Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's Goodger on Firefox's Future
An anonymous reader writes "The New Zealand Herald has an interview with Ben Goodger, lead engineer for Firefox at the Mozilla foundation. In it he describes how he got started, his reasons for Firefox's existence and what the future may hold for the little browser that could."
And Firefox 1.0 PR has already hit a half million downloads. Way to go!
More useful features, nice interface and CUSTOMIZABLE! Extensions are so good... but we'll have to see if it's too much for a simple end user.
My favorite one : WeatherFox! (URL:http://weatherfox.mozdev.org/). Crafteh (wish I knew his real name) developped this beauty following my suggestion on the MozillaZine forum and did an AWESOME job. Weather prediction anywhere in the world in your status bar... soooo usefull! Use it!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
That comment just doesn't reflect reality, DogDude.
Firefox blocks popups out of the box, doesn't support ActiveX at all, doesn't let you run EXE files directly without saving them first, isn't tied with explorer.exe, etc. How many sites do you know that have spyware which affects Firefox?
I know of none. Can you point me to any please? The only site I've come across which could cause issues is http://www.xpehbam.biz/5 which loads a java class which exploits the Microsoft JVM (NB: not Firefox), and installs a dialer. If you're running the SUN JVM, you are of course safe.
Centralization breaks the internet.
but then firefox changes the way it renders the page if you twiddle a nob? Shouldn't firefox consistently render it the same (broken) way every time?
In theory, yes. Unfortunately, there's a class of bugs called "reflow" bugs - reflow is basically the incremental rendering of pages as more of the HTML is downloaded.
When certain things happen at certain times, in certain orders, the layout ends up getting rendered incorrectly until you force a reflow (you can do this by changing the text size, resizing the window, etc).
The problem with these bugs is that they're very hard to track down. A lot of the time, you can't reproduce them on a [faster|slower] connection, and if the developers aren't experiencing it, they're stuck.
My server
No. It was a bug in Fire Fox.
There's two separate arguments going on here.
The first is "Is Firefox bugged?" and the answer was "Well, it was, but it was fixed." It depended on network timing, I think, because it was intermittent. There's also another aspect to this, which is that the bug was in bug quirk compatibility mode... so if Slashdot's HTML wasn't old crap, it would never have occured at all. But it was still a bug.
The second argument is "Is Slashdot generating valid HTML code?" The answer is "No." Jamie argues that it is valid, just HTML 3.2 instead of 4.0. However, anyone running the validator can prove this wrong easily -- it's not valid HTML 3.2, either. This isn't really that big a deal, since being technically correct was much less important in HTML 3.2, but it is always annoying to have someone bald face lie to you.
It may have been that slashdot was the only site to demonstrate the bug (I think it was in 0.7, but I could be wrong), but I doubt it. It was indeed a Firefox bug, and not just a bug in the Slashdot HTML. But that does not mean the Slashdot HTML is valid.
I hope that helps. This is confusing. :)