Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Releases Firefox 1.0 RC1

islandroots writes "Mozilla has finally posted the first Firefox 1.0 release candidate on their FTP servers. This could very well be the last official release of Firefox before the big 1.0 launch date on November 9th. Mozilla FTP Servers"

579 comments

  1. Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    When we're all playing Halo 2 on November 9th! Pick another release date!

    1. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Halo 2???

      What a loser.

    2. Re:Who will notice? by tsager · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not play Halo2 at one of the launch parties?
      http://www.openforce.at/mozparty2/

    3. Re:Who will notice? by klone0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They did it to reduce the server load. :)

    4. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but we'll also be too busy reflecting over the terrible events of 9/11 2001.

      What?

    5. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who actually goes to a release party for a browser? Sounds like the same group of people that have fantasy battles with foam swords at my school . . .

    6. Re:Who will notice? by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I for one will be trying hard to IGNORE the fact that it's 9/11 *AGAIN*. FYI, no I'm not a terrorist, yes I have a heart... but for GOD'S SAKE...it's been years...and if we really wanted to mourn we should also mourn for the thousands of innocent Iraqi's that have been killed because of W.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    7. Re:Who will notice? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you're confused. The 9/11 which upsets people is the 9th of September. Americans write dates the wrong way around.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Who will notice? by SilentChris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Anonymous coward???

      What a loser.

    9. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey stupid, 9/11 already passed this year. guess you didn't even notice it...

    10. Re:Who will notice? by Yer+Mom · · Score: 0

      Not in the UK - we get two whole days of Firefoxy goodness before MS deign to give us our copies of Halo 2 on the 11th :(

      --
      Never mind Spamassassin. When's Spammerassassin coming out?
    11. Re:Who will notice? by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      *blinks* Ya know.......*goes back to bed* I must not have eaten my Wheaties this morning...*grumbles*

      Good point.....comment withdrawn....I will now go back to feeling really dumb...

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    12. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another loser halo player.

      Come on man get your Fro done, paint your tag on the wall and go beat up some hookers..

      Sheesh kids today and their failure to play wholesome american video games.

      San Andreas!

    13. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      muuuahahahaha
      And you all thought the Xbox was a stupid idea...
      IE forever!

      Bill Gates.

    14. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh, you made it as obvious as that, and people still didn't get it.

      Slashdot is composed of idiots.

    15. Re:Who will notice? by Lucky+Kevin · · Score: 1

      I will for one. RC1 freezes when trying to open myebay :-(

      --
      Kevin
      "It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
    16. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you go to WPI, or do people at other colleges actually do this too?

    17. Re:Who will notice? by Lucky+Kevin · · Score: 1

      I forgot to say. This is using the Mac version.

      --
      Kevin
      "It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
    18. Re:Who will notice? by FrankNFurter · · Score: 1

      Some associate Nov. 9th with not-quite-so-terrible events, such as the day the Berlin wall was opened (Nov. 9th, 1989).

      And others don't let the seriously twisted USian way of writing dates confuse themselves.

      --
      "Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
    19. Re:Who will notice? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 1
      I think you're confused. The 9/11 which upsets people is the 9th of September. Americans write dates the wrong way around.

      I think you're confused. The day was September 11th, commonly referred to as 9-11 (Month 9, Day 11)... NOT "9th of September". THAT would be 9/9.

      --

      Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

    20. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, War has no winners, America is not Saints, revenge is wrong that is what we teach our kids today, so what is wrong with the war in Iraq? revenge? wrong?

    21. Re:Who will notice? by flatface · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slashdot doesn't care. Post your problems on Bugzilla instead. More effective, too.

    22. Re:Who will notice? by aclarke · · Score: 1

      Well, I dunno. This one sounds pretty ... err ... cool.

    23. Re:Who will notice? by hpavc · · Score: 1

      Seems like fresh spam harvest, why do those sites do that?

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    24. Re:Who will notice? by funklord9 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean my.ebay.com?

    25. Re:Who will notice? by QQoicu2 · · Score: 0

      Wow, I go to Truman State, and I thought we were the only place with those dorks...

      --
      "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    26. Re:Who will notice? by TheBurningDog · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm just going b/c there is a 2d4 chance I'll get laid there.

    27. Re:Who will notice? by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I won't be playing. I really don't get what the big deal about Halo is, anyway.

    28. Re:Who will notice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WPI.

  2. Extensions by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    After reading comments that indicate that your installed extensions will show up as incompatible with RC1, I think I'll wait. Apparently the browser has to automatically consider extensions as incompatible until authors check them or something along those lines.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Extensions by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      I'm using it with adblock. What else do you need?
      I used to use the single window extension but RC1 has those options built in so I no longer need it.

    2. Re:Extensions by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

      Simply go the the sites of the authors of the extensions or themes, and you should find updated versions that work fine with RC1.
      I did.

    3. Re:Extensions by mosschops · · Score: 5, Informative
      How about after setting:
      extensions.disabledObsolete = false
      in about:config ?

      Since there's a good chance extensions that worked under 1.0PR will be fine in 1.0 RC1.
    4. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The browser does not automatically consider extensions as incompatible. It just look at the install.rdf file of the extension.
      You can change the max version number to this : 1.0+ and it will work.

    5. Re:Extensions by slavik1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least this is a better way to catch incompatabilities. *cough* SP2 *cough*

      --
      just my 2 bytes
    6. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's got time for shit like this? Goodness. Some of us have more than 2 extensions. And that's another problem I have with Firefox: it's useless unless you load it with 20+ extensions. Then it's bigger and more of a memory hog then IE.

    7. Re:Extensions by silverfuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did this to get all my extensions working with one of the recent nightlies (think it was 20041026 or 20041022), and it's fine with RC1 too:

      1. Exit FF
      2. Open your extensions.rdf, held in 'extensions' under your profile directory.
      3. For each extension, change the "em:maxVersion" entry to "1.0" (from "0.10" or whatever).
      4. Save, open Firefox again, and re-enable all your extensions.

      Worked flawlessly here (on about a dozen extensions), and should work for pretty much any extension, as there were no major changes from PR to RC1, it's mostly bugfixes (except for the single window mode, obviously don't re-enable Aaron Spuler's Single Window extension).

      --
      You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...
    8. Re:Extensions by Angafirith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I only have one extension. The one that came with it, the "DOM Inspector".

      Firefox still works perfectly for me. It's not useless at all.

      --
      "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." - Voltaire
    9. Re:Extensions by masklinn · · Score: 1

      That's exactly it, notice that this also works with themes, but is a bit harder: themes are not recorded within the Extensions.rdf file. Soo 1- Close Firefox 2- go to the extensions folder in your profile 3- perform a search on all the rdf files 4- open them one after the other until you find your theme's RDF 5- change the value to 1.0 6- save 7- open firefox, enable theme, you're done PS: install.rdf from extensions are NOT taken in account by firefox. PS2: you can do parent's trick by opening your extension's XPI, editing the install.rdf file (changing maxversion) and reinstalling your extension, it'll be installed instead of the non-updated one. Also notice that extension devs often don't bother changing version number (of the extensions) when all they do is to change mozilla/firefox maxversion, Firefox's Update Search therefore doesn't display them as "Updatable" (since versioning hasn't been changed)

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    10. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      After reading comments that indicate that your installed extensions will show up as incompatible with RC1, I think I'll wait.

      Oh for fucks sake. Again? And this is considered to be suitable for a 1.0 release? When a simple upgrade breaks things, it's not suitable for end-users.

      Yes, I like Firefox, it's a decent browser. But I'm a geek and I understand the problems, I can fix them, and I don't really mind too much fixing them. But most end-users aren't like me. When routine upgrades break things, they are going to label it a piece of shit and never use it again. I wish the Firefox developers would set their priorities straight. A deadline isn't useful in the open-source world. An application that works properly is.

    11. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically? The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images? The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard? The ability to switch user-agent on the fly? The ability to download with software other than the browser?

      There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?

    12. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about making the browser more user-friendly and not requiring archaic commands in about:config?

      General users are not going to appreciate having to lose their extensions. They are certainly not going to know that they have to go to about:config to change some obscure option to get them back.

      KISS.

    13. Re:Extensions by Veamon · · Score: 0

      If you can't install an extension, then you're dumber than a retard humping a doorknob.

      --

      Slashdot News: As serious as a busted rubber
    14. Re:Extensions by aldoman · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will automatically upgrade your extensions in the background for you when newversions are released.

    15. Re:Extensions by aldoman · · Score: 1

      Calm down.

      When I installed 1.0RC1, it found, downloaded and installed 8 updated packages. I have 3 extensions 'broke'. I am very very sure they will be updated by the time 1.0 comes out, and when the 'fox checks automatically for updates, it'll install them and when it restarts, everything will be fine.

    16. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tried your method.
      Didn't work for me.
      Flash won't flash anymore :-(

    17. Re:Extensions by CDLI · · Score: 1

      I haven't bothered to install any extensions. I don't find it useless. I don't think that most people are going to go looking for extensions. I don't even think that most people know what an extension is. (I do, but I'm too lazy to wade through a bunch of crap that I don't need to see if there's something out there that I'd like to have.)

    18. Re:Extensions by mosschops · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about making the browser more user-friendly and not requiring archaic commands in about:config?

      Unfortunately, backwards compatability can't always be guaranteed, particularly in applications under rapid development like Firefox.

      Refusing to use potentially incompatible components is the most user-friendly solution. I'd rather it did that than misbehave and potentially crash! about:config is not meant for the average user, but as a handy direct approach for power users (makes a change from editing config files, like I do in Opera).

      I do still hope that things settle enough after 1.0 that extensions won't be invalidated on every minor update...

    19. Re:Extensions by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      If they did that, and then had to change how extentions work for security reasons. Those users would blame firefox for their extentions not working.

      By forcing validation of extentions they are making sure the extentions will work in this version. But if you are smart enough to know how to enable the work around, then you can take the risk.

      I think this is a good method actually.

    20. Re:Extensions by Blender · · Score: 1

      You're probably right when you're saying that most end-users are not like you (and me) i.e. geek. That also means that most end-users probably won't be installing any extensions whatsoever. Voila 'problem' fixed.

      Also, I think the FF userbase is still mostly geeks (and their wiv^H^H^Hgirlf^H^H^H^H^Hfriends and relatives). That's already changing for the better and will hopefully get a huge boost with the ad in the NYT. Still, people who are now happy with IE, probably won't start using extensions when they switch to FF.

    21. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a good method actually.

      yay for the Firefox zealots. No one cares you fucks.

    22. Re:Extensions by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --When routine upgrades break things, they are going to label it a piece of shit and never use it again.--

      You sir MUST be new to computers. Mosey over to microsoft.com and see just how many fixes there are for their pos SP's that BREAK ALL KINDS OF SHIT. Oh, and last I checked....lots of people have labeled Windows a "Piece of shit" and they use it all the time.

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    23. Re:Extensions by bigbadwlf · · Score: 1

      OK fair enough. I'm not the guy that's saying your extensions won't work, or trying to justify it. I was just letting everyone know that adblock does, since it's probably the most popular one.
      If you have other extensions you require, then by all means hold off.

    24. Re:Extensions by Proteus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are a ton of extensions I use. How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?
      Firefox has been Beta, and still is. You can expect better consistency between production-release versions, but expecting that fixing bugs and refining the codebase will never break outside applications (extensions) is insanity.
      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    25. Re:Extensions by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about allowing every extension to run, and mailbombing the extension author if it fucks up?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    26. Re:Extensions by VivianC · · Score: 1

      How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically? The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images? The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard? The ability to switch user-agent on the fly? The ability to download with software other than the browser?

      Can you post the names of these extensions? I use adblock only and have never seen the rest of these. They sound great.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    27. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're not running Adblock? That's an extension. Fuck off.

    28. Re:Extensions by Val314 · · Score: 1

      most extensions will work with 1.0 without much change. if you dont want to change it yourself, goto http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showforum =2 for repacked extentions that will work with 1.0

    29. Re:Extensions by Jae · · Score: 1

      there is an easier way to handle this.

      enter "about:config" into the url bar and look for "application.extensions.version" and set that value to ".10".

      you will have to re-enable all your extensions by hand after restarting firefox. it's much easier then editting individual plugin files.

      --
      -Jae
    30. Re:Extensions by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      dont change this. its better to do it one by one, or get new versions.

      there WILL be extensions with a minimum "version" of 1.0, and this hack will break those extensions.

      or if you have an extention that does:
      if (application.extensions.version 1.0) // do pre 1.0 code
      else // do post 1.0 code

      you will end up in big trouble.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    31. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use any extensions, and it runs perfectly.

    32. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Sort Bookmarks, Popup ALT Attribute, Copy Image, User Agent Switcher, DownloadWith. Nope, they're not all on update.mozilla.org - it doesn't list ones that aren't still maintained (often).

    33. Re:Extensions by tepples · · Score: 1

      get new versions.

      Not all extensions are updated on a useful schedule. What about the users who rely on an extension whose maintainer quit? Should they stick with an older Firefox version that has known security holes?

    34. Re:Extensions by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · · Score: 3, Informative
      How can you proclaim a browser's strength as its extensibility, and then have this 'don't use extensions' nonsense every time you upgrade version?


      Becasue this is a testing release only. Users are encouraged to download RC1 only if they are willing to file bugs; normal end users are supposed to stay with 1.0 PR until 1.0 final is available.

      That's why this story needed to provide an FTP link to RC1--it's not available via the mozilla.org web page or the Firefox autoupdate. The next couple weeks between RC1 and final are intended to allow extension authors to certify compatability and/or make needed changes. Then when 1.0 final hits, autoupdate should upgrade 1.0 PR users and their extensions automagically.
    35. Re:Extensions by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I'll make a mental note. Your opinon matters, mine doesn't. Especially when I have the balls to not be a coward.

    36. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the story title?
      RC = Release Candidate = No longer beta.

    37. Re:Extensions by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images?

      This is not how the ALT is to be used which is why FF does not do it. According to the specifications one should use the TITLE tag if you want to see the popup for something. The ALT tag is to be used for text-only browswer or for screen readers.

      Therefore, FF adheres to the standards while IE does not.

      For reference: ALT tag from W3C

      Also, when you first go to the W3C website hover over any of the links on the left side under the 'W3C A to Z' section and you will see the popups you are looking for. Now view the source for the page. Notice the use of the TITLE tag? That's how things should be done to get the popups.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    38. Re:Extensions by ShadeARG · · Score: 1

      That sure is a lot of work. Here's what I did:

      1) Go into about:config
      2) Change app.extensions.version and app.version to 0.10
      3) Go into extensions and themes and re-enable everything that was disabled
      4) Restart Firefox

      Voila.. No need to edit any files.

    39. Re:Extensions by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Informative

      This site has some great extensions which aren't on update.mozilla.org for some reason. I find the following extensions from this site very useful:

      Allow Right-Click
      Alt-Text for Links
      Always Remember Password
      BugMeNot
      Ext2Abc

      Also look for their developers guide to writing extensions, it's good stuff.

    40. Re:Extensions by Forthan+Red · · Score: 1

      ALT text is NOT intended to be pop-up text (use the title tag for that). It's to REPLACE an image when it can't be shown. Moz/FF should be applauded for not encouraging the crappy HTML coding that IE does.

    41. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this insightful?

      "The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images?"

      This is an abuse of the "alt" tag, which is only supposed to show up when the stuff it's attached to *cannot* for some reason be shown. The correct way is "title". Using "alt" is an IE:ism which too many people believes is the right way. Those should be taken out and shot at dawn.

    42. Re:Extensions by dze · · Score: 1

      That worked really well for me. Thanks for posting that. Any idea on how to enable themes that are no longer working (but were on PR) as well?

      --

      "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
    43. Re:Extensions by smc13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Firefox has been Beta, and still is."

      RC stands for release candidate, right? This is supposed to mean that it isn't in beta, most of its bugs are fixed, and they are doing final tests to make sure everything works. One of the RC releases will end up as the final release, right?

      Shouldn't the release candidates have consistency?

      Steve Cohen

    44. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then don't try to push beta software down my throat. Don't start this campaign to get 1 million downloads for a preview release. I bet no one told their friends & family that when they download Firefox, they were downloading beta software. Oh yeah, and don't bitch when companies aren't adopting Firefox. Save all this for the 1.0 release.

    45. Re:Extensions by beforewisdom · · Score: 1
      After reading comments that indicate that your installed extensions will show up as incompatible with RC1, I think I'll wait. Apparently the browser has to automatically consider extensions as incompatible until authors check them or something along those lines.
      Ditto. I feel the same way It is too much of a nuisance to trash your plugin set up everytime a decimal release comes out.
    46. Re:Extensions by snol · · Score: 1

      No, they should definitely whine at someone who's not responsible for helping them but is trying to anyway, ignoring one of the offered solutions because you can complain better about the other one.

    47. Re:Extensions by werner75 · · Score: 1

      I have tried to upgrade my Firefox. The first time i started Firefox it tells me some extensions/themes are not compatible and disabled. My favorite Pinball Theme was not disabled and i guess it should work. -WRONG-
      I can't start Firefox anymore and its not easy to remove my old Theme manual :/
      I advise everyone to keep a backup from your ~/.mozilla/firefox Folder ....I don't know why I haven't done it :)

    48. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that, and still some of my extensions as being disabled. Including on anomaly. Flash Click to View is disabled, supposedly, but is still working.

    49. Re:Extensions by pebs · · Score: 1

      The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images?

      Mozilla/Firefox is standards compliant and you won't ever see this happening without using an extension. IE's behavior which you have gotten used to is simply incorrect. Web designers should be instead using the TITLE attribute.

      --
      #!/
    50. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep to me that has been the most annoying "feature" of firefox, version after version I had to update my extension and if there isn't an update then you can't use that particular extension.

    51. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more. The ALT attribute issue is particularly important, since IE's behavior encourages designers to use ALT attributes that are extremely unhelpful and don't serve the purpose ALT is intended to serve. The result is that pages are less accessible to people using text-mode browsers (perhaps because they don't have access to a graphical browser or even a system capable of running one), screen readers, braille terminals, etc.

      The web isn't only for people with unimpaired vision who are using GUI-based systems. Web designers need to learn better, and stop abusing the ALT attribute. Mozilla's discouraging of this abuse is a Good Thing.

    52. Re:Extensions by GarfBond · · Score: 1

      Because you would be bitching a lot more if you upgraded your browser, an extension wasn't known to be compatible and managed to screw things up. In this instance, you would be crying all over the internet "Firefox 1.1 is BUGGY! DON'T USE IT." And if not "you" you, then consider the other people out on the internet, the non /. readers who aren't quite so adept at what's going on.

      Back in the days of Phoenix/Firebird/Ffx 0.8, this was certainly a good possibility, as many extensions did break from release to release. This system now ensures they don't have an opportunity to, though it does leave you with some inconvenience at the bleeding edge of release. Have faith, wait a week or two, and your extension will be updated by the author.

    53. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web designers should be instead using the TITLE attribute.

      Just to nit-pick, web designers should be using the TITLE attribute in addition to, not instead of, the ALT attribute. ALT is required (at least on images). It's also important that they learn to use ALT as it was intended, to serve as a reasonable replacement for the image when the image is not displayed.

    54. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically?

      I think I saw recent fixes go in for this.

      > The ability to copy images directly into the clipboard?

      Already there. Right click->Copy Image

    55. Re:Extensions by jallison · · Score: 2, Interesting
      AC wrote How about making the browser more user-friendly and not requiring archaic commands in about:config?

      And mosschops responded Unfortunately, backwards compatability can't always be guaranteed, particularly in applications under rapid development like Firefox.

      Both true, but unrelated. I can't really expect beta software to be backward compatible from release to release. I do expect released software to be backward compatible, and hopefuly FF will figure this out from 1.0 on.

      As for the about:config stuff, couldn't agree more. It's OK for truly obscure stuff to be buried in there, but it's an interface that shouldn't be required for the vast majority of users. Expose those things in a proper configuration screen!

      I've been using FF for a while now and my biggest gripe is around the tabbed browsing. Tabbed browsing is a wonderful thing, but FF doesn't take true advantage of it without the tabbed browsing extension. And if extensions break when you upgrade the browser, that's a drag. I'll certainly withhold judgement on FF until after the formal 1.0 release, which I'm hoping is an improvement over the PR. If it's not I'll stick with Mozilla, but I fear that'll become a backwater.

    56. Re:Extensions by asdren · · Score: 1

      thanks for the tip. I always lag a handful of weeks behind after new ff releases b/c of extension incompatibilities.

    57. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the final 1.0 release should be consistent with subsequent releases. You could argue that that is not even all that important.

    58. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      Heh, this one always gets raised. I know full well that it's not meant to happen in the standards. People don't always code websites correctly to standards - I WANT the ALT text to popup, for me personally. Frankly, it seems more sensible to have the same popup text as ALT text. Half the work, and why should the two be any different? I really don't see many cases where they should be.

      Besides, if Firefox adhered this religiously to other HTML standards, most websites wouldn't render properly on it.

    59. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Nope. I couldn't disagree more. I think that, if anything, it *encourages* website designers to put ALT tags in because they can actually see the effect of them in their regular browsers without disabling images. I don't really see why it should cause website designers to make ALT tags 'extremely unhelpful'. Expecting them to write a paragraph for every image is stupid, and unreasonable.

    60. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how the standards are more sensible than using ALT for popup text, and not more irritating.

    61. Re:Extensions by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      most of its bugs are fixed, and they are doing final tests to make sure everything works That's what beta is supposed to mean.

    62. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to nit-pick, web designers should be using the TITLE attribute in addition to, not instead of, the ALT attribute. ALT is required (at least on images). It's also important that they learn to use ALT as it was intended, to serve as a reasonable replacement for the image when the image is not displayed.

      TITLE should be used for displaying tooltips, and ALT should be used for displaying alternate text, which doesn't have to be the same as the tooltip (in many cases it isn't).

    63. Re:Extensions by Empty+Sands · · Score: 1

      Unlike when it is built into the OS? IE anyone?

    64. Re:Extensions by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      This is not how the ALT is to be used which is why FF does not do it

      Where do the standards say that showing a tooltip for ALT text is illegal? It doesn't in your link.

      AFAICT, IE does implement both TITLE and ALT properly, so therefore it is conformant to the standards. Showing a tooltip for ALT (when TITLE doesn't exist) seems to be an optional feature that is a matter of taste only. And the fact is a lot of pages seem to rely on that legacy behavior.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    65. Re:Extensions by Proteus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Shouldn't the release candidates have consistency?
      Yes, but this is RC1. It should have consistency between it and RC2, but not for 0.10 (aka 1.0 PR, a bad naming if I've ever seen one).

      There is no guarantee that a Release Candidate will be compatible with the previous testing version, only with future RC's in the same tree.
      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    66. Re:Extensions by Proteus · · Score: 1
      Then don't try to push beta software down my throat. Don't start this campaign to get 1 million downloads for a preview release.
      And how would else you suggest getting 1 million beta testers? Firefox isn't being pushed down your throat. But, as Firefox approaches 1.0, they needed lots of beta testers to make sure it will be rock-solid.
      I bet no one told their friends & family that when they download Firefox, they were downloading beta software.
      You lost your bet, I did -- but they found the Beta to be a better browsing experience than IE. Opinion, perhaps, but it still speaks to the quality of the Beta. And if that's any guide, the final should be excellent, indeed.
      Oh yeah, and don't bitch when companies aren't adopting Firefox.
      I never have. I have suggested Firefox -- even in beta -- as an alternative to keeping up with IE security holes. Some of my clients have taken me up on it, others have decided to wait for 1.0. So be it; only the teenage fanboys on /. get upset when a company makes a choice they don't like.
      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    67. Re:Extensions by Aragorn992 · · Score: 1

      How about the ability to sort bookmarks alphabetically?

      I believe there has been bug fixes on this, not sure if its what you're looking for though.

    68. Re:Extensions by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Some of us could care less, and are happy to live with your comments and IE in the workplace (especially when we build and configure our systems, not IT - hint) because we have a browser that we enjoy.

      If you like [browser of the week] and want to make it a personal crusade to put that software up to some high moral standard...

      Go to hell.

    69. Re:Extensions by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that was supposed to say "Go for it".

      (Damn freudian slips)

    70. Re:Extensions by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Forget moral standards and crusades... As a person whose job requires 10+ hours on a browser a day... it's just better.

      Do others have opinions? Damn straight. Does the fact they you like MSIE invalidate someone liking Firefox, or vice versa? Nope.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    71. Re:Extensions by Mornelithe · · Score: 2

      Are people putting a gun to your head and forcing you to run firefox? Maybe you should call the police, if you can reach the phone.

      Firefox is beta software, so it breaks some stuff between versions. Unfortunately, it's also better than the 6th revision of the competitor with 80 - 90% marketshare.

      If anyone's pushing firefox down your throat, it's Microsoft. Give them a call and tell them to get their act together. Bitching at people here does nothing.

      --

      I've come for the woman, and your head.

    72. Re:Extensions by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I'm just sick of the attitude that for some reason, people think authors of popular free applications owe them something.

      They didn't force you to bet the business on their app, just because you're kicking themselves in the ass about it doesn't mean they have to take it.

    73. Re:Extensions by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there, with this caveat: If a big project (Mozilla, Apache, etc.) says that they will do certain things (like provide a working product), then they should try to do so in a timely manner.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    74. Re:Extensions by olman · · Score: 1

      Refusing to use potentially incompatible components is the most user-friendly solution. I'd rather it did that than misbehave and potentially crash! about:config is not meant for the average user, but as a handy direct approach for power users (makes a change from editing config files, like I do in Opera).

      Bullpuckies. Most user-friendly solution is to let you enable the extensions manually anyways. after you dismiss the driver-politzei "non-MS-approved-driver" popup, it's on your head.

      It's not as if "downloadwith" and "tab browser preferences" has EVER misbehaved when "forced".

    75. Re:Extensions by cjellibebi · · Score: 1
      People don't always code websites correctly to standards - I WANT the ALT text to popup, for me personally.

      There is a FireFox extension called "Popup ALT Attributes" that does just that. However, I would recommend that you do not get into the habit of relying on it too much, as it won't discorage webmasters from abusing the ALT tag.

      What you should be doing instead is contacting the webmasters of the offending websites and tell them to use the TITLE tag for popup titles, and the ALT tag for text that replaces an image when the image cannot be viewed.

    76. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but as I said before, I really don't see why the distinction needs to be made between ALT and TITLE. I believe the standard is wrong, and IE's behaviour is right. I believe it *encourages* use of ALT tags, and that 99.9% of the time, it's desirable to have the values of each tag the same.

    77. Re:Extensions by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, having the TITLE tag pop up means that you can use the TITLE tag on elements other than images.

      For example, on a website I recently made, I did something like this:

      <a href="faq.html" title="Frequently Asked Questions">FAQ</a>

      This way, if you don't know what a "FAQ" is, you can mouse over it, and it tells you.

      Also, if you're using images in your layout, you probably don't want alt popups (you might argue that you don't want to use alt at all here, but the w3c validator will ding you for it, so I put alt tags on everything). So, what this means is that the ALT attribute is alternate text for browsers not able to show the image (whether it's a textual browser, or the image 404's), and TITLE is for anything that pops up.

      Are you saying we should just implement TITLE for every tag except IMG? Because that would be a pointless special case.

      I could also argue that I specifically DO NOT want alt text popping up all over the place, as I am generally more interested in looking at the image than having text pop up in front of it. I like that the webmaster gets to choose what gets a popup and what doesn't with the distinction between the ALT and TITLE attributes -- if the webmaster feels that some text needs to pop up to explain the image, he can choose to have that happen, but if the image speaks for itself, he can just have ALT text.

      Ultimately, it's probably a good thing that this is created as an extension and not a browser feature. This way, I don't get ALT popups, and you do, and we're both happy.

    78. Re:Extensions by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you shouldn't have the TITLE tag for images, but the ALT text *should* popup instead if there is no TITLE tag. Only yesterday I saw a good example of this here. Those images could do with something describing them - the ALT text does, but nothing else. Ought the webmaster to have used TITLE or a caption on the page? I guess so. Did they? No. And as it happens, the ALT text is fine both for screenreaders and a description caption for me.

    79. Re:Extensions by Jae · · Score: 1

      if you don't install new extensions on a regular basis, and you have a lot of plugins installed, this is a quick way to get all of them working again. esp since most of the plugins won't be updated in a timely basis.

      --
      -Jae
    80. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the gun comment come from? I never said anyone forced me to install. Read my comment again.

      And when did I ever mention IE? Not that you really qualified what makes something "better". Granted, I would tend to agree Firefox is mostly an improvement over IE, but since "better" is a subjective term, it doesn't make for much of an argument.

      And I will bitch as long as people here are turds. Mozilla always gets off the hook because it's beta software. How long has it been beta anyway? If IE was called beta, would it be as easily forgiven. API breaks, security issues, you name it -- these are all okay for Firefox because it's beta. Give me a break.

  3. Should I just wait? by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How different is this from my Preview Release? Should I download it? Or just wait until Nov 9th?

    1. Re:Should I just wait? by tsager · · Score: 5, Informative

      The (rough) changelog is here:
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/qa/ changel og-rc1.html

    2. Re:Should I just wait? by plj · · Score: 5, Informative

      From MozillaZine:

      Asa Dotzler writes: "Today we have our first Firefox 1.0 candidate builds available for testing. You can get these test builds from FTP. If you've already downloaded 1.0 PR (the "feature complete" preview) and you're not really interested in testing and bug reporting, then you should probably stick with 1.0 PR for a couple more weeks and upgrade when we release the official Firefox 1.0.

      --
      “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
    3. Re:Should I just wait? by hyperlinx · · Score: 1

      The point of such release candidates is to have people unaffiliated with the normal testing cycle give the software a try. Of course if you want a finalized product which shouldn't ever crash, then wait for the official 1.0 release...if you're willing to help the developers put out the best possible product, use the new software, push the limit on the number of open tabs or windows, and if/when there's problems, try to duplicate the problem and report back to the developers.

      --
      In /.space, no one can hear you SCREAM!
    4. Re:Should I just wait? by peterprior · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correct url without space and clicky for lazy people is here

    5. Re:Should I just wait? by whovian · · Score: 1

      I have been using the nightly build from 20041024 to fix a browser freeze when trying to print with 1.0PR.

      This version has a new Save Page As dialog which is more cumbersome for me (read: more Windows-like) than before. In order to traverse directories, you have to make another click to open a dialog box, but then at least you can see the whole path.

      maybe this is calling for an extenstion to restore the old behavior.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    6. Re:Should I just wait? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

      How different is this from my Preview Release? Should I download it? Or just wait until Nov 9th?

      Among the largest changes are:

      - Tabbed browsing preferences, see "Advanced" panel in Options.
      - Several bug fixes to the new find toolbar.
      - Browser migration improvements.
      - Security fixes, such as an important fix to the problem with inactive tabs able to grab input focus.
      - Maybe a dozen crash fixes, some being among the most commonly reported crashes.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Should I just wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you i am eating a bagel and only have one hand free

    8. Re:Should I just wait? by gabec · · Score: 1

      Or you could have used the ... text/plain extension! ;)
      http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/textplai n

    9. Re:Should I just wait? by Tribbin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see you can start a new instance of the Mozilla window without the profile window popping up in linux. Finally!

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    10. Re:Should I just wait? by d_jedi · · Score: 1

      That was especially annoying (in Windows or Linux) when the FF browser crashed. It wouldn't release whatever locking mechanism it had on the file, and future instances thought FF was still running, forcing you to choose a different profile..

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    11. Re:Should I just wait? by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      actually, just the GUI would crash, the firefox.exe executable would still be running. it would go zombie or something, hold on to its memory and just kinda go off into its own world.

      kill the firefox.exe and you won't be prompted for the profile (unless you have several profiles) anymore.

    12. Re:Should I just wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fav changelog bugfix:
      'Mail button looks horked when using small icons and show icons and text'

    13. Re:Should I just wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't

    14. Re:Should I just wait? by timefactor · · Score: 1

      If you like to just click on that link to go to the referenced site, just follow these steps:
      1. You'll need to be running Mozilla or Firefox. If you aren't go to this site:
      http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
      A nd download and install Firefox.
      (you'll need to copy and paste from here into your browser's address bar. Also, don't forget to remove any spaces that slashcode may have inserted. Don't forget to bookmark this page in your current browser first so you can get back here. You'll also need to remember to import your current browser's bookmarks into Firefox.)
      2. Go to this site: http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/textlink s
      (you'll need to copy and paste from here into your browser's address bar. Also, don't forget to remove any spaces that slashcode may have inserted.)
      3. Install the extension
      you may need to exit and restart Firefox. Also, if you've downloaded Firefox RC 1.0 and the extension isn't compatible you can try disabling all your extensions first and then installing the extension in question. If that doesn't work you may need to uninstall Firefox, reinstall Firefox, then install the exension in question.)
      4. Go back to this page and scroll to the text url above ^.
      5. Select the link and click: Et Voila! You will be taken directly to the site in question.
      (Unfortunately this won't work if slashcode has inserted spaces in the url that you'd like to click on, in which case: Tant Pis!)

    15. Re:Should I just wait? by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Hmm... baked goods-ism... very sad.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  4. First Post by goldsounds · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... with Firefox 1.0 RC1 It counts for something, doesn't it?

    1. Re:First Post by anselmoo · · Score: 1

      Depends if you're actually the first post or not.

    2. Re:First Post by goldsounds · · Score: 1

      Hard to tell - the still-unfixed "Slashdot Formatting Bug" caused any previous posts to spontaneously burst into flames while my monitor span around and vomited green bile.

  5. Java Update Bug by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 4, Informative

    Be aware, there's some sort of Java bug with the application update mechanism. There is a bit of a thread here.

    1. Re:Java Update Bug by barcodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      Solution is to uninstall your old version before installing the new one. This process will keep all your profile information and so on so it's not too much of a drag. It only effects the 1.4 JRE too so you could just upgrade to the 1.5^H^H^H5.0 JRE

      --

      ----
    2. Re:Java Update Bug by tsager · · Score: 1

      It's not about java (and it's even not yet confirmed that the jar file is the problem).
      All chrome files are stored in a zip archive with the extension jar. There's no java (as in Sun Java) code in those.

      Sidenote: to use the internal update mechanism you would have to edit some files manually anyway:
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/q a/softwar eupdate.html

      The best way to update is to uninstall the existing instance, deleting the whole firefox dir and then install the new version.

    3. Re:Java Update Bug by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      A bug in the updater is nothing new. Has the updater ever worked to date?

    4. Re:Java Update Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It "affects" it, too.

    5. Re:Java Update Bug by starwed · · Score: 1

      The best way to update is to uninstall the existing instance, deleting the whole firefox dir and then install the new version.

      Of course, since you're only downloading it to test bugs (right?) there's no reason to uninstall your old version; it should deal much better with installing over top of old versions now. And if it doesn't, that's a bug they need to know about.

    6. Re:Java Update Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ^H shit is so clever. It never gets old to show what you might have meant even though no one cares. Get a new gimmick.

    7. Re:Java Update Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That ^H shit is so clever. It never gets old to show what you might have meant even though no one cares. Get a new gimmick.

      You've just worked it out haven't you? Now you want to show off you know what it means. Well done you!

    8. Re:Java Update Bug by Hulfs · · Score: 2

      Since installing PR1 I've used the updater to update all my extensions, themes and also to load some plugins. It's actually worked quite well and is a nice time saver. The only problem I had with it wasn't actually a problem with the updater but a problem with update.mozilla.org not having the newest version of an extension available even though the newest version was listed on the site. BTW, Hey Jeff.

    9. Re:Java Update Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose I should retort with a Soviet Russia joke or something? Really, get a new gimmick.

  6. Re:Frist Prost? by binaryspiral · · Score: 1, Informative

    Annoying pop-up bug?

    I had an issue with two Firefox windows opening at the click of a link in an email. (very annoying when responding to phpbb forum mail)

    Easily fixed using google and a registry patch.

  7. Gonna wait by JasonEngel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've used each version of Firefox (or whatever their earlier names were) since 0.7. I am on PR1 now, or whatever the version label is. Oddly, I feel compelled to wait and not try this release candidate. I know the date of the planned 1.0 release and for some reason knowing that has me thinking it's perfectly ok to wait until then.

    1. Re:Gonna wait by ViolentGreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm still on the last .9x release. I figure that since the official release will be soon, I don't want to risk breaking what I have now. In addition, I don't want to go about updating the extensions just to do it in another week.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    2. Re:Gonna wait by petersam · · Score: 1
      I too am going to wait. While I think it is nice to have the big fix release out there, I'm too busy to be updating browsers on my 3 machines at two locations every other week, especially since another poster indicated that the extensions from PR1 aren't recognized by RC1.

      Also, this isn't a "Release Candidate" in the purest sense since they know they've got to fix more bugs before release. So this "candidate" will definitely not be elected.

      Although if I am posting to /., then I probably do have time to update my browser. :-)

  8. On a Karma Burn... by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In Soviet Russia, The (manchurian) FireFox candidate releases YOU!

  9. Of course they did. by base3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just installed 1.0PR and got everything just the way I wanted it, including a recalcitrant Java terminal emulator working. Ah, well, price of progress, and off I go to do it all again!

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    1. Re:Of course they did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm tempted to mod you up just for using the word "recalcitrant."

      Oh, damn, now I can't....

    2. Re:Of course they did. by kulmala · · Score: 1
      I just installed 1.0PR and got everything just the way I wanted it, including a recalcitrant Java terminal emulator working. Ah, well, price of progress, and off I go to do it all again!

      Don't! The final release is only a couple of weeks away. Don't fry your nerves unless they fixed a bug that really pissed you off. I'm waiting for the final 1.0 myself (hoping they manage to fix this bug before the release).

      -Janne
      --
      Luke, I am your signature. Search your feelings, you know it to be true...
  10. Will it support by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this dodgy website. I am using 1.0 RC1 at the moment and it often renders this site very badly, hiding the text in negative-X land. Perhaps I should have stuck to internet explorer, which this site is obviously designed for.

    1. Re:Will it support by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

      (I meant Preview Release, of course), but slashslow doesn't allow you to update comments that quickly.

    2. Re:Will it support by barcodez · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's really annoying I know. A workaround is to do ctrl++ then ctrl+-. So control and the plus key followed by control and the minus key.

      I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?

      --

      ----
    3. Re:Will it support by bankman · · Score: 1

      This is true for Mozilla 1.7.3 as well. At least for me that is.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    4. Re:Will it support by Edgewize · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is a short javascript bookmarklet that fixes table rendering. To prevent Slashcode from mangling it, I've inserted some linebreaks. Condense it back into one line and then use it as a bookmarked URL; whenever you select it, it will fix all of the incremental-display bugs on the current page.

      javascript:(function(){
      var s=document.body.style;
      var x=s.display;
      s.display='none';
      s.display=x;
      })( )

    5. Re:Will it support by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, the slashdot.org site tentatively validates as compliant with both HTML 3.2 and 4.01 transitional standards using the W3C HTML validator. This means that it is not designed just to support IE but rather, the broader 3.2 and 4.01 HTML standards. And actually, if the DOCTYPE declaration for "HTML 4.01 Transitional" had been inserted at the top, the code would pass!

    6. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /.

      bad css

    7. Re:Will it support by tsager · · Score: 5, Informative

      The bug is fixed in trunk. But unfortunately the fix won't make it for Firefox 1.0 as the merge of the two source trees will only be made after release (due to need of excessive regression testing).
      Bug about the issue is here:
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?i d=21752 7#c108

    8. Re:Will it support by eyeye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More annoying is slashdots multiple comment pages.

      Does anyone read past the first page - the following pages contain mostly comments you've already read.

      Or has it been fixed now?

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    9. Re:Will it support by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      this dodgy website [slashdot.org]. I am using 1.0 RC1 at the moment and it often renders this site very badly, hiding the text in negative-X land.

      Fixed in the trunk builds, and will therefore be in all Firefox versions after Firefox 1.0 Final.
      This is Bugzilla bug #217527.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:Will it support by koi88 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?

      How dare you. It's never Mozilla's, FF's or slashdot's fault. Stick to the usual suspects, please:
      • Microsoft
      • George Lucas
      • patent attorneys
      • SCO
      So if you run Windows, it must be Microsoft's fault, if you run Linux, it's SCO's fault (the code I borrowed from them is incredibly buggy).
      If you use BSD, it's because BSD is dying.
      If you use Max OS X, either George Lucas' ruined it or some patent attorney is to blame (I'm not sure on the last one).
      --

      I don't need a signature.
    11. Re:Will it support by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Does anyone read past the first page - the following pages contain mostly comments you've already read. Or has it been fixed now?

      No, it hasn't been fixed. It's a royal pain when there are lots of posts, because you can read the first page, and then read the same exact thing on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. Eventually you'll find a page that doesn't start with the same posts that you've already read.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    12. Re:Will it support by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Oh, and before you ask why it's delayed...

      Same bug, comment #118:

      "In theory this could land on the branch -- except there really aren't enough
      people doing organized layout testing."

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    13. Re:Will it support by POWRSURG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Informative?

      I think the poster is making a joke here. Slashdot's HTML is neither valid 3.2 or 4.01 even with the DOCTYPE declarations. Not.by.a.long.shot. In fact, /. has gone through the effort of preventing users from sending their site to the W3C validator (unless some mirror is used)....

    14. Re:Will it support by kentmartin · · Score: 1, Funny

      Brilliant - that works a treat and is far better than my "reload until the page renders right" solution :)

      Many thanks,

      Kent.

    15. Re:Will it support by Epistax · · Score: 1

      It's entirely slashdot's fault. No, really.

    16. Re:Will it support by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?

      Apparently it's both. Slashdot's markup is pretty queer, and non-standard, and it triggers a bug in firefox's page reflow mechanism. That makes this bug timing related. Type slashdot in bugzilla.mozilla.org's id field, it'll take you to the bug.

      In the end, I would say it's mostly firefox's fault though, since after all it is possible to render slashdot correctly without necessarily rendering standards-compliant sites incorrectly, and slashdot existed long before firefox did.

    17. Re:Will it support by Asprin · · Score: 1


      Ya know, the site you mention never gave me any such problems until just over a year ago (?) when they switched the server to one on the West Coast (?) somewhere. Since then, I have to reload pages occasionally to clean up garbagey layout problems just like you describe. It's almost like a style sheet isn't loading completely.

      I had assumed it was a network problem because it doesn't happen consistently or predictably enough to be anything more than an annoyance.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    18. Re:Will it support by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The /. editors rightfully decided that on this site noone cares to read late posts, with the stories being posted so quickly. This site is obviously designed/managed for people with very very short attention spans who cannot stay on a discussion for more than 30 odd minutes and who are not very good at following threads of discussion.

      Note that I did not say the following: people coming here have ver very short attention spans and cannot stay on a discussion for more than 30 odd minutes and are not very good at following threads of discussion. (But I do think that moderation points are quite often given out to those special folks.)

    19. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I never gotta the bottom of whether it's ./ or FF fault. Anyone know?

      Did you even look? Both the Slashcode bug database and Bugzilla state the problem as being in Firefox. Many releases have come and gone since the problem first surfaced (~0.8 I think?) and they still haven't fixed it. I thought open source was supposed to fix things faster, or is that for security holes only?

    20. Re:Will it support by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      /code is to blame, according to postings on.. err /dot. Why they dont fix it, is really beyond me.

      It shines bad on free software development, on free software usability, and well, it sucks.

      (Althoug -I- very rarely have that problem.. and I do use Firefox on Debian, almost exlusively. My probs were usually fixed by tweaking the font manager in KDE or gnome)

      Greetings "/Dread"

    21. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The bug is fixed in trunk. But unfortunately the fix won't make it for Firefox 1.0 as the merge of the two source trees will only be made after release (due to need of excessive regression testing).

      Rubbish. This has been a problem since at least 0.8. Good thing it's not a security problem - I'd hate to have to wait for them to merge the trees for a fix. I thought open source fixed problems faster? Or is it faster for the developers only?

    22. Re:Will it support by Flashbck · · Score: 1

      This isn't a bug or anything that needs to be fixed. This is a result of people replying to posts on the middle of the "first page" thus causing the posts below them to be pushed down. Try refreshing sometime after reading all of the comments on a page and see what happens.

    23. Re:Will it support by _undan · · Score: 1

      /.

      The site's HTML is horribe, and doesn't validate worth shit.

    24. Re:Will it support by vasqzr · · Score: 2, Informative


      Alternatively, I just hold ctrl and scroll the mouse up, then down really quick.

      Otherwise, you get this: click

    25. Re:Will it support by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 1

      If it's an article you've seen before then its must be the editors fault for missing another dupe.

    26. Re:Will it support by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

      If you use Sun, then it must be the fault of CEOs who excel in golf.

    27. Re:Will it support by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      It has been marked as fixed for ages (well, since 2004-05-31) in Bugzilla. Of course, us mere mortals running precompiled releases instead of building our own state of the art browser directly from the source trunk, don't get to enjoy that fix.

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    28. Re:Will it support by artson · · Score: 1

      I don't, but I've noticed in Ubuntu and Mandrake, it doesn't happen when using Firefox. It does happen when I'm using Windows 98SE. YMMV

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    29. Re:Will it support by david.given · · Score: 1
      Here is a short javascript bookmarklet that fixes table rendering.

      See this kudos? This is for you. Thanks very much; that's much improved my Firefox experience.

      All I need now is to fix the problem where trying to type into this text field is actually causing the auto-find thing to pop up. As a result, I'm having to type this comment in the 'Find' box, and then cut-and-paste it into the text area!

    30. Re:Will it support by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      actually, slashdot renders fine in KHTML browsers like konqueror and Safari. Heck my pda running opie and an old version of konqueror renders slashdot very nicely. I think it is a problem with Gecko.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    31. Re:Will it support by Synistar · · Score: 1

      More importantly when will this dodgy web site suport recent web standards (the HTML 3.2 excuse is pretty weak if you ask me). This guy recoded Slashcode to produce XHTML all by himself. Why don't the slashdevs work with him if they can't do it themselves.

    32. Re:Will it support by erykjj · · Score: 1

      Wow!

    33. Re:Will it support by Angafirith · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lot of mention of this bug, but I haven't seen it at all yet. I use 1.0PR, and Slashdot has always loaded perfectly for me. Of course, I haven't been on Slashdot for more than a week or two at most.

      Anyone have any idea why I wouldn't experience this bug?

      --
      "It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." - Voltaire
    34. Re:Will it support by cuzality · · Score: 1

      No, this also happens on old, closed posts with lots of comments.

      I've found that the next page seems to start with the first comment with the same subject as the last comment visible on the screen (i.e., the bottom-most visible reply to the post).

    35. Re:Will it support by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I put a bug request in about this yonks ago.

      Its been rolling around my head for a while since, and I've been playing with a few different algorythms and templates.

      The problem comes partly from the rendering preferences for every single user. It will be difficult and slow to impliment paging exactly as we want. I am certain that some(lots?) of users don't notice this problem, either because (as you say) they don't go over page 1, or the algorythm actually works for AC/default view settings.

      I don't doubt however that there is an eligant solution waiting to be discovered.

      One option might be to not worry about anything else, and no matter what else is added to a page, the first commentID that was chopped to make a page becomes the first comment for the next page. Viewing in threaded mode means you may miss the newest comments, but they were on a thread you had already passed anyway.

      A further simpler option may be to allow us to read the entire conversation (within reason, say when threshhold>2 or 3, view everything). That would save the servers still, since most topics have ~100 moderated comments.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    36. Re:Will it support by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Error 503: Stop fucking refreshing you Firefox fanboy!!!!

      Only joking, I use FFox as well, and have been known to refresh occasionally

      I'm convinced this is half of the reason for the 503s.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    37. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a timing issue, meaning youll get different results based on the speed youre receiving the page and the speed your browser is rendering it.
      The change in servers mustve meant you started receiving slashdot that little bit faster or slower to trigger the bug.

    38. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The /. editors rightfully decided that on this site noone cares to read late posts, with the stories being posted so quickly. This site is obviously designed/managed for people with very very short attention spans who cannot stay...

      Alright, I have to admit that I stopped reading your post right there. (Can you *get* more wordy?)

    39. Re:Will it support by scotshin · · Score: 1

      As the parent poster said, the bug is fixed on the trunk. mozilla.org made a special branch for firefox which didn't have the bug fixed, but when the branch merges (after 1.0) the bug should be fixed on Firefox..

    40. Re:Will it support by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's quite the entertaining fix.

      You know, it probably wouldn't take much work to detect the problem and drop that puppy into slashcode.

      But I doubt the /. editors care anymore. ;)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    41. Re:Will it support by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      I just set my threshold to 3 and rarely get more than a handful of comments anyway, and it weeds out most of the crap. Then I give bonuses to comments that are funny, insightful, or interesting, and negatives to troll comments, and I get what I want to read and very little I don't.

      Of course, by that filter, I'd never see my own posts, but I never say anything worth reading anyway.

      --Dan

    42. Re:Will it support by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      The strange thing I've noticed is that I get the problem when I run Firefox in Windows, but I never get the problem when I run Firefox in Linux. I don't know why, but it just works out that way for me...

      --
    43. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not a bug, its a feature

    44. Re:Will it support by dodongo · · Score: 1
      A workaround is to do ctrl++


      Increment ctrl by 1?!? What the hell is he talking about?!
    45. Re:Will it support by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 1

      Then why does this work ... validate this page

    46. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wrote a perl script called slashdotgrab.pl; feed it the link from the "Read More" page and it will chase through all pages, outputting a single html page consisting of all comments on the topic, in chronological then nested format. It also creates a list of all comments downloaded for that topic, so when you run it again, the comments downloaded the previous time (which you have presumably now read) are marked as having been read (they are greyed out).

      It's still a little rough around the edges (mainly through lack of optimisation, really) but works very well and I can't read slashdot without it now. At some point, I may add threshold support, and make comments below your threshold initially collapsed until you clip on a javascript expand button.

      If anyone's interested, I'll try posting it somewhere, but live in fear of being slashdot'd!

      Cheers,
      Simon

    47. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how this workaround gets posted to Slashdot every time there is an article about Firefox, and people still seem amazed by it. But thanks for spreading the good word.

    48. Re:Will it support by jskiff · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the fault of the DMCA, MPAA, and RIAA.

      --
      It's "no one," not "noone." Who the hell is noone anyway?
    49. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More annoying is slashdots multiple comment pages.

      Does anyone read past the first page - the following pages contain mostly comments you've already read.

      Or has it been fixed now?


      Freddy Starr ate my sig.

    50. Re:Will it support by POWRSURG · · Score: 1

      The reason that works, is because you're validating the Slashdot page saying you're network/IP is blocked from Slashdot. Ok, I'll give you that that page is valid, but that's not the main Slashdot Web site's page.

    51. Re:Will it support by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 1

      But this is ... slashdot.org

    52. Re:Will it support by Glenn+R-P · · Score: 1

      It seems to be losing count of comments when some of them are below your browsing threshold. The behavior (showing already-read comments on subsequent pages) never happens if you browse at -1.

    53. Re:Will it support by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

      I never used to have the problem until I started logging into Slashdot, rather than reading as an AC.

    54. Re:Will it support by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't necessarily mean it's the browser...IE seems to render it fine. So did Mozilla for a long time.

    55. Re:Will it support by ender81b · · Score: 1

      Probably slashdot. The site is ancient non-compliant HTML 3.2 code. Slashdot won't even let you validate the source of the page at w3c because it fails so miserably.

    56. Re:Will it support by x136 · · Score: 1
      I am using 1.0 RC1 at the moment and it often renders this site very badly, hiding the text in negative-X land.
      Am I the only one that's never seen this? Slashdot renders fine for me in the latest versions of Firefox on both OS X 10.3 and Debian, and has for as long as I've used Firefox (I dunno, since .6 or so). The only problem I've noticed is that the Linux version features a large black margin at the bottom of Slashdot comment pages. Aside from that, Slashdot renders just fine, every time. What's the deal? Is this just a problem with the Windows version or what?
      --
      SIGFEH
    57. Re:Will it support by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Slashdot still causes 100+ validation errors, even when forcing a certain standard. Slashcode still needs to fix that. Slashcode is open source. I thought open source was supposed to fix theings faster, or is that for security holes only?

    58. Re:Will it support by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      OK, I call bullshit.

      From the looks of it, what you did was basically validate the slashdot 503 error page. The checkbox on "show error page" shows this. Click the "source" and you can see it is Slashdot's 503 error page.

      All you are proving is that the error page validates. It says NOTHING about /.'s comment or front pages.

    59. Re:Will it support by ashayh · · Score: 1

      What I've always seen is that if you choose alternate page numbers....say you choose page 1, 3, 5, then you are garunteed to see new comments.

    60. Re:Will it support by BandwidthHog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've always longed for the option to have previously read comments either grayed out or hidden. As it is, I mainly read articles days after they're posted; if I read them when they're fresh, it's too tedious to read through again to see what was added later. So yes, one vote of interest.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    61. Re:Will it support by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did you say something?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    62. Re:Will it support by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      Actually CBS and the New York Times are about to break a story that the "FF / Slashdot" render problem is due to shortcomings in the Bush administration, and that John Kerry has a plan to fix it.

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    63. Re:Will it support by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      It's far from an ideal solution (what really is?), but before you click the link to the next page, remember a distinct word or two in the last comment you read. As the page is loading, type that word (find-as-you-type is your friend).

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    64. Re:Will it support by Foresto · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the bookmarklet. Another way to fix up a slashdot reflow problem page is to press Control- and then Control+ (or hold down control while you roll your mouse wheel up and then down a notch).

    65. Re:Will it support by JamieF · · Score: 1

      >If you use Max OS X

      You misspelled it. The correct slashdot-localized spelling is "MAC" (all caps).

    66. Re:Will it support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true, bud. I think you might be thinking of something else.

    67. Re:Will it support by jesser · · Score: 1

      Did you write that bookmarklet? I might post it on my site, so I want to know who to credit.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    68. Re:Will it support by Asprin · · Score: 1


      That's what I figgered.

      Michigan to Ohio California to Ohio

      ....usually.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    69. Re:Will it support by Edgewize · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's just something I threw together when I first hit the Gamespot.com columns bug. Turns out to work great for any site with incremental-draw errors. If you want to post it in a high-visibility spot, be my guest :)

    70. Re:Will it support by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its a shame the poster was AC.

      Hes got a damned good point. I would personally like to see some options for highlighting recent comments and reducing the font for older ones.
      I dont think however we can work it based on whether we have displayed them before.
      Theres been lots of occasions where I have closed the page of comments without reading every one, then later going back to read the rest.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    71. Re:Will it support by ssj_195 · · Score: 1

      Hi there - I'm the original anonymous coward :) I don't really have anywhere to host it, but if you remove the underscore from my username and add "at a certain webmail host involving the word "hot" " to the end, that's my e-mail address. Drop me an e-mail and I'll be happy to send it to you, to do with as you wish. Cheers, Si.

  11. How about a pointer to a changelog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although it's nice to have an announcement on slash, it would also be nice to have a pointer IN the article to a changelog which would give me reasons to upgrade from "Pre-Release" to "Release Candidate"

    Why?

    1. Re:How about a pointer to a changelog? by phreakv6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the changelog with around 250 bugs which were fixed

      --
      fifteen jugglers, five believers
  12. I'm running it from debian unstable by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041026 "

    and you are right, some extensions don't work anymore (I had "browsertime" not working), but all the others I use seem fine (download manager tweak, translation panel, user agent switcher, dictionnary search)

    On the other hand, so many things that were working only so and so are now working again ..(search the web is one, opening an url you highlighted in a new tab is another...)

    So if you are not THAT dependant on ALL your extensions give it a try... also that way you can mail your extension wrtiter and get them/help them to fix that compatibility problem...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by whitekolovrat · · Score: 0

      i think i saw something about fixing extensions somehow by changing "0.10" to "1.0" somewhere... don't remember where... damn that readme file, it was on their ftp, now its gone =/

    2. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Funny


      ...dictionnary search.

      That was funny.

      Firefox still sometimes effs up Slashdot's rendering. Or is it the other way around?

    3. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, Debian unstable? I think you mean experimental. At least, and forgive me if I'm wrong, I've never seen up-to-date releases of Firefox in unstable. I think 0.9.3 is still in there! Please do tell, since I haven't really put more effort into updating Firefox from Debian packages up until now.

    4. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by n8ur · · Score: 1

      Just did an apt-get upgrade last night from unstable, and got 0.10PR (don't recall the exact version string; it was the Firefox string plus some additional stuff. But anyway, it's not 0.9.3 anymore.

    5. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

      well bizarrely I am really running it from unstable... 0.10.1+1.0PR-4(unstable)

      and, to poke some fun on debian, experimental only provides 0.10.1+1.0PR-3(experimental)...

      I can put my source list if you want, even if I think /. lameness filter will play havoc on it...

      --
      It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    6. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the problem is that slashdot is using non standard code. But that does constantly amaze me that one of the main supporters of mozilla (and its brothern all of which render the same) doesn't render properly in mozilla. WHATS UP WITH THAT?! :)

    7. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by thakadu · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Firefox still sometimes effs up Slashdot's rendering. Or is it the other way around? Sorry if this is old news but I find that whenever Slashdot rendering is screwy I just hit Ctrl-+ (Increase font size) and this has always fixed it fo r me. But it still is annoying.

    8. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by saintlupus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Firefox still sometimes effs up Slashdot's rendering. Or is it the other way around?

      Oddly, I've never seen that rendering bug under Linux/PPC. I run Debian on a Powerbook, and it works fine.

      I used a machine at work with Firefox on Windows, and that's when I found out what you've all been carping about.

      --saint

    9. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      I thought that was my fault for Adblock-ing out essential parts of the layout. ;)

    10. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot is running non-standard code (running a saved page through the W3C validator didn't seem to find anything significant other than a lack of encoding specification so I'm not sure what is non-standard), then isn't that Slashdot's problem, and not Mozilla's?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ apt-cache show mozilla-firefox | grep Version
      Version: 0.10.1+1.0PR-4
      Version: 0.10.1+1.0PR-3
      Version: 0.9.3-6

    12. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      No, the bug may not be due to the non-standard code but a deficiency in the browser. The non-standard code excuse is used as an out far too often with Mozilla.

    13. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      It also happens to me on Mozilla 1.7.3 on WinXP.

    14. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      Funny, you're right. I never saw the preview release for 1.0 in there, though.

    15. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by cstepan · · Score: 1
      I see it running Firefox 1.0PR on Fedora Core 2, although hitting Ctrl-+ and then Ctrl-- (increasing the font size and then restoring it) fixes the problem.

      Agreed that it is still annoying.

    16. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by benna · · Score: 1

      I use firefox and as far as i can tell slashdot renders fine...can you explain to me whats not right?

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    17. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I've seen it on Panther, with 1.0PR

    18. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by junkgui · · Score: 1

      If we are lucky the problem will prevent more of your posts... Slashdot is really ugly html, table based layout, no css, mixed case tags... it makes me want to vomit just thinking about it, if working on slashcode was my job I would be fired...

    19. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HTML tags are not case-sensitive, and table-based layouts are bad taste but not illegal. Can it with the apologist finger-point crap and read the fucking bug report.

    20. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, good, so it's not just my Firefox version and combination of extensions that's doing that. I think it really says something about how the /. staff feels about the site that they're not willing to bring their codebase (or markup-base, I suppose) into the current century. There really is no excuse, and their line that "it would take too much time" is complete bullshit. I'm guessing they're hoping someone will get so fed up that they'll make a complete patch themselves and give it back to the project.

    21. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >WHATS UP WITH THAT?!

      Every so often one of the moderators says something like this:

      "Yeah we know its not complaint, but its a lot of work to redo the dynamic code generation. We are putting this off for a while, perhaps to shift to CSS based layouts."

      Or something like that.

    22. Re:I'm running it from debian unstable by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Strange, I just launched it, it told me my link toolbar would be disabled, I ran it anyway, and the link toolbar is still there, working as good as ever.

  13. Re:Frist Prost? by bankman · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was quite disturbing: When I had a site open in one window, which would open new windows through java script, everything worked until I had a second window open (with a couple of tabs). When clicking on a java script link to open a picture, for example, firefox would segfault. This is on Linux, and I couldn't remedy this with a new profile.

    I have been using 0.9.3 since then.

    --
    I feel so sig.
  14. Not truly a "release candidate" by Edgewize · · Score: 4, Informative

    This "release candidate" is really just an interim release between 1.0PR and 1.0 final. The Firefox team knows that there are still significant bugs that must be addressed before 1.0-final. See The Burning Edge for a small taste of what's been fixed since 1.0PR, and what is still left to do.

    A word of caution: there will be significant bugfixes between now and the final release, but there may or may not be automatic update notifications. If you decide to install this on the computers of your friends and family, make sure to upgrade them again later ;)

    1. Re:Not truly a "release candidate" by asa · · Score: 1

      A word of caution: there will be significant bugfixes between now and the final release

      Our plan is only minor spit and polish bug fixes, actually.

      --Asa

    2. Re:Not truly a "release candidate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words there will be significant bugs in the final release.

  15. Huh? Help me out here.... by asciimonster · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I downloaded and run a firefox PR1 release on October 5th. (Check filedate, yes October 5th) Was that a rebranded 0.9.4 or has the the website been update only recently?

    (Or am I going mad?)

    P.S. RSS still needs work, but looks like it's going to kick @$$!

    1. Re:Huh? Help me out here.... by ultrafunkula · · Score: 1

      That was the Preview Release 1. This is the Release Candidate 1.

    2. Re:Huh? Help me out here.... by DigitumDei · · Score: 1

      I'm running 1.0PR (not RC1) here and having the slashdot RSS as a live bookmark on the bookmark toolbar absolutely rocks.

      No more loading up the page to see if there are new articles, just refresh the bookmark and see whats new.

  16. Actually, we're already playing the French version by scarolan · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the French version of Halo 2, your main weapons are a very hard baguette and a big white flag.

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

  17. MOOX builds of Firefox RC1 by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/
    It's firefox and Thunderbird compiled specifically for processor architectures. (they have slightly better performance than normal Firefox)

    1. Re:MOOX builds of Firefox RC1 by goldsounds · · Score: 1

      Took me a while find it: RC1 is on the "Release Builds" page here.

  18. what does this mean? by nighty5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its a bug release - ala no new features.

    Keep those bug reports coming!

    "This is a rough changelog for the RC-1 release. It's probably got a few bugs on it that aren't actually fixed and it's certainly missing a few bugs that were fixed, but it should give you a pretty good idea about most of the 250 or so bugs we've fixed since the Preview Release."

    1. Re:what does this mean? by feelafel · · Score: 1

      There are actually a few new features from the PR release, most notably a new Options section (Options > Advanced) for tabbed browsing, which seems to have come from including the TabBrowser Preferences extension into the base. Oh, and of course, that means the TabBrowser Preferences doesn't work anymore :)

    2. Re:what does this mean? by masklinn · · Score: 1

      It does, you just have to have it up to date (and possibly update the maxversion tag), but it works perfectly with 1.0 RC1

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  19. Actually, the French already HAVE halo2 by koi88 · · Score: 5, Funny


    ...if I remember a previous story on slashdot...

    And don't underestimate the power of a hard baguette.

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  20. Re:Security still an issue! by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Thing is, this is a GOOD THING (TM). The Mozilla foundation is trying to weed out the bugs now, the security bug hunting contest, etc should ring a bell . They fixed more than 250 bugs, blocking the 1.0final. Its better to make things work now, than to break things later. Anyway the NYT ad is about FF 1.0 FINAL, which should not have any serious security problems (look at the Burning Edge for bugfixes. There are other reasons that why IE shouldnt be compared to FF aswell, including M$ policy about what is considered a "vulnerability" and a "security issue" and that IE is not actively developed now for four(!!!) years. Its quite bad that there are serious bugs in IE at all(!!), remember they had four years to weed those out. Just my $0.05 :)

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  21. Love Firefox, hate extension system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I really enjoy using Firefox, it's a real breath of fresh air after years of IE window opening, cluttering the taskbar and having to deal with popups wasting my time. The only beef I have is the extension system, why is it organised that way?

    Extensions

    Are difficult to install for my family, who simply don't understand or trust the process.

    Often incompatible with latest releases, preventing me from upgrading for months

    Incomaptible with each other

    Can cause problems EVEN if deemed "compatible", and often even uninstall fo extension does nothing! Have to reinstall fire*! This is my biggest annoyance, Adblock broke the downloading progress bar, then tabbrowser extensions ruined my cookies settings. All too often I feel like the extensions are like a house of cards piled up, and I'm hesitatant to even install a new theme in case they all fall over and I have to install them all over again, fingers crossed.

    Really, the whole extensions system is a mass of incompatabilities, conflicting requirements, errors and security dubious sources. I'd prefer any bloat to that!

    1. Re:Love Firefox, hate extension system by hkmwbz · · Score: 3, Informative
      " really enjoy using Firefox, it's a real breath of fresh air after years of IE window opening, cluttering the taskbar and having to deal with popups wasting my time."
      Cluttered Windows task bar, yes. However IE with Windows XP Service Pack 2 does block popups.
      "Are difficult to install for my family, who simply don't understand or trust the process."
      While security concerns could be justified, does your family really need extensions? And if they do, can't you help them?
      "Often incompatible with latest releases, preventing me from upgrading for months"
      Firefox isn't out as a finished product yet. As far as I know, the extension system will be frozen with 1.0, and from then on, there won't be any incompatibilities. The incompatibilities have been a result of changes, and the changes a result of Firefox's unfinished state.
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Love Firefox, hate extension system by tooth · · Score: 1
      For your family there are two extensions that are worth installing; adblock and linkification.

      Load a basic ruleset with adblock and that should be it (even turn off "allow web sites to install software"?).

      Do they need to install that many more extensions? I like to install extensions to see what sort of dev is happening and finding new UI ideas, but for just day to day browsing once those main two are installed i'm happy :-)

    3. Re:Love Firefox, hate extension system by asqueella · · Score: 1
      As far as I know, the extension system will be frozen with 1.0, and from then on, there won't be any incompatibilities. The incompatibilities have been a result of changes, and the changes a result of Firefox's unfinished state.

      This is not true. Since most of extensions rely on non-frozen browser code they *will* break.

  22. Re:Security still an issue! by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

    Is this post a dupe? I'm sure I read this same post a few days ago.

    Then again, it could be the fact I'm rather sleep and caffeine deprived right now.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

  23. Re:Security still an issue! by rdc_uk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ask yourself these 2 questions about FF and then IE...

    How many times have you heard (directly) of someone's machine being infested with 'sploits and spyware through that browser?

    How many times have YOU found something slightly suspicious on your machine due to that browser?

    Which browser came out as "less secure"?

    Security flaws are One Thing, actual in-use live exploits of vulnerabilities are Quite Another.

    Plus;
    get FF backdoored, browser fucked.
    get IE backdoored, COMPUTER fucked.

  24. Potential security problem with extensions? by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A discussion in the MozillaZine forums raises an important point about potential security problems when using extensions.
    "What happens when one of those authors goes bad? We are so used to installing these extensions we really never give it a second thought, especially upgrades. verson 0.5 of ACME extension does what we want so yea lets install 0.6 clickerty click. We probably install more extensions than we ever clicked "YES I WANT A DIALER" button in IE. Isnt this a huge community driven security risk."

    In a nutshell, one is worried that the UMO (update.mozilla.org) staff does not have the resources to properly scan all extensions and extension updates for malicious code. And even if you do check the extension when submitted, the author may add an update later with malicious code, and then Firefox installations all over the world may get infected.

    Currently, they may be able to handle the task, but if Firefox manages to gain even more popularity, one can probably expect even more submitted extensions, and with a larger user base, it becomes a tempting target for crackers.

    Fortunately, the discussion in the MozillaZine forums seems to result in a lot of nice ideas about how one can handle this, but it might still be something one needs to keep in mind.

    It would be sad if Firefox was hit by security problems with extensions similar to how ActiveX has been a problem in Internet Explorer.

    Perhaps Firefox's growing popularity will lead to more donations, of which some money can be used to hire staff to really make sure that UMO is not used as a tool to spread malware?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      IIRC there are already a few sites that detect Fx and attempt to install rogue XPI files the same way as ActiveX...is this not the same (or very similar) to the exttension security risk you propose?

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by Naikrovek · · Score: 1

      rogue .xpi installations no longer work without user intervention.

      so basically, you have to do it to yourself. you have to enable site "X" to install software, then once that is set, you have to go to the page that is trying to install software, and click yes at the dialog.

      hardly going to happen on accident.

    3. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      No, this is a case of rogue extensions finding their way onto the official site.

      Example: Firefox has gained 40% of the market, and is used by millions. Joe creates a nice extension which he submits to UMO, and it turns out to be clean when checked, so it is approved and is put in full circulation.

      It becomes popular, and is used by a lot of people, but Joe has had a plan all along: He wants to make money!

      So he submits an update to UMO, which somehow makes it past quality control, and this update installs malware on the PC. Since people use autoupdate, it spreads out easily enough.

      Now, there are many ways to approach this, and ways to make sure it doesn't happen.

      Someone will need to check absolutely all extensions and updates to those extensions, and this could turn out to be a huge task.

      But at that point, perhaps Mozilla.org is better equipped to handle it, so no extensions what so ever are let through without a thorough security inspection.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      And Joe makes money how?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    5. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Spammers send out viruses that turn PCs into drones used to send out spam. Just an example.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    6. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Cheers, forgot about that =)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      And then Joe, well-known developer of the UMO extension, gets arrested. I suppose then he writes a book about his escapade, and that's how he eventually gets money from this scheme?

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    8. Re:Potential security problem with extensions? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      We've underestimated these people and their greed in the past. I'd hate to see this happen to Firefox.

      Let's remain vigilant and make sure we don't sweep this under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  25. Not yet.. by masterLoki · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd prefrer to wait until the relase the whole suit. I wonder when will they relase Mozilla 2.0 (hoping support on ActiveX)

    1. Re:Not yet.. by masklinn · · Score: 1
      hoping support on ActiveX
      you'll have to hope till the end of time for that one. With ActiveX being the first MSIE security issue you'll never see it officially included into Mozilla/Firefox (but as a separate extension)
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:Not yet.. by dance2die · · Score: 1

      Hey, but still...
      There are those folks who would like to try even an ub3r unstable version of everything risking system failures(either software or hardware)...

      It'd be nice to have another branch of Firefox(possibly labled as *PUFF* as in Project Unstable Fire fox...) :)

      With ActiveX being the first MSIE security issue

      Security problems? Absolutly no problem on my HOME computer.

      --
      buffering...
    3. Re:Not yet.. by masklinn · · Score: 1
      There are those folks who would like to try even an ub3r unstable version of everything risking system failures(either software or hardware)...
      As brother pointed out, you can already do that through extensions, hence the reason why I used the term "officially" and said that you'd see it as extensions
      Security problems? Absolutly no problem on my HOME computer.
      1- the fact that YOU never had problems doesn't mean that the issue doesn't exist (i've never starved, but i'm not dumb enough to think no one starves on earth) 2- ActiveX based security vulnerabilities over the ages: http://secunia.com/search/?search=ActiveX
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  26. 3000 GHz? Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I use Mozilla, only gripe is it can take minutes to load large (>= 1mb) XML document trees on a 3000ghz cpu.

    Awesome! Where can I get a CPU of this speed?

    1. Re:3000 GHz? Sweet! by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Well, the "g" is in lowercase. Maybe he meant gooberhertz?

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  27. Re:Mozilla 1.? by mcsmurf · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firefox until 1.0 (after that version it will change) is based on a spinoff of the 1.7 branch. In this branch (called aviary branch) they ported in some fixes from the trunk and also some from 1.7 branch.

  28. Re:Frist Prost? by a16 · · Score: 1

    Exactly the same issue here (on linux) - this is the first other report of the same problem that I've found, I'm not going mad after all ;)

  29. I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    Firefox (or Phoenix or Firebird) was originally started as a lightweight web browser, presumably in response to concerns about what I'll call proper Mozilla (i.e. the suite) bloat.

    It now seems to implement everything that the Mozilla Browser does, and I don't really find it any faster than the Mozilla Suite, and I like the integrated mail client (which has great search, spam filtering and other facilities).

    Some people object to using the suite if they don't use the mail client, but really, come on, it's taking up only a few MB on your hard disk. Get over it!

    If you do use the associated Thunderbird mail client then you're actually using more memory as the GRE (Gecko Runtime Environment) is not yet sharable between different processes.

    Plans like putting a full page ad in the New York Times for FireFox seem a bit crazy to me. What about the mail client, IRC client and forthcoming calendar? Advertise once there's a whole suite, and even then not in newspapers!

    1. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that post won't get more than +1 :) if you are lucky.

      You are clever to post as AC on Mozilla story btw ;)

    2. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Kippesoep · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'd mod you up "Insightful" if I had the points.

      Being a longtime user of MozSuite, I've often wondered what the hype is about FF. I don't care about the mail and IRC clients etc, just the browser.

      There's some stuff in MozSuite that I have missed in FF:
      • Ctrl-click to open in new tab (no middle mouse button on my touchpad)
      • "Open URL" box (I have location-bar-o-phobia, an irrational fear of entering URLs through the location bar)
      • A proper window icon (yeah, I know I can put one in myself, but most novice users will find themselves staring at the frelling MS Windows logo!)
      And some good stuff in FF:
      • Displaying the server name in the context menu when blocking images.
      • Ability to set a standard download folder.
      Most of that is pretty trivial. Startup time isn't bad for either browser. (I don't use the MozSuite preloading option) and I can't say either one is noticeably faster than the other in use.

      Of course, switching from IE to FF or MozSuite is a no-brainer, but what would convince a MozSuite user to switch to FF? Personally, I don't see the need and think it's rather sad that all the users' and developers' attention seems to go to FF.
    3. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Control click does open a new tab
      "Open Location" does the same thing (from the File menu, or CTRL-L)
      There is a firefox window icon? Has been for ages? Or did I miss something.

      All this on Firefox PR1 on XP...

    4. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      Ctrl-Click does indeed open a tab for me now. Don't know why it didn't work before. Thanks. "Open Location" goes to the location bar (MozSuite: Ctrl-L) instead of popping up a window (MozSuite: Ctrl-Shift-L). There's no FF window icon. There is an application icon, but nothing for the window (by default).

    5. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by eric_brissette · · Score: 0

      I believe your third complaint about FF is a bug that shows itself only in Windows 98 (or maybe Win9x)

      The correct default firefox icon is there in Linux, Windows 2000, and Windows XP (and probably other operating systems, but these are the only ones I use on a daily basis)

      As far as switching from Moz to FF.. From my perspective, I don't see any reason to. Being a webmaster, I just want to see people move to any browser that's more standards compliant than IE.

      If Microsoft fixed their rendering engine so that it was on par with gecko's level of complaince, I wouldn't care so much about IE's dominance.

    6. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by Darkness+Productions · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point, unless I am mistaken, is to get people to switch away from IE. Does IE have a built in mail reader, irc client, calendar app? No. It's a browser vs browser war. Granted, there are mail readers (OE), etc, but those aren't what the Mozilla/Firefox guys are fighting against.

    7. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by starwed · · Score: 1

      There is an application icon, but nothing for the window (by default).
      If I recall correctly, that's only a problem in windows 98.

    8. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      The biggest difference is that Mozilla is a development PLATFORM... which just so happens to take the form of a web tools suite in it's most well known package.

      Mozilla browser was and is a proof of concept, nothing more.

      Firefox on the other hand is a focused application of Mozilla technologies. It's only purpose is to be a browser for web sites.

      Now of course you can make your own decision about which software you want to use but remember that Mozilla browser may or may not continue to be supported, while Firefox has a clear mandate and a roadmap for future versions.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    9. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by bunratty · · Score: 1
      The biggest difference is that Mozilla is a development PLATFORM
      This is a common misconception. Mozilla-the-browser is not a platform. Mozilla-the-browser happens to be built using Mozilla-the-platform, which uses XUL as a language to implement a cross-platform user interface. Other applications that use Mozilla-the-platform are Firefox and Komodo.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    10. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      Many of the core developers of the code shared between Mozilla and FireFox are die-hard Mozilla fans - some of them would rather fix a trivial Mozilla bug than a critical FireFox bug. When a lot of the developers are behind a product, it will continue to exist no matter what.

      I don't think Mozilla is just a technology demo. If it is, it's one that a lot of Gecko developers use as their primary browser (and, as a result, they make it very usable).

    11. Re:I don't get it, what is so great about FireFox? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Read the rest of the post...I make the same point when I state that the Mozilla Browser is a proof of concept for the Mozilla Platform..

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  30. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by ceeam · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's funny. Do you remember that in beginning of XIX century french virtually owned the whole Europe (that Napoleon guy was kinda cool). As for WWII - they did not loose their territories, lost fewer people than others, preserved their culture. How is that stupid?

  31. Re:Frist Prost? by nitio · · Score: 1

    well, second that :)
    I have the same issue, the only way I got to resolve was sing the "Single Window" extension so every window will open in a tab. It's annoying since some javascript opened windows won't show :\

    --
    http://stoploudness.org/
  32. Testing release... by ganiman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right off of the spreadfirefox.com website:

    a note to SFX community: This is a testing release. This is not a product release. We're not pushing this release on our PR users. The majority of PR users should stick with PR until 1.0 ships. This is a testing release and we don't need everyone downloading it, just the folks that want to be involved with testing and bug reporting. Please don't evangelize this release or start pushing all your friends and family to upgrade. Most of them should wait until 1.0 in about two weeks.

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. Because someone trolls the web all night waiting for Mozilla to release another version of Firefox, they get rewarded with their in lights on the front page of slashdot. Did you wonder why it's only on the FTP server and not advertised on the web site?

    --
    geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
    1. Re:Testing release... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing is, this release isn't even a proper release candidate as the maintainer of Burning Edge noted, thus even the title is flawed...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Testing release... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, why do devs insist on playing these stupid version numbering games. If it's not the final release just label it BETA and don't call it 1.0. Stop with this sh*t, PR, RC1, RC2, GM, RTM, etc. Make it easy for the general public to know what release they should be using...

  33. I wish it had SVG support. by LordJezo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My company portal uses SVG graphics and no matter what I do I cannot get Firefox/Mozilla to view them.

    Sort of makes it useless for me on a coorprate level and that makes me very sad.

    1. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are those SVGs inlined with embed or with object? Usually, you find object outside and embed inside, but if your company only tests with IE (which I presume), maybe there are no object tags. (Bonus points for guessing which is official HTML, and which is the IE extension).

      Also, are you using the Adobe plug-in? Though they update fairly infrequently, I currently can view SVGs with it on Opera/Win32, and have (at one point) been able to do so on Opera/Linux.

      But YMMV, of course.

    2. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can install the Adobe SVG viewer plugin. But it doesnt work as good as in IE.

    3. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by beattie · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just installed Firefox without any special consideration and I am able to see svg images just fine.

    4. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Moox has some optimized builds with SVG support compiled in.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by Luser5 · · Score: 0

      Try Adobe SVG plugin. Works fine for me on Firefox 1.0PR, both Windows and Linux.

    6. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by Apathetic1 · · Score: 1

      Custom builds, optimized for particular architectures, some with SVG support:
      http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/releaseb uilds.htm

      --

      My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?

    7. Re:I wish it had SVG support. by leighklotz · · Score: 1

      I wish it had XForms support...

  34. What about those potetntial vulnerabilities ? by LJPeixoto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about those potential vulnerabilities discovered by Michael Zalewski ? Are they fixed ?
    Thats something very important IMHO.
    Each one of them is one potential exploit waiting some malicious hacker.
    I believe all of them should be fixed before the 1.0 release, which should be considered stable, and doesnt have the benefit of the "pre-1.0" excuse.

    1. Re:What about those potetntial vulnerabilities ? by mcsmurf · · Score: 1

      Some bugs have been fixed, some not yet. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26494 4 for more info.

    2. Re:What about those potetntial vulnerabilities ? by mallumax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes they seem to be fixed.
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/qa /changel og-rc1.html

      This is the relevant entry in bugzilla.
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.c gi?id=26495 6

      Also focus stealing has been fixed
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?i d=12475 0

    3. Re:What about those potetntial vulnerabilities ? by A+Boy+and+His+Blob · · Score: 1

      It isn't fixed in the 1.0PR, or at least this crashes my Firefox.

    4. Re:What about those potetntial vulnerabilities ? by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1
      Some of those bugs appear to be fixed. Looks like there are still at least a few left...

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26494 4

  35. Dear Mozilla OSX coders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can actually put all languages in 1 package

    This way, you won't get any usual mac users except geeks who compiles their own.

    As a Omniweb user, I wanted to point. As Mozilla stories are full of fanatics, prefer to post AC, sorry...

  36. Please mod the parent up by calethix · · Score: 1

    This is really handy. Just added it to my personal toolbar and I have a quick way to fix slashdot when it doesn't look right.

  37. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With diplomacy like yours, Monsieur, no amount of weapons will ever suffice.

  38. Still uploading. by xabi · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are still uploading more local versions.

    --
    Check populicio.us
  39. Interesting, yet need some work by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    I hope that this RC was branched in the beginning of October, because there are still some small UI-glitches present that could prove hard to erase (all). Some of them (NL/Dutch): - About box doesn't work - missing something in aboutdialog.xul - Downloads title in settings spells just "D" - "Help for internet explorer users" is not translated (anywhere?). But I must say that the overall look is getting better, mainly the (re)draw of a lot of icons works towards a more professional image for the browser. All in all: good luck to the development team getting all the details in place, great job so far!

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:Interesting, yet need some work by mcsmurf · · Score: 1

      Hi, maybe you want to report that to http://server.lynggaard.org/l10nWiki/Wiki.jsp?page =SmokeTest The about thing is already known it seems, the Downloads title not yet.

  40. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    French culture is not exactly worth preserving, so that might be called stupid.

    Unless you enjoy shitting while balancing over a hole in the ground after eating slugs and pig brains.

  41. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    I meant "French language only", of course.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  42. I like Mozilla better by contrapuntalmindset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Things Firefox does differently or does not have that Mozilla does (from my experience): * Bookmarking groups of tabs and then opening them all with a single click - Mozilla yes, Firefox no. * Opening new blank tabs with a button - Mozilla yes, Firefox no. To me these are features I use very often and that I can't use in Firefox. I hope they continue Mozilla. Thanks for listening.

    1. Re:I like Mozilla better by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      Erm? You can customize Firefox's toolbar to have an "Open a new tab" button that creates a new blank tab. And when you right-click to bookmark a page, you can specify "Bookmark all tabs in a folder", then, when you go to that folder in the Bookmarks menu, click on "Open in Tabs" to open all the bookmarks at once in seperate tabs. I don't know where you got the idea that Firefox couldn't do this. IHBT maybe?

    2. Re:I like Mozilla better by contrapuntalmindset · · Score: 1

      Both of those sound much more complicated than how mozilla does it. Why can't it be just as simple?

    3. Re:I like Mozilla better by SsShane · · Score: 1

      CTRL + T opens new blank tabs, handy when followed by a quick CTRL + V. Don't let tha keyboard scare you!

    4. Re:I like Mozilla better by izomiac · · Score: 1

      That's what extensions are for. I don't even have that many and I can do everything you mentioned. Tabbrowser Extensions might be the only one you need. I personally prefer the ability to choose a plugin to do those things then to have it built into the browser.

    5. Re:I like Mozilla better by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      It's hardly complicated, at least to me. Adding the button is a step that only needs to be done once (though I'm not sure why it isn't there by default, as tabs are the feature that sets apart Firefox in the first place). And opening all your bookmarks is only 2 clicks: click "Bookmarks", hover over folder, click "Open in Tabs". That's pretty simple.

    6. Re:I like Mozilla better by hattig · · Score: 1

      Double click in unused tab space to open a new blank tab in Firefox.

      And, err, my Firefox has "Open in Tabs" for folders within the Bookmarks menu, and on the bookmarks toolbar. Hmmm.

      Having just compiled .10.1 in gentoo however, I'll wait for it to hit 1.0 before upgrading again.

    7. Re:I like Mozilla better by Mant · · Score: 1

      Yes, clicking on the new tab button in Firefox is much more complex than clicking on the new tab button in Mozilla.

      And really, how can anyone be expected to click on the bookmark all tabs checkbox in the bookmark dialog? That would baffle a Mensa member.

    8. Re:I like Mozilla better by metallidrone · · Score: 1

      > * Bookmarking groups of tabs and then opening them all with a single click - Mozilla yes, Firefox no.

      Bookmarks/Bookmark this Page/"Bookmark all tabs in a folder". Been there since pre-0.8.

      > * Opening new blank tabs with a button - Mozilla yes, Firefox no.

      View/Toolbars/Customize..., find the "Open New Tab" button, and drag it somewhere. I like having both new-tab and new-window next to each other for quick access. This has also been there for a while.

      Hope that helps.

    9. Re:I like Mozilla better by barrettlight50 · · Score: 1

      'Bookmarking groups of tabs and then opening them all with a single click'

      Firefox does this out of the box, (if you count click on the Bookmark menu, hold and navigate to your group bookmark and release to open, as a single click).

    10. Re:I like Mozilla better by johndeeregator · · Score: 1

      Mozilla does both.

      * Bookmark all tabs: Bookmarks -> Bookmark This Page... -> check "Bookmark all tabs in a folder" -> OK

      * Open all bookmarks in folder in tabs: Bookmarks -> -> Open in Tabs

      * Open new tab with a button: a) Middle-click blank space on tab bar; or b) View -> Toolbars -> Customize... -> drag "Open a new tab" button to toolbar -> click button

    11. Re:I like Mozilla better by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Also:

      1. Can't have firefox open on a blank page and have a "home page". This is handy in mozilla as a quick way to get to your favorite site (Home Key).

      2. Cookie control is more coarse, I like being able to say which site gets to set a cookie when visiting, the new "for session only" in Moz is great. thinkgeek.com cookie? Ok. Hitbox cookie? NO! No cookie for you! cbsnew.com? Ok, but only this time.

      3. File bookmark is a good thing. Firefox? No.

      4. Themes, what themes? Sure, Firefox is still a moving target, this will change in time.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    12. Re:I like Mozilla better by johndeeregator · · Score: 1

      Rather, Firefox does both. D'oh.

    13. Re:I like Mozilla better by binux · · Score: 3, Informative

      When did you last try FireFox?
      Both features are there in 0.10.1.

    14. Re:I like Mozilla better by contrapuntalmindset · · Score: 1

      As I said, it is NOT there by default, where as in Mozilla it is. Therefore, it is more complicated. Regarding your condescencion, I understand how to do the extra steps just fine and don't need to be talked down to. My simple point was that it was different.

    15. Re:I like Mozilla better by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      1. Can't have firefox open on a blank page and have a "home page". This is handy in mozilla as a quick way to get to your favorite site (Home Key).

      urm ... yes you can!

      try starting firefox like this

      firefox about:blank

      (if you are using windows you could create a desktop shortcut)

      2. Cookie control is more coarse, I like being able to say which site gets to set a cookie when visiting, the new "for session only" in Moz is great. thinkgeek.com cookie? Ok. Hitbox cookie? NO! No cookie for you! cbsnew.com? Ok, but only this time.

      Urm .. yes you can - preferences -> privacy -> cookies check -accept check -ask every time
      (the advanced tab allows you to set preferences for individual cookie originators)

      3. File bookmark is a good thing. Firefox? No.

      Urm, yes (I think) i just opened an image from my hard disk then right-clicked "bookmark this page" and the bookmark was created. but you may be refering to something different here.

      4. Themes, what themes? Sure, Firefox is still a moving target, this will change in time.

      Theres plenty of themes! You just need to look harder

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    16. Re:I like Mozilla better by theCAS · · Score: 2, Informative
      Can't have firefox open on a blank page and have a "home page". This is handy in mozilla as a quick way to get to your favorite site (Home Key).
      1) Type about:config in the url bar
      2) search for browser.startup.page
      3) set it to 0
      4) done.
    17. Re:I like Mozilla better by _marshall · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "New Tab" button is there in firefox, it just doesn't show on the default installation. If you right click on the button toolbar and click "Customize" you should see the New Tab button in there. Drag it into the toolbar and voila :)

    18. Re:I like Mozilla better by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      > Urm .. yes you can - preferences -> privacy -> cookies check -accept check -ask every time
      (the advanced tab allows you to set preferences for individual cookie originators)

      What version are you using? My 0.10.1 Mac OS X doesn't have an advanced tab for Cookies.

      > Urm, yes (I think) i just opened an image from my hard disk then right-clicked "bookmark this page" and the bookmark was created. but you may be refering to something different here.

      No, this feature is for opening the "save bookmark" dialog, so that I can choose the folder. However, I notice that this is actually the default behavior, score for Firefox, shame on me.

      > firefox about:blank

      I could also hack the source and make Firefox do whatever I want, that's not the point. Rather, if it isn't a UI choice, it doesn't count. Same for having to pick through about:config. Features only count if they are easily accessible.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    19. Re:I like Mozilla better by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      It's nice to know this can be done. Now, how is a person supposed to figure this out?

      When comparing the two apps, my opinion is anything not accessible via the UI doesn't count (that would include extensions in my mind). Yes, it's nice that the flexibility is there and I'll probably use this feature (thanks!), but for comparision purposes, Firefox loses to Mozilla on this point.

      Note: I'm a fan of Firefox, I just wish some of the dumbing down wasn't done.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    20. Re:I like Mozilla better by addie · · Score: 1

      1) If you have your bookmarks in a toolbar folder, just right click on it and choose "Open in tabs". It's what I do first thing in the morning to get all my sites and admin tools open.

      2) You're right that there isn't a button as far as I know, but ctrl-T works just great.

      I hope that helps.

    21. Re:I like Mozilla better by theCAS · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, the option should be in the GUI and would require almost no work to implement it.

      The config hides lots of useful options that are unchangeble through the GUI, but extensions like this can show them to the average user.

    22. Re:I like Mozilla better by alex_ware · · Score: 1

      anything that can kill ff for users is out of the gui if u want to use it then you can search

      --
      If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
    23. Re:I like Mozilla better by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      I am using the same version of firefox as you - although i made a mistake the tab is called "exceptions" heres a screenshot showing what i mean.

      http://www.blackapology.com/downloads/cookies.pn g

      also - i have just discovered that the "blank page" scenario is possible without hackery in firefox.

      open the prefs dialog (it opens in the general tab) the first option "home-page"

      click "Use Blank Page" (this populates the box with about:blank)
      delete the text here and type the URL you wish to have as the home page... dont click anything else, just click okay. If you close firefox now and then launch again it opens with a blank page but click the home button and it goes to google (or whatever you set it too)

      Nick ...

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    24. Re:I like Mozilla better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can anyone be expected to click on the bookmark all tabs checkbox

      That has nothing to do with grandparent's point. The issue lies not with creating the bookmark, but rather the opening of the bookmark. In Mozilla, it's one step; in FF, it's designed to require two steps. You may say that's not much of a pain, except it's something that will be done over and over again, and in the interest of good interface design the one-step method is better for such actions.

    25. Re:I like Mozilla better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > * Bookmarking groups of tabs and then opening them all with a single click - Mozilla yes, Firefox no.

      Bookmarks/Bookmark this Page/"Bookmark all tabs in a folder". Been there since pre-0.8.


      Note the bold type -- this feature does not exist in Firefox. It's in Mozilla.

    26. Re:I like Mozilla better by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 1

      Strange, I would have sworn I tried the "blank page" and then rewrite the URL to what I wanted, didn't work (opened the page on start). Maybe that was an earlier build.

      In either case, the issue seems to be the UI and dialogs not being clear. Guess I'd better go file a bug.

      --
      Anything is possible given time and money.
    27. Re:I like Mozilla better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For you, search for an extensions called "Basics" by Aaron Spuler.

      It adds the button :)

    28. Re:I like Mozilla better by metallidrone · · Score: 1

      "Open in tabs" - in every folder, including the ones you create using the method mentioned above.

  43. Hey guys, things are looking up! by Loco3KGT · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought this was super neat. I went to Dodge's website - www.4adodge.com and started to price/build a new car. I got a popup saying "Your browser is not officially supported." Before I started cussing like a sailor I continued reading and it say "If you would like to continue, press OK. Otherwise, press cancel." I couldn't believe. Someone had the state of mind to let me keep going at my own risk. It was unbelievable.

    --
    Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    1. Re:Hey guys, things are looking up! by maskedbishounen · · Score: 1

      Moreso because they utilize JavaScript, than because you're using Mozilla. A disclaimer designed for people using older Netscape versions and the like, I assume.

      --
      "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
    2. Re:Hey guys, things are looking up! by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      ... Thanks hotshot.

      My point was, the mentality used to be "OMG NOT IE NO YOU CANNOT VIEW MY SITE"

      But things are changing.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
  44. Re:UI bugs by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Seeing as firefox is a windows app mainly they should at least make the GUI work the same way as the Windows GUI.
    I quite fail to see how Firefox is a "windows app mainly", one of it's goals is not to be platform specific in any way.
    Take the drop down box's, click on the arrow to drop down, click on the arrow again and the box *should* dissapear. But in firefox it doesn't?!
    What box are you talking about? Cause all my dropdown boxes (be them in the UI or HTML select boxes) do work that way: you clic on arrow the meny pops, you clic it again the menu poofs
    and double click, or tripple click on text in the browser window does different stuff to IE.
    One of Firefox' specifics is: if it's not innate, check the extensions. In that very case, you should try http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php? id=333&vid=997
    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  45. Upgrade Problem by alatesystems · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I upgraded just now (win32), and now my home button doesn't work. It totally ignores it. When I middle click on the home button, it _DOES_ open home in a new tab. This is really odd.

    Has anyone else had this problem?

    1. Re:Upgrade Problem by nxg125 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean when you say "upgraded?" Did you uninstall the old version first? If not, that can lead to all sorts of weird problems.

    2. Re:Upgrade Problem by alatesystems · · Score: 1

      No. I installed over it, but I wiped out my %userprofile%\Local Settings\Firefox thing and the program directory and it's still doing it. Does it write to the registry?

      I did an upgrade from 0.9.something to 1.0PR and it worked fine then, so I don't know what's wrong. It's still not enough to make me use IE :)

    3. Re:Upgrade Problem by jdkane · · Score: 1
      In the past Mozilla has always suggested uninstalling the old version before installing the newer version. Of course on the various machines where I've overwritten Firefox with a newer version, I've had sporatic success (sometimes acts weird, sometimes doesn't).

      However ultimately I think before the final 1.0 version is released, they should fix this problem because the average home user doesn't know to (or understand) about uninstalling the older version first. This might leave a bad taste in user's mouth when they discover Firefox is acting buggier on their Windows box compared to IE (ack!). I think it is the responsbility of the Mozilla developers to find some kind of automatic fix to this problem if they plan for 10 million downloads (or whatever the big number was) of the 1.0 final release.

    4. Re:Upgrade Problem by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 1

      I ran into something weird like that that with a nightly I used a few days ago. Go to Preferences, and you'll see that your homepage setting blank, if you're running into the same thing. Retype it back in, and everything will be fine again.

  46. Have you tried mouse gestures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would at least take care of easily opening new blank tabs with a quick motion of the mouse.

  47. Re:YOU FAIL IT! by Zorilla · · Score: 0, Troll

    NO YUO

    (due to rendering differences between Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, the above statement may appear misspelled when being viewed in Firefox)

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
  48. Re:FireFox by masklinn · · Score: 1
    They finally got Mozilla right so why rewrite it?
    Their aims are not the same. Firefox is a pure browser geared towards end-users, competitor to Internet Explorer, hence the reason why it has nice looks, easy to understand config dialogs and all kinds of shiny things, and a very easy to use extension system. Mozilla is a full featured suite which has a far more complex approach (just compare the config dialogs), more "all in one" and more power-users oriented. But in fact they're not "rewriting" Mozilla, Firefox is being developped from mozilla and is the "dev version" of what mozilla 2 browser should be :)
    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  49. Tried 4 times by LordJezo · · Score: 1

    I have tried installing that plugin many many times.. everything works perfect in IE but Mozilla / Firebird refuse to see the plugin..

    Here is an example:

    http://www.design-ireland.net/graphics/svg-demo. ht ml

    IE can see the logo, no matter what I do Mozilla / Firebird just displays a blank screen.

    1. Re:Tried 4 times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Above link uses some fancy JavaScript detection scheme, based on the browser's supposed MIME-list, and then issues an embed. Whee.

      If you link to just the logo, does that work? What about saving the logo to your hard drive and viewing it from there? Maybe there's a MIME type mixup.

    2. Re:Tried 4 times by tetromino · · Score: 2, Informative

      Works perfectly here - Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041027 Firefox/0.10.1

      I am using the plugin from Gnome's librsvg-2.8.1 (/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libmozsvgdec.so)

    3. Re:Tried 4 times by LordJezo · · Score: 1

      Going straight to the logo does not work either, all I see is:

      ]> Design- Design- Ireland Ireland Version 4.1

      Seems like no matter what I do I will be unable to view SVG graphics. Makes no sense that everyone else can except me. I have tried fresh installs of Mozilla and this newest version of FF as well. This page is just one example but every other SVG site out there does the same thing, works perfect in IE, wont work at all in a Mozilla based product.

    4. Re:Tried 4 times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mentioned that you tried the plugin, but have you tried SVG-enabled Mozilla? I'm really not sure how good or up-to-date it is, but it should be worth a try, right?

    5. Re:Tried 4 times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it just fine in FF .9.3.

      Do you have NPSVG3.dll in your plugins directory?

    6. Re:Tried 4 times by cortana · · Score: 1

      :) 16:50 sam@xerces ~
      $ HEAD http://www.design-ireland.net/images/logo.svgz
      20 0 OK
      Connection: close
      Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:50:18 GMT
      Accept-Ranges: bytes
      ETag: "78f3-afc-3f23d877"
      Server: Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.18 OpenSSL/0.9.7d FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/4.3.6 mod_throttle/3.1.2
      Content-Encoding: x-gzip
      Content-Length: 2812
      Content-Type: text/html
      Last-Modified: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:49:43 GMT
      Client-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:50:29 GMT
      Client-Peer: 212.147.138.20:80
      Client-Response-Num: 1

      There's your problem, right there.

      Test your SVG-enabled Mozilla with a working web serverl http://www.pinkjuice.com/svg/xslt/fractals/SVG-out /triangular01xslt/05.svg is the first working example I found on Google.

  50. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Ilgaz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "How is this flamebait?! He's responding to flamebait with objective facts."

    Things like this happens on Mozilla related stories sorry.

    When a story posted about mozilla, all those fanatics popup and use their mod points.

    I am glad I paid $30 for Omniweb for OS X...

  51. ...yet more advertising? by ElvenMonkey · · Score: 1

    You've really got to admire the Mozilla team's marketing strategy. Whether they intended it or not there is hardly a day gone past since a week or two ago when there hasn't been a major article about Firefox (and its forthcoming release) amongst the mainstream news or tech journals.

    It's obvious that it's going to take a lot of promotional work to get the browser out there a little bit more, converting the unwashed IE-using masses, but isn't it getting a little bit too over the top?

    We get it. Firefox is released on November 9th. You don't have to tell us several times a day until launch!

    --
    "Joy is not in things; it is in us." Richard Wagner
    1. Re:...yet more advertising? by Myen · · Score: 1

      Actually, this was appearently (will, they claim anyway) supposed to be low-key... Basically only meant for the people who normally would have grabbed the betas (as opposed to everyone who got 1.0PR)

      ... I guess that didn't exactly work out that way ;)

  52. Firefox to replace the browser in Mozilla Suite by bach37 · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, Firefox 1.0 was going to replace the browser componet in the Mozilla Suite. Can anyone else clarify?

  53. Re:Karma suicide by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
    I gues it would be kharma suicide if you had made ANY sense in the post.

    Too bad I'm out of mod points. "+1 Befuddling" would really be useful about now...

    Oh, and learn to use verbs and their proper tenses, man. They're what you do.

  54. Re:Frist Prost? by Ilgaz · · Score: 0

    and imagine, post got TROLL point. double trolls at least.

    It seems like a real bug.

    Mozilla fanatics, get a life and ask yourself why AOL dumped you!

    Or even why JWZ dumped you.

  55. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was this little thing called "resistence" that the French had. You know, they were actively fighting against the armies occupying their soil and helping UK and allied troops with intelligence on how to hurt the Germans. They also forced the Germans to have a very large military presence in France in order to keep the peace....

    --
    Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  56. Re:Security still an issue! by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I'd buy Opera instead of those 2 or use ad version.

    Not spyware too.

    Using Omniweb on Mac since its more native to OS X.

  57. it really fixes bugs by b100dian · · Score: 2, Informative

    remember "IE Shines on broken html" article the other week? Test these:http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/mangleme/gallery/ on firefox rc1: they're already fixed
    Actually the whole release may just be fixing bugs( and changed the icon on live bookmarks:p )

    --
    gtkaml.org
  58. Re:Karma suicide by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Like I fucking care, check my .sig.

    Oh you did already so flaming me.

    Firefox is maintained by lifeless mozilla geeks, I don't use it.

    Got $30 to pay for my favorite browser and another $30 if I am bored.

    See, mozilla fans are like you. Thats why AOL and JWZ dumped you. Lifeless geeks!

  59. Re:Security still an issue! by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 1

    Nope you're not alone, I remember the grandparent too.

  60. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    you mean like they voulntarily surrendered indochina to japan? how about all of their colonies in Asia? Starting the vietnam war was really smart too..

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  61. You have an xbox? by nsuccorso · · Score: 0

    You should be ashamed.

  62. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by kid_wonder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, I am an American.

    if the other Allies hadn't "rescued" France during WWII, they most certainly would have lost everything.

    You know, there was this little thing called the revolutionary war, and if the French hadn't "rescued" us we'd all be eating fish & chips and biscuits.

    Get some perspective, and a bit of an education before you blurt out lines you've heard other idiots use.

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  63. Awesome by billybob · · Score: 1

    Wow, thanks. That's really handy. :)

    --
    Joseph?
  64. Re:Karma suicide by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
    I don't read the .sig files. Waste of my time.

    So, my question is: if you don't use Firefox, if you don't use Mozilla, why are you trolling? Why do you even care? Slow day at work? Not enough porn to fill your day?

  65. Re:Karma suicide by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    "I gues it would be kharma suicide if you had made ANY sense in the post."

    An application with good prebinding can launch 70% faster on OS X

    I don't know about XP but it has similar scheme, aka stolen stuff.

    Its more than flaming critics grammar if you want to support Mozilla/firefox.

    Oh btw, thanks to Omniweb's excellent use of OS X spelling service. ;)

  66. Re:Karma suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The installer for firefox PR1 is a nice-looking, MSI-ish thing in windows, so I have no iea what you're going on about.
    And no, I don't usually run "that OS".

  67. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by jmo_jon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You mean they where too much cowards not to buy into Bush's lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

  68. Re:FireFox by gash · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    3000ghz? I have got to get me one of those!

  69. Re:Security still an issue! by scupper · · Score: 1
    get FF backdoored, browser fucked. get IE backdoored, COMPUTER fucked.
    You know, that's a Think Geek tshirt waiting to be made. :)
  70. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AHHHAHAHAAHHAH that comment just made my day! Those bastard cheese-eating surrender monkeys! Worthless I tell ya. Worthless!

  71. Re:Karma suicide by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    -1 Flamebait, see :)

    End of issue, you shouldn't waste time.

  72. Feeding the trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant 3gz or 3000mhz. Anyway according to www.michaelscomputers.com the processor is only 10% of the systems performance.

    The other 90% of my systems performance comes from the USB powered seat warmer.

  73. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're right to call it a "little thing." The resistance was inconsequential when you look at the big picture. The Allies would have won without them. Their greatest victories included seeding the German laundry with itching powder. Fuck the resistance and their half-assed "contribution."

  74. You heartless bastard by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    The fact that you TRIVIALIZE September 17th for some piss-ass event on 9/11 shows you to be a heartless, *o*-hating, freedom-hating, american-hating, biscuit-eating, GLEEP!!!!!!!

    --
    Yeah, right.
  75. Re:Mozilla 1.? by Tribbin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They described firefox as a technology preview for mozilla some time ago.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  76. Release Date, yeah redundant by Sekoku · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Will there be a extension for a secret Halo 2 level!?

    Come on, Bungie and Mozilla! We know you're working together! The release date says it all!

  77. AMD64 Suport? by VivianC · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since I am not a coder, does anyone know if there will be a 64-bit build of Firefox? I'd like to use it on my 64-bit XP Beta machine.

    --
    Viv

    Gmail invites for ip
    1. Re:AMD64 Suport? by CumInHerTaco · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Moox builds are compiled for many specific processors, including Athlon64.

      Definately improved performance on my P3 laptop!

      --
      The only way to end war is for everyone to get a piece!
    2. Re:AMD64 Suport? by Myen · · Score: 1

      No, that's a 32-bit build optimized for newer chips.

      The GP wanted a 64-bit native build.

      Last I checked, mmoy (basically some guy on MozillaZine's forum) was trying to do that - I don't think he's quite there yet. See bug 237202 on Mozilla's bugzilla.

      * Warning: the linked page is on GeoCities... I'm trying to go through Coral, but still don't know if that will stand up to random people on /.

  78. that proves I really need one 8) by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    What I would really need is a spellchecker...

    Being a non-native english speaker make my slashdot browsing quite interesting, as I find myself in contact with US/UK/Aussie slang...so I took the dictionary in.

    also, yes firefox still effs up slashdot rendering...usually a simple reload solves it...

    Being on Linux make me a firefox user, as it is a very good browser andd I absolutly refuse to even try to wine-install IE on my linux box => user agent switcher makes for most of IE only webpages (hellomoto.com , ...etc...)

    I'll try it on slashdot next time 8)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by Dante · · Score: 1

      A awesome spell checker is spellbound, works great for me. http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

      --
      "think of it as evolution in action"
    2. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Maybe IHBT. The rest of your spelling was fine, that's what made it so funny.

      For a long while I was using AvantBrowser on top of IE for its popup-killing abilities. Firefox is much better in that it lets you know that a popup has been blocked and gives you the option of what to do with it (some popups are good, like logins, etc.)

      Ctrl-F with look-ahead and highlighting is also *very* nice, but I forget if that's an extension I have installed or part of the basic install.

      Salut from Montreal.

    3. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A [sic] awesome spell checker is spellbound, works great for me.

      And your post is a wonderful demonstration of why spellcheckers are no substitute for human proofreading.

    4. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      also, yes firefox still effs up slashdot rendering...usually a simple reload solves it...

      You can also toggle the font sizes - Ctrl+ then Ctrl- on the keypad for my Linux/Solaris boxes (haven't tried it on the Windows box) to get the rendering right. Slightly more efficient than a reload, I think.

    5. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by FrankNFurter · · Score: 1

      The 'information bar' newer Firefox versions display when a popup has been blocked was first seen in MS IE 6.0 SP2.

      --
      "Slashdot - the one place on the internet where guys brag about how small it is." - that IT girl
    6. Re:that proves I really need one 8) by anakin357 · · Score: 1

      or just ...

      Hold Ctrl + Mousewheel UP
      Hold Ctrl + Mousewheel DOWN

      If you've got a mousewheel it's a bit easier.

      --
      http://www.fsckin.com/
  79. red star icon by steve.m · · Score: 1

    Can anyone remember the last mozilla build to use the red star icon???
    I want to extract the icon from the .exe file to change the icon on my shortcut...

    1. Re:red star icon by mcsmurf · · Score: 1

      There was/is http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/widget/src /gtk/mozicon50.xpm?raw=1 and http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/widget/src /gtk/mozicon16.xpm?raw=1 But i dont know if you can convert it in a decent format for usage under Windows...

  80. How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was a big user of Netscape Navigator's web browser and email clients, but switched over to Mozilla when it went gold. I've tried Firefox a few times, but it doesn't have a mail client and therefore doesn't fulfill my needs. How is Thunderbird? I don't really want to change over to a pre-1.0 release unless someone can convince me that it is prety darn stable and feature-complete.

    1. Re:How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by gral · · Score: 2, Informative

      For me, it has been rock solid for the past 7 months. I have been using it exclusively as my Mail Client at work, with an IMAP email store.

      I have upwards of 100-500 emails a day that I go through with it.

      --
      Scott Carr * Documentation Co-Lead * OpenOffice.org

      --
      Scott Carr
    2. Re:How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't really want to change over to a pre-1.0 release unless someone can convince me that it is prety darn stable and feature-complete
      You do realize that these are two separate questions and have two completely different answers.
      Stability: objective measurement of how many crashes and lockups you typically have. From what I hear, Thunderbird is pretty solid
      Feature complete: subjective, does it fit my model of what a mail client should look like and do. You can't ask anyone this, you have to try for yourself. If you have an IMAP mail account, you can test it without disrupting your current mail workflow too much

    3. Re:How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by dentar · · Score: 1

      I like thunderbird, but don't use it because it's not very well integrated with firefox (on linux, that is) and, hell, who wants to go configuring stuff to work with each other all day? what a P.I.T.A!

      I always revert back to mozilla.

      --
      -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    4. Re:How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      It's stable (although I'm actually using Mozilla).

      Just wish they'd add rule-based pop-up notification windows and sounds.

      Which, believe it or not, is the major blocking issue for me to switch over entirely. I get e-mail notifications through the day of new task assignments, Outlook lets me popup a notification window, Mozilla Mail doesn't.

      (That, and I do wish they'd adopt a 2-tier approach to spam. Likely spam and definite spam, like SpamBayes does with Outlook. Not to mention that unmarking something as junk doesn't move it back where it came from when Moz's junk filter mis-marked it.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    5. Re:How good is the Thunderbird mail client? by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      Good to know that the stability is there. Mozilla's mail client has been rock solid for me, and I would hate to have to step down to something less.

  81. Mozilla/Firefox Slashdot bug by pomakis · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know the bugzilla number for this bug so I can vote for it? This problem bugs the hell out of me (pun intended). Of course, I'm operating on the theory that the more votes a bug has on it, the more likely (if only slightly) it is of being given priority to be fixed. Oh, if only I had the time to contribute my own fixes....

    1. Re:Mozilla/Firefox Slashdot bug by br0ck · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21752 7

      Not linked, because bugzilla disallows slashdot as a referrer. If you read the comments, they had a fix, but the fix broke a bunch of other sites. This blog post sums things up pretty well too.

    2. Re:Mozilla/Firefox Slashdot bug by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · · Score: 3, Informative

      217527.

      It's fixed in the trunk, but will not be fixed in the FF 1.0 branch because the current patch caused too many regressions and would require a serious QA effort to track them all down.

      Feel free to vote for it, but it's way too late to make it into FF 1.0. Besides, it's already recognized as a high-priority bug. If you really want to help move this into Firefox as quickly as possible, download a trunk build and isolate test cases for regressions.

    3. Re:Mozilla/Firefox Slashdot bug by LokiFoo · · Score: 1


      It's fixed in the trunk, but will not be fixed in the FF 1.0 branch because the current patch caused too many regressions and would require a serious QA effort to track them all down.


      Until then, do ctrl+ then ctrl- to force an increase then decrease of the text without forcing a refresh of the page. This almost always corrects the issue for me.

    4. Re:Mozilla/Firefox Slashdot bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hit back and then hit forward. Works 95% of the time.

  82. Re:Karma suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1 Trolling fucking MacTard.

    At least that's the impression you're trying to create. Personally, I don't believe you could afford a Mac. I doubt your mother makes enough money as a prostitute to buy you any kind of computer.

    I think you're a 12 year old Romanian script kiddie with a stolen account, an hilariously bad command of the English language and a number of developmental problems.

  83. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $30????

    You don't have $30. You've never had $30. The only way you will ever get $30 is if you rob an American tourist.

  84. Re:Security still an issue! by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there have been _MORE_ vulnerabilities in Firefox than IE in the last six months!

    Whether thats true or not is open but; two points -

    1) firefox hasnt officially released to the public yet its close Thats what the RC1 (release candidate) every one that is using firefox right now is a potential tester/bug reporter; if you find a problem with Firefox and you are a good citizen you should let them know via the bug tracking system.

    2) The fact that you are seeing all these bugs being found should inspire confidence that the firefox team and testers are doing a good job in weeding them out.

    When Firefox is officially released - after the RC stage. Then you can start getting worried about people finding bugs. Its enevitable that will happen but by the looks of things they are doing a damn good job of getting them out now, so when Firefox 1.0 Final comes out you should be in good hands.

    Nick ...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  85. Security issue by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Refusing to use potentially incompatible components is the most user-friendly solution.

    It also encourages users to stick with old versions with known security holes because they work with an old extension that hasn't since been updated.

    1. Re:Security issue by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      that's great, except that firefox will auto update extensions. I think even ones installed on an older versions.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:Security issue by tepples · · Score: 1

      that's great, except that firefox will auto update extensions

      If there is an update available. What happens when an extension's maintainer quits and nobody else takes up the task of porting the new extension to newer, more secure versions of Firefox?

      Analogous problem in the console world: Where can I get an update to Kid Icarus for NES so that it will run on my GameCube?

    3. Re:Security issue by Politburo · · Score: 1

      100% correct. I stayed with 0.8 for a long time because of this, and I'm sorry that I upgraded last week. My config still isn't back to the way it was, and now Firefox doesn't even start correctly. About 60% of the time, it just locks on startup.

    4. Re:Security issue by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      That is a problem, true, but hardly a problem unique to firefox. What happens when your favorite windows-based closed-source program closes up shop? It's the same thing--you find something else, or if you MUST have it, you make your own (if you have the skill).

      In other words, it is an interesting argument, but hardly unique and certainly not a deal breaker.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    5. Re:Security issue by tepples · · Score: 1

      What happens when your favorite windows-based closed-source program closes up shop?

      After the bad reputation earned in the early days of MS-DOS ("isn't done until Lotus won't run"), have you seen what kind of effort Microsoft goes to to make sure Windows remains back-compatible with applications designed for previous versions? I'd worry more about proprietary applications on Linux, which is still much more of a moving target. Of course this will become less of an issue once Firefox 1.0 goes gold and brings with it an extension API freeze.

    6. Re:Security issue by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      It's not quite the same argument that I'm making, however. Backwards compatibility is important (M$ has shown that), but not the be-all end-all of upgrades (Apple, Nintendo and others have shown that consumers will buy systems that break backwards-compatibility if its a good product).

      My argument, however, was focused on what you do when a vendor ceases to update their product. I happen to work for a company that until recently kept a copy of Win NT for the SOLE purpose of running a single program--their point of sale software that won't run on anything newer. Its an old package that doesn't get updated any more. That's just part of dealing with proprietary source.

      Now, with open source, there is a safety net built in--you can either update it yourself (if you know how) or hire someone to do it for you (and in some cases this makes sense--if a replacement package costs a lot).

      At the company I work for, we are upgrading to a quad Xeon IBM eServe (with 4GB of Ram), and windows 2K and a POS called Managemore. I didn't make the decision, but Managemore cost us about $10k (and can cost up to twice that). But because our old setup is dying, and we don't want to pay someone to update it (or for the source code), and it is likely that writing our own POS would be more expensive, we are making the switch.

      As for an extension in firefox not getting updated, big deal--like I said earlier, write your own, pay someone to do it or (if you can) update it yourself.

      It's fairly simple really.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    7. Re:Security issue by tepples · · Score: 1

      we are upgrading to a quad Xeon IBM eServe (with 4GB of Ram), and windows 2K and a POS called Managemore.

      I thought Windows 2000 was the POS :-) But seriously, is ManageMore POS one of the better or worse point-of-sale systems?

    8. Re:Security issue by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, its pretty good. Frankly, however, I know very little about it. I do their web design/development, and only part-time at that.

      As for win2k, its a POS alright, but then again, it CAME FROM M$! Seriously though, I think we'll be happy with the system.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
  86. is it just me or.... by xot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I use v0.9.3 of firefox on one machine and the 1.0rc on my other machine.both the machines have exactly the same config, the are both hp ,same models bought on the same day.But the one with 0.9.3 performs really well.The new version keeps hanging n crashing after a few hours of use n abuse.
    have you guys experience a decrease in speed of the later version?

    --
    Lord of the Binges.
    1. Re:is it just me or.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm running 0.10.1 under Linux. I get a crash & coredump atleast once/day. 0.9.3 was much more stable :-( Hopefully this new version is better.

  87. Try a nightly build by tepples · · Score: 1

    Of course, us mere mortals running precompiled releases instead of building our own state of the art browser directly from the source trunk, don't get to enjoy that fix.

    Mozilla.org does provide nightly builds, frequent binary releases for each platform based on the trunk.

  88. yup, no luck by LordJezo · · Score: 1

    Yup, I have tried that one too.. nothing. Still comes back saying I don't have SVG support.

    Seems like my computer just refuses to view SVG graphics with any Mozilla product.

    Sucks.

  89. Clipboarding images by phorm · · Score: 1

    I may be mistaken, but isn't this part of the browser or not an extension. At least if it is an extension it's packaged with the browser, but it's worked for me fine w/o needing to download anything extra.

    Of course, that's in the windows world. Due to clipboard issues it might be different in Linux, but I can't check since debian hasn't hit the 1.X rc stage yet and I'm not into mucking my system with non-packaged software.

  90. Thanks... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    I didn't even know there was an easy to install dictionary with firefox/mozilla...

    I'll test it right away 8)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  91. Download links and checksums! by Tajas · · Score: 0

    Here's some time-saving download links!

    English USA Windows - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0rc1/Firefox%20Setup%20(1.0rc1,%20en-US).e xe
    MD5 Checksum - bb0384ca19b9857041a792132c1ec60b

    English USA Linux - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0rc1/firefox-1.0rc1.en-US.linux-i686.insta ller.tar.gz

    MD5 Checksum - 731dd489140f2f178647ce06112913fb

    MD5 Checksums - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0rc1/MD5SUMS

    MD5 Checksum Utility - http://www.md5summer.org/download.html

    Remember, checksum is just to make sure the file is what it should be and that it's OK to use, google for info. In Linux you may or may not meed a utility as most distros now have it built in.

  92. Here's an idea by British · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe make a Firefox/Mozilla SDK for sites that are IE-only Firefox friendly? that should help propagation.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by bunratty · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, that would hurt evangelism, which is perhaps more important than increased usage to the Mozilla Foundation.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  93. Personally.. by d_jedi · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting until the final release of version 1.0. Using 0.9.1 right now, and don't feel like going through the trouble of sorting through incompatible extensions, etc.

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
  94. Yay! Now i can test my extension again! by piett134 · · Score: 1

    Gotta love it, hopefully my extension wont be broken on this new release :)

    http://www.opine-it.com

    1. Re:Yay! Now i can test my extension again! by Tajas · · Score: 0

      Good luck testing those extensions, I just lost most of them in the upgrade!

  95. Zalewski bugs? by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if the Zalewski bugs (254944 et al ) are slated to be fixed before the 1.0 release?

    1. Re:Zalewski bugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled." Haha

    2. Re:Zalewski bugs? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, shortly, yes.

      The long answer is: the bug is marked "blocking-aviary1.0", which means 1.0 cannot be released until this bug is not fixed. The bug depends on these unfixed bugs, which means the bug cannot be called "fixed" until all of these bugs are not fixed. UNfixed bugs atm in the dependency: 265027 265067 265736 265846 265867 265899 265902 265973 265999 266015.

      Although all this info could be determined from the original bugreport.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  96. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by MSBob · · Score: 1
    You mean that they engaged in terrorist activity?

    ;-)

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  97. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch Frontline on PBS about old Rummy (Rumsfeld) and the neocon agenda.

  98. People misunderstand the alt attribute by Jeff85 · · Score: 1

    The ability to make the browser popup ALT attributes for images?

    The alternate text attribute is only to be shown if the image is broken or to aid those who are vision impaired and such. Hence alternate text. If a person wants text to show when a mouse hovers over it, they should use the title tag instead.

    Alt vs Title

    Either way, the point is that Firefox is simply enforcing / supporting W3C webstandards! It doesn't display alt text when you hover the mouse over it because it's not supposed to be displayed for the normal, fully functional user if the image is rendered properly. And people wonder why the web is so messed up.

    --
    Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
  99. Pop up blocker broken by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some sites are now doing something different with the popups, that fools every pop up blocker out there.

    Try http://astalavista.box.sk/ for a sample

    1. Re:Pop up blocker broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a pop-up. It's just a floating iframe. Use ad-block to get rid of it.

    2. Re:Pop up blocker broken by JayJay.br · · Score: 1

      For Astalavista, Adblock blocked it just fine. It looks like they are using http://infinite-ads.com, easy to block.

      As a last resource, one can always build a custom hosts file that will block this kind of "popup".

      I have to say that the embedded flash was an interesting idea, though.

    3. Re:Pop up blocker broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm it didn't fool my pop-up blocker, but I am using 0.7 Firebird. In a hypothetical scenario maybe Mozilla is getting paid to weaken the pop-up blocker so that certain companies won't lose their revenue from pop-up ads and pop-up advertisers don't start pulling out when they find out their ads aren't showing up. Just a speculation.

  100. Re:Security still an issue! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    You read it. IT's a cut-n-paste troll...

  101. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by legojenn · · Score: 2, Funny
    You know, there was this little thing called the revolutionary war, and if the French hadn't "rescued" us we'd all be eating fish & chips and biscuits.

    You say that like it's a bad thing.....

    --
    I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
  102. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to point out that curry is now Great Britians favourite takeaway food. :)

    Fish and Chips are for when your pissed (Which for us brits is erm well, most of the time really). Or you don't have time to wait for the curry.

    Cheers.

  103. Re:Security still an issue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    get IE backdoored, COMPUTER fucked.

    Well... shell and (mostly) internet connection.

    If FF has a bug that allows execution of arbitrary binary code, your computer is fucked. (or at least that user account and those of all open windows) Same for IE, but without the "if".

  104. Tabbed Browsing Memory Leak? by Necroist · · Score: 1

    Have they finally fixed the cursed tabbed browsing memory leak where, closing tabs doesn't free up the memory it used?

  105. how about certifications and licenses by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Mozilla can start some kind of volunteer based "Mozilla Certified" group to look at new extensions that want this certification. Push the cert like a brand and tell users that non-certified apps might contain spyware and other nasties.

    Or take a hard-line approach and change the licensing for XUL developers so they cant use it for spyware. This probably isnt possible as all this stuff is open source.

    Perhaps the mozilla people can partner up with the spybot or adaware people and include the binaries in the installer.

    "Do you want to install SpyBot, a spyware remover?"

    That way, when they leave IE they also get a chance to clean up their machines, thus making FF appear to render all the quicker.

  106. not in 1.0pr by ylikone · · Score: 1
    I am running firefox 1.0 right now and just clicked on your link and I see no pop-ups coming up.

    (I love firefox, IE can go suck eggs)

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:not in 1.0pr by Espectr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does on mine, but i noticed the popup is made in flash, which you may not have installed, or maybe are using the click flash to view extension or something like that.

      Popups in flash... The future

    2. Re:not in 1.0pr by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      No popups show up with IE. I'll see your eggs and raise you a bunny.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
  107. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're they attacking civilians or the miliary?

    That's the distinction.

  108. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by useosx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to mention helping the U.S. win the American Revolution.

  109. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll bite:

    Read your history schmuck. Louis XVI was King of France during the American Revolution. He started helping in 1775 (that's right, before 1776). So the French had everything to do with it. Since it put such a financial strain on France, helping the Americans with the American Revolution may ultimately have been a contributing factor in the French Revolution and Louis XVI's death.

    At the time of the American Revolution Napoleon was just starting military school. He didn't start fighting any battles till the late 1790's.

    As well, since it seems you probably didn't hear about it, Napoleon was French. In fact, he was the Emperor of France, but that wasn't until 1804. He was kicked out in 1814 and tried for a come-back in 1815, and failed at Waterloo. He died (suspected poisoning) in his prison on St. Helena in 1821.

    France has won many wars. That is why there are so many French or former French territories around the world. Get your hillbilly ass off the moonshine or meth or whatever you are smoking, and actually learn what you are talking about.

    You are probably a troll, but I had to say it anyway.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  110. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the risk of being moderated as flamebait myself, I have to say that if the other Allies hadn't "rescued" France during WWII, they most certainly would have lost everything.

    At the risk of being moderated flambait, I have to say that if France hadn't saved America's ass during the Revolutionary War, we most certainly would be a different country today.

  111. Alt-Click is your FireFox Friend by FreeUser · · Score: 1
    There's some stuff in MozSuite that I have missed in FF:

    • Ctrl-click to open in new tab (no middle mouse button on my touchpad)

    This annoyed me too at first. Try ALT-click.

    I discovered it by accident. I have no idea why they changed CTRL-click to ALT-click in Firefox vs. Mozilla, but they did.

    The other two points I don't miss in the least, as I (a) don't run windows (I value my sanity), and (b) have no phobia of entering text into the location bar. :-)

    Really, CTRL-click was something I couldn't live without, so I was very glad to stumble on ALT-click.
    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  112. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by huge+colin · · Score: 0

    Overruled. Don't be a dope. Those situations are politically entirely different.

    A colony declaring independence may not even be morally justified to do so, but no one would deny the moral correctness of a nation defending its own soil. The effect of this is that France would have experienced a more negative outcome in the face of Axis invasion than the British colony subjects would have experienced if their stand to create their own nation had failed.

    So, please -- you think before you speak next time.

    --Colin

  113. Re:Security still an issue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    So I take it you are the same Anonymous Troll that posted this a few days ago. My (late) reply still applies.

    In short, claiming that Firefox has had more vulnerabilities is misleading at best, and a lie at worst. Any way you slice it, Firefox's security track record is vastly better than IE's.

  114. Great for PC users, Mac users shouldn't bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Weighing in at a svelte 25 megabytes and launching (on a 1ghz G4) in a mere 20 seconds, Firefox is perhaps less useful for Mac users. Safari launches in a fraction of the time weighs a lot less.

    Isn't there some way to trim it back? I want to like it. I use it exclusively on the PCs in my life, but I can't put up with its excessive bloat on my iBook.

  115. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US didn't win the American Revolution....

  116. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2, Funny

    I could go for some mushy peas. Damn French.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  117. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Tonytheloony · · Score: 1

    Are you implying there is a genetic or a cultural deficience in the french population?
    Oh and you do know that Napoleon was french?

    --
    The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
  118. EUREKA!!! by LordJezo · · Score: 1

    That's it!!!! For some reason that file was not in my plugins directory. I copied that one and the NPSVG3.zip into the Firebird plugins dir and it worked perfectly!

  119. It does not fool Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    When you have Opera set to "Block all Pop-ups" nothing comes up from that site.

  120. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, they also shipped French prisoners to German concentration camps to keep the Germans busy killing them.

  121. Re:Karma suicide by alex_ware · · Score: 1

    MSI downloads: yup blocking 1.0 on bugzilla. Oh and firefox was MADE for windows.

    --
    If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
  122. Re:Karma suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    go on waste some more precious karma:- by being stoopid ya'll never get mod points

  123. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by asoap · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've always wondered what history books would be like if you could pickup the US off the globe and pick up France off the globe and swap the two. Would the US have defended itself when it was attacked by the shock and awe... ugh I mean blitzkreig. (sorry those two are just so interchangeable) When the nazi regime was sweeping across Europe, and you see country after country fall, and you know if you defend your borders, you know you are just going to die. Would the US defend itself? Or do you let the nazis in and then fight a Guerilla war? Kinda like what is happening in Iraq? Or are the Iraq fighters cowards because they are not using there crappy guns against US laser guided cluster bombs? Or is standing up against horrible odds to die for no reason is the smart thing to do.

    I love how the US picks on france's lack of courage, and this is from a country that put off entering the war until they were finally attacked on their own soil.

    Then again, I'm just a troll.

    -Derek

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  124. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, there was this little thing called the revolutionary war, and if the French hadn't "rescued" us we'd all be eating fish & chips and biscuits.

    You say that like it's a bad thing.....


    Have you ever eaten real British fish & chips? It is a bad thing.

  125. Re:UI bugs by vsync64 · · Score: 1
    I quite fail to see how Firefox is a "windows app mainly", one of it's goals is not to be platform specific in any way.
    This is true of the original Mozilla with its platform-independent GUI but one of Firefox's goals is to be a better IE than IE and to conform to platform-dependant UI standards. Hence on Windows the button order is left to right, while on X11 it now follows the lead of that retarded GNOME monkey and goes right to left. Also the "Preferences..." menu item is located under different menus on different platforms. The list goes on. On-click behavior in text boxes is one behavior that is very platform specific.
    --
    TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
  126. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by kid_wonder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Morally? Why would we even care about the morals of either situation? I was simple describing an event that took place.

    It's called history for a reason and the facts speak for themselves.

    --

    "Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
  127. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Overruled. Don't be a dope. Those situations are politically entirely different.

    Overrulled yourself. "Politics" (whatever you mean by that) has nothing to do with it. Control over territory is the only issue here.

    If the U.S. hadn't helped France in WWII, then Germany might currently control France.

    If France hadn't helped the U.S. during the U.S. Revolutionary War, then England might currently control the U.S.

    Those are the same dang thing.

  128. Individual Sessions in Firefox by sapgau · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know if there is a way to support multiple sessions within tabs? Or between independet firefox windows/browsers for that matter?

    /I haven't read all the help files

  129. Re: Camino by bunratty · · Score: 1

    Why not use Camino? It's a version of Mozilla specifically for Mac OS X and weighs in at less than 7 MB.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  130. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were making too much $$$$ selling weapons to Iraq.

  131. Firefox paged to disk...annoying! by Alorelith · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to add

    user_pref("config.trim_on_minimize", false);

    to your user.js file in your profile. It gets rid of that annoying 10 second (sometimes more) wait you often see when you maximize your browser window from a long rest. Not sure it's necessary on Linux, but on Windows I've found it to be truly great.

    Of course, only use it if you can spare the memory.

  132. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    France has won many wars. That is why there are so many French or former French territories around the world. Get your hillbilly ass off the moonshine or meth or whatever you are smoking, and actually learn what you are talking about.

    Examples for those who don't know:

    Remember the Louisiana purchase? The U.S. bought that territory from France. France originally conquered this area (and lost it, and regained it, but that's a whole other story).

    Many parts of Asia were at one time French colonies. Vietnam famously so, but also other Asian countries such as Laos.

    Likewise, France had African colonies, e.g. Algeria and Djibouti.

    In all cases, France originally got those colonies by _winning wars_. These colonies have since tended to become independent, as with pretty much all other colonies around the world (e.g. The Philippines), so losing colonies is not unique to France.

    Of course, as many people have stated, France has won (and lost) plenty of wars in Europe. Napoleon is recent and was more successful than any French ruler since Charlemagne, so people tend to remember him, but France had its other victories (Brittany used to be part of Britian, you know!)

  133. Pfeh by krunchyfrog · · Score: 1

    Firefox... Mozilla... Opera... IE... GUI browsing is for wimps. I use (e)links for surfing, and wget for getting!

    --
    printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
    -- myself
  134. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But buying that one on your own was "smarter".

  135. THE IE CODE by sorcium · · Score: 0

    Since IE isn't being developed anymore, maybe we can convince M$ to open source it. The only problem is the virus community might sieze the oppurtunity and crank out viruses like mad. It would be interesting to see IE's source code. Maybe there could be a way to integrate firefox into a version of linux the way they did with windows. Heck, maybe we could integrate Forfox into windows ourselves, and totally uninstall IE, to leave it to the dogs. It is an interesting proposition, but i'm afraid there are too many adverse consequences for this to be a profitable move.

  136. Warning - Firefox will NOT autoupgrade! by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    Reading the daily firefox changelogs (http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/
    )
    "Because of the fix for bug 266221, these builds will not automatically update when Firefox 1.0 comes out. If you install 1.0 RC1 for friends, be sure to tell them to upgrade when 1.0 comes out, in case there are security fixes between now and Firefox 1.0.

  137. The Alternative by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I bet no one told their friends & family that when they download Firefox, they were downloading beta software.

    As if a "released" version from the other vendor is somehow different.

    A beta by any other name would cause as much breakage.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  138. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by torstenvl · · Score: 1

    The Allies would have won without them? The Allies consisted of the Brits and the Americans. The French were the only people on the Continent to have any sort of organized Resistance movement. It was because of the French counterintelligence that the Allies were able to land at Normandy which is (gasp) in France.

    You really should check your facts before commenting.

  139. Question. by kai.chan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would Slashdot users, or people who dislikes IE and Microsoft, have an XBox?

    1. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we know enough to admit we're wrong sometimes. Unlike George W. Bush. Ba-zing!

    2. Re:Question. by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Because all the people who read slashdot don't fit into your narrow definition?

    3. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are saying is that the that people who dislikes Microsoft still goes out and willingly gives Microsoft more money to slowdown innovation?

    4. Re:Question. by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      No, I am saying that not all people who read slashdot have a dislike of Microsoft. Sorry for the confusion.

    5. Re:Question. by thrash242 · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't. And I never will. I have the other two current consoles, but not an Xbox.

  140. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by MntlChaos · · Score: 1

    Nice to know the Soviets didn't do any fighting. And what about the Partisans in Russia? They did plenty to disrupt the logistics of the German war effort there.

  141. Still no middle click for OSX?!?!?! :( by scosol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeesh... the one thing from keeping me from using Firefox as my promary browser...

    All I want to do is open a link in the background when middle clicked:

    Firefox on every platform but OSX? YES
    Opera on OSX? YES
    Safari? YES
    Even goddamn Mozilla under X on OSX? YES

    Firefox on OSX? NO

    Still lovin it but WTF

    --
    I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    1. Re:Still no middle click for OSX?!?!?! :( by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      There is Camino, coded by a real mac user and friendly guy, perhaps you must use and support it.

      As I got -1 for asking why mozilla can't prebind on mac...

      Omniweb licensed user...

  142. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military is being attacked in Iraq, and noone questions it when the attackers are called 'terrorists' there.

  143. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    You damn torrie!

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  144. moonshine? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, their soma goes by the name of fox news, msbc, talk radio, etc.

    In the new america, facts and history and decadent excesses of the reality based community. The faith based community has no need for such things.

  145. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, we Finns were fighting too!!!

    Oh wait.

  146. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Who modded this up?

    Hopefully not someone from the USA, a country whose major culinary exports are tasteless piss beer, burgers and a number of carbonated soft drinks.

  147. Re:Security still an issue! by slasher+guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft doesn't like people knowing about ther exploits. Every single one of firefox's is released to the public. So there could be more for IE, only microsoft knows...

  148. GPG Signature issues! by dfelznic · · Score: 1

    Hello,
    I downloaded the firefox dmg for en-us. the gpg signature listed in the KEY file is different than the key used to sign the file. Any mozilla developers know what is going on?

    1. Re:GPG Signature issues! by dfelznic · · Score: 1

      Hello,
      Sorry to reply to my own post. I heard back from the mozilla people and the problem is that the KEY file was not updated. they are transitioning to a new release signing system. there is a bug in bugzilla for the problem:
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cg i?id=68079

  149. [Ctrl]-u broke in linux by EDinNY · · Score: 1

    [Ctrl]-u in Mozilla in Linux clears the location bar. That feature is broke in Firefox versions I have tried. You can select, then delete what is in the location bar, but that copies the location bar into your cut/paste buffer...not good if you were about to paste a URL in the location bar!

    When they fix this, I will try it again.

    1. Re:[Ctrl]-u broke in linux by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      Click in the location bar
      Press Crtl+l
      Press delete
      Middle click.

      You'll find that the cut/paste buffer hasn't been deleted.

  150. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or do you let the nazis in and then fight a Guerilla war? Kinda like what is happening in Iraq?

    The two aren't comprable. The Nazis put their boots on the necks of the guys they took over. The US is repairing power plants, fixing broken waterworks, etc. By far the average Iraqi is very happy that the US took over, and their biggest fear is that the US will pull out and leave them defenceless.

    The Nazis were rounding up Jews, homosexuals, etc and killing them. I'm not sure how common that knowledge was during the actual war, but anyway the US soldiers aren't doing that either.

    Yes there are some Iraqis, and some foreigners, who are so insane that they don't care about any of the above.

    If you are an extreme Muslim, you really believe that women need to be veiled, women need to obey their husbands and stay at home, and all countries must become Muslim (the whole world must submit to the peace of Allah). The US is successfully exporting its culture (movies, etc) and that's a crime. The US won't let the extreme Muslims kill all the Jews in Israel, and that's a crime. It is war between the extreme Muslims and the US, which is why extreme Muslim terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Centre in the first place and succeeded with the airplanes on 9.11 in the second place.

    Plus there are even Iraqis who are so insane they are offended because Saddam Hussein and his government were deposed. What can you do about those. Just kill them I guess.

    Tony Blair said that 5000 Iraqi kids were starving to death, each month, under the Hussein government. The average Iraqi doesn't want that back.

    Or are the Iraq fighters cowards because they are not using there crappy guns against US laser guided cluster bombs?

    I thought the US was using "precision" bombs, even things like bombs filled with concrete instead of explosive (drop it from 30.000 feet and take out one building instead of one neighbourhood). Cluster bombs are not precision things and I don't think they are laser guided.

    If you ask me they are cowards because they kidnap nurses and contractors and saw off their heads with knives. Wow, so brave. One could argue that the guerilla attacks on actual soldiers are brave, but then I'm not sure that insane people can be usefully described by the word "brave".

  151. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by celeritas_2 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you're looking into the history well enough, or deep enough. France didn't help the colonists for the sake of Americans, they did it as a part of their continued war against the UK. The United States didn't help France for France, they did it because they knew that Hitler would almost certainly conquor every country in Europe, and continue to expand across certain Atlantic Oceans. If Germany wasn't defeated as quickly as it was, they would have finished their work on The Bomb. (you know which one) and they would used it, the US would have used theirs, and boom, we're all here today living in caves with three legs see?

    --
    -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
  152. November 9th by DannyiMac · · Score: 1

    That's not too far away. I think I will wait for the 9th release because usually when I upgrade some of my extensions are out of date and I have to reinstall them. This usually turns out to be a mess.

    --
    - Danny
  153. Re:Security still an issue! by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of security issues that exist in Firefox 0.x also exist in Mozilla 1.x and Netscape 7.x. It's not like hitting 1.0 magically improves code quality.

  154. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by perky · · Score: 1

    They just revolved.

    --
    "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  155. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by jshare · · Score: 1
    The two aren't comprable. The Nazis put their boots on the necks of the guys they took over. The US is repairing power plants, fixing broken waterworks, etc. By far the average Iraqi is very happy that the US took over, and their biggest fear is that the US will pull out and leave them defenceless.

    Hahaha. You are hilarious dude. How do you suppose those powerplants and waterworks got broken in the first place?

    Yes, I suppose they are concerned that the US will pull out, but that's because we already fucked everything up for them. Naturally, they are now concerned that their fucked-over infrastructure is not enough to support them without external help.

    If you are an extreme Muslim, you really believe that women need to be veiled, women need to obey their husbands and stay at home, and all countries must become Muslim (the whole world must submit to the peace of Allah). The US is successfully exporting its culture (movies, etc) and that's a crime. The US won't let the extreme Muslims kill all the Jews in Israel, and that's a crime. It is war between the extreme Muslims and the US, which is why extreme Muslim terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Centre in the first place and succeeded with the airplanes on 9.11 in the second place.

    Well, alright, but what does that have to do with our overthrow of the secular government in Iraq?

  156. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    Then again, I'm just a troll.

    Yeah, you are.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  157. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Actually, the French version has already surrendered to the German version.

    --
    Ron Paul 2012
  158. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamn, I wish I had modpoints today. That deserves at least +3 Insightful.

  159. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

    a very hard baguette and a big white flag.

    Assuming it's the same size as the CTF one, it may not be that bad for mêlée attacks, actually. (Yes, I had to put the accents. We're talking about the French.)

    And in French, baguette is also used to mean "magic wand." Expecto Bansheeum! Finite Ammunition! Accio Flag!

  160. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

    Good point, the Soviet contribution is underrated in almost any discussion of WWII. If Germany had only had to fight a one front war in Europe, things might've turned out terribly differently.

    The attempted Nazi invasion of Stalingrad cost them dearly. Hitler apparently never brushed up on Napoleon's mistakes.

    Jesus, how OT am I? Umm, I did a clean reinstall of win2k on my Dad's old PIII-400 tower last week. Stuck firefox and thunderbird on it, and he couldn't believe how zippy it was. He's a bright guy, so when I told him about the security benefits of the alternatives he was all for it.

    BTW, before the clean reinstall he was thinking of buying a brand-new computer b/c the PIII was "too slow". All he uses is the web, email, and the occasional ssh to a server from work. Most consumers are waaaay too quick to jump to newer hardware when they don't really need it.

    --
    I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  161. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Allies consisted of the Brits and the Americans.

    I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of Australians and New Zealanders who died during the war are turning in their grave.

  162. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Gactaculon · · Score: 1

    Actually not, given the proportion of attacks that are targeted at civilians to cause fear and intimidation... No matter how badly Micheal Moore wants you to beleive that Iraq is in the midst of some guerrila insurgency for great justice, terrorism in Iraq is real.

  163. Re:Security still an issue! by batkiwi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FF runs as the local user, which for windows 99.9% of the time is in the administrator group, discounting work computers with strict domain settings. That means FF fucked, computer fucked.

  164. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that someone actually marked my posting as a troll. I don't understand how posting facts correcting someones complete falsehoods a troll. Unless the moderator is someone who is afraid of the truth? Sheesh!

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  165. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    To be honest, I wouldn't pay much attention to what the moderators think. When I moderate, I don't pay much attention to what I think either.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  166. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

    We say the same thing about the warm sludge you drink, so I think it's just a matter of perspective.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  167. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by kantai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Napoleon was French
    Wrong! He was a Corsican. The French only win wars if they are led by a foreigner.

  168. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plus there are even Iraqis who are so insane they are offended because Saddam Hussein and his government were deposed. What can you do about those. Just kill them I guess.

    We've apparently killed 100,000 of them so far.

  169. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French didn't exactly resist the Nazi's moving into France. In fact, an open arms invitation is not the same as taking up arms.

  170. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget aboot the Canadians eh.
    They were getting mowed down while the Americans were still denying there was even a World War.

  171. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are they terrorising in Iraq anyway?
    What business is it of yours? The obvious answer of course is keeping that oil pipeline going.

  172. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Napoleon was French
    Wrong! He was a Corsican. The French only win wars if they are led by a foreigner.


    I have tried to find something to say but...
    I do not have anything intelligent to reply to this statement...
    Maybe because to discuss and have arguement, a French consider that both sides must have valuable point of views...
    The only problem is that most American that bash France or French do not have any real argument to do so...
    So I suppose we will stay quiet so that you can make it pass for arrogance
    A French living in Tokyo (American please read: "A smoking arrogant hasbeen frog living in the land of funny yellow monkeys that cannot even speak a word of English, euh American...")

  173. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1
    LOL!! OK, you got me there! :-) But perhaps he was from the French part of Corsica? (kidding) I think maybe it was that he was basically raised/went to school in France that did it. So at least he received part of his upbringing and military training in France and was able to use it to win his many battles. He ultimately did loose the war so to speak (but then again, we all will if we don't know when to stop).

    William the Conqueror conquered England, and he definately was from France, which counters your second statement. As well, they kicked the English off of the continent in the mid 1500's. I am sure if we look, we can find a few more wars they have won. But I agree, they haven't fared too well lately. (As Billy Conally said, "you know, the French have planted trees along the Champs d'Elise? I suppose that is so the Germans can march in the shade next time.")

    But it doesn't negate the fact that France kept a lot of British troops and ships off of America's backs during the American Revolution by engaging the British all over the world and not just in America. A quick check also shows that at least half the forces that took part in the Battle of Yorktown were French.

    So in the end, the truth is, when America helped in retaking France in WWII, it was sort of a 'returning the favour' kind of thing.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  174. How do I turn off URL bar autocomplete? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    I don't want to display my previously visited URLs to onlookers as I type in the URL for some website. Mozilla suite makes this easy to accomplish--simply turn off the autocomplete feature.

    How do I accomplish the same thing in Firefox? A few notes:

    • The preference for this appears to be missing from the GUI and I don't see it in about:config's list of settable preferences.
    • I know of no extension to do this job. Do you?
    • I don't want to kill my history, but even doing that won't accomplish this task (really, try the following: clear your history and set retention to 0 days. Visit a website by typing in its URL, say "www.google.com". Then visit some other website by typing in its URL, "www.slashdot.org". Then type "www.g" and watch as Firefox offers an autocompletion of Google's URL).
    • Turning off saved form information has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    I figured there were some more skilled Firefox users here who might know how to do this.

  175. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by nido · · Score: 1
    Not to mention helping the U.S. win the American Revolution.

    ... but not because they necessarily believed in the Americans' cause. Rather, French assistance to the American revolutionaries was more for the purpose of hurting the British.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
  176. It's Poor Karma Whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  177. Way, way, way OT by macrealist · · Score: 1

    But on target, none the less.

    another fool is here

    --
    I am living proof of the Peter Principle
  178. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by asoap · · Score: 1
    Then again, I'm just a troll.

    Yeah, you are.

    Yes, I am.

    -Derek

    --
    Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
  179. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha. You are hilarious dude.

    If you say so. I don't think this is funny though.

    How do you suppose those powerplants and waterworks got broken in the first place?

    Some of them were damaged when the war was fought. Others were just simply broken because the Iraqi government was so screwed up. The people in Iraq were really used to totally unreliable utilities.

    Also, insurgents are sabotaging things like oil pipelines and utilities. They don't want the average Iraqi to be happy to have the US troops there. They also do things like blowing up little kids (the US soldiers were giving out candy, so I guess to an extreme Muslim fanatic that means they make a great example to make Iraqis tell their kids to run away from US soldiers).

    Well, alright, but what does that have to do with our overthrow of the secular government in Iraq?

    Sorry, guess that wasn't clear. I was dividing up the people in Iraq into three major classes: the average guys who appreciate having the dictator gone, the extreme Muslim fanatics who already hated the US anyway, and the crazy pro-Hussein guys. I should have added a fourth category: people who didn't hate the US before the war, but lost family members to errant bombs or errant bullets and so now hate the US. Mr Kerry and his friends would have you believe there are very many of the last category but I am not so sure.

    The average Iraqi is glad to have US forces there. But there are plenty of the US haters there too to cause trouble. The biggest problem is that the US cannot prevent trouble, just try to fight it and clean up after it.

    5000 kids per month were starving to death. Saddam Hussein made people disappear. Hussein's sons raped and killed women. Thousands were buried in mass graves. The average Iraqi is happy this stuff isn't going on anymore.

    Also, the average Iraqi is not a complete idiot. Before the US troops invaded, they were all told that the US troops were coming to rape all the women, blow up all the mosques, kill all the kids and probably eat them too, etc. None of this stuff happened. So do you think that the average Iraqi is pissed off having US soldiers in Iraq?

    The average Iraqi is probably pissed off that the insurgents are blowing stuff and people up. Many of them probably want the US troops out so that the insurgents will leave them the hell alone. Once the elections are held and the US pulls out, I wonder if the insurgents will still keep blowing stuff up.

  180. Insightful? by b00m3rang · · Score: 1

    Why don't you try it? If you configure it not to delete your messages off the server, or if you use IMAP, it's a no-risk trial. It's never crashed on me, the spam filter works well, and I've switched to using it almost exclusively.

  181. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by chawly · · Score: 1

    Well said there ! - For an Anonymous Coward that is

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  182. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm meta-moderating the troll mod as unfair, BUT you kind of deserved it for this concluding statement:

    Get your hillbilly ass off the moonshine or meth or whatever you are smoking, and actually learn what you are talking about.

    No reason to be so rude.

  183. Re:Actually, we're already playing the French vers by jshare · · Score: 1
    5000 kids per month were starving to death. Saddam Hussein made people disappear. Hussein's sons raped and killed women. Thousands were buried in mass graves. The average Iraqi is happy this stuff isn't going on anymore.

    All kinds of horrible things go on all over the world. Take a peek at North Korea (to bring out the canonical example). We are not doing anything about them. We are not the World Police.

    You went from "We invaded Iraq because Muslim terrorists hate us", to "We invaded Iraq because it was an awful place, and the people are better off now." Even stipulating that the people are, in fact, better off now (which I do not believe), I maintain that it is not the role of the US to unilaterally invade countries to "clean them up".

    Jordan

  184. Re:Karma suicide by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    "Re:Karma suicide (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on 16:22 28 October 2004 (#10653128)

    -1 Trolling fucking MacTard.

    At least that's the impression you're trying to create. Personally, I don't believe you could afford a Mac. I doubt your mother makes enough money as a prostitute to buy you any kind of computer.

    I think you're a 12 year old Romanian script kiddie with a stolen account, an hilariously bad command of the English language and a number of developmental problems.
    "

    Its AC comment scored 0 as reply to my -1 or something comment.

    Mozilla or Firefox has no hope...