Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla's Goodger on Firefox's Future

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the web-surfing-made-safe-again dept.

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."

6 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. I just swithced a coworker today! by stuffedmonkey · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    She had 5-6 different spywares running at the same time on her windows xp box!

  2. Re:My Wishlist for FireFox by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    We're hoping to move to XHTML in the future (sometime within the next year, for sure, I hope) but like everything else it goes on our priority list based on resource-cost and benefit. There are bugs that need to be squashed, meaningful features to be added, and performance improvements we need to put into place that come first.

    Like changing the IT colors to something that doesn't cause blindness? (please oh please oh please oh please...)

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  3. Re:My Wishlist for FireFox by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Go take a look at games, think about how much worse it is and how much longer it's existed, then think about how likely it is that any of the /. editors actually cares enough to do anything in response to the complaints.

    Yes, Games is a little annoying too. The difference, however, is that the beige-on-white is hard to read, and painful. Games just doesn't affect me that way, because the darker purple provides some contrast.

    It would be nice if there was a option in the preferences somewhere that would "force all pages to be Slashdot green". That way, we wouldn't have to keep removing "it" from the URLs of stories, or changing it to something more imaginative.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  4. Note: Reason for difference. by Trillan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The reason for the difference between my scan (180) and other others here (189) is that I took a copy of the current page, added the meta content line (which needs to be added if you're scanning from a local hard drive instead of over http) and uploaded the site to the w3c validator.

    If anyone is interested in reproducing this, you need to add this element to the head:

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

    (The charset was determined by right-clicking the web page (as rendered over http) and checking the properties.)

  5. Re:How'd Jamie's post get to +5, anyway? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's not a conspiracy theory. Slashdot editors have unlimited mod points.

  6. Re:Oh? Then why do you block wc3 validator? by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    hey, I said we emitted HTML 3.2... I never said it was valid :)

    Microsoft incorporates security in its products, its just not valid security!

    COme on guys! I am sure you can do better than that feeble excuse! ;)

    --
    Have a nice day!