuff!
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Being a developer myself, I have a huge number of bugs that are reported to my team and I on a daily basis. While security is always a key concern, there is an entire process of validating a bug prior to adding it to an official bug list. An open source project, such as Mozilla, has to rely on the input of who know who for possible bugs, then also has to rely on a large number of volunteer developers to help validate the bug. Sometimes these processes take time.
Take the time to compare Mozilla's submitted bug report and their official bug list versus Microsoft's (that is if you can find a copy of it).
kha0z
Master of ImportChaos.com
Sure Mozilla may offer some neat "underground" type features but the one thing it doesn't do is offer the ability to talk to a support technician on the phone when it won't work properly.
Todays market, more than ever, relies on support for a product and this is where Microsoft wins all the big corporate clients while Mozilla and other non coporapte sponsored rpoducts remain as basically toys used by tech saavy teens.
I've never walked into a Fortune 500 company and seen Mozilla running on a PC. Never.
Warmest regards,
--Jack
Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
How my favourite bug was turned into a feature is the best example I have of how easy it is to get off the track with big projects like this.
The bug got lost in several threads, flames and arguments about what IE does or does not do, until it was finally marked WONTFIX by a Mozilla demi-god. IMHO, they missed the point. There is a constant refrain in Bugzilla about whether something is "standard" or not.
From my experience, the argument about web standards is used to either fix or not fix something, depending on how someone feels about a problem.
Don't think it's a problem? don't fix it and say "it's not standard, so we won;t" or "it's not standard, but we break the standard everywhere where it makes sense". Some behaviour need changing? The same arguments apply.
I may be just whining here, but sometime I think the fact that Mozilla is a web browser is lost in the arguments. I still love Moz, but the fact that the right-margin jumps around on my otherwise fine HTML 4.x and CSS pages will always bother me.
-- clvrmnky
HOWEVER, the Mac versions are basically unusable
Mozilla start time on my G4/667MHz/1GB RAM Powerbook: 29sec (!?)
IE start time on same machine: 2sec
Omniweb start time on same machine: 1.5sec
not to mention that Mozilla hangs for seconds at a time quite often, and looks and feels clunky and bolted-together.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
I wanted to spend some quality time with Open Source by running Mozilla, but my need for a stable browser overrode my desire to contribute to the Greater Good.
So I run Opera -- the free version, with the annoying banner ad -- about 75% of the time. About 10% of my surfing is on He That Shall Not Be Named for sites that don't support Opera properly (like Citibank), and the other 15% is spent with Lynx. The Lynx time rises to near 100% at work, where it's a Good Thing to be able to surf without using a graphical browser.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
...the Mac versions are basically unusable...
How are the Mac versions unusable? I've been using Mozilla 1.2 beta on OS X for weeks, and it's working wonderfully. Extremely stable (hasn't crashed once), reasonably fast rendering, and the best standards compliance I've seen on any browser. It would be great if the overall browsing speed were improved, but as the browser I use on a daily basis, it's certainly usable even in its current state.how about some details on how "the Mac versions are basically unusable"? I've used them, so they're not *unusable*, and they perform pretty well; in fact, I know plenty of mac users who prefer it over IE.
:)
Why do you say "the Windows version is hurting"? what problems do you have with it? For me, it works just fine and I prefer it over IE, even with the slower loading time, and even on my slow K62-400 with 48 MB RAM. I did say "for me", but in all truth I can't find any instances where it is "hurting".
Your final comment seems to imply Mozilla is not good, which in my oppinion is not true. Hey, we're all expressing our oppinions here, nothing more
SexyKellyOsbourne, Just have a look at her journal and past posting. Keeping users like this unheard is a nice small step to cleaning up /.
He also complained about Mozilla's vaunted "standards compliance." His exact words: "Mozilla invents its own standards, and it's the only one to comply to them."
He's a grump I guess (most programmers are) but I was troubled by this assertation. Isn't javascript "write once, run anyware" kinda stuff? It doesn't seem complex at all.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Hehe. I laughed.
Aw crap, ninjas!
Not a flame, but some very valid reasons why people won't/can't use mozilla.
,'s as seperators and .'s in addresses
.tgz.html's)
1: Poor handeling of bypass proxy server e.g.
uses
Only performs tail matches which is useless for IP subnets.
2: No option to bypass local addresses
3: Doesn't save the address you type in if connecting to the site fails.
4: Always accept this certificate keeps asking you until you click only for this session.
5: History is very unusable.
6: Mozilla may support theames, but IE will always use the colours and sizes you have setup for various UI components on you system
7: Mozilla doesn't implement HTLM authentication, which means that if you are using a NTLM authenticating prozyserver at work (say microsoft Proxy 2) then you can't use Mozilla.
8: Very nast habbit of appending extra extenstion to files you download. (I've had at least a couple of
Well that's 8, and most if not all are on the bug list and have been you years.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yeah, but when will Google get around porting the Google toolbar to Mozilla?
All software programs have bugs, Mozilla is not an exception, for reference check the bugzilla, bug 200000 is on the way. It is however open source and the bugs are detected faster and patched much faster (hopefully) than the programs developed using the traditional closed source model.
Comparison with IE is hard to be made, the security model of IE is a late addition (IE6 is still Mosaic based), while Mozilla had it from the ground up.
Most of the given bugs are fixed for 1.2beta, so that they do not pose a treat for the people that upgrade regularly.
There was an interview (can not find it anymore) with a software company that was actually calculating the numbers of bugs per 1000 lines of code and was testing the new modules until the predicted number of bugs were detected. Their calculations were quite close to the reality and they had managed to catch the trend in bug detection and fixing so by the sheer number of bugs found and fixed in the beginning they were able to predict how much more bugs are to be detected until the product stabilizes and what time they will need for that.
Slash me, trash me, I'm your RecycleBin
Because Mozilla is open source, it's better than any other closed source alternative. I have only three reasons why I use it:
1. Smart Features -- not bloat-ware.
2. Tab Surfing.
3. No spyware or ads.
The information exchange is one factor of why open source is better, however, consider this as well: every decision you make adds to the total inertia of a project. Therefore, when you base a product on open source, you are creating a momentum that is going to carry on through your whole project. By saying, "Yes, we will listen to our public", you are also saying that you will like your public, and your public will like you in the end.
Microsoft has never done that. They put you on hold, put you off, ignore you and they do what they want. How long can they continue to take that stance in the face of an angry public?
Marshall Berman said it best when he said you can't slow progress or stop it. You can only guide it. He goes on to say that anyone who tries to resist change is going to pay the price in the end. Well I can't think of any other company that has resisted change as much as Microsoft has - especially recently.
this is nuts. mozilla isint important to warrant 2 articles a day. it isint going anywhere soon
Blame it on ElGeeko De Generico [generic geek]
One way would be to use the browser ID to add a little 'info' strip to the top of pages, specifically for IE users. It could be just a small one-line table at the top of pages -- maybe with a contrasting background to be noticeable, and say something like:
"Internet Explorer has several vulnerabilities that may allow others to take over your machine. You may want to apply fixes or try alternatives.
I can't find the link to the 'master list' of unpatched IE flaws, I had it bookmarked somewhere.. But I would imagine using the browser ID string the client sends to apache, this could be done in PHP or something similar. Yeah, it'd probably be a performance hit, but for anything but the biggest sites, it might work.
I've also noticed that some IE browsers appear to be sending the actual patch revision! Example:
217.81.215.xxx - - [06/Nov/2002:00:00:19 -0600] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 34629 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; QXW0339a; Q312461; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)"
Q312461 leads us to a MS Knowledgebase
article. I've no idea what the QXW0339a is, though.
Interesting. So one could go so far as to take the patch version off the browser ID string, check it against a database of strings, and return a comment that mentions the serious vulnerabilities affecting that version. I'd be happy to just run something that added a small tagline to the top of pages for all IE browsers, though. The more sites that did something like this, the more the word would get out. I think it'd be productive. :)
Someone you trust is one of us.
i love goats
and cows and sheep moo moo baa baa
But, looking over the list of 101 things Mozilla does that IE doesn't, there are plenty of things that IE does, and has done for years. (It may not do them on Windows -- I have no idea.)
I can view cookies, block individual cookies, disable tooltips and a bunch of other things listed. I'd also argue that IE can be trivially installed and uninstalled and has a more complete, and certainly much more usable bookmark manager.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Actually, they have already ben fixed. Long ago.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
I'm the one who submitted those bugs to Bugzilla months ago and got no response. So I posted to Bugtraq and have still seen nothing. I guess Mozilla is dead.
I have the same exact experience. On linux it's much slower to respond. Windows is snappier than IE and only takes 1 or 2 secs longer (without the quick launch thing) to load.
Neural Nets in Python
I've been using Mozilla for over a year now and for the life of me, I still can't access anything via. https. So, I have to open IE to do anything secure forms. I've read that I must do a complete install in order for this to work which I do, but still no dice.
Anyone have this problem?
Mozilla Riddled with Fixed Security Holes
You can use a nifty Python proxy for NTLM. I used it for six months and it worked great.
Here's a link. On November 6, 2002, there were 31 security vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer
The link is taken from: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.. If Spanish is your native language: Windows XP muestra la dirección que Microsoft está tomando.
Yeah-and I still can't access my online capital one account either!
Just curious if this is anything like that scene in LOTR when Bilbo is leaving the Shire and Gandalf is convinving him to leave the One Ring behind. Bilbo turns to go and Gandalf stops hims saying, "Bilbo, the ring is still in your pocket."
Then all the people in the theatre under the age of 11 (and the retards) laugh heartily.
Let me know if I'm way off base on this. Thanks.
Check out the date on the article: 05/11/2002 at 10:38 GMT
My experience: On Windows XP, Mozilla 1.1 is the best browser.
if you mean the ability to apply a default stylesheet to xml documents (with expand/collapsable nodes).. then mozilla now does this.
On a funny sidenode, while trying to use the link above:
"Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."
Isn't javascript "write once, run anyware" kinda stuff?
No, it's not. "Write once, run anywhere" is one main idea of Java, not to be mixed up with JavaScript.
No sig. appended to the end of comments I post.
Now that I wasted a point modding it up ... in case you don't see the other points, the date is in Brit. format (dd/mm/yy)
This is the 5th of November!
"%&@ing Yanks.
You've got to be kidding...
The day Mozilla can respond to ActiveX is the day a drop Mozilla.
Sheesh!
1. You can do this by writing a 12 line VB app that embeds the MSHTML COM control on separate tab controls. Some projects already do this. (Yawn)
5. uh, hit ctrl-H in IE6
7,8. Hold control, scroll mouse-wheel
17. IE does this
22. This can be set in IE
31. IE can do this
46. Is this a joke ?
77. I don't buy this. IE is a ship-component of Windows XP, and thus exists in 25 distinct locales.
97. This is just fanboyism. There is no substance here.
101. Got me there, champ.
These are just the things I know are crap off the top of my _head_. Why does fanboy shit like this make it to slashdot on such a consistant basis ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
The majority of computer users already uses a standards compliant browser. Its called Internet Explorer. When over 97% percent of the internet using population uses one browser, it BECOMES the standard. Whatever that crusty old academic group, the WC3 consortium comes up with matters anymore. Mozilla is actually the one not in compliance.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I think Mozilla is in a position to really get innovation going again. Being a Web developer who started back in 1994, I remember first using Mosaic and Netscape back when features came so fast and furious that you really like progress was an everyday thing. I haven't felt that way lately (at least about Internet Explorer). So without further ado, here are some ways to innovate at a fundamental level, changing some things that should have been obvious.
First, making navigation buttons out of the link tags is great. But does Mozilla pre-fetch the "next" link, so that if I actually decide to go to the next page (likely), it comes up fast? WebTV has this feature. Makes the Web feel faster.
Second, why am I entering HTML tags into a plain text field? Where is the HTML text field? You know, a form object that comes with B, I, and U buttons, and allows me to visually format the text before sending (and which is delievered as standard, XHTML 1.0 compliant markup)? I've seen that Microsoft's new Web-based Outlook tools have this, but they use over 100k of JavaScript files to accomplish it. Shouldn't we just have something like this: <htmlarea></htmlarea>???
Finally, one of the things I've been waiting for is the ability to set images or other objects on angles. For example, if I wanted to have the slashdot logo appear as if it were on an incline, I might use CSS to specify the image display at -15 degrees. And if this were exposed to JavaScript, I could make some interesting animations. But I haven't seen this in CSS yet.
In short, I remember fondly when Netscape pushed the envelope -- I remember Andreesen adding the img tag, I remember Netscape implementing the file upload tag. I think some working demos of this stuff might help it gain acceptance, and give people a reference model to work from. Not to mention make Mozilla seem much more useful than Explorer.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I claim this post in the name of Derek! Long may he live! He is an ubergeek in his own right and an inspiration to geeks everywhere!
Hail!
The vulnerabilities listed are all already fixed in mozilla 1.01 and 1.1, except for the potential privacy violation in onUnload (bugzilla). That one's hardly terrible - it's possible to add javascript to your website so that you can tell which url the user went to when he leaves your site. Pretty minor given that a) it just tells the "attacker" which of his links you clicked and b) a lot of sites already achieve the same effect using links to redirect scripts instead of direct links.
This whole thing is really overblown. The issue the register picks on as the most important - the https-http-https redirect warning thing - is actually the least important. They talk about the importance of HTTPS for ecommerce but they don't seem to understand what the real security issues here (Oh my god, a malicious website can confuse me about whether my connection to it is encrypted! Doom! We're all doomed!).
Most of those bugtraq/securityfocus listings are from a list of fixed security bugs that the mozilla people fixed and listed in bugzilla that were posted to bugtraq. It doesn't help anyone improve security if your reward for being open is a scaremongering article that says your product is "riddled with security holes". It's an easy way for The Register to get hits knocking mozilla with most of their work already done for them - by the mozilla developers.
Someone is actually developing an ActiveX plugin.
http://mozillako.hypermart.net/activex/
Yes, I consider finding the right download link and grandma-friendly instructions a pre-req to any IE squashing mass-effort. The home page is a huge improvement but past that point, the faint-of-heart won't feel at home. A wizard-Os-detecting download page would sure help a lot. The FAQ is still on 1.0!
I also happen to be very interested in OpenPGP, and Enigmail seems a step in the right direction. But the problems I mention for mozilla.org combined with the fact that enigmail.mozdev.org can't behave under IE are enough to loose my audience.
*I can put up with it*, but don't ask the same to somebody comfy with IE/Outlook.
#1 thing you can't do with Mozilla (mail): drag and drop emails/attachments.
Notepad specialist & FAT administrator, group training available
I've been using IE since version 3 and I know a few of its features. Whomever wrote this obviously doesn't know how to use use "Internet Options" because several of these things IE can in fact do. For example number 30. Without any trouble what so ever google is my default search engine, not msn. Number 31: Very easy to search in a side bar. It's even by default. Number 34: turn on AutoComplete (actually it's on by default, I turn it off because it's annoying). This is both the VB-style "intelliSense" that pops up and the rest of a line in an addres bar. Number 24/25: there is built-in javascript debugging, and a small utility is available for download from MS for even more power. number 88: Very easy to search favorites/history from within the browser. Click the search icon! number 98/99: bugs and critical security updates seem to be found every other day now. Which I would say is good. And windows update makes applying them more than simple and fast. As for open source no, you can't re-compile. But you can customize to Nth degree, change the logo, and totally and completely change it to the point of not recognizing it as IE thanks to VB components and objects. And finally giant lizards isn't something a browser can do. I would suggest trying to look at all the tabs in Internet options before posting "101 things" (unless that's too "obscure"). And these are just the things off the top of my head.
Guns an Oil Wars for everyone! Troll
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I've been using Mozilla for over a year now and for the life of me, I still can't access anything via. https...
do you have the mozilla-psm package installed?
the https part of mozilla is often in a second package, maybe for export or something. if you
only installed the rpm for mozilla, you may still have to install the personal security manager part.
here's what rpm on my redhat 7.2 based machine shows for example:
[root@mouser root]# rpm -qa | grep mozilla
mozilla-1.0.1-2.7.3
mozilla-nspr-1.0.1-
mozilla-psm-1.0.1-2.7.3
mozilla-nss-1.0.1-
nautilus-mozilla-1.0.6-16
so, check to see if you can install the mozilla-psm package and https should be all set
here's the rpm -qi Description for mozilla-psm:
Description
The mozilla-psm package provides Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) support
for the Mozilla Web browser.
One way would be to use the browser ID to add a little 'info' strip to the top of pages, specifically for IE users. It could be just a small one-line table at the top of pages -- maybe with a contrasting background to be noticeable, and say something like:
"Internet Explorer has several vulnerabilities [bellaonline.com] that may allow others to take over your machine. You may want to apply fixes or try [opera.com] alternatives [mozilla.org].
My guess is it will get ignored just as quickly as the recent pop-ups that warn, "Your computer is broadcasting an IP address. Someone can use this information to attack your computer."
People who know better (or think they know better) will use Mozilla or Opera. Those who don't know, or more commonly, don't care, will continue to use the easiest way to access the web. Like it or not, IE is immediately available to the masses and it will be the first choice for those people for a long time.
"Supports blinking text
You can make text blink."
*blink*
This is GOOD?
He also complained about Mozilla's vaunted "standards compliance." His exact words: "Mozilla invents its own standards, and it's the only one to comply to them."
For the most part, this is only true if your friend believes that the W3 is a subsidiary of AOL. Needless to say, it isn't, and in fact many of the standards which Mozilla follows (While IE only sorta follows) were written by groups that included representatives from Microsoft. A partial list of the (real, non-Mozilla invented) standards that Mozilla enforces can be found here.
Isn't javascript "write once, run anyware" kinda stuff?
It'd be nice, wouldn't it.
JavaScript is a Netscape invention, always has been. As such, Netscape did write its own standard and is the only one to comply with it. However, there IS a real standard known as ECMAScript that Moz and IE both do a reasonably good job of supporting. Unfortunately, this does not cover everything. ECMAScript can be thought of as defining the 'core' of what scripting on browsers is often used for.
Beyond the core are the areas of scripting that make up the buzzword-compliant DHTML (Dynamic HTML, a fancy way of saying JS, CSS, and HTML)
This is where cross-browser scripting gets hairy. The standards used for manipulating documents dynamically are collectively defined by the W3 as the DOM, or Document Object Model, which has many uses outside of HTML, but we'll stick to its HTML uses for now. Unfortunately, some of the more advanced elements of the DOM are still in a drafting phase, and as such are not ready to be used as standards. Meanwhile, browsers implement support in their own ways, lacking any sort of rules to adhere to. It's my hope that as these drafts are finalized into W3 Recommendations, that MS will include support for them as I know Mozilla will. Until then, browser detection will continue being a way of life for advanced client side scripting.
I can look at Pr0n in mozilla without my wife seeing the history in IE. I can also tab to a browser window open with slashdot when she is coming so she won't be interested.
> It has much fewer bugs and still retains all the
> functionality needed to have a decent web
> experience.
Let's get real here. Dillo is great to browse simple stuff like local HTML documentation, and it's good for checking on the local news sites (when it doesn't choke on them too badly), but that's about all it's good for.
It has some sort of annoying cache bug that lets it get "stuck" (refusing to load a document whether you hit reload or not) on pages like Google's search results.
As distributed (version 0.6.6), Dillo doesn't do any kind of authentication or SSL. It also doesn't do Javascript/Java. So it has to be *very* casual browsing. It also doesn't print.
(I use Dillo myelf for viewing local copies of web pages I make for my students. This is mainly because it's so FAST.)
-- Rick
When I clicked on your link, I got a page (entitled "Ook!") that said:
Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.
I don't know if it's old news that Bugzilla is actively combatting the Slashdot Effect, but I find it kind of amusing/interesting/alarming that it doesn't accept Slashdot referers. Imagine if other sites start doing the same!
And just so you know, the parent posted a legit URL, but Bugzilla kicked it out.
BTW: you can just copy and paste the URL http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72540 into your browser to get the page c13v3rm0nk3y was talking about, or search for bug #72540.
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" - Vroomfondel, H2G2
According to the way you typed this command, The Register should be a "copy" of Slashdot ?
:
...
Unless you meant
ln -s register slashdot
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I recall reading about this; those bugs were fixed before the bugs were reported this weekend.
It's been a long time.
Opera, maybe? :-)
In particular, if I wish to have Spanish-language dialogues in Mozilla, I (as of a month ago) can not upgrade to Mozilla 1.0.1 because none of the volunteer Spanish translation teams [1] has updated their 1.0.0 translations to version 1.0.1; instead they chose to direct their translation efforts towards 1.1 and 1.2.
Compare this to AbiWord, which has a translation structure such that, if a given translation team decides that meeting girls at dance clubs is far more fun than spending Saturday night translating dialogues, the translations still work for new versions of the program. If any new dialogues appear, those dialogues will be in English until someone steps up to bat to translate them, but any unchanged dialogues remain translated.
IE has an edge here, since their translation teams are paid; guaranteeing that any formal release of IE will be translated in to all officially supported languages. The disadvantage to this is, if a given language is deemed by Bill Gates to not be worthy of translation, you have to use the application in English (or one of the other official languages).
This structure causes Mozilla 1.0.1 to have translations available in languages like Estonian (a beautiful language [2] which has about, as I recall, 2 million speakers) but not in Spanish (which has more native speakers than English--about 325 million).
OK, thinking out loud, it should not be too hard to set up a perl script which unzips a translation for a given version of Mozilla, compares the labels against the English version for a given later version of Mozilla, and then translates all of the labels it can; leaving the untranslated labels in English. This would be far more productive than posting to Slashdot; perhaps a Mozilla guru can tell me if a tool like this already exists.
- Sam
[1] There are three Spanish trnaslation teams: One for Latin American spanish, one for Argentinian Spanish, and one in Spain. The Argentian is the most active group right now.
[2] One of my linguist teachers is a native Estonian speaker; she once talked to us in Estonian to demonstrate a language learning technique.
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
1) A "File->New->Window" that is actually useful. In IE, it goes to the current page, and forks your history (so you can hit the back button, etc). In Mozilla it just opens the default page with no history. Lame.
:) ) keep me in IE 90% of the time.
2) View source opens notepad. True, mozilla considers their source viewer a feature. Well most of the time its not what I want, I want to be able to edit, save (without it downloading the damn thing again!), and whatever.
These two things (and oh yeah, the google toolbar
but hotmail does not allow you to attach files if not accessed from IE. I first thgt that there was a bug in moz's rendering and it was not rendering the Attach Files button, but upon checking the HTML i found that there is no code for the upload button. When accessed thru IE, however the compose screen has a attach files button.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
...and my crotch started to burn. Is that bad?
Idiot.
OK, I'm still using Mozilla 1.0 on Mac OS 9, and Chimera 0.5 on X. Mozilla is great on the Mac!
Mac OS 9 is not the greatest operating system (system freezes, manual memory management), but switching from IE to Mozilla has essentially eliminated the regular system freezes I was having, and tabbed browsing is a godssend.
I could come up with 1000 things IE can do that mozilla can't. No make that about a million things.
PROPERLY RENDER CURRENT INTERNET CONTENT EVEN IF IT CONTAINS IE SPECIFIC EXTENSIONS.
For that reason alone there is no reason to switch to mozilla. (No to mention it's riddled with security holes)
Sure, IE has bug, Mozilla has bugs, Konqueror has bugs, Opera too, has bugs. Big whoop.
Yes, they need to get fixed, but don't get your panties in a knot if another (or several) bugs are found. They get fixed. We get a better browser as a result of this fixing. Yeehah. We all win.
The whole buissness over IE is just stupid. I, as a UNIX user can't use MSIE because my *nix boxen (except for my Mac OS X and SPARC/Solaris ones) can't even run MSIE. So I use something else. Moz is nice. Konq is also nice. I understand people thing Opera is snazzy. Hey I can browse the web! yippee. Get over it.
I was able to access it fine with Galeon. I'm also using Privoxy which may nullify whatever lame Javascript trick kept you from getting through.
kmeleon.sourceforge.net
It's been a long time.
Take a look at this page
These are some tools I am making to make it easier to post formatted text to a discussion board. On IE, you can select text, and then hit, say , the "bold" button and it will surround the text with bold tags. On mozilla, it just doesn't work, as mozilla does not provide javascript access to the selected text of a text area. (I have "fallback" behavior, which sucks comparitively)
Honestly, I don't know if the way IE allows you to do this is "standard" or not. But what I know is that when this is rolled out (a couple million people will be using this)....anyone using Mozilla based browsers are going to be majorly bummed.
Anyone know how to get rid of it? I'm having problems with: -The back button (tells me it can't find "\" when I hit it -Can't download any files. I never had these probs with earlier releases, and now I can't seem to go back. If I uninstall (on win2k) and then reinstall an earlier build, it doesn't work. Bummer 'cuz I really like Mozilla.
What you're looking for is over here.
Of course, it's a proprietary solution. A much better option is to implement a similar editing tool in JS/DOM that works in both Moz and IE6+ (Maybe Opera 7 if it actually includes some respectable DOM support)
The Mozilla Bugs listed in this post are old news because they are from versions previous to 1.0.1 which has been out for a couple of months now. How about we keep the outdated postings to a minimum ok guys.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
I'm sure there are security bugs in Mozilla that haven't been made public yet. That was the problem with the onUnload(). It was known about for a long time, but not until it became public did it get fixed.
The main reasoning seems to be that vendors should be able to protect their customers.
But what happened with the privacy leak recently found in Mozilla? Granted, it was a minor glitch, but it is nevertheless useful in studying how policy affects security.
Did it help end users that it was marked sensitive? Well, Netscape knew about the glitch when they shipped their browser, yet, they shipped it. On the other hand, the leak was patched shortly after the story broke, so the answer should be a clear "No!"
This is an example that it is not sufficient to have the sources open, you have to get some light onto the problems too.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Download files.
I am using Moz 1.2b and file downloading is broken. I certainly do miss the blink tag -- see #60 -- when I'm in IE though...
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Aside: I have no idea why he'd be using Explorer to code Javascript, anyway, since that browser gives very little feedback when you have bugs in your scripts. Mozilla's DOM Inspector and Javascript console are some of the very best tools *any* javascript hacker ever got. They give very helpful feedback, are easy to use, and make development a thousand times easier.
I can't agree with you more. The DOM inspector flat out kicks ass. Never before has there been a tool as useful for digging into the structure of a document to figure out what's going on (Or maybe,w hat's going wrong)
There's also a lot to be said for opening up that JS console and running commands to manipulate the document you're looking at, without having to bother saving to a script. The JS console definitely leaves IE in the dust when it comes to handling JS errors. (IE's idea of a JS error is 'object does not contain that property')
101: Giant lizards are cool
Much more exciting than a blue e.
He's right, of course, but i don't think this really qualifies as something Mozilla can do that IE can't.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
The Ugly
Now, to get around the lameness filter, I shall type some additional worthless crap here.
Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
Ok, did anyone else just about crap their pants when they read the Mozillazine headline:
Mozilla Riddled with Fixed Security Holes
*shudder* I almost ripped my network cable out of the wall when I read that. It's too bad other browsers don't have such a problem with fixed bugs.
I love Mozilla. I use it on Linux, on Win-XP and Win-2000. But there's a major bug with it on Win-XP that will not permit me to use the mail client and/or set extensive preferences. At random points, all of my email settings and preference (font, size, etc.) settings get wiped out and revert back to the default settings that come with the deal just after you install. I've tried various solutions to no avail, and even posted a problem record to their bugzilla setup that looked like it never even got a glance.
I think there is a newer version available - maybe that will solve my ills. I still use it as my main browser, though I like Galeon on Linux better - I haven't given Phoenix a try yet ...
AZspot
Like the subject says. Automatic updates are not a feature that will make people love MS over Linux. Even people who like MS would typically still prefer to decide for THEMSELVES when it's a good time to upgrade instead of having no choice over the matter.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I understand that it would PROBABLY tend to be be more readable, but on what authority can you make the statement that you know this is the case. You will only ever be able to see a very unrepresentative sample of closed source code. You can only see that closed source which is put out by companies you have worked for or are working for. That's what "closed source" means. So what are you comparing with to make the judgement that open source "tends" to be more readable. If you could make the comparasin with it, it wouldn't be closed source.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Isn't NTLM an proprietary authentication protocol? There are plenty of existing, secure, standard HTTP authentication methods that are already implemented in Mozilla. If we implement every proprietary extension that various vendors create, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, to say the least. If the Mozilla coders create NTLM authentication, it's like saying, "Go ahead and deploy Windows with IIS and proprietary authentication instead of Apache and OpenSSL, we support you!".
I'm an IE user for 1 reason.
1) IE is faster than Mozilla.
On every system I have ever tested mozilla on (except for linux based systems), IE loaded up faster and loaded webpages equally fast to mozilla.
As far as security flaws go -- I have never encountered a problem in IE just so long as my system is kept up to date (which I don't mind doing).
Mozilla blocks pop ups? Who cares. SO do the firewalls that I installed on mine and other peoples computers (Agnitum Outpost, Zone Alarm Pro). So pop up ad blocking is a moot point to me.
Tabbed browsing is kinda neet but windows XP's system for managing windows (a box with a number in it, click it and select which window u wanna see!) works just as well + fast.
bottom line is that ive used all browsers on all OS's possible (lynx, opera, kommander, IE, mozilla etc. sorry no macs) On my Windows box I will use IE and on my linux box I will use mozilla because that's what works best in my experience.
It's integrated with Windows. So for instance a system dialog that asks for a url can pop-up URL's from my browsing history, or a program can integrate IE (as an ActiveX Control) without an extra install.
Another benefit of integration is that I have the comfort of knowing that any Windows box I go to has the familiar IE interface for me to use. This type of standardisation is important for users to be productive.
Actually, there is another reason...an add-on product called Popup Stopper Companion ($39.95) works ALOT better than anything Mozilla can do to stop Popups in my experience.
Well, it didn't take long before I noticed that about 95% of the crap on this list could be done in IE, either directly in the browser itself or with a plugin. I guess the author didn't bother to even check his settings.
As for tabbed browsing, I think that the Netscape/Mozilla implementation of this sucks 50 types of ass. They should see the latest MSDN browser (the local install, not the webpage) for an awesome implementation that does tabbed browsing, tabbed browsing groups (horizontally and vertically,) docked browsing (dock a google search to the left and pull results into new tabs,) and floating browsing (pull a page out a tab group and it becomes free-floating.) While MSDN is built mainly to view the compiled HTML that makes up the development help system, you can simply type an internet address in and it'll fly.
Number 23 on the "101 things mozilla can do that IE cannot." list was colored source viewing, with HTML syntax markup. This is NOT a win for mozilla, seeing as how in their attempt to add color highlighting, they screwed up the primary purpose of "view source" which is to try to determine what's wrong when a page isn't displaying right. Their color highlighting algorithm, whatever it is, tends to LIE about what the source looked like omitting things that it didn't understand.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Dude, take another look. That ain't no she... a heshe maybe... anyway once a few people pointed to the relevant threads the moderation went back down.
I had this same problem running Mozilla 1.0.1 (Ximian version) even *with* mozilla-psm installed. Apparently this was a problem with the RPM rather than the actual software. I fixed it the dumb way, by upgrading to 1.1.
Finding God in a Dog
And here I thought that tabbed browsing and popup killing were enhancements. Silly me...
"A revolution without dancing is... a revolution not worth having"
The older IE and Netscape browsers supported the tag, and they were eventually removed. Presumably because it's no longer a standard.
Ohh, the irony...
I still love Mozilla, though.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
My wife's been running Mozilla 1.0 or so on a Mac OS 9.2 system, and while her computer has crashed a couple times while using Mozilla, it crashes equally as frequently using Internet Explorer. It's definitely useable on a Mac.
Could you give an example or a bug report that describes this problem?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Excellent poing, kalidasa. I was about to say the same thing, but don't have to now. If us IE-bashers were whining about bugs in IE 5.000 that were patched in 5.01, or *gasp% 6.X, we would get yelled at.
Summary: There are securtity bugs in older versions of mozilla. As of now they are patched! Crap-ola! : )
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Displays ABBR/ACRONYM titles in tooltips
Content in these tags are displayed with an underline and the titles of various elements are displayed in a tooltip.
This seems to me the same thing as MS's smart tags that would link to other usefull resources, when ms did this it was intrusive, mozilla does it and all of a sudden its inovative...
Mozilla does 101 things IE doesn't.
Conclusion: Mozilla is also bloated.
I cut and pasted the link and read the whole thing. You're wrong, they're right.
Hello? HTML 101. The page width, and any other physical attributes of the output device, are unknown and unknowable. That's the entire point to the abstraction involved in HTML, as opposed to .pdf or something. You don't even have to have a screen to parse html to, the end user may well be using a reader. The entire point to using HTML is to mark up the content in such a way that the browser can then determine how to best present it.
Seriously, people like you are killing the web, choking it to death with your bullshit 'I'm a designer' attitude and it really pisses me off. People worthy of the title 'designer' in any field know enough to educate themselves about a particular media before they use it, but for some reason 'web designers' seem to almost universally feel that it works the other way around, that the media should adapt itself to their goals. It's like whining that charcoal needs to be fixed because it doesn't allow you to use colours.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I worked at a wave pool as a lifeguard. Some of the lifeguards that had worked there longer mentioned one year they had a "rescue contest" to see who could save the most people.
That year saw more "rescues" of people to whom the description of "swimmer in trouble" only fit loosely, if at all. To win the contest the lifeguards would jump in to rescue anyone who could even loosely be interpreted as drowning.
The contest got canceled. Why? All of the 'rescues' were creating a paperwork overload and a perception of a dangerous enviornment - while doing nothing to make the place actually safer.
I predict the same thing for the mozilla bug contest. Lots of submissions, lots of work to process and order the submissions, some negative publicity, and at the end of the day, few additional bugs are found.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Actually, the View menu item is called, "Page Source." Nevertheless, it's a deceptive misnomer the way it's currently labeled because it DOES NOT SHOW THE SOURCE! It displays instead a modified version of the source; hence IT IS NOT THE SOURCE. In this case, IE's mundane notepad view without syntax highliting is better because at least it displays the actual source, not something else. Either fix mozilla to display the source, or change the label to read, "view a modified version of the source." Of course nobody would want that. But that's what they're getting without realizing it. Sorry; getting repetitive. But I do love Mozilla overall.
101 bucks says Microsoft will use the 101 features list as a specification list of features to add to IE...except for feature 101: Giant lizards are cool.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
If they posted something off the point, you should've said, "Hey, in this case of standands compliant code, Mozilla is misrendering it because of the flow changes."
Instead you went off on a tangent. I've always hated IE's default scroll bar crap, being a person who never got on the IE train (the entire browser feels wrong.. the way it refreshes, etc.. it's a horrid caricature of browsing).
If Mozilla has an internal reflow which doesn't properly trigger when a page which is valid and standards compliant is viewed, that is a bug. File it as such, with that wording. When you sit and see 20,000 new bugs in your mailbox after coming back from a weekend somewhere, you will often times lose track of specifics, and bmark bugs as invalid based on the poor summaries people tend to write.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
At least we know about them, and are able to fix them unlike with IE.
sPh
Ahhh, the tired standards bandwagon... Here we go again...
developers can finally just write according to web standards and know their websites can work for more than 99% of users
Here's the clue: you can do that now. You code for the browser that has the 99% market share. Like it or not, that browser is InternetExplorer. With a fraction of a point in market share, the Mozilla-based browsers can only follow, and try to duplicate the IE experience, "standard" or otherwise.
Though we here don't seem to acknowledge it, real end users don't give a rat's ass about "standards". They just want to get their work done. Preaching about how a browser, which many claim has an inferior user experience (e.g support for "non-standard" stuff like flash, or whatever), fully supports some-incomprehensible-acronym standard is a losing strategy.
Please don't mention standards again. IE is the standard.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Everything you say is true and more, but let's get really real here. Dillo is fast, and that's a huge part of having a "decent web experience." Kmeleon, Pheonix, Chimera, Galeon, Skipstone and friends are faster than Mozilla, but Dillo is just plain fast. When Mozilla developers look into improving performance, they look to how IE and ns4.x do things. Dillo should be something they look at, because the source code is free and it's fast.
"Giant lizards are cool
/me adds a bug report to Bugzilla - "I can't giant lizards are cool"
Much more exciting than a blue e."
I think they started to run out of ideas of things you can do in Mozilla - this one doesn't even make sense!
(And I've been trying to submit this for about 30mins... And someone just phoned cutting me off the net...)
So the Java plugin now runs like a turtle
Like an ordinary tortoise, or like a Ninja Turtle?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I already posted this in the last Mozilla discussion. If you're using Mozilla under Windows,
find and delete the file called "compreg.dat" under your mozilla.org directory (it's in one of the sub-dirs).
101. Giant lizards are cool Much more exciting than a blue e.
I'm sure the number of people switching from IE to Mozilla will skyrocket mainly because of that reason. *shakes his head*
Damn. I never have mod points when I need them! This is definately worth a +5 Insightful.
I agree fully. I'm a professional coder, and I do manage to contribute to some Free Software projects, but I just do not have the time to get into every project I want to improve. Also, with some of the bigger projects, like Mozilla, it takes weeks of work to figure out how to add a non-trivial feature, and that is not counting time dealing w/ security and stability issues of something like NTLM. Someone already involved in the project, or someone being paid to work on it (or someone w/ tonnes and tonnes of free time) is needed in this case.
To my surprise, I recently installed the related product, Phoenix and was greeted with an unusual behavior. After installing the java that it offered, a Sun, non IE, hopefully standards based implementation, I found that the tab key on iwon.com crosswords was a nogo, whereas with the non standards IE java, it worked as expected. I really loathe when non standards based stuff is supported in this way. Improvements are one thing, but this is Uncle Bill deviation for its own sake, yuk..
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
Just what I need! A links bar full of non-stop animations cluttering my peripheral vision!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not the most user-friendly tool, but you can probably get the functionality you want out of MozillaTranslator. It's a java-based program that seems to be the recommended way to update translations. Use the English files from the Mozilla version you're targeting, and import the latest/most-applicable language pack available of the language you're targeting.
There's a bit of a learning curve when it comes to figuring out the terminology, but it does work.
What are you doing, throwing undefined variables at the prompt function?
I have no idea what you're doing to the poor prompt function on IE6, but it's works just fine on all our machines, our customers machines, etc.
Seriously, Maybe you should post the offending snippet of code so we can tell you what you're doing wrong.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I also use http://ttcplinux.sourceforge.net/tools/stunnel to use SSH via HTTPS, because the firewall here doesn't forward anything other than HTTP and HTTPS, but allows HTTPS to any port. Go figure. Type "gg:firewall-piercing-howto" in any Konqueror URL to get more information.
Home Page
But when you persist in complaining, you remind me all too much of people who put notices up that their sites are "best viewed" on a particular OS/browser/version/resolution/color depth, and that's hallmark bad web design.
At their own game? Who knows? Looks like the developers of Apache are trying to faithfully recreate each IIS security hole in their Windows release of Apache. Maybe it's a trend. Maybe it's emulation.
They missed out a feature that I found extremely useful and find it annoying that it's not there in pre-1.2 Mozilla, which is Ctrl-Shift-F takes you straight to your defined search engine (which is Google if you have a clue).
#exclude <ms/windows.h>
Something new at hotmail (past couple days) in Mozilla there is no "add attachment" button. But, switch to IE and it's there. Just thought you might like to know. ;-)
Steven N. Severinghaus
Unfortunately, what you say is not quite true. While most of the six bugs on BugTraq were fixed in Moz 1.0.1 or 1.1, there is still one outstanding. And bear in mind that 1.1 is actually the current version of Mozilla. There's a beta out of 1.2, but I tried it and reverted to 1.1 when lots of basic stuff broke (and from other posts on this thread, I am far from alone). So in fact, there are security bugs in the current version of Mozilla, and they are not yet patched.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Did you hear? That article is giving out bad information, because FIVE out of the six bugs have been fixed in 1.0.1 anyway! And popup blocking is great and all, but how, then, does a window pop up every time I visit nytimes.com?
Here's your undeniable rebuttal: there are still security flaws in the current version of Mozilla.
Would you like to take a quick look at the code, and point out where to fix the remaining one of these six bugs, which is still in 1.1? I'm sure they'd be grateful to receive your patch.
Now, me, I like Moz. I use it in preference to IE most of the time, though I keep the latter around because Moz is too picky for its own good sometimes. I've even taken a look at the source code to see whether I might be able to help out, and one of these days I may submit a patch or two if no-one else has gotten there first.
However, having done that, and speaking as a guy who writes software for a living, I can promise you that most people who use Moz could not just go fix such a bug if they wanted to, even with the source code available to them. And bear in mind that the user base of Moz is likely to be considerably more technically competent than the average PC user.
Most development on big open-source projects is still done by a very small group of people, with a second layer of enthusiastic volunteers who are prepared to spend the time learning enough about the overall framework to get into it and write the patch they want. It takes a very significant amount of time invested before you can do this, which is why most people never will. Anyone who hasn't gains no benefit from the open-source nature of the product, as they are still dependent on third parties for both the code, and assurances about its security and robustness.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
People whom I have managed to get to try Mozilla love it and would change save for the weak plug-in support.
Dawn of the Dead
IE is effectively the standard for end-users, at present, yes. However, it very much is in the interests of those users for the developers to get standards compliance out there, simply because the current standards allow those developers to do way more than IE's hacks. If you're talking about improving the user experience, you have to talk about letting developers use the cool tools instead of writing hacks to get IE to behave itself, and only write the damn thing once, so they can spend the rest of their time improving usability and such.
Also, note that IE's 9x% market penetration is only if you count all its currently popular versions, each of which behaves very differently in some key areas. You cannot write one page in "IE HTML" and expect them all to display it correctly. That kinda defeats the whole "you should write for IE" argument without further ado.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The one you mention about not saving the address is annoying as hell, I agree. Here are a couple other pet peeves of mine that I really wish they'd fix...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
was/is completely fine for me.
Would anyone please bother to actually check the vulnerabilities page and compare it with the Register article, before posting this on a news site? Most of the bugs *are* listed on the vulnerabilities page. IIRC, *all* of the bugs are freely accessible in bugzilla.
What's more, they are *fixed*. Long ago. Beonex Communicator 0.8.1, released 1.5 months ago, is not vulnerable to *any* of these bugs (not even that referrer bug, at least not in the default config).
From the one supporter of Opera comes more flamebait!
Opera can do all of this and it does not have the #102 that the author forgot to include:
102. Renders webpages slower than Internet Explorer. This is a technological breakthrough because I never thought something could be slower than IE but Mozilla beats it by a long shot.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
My favorit
My favorite bug is wh
My favorite bug is when mail cras
My favorite bug is when mail crashes whenever I tr
My favorite bug is when mail crashes whenever I try to sen
My favorite bug is when mail crashes whenever I try to send a message
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
That seems quite logical to me. And it's exactly what Mozilla does. If you dislike that, it's your prerogative. But it's not a serious issue to a lot of people, the Mozilla developers included.
But to reiterate, what you apparently want is to control the user agent; rather than understand the quite logical reason why this behavior happens and adapt to it, you wish to dictate the UA behavior and have it conform to you. This is, in my mind, a serious no-no of web development.
I've grown used to typing 'google' and hitting ctrl + enter and having the http://www. and .com added automatically. I really miss it when using Mozilla. Is there a comparable function?
Mozilla is my main mail client now, on Windows XP, and that never happens to me. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe there is some other issue at work here, but I thought I'd share that.
Rendering times depend on the content - some pages get rendered much slower in Opera than in Mozilla, and most get rendered about as fast in Mozilla as in IE. What *is* slower is the overhead of the UI, but this is a constant time overhead that is only noticeable on old and slow machines. And if Mozilla renders some pages slower than either Opera and IE I accept that, given the fact that both IE and Opera suck bigtime when it comes to standards compliance and CSS2 support.
there's no way I'll stop using IE until there exists the equivalent of the Google toolbar for Mozilla. I don't know if I could function without it.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
102.) If you don't like Mozilla, you have the option of uninstalling it.
Why would I want to have IE on a dedicated database server box?
Cheers,
Jim
-- My Weblog.
Being able to associate external applications with mailto: and news: I prefer my email client and my newsreader. The corporation, I work for, paid for the email client they use, and would never consider using a browser that would not use their preferred email client. This really affects the usability of the product. They will have to add this feature if they want us to adopt mozilla or Netscape for use in the business world.
Get a free ipod.
I REALLLLY wish the guy(s) who wrote the article had at leat used ie a couple of times in their lives. This is exactly the thing that makes M$ say us OSS supporters are full of crap.
... all the rest are too technical. but i see it supports the tag ... WOW ! and PNG transparency ...
IE is not all evil, i use moz, opera, and ie when making sites, but usually i browse with ie. I like it. Sorry.
2) is this really good? some sites use popups to show important information, when it only blocks popup ads call me, otherwise i will still use hosts.
3) IE does it on closing windows and setting 3rd parties cookies
4) IE provides a list of all links in a document and all images in a document in a separate window (d/l ie powertoys)
5) CTRL-I
7) CTRL-wheel
8) fixed size is fixed for a reason (hence its name)
11) see 4
16) when clicking add to favourites, check the "make avail offline box" it works in reality, not in theory
23) The edit button is configured automatically with your HTML editors, dreamweaver, Homesite, TopStyle and SlickEdit currently in mine. So no notepad.
25) ie has this, error by error (tools, internet options, advanced, inside the browsing cat)
26) ie has a debugger, its a POS but its there. (same place as 25)
27) Ie does the same but it searches the web for that term (maybe part of the powertoys) currently using yahoo in mine (dont use it so i dont know if you can change this or not)
30) clck the search button then on customize, you can even choose an array of searchers.
31) ie does this since 3.0
32) ?? which ones use it ?
33) you must be joking if you think this is good.
34) ie does this since 5.0
36) ie does this since 4.0
38) autocomplete its there since 5.0
41) view source? so it uses notepad... takes 1 sec to open it.
44) ctrl-wheel changes font size, ctrl-shift goes back & forward
46) comes preinstalled (ok, not a good point, but what's easier than that). Its installed off the net if you dont have it.
49) mac has ie too so it is cross platform.
I got bored
Meanwhile I use NTLM aps to bypass MS ISA Server with Mozilla, Gozilla, Teleport, wget ...
Slightly offtopic, but on the page of OEOne Homebase desktop here, they mention that they use Mozilla and that keeping track of bookmarks is so easy because little screenshots are taken. (?)
Have I missed something in my copy of Mozilla or is this something OEone'ish?
nt
It's called choice
You can also go to Edit : Preferences : Navigator : Internet Search and set your default search engine to Google.
Then type your search criteria into the address bar and hit the Search button; you'll get the Google results.
101. Giant lizards are cool
Much more exciting than a blue e.
I know plenty of ravers who would deny that - some have probably even seen giant lizards after a few too many blue e's....
Baz
"IE only supports five sizes and has no shortcut keys that I could determine."
Yes there are only five sizes, but holding Ctrl using the scroll wheel on your mouse you can change the text size.
my 2c
I didn't see the link in the Slashdot story, which is very poor quality. (It doesn't mention that all the problems in Mozilla have been fixed.)
Apparently, a lot of other people didn't see the link, either.
I just typed in "cnn" and ended up with http://www.cnn.com/
No I didn't realize that! Thanks
Help fight continental drift.
Keep modding things as "informative" without checking if they're even true...
i refer you to:
( slashdot is a blocked referrer, so no links)
bug 159450
bug 95735
bug 152701 (fixed on trunk)
bug 157646 (fixed on trunk)
bug 164695 (fixed on trunk)
bug 171274 (fixed on trunk)
all of which are 'permission denied'
which almost always indicates a security issue.
see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1.2
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
And again, you are trying to control the user agent.
The actual HTML file had links in it that looked like so: href="foo.txt", but the view source displayed them with a fake space in the quotes like so href=" foo.txt". Since we were trying to debug why the link wasn't working at the time, this apparent extra space led us on a wild goose chase.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
terror. you love terror. terrorist. we know you.
and JRE is at 1.4.1_01 now.
terrorist.
Ok, I'll let you get the last word in.
Err. Maybe not.
Ok, you win. I'm am trying to control the user agent. In fact, I'm trying to control all user agents, including the one you are using right now.
Seriously, I'm not missing anything, trust me. I've gone over this one-point-two million times, it feels like (once in the bug posting, once here). I'm not alone here. For every sane and logical argument you have for this decision, there are others with just as many sane and logical arguments counter to yours. You will ust never convince me that an applicaton control should effect the flow of content in this manner. It'll never happen.
I understand why this is happening, I just don't agree with the solution. I, in fact, don't have a solution, but probably would have chosen one of the other poor solutions.
This is one of those things we will have to just agree to disagree on.
Jim, the horse is dead.
-- clvrmnky
Mozilla is great with all its features, and the fact that it has a continuously updated bug list just shows it is evolving fast, and I think that's the major feature: the synergy of this product. That's what makes a product alive.
However, there is only one thing that I don't see addressed : the speed. From my personal experience, on a given machine, IE is faster than Mozilla, and as much as I love mozilla, I prefer to use IE because it's faster.
{Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme}
I've never understood when people talk about speed. On an 866 MHz Pentium III with Intel motherboard, loading a new instance of IE just took 3 seconds. Loading a new instance of Mozilla took 2 seconds.
Since Moz has tabs, I don't need to load a new instance. I can load a new tab in under 2 seconds.
It's essential, when running a Windows OS, to have plenty of memory. 256 MB is good for Windows XP. The virtual memory of Windows XP, for example, is very poor quality. Taking info off the hard disk is slow in any OS.
Make sure your hard disk is defragmented.
Don't need karma. It has been at the maximum for years.
You have an anger problem.
There are two types of Linux developers - those who can spell, and
those who can't. There is a constant pitched battle between the two.
-- From one of the post-1.1.54 kernel update messages posted to c.o.l.a
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...