Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 1.0.1 Released
homeobocks writes "Firefox 1.0.1 has been officially released by the Mozilla Foundation, with some important security fixes. An announcement and release notes are available." Presumably this fixes the window injection vulnerabilities.
from tfa:
You can now make links opened by other applications open into a new tab, reuse an existing tab, or open a new window.
Does it play well with Tabbrowser extension?
Usually any app that does this kills off my saved session. (grrrr).
Here's hoping.
And, isn't msi support supposed to be available?
(if it is there I did not see it)
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
it would me much more convenient (and probably less bandwidth-intensive) if they allowed us to update Firefox through the built-in update feature.
At least Micro$oft doesnt make you totally re-download IE everytime they patch it.
I guess the parent means the code itself is displayed as opposed to the punycode results. It's tougher to spoof letters with Unicode when the punycode source is displayed instead. (...right?)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Yes, I have a solution: all browser developers, give up on the silly idea of having non-ASCII domains. Kill this feature!
Thanks. But this delayed mechanism may not be acceptable to general users. We (IT users) may understand the rationale behind. But in order for FF to be accepted widely, the "automatic update" or "check for update" should work before any announcement of such updates.
Hopefully Slashdot will render correctly in this version.
Even the original Mozilla, which is bloated, uses a mere 20,482K to open slashdot.org, while it can open up my loads of e-mail only using 24,223K of RAM. Using Thunderbird in addition to Firefox, since they don't share the same instance of the Gecko rendering engine, causes another 28,292K of RAM to be used. Internet Explorer 6 even with SP2, on the other hand, only consumes about 3,840K of RAM to open up slashdot.org, and Outlook Express only consumes 2,248K.
I recall it even being worse on Linux due to the fact that it loads quite a large amount of libraries with it, that runs slowly under older machines even under Fluxbox or the ultra-minimalist evilwm.
Whatever Firefox does, it should have made it a priority before the 1.0 Release to clean up the amount of RAM it abuses to do what it does. Even after waiting months for 1.01, it seems to have gotten worse than I recall, and I haven't put it in debug mode or developer mode or anything -- I disabled anything like that in the Custom Installation.
But fortunately, I've got 1GB of RAM, and there's barely any spyware, so I'm ok with it now. I just wish I didn't have to put either Dillo for Linux or IE6 on Win98 for those old late Pentium Is / early Pentium IIs I fix up for people in my spare time, since Firefox is a nice browser despite its flaws. Too bad it won't run decently on anything less than a Pentium III with 256MB of RAM.
- - - - - Fear not the reaper, but my shiny white teeth.
I did that, I found that Session Saver and Foxy tunes have updates available, but Firefox doesn't.
I guess they haven't put the updates on the server yet?
Screw it, I downloaded the whole thing and it took 20 seconds. I closed FF, Zipped up ProgFiles\MozFF and DocSet\User\AppDat\Moz, installed FF 1.0.1 and loaded it up.
Took less thAn 2 minutes to do all that, I'm updated and no extensions broke.
Pretty cool. Didn't even need a fricken reboot like IE would have.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
Right, because people who don't use English don't deserve to be on the web. STFU.
So why is there a software update "Check Now" button in the FireFox options, when it doesn't find and install this? Is it a feature that has yet to be implemented, or is there some other configuration setting I need to do first for it to work?
Not that it's tough to manually download & install the update. It'd just be nice if I could tell my co-workers to "click on this button and it'll update itself."
I would be interesting to see how many people download 1.0.1 over time vs 1.0. Statistically it would be hard to say how many people upgraded, didn't upgrade, first copy of firefox was 1.0.1 but, I would like to see the number seperately.
To show International Domain Names in Unicode, set the "network.IDN_show_punycode" preference to false.
Please tell me to do it there's a more intuitive way to do that in the GUI.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Wow. This statement epitomizes everything that has gone wrong with slashdot!
True, some people seem a bit worried that Slashdot.org is turning into FireFoxNews.org. But I'm with you
Remember that it's not just one geek-friendly browser we're talking about here - the future of the entire internet's at stake. The popularity of this one browser could be the only thing that prevents the web turning into a microsoft-dominated proprietary system a few years down the line, destroying any chance linux might have had on desktop machines.
And if that's not an exciting and important Slashdot story, I don't know what is.
What I am asking about at the moment is the exact process of changing the setting away from the default. If you have to at any point ever type the words "network.IDN_show_punycode" to change a basic preference this is not acceptable UI.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Of course it didn't require a reboot like IE ... FF isn't "tied into" the OS
I've been seeding these for about 1/2 hour with only 30mb uploaded (--max_uploads 100) - I'm sure there's a lot of people seeding, but it would have been great to see a link to the BitTorrent mirror page in the news post to spare the mirrors. I can't figure out why more slashdot news posts aren't edited when there is a BitTorrent link added for the content referred to in the item (especially when its an official torrent provided by the content creators!)
As Bittorrent has become so popular one has to wonder why FF doesn't support it natively or via plug-in as a download method.
Hush, it's the ascii-reading world that needs protection. Or at least, they decide who needs protection from spoofing...
If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
Sorry, but I can't find such an increase. There is a small spike, but not really significant. Also, in the cumulative graph nothing major happens.
In fact, I come to the opposite conclusion: there was no noticable increase afterward.
(Score:5, Not Funny)
It's quite simple, really.
The internet appears to be wearing a massive pair of rose-tinted specticals. These are remarkable things that shield the wearer from any bad things that might be wrong with their favourite piece of software, that rescued them from the evil clutches of Micro$oft (lol) Internet Exploiter (lol).
As a result of this, it means that Firefox can't have any bugs. I mean, how can it? It's open source! Everyone knows that the instant someone discovers a bug in any open-source software, the magical bug evles emerge from the woodwork and fix it instantly, and upgrade everyone's copies for them.
Unfortuantely, when you take the specs off, you see that the open-source model doesn't really work that way, and that software as monumentally complex and widespread as firefox can't just shoot out new point-releases every week and expect everyone to keep up to date.
Good God, you should not have to UNINSTALL AND THEN REINSTALL THE FREAKING APPLICATION TO GO FROM 1.0.0 to 1.0.1!
This is a major security flaw - the fact that Firefox is so fucking hard to upgrade (and upgrades break any themes and extensions you were using) means that a lot of people are going to get fed up and stick with their current version, holes or no holes. And Firefox users will get 0wn3d and Firefox will look bad.
For fuck's sake, guys, I'll even put up with a reboot, if you can just Get. Firefox. Upgrading. EASILY!
So do they allow you to upgrade from 1.0 to 1.0.1? All I read is this:
"Prior to installing Firefox 1.0.1, please ensure that the directory you've chosen to install into is clean and doesn't contain any previous Firefox installations."
So why do I want to uninstall my old version prior to installing a new version? Can they not handle a simple upgrade?
(Seriously, I'm asking a question. I like Firefox, so this isn't flaimbait.)
YOu may think its trivial. I havn't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Wake up out there - 99% of users don't know what a command line, and I'm doing my best to forget. Here's a rule - if you can't change a setting just with a mouse, your program isn't ready for the public, it's a nerds-only special.