Mozilla Firefox 1.02 Released

akadruid writes "Mozilla has begun rolling the Firefox 1.02 security update. It has appeared with the little fanfare and without the staggered rollout of 1.01 - have Mozilla sorted their distribution worries?"

Comments

How they solved distribution worries

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just say the bandwidth of vulnerable IE users is being put to good use.

Re:How they solved distribution worries

[Anonymous Coward]

And it was fixed how soon exactly?

MS bashers don't bash MS because they've got security problems, but more often because they know about an issue and sometimes wait months and months to roll a patch out.

Re:How they solved distribution worries

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to sound like a MS-hater or a OSS fanboy, but this flaw does not seem so low-impact.

Re:How they solved distribution worries

[alienw]

Yeah, but at least Mozilla fixes the holes before they start to be actively exploited. Microsoft seems to fix holes only when everyone is already using them to install spyware.

0.04% Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice the speed increase?

Re:0.04% Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

It feels snappier! But I also just updated my MacOS, so . . . .

Re:0.04% Faster

[HeliumHigh]

Wow, you already recompiled your gentoo install? Mines not even a tenth of a percent done!

Re:0.04% Faster

[NeedleSurfer]

Actually, call me nuts, but i DO notice a speed increase it's subtle but it's there, enough for me to have noticed it was faster before I read your post... again not by much it just feels snapier

Re:0.04% Faster

[trintron]

W00t! It's 'a lot faster' by Apple standard.

Re:0.04% Faster

[real_smiff]

yes, can i be the first to say "placebo". it may be faster for you for some reason, but i remember reading somewhere that people will only notice a speed increase if it's >~20% ? (in an interface, they are much more sensitive to things like audio frequency, obviously).

Re:0.04% Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad for a security fix

Re:0.04% Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you probably did read it somewhere. Unfortunately, its hogwash.

It would mean that if something takes 1 second, I can't percieve an improvement until it takes .8 seconds. Or that if something takes an hour, I can't percieve an improvement until it takes 48 minutes.

Re:0.04% Faster

[(C-A-D-4-2-0)]

It's definately faster. Was attempting to do taxes and the site was java based. Then noticed the firefox update, dropped the tax business and upgraded. Upon upgrading I resumed the tax forms and the java did seem to load up much much quicker. Methinks they did a good job on this revision ;) my $0.02 CAD

Re:0.04% Faster

[legirons]

"0.04% Faster: Anyone else notice the speed increase?"

Yeah, but that's because I've started using the pure-silver IEC mains lead at about the same time, which gives a clearer transmission of bits to take full advantage of the OFC modem-cable.

no data message

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this fixes the problems with this document contains no data.

Re:no data message

[Spad]

They're usually caused by messing with the "max connections" tweak and setting them too high.

Re:no data message

[derEikopf]

I had the same problem and the following worked like a charm:

1. type about:config in the URL box
2. change browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to "True"

Re:no data message

[Mycroft_VIII]

Nope, I get them on stock 1.0 (unless you meant the devs are responsible for misstweaking the defaults).

Mycroft

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only they'd get going on Sunbird. I need a good calendar app.

Re:Cool

[Ki Master George]

I'm waiting for their long-awaited IM program to come out. It would be very nice to have a Mozilla-based IM program.

Re:Cool

[IANAAC]

Offtopic, but...

Have you tried KDEPIM (assuming, perhaps wrongly, you're on Linux, although it works on Win too)? It works nicely, and syncs to many other apps. I use it in conjunction with my Zaurus and have no problems syncing.

Re:Cool

[Glooty-Us-Maximus]

Agreed. I've been playing around with the beta for some time now and would love a more polished version.

Re:Cool

[darthpenguin]

I'm waiting for their long-awaited IM program to come out. It would be very nice to have a Mozilla-based IM program.

IIRC, versions 6/7 of netscape included a built in AOL client (at least for the linux version). Of course, it was fairly unusable when compared to something such as gaim, but it was there. I'm unaware as to whether the new firefox-based version of netscape includes it, though.

Re:Cool

[PolyDwarf]

I always have to wonder, when I see comments like this, why? I'm being serious for a minute, not sarcastic.

Why would it be "very nice" to have a Mozilla-based IM client? What would a Mozilla-based IM client offer over any one of the other third-party IM clients (gaim, trillian, etc)?

Last I looked, I use Mozilla for web browsing, not chatting with friends. I looked at their email client, but found myself saying "ho hum, another email client" and then going back to Outlook. Yes, sue me, I'm a windows user for my desktop.

I take my car to the mechanic, but I sure as hell wouldn't take my heart attack to him. As old Rosie put it, a place for everything, and everything in its place. Maybe Mozilla should concentrate on finding and patching more holes... They obviously have a few.

PS - Before I invoke the wrath of Slashdot, I do, in fact, use Firefox for web browsing, not IE.

Re:Cool

[mrchaotica]

Maybe I want one based on XUL, as part of a XUL-based desktop?

Re:Cool

[xigxag]

What would a Mozilla-based IM client offer over any one of the other third-party IM clients (gaim, trillian, etc)?

If you're trying to convince your organization to switch to open-source offerings, it's easier to bring up an integrated solution such as, "We can switch to the Mozilla Suite" than to have to sell three or four different projects like, "We can switch to K-Meleon for browsing, Trillian for IM, Thunderbird for email," etc.

Re:Cool

[cg0def]

ever heard of gaim? If not you should ...

Re:Cool

[chrispyman]

And this is exactly one of the big reasons many dislike the discontinuation of the Mozilla Suite. Until Firefox, Thunderbird, and the rest start integrating better (act more like a single app with optional components), there really isn't any other apps out there that make up a nice "Internet Suite."

Re:Cool

[anethema]

Trillian is open source?

Re:Cool

[tangent3]

Cross platform compatibility and consistency.

Most of the 3rd party multi-protocol IM clients are cross-platform, the only exception I can think of is gaim. Gaim, however requires the use of gtk, and gtk doesn't work all that nicely with Windows, even with the gtk-wimp theme.

A Mozilla-based IM client would solve the these problem, and I would really look forward to one.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaim? Best use of IM there was.

Re:Cool

[LumpyRabbit]

hahaha..... you must be Ivey League Educated You must have sat and thought about what to say for a long time! Good Job monkey boy!

Re:Cool

[starwed]

For what it's worth, I managed to implement a very barebones jabber client as a 10k firefox extension... and I don't even really know what I'm doing. :) I wouldn't suggest anyone else use it, but by installing it onto portable firefox I could use AIM/MSN/Yahoo in any of the campus labs. I've found even this crappiest IM client is very nice in terms of convenience.

And although my little extension isn't really useable by anyone else, there are people working on a jabber client in XUL called jabberzilla. It hasn't released any code that I could find. :( But regardless, a good, working jabber client will probably be released for Firefox at some point.

Re:Cool

[John_Booty]

Gaim, however requires the use of gtk, and gtk doesn't work all that nicely with Windows, even with the gtk-wimp theme.

I disagree. GTK apps on Windows doen't quite feel like a native Windows application (non Windows-standard file dialogs, etc) I wouldn't say GTK "doesn't work all that nicely with Windows". It's still very nice and usable and I use GAIM all the time on WindowsXP. It's excellent.

The only real GAIM/Windows gripe I have is a window positioning issue with my three-monitor setup. But this is a pretty nonstandard config so I'm not complaining. (I don't know if it's a GAIM or a GTK issue. I suspect GTK but I'm not sure)

Re:Cool

[mike518]

ibook's: $1000-1300 ical: Free Having a non-Dell/Gateway laptop: Priceless Just some food for thought if you were looking for a laptop :-)

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I only have MSN, Yahoo and ICQ. I could use another, because I think my computer simply has too much free memory as it is now.

Re:Cool

[jp10558]

IDK, I think Opera makes up a nice Internet Suite. Heck, that's reason #2 it get's bashed by most FF Fans.

I recently tried Thunderbird when I was having an IMAP issue with Eudora 5.2, but I realised how much I liked having eudora keep everything in one window, kind of like tabbed browsing. Thunderbird, at least by default, started popping up new windows to compose mails. Then Eudora started working again for some reason, so there went thunderbird.

Re:Cool

[flonker]

This is off topic, so don't mod me up, but anyway, I suspect it's a bit of both, because I've run other programs under GTK2, and they've had different issues.

I have 2 monitors, monitor 2 is larger than monitor 1. With GAIM, conversations tend to appear in the area above monitor 1, left of monitor 2; the top left corner of the full virtual desktop created by the two monitors. This area just happens to not actually be displayed on any monitor, so I have issues.

With Crossfire, it opens the windows on monitor 1 only. Heaven help me if I want it to start on the second monitor. However, it does open properly positioned on the monitor, and appear in the same dead space as new GAIM conversations. With Crossfire, I suspect the issue is some wierd code that handles the positioning of the window in some buggy window managers under the *nices.

Re:Cool

[tangent3]

Ok, perhaps "doesn't work all that nicely with Windows" was abit of an exaggeration. I use gaim on WinXP at work too, and generally I'm quite happy with it. Just wish that the look and feel of it would be more consistent with the standard Windows apps.

And that the width on the chat tabs can be limited so that onefriend "Jane Doe - I'm feeling really bitchy today!!!!!" doesn't push all the other tabs out of view...

Re:Cool

[Leffe]

One word should be enough, and that word is 'Extensibility'. The system is just so nice that I would never want to use anything else.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to download firefox until they have a full replacement for Microsoft Office.

Re:Cool

[Dolda2000]

If you're trying to convince your organization to switch to open-source offerings, it's easier to bring up an integrated solution such as, "We can switch to the Mozilla Suite" than to have to sell three or four different projects like, "We can switch to K-Meleon for browsing, Trillian for IM, Thunderbird for email," etc.

In the same way that Microsoft would (in a more ideal world ;-) ) try to convince Linux desktop users to "switch to Internet Explorer for browsing, Windows Messenger for IM, Outlook for email," etc.?

I see nothing wrong in offering three or four different projects -- especially since that's how it all works anyway. A GNU/Linux system is composed of thousands of little projects. Windows, too, is based on lots of smaller programs. Normally, of course, these are all included simultaneously in the same O/S "package" (by that I mean the installation CD, not an individual RPM or whatever package), but if that's the problem, I'd suggest checking out the Open CD.

For that matter, I would be more cautious about switching to one mega-program that replaces five or six of my current programs simultaneously, since that affects a larger part of my desktop in a shorter amount of time. Better to switch out one component at a time and get used to one at a time instead, if you ask me.

Re:Cool

[geschild]

" it's easier to bring up an integrated solution"

And this is because...? It's all about the marketing. Tell them that you're swithing to the seperate applications sequentially so that people can make the switch step by step...

Now if you would be talking interface uniformization an program integration, you'd have an argument right there, this is just a lame excuse.

Oh, and while we're on the subject: I don't believe in overly integrating parts unless it is done on the window-manager/graphical system. Interface standardization like on Mac's is great but I would still like the individual parts to do their 'thang' the best way they can. (The Unix foundation shines through here, I'll admit. Have smaller programs do more specialized tasks.)

Re:Cool

[GreatBunzinni]

It may not be mozilla-based but still, take a look at psi. It is cross-platform, it is open-source software and it uses an open protocol: jabber.

Re:Cool

[Khazunga]

And that the width on the chat tabs can be limited so that onefriend "Jane Doe - I'm feeling really bitchy today!!!!!" doesn't push all the other tabs out of view...

If you set the Alias for that contact, that's what will appear on the tab. You can still get the full MSN text by hovering with the mouse over the contact in the list.

Re:Cool

[bunratty]

And this is exactly one of the big reasons many dislike the discontinuation of the Mozilla Suite.

It hasn't been discontinued. In the interview with Mitchell Baker she mentioned that the Mozilla Foundation will provide Mozilla 1.7.x maintenance and security releases for the next two years, and possibly longer depending on how many users it has then. The Mozilla Foundation handed off the task of testing and building releases beyond Mozilla 1.7.x to the Seamonkey group.

Re:Cool

[Winckle]

Mozilla Sunbird 0.2 is released, I use the windows binary, and I find it very useful, here is a link to the page: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/sunbird_d ownload.html

Re:Cool

[chrish]

Seriously. If you've got any use at all for a good laptop, the iBook is a great choice... I haven't actually used my XP desktop in a couple of weeks because I've been too busy to play games on it.

iCal is significantly better than Sunbird, even on slower hardware (1GHz iBook G4 vs. 2.53GHz and 2.8GHz Pentium IV desktops). Even just fixing Sunbird so it doesn't re-load remote calendars every time you start it would be a good step in the right direction.

Re:Cool

[qray]

With FUD like this who needs Microsoft.

--
yoto tribo hebratu mintor

Re:Cool

[Jesus_666]

Last I looked, I use Mozilla for web browsing, not chatting with friends. I looked at their email client, but found myself saying "ho hum, another email client" and then going back to Outlook. Yes, sue me, I'm a windows user for my desktop.

I found myself looking at it, saying "zomg, spam filter" and staying. IMO the spam filter is Thunderbird's main selling point and it's a good one.
If, however, you already have a spam filter and are happy with it, then yes, it pretty much is just another mail client.

Re:Cool

[JPelorat]

Your organization doesn't have to know that unrelated programs X, Y, and Z aren't part of a unified package. Call it the Open Source Suite and set up a single-point installer for everything.

Re:Cool

[David_W]

Until Firefox, Thunderbird, and the rest start integrating better (act more like a single app with optional components), there really isn't any other apps out there that make up a nice "Internet Suite."

OK, I feel compelled to ask this... why do you feel it is rally necessary for them to act like a single app? Microsoft Office (probably the most common example of a suite-type product in use in the business world) doesn't act like a single app. It acts like 3 or so apps. Granted, they all have a similar look and feel and tend to play nicely with each other, and the Mozilla family should work towards the same, but I don't see the need for them to act like the original Mozilla suite did when not even the Office suite does.

Re:Cool

[aaronl]

I was thinking they should spend more time making the browser not crash all the time, take less than 10 seconds to start on a 2.6GHz machine w/ 512MB RAM, perhaps not screw up horribly and stay resident after exiting the GUI.

After that, work can get done to fix the installer, and then make the installation customizable so that you can have corporate rollouts and silent installs. Maybe they can learn to use the standard installation formats that some OS' offer (like MSI on Windows).

Then work can start on making the GUI not ass slow, and perhaps the occassional native UI element. After that they can look into how to stop independantly themeing the app, and use the OS built in theme functionality.

And just in case anyone insists it's just me and this is the best piece of software ever: This is very common. Most people have this problem. Everyone I've met that uses Firefox has these problems.

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

Except for your email client being able to launch your browser, and mailto links in the browser launching an email client...why would you need them integrated at all?

Re:Cool

[VanillaCoke420]

I'm working on a 1.5 GB Office extension, it's still in beta though.

Re:Cool

[CreatureComfort]

I would love if the Thunderbird group and Firefox could get their acts together on plugins. Trying to get a specific plugin, i.e. Mouse Gestures, working in both apps is an exercise in frustration and profane language skills. It wouldn't be bad if they were two seperate apps that required two seperate plugins that were all unaware of each other. Instead, they try to integrate, and everytime you try to install a Thunderbird plugin, it tries to install itself as a Firefox plugin instead, even though it's already there. So you just end up re-installing it on Firefox, and never on Thunderbird.

GrRRRRrrrr

Re:Cool

[plague3106]

Sounds like they should have seperate plugins for FF an TB then.

Seems like an agruement against integration to me, not one for it.

Re:Cool

[enomar]

I think most "technology review boards" don't care if the suite acts like a single application as long as the tools are all branded together. I think they're more interested in having a set of apps that all look and work the same.

At the same time, many people prefer to have seperate tools that they can mix and match. Suites usually feel like bloatware even if they're not.

Re:Cool

[Oopsz]

There is no desktop-- only XUL!

Re:Cool

[John_Booty]

That's my exact issue with GAIM - the convo windows appear offscreen. The convo placement algorithm seems to be:
1) Out of the entire monitor space, find the leftmost X coordinate
2) Out of the entire monitor space, find the upopermost Y coordinate
3) Place the window there

Of course in multimonitor setups, that coordinate might be offscreen. My solution was to use ATI's Hydravision tool... it's sort of a windowmanager enhancement that lets you "snap" apps to a certain monitor and has some other configurable options that prevented my "GAIM launches offscreen" problem. It's a free download on their site, separate from their driver packages. I believe Nvidia offers something very similar.

Re:Cool

[blake213]

There is no desktop-- only XUL!

The XUL Namespace

Re:Cool

[samdu]

I looked at their email client, but found myself saying "ho hum, another email client" and then going back to Outlook. Yes, sue me, I'm a windows user for my desktop.

By that logic, you should be using IE. If you seriously looked at a somewhat modern build of Thunderbird compared to Outlook, you wouldn't dismiss T-Bird so quickly. There is absolutely nothing that Outlook Express does better than Thunderbird. Nothing. And in many cases, OE is worse than Thunderbird. IMAP support comes to mind. If you're talking about Outlook "proper" the only thing it has that Thunderbird doesn't is a calendaring module. But that goes against you're previous premise that developers should stick to one thing. And there's Calendering coming to Thunderbird eventually, anyway. It's not mature enough yet, but it is usable as long as your requirements aren't too great. But comparing the Email abilities of each app against one another, Thunderbird wins hands down.

Re:Cool

[lampajoo]

For an ASICs based MozillaMachine, what else?

Re:Cool

[flonker]

Ah, thank you! I was a bit surprised that Ultramon didn't include that feature, so I'm downloading Hydravision right now.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. Also, I don't like Firefox. It gives me less control than Mozilla, at least in the preferences. It doesn't give control over major things that Mozilla does (to know that of which I speak, run through the prefs on both assuming someone HATES plugins and Javascript and blinking text and other annoyances foisted upon us by the idiots who first created Netscape).

Mozilla isn't perfect, but it is better than Firefox in most ways. I install just the browser part of Mozilla and add Adblock (a godly add-on indeed!) and I'm happy.

When it comes to email, NONE of the programs mentioned do more than suck. At home I run Eudora on my Mac and curse the greedy fuckers at Qualcomm. At work I have to use Outlook and curse the incompetent fuckers at Microsoft (and our internal IT department, too).

What were we talking about again?

Re:Cool

[arunkv]

Well, I like KDE's integration of Kontact, Kmail, Konqueror, Kopete, Akregator, Kpilot, etc. That's a nice Internet Suite with everything - browser, email, news, RSS, IM, address book, calendar, etc.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as non-standard as it may seem, I, and at least several other developers in our company, use more than one monitor. So it's not that uncommon I guess. And yes, I too am using Gaim and it never seems to remember on which monitor it was last made visible, it always seems to prefer the "main" monitor. I wish they fixed that. Fine program otherwise.

Re:Cool

[Lord Flipper]

Opera is a suite and it has a 'footprint' one third the size of Firefox. I don't know how it all works out for you guys on Windows, but on a mac over here Firefox's java script thing is whacky. I have a roomamte who uses an online veterinarian school site that is heavily-laden with chatapplets (a PeopleSoft nightmare). Only OmniWeb and IE 5.2 will get right through the entire site.

Firefox bails out early.

I noticed on the Firefox page, as i was downloading 1.0.2, they trumpet the 'fast downloads', and the automatic d-load to the desktop. Oh really? Not on a Mac. Every download gets the same fucking window..."Save to disk?" Which is exactly what it's set for in Preferences... and then, to top it off, a blurb appears that says, "Ya know..you can set this in Prefs instead"... Yeah? And when does that kick in?

Bottom line: I'll spell it out: Not BAD compared to the un-upgraded (for 5 years) Internet Explorer (on a winblows box), but who gives a shit? Jesus, talk about a lowest common denominator, aim-low culture. If it wasn't for the Extensions it would be useless.

I use it a lot, for that reason alone, but when shit gets critical, it's Omni, Opera, Safari, IE, and lynx (from the command line) when time is really tight. Don't get me totally wrong, I sent cash to mozilla, on ethical, political grounds.

But this 'better than IE on Windows" shit, gimme a fucking break. I run a little better than this old guy across the street who lost a leg in Vietnam, too, but I'm no closer to the Olympics than Firefox is to primetime on the Macintosh...

Mirrors

[Stevyn]

While officially released, I'm still not seeing it any of the mirrors portage is trying to connect to.

Re:Mirrors

[gl4ss]

automatic update worked for me.

options->advanced->software update->check now.

Re:Mirrors

[wdd1040]

Although the ebuild has propagated to the rsync rotation, the distfile won't go out until a server does its sync once every 2 hours.

So.... chill.

Re:Mirrors

[BigBir3d]

did not work on my mac. still best to get it from the ftp site for me:

here

Re:Mirrors

[techno-vampire]

I didn't even have to check for an update. I have mine check for updates automatically. When the new build was available, Firefox let me know so I could download and install it right then.

Re:Mirrors

[contemplation1]

I'm not sure if you Windows users noticed (It may be in linux as well, i'm not on that box right now), but in the upper right side of your browser there will be an orange circle. Click that and it's the same as using the wizard mentioned, without the clicks :) I love firefox.

Re:Mirrors

[Given M. Sur]

I found it in portage before this article was posted. Have you "emerge sync"ed today?

Re:Mirrors

[psi42]

And if you're not running firefox with root/administrator privileges, how is that thing supposed to work?

Re:Mirrors

[klui]

Yup. It worked for me this time. Yay.

But I would like to say that it's not really an "update" or "patch." It's more like an automatic reinstall under Windows. Install over 1.0.1 and go into the registry to clean up.

Re:Mirrors

[pchan-]

I have, and already built Firefox 1.0.2 while I was out getting dinner. The source was not on any of the mirrors, but emerge pulled it from the Mozilla FTP site.

Strangely, it seemed to have explicitly unset my "-fstack-protector" CFLAG during compile. I don't remember the other Firefox builds doing that, and it seems unfortunate to have had to do it on one of my most exposed networked applications. I hope we get an -r1 with it soon. Seems to be working fine, BTW.

Re:Mirrors

[n3tfury]

"options>advanced>software update>check now" kinda makes it not-so-automatic, now doesn't it?

Re:Mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

You either install it as a local user or login as admin to perform the update.

Choose one ( security || convienience )

Re:Mirrors

[karstux]

The Firefox update process really sucks from an ease-of-use point of view. Since it's a complete new install, I wouldn't even call it an "update"...

For a proper update procedure, it seems you have to download the new version, uninstall the old one, and then re-install the new one - hoping that all plugins survive the procedure.

That's not user friendly, and will drive people away from Firefox, perhaps back to IE, which is definitely easier to keep up to date. I do hope that Firefox will get a true "patch" mechanism yet...

Re:Mirrors

[hey]

I did that in Windows but then in the Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel I got entries for Mozila Fire for 1.0, Mozilla Firefox 1.0.1, Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2. So if you install Firefox on top of a previous install it doesn't remove the old one. It should warn you about this or remove the old guy.

Re:Mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

Choose one ( security || convienience )

Not to be a nitpicky nerdlinger, but that would allow you to have both security and convenience. You mean (security ^^ convenience)

Re:Mirrors

[me at werk]

This bug is still being worked on. It's Bug 247884 (I can't direct link, they block links from slashdot.)

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=247 88 4

1.2..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

But does it stop the bloody pop ups I've had to turn off Javascript to cure?

Re:1.2..

[darthpenguin]

If you want to block the javascript popups, just use the Adblock extension. Not only can it block images, but also scripts and flash and just about everything else. Combined with wildcards, you can block out everything from most major web advertising places, including most of those nasty js popup scripts.

Re:1.2..

[TexasDex]

We shouldn't have to use adblock. Some sites have gotten around the blocker, and that is unacceptable (I submitted a story about it to Slashdot yesterday, but it was rejected). We want Firefox to be a better browser even for those who don't have the expertise to use things like that.

Re:1.2..

[Headcase88]

Still better than IE for a variety of reasons. It's not the perfect mousetrap, and there's always someone building a better mouse.

If this failure to block ads is unacceptable, why don't you go out and build a better browser? Good luck.

Re:1.2..

[Rentiak]

This has stopped it for me, prevents plugins from causing pop-ups or pop-unders go to about:config right click and add a new integer value type privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins in the box then give it a value of 2

Re:1.2..

[Anonymous Coward]

it was rejected because there was a story on that exact topic around a month ago.

i know they usually post dupes anyway, but yeah. maybe they are picking up their act.

Re:1.2..

[Tarqwak]

Perfect config for me, works on 1.8b suite at least:

browser.link.open_external 3
1: Open in current window (default)
2: Open in new window
3: Open in new tab

browser.link.open_newwindow 1
1: Open in current window
2: Open in new window (default)
3: Open in new tab

browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction 2
0: Divert everything (default)
1: Divert target="_blank" etc. but not window.open
2: Divert everything expect window.open with three parameters

privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins 2
0: open allowed (default)
1: limits their number to dom.popup_maximum (even with popup blocker disabled)
2: the window is a popup, block it
3: blocks them even on whitelisted sites

dom.disable_open_during_load true
True (default): Block popup windows created while the page is loading
False: Allow popup windows

Re:1.2..

[jcupitt65]

bugzilla explains how to fix it ... see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17607 9

- go to about:config
- right-click and select New/Integer preference
- make a pref called "privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins"
- set the value 2

now plugins are not allowed to make popups. This hasn't been made a public preference, since it is a bit crude and may break some sites. It does fix the flash-popups though.

Re:1.2..

[Spoing]

1. But does it stop the bloody pop ups I've had to turn off Javascript to cure?

By default, popups aren't disabled for plugins (like Flash). Here's how to disable them for plugins;

1. Open a new browser window.

2. Type about:config for the URL and press enter.

3. You should see a long list of settings. Ignore them.

4. Right click on the background and select "New...integer".

5. Enter in the following;

privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins (press OK)

2 (press OK)

For reference, here's are the settings for the
privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins option;

* 0: open allowed
* 1: the opened windows are treated as popups, but they're allowed to
open (we limit the number of these types of popups)
* 2: the window is a popup, block it
* 3: block all, even the whitelisted ones.

reference link

Re:1.2..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

another reason is people rumouring worms being uploaded through javascript in Firefox on here and the recent java security holes... the pop ups arn't the biggest deal..

Auto-Updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will Firefox feature auto-updates, so I don't have to learn about updates from /.?

Re:Auto-Updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

It updated for me several hours ago. Perhaps your timing is just off?

Re:Auto-Updates?

[tobiasly]

It already does. Be sure automatic updates are turned on under Tools, Options, Advanced, Software Updates.

There were some problems with auto update in 1.0 that were fixed in 1.0.1. You should now see a message box in the bottom right corner (like when downloads finish) when there are critical updates.

Also, another easily-overlooked item is the up-pointing arrow that sometimes appears in the top right corner. This means updates are available. Red for critical updates, blue or green for non-critical updates.

Best way to upgrade?

[jfruhlinger]

Can anyone explain to me the best way to upgrade Firefox? Updating from 1.0 to 1.0.1 seemed to leave two instances of Mozilla on my desktop. Should I uninstall the old before installing the new? I don't want to lose all my settings/bookmarks/etc.

jf

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Owndapan]

In my experience I have been able to uninstall from Win2K and reinstall a new version without wiping the user profile (bookmarks, settings etc.) I don't know about nightly builds etc, but the major releases seem fine.

DISCLAIMER: Use at your own risk. It is always best to backup the profile directory if you can not afford to lose it!

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy! Uninstall Firefox 1.0. Restart your computer. Install 1.0.1. Restart your computer. Launch Firefox to find that all the extensions you've installed don't work anymore. Install the few that have been updated to work with the new Firefox one at a time restarting Firefox after each. Reimport your bookmarks--you did back them up didn't you?--and open up Options to reset everything manually. Don't forget to restart Firefox after each setting change! Quick and easy! Me personally, I've pencilled in upgrading next week when I've got the day off from work!

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[kinema]

apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[joeljkp]

Uninstalling the old before you install the new won't get rid of your settings. Those are saved in your home dir (on Win2000/XP).

You're asking for trouble if you update without installing. I ended up with both 1.0 and 1.0.1 in my Add/Remove Programs (win98), and removing the former broke the latter (and broke its uninstall function). The only way to get rid of 1.0.1 was to reinstall it to restore the uninstaller, then try again.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is very simple, just typ:
apt-get update mozilla-firefox

you might have to install Debian first.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[The-Perl-CD-Bookshel]

Click the Orange or Blue orb next to the flower in the top right part of your window. I just did it and it auto-updates Firefox to 1.02.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[karnal]

Restart your computer?

Right.

Reimport bookmarks? Dude, they're still under your documents&settings folder (winxp/2k). They'll come up and integrate automatically.

I migrated back to moz because of another issue. Even brought up my "default" and "Off network" profiles that I choose from when I'm away from the office.....

Maybe you'll need some extensions re-installed. But a majority of what you're saying is downright out the window; I know this for a fact.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[CuratorTom]

The Support Forum advises uninstalling earlier versions before installing 1.0.2. (Although I can't now find the post. It was there 10 minutes ago.)

FWIW I had problems with the auto-update and did have to uninstall and reinstall and reconfigure my firewall.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[phalanx]

Or just use Myuninstaller http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/myuninst.html to delete items in from the Add/Remove Programs list in Windows without uninstalling the software.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[sacmog]

ot but,

thanks. I was sure those icons were useful for something, but never got around to checking them out. Just updated everything, took less than 2 minutes, and everything appears to be well.

god I love firefox.

sacmog.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhh, a troll! They always seem to have trouble actually reading the post they reply to.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[carpe_noctem]

I think the parent is looking to update to the CURRENT latest version, not last year's latest version...

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[ticktockticktock]

That really depends on what distribution you are "apt-get upgrade"'ing in. Distributions like Ubuntu Linux already have Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 packages in their "hoary" devel release's "main" apt repository.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Dwonis]

I think the parent is looking to update to the CURRENT latest version, not last year's latest version...

Oh, quit trolling... I get this on my Debian box:

$ apt-cache show mozilla-firefox | grep ^Version | sort | tail -1
Version: 1.0.1-3

Not to mention that apt hasn't been a Debian-only tool for quite a while...

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Dwonis]

# apt-get update mozilla-firefox
E: The update command takes no arguments

I think you're looking for

apt-get update ; apt-get install mozilla-firefox

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[klui]

Actually, under Windows, I would recommend that people reinstall over their existing version and clean up using regedit. In the past, I set Firefox as my default browser and when I uninstalled, all my icons reverted back to Internet Explorer. When I reinstalled Firefox my icons did not go revert even after I changed the browser settings.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[da_matta]

Have the problems with multiple versions and the windows uninstaller been fixed? When I updated 0.9 to 1.0 (no uninstalling), it created both 0.9 and 1.0 in the 'add/remove programs' list. But when I later removed the 0.9, it also removed 1.0 (and left the 1.0-item broken). Even though the profiles were fine, I'd say it'd be safer to uninstall first.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[mcrbids]

You're asking for trouble if you update without installing. I ended up with both 1.0 and 1.0.1 in my Add/Remove Programs (win98), and removing the former broke the latter (and broke its uninstall function). The only way to get rid of 1.0.1 was to reinstall it to restore the uninstaller, then try again.

Dontcha love a well-designed operating system?

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[The-Bus]

Is that what is? I don't know if it's my theme (Aaron Spuler's sexy Smoke) but I have no idea what that is, or what it represents. To use a terrible 1996-era analogy, it looks like a bug on the windshield of my PC (as I was driving on the super infohighway or whatever).

But, yes, that works... if it is lit up.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[rezza]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, or perhaps a piece of software that's actually crap in places?

Oh, I forgot, EVERYTHING ABOUT FIREFOX IS PERFECT and saying otherwise is just stupid. Yes. Every line of code is spot-on.

Sigh. When will people face it: the install process is crappy and needs to be fixed. Where are proper updates?

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Ben Hutchings]

It would be preferable for Windows to have real package management, but given that it doesn't the Firefox installer should be able to deal with an in-place upgrade itself. The fact that it doesn't is a bug in the installer, not in Windows. It's not that difficult to get right.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[khrtt]

The fact that it doesn't is a bug in the installer, not in Windows.

Especially considering that every other decent Windows app gets it right. It's not that difficult, given that Windows install scripts are generated by a tool. The right behaviour:

1. Don't, f*cking, install new version in the same dir as the old one by default.

Think very carefully which directories (like, some user dirs) you want ot share between the versions, which you don't want to share, and which files you want copied over (like, bookmarks, unless you do share them between versions).

This way, the user will by default have both versions installed side by side.

2. Offer the user an option (or remind him) to uninstall the old version when installing the new one.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you don't understand the humour, just say so. The GP mocks the way it's done in IE, although I had to restart IE only once after all settings change. Now I am with FF.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[sremick]

portupgrade firefox :)

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Jagasian]

Are you using Windows or an OS that makes it easy to maintain installed software such as an apt based Linux distro? If its Windows, you are SOL, just manually uninstall the old and reinstall the new. If it is Linux, it will be done automatically for you during your next system upgrade.

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[HoldemPoker]

Wow... I have 3 versions present. May be Mozilla have sorted their distribution worries but apparantly not their installer!

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[karnal]

Alright.

Got me, hook line and sinker.. :)

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[gid]

Mine was actually a red orb. It looks like it basically auto downloads the latest version and runs the installer. And looking at my add/remove programs, I have two copies mozilla firefox there. Now I gotta bust out regedit to get rid of one. I with they wouldn't include the version number or get rid of the old one some how, that's damn annoying.

But otherwise I love the browser. :)

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[gid]

FYI, searching the below two keys in regedit solved the add/remove programs duplication issue:

Mozilla Firefox 1.0.1
Mozilla Firefox (1.0.1)

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl, as a long time debian user I had a good laugh. :)

Re:Best way to upgrade?

[Michael Wardle]

Bug 285724

Auto-update success

[Owndapan]

I got my auto-update notification in FireFox, ran the "wizard" to update, and am now posting from 1.0.2. Update completed before the /. story was posted! (/. is my normal update notifier) Nice work Mozilla!

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly not for OS X.

Auto-update still won't update OS X to 1.0.1, nevermind 1.0.2.

C'mon guys, this is dissapointing. :(

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

Wah, wah, wha. They've said for a long time that 1.1 would be used to finish the Mac version, which include auto-update functionality. 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 are security releases, not functionality improvements.

Re:Auto-update success

[pHatidic]

Auto-update doesn't work on Mac though unfortunately. I love firefox, but the bugs on firefox take some getting used to. It still pisses me off to no end that there is no scrollbar so you can't see what percentage of the page you are viewing.

Re:Auto-update success

[Feanturi]

Did you check your version to be sure though? Because I got one of those update notifiers last night, and I clicked on it. It said it was an update to tweak downloads. And it did indeed fix my download tab, which had been broken for the last couple versions because I did a clean OS install along the way but had migrated my entire profile folder saved from an older version to a newer version on the clean OS, and a bug that had been present for me in that older version was apparently a borked setting somewhere in the profile. That got fixed by the update I clicked on last night. But my About box still said 1.0.1 as the version, after restarting the computer. I just went and manually got 1.0.2 and overlaid that, and now it's showing the new version properly.

Re:Auto-update success

[Ignominious Cow Herd]

It still pisses me off to no end that there is no scrollbar so you can't see what percentage of the page you are viewing.

Huh? It works here just fine - always has.

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

auto update doesnt really work on windows either. imho it should be called update check bcuz it does not auto update, it simply downloads the installer

Re:Auto-update success

[asa]

That sounds like you got an extension update and not a Firefox update.

- A

Re:Auto-update success

[TopShelf]

My experience hasn't been so positive. I got the notification, installed the update, and presto! Firefox no longer connects to the Internet. IE works fine, and my other net-aware apps are fully functioning, but Firefox isn't hitting any websites. Any advice???

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

I run Fedora. I must say I didn't notice that feature because I basically have that feature built in with 95% of the software installed on my system. It's just so handy I can't go back.

Re:Auto-update success

[PurpleBob]

You lose the scrollbar if you've installed a funky theme that doesn't work with OS X. (It doesn't matter if you're using the theme, unfortunately, just that it's installed.) So try uninstalling your themes.

Re:Auto-update success

[TopShelf]

As Gilda Radner used to say on SNL... Never mind.

Turned out my Zone Alarm was blocking the new version by default, but for some reason didn't pop up a message box saying so. Once I checked the program controls the new FireFox worked fine...

Re:Auto-update success

[revxul]

Firefox on Mac has no scrollbar? Wow... that's terrible. I'm glad my Firefox 1.0.2 (Win98se) has a scrollbar. Come to think of it, my old *nix Firefox had one too.

Re:Auto-update success

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Firefox on Mac does have a scrollbar. Anyone can see weird effects if they install an operating system-specific theme on the wrong operating system.

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

> I got robbed, my car broke down 4 times, and my dryer died. Please send money.

If I fell for this crap, I'D be the one getting robbed. Try getting a job, ok?

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a grammer nazi, but I see this way too often. That sentance could be fixed by removing that first 'my'. Yes, I know, a lot of people say it - but a lot of people think a lot is one word.

Re:Auto-update success

[akadruid]

I got the update notice on my Windows box, hit download, thought about slashdot, confirmed the non existence of the story, updated, and posted the story from 1.02. That kind of pain free update is a credit to Mozilla, and an example for the rest of the software world.

When they got the patch out, there was just 1 English language story on Google news about it.

Re:Auto-update success

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be a grammer nazi, but I see this way too often. That sentance could be fixed by removing that first 'my'

"sentence"

Re:Auto-update success

[TopShelf]

Not to be a nitpicker, but there was only one "my".

help me mozilla!

[gagge]

I hate those smilie popups which seems to be unblockable, please make them go away.

Re:help me mozilla!

[iamsure]

Give an url where they happen so we can see what you mean, and why they happen.. most likely there is a way to block them that you just dont realize.

Re:help me mozilla!

[hitman200ca]

Those smily popup windows are an spyware thing not a popup thing. They are generated from within windows usually. Download and run a spyware app.

Re:help me mozilla!

[akeyes]

Mozilla 1.8 beta http://alldumb.com/

Re:help me mozilla!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

FWIW, I can see the same pop-up in Firefox 1.0.2, but it's nothing the Adblock extension can't handle.

Re:help me mozilla!

[kbranch]

Nothing here.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

No need to panic...

[mistersooreams]

As the version number suggests, this is a pretty minor update. That's not to say that these security fixes aren't important; they are, and they proove once again that open source software can react far faster to new threats than any closed source development model. Nevertheless, it means that the Mozilla Foundation aren't expecting a major download rush. Of course, with Slashdot's intervention, maybe we can take them by surprise.

Now, how long to the first "Firefox 1.02 ate my boot sector" post?

Re:No need to panic...

[kernel_dan]

Actually, from what I gather, all you need to do is look at a special GIF image, and voila, your computer will execute any code embedded in the image. This vulnerability went public 13 days ago. I am unaware of this actually being exploited in the wild. See here and here.

Re:No need to panic...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel bad that you got modded flamebait because you're right. And even though open source is viewable to the world a definite majority of people never see the source to most programs they use.

Re:No need to panic...

[Pyro226]

Firefox didn't eat my boot sector, but after upgrading from 1.0.1 to 1.0.2 firefox crashed with an error telling me to restart the computer every time I started it (it being firefox). I uninstalled and reinstalled and, and not only did it work fine, but I still had all of my extensions and bookmarks.

Re:No need to panic...

[caino59]

can and do are totally different

closed source CAN, but in some cases (not pointing any fingers) they normally dont

Re:No need to panic...

[datafr0g]

While I agree that in general Open Source fixes can come quicker than a Closed envioronment can deliver, I wouldn't say that this has been *proven* here.

I assume you're comparing this with the slowness of Windows / IE patch releases.

The problem with the speed of releases has little to do with the fact that the software is developed in a closed environment, it's more to do with the fact that MS's apps tie themselves deeply into the OS - it's a mess and therefore difficult to fix a problem while keeping the rest of the system happy.

Re:No need to panic...

[bogie]

Considering how long it was till 1.01 came out and how long 1.0 was out there with plently of know security holes I wouldn't exactly point to Firefox as the pinnacle for OSS security response.

And as much as a fanboy as I am for OSS I don't possibly see how you can say that OSS "can react faster to new threats than any closed source development model". OSS does indeed usually act faster than commercial software expecially when you bring something like IE into the picture. But whether something is open or closed has absolutely nothing to do with how fast the owner of the code responds to a security threat. That's on them and has zero to due with whether its open or closed. A commercial provider could have reacted just as quickly.

Again I'm all for pro-OSS statements, but let's keep it to the facts.

Re:No need to panic...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

... they proove once again that open source software can react far faster to new threats than any closed source development model.

I agree, but open source reaction vs. closed source reaction is really only half of the issue. The other other half is the end-user's reaction (how quickly they upgrade).

Re:No need to panic...

[dedazo]

Interesting, I didn't see that on the Bashmork front page, along with the "OMFG TEH IE HAS TEH NEW VULNENRABINILITIE LOLOLOLOL!!!1!" submission next to the hysterical Gates borg icon.

Ahhh, but this is Mozilla. They can keep vulns "private" for three years, ship spyware with Firefox, wipe out user's hard drives and still do no harm. Of course.

Re:No need to panic...

[brogdon]

"a definite majority of people never see the source to most programs they use."

God knows I sure don't. But that isn't the point, is it? The issue is whether enough white-hat hackers see it that a critical mass of voices is reached when security issues are found. That chorus of community concern is what informs and motivates the developers of open source software to correct security inadequacies in a timely fashion. In a closed source environment, the amount of people who know the code well enough to comment on vulnerabilities is much, much smaller. There are the people who work for the company that made the software, a very few white hats, and a bunch of black hats. When a security issue comes up in a closed source program, there aren't enough positive voices speaking on behalf of the users to alert the authors and demand change.

That is why the open source model is better for security. Not because the developers are necessarily better coders, but because they've chosen to allow their work to be reviewed by any consumer who chooses to do so.

Re:No need to panic...

[Anonymous Coward]

generally there are very few white hat hackers reviewing code for security issues. it is a dull and boring job. so if you are relying on that as your defense to why OSS is better your on a hiding to nothing. very little security auditing is done on OSS, look at the recently failed org that tried to get the linux commuinity to do this (I can't even remember its name now), but it was a misserable failure, no one was interested in reviewing code for security bugs.

Re:No need to panic...

[isecore]

I wish I had some modpoints, because that is quite insightful.

It's the whole lead-horse-to-water thing. Although, lead-user-to-update maybe is more appropriate?

Re:No need to panic...

[Anonymous Coward]

As the version number suggests, this is a pretty minor update.

And as the version number in the story and headline suggests, the editors don't have a clue how software versions work, or how to read.

Re:No need to panic...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. I got modded down because bad mouthing the OSS movement on Slashdot really is flamebait. Just as is mentioning anything bad about Firefox. Slashdot has its own super-scale reality distortion field and anyone trying to fly through it gets zapped down.

I mean, can you *imagine* the fucking outcry on here if IE casually wiped your entire system? With FF though, its just one of those little bugs. No biggy.

Open source IS really cool but it seems that most people who use it have to turn into braindead fucking zombies repeating some bullshit FUD mantra. It pisses me off grandly!

Re:No need to panic...

[Anonymous Coward]

with the thousands of so-called expert programmers reviewing the source code, you would wonder how any security holes got through.

Re:No need to panic...

[Koiu Lpoi]

Now, this post it too late to get modded up or noticed.

However!

There is a bug that's very annoying to me in Mozilla Firefox. If I click the middle mouse button on a link to make a new tab, until it has actually loaded the page, the adress for the page will not show up in the adress bar. In fact, if the page doesn't load properly (this happens often due to my connection) I will get told the document contains no data, and the adress will never appear. If it did appear, I could just go and hit 'enter' to reload the page. But, because it's not there, I have to go back to the original page and find the link again - and the original tab is most likely closed already.

So, has this been fixed yet, or is it a 'feature not a bug'. Perhaps they're waiting for version 1.1.

Re:No need to panic...

[Tim C]

I had exactly the same thing happen to me, with the same solution (uninstall, reinstall). I even tried rebooting to see if it had done something really stupid...

Re:No need to panic...

[Threni]

Yeah, it's tedious. I mentioned this once and got told it couldn't be fixed, which of course is incorrect.

Disappointed

[gnarled]

I was really hoping this patch fixed those pop-unders I started getting lately.

Re:Disappointed

[momerath2003]

Use adblock, and block all of the admedia/adwhoever javascript includes; most pop-anythings will go away because the commands to activate them aren't there.

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people expect feature changes from a security update? The point of these updates is that they ONLY fix the critical problems. They don't screw with anything else to minimize the chance of breaking something.

If you're looking for new features or enhancements, you'll get that with 1.1. Or you can try the nightly builds. But don't expect any noticable changes in a security/stability update (unless you are suffering from stability problems).

As for your pop-ups, the latest trend is supposedly to generate them from a Flash embed. You can either not install Flash, or use the Flashblock extension (recommended), or try adblock, or try the hidden preference that is supposed to prevent plugin-generated pop-ups. In the past, a major cause of failure for the pop-up blocker has been the Tabbrowser Extensions (TBE) extension. I don't know whether it still suffers from this problem.

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not understand that popunders are a critical problem. You can't use the browser if it allows them. Surfing with that many windows open means your whole system is going to to crash.

When will the Firefox people fix the popunder crisis???

Mozilla 1.7.6 out, too

[invisik]

Don't forget the suite is updated as well...

-m

Re:Mozilla 1.7.6 out, too

[Donkey5555]

And Thunderbird 1.0.2 also

Update?

[Transcendent]

How it is an update when it acts as a total re-install?

I love how firefox/thunderbird keep filling up my Add/Remove Programs list in XP everytime there is an "update".

Not trying to flame, but shouldn't there be a better way?

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uninstall the old one first, then install the update. It'll keep your settings.

Re:Update?

[CoolGopher]

If they kept the same application ID between the versions, the Add/Remove Programs list should sort itself out automatically. That is, if I remember enough about Windoze programming - it's been quite a while since I did any! =)

Re:Update?

[SmartSsa]

I've wondered if this is a known issue to the mozilla guys.

I see it mentioned often, but has anybody ever submitted a bug report against the installer?

Since it's an install-and-replace update type thing it _should_ replace old items in the add/remove list as well.

But it doesn't, I now have 4 Firefoxes - and if I attempt to remove any of them it removes the whole thing.

Remove first then Install new is a pain in the arse, really and defeats the whole 'auto-update' feature.

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

if i have to uninstall it then why bother with the autoupdate function at all ?
its not hard, but mozilla team seem to be making it as difficult as possible

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except that some versions fo the installer will uninstall a hell of a lot more than just FF.

Looks like these guys need some serious schooling on how to actually install/uninstall programs :(

Re:Update?

[Ark42]

If you REALLY care about duplicate entries in add/remove programs (it really doesn't matter if they are there), then just go delete the registry key from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall

Re:Update?

[nexthec]

I love firefox and all, its the first thing I install on any new system. In fact I have every one in may family totally devoted to that flaming nocturnal animal, but that is just asinine. Update should do this Auto-magically, give me a warning that it does not do a proper reinstall, or just point to a download. I did the upgrade, assuming that it would deal with the multiple instances of firefox in my programs list. It didn't, now I have 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 listed. Bah. Oh well, I suppose put up or shut up when it comes to free software.

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

How it is an update when it acts as a total re-install?

I love how firefox/thunderbird keep filling up my Add/Remove Programs list in XP everytime there is an "update".

firefox isn't the only program that behaves like this....

i like how it (a&r) says "last used: 11/10/04". i didnt know i stepped back in time, because well, i was using it when i upgraded... 3/23/05, and 11/10 is the day after 1.0 (never bothered with 1.0.1 on this system) was installed; and "used: rarely".. as in EVERYDAY? how much more often do i have to use it to get "used: infrequently" ? :) don't find it the least bit suprising that the only things that properly file away under the "updates" category are (some, the newer ones) microsoft stuff.

the upgrade went sooo un-microsoft-like smooth. didn't even bother with uninstall of previous version, just did the in-program update icon on the toolbar and let it do it's thing.. didn't ask for the friggin original cd, the cd key or to be activated again or anything... [grr..]

theme (http://www.phoenity.com/ - a nice one, btw) still intact, custom toolbar configuration left alone too.. only have a couple of extensions and those are ok too.

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks , ill tell my mom she is a registry expert

Re:Update?

[RazorX90]

The same thought had come to my mind, but then I realized its based on *nix. When you update, say apache, you end up recompiling and installing, but the config files remain intact.

(Note: this comes with primary experience in FreeBSD)

Re:Update?

[SeaFox]

You should be uninstalling the old version before you install the new one.

All you bookmarks and extensions will still be there after you install the new version. Those are saved in your profile directory, which is not deleted when you uninstall the old Firefox.

Re:Update?

[Ark42]

thanks , ill tell my mom she is a registry expert

Super special magic fix, just paste this into a .reg file and run it!

REGEDIT4
[-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cu rrentVersion\Uninstall\Mozilla Firefox (1.0.1)]
Of course, I'm sure your mom who shouldn't be using the registry is REALLLLLY worried about two entries in a control panel dialog she doesn't know exists either.

Re:Update?

[kaiser423]

Yes, but that would not be an update, but rather a fresh installation of the newere version, regardless of whether it kept your settings or not. There's a subtle difference. One is just updating files, and the other is a complete re-install. It's slightly misleading to say "we're updating your software". They should say "an updated version has come out, click here to install it". That said, they do need to fix it. Pretty much all applications can do this properly, and firefox should be able to also.

Re:Update?

[ip_vjl]

You should be uninstalling the old version before you install the new one.

Wasn't that the mantra when it was in its pre-1.0 days. I remember people complaining then, but the response was "it's not yet 1.0, what do you expect".

Now that it is an official release, I don't think expecting users to uninstall before installing an 'update' is the best way to go.

BTW. It does seem to operate without doing an uninstall first. I went from 1.0 to 1.0.1, then to 1.0.2 without uninstalling first. Though the entires are all listed in Add/Remove (not that I much care).

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it doesn't, I now have 4 Firefoxes - and if I attempt to remove any of them it removes the whole thing.

It's not like those extra 3 Firefox entries are taking up extra space. If it bothers you that much, open up the registry editor, go to:

HKEY LOCAL MACHINE
Software
Microsoft
Windows
Current Version
Uninstall

...and remove the keys yourself.

Re:Update?

[Tumbleweed]

the entires are all listed in Add/Remove

I never noticed that...I just checked and I've got 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 all listed. Snazzy.

Re:Update?

[Trogre]

I think the GP was asking for the patch. Where is the 1.0.1 -> 1.0.2 patch?

It seems a bit silly and a waste of bandwidth that everyone wanting to update FF needs to download an entire new version.

Re:Update?

[Ogerman]

Firefox/Thunderbird auto-update is currently worth crap. Just download the new version and use the silent install option: ie.) Firefox_Setup_1.0.2.exe -ms

The same thing works for Thunderbird. Usually I think it deletes the old Add/Remove options. (or at least one of them..) This is the most convenient quick-and-dirty way to update a bunch of machines in a small Windows domain.. put that command in everyone's login script the night before.

Re:Update?

[jackbird]

*BZZZT*

Sorry.

When was the last time you talked to an end user?

Re:Update?

[Bauguss]

to all those saying how to change your registry or those saying uninstall first.

This is moronic. We are talking about a program that is getting a lot of attention from a lot of people. Hell, my grandparents even use it.

That said, my grandparents SHOULD NOT have to uninstall and then reinstall. It won't make sense to them because it is retarded. An update function should be just that. It shouldn't ask all the same questions it did back when you first installed it. It shouldn't ask if you want firefox as your home page. Those things have already been done. I think when you click update it should just do it. It should download, install, and then pop up a window saying it needs to restart the browser. It should then close the browser, and reopen it. (preferably back to the same url you were at when you got the update message)

Now that I've said that, thanks for the registry edit info. I needed to know that. (the update for Google's Picasa did the same thing)

Re:Update?

[SeaFox]

Wasn't that the mantra when it was in its pre-1.0 days. I remember people complaining then, but the response was "it's not yet 1.0, what do you expect".

Yes, the original probelm was some people were getting weird browser behavior when they installed directly on top of the old version of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. When they unintalled completely and reinstalled form scratch the probelms went away.

I know it usually works when you install directly on top and old version. I didn't even remove the old verisons when I first started using Firebird, but when the double add/remove programs thing started and Mozillazine made a bunch of noise about taking out the old version first (around 0.8 I believe), I started to.

I only posted this because the parent poster was complaining specifically about the extra entries in Add/Remove Programs. I don't feel it should be necessary to remove the old version manually, the installer for the new version should do it for you if it needs to.

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, this shouldn't really be happening, and there appears this appears to be already logged in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24788 4 (remember you need to copy and paste that URL into a new tab kiddies as Bugzilla will 'disable' the request from Slashdot)

Re:Update?

[anethema]

Not with TBE :D

Got it set to block referers from slashdot.org, booyah.

Re:Update?

[klui]

Well, if you really should uninstall before you update, why doesn't the updater uninstall before it reinstalls?

Re:Update?

[eu4ik]

For those who don't want to go playing in the registry, Tweak UI can fix this easily. Click on the Add/Remove tab, select the old Firefox entries from the list, and click Remove.

For some reason I'm only seeing the problem on Win9x, not on XP.

Re:Update?

[klui]

I just tried it with Thunderbird and while the silent install works well, it doesn't remove the old installation from Windows's registry.

Re:Update?

[Enrico Pulatzo]

Hear hear!

Why is it that for a dot dot update (which I thought was for bug-fixes) some/all of my extensions are disabled by the browser due to version incompatibility? I ended up waiting two weeks after 1.0.1 came out before switching, since my preferred set of extensions refused to work.

As much as I like Mozilla and Firefox, they really need to learn how to gracefully handle bug-fix releases.

Re:Update?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It seems open-source software can be awesome, stable, extendable, and full featured, but never "polished" or even "fully finished".

Sad.

And I am a very pro-open source person.

Re:Update?

[MullerMn]

Well so far letting Firefox update itself from 1.0 to 1.01 and then 1.01 to 1.02 it's broken its themes and its extensions both times.

Last time I had to go all the way back through the list of extensions and reinstall them all in order to get them to work. Clicking 'check for updates' just reports that there are none.

Why release software that has an auto update facility that breaks itself?

Re:Update?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

The lousy usage approximation is an oddity of Windows: Raymond Chen has documented this, just like every other strange Windows phenomenon .

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, but that's assuming that the Firefox installer is using the MSI engine. It doesn't look like an MSI installer to me, which is probably why it's broken.

I can't imagine why the Mozilla foundation hasn't forked out a couple of $ for a copy of InstallShield.

Re:Update?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blind eyed fanaticism will not get you anywhere.

Linux word processing is not as usable as Microsoft Word.

Let me give you just one example. You open up Microsoft Word 2000 or Word 2002 (or any other version of Word I have tried this with). You change the font using the font toolbar. You hit the right or down arrow at the end of the document. What happens? Nothing, just as the end user expects.

What happens when you do this in Open Office 2.0? The font changes back to the default font. How do you change this behavior? By knowing the secret incantation to change the default font (it is well hidden somewhere in styles).

I have filed this as a bug, and got a "Won't fix" reply to it.

Basically, Open Office added a feature that makes the program harder to learn. It's a version of the old UNIX "We don't care if it's easy to learn" attitude.

Re:Update?

[Tumbleweed]

Yeah, this is easy to fix, but if it's such an easy thing to have done correctly in the first place, and it was a known problem, it makes you wonder what else is screwed up in FF, ya know?

I'm seeing it on Win XP, btw.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[kernel_dan]

This does not happen to me. Version String:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050323 Firefox/1.0.2

Freshly compiled and Gentoo optimized. BTW: I heard that Yahoo will be giving out 1GB accounts starting April.

Just in time...

[ShineyMcShine]

Firefox was crashing when the address bar received focus. After the upgrade, problem resolved...

It is 1.0.2 not 1.02

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a big difference between the false 1.02 and the true 1.0.2. The version number 1.02 would be long hand for 1.2 and firefox is still a ways off from it.

Re:It is 1.0.2 not 1.02

[Anonymous Coward]

oh shut up

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Freshly compiled and Gentoo optimized.

No wonder it doesn't crash. It's optimized perfectly for his machine!

Download Speeds

[Walker2323]

I'm currently dowloading at 3KB/s. I wouldnt say they've got their distribution worries sorted.

Re:Download Speeds

[Anonymous Coward]

try hanging up and dialing back in. sometimes you just get some noise on the line.

Re:Download Speeds

[Trejkaz]

I got about 20k/s, but then again I downloaded it before the Slashdot story appeared.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[reddazz]

Doesn't happen to me either.

Adblock definitions site...

[Golgafrinchan]

Speaking of which...

At this site, you can find updated Adblock definitions that you can easily import. Just scroll down to the most recent update, download, and install.

Ever since I installed these, I've had to manually block something only a couple of times. They work great!

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job!

You've successfully /.'d a Geocities site!

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[0100010001010011]

Geocities never lasts long...

Here is a mirror to the latest updates 2005-03-20a.txt

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[anethema]

Damnit, anyone make a copy of the latest? I had a nice adblock.txt goin and lost it in a server crash a while ago...

Could even paste it as a comment ? The boon of moderation will be yours!

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[anethema]

Nevermind, someone is faster than me.

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[glpierce]

Thanks - just remember to take it down as soon as Geocities restores access.

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[0100010001010011]

No worries mate!

Re:Adblock definitions site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, that's way too many rules for what it catches. I use two of my own rules that catch almost everything on the sites I visit. Of course Slashdot will mess them up somewhat, but here they are anyway: /[\W_](web|blog)?ad([xs]|v(s|ert(s|is(ing|e(r|ment )s?))?)?|(serv(er?)?|image|click|banner)s?)?[\W\d_ ]/ /(affiliate|sponsor|promo(tion)?|(fast)?click|asso ciate|merchant|partner|offer)s?|marketing/

By the way, the reason there isn't a "\d" at the beginning of the first rule is that some sites (esp. online stores) use long hexadecial strings in their URLs and sometimes there will be a string like "0ad0" or something in there.

If you want to be more aggressive, you can add "banner" to the second rule. That will get many ads that Adblock might otherwise miss, but you will almost definitely get some false positives.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you very much for the invite, but I already have one of those. Speaking of gmail, I did notice that the link to it from googlebar is missing. I usually check gmail after checking Y! mail. Is it still accessible to you from the 'g' drop-down menu on the googlebar?

Now, if only someone could reasonably, explain how this conversation is offtopic...

Proactive release

[rminsk]

This release is to fix a buffer overflow bug in the GIF handling code. The flaw was discovered by Internet Security Systems and patched before the public learned of the issue. When was the last time you heard of other browsers fixing problems proactively instead of reactively?

Re:Proactive release

[Anonymous Coward]

Urm... isnt what you just described reactively fixing a problem?

Re:Proactive release

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be just about every IE bug, since Microsoft hides whats wrong with their browser as long as they can too.

Re:Proactive release

[Anonymous Coward]

Proactively would mean Mozilla found it. You said someone else did and reported it to them, and then in reaction they patched it...

Re:Proactive release

[bonch]

Never, because Slashdot never reports on them. Only IE holes and some major Firefox holes that couldn't be ignored get posted on the front page.

Re:Proactive release

[dedazo]

When was the last time you heard

Never, because this was not proactive. And I suspect we'll be hearing about this a lot more if enough people can't be bothered to update their browsers or turned off notifications.

The wonders of shipping an app that's used by more than 15 people.

Re:Proactive release

[goldsounds]

I hate to break it to you, but that's still reactive. ISS had to tell them there was a problem. Proactive would involve defensive programming which entirely avoids the logical constructs that _might_ lead to security issues.

Re:Proactive release

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong, but I think most IE security updates are made before the issue is known to the public -- we just don't hear much about these patches.

I definitely believe Mozilla does a better job managing security problems, though. Even so, fundamentally Mozilla and MS have the same basic issues. Occasionally something goes longer than it should before getting fixed, for example.

My point is, when comparing we should avoid certain generalizations. I can say "Firefox has had fewer vulnerabilities", but it could happen that some month Firefox has considerably more, and then "they" can use that against us, even if the vulnerabilities are very minor. If you want to compare, stick with the big picture. For example, to the best of our knowledge there is no significant problem with malware installation via Firefox, and no way to get single-click or accidental installations.

Re:Proactive release

[DerekLyons]

This release is to fix a buffer overflow bug in the GIF handling code. The flaw was discovered by Internet Security Systems and patched before the public learned of the issue. When was the last time you heard of other browsers fixing problems proactively instead of reactively?

They reacted to a report of a bug and reactively released an upgrade.

Nothing proactive here, move along.

Re:Proactive release

[da_matta]

Only in /. can a "buffer overflow bug in the GIF handling code" be spun this positively! I seem to remember different types of conversations with different companies.....

Re:a .torrent would be schweet..

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone wanna make like christ and distrib the loaves?

Easiest way to update

[woobieman29]

On my Wintel laptop was to go to Tools>Options>Advanced>SoftwareUpdate and press the 'Check Now' button. It automatically d/l's the patch and starts the install.

Hopefully there is a Debian build when I get home so that I can update my MEPIS/Debian box. (Or is that GNU/MEPIS/DEBIAN/Linux?? :-) )

Re:Easiest way to update

[Anonymous Coward]

For debian (sid/unstable), according to my experiences, you have to wait a few days. However, when they supply it, it is most likely stable and installs fine.

On the other hand, gentoo has it in portage since yesterday evening (im in Europe).

Re:Uninstall first please

[tajmorton]

Really? Mine worked fine with just installing right over 1.0.1 with Windows XP. Under Linux...no go (of course).
However, Autopackage works great (if you've have FF installed from Autopackage): http://www.wildgardenseed.com/Taj/autopackage/fire fox-1.0.2.x86.package
(BTW, if you do try this Autopackage, we'd love some feedback on how it works--taj at wildgardenseed dot com).

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[karnal]

I've actually just uninstalled Firefox from my work laptop.

Every now and again (1x daily) when using firefox and I go to CTRL-W a tab, it'll shut my machine down.

Seriously. Even after 1.01. I'll try it again once a new rev comes out.

No problems with the latest mozilla.

Of course, I also don't have this issue at home on my home theater box, but I also don't slam that box as hard (as in usage, not the physical-sort-of-slammin')

It's Easy

[repetty]

Download the new version and OS X then mount it as a disk image.

Drag the Firefox icon from the image folder to your Applications folder and click the OK button to approve the overwrite.

Then, you are done!

Easy.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

i just looked at my add/remove and i have all the vesrion from 0.9 to 1.02 listed, its a damm mess

if they didnt put version numbers in the installer it would just overwrite the old entry and the problem would be solved (i hate to think what state the registry is in), as it is at the moment its a damm mess and most unprofessional

and when i upgraded i just had an setup.exe on my desktop, great upgrade, perhaps they want to make my desktop a mess with their installers now they have ruined the add/remove section, luckily XP can remove dead entries (when the app has been removed), windows 9X users wont be so lucky

3/10 for effort so far

Re:Mod parent up

[Dorothy 86]

if you have all of them back to .9 and are just noticing, likely because of all this talk, how much of a problem is it really? You wouldn't have even looked if you hadn't seen any of this here.

Re:Mod parent up

[godless dave]

Saddam destroyed them before we could get to them.

Long before ... 1993, according to the CIA.

If we don't fight terror, the next attack might make September 11 pale in comparison.

Exactly. And that's why we should be fighting terrorist organizations like al Qaida, isntead of Iraqis.

Why did September 11 happen?

Because Bush and his people ignored Richard Clarke and others who warned that al Qaida was planning an attack in the United States.

Inaction let it happen - we can not stand idly by.

The opposite of "inaction" is not "attacking any target we feel like, even if it is completely unrelated to any threats against us".

It's not enough to take ANY action. We need to take actions that will actually accomplish our goals. Attacking Iraq was detrimental to our goals.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps they want to make my desktop a mess with their installers now they have ruined the add/remove section

Aww, NO! Mozilla have cluttered my "add/remove programs" list! Man, I spend half my life using that list, now I'm going to waste HOURS every day scrolling past the useless entries! My life is ruined! Damn those Mozilla developer scum - I'm SUING!

Re:Mod parent up

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I see the moderators don't like the truth.

Would they need to be at Ground Zero of another attack before they open their eyes?

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not CTRL, you're hitting ALT.

And it looks like you're overshooting W and hitting F4.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

what would be very cool ...

[bizitch]

If Firefox incorporated a bittorrent agent inside the browser for updates. Simple click and launch a bittorrent download - then install followed by some minimal upload time - say 5 minutes of bandwidth

that would be cool ... heh heh

Re:what would be very cool ...

[Anonymous Coward]

that would be cool ... heh heh

Or, wait man. I got it. What if, like, Azareus like had a browser in it! That would be awesome, man.

Or, wait. No, no. What if- if there were like a- a swiss-army text editor that had, y'know, like everything in it. And like we could like add like a browser AND a bittorrent client! Now THAT would be cool. ...if only such a thing existed.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[roman_mir]

I think this can be done from an extension. Actually I just may look at that.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[jebiester]

Or, wait. No, no. What if- if there were like a- a swiss-army text editor that had, y'know, like everything in it. And like we could like add like a browser AND a bittorrent client! Now THAT would be cool. ...if only such a thing existed.

Does Emacs have a bittorrent client?

Re:what would be very cool ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Admiral Obvious.

(promoted from captain)

Re:what would be very cool ...

[Quattro Vezina]

BT is a useful tool for downloading certain things, but it wreaks enough havoc on my connection that I only use it when I absolutely have to. If I'm just trying to get an update, BT is a massive waste of bandwidth, and if that becomes the preferred method of updating Firefox, I'd rather not update Firefox.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[bizitch]

Agreed -

Thats why I suggested, download - install - upload for 5 minutes - disconnect.

I believe thats all it would take to work on a large scale without tie-rashing everyones bandwidth

There's got to be something better than the random mirror system used now - about 50% of the time I get a dud FTP mirror which i have to cancel and restart until i get a decent one

It's not perfect -Its just a thought.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[WaldoXX]

Adding a bittorrent client to Firefox would increase
Firefox load up bloat. For every extra
feature there is a resource tradeoff. Some people
cant connect to torrents due to proxy or firewalls.
But regardless using standard built in
http or ftp transfer is the most logical choice
albiet not the most exciting nor
bandwidth friendly.

Maybe someone will "fork" a firefox version with a
bittorrent client.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[Anonymous Coward]

corporates block BitTorrents ports so its pretty redundant, never mind adding nnMb of bloat only to be used once every 2months, at the moment its lean and mean
but thats what extensions are for, if you wanner add stuff to it go right ahead but keep torrent stuff (or whatever the latest p2p flavor is this month) out of the standard build

Re:what would be very cool ...

[mrchaotica]

That would be cool. Of course, if they were going to do that what would be even cooler is if they integrated it into the download window too -- instead of downloading the .torrent file separately and then firing up an external client, it would just read the .torrent and download the real file instead, transparently.

Re:what would be very cool ...

[Otik2]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23675 5

The Mozilla devs are thinking about it. There's the Bugzilla discussion.

Re:Uninstall first please

[d31337]

Yup, it'll install ok. However, if you check the list of installed programs (via Control Panel), you'll still see 1.0.1 there. I think this info is there somewhere in the release notes though..

When are they gonna fix this?

[pherthyl]

Ever going fix this?

Its not so bad on my work comp, but downright embarrasing on my girlfriend's laptop when there's 5 Firefox entries in the Add/Remove Programs dialog.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[Ark42]

Who sits and looks at add/remove programs all day? You only go there if you plan on removing something, which is pretty rare. Besides, if you REALLY care, how hard is it to delete a single registry key from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall ? Sure the installer could do that for you, or it could just re-use the existing key like it should, but it really is hardly worth caring about at all.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude.... if you link to slashdot, people are going to find your "stuff"

http://mushroomstamp.ca/stuff/kde34.png

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[pherthyl]

Haha yeah.
Funny story about that actually. I told my friend that KDE 3.4 was out and he looked at some screenshots, then said that it looked "ok" but nothing to get horny about.

So I made that screenshot to show him that he was dead wrong.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[pherthyl]

What the hell? Where did that pic go? It worked when I posted it. And apparently it worked for a bit judging by the first response. Now it seems to have dissapeared from my server entirely.

Sorry. The issue is mentioned in a different comment earlier anyway.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[ShagratTheTitleless]

Indeed. Great software is built by a legion of mindless appologists.

That was sarcasm. This is not: Why does pointing out minor details that need polish offend so many people?

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[Carlos Laviola]

If you're gonna lie, at least don't post on your blog about you changing Apache settings to disable indexing.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[zbuffered]

Figure out what happened and respond. Additionally the above-mentioned .png 404's, and it's piqued my interest. Cheers.
Z

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your girlfriend spends a lot of time looking in the Add/Remove Programs dialog, does she?

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[freeweed]

Personally, I'm surprised anyone notices the multiple Add/Remove entries for Firefox, what with them being mixed in with about 75 "Windows 2000 Hotfix" entries...

Yes, this is humour. But seriously, it's not like the Add/Remove list isn't polluted all to hell and back anyway.

Re:When are they gonna fix this?

[pherthyl]

Didn't actually post that. My blog consists of about 10 lines of php. It takes all the files in a dir and throws them together on a page.. So when I disabled indexing, it also grabbed the htaccess file.

Anyway, disabling indexing has nothing to do with the file dissapearing.

Autoupdate just sitting there?

[fembots]

Anyone else having problem with the autoupdate not doing anything? I "Check Update" and was given an option to install 1.0.2, so obviously it knew 1.0.2 is out.

However after clicking on "Install Now" it just shows "downloading and installing updates" but there is no internet connection at all, so it's not really doing anything.

Otherwise can I please have a link to download the patch? Last time I went mozilla.org but couldn't find the patch, and had to download the whole 4.3MB 1.0.1

Re:Autoupdate just sitting there?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

The "update" downloaded fine for me... but all it does it download the complete 1.0.2 installer and run that! You might as well just download that from here, and then *uninstall* your existing version before you install the new one. No biggie if you don't uninstall first, but you'll end up with the older version still in the Windows Add/remove programs list.

Re:Autoupdate just sitting there?

[kayak334]

...but there is no internet connection at all

Well, just a guess, but you might want to be connected to the internet to download the new version. You know, maybe? :)

Re:Autoupdate just sitting there?

[RedBear]

Otherwise can I please have a link to download the patch? Last time I went mozilla.org but couldn't find the patch, and had to download the whole 4.3MB 1.0.1

Sorry, buddy, no can do.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that even now in the post-1.0 days, there ARE NO INCREMENTAL PATCHES. All the auto-update feature does is auto-download the ENTIRE 4.3MB install file into your download directory, and automatically start the install. That was my experience with the 1.0.1 update, anyway. What is this, a joke?

I'm sure I'm one of a great many people who were hoping that once Firefox stabilized we wouldn't have to keep downloading the ENTIRE MULTI-MEGABYTE INSTALL file just to apply an incremental update from 1.0.1 to 1.0.2. Why doesn't the auto-update "feature" just load mozilla.org and tell us to download the latest version manually and uninstall the previous version before updating (to avoid having multiple versions listed in Add/Remove Programs). Hey, Firefox developers! I am one of many who are completely unimpressed with this auto-update "feature". It's a joke with a bad punchline. There has to be a better way.

Re:Autoupdate just sitting there?

[Travis Fisher]

No biggie if you don't uninstall first, but you'll end up with the older version still in the Windows Add/remove programs list.

This is a known issue: this is Bug 247884 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2478 84 -- not clickable since bugzilla blocks links from slashdot). It is targetted to be fixed by release 1.1. The main issue under discussion seems to be how to do this cleanly and not mess up advanced users (read: developers) who want to have multiple versions of the browser installed side-by-side to aid in regression testing and such.

Re:Autoupdate just sitting there?

[lpangelrob2]

Yeah, that happened to me the first time. Kill the window (Win2k, use the x in the top right corner since the Cancel button is greyed out) and try again. Worked fine the second time.

missing information

[Fry-kun]

Umm.. Firefox 1.01 has come out already. I was running it until today. It's Thunderbird that has skipped a number. The article blatantly ignores the fact that Thunderbird 1.02 has ALSO been released, along with Firefox 1.02.

That ignorance, of course, is nothing compared to Microsoft, which hasn't released ANY updates for my version of IE (not that I use it ;) for a month or so. Guess they're too busy patenting the Internet.

Re:missing information

[furiousgeorge]

>>The article blatantly ignores the fact that Thunderbird 1.02 has ALSO been released,

Blatantly? BLATANTLY I SAY!! BLANTANT BLANTANT BLANTANT.

Yup. And the article blatantly ignores the fact that Whitney Houston is back in rehab, the details of the Michael Jackson trial, and the current status of that vegetable in florida.

Damn those authors with their blatant ignoring of facts other than Firefox in their article about Firefox!

BLATANT I SAY!!!

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Dimensio]

Never happens to me. My problem is that mplayerplug-in ALWAYS causes a browser crash. Plays imbedded video just fine, but once it fully loads a video, it destabilizes the browser such that afterward, when viewing any website, if I try to save any link (a jpg image being viewed or a downloadable file), the browser dies. Every time.

No Yahoo mail crashes ever, though.

Ugh, no zip builds

[thegrommit]

It seems there are no official zip builds for formal releases. Asa's blog explains why and suggests that those looking for them "look at the build ID in the final release, and get the same nightly build from the same branch".

Only problem? The release notes don't specify the build ID, so you have to run the installer first. When you do that, you discover the build ID is 20050317. Only there don't (currently) appear to be any 1.02 zip builds in any of the aviary directories for 20050317.

Am I missing something?

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[Slimcea]

There don't seem to be any directly corresponding ones for Firefox 1.0.2, closest it seems would be ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nigh tly/2005-03-14-17-aviary1.0.1/firefox-1.0.2.en-US. win32.zip. For Thunderbird 1.0.2, I've found that the http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird /nightly/2005-03-17-12-aviary1.0.1/thunderbird-win 32.zip has an match on the md5sum for thunderbird.exe as compared to the official release.

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[xander2032]

It's a bunch of crap. Yet another way MoFo is screwing its users in the ass. I swear, they're becoming as bad as M$! I'm sick and tired of their crap. First they "kill" the Mozilla suite, and now they're messing with Firefox users. What the hell is their problem?? Personally I have no respect for the orginization nor anyone in it. They just don't give a damn about their users.

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[bunratty]

There were no checkins on the 1.7 branch from March 17 through March 21. Any nightly build produced between those dates should be essentially the same as the official release.

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[aftermath09]

Hi There,
this should be what you're looking for:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/latest-aviary1.0.1/

I'm assuming it's: firefox-1.0.2.en-US.win32.zip

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[Anonymous Coward]

yea yea whatever troll

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[hendridm]

Yeah, I think axing the problem-free ZIP builds in favor of the buggy EXE packages was a bad idea. If you want the ZIP builds restored, vote for it here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28749 9

(You'll have to copy and paste the URL because Slashdot referals are banned)

Re:Ugh, no zip builds

[thegrommit]

> Yeah, I think axing the problem-free ZIP builds in favor of the buggy EXE packages was a bad idea.

I'm not really bothered about the lack of a formal zip build. What I do want is a straightforward way of identifying which nightly build the release is based on - without having to run the installer. As it stands, even that doesn't help me, as there don't appear to be any checkins which correspond to the 1.02 build ID (20050317).

Why is this a concern? Due to the locked down nature of the workstations at my client (no install privileges), it's become far more difficult to convince people to try Firefox.

Solution

[Adam9]

Go this address: about:config
Right click anywhere
Select new, integer
Name: privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins
Value: 2

-- Taken from another /. user

Re:Solution

[Ignominious Cow Herd]

Mod points if I had them. Fixed the alldumb.com link several posts above.

Re:Solution

[Kamiten]

Is this targeting a specific type of pop under? I still get pop unders at Zophar's Domain after trying this fix. (clicking any of the links on the right will cause a pop under) I realize I could disable javascript and these will no longer function, but that's not practical with the amount of websites that have a useful purpose for javascript.

Re:Solution

[gid]

The solution is to no click on any of those links.

The automatically popup blocker only applies to popups that try to load along with another page. If you want to disable all window.open() function calls then you'll need a special extention that may or may not exist. Adblock might do, I dunno.

Autodebug

[Doc Ruby]

With Bugzilla and the community, their backend that addresses security bugs is pretty tight. But why is the desktop end limited by the archaic announcement/download/install scenario? I'd prefer to accept subscription to the security bugfix channel, RSS polled every few hours or hundred pages. If it authenticated the patches, I'd get a nonmodal notification message, with "More Info" and "Always Autoapply" buttons in the window. That would make their rapid responses worthwhile. If they could upgrade in the background without slowing down my surfing, with on-demand rollbacks, I'd probably just autoupdate, looking for upgrade notices in my email.

Re:Autodebug

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. Its open source so why don't you implement it for us? It should only take you a good month or so. Let us know when you are done.

Thanks

Re:Autodebug

[Doc Ruby]

OK - anyone else who wants to help, now that I've got the project to classic SourceForge "pre-Alpha" stage, let me know :).

Re:Autodebug

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me! I don't work for free. But I'll use it if you implement it.

Thanks!

Use the auto-update feature, it's easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The auto-update works perfectly.

Click on: Tools->Options->Advanced->Software Update

It will download the new version, ask to close Firefox and install the new version.

I am now running 1.0.2

and as the Germans would say, "If du kannt understandlich das simplen instrukten den du bist einer Stinken Pooper Chuten Finger Poken"

Re:Use the auto-update feature, it's easy.

[ShagratTheTitleless]

The [Firefox] auto-update works perfectly. Yes. It works so well that according to the add/remove software panel in windows, I have no less than ELEVEN copies of Firefox installed. All of them in the same directory. Only one copy of the Suite though. See, that's how you can tell that Firefox has superior engineering to the suite browser. Firefox goes to ELEVEN.

This post is not inflammatory but factual.

For those of you wondering about ZIP builds

[Slimcea]

.. you can read about it here and here.

Apparently mozilla.org took it upon themselves to remove the ZIP archive method of distribution, citing various incompatibility problems and the need to "simplify the test matrix". What stinks about this is that the ZIP method was (and still is) one of the cleanest and most convenient way to install Firefox. Now they've gone and removed it, without taking in any user input at all. In fact, most users aren't exactly too pleased with the decision, as evidenced by the comments in both blogs.

Oh well, won't be the first dictatorial decision undertaken by Mozilla (branding, the Qute icon change, the naming fiasco..)

Re:Uninstall first please

[Ark42]

Add/Remove programs is hardly a list of installed programs. Its just a list generated from HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall
Nothing really magical going on there. Two entries for firefox doesn't mean you have two copies of firefox installed. Delete the registry key if you really care that much? Most people are too busy USING their computer to worry about what little glitches are in a dialog in control panel that they never use.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[bubkus_jones]

I can't say I've experienced this error. I just logged in and out of my 4 yahoo accounts and no problems. I don't have the abovementioned mplayer-plugin problem either.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050303 Firefox/1.0+

Downloaded binary from mozilla.org on a Debian Testing system.

Why Make a Fanfare?

[Delilah Jones]

Honestly, why does Mozilla need to make a fanfare with the aforementioned Slashdot Solar Death Ray pointed in its general direction?

Isn't that fanfare enough?

Will we lose extensions at every minor update?

[LoverOfJoy]

After the install I was informed that my extensions were disabled until new ones come out to ensure compatability. I can understand why that could be important for major updates but will I have to lose my gmail notifier every time a minor bug fix comes out?

Re:Will we lose extensions at every minor update?

[tobiasly]

It depends on the extension author. Whoever wrote the extension must have coded it specifically to one version instead of a range. I have a dozen extensions installed and none of them complained from 1.0 to 1.0.1 to 1.0.2.

Note that .xpi files are really .jar files that you can unpack and edit the "allowed versions" tag to make them more lenient. I forget the exact details but a little Googling should turn it up if you're interested.

Re:Will we lose extensions at every minor update?

[Anonymous Coward]

.jar(Java ARchive) files are just .zip files.

Re:Will we lose extensions at every minor update?

[fusion9290991]

I've actually found that when I get this message, I go into the extensions window and right click each extension. I say "disable", at which point it tells me it will be disabled the next time I start. I go back in, choose "Enable" this time, and it tells me it'll be re-enabled. After restarting FF, most extensions work properly without a reinstall. Sometimes I have to reconfigure, sometimes not. YMMV.

Slackers...

[LokieLizzy]

This has been out for almost a week. I've been running 1.0.2 since word leaked out about a beta available on the mozilla blog.

However, this was where I found out, so I can't take all the credit :^)

404

[Anonymous Coward]

when you upload your pic, oh and a 404 page

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

a 404 that cant find the 404

Re:404

[nc_yori]

I think he's asking when someone's going to fix the 404 error. Poor guy.

Re:Uninstall first please

[thegrommit]

> Most people are too busy USING their computer to worry about what little glitches are in a dialog in control panel that they never use.

Many people still think using "the internet" means clicking on the Explorer icon. A minor item like this doesn't help convince them to switch.

Upgraded and FORGOT, its that simple!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had earlier clicked the update button because I saw it was lit, and it said firefox 1.0.2 and clicked one more button. Thats how easy it was. I probably wasn't vulnerable for more than 20 min since the patch was released.

This is why even if firefox had TWICE the patches as IE, it would be easier becuase it's no work to update.

this word 'proof'

[hildi]

funny you should mention it. it actually has a meaning. apparently you arent aware of the common scientific meaning.

Re:this word 'proof'

[mistersooreams]

In the scientific sense, obviously nothing can be proved about open vs closed source; we can only form hypotheses that fit the known data, etc. Given that the whole post would be meaningless if I were using it in the scientific sense, I assumed it would be obvious that I was not. Not obvious enough for everyone, apparently.

then why bother with autoupdate at all ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be uninstalling the old version before you install the new one.

which bit of autoupdate don't they get ?

i shouldnt be doing anything other than clicking an update icon,everything should be taken care of
does Microsoft say "to install SP2 you must uninstall SP1" ? so why do i have to in mozilla ?

never mind me having to disappear into advanced settings to check updates manually when in IE its on the tools menu, easy to get at if i want to check

at the moment the word to describe their update process is rubbish

Second.

[Headcase88]

That's what I did too, worked perfectly. I use Windows, by the way, but I'd imagine it to be similar on all OSs.

My spellcheck seems to work still..ahh crap

[Fox_1]

I tryed real hard to mispel werds in ths poost but I didnt suceed

crap, seriously I was expecting it to work, but it seems to insist I have no mispellings above. Scratch my subject line.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[nametaken]

BTW: I heard that Yahoo will be giving out 1GB accounts starting April.

Yes, we can verify that. :)

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Fallingcow]

Wow, good to know it's not just me. Last time I tried the Mplayer plugin, it never really ever finished loading any videos, and if I tried the "back" button while it was trying to--I assume it was, but I don't know, since the piece of crap has no progress bar, and it was certainly taking longer than it should have--then my browser (FF) would crash instantly.

I've stopped using the damn thing entirely. Given the somewhat-polished nature of Mplayer, I'd have figured the associated plugin would work a bit better. Maybe it has different developers or something.

Re:Uninstall first please

[randallpowell]

Yum got it the first time. Oh you must mean the Windows version.

Re:security bug found already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Intriguing. Nice attempt, though.

Auto update my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to inform Mozilla what an update means. Instead of merely offering the needed new pieces of code, the "update" in question here consists of downloading the entire 1.0.2 package and crudely installing it over your current installation.

Re:Auto update my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

*shhhhh* Don't ever imply that open source projects aren't superior IN EVERY WAY to something like Windows update. They don't like that kind of talk around here.

Memory leak

[Wolfier]

Have they fixed the memory leaks in 1.0 yet?
Having an idle browser leaking 300 MB of memory per day is like a self-inflicted DOS attack.

Re:Memory leak

[JanusFury]

Just install Tab Browser Extensions and enable Session Management. Then when Firefox gets too fat, you can just close it and reopen it.

Re:Memory leak

[VanillaCoke420]

Yeah that is very annoying. It doesn't free up memory when I close down tabs, and to free all of it you have to close and restart it.

Re:Memory leak

[Touisteur]

Oh you mean like this one ? oh sorry, I didn't see "idle"... mine you cannot know where it is... I'm sure it's a Windows' bug...

Typo in the title: 1.02 != 1.0.2

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd period is important, otherwise how would you distinguish 1.1.11 and 1.11.1?

extensions not working

[mmmike]

my extensions are no longer working after i updated. is this happening to anyone else?

There is no "patch", per se.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla's definition of "updating" consists of making you download the entire current version, and installing it over your current installation.

home page reset

[Anonymous Coward]

after instaling the update my home page was reset to their defoult from my seting which was blank.

did any one else experience this??

are any other settings reset as well??

Re:home page reset

[skadus]

You have to be really careful when installing. The very last page (Your install finished successfully, blahblahblah) has two checkmarks: one resets your homepage to Firefox's default, the other launches Firefox after hitting the Finish/Done button. It's only been like that the last few releases. Hard to catch if you're click-happy during installs.

Re:home page reset

[Tuckdogg]

There's a check box on the final screen of the setup program. The box says something like "Use Firefox Start as my home page." By default, the box is checked.

Re:home page reset

[Patrick Mannion]

I just keep it like that.

RTFA

[geekee]

This is a patch for a major security flaw in Firefox. I hope Firefox users are putting the bandwidth to good use or they will face the same problems as IE users.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke you dolt.

Re:RTFA

[PsychicX]

Lies. Firefox is open source. It can't possibly have any security problems, or in fact any problems at all. The pop up blocker is perfect in 100% of cases, and anything that you see to the contrary is black magic, for which you'll be burned at the F/OSS stake.

Re:RTFA

[It'sYerMam]

Ahem.

Isn't bashing OSS supporters for a minority of people who believe that it's invulnerable, godsent and sacrosanct a little childish and immature? However humorous and/or karma whoreish it may appear, I think it's slightly unfair to imply that anyone who believes that F/OSS has benefits over other business practices is so over-zealous.
Before you whack me back for not recognising a joke, yes I did notice the intended humour, but it's so goddamn old that it really doesn't count.

[/rant]

Mozilla/Firefox's awesome communication

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still amazed at the awesomeness of Mozilla/FireFox's communications regarding bugs.

The bug they fixed now shows it again. I mean, look at the bugzilla entry for it:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28559 5

It's fast, no bullshit and to the point. I love being able to look inside this whole process. I wonder how things fare with regards to these kinds of bugs in the UberCorps.

Dude, Firefox 1.02 ate my boot sector.

[killa62]

My WinXp machine cannot boot anymore.

"ERROR
PLEASE INSERT CORRECT SYSTEM DISC CONTAINING INTERNET EXPLORER"

this is to get rid of the caps thing.

Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeowww

[Proc6]

Let's see those true colors...

"When ever I access my mail account at https://mail.yahoo.com, [with Firefox 1.0x] the browser crashes when I log out."
Score: 0 Offtopic

"I hate those smilie popups which seems to be unblockable, please make them go away. [which is to say Firefox still isn't blocking all popups]
Score: 0 Offtopic

"I hope this fixes the problems with this document contains no data."
Score: 0 Troll

"Open source software can react far faster to new threats than any closed source development model."
Score: +5 Informative

Mmmm gotta love that pure Slashdot fanboi machine. Work in a plug for Linux or Open Source, instant +5. Mention a valid and existing bug with the open source software the post is about, you're an offtopic troll, probably a NAMBLA member or Nazi too. Die!

Dealing with the two add / remove entries

[Jeff85]

A quick Google search revealed that you can also remove an entry from the registry manually with details found at here. I did this myself, installed the 1.02 version, and all seems to be running smoothly.

Re:Uninstall first please

[dedazo]

This is absolutely hilarious. Actually most threads on this article are. If this were a Microsoft product everyone and their mother would be rushing down the ramparts yelling how worthless this piece of shit is (based on something that is admittedly as dumb as this) and how their aunt/friend/daddy/cat happened to look in the control panel and had a heart attack, ergo "M$" is "evil" and stupid and can't code to save their lives.

But this is Mozilla, so why don't we just Delete the registry key if you really care that much? Most people are too busy USING their computer to worry about what little glitches are in a dialog in control panel that they never use. Yes.

Absolutely hilarious.

One solution is...

[krunk4ever]

i agree they should've removed the old listing in Add/Remove Programs, but they've gone a long way since pheonix 0.6 and firebird 0.8 where you extracted the program from a zip file into a random directory. one solution for novice to advance users is by removing it from your registry.

Start->Run->regedit

in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall they list all of your installed programs. I've verified if you try to uninstall a previuos version of firefox, it'll remove the current version anyway, so there's really no need leave those listings around.

There's probably programs around that makes this list look prettier, but this is how i usually remove old programs from the list which were "manually" removed or can't be removed through uninstall purposes.

Re:One solution is...

[klui]

You'd also need to go into each user's hive and remove the old Software entries. Yeah, it's a pain.

not again

[cg0def]

how do post like this ever go through the editors? Come one this is no news. Everybody that uses Firefox knows about the update by now and if they don't then they should learn how to use firefox a little better. The editors should really do a better job screening for worthless and repetitive posts. It's not cool fludding your own forum, you know ...

Re:Uninstall first please

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid I think it is unprofessional, just like having the Windows icon display in Firefox on Win9x is unprofessional. They're cutting corners in areas Microsoft never would, which doesn't bode too well.

Imagine the messes sysadmins have to clean up because of those two flaws. It's a subtle rebuke to using Firefox. A minor one, but nonetheless.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I find that navigating to a new page, rather than using the back button, *might* help with stability, but I'm not even sure that helps, and I'm not making it up.

Mplayer-plugin needs to be fixed.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[Anonymous Coward]

guys... its a troll stop responding so nicely/honestly

Ha! I have five!

[The Real Nem]

Out of curiosity I checked my Add/Remove Programs dialog to see I have 5 versions present (everything since 0.9.1).

It looks like the Mozilla team could stand to improve their installer a little more. If the slashdot crowd can't figure it out what is the average user going to think?

Filterset.G instructions - important!

[Mitchell Mebane]

Don't forget the proper settings you need to get the most out of Filterset.G:

Recommended Adblock settings for Filterset.G

[To modify: Tools > Adblock > Preferences]

Hide Ads x Remove Ads

Ablock Options:
Obj-Tabs
x Collapse Blocked Elements
x Check Parent Links
x Site Blocking
x Keep List Sorted

Re:Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeo

[SocietyoftheFist]

The first one is the posters problem with their machine, there is no repeatable issue that is described.

The second comment has a +5, at least the one that I saw asking about having to turn off Javascript

The third is a webserver problem

The fourth has been pretty much proven true.

Re:Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeo

[lachlan76]

"Open source software can react far faster to new threats than any closed source development model."

Well the story IS about an update.

Those other comments you show that were modded offtopic are *bug reports*. This isn't where you go to file bug reports.

All mine are working...

[Tuckdogg]

Maybe a problem during the upgrade process?

Re:All mine are working...

[mmmike]

ive uninstalled and reinstalled at leasrt 3 times.. no luck. and 3/4 of the time when firefox starts my homepages and bookmark toolbar doesnt load, and i cant even type in urls.

MOOX Builds

[lhaeh]

Don't forget about MOOX optimized builds.

Download Here.

That's 1.76 in Slashdot-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot... don't you mean 1.76?

Slow...

[mycro]

I'm getting about 5KB/s too. Oh well, it's worth the wait I suppose.

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, what's so hard about this? You don't see stories about people running Mac OS 10.38, the release of Mozilla suite 1.76, or how IE 70 will have poor CSS support.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[ESqVIP]

I heard that Yahoo will be giving out 1GB accounts starting April.

Yeah... April 1st :-)

(just kidding!)

There is no 1.02!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Firefox 1.0.1 is out alreay, and Thunderbird 1.0.2 came out with Firefox 1.0.2. Why can't anyone here understand industry standard versioning schemes?

I CAN'T REMOVE URL FROM PRINTING IN HEADER ON OSX!

[Papi99]

This is so annoying. Anyone know what the hell I can do to keep the URL from printing out on the header section? This only seems to happen on my mac, not on my windows computer. I played around with random settings on about:config and I was not successful.

Re:MTN. DEW, GABE, EARLY POST

[ShagratTheTitleless]

PHP is for fucking children

I thought that was what Michael Jackson was for.

Fixed in 1.1

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find the Bugzilla entry at the moment, but this bug HAS BEEN FIXED in the trunk. It will be incorporated into the next branch, Firefox 1.1, which comes out in two to three months.

Mod parent up

[godless dave]

Well, if you really should uninstall before you update, why doesn't the updater uninstall before it reinstalls?

Lots of other installers do this; why not Firefox?

Firefox update feature fails

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Firefox didn't let me know about the new version, I had to read it on Slashdot or I wouldn't even know.

I told it to "Check now" for updates, and got this error:

"Firefox was not able to find any available updates"

Umm, there is an available update, a whole new version.

Maybe the Firefox team should have Firefox check the Slashdot RSS feed to see if it needs updates.

Sigh.

Re:Firefox update feature fails

[Legion303]

Worked for me, using ff 1.01 under Windows.

Re:Firefox update feature fails

[polyp2000]

Me neither ... I wonder if this new update fixes the "not able to find any updates bug"

Im gonna submit a bug report just in case...

Bad auto-update in Firefox

[storem]

When do they start pushing this security updates to me? Or manage to inform me when I first open my browser, not when I browse to the /. website??

Re:Bad auto-update in Firefox

[Kosgrove]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not.

See the little red up-arrow at the top-right of your broswer window? That means updates are available.

Slashdot is truly a shadow of its former self when they publish stories on minor releases when you can get the same information from the friggin' program itself.

Does anyone remember when they used to have really interesting stories on here? Stuff you couldn't learn about anywhere else?

Problems - homepage hijacked?

[djsable]

So, I updated on my work comp, and it now has some really odd issues.

It hijacked my homepage to put mozilla homepage on it, even though I unchecked that option.

when I change it back to my homepage, it loads with my homepage just fine on boot, but when I click the home button in the toolbar, I get sent to the moz homepage. WTF?!

Any one else seeing that? any idea how to fix this?

badger

Thunderbird given little attention?

[Heliode]

Thunderbird 1.0.2 has been out for a while now, but the only language its currently available in, is English. Firefox 1.0.2 has allready been translated to most languages, but i'm still waiting for the new dutch Thunderbird :-( see for yourselves: Thunderbird languages page. and Firefox languages page.

Trillian isn't OSS

[kurtmckee]

While I understand your point, I'd like to point out that Trillian isn't open source.

On a side note, K-Meleon and Trillian aren't cross-platform. I consistently put my friends and family on Firefox, Thunderbird, and Gaim, so that when they eventually move to Linux (an inevitability, I think, barring an Apple-based purchase), they'll be well-acquainted with the applications they'll use most.

Gaim crashes

[linuxguy]

and burns. I have upgraded it a dozen times, but the reliability hasn't improved much. Overall it feels very rough around the edges unlike Firefox, which behaves like a mature application.

This is on Windows. I have used Gaim on Linux and while it did not crash there as much, it still felt clunky.

Trillian I think is even worse. My personal opinion ofcourse.

Re:Gaim crashes

[jp10558]

Really? Mmmm, I've found Trillian 3 to be very slick looking, and incredibly stable. Well, 0.74 was stable too. Never crashed for me. I mean, never in 3 years of use.

I've also noticed on my crappy campus connection that I'm keeping a connection to AIM via Trillian when everyone using AIM/Dead AIM is getting disconnected every 20 minutes or so.

Not to mention the nice easy encrypted IM's (I know, not perfect, but combined with direct connections, likely good enough for most. Hey, if anyone want's to do a plugin that implements a GPG
interface, I'll be the first to use it. I won't switch IM clients though, I cannot stand the interface of any other one I've tried. This included GAIM (Huge, Ugly, One network feel), Miranda (Small, Unstable, unpolished), AIM(Ads.))

YMMV of course.

Re:I CAN'T REMOVE URL FROM PRINTING IN HEADER ON O

[Anonymous Coward]

uh. file. page setup. margins & header/footer setup. uh.

gentoo emerge

[J_Omega]

emerge notified me... I was(am) building it when I decided to pop on over to /. for a bit. Lo and behold!

Re:Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeo

[stud9920]

post is about, you're an offtopic troll, probably a NAMBLA member or Nazi too. Die!

What's wrong about the North America Marlon Brando Lookalikes Association ?

What about the C&P bug?!

[Lurks]

I don't see any mention of the copy & paste issue so I assume this is not fixed. It's a bug that seems to affect people at random but for reasons I don't understand, it manifests on EVERY Firefox installation on all my machines at home and work. So I often have to reload ten times or load IE just to copy a bit of damn text off a page. This is probably the only issue I have but it does make me think that the whole thing just isn't anywhere near as tested as IE is.

Re:What about the C&P bug?!

[ticktockticktock]

What web sites have you had problems copying text from, since I've never once had that problem in any version of Firefox ?

Reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, I thought all this open source stuff is supposed to be more secure with all these bulging eyeballs squishing bugs for all these Mozilla years.

Think of all the millions of people still running 1.0 and are totally unsecure. These nonstop security issues in Firefox are proof that even a community cannot release secure products. I'm sorry, but if you're gonna dish out the hate to Microsoft, you're gonna have to take it in kind when it's right in your face. LOL

IE is faster, smoother and more secure.

Much more critical known holes in IE !

[free2]

let's keep it to the facts.
I'm a big fan of Secunia, the only site i know that offers a page of unpatched known holes for each software.
And i can tell you that IE has always more Highly Critical unpatched known holes than Firefox:
IE holes
Firefox holes

Re:Much more critical known holes in IE !

[Zorikin]

IE (20 holes) isn't competitive with Firefox (4 holes), but Opera (0 holes) makes a good argument for proprietary software.

Gentoo / Portage

[Anonymous Coward]

Might I suggest waiting? Portage checks for gentoo ports / "e-builds". It is unlikely that the moment Mozilla releases a package, Gentoo will have already adapted it to portage, AND the mirrors would've rsynced already. It doesn't work that easilly or quickly.

-DaedalusHKX (sorry, forgot my login, waiting for email to show up) feel free to flame.

Dijjer Firefox

[Sanity]

Check out the Dijjer Firefox extension.

Re:Uninstall first please

[UltimateRobotLover]

As far as I'm concerned, Add/Remove Programs lists all the programs that can be uninstalled. There is no excuse for having more than one entry. Without Googling and fighting through Bugzilla, how on earth am I meant to know that I should delete the registry key, and that there aren't really two programs?

And as for uninstalling the original Firefox first, I kind of resent the fact that all of my configuration data is maintained without my permission. An uninstall should be just that.

Until someone actually deals with usability issues like this one, OSS projects will always seem just a bit more amateurish than many commercial offerings.

Firefox Sux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't people just get it. Firefox is crap. Mozilla.org did a good job taking an excellenbrowser (SeaMonkey) stripping it down to the point that it is useless, and marketting it as a suer browser. Has Mozilla.org made Micro$oft its role model?

Opera here I come. Bye Bye Mozilla for good.

One tiny OT question...

[Masa]

What the hell is wrong with people these days? The version number is 1.0.2 not 1.02. This error has been seen many times on the Slashdot lately. Small thing, but significant, IMHO.

Why Download Big everytime?

[earthstar]

This problem may not concern those of you [MOst of you ] who are on High speed INternt.
It is really Annoying and difficult to have to download the whole firefox installer everytime for an update.

Just last nite i downloaded the 1.0.1 ver [ I know,i was late] over 30 minutes on my dial up, and today i have to download the whole thing again?

WHY CANT PATCHES BE RELEASED INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL INSTALLER?

I do Like firefox,but this problem is really annoying me and costing me money ! [ i gotta pay my fone bills! ]

p.s:Is there anyway to get a patch file?

it's 1.0.2, you insensitive clod

[todorb]

i can't stop wondering... if i were a slashdot editor, why would i release a story that misspells the version number of a very popular and important opensource application? the frontpage of mozilla.org clearly says "Firefox 1.0.2 for Windows, English (4.7MB)". is it so hard to get?

Keeping it private

[mpnolan]

I wonder: How do you let the Firefox developers know of a security hole without making it public, thus making it an exploit?

Is there some submission setting in Bugzilla so that only a select group can view the bug description? Or did the security group just e-mail some of the head developers?

Re:Keeping it private

[bunratty]

Yes, when you submit a bug to Bugzilla you can mark it as a security bug. If you do that, only you and the security group will be able to see it. If it's a new legitimate security bug, you can then expect a check for $500.

Re:Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeo

[eraserewind]

The third is a usability problem. It pops up a modal dialog box that you have to ok, even from hidden tabs. It's annoying as hell.

Bugs

[mitsuhama]

They still have not fixed the slashdot page rendering problem yet, it is marked fixed in bugzilla but people are still geting problems. OOOOoooo looks like RedHat decided to update their thunderbird packages.

Re:Bugs

[Phil John]

It's fixed in the aviary branch, slated for the next proper point release. In the meantime do what I did, install the SlashFix extension which forces a reflow after any slashdot page has loaded (and only slashdot pages).

Re:MTN. DEW, GABE, EARLY POST

[Flyboy Connor]

Moderate parent +1 Sick.

Comeplety unexpected

[Patrick Mannion]

I was just chatting on IRC and then boom, up pops this. I wasn't expecting it. I'd wish they give notice to their users at least. But then, they're better. IE never did this!

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[sanityspeech]

Talk about false accusations. I am using FF on XP, and I am only reporting what has happened to me. How on earth is that trolling?

Re:Uninstall first please

[Anonymous Coward]

"how on earth am I meant to know that I should delete the registry key"

Mod this up.

"OSS projects will always seem just a bit more amateurish"

Mod this down.

Do it now or I will go Michael Schiavo on your worthless backside.

Re:1.0x browser crashes.

[theLastPossibleName]

I've been noticing that gmail switched me to the html only version when I switched to firefox 1.01. Anyone else experience this? I've submitted a complaint about 1.01 but haven't heard anything yet.

iCal

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only they'd get going on Sunbird. I need a good calendar app.

iCal is a good calendar app that uses the same vCard format Sunbird uses.

Re:0.04% Faster - although

[Anonymous Coward]

Still runs like a two-legged dog on my P2-350MHz and where did my 386MB go? oh, Firefo^H^H^H^H^H^HMozilla gobbled it up..

Mess with the bull U get the horns!

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

This is /. If you say anything which may in anyway be taken as a negitive commentary (true or not) about FF, Linux, or any F/OSS then you are a troll.

Sorry, thats just the way it is. If you don't like it, go find another community where open free discussion of all ideas is encouraged. We don't do that here!

Two types of posts will be accepted here. 1) Flowing praise for any/all F/OSS projects or 2) Spewing hatred toward MS$. Any other ideas or discussions are strictly prohibited!

;-)

autoupdate + winnt

[fandrieu]

i tried the autoupdate under winnt (corp. take some time to upgrade and i'm forced to use cygwin...), it's a complete mess, it just downloads the installer and runs it, but fails to stop the process from where it was launched...you'd better re-install it manually

Re:Big bucks, no whammies, no Slashdot bias.. Beeo

[dema]

Work in a plug for Linux or Open Source, instant +5. Mention a valid and existing bug with the open source software the post is about, you're an offtopic troll

Make a comment bashing slashdot and/or its users and you're automagically +5. This also falls into the lines of starting a comment with "I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but..." Ain't slashdot great? (:

Not for me

[khrtt]

Automatic update f*cked up my installation (on Windows), and I had to reinstall the whole thing, including manually deleting portions of my user profile. Funky. Considering amount of work it takes to set up all the extensions after every upgrade, triple funky. I'd say, worse than upgrading IE4 to IE5, may they both RIP.

Re:I CAN'T REMOVE URL FROM PRINTING IN HEADER ON O

[Papi99]

I take it that you're not using OS X. There is no option for head/footer setup under page setup that allows you to disable printing a header. Even if I go into page setup, and set the header to 0 inches, it will still print out the url. Just at the very top instead of .25 inches down. I want to disable it from printing out the url of the page period. Somone on a mac must know what I'm talking about.

Six, count 'em six....

[lukateake]

Mozilla Firefox entries in the "Add/Remove Programs" dialog: 0.8, 0.9, 0.9.3, 1.0, 1.0.1 and 1.0.2.

<sigh>

Don't give me that "edit the registry" b.s. either. I know how to do it but I choose not to. I want another dozen entries first before I take a screen shot and send it back to them.

Re:Six, count 'em six....

[bradleyland]

I've got the same crap, and I've used the built in "update" feature every time. This needs some priority. An update function should be a lot more tidy, even if it does run the full installer. Most refined products that are available in version releases check for previous installs and ask you how to handle the upgrade.

The current update feature is a misnomer. All it does is download the latest installer and run it for you. And it doesn't even do a very good job at that. E.g. doesn't kill existing firefox process, dumps installer in your default download location and leaves in there, etc.

FireCrap 1.02

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats guys, don't work too hard on closing up those exploits... the 3 little bugs you fixed only took a few weeks. When FireFox can run Javascript without crashing, hanging, and just plain crapping out while I'm surfing, sure, I'll use it. Til then, its good old Mozilla for me!
_________________________________________
"O ld school is the only school."

How long does it take...

[Insipid Trunculance]

to upgrade using the auto update.Mine has been installing over the last 10 mins on a 512 connection.

Whoops

[Insipid Trunculance]

An own goal there.I just realized that Firefox couldnt auto-update because i had my firewall grant it only outbound access.

Re:1.0x browser crashes. -- mod original poster up

[Travis Fisher]

Someone really should mod this original poster up -- it isn't offtopic at all! The story is about an upgrade to Firefox to cure some security-related crash issues. The poster is experiencing other crash issues. (And remember that any crash has a good chance of being a security issue).

Mozilla wheel-reinvention

[metamatic]

Well, it's the same old problem Mozilla/Netscape has always had--insistence on reinventing the wheel.(*)

Any decent OS has a standard mechanism for software updates. The smart thing would be to use it. But no, Mozilla have to invent their own non-standard update mechanism for their applications.

And of course, it doesn't work on Windows, Linux or OS X, as I never run Firefox under an administrative ID, for reasons which should be painfully obvious.

I mean, come on people, if you must reinvent the wheel, try not to reinvent a square one.

(*) Examples: Ignoring HTML 3.0 in favor of proprietary tags to do the same things, ignoring CSS in favor of JavaScript-based style sheets, ignoring native widgets in favor of building an entire widget rendering system, ...

Another Solution

[bored_lurker]

I use the privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins solution at work but it is a bit cruder. An even more elegent way to fix the problem is to cut of the offending !#^@ popup providers. What I did was to send the following 2 domains dev null at my router - fastclick.net and tribalfusion.com. This too solves the problem and will not break any legitamate plugin popups. So far I have not seen any other offending websites but they do seem to be taking over the world.

Firefox should have an autoupdate feature.

[Orion Blastar]

I am getting tired of downloading updates and installing them. Hopefully nothing will go wrong this time. Last time 1.01 died and I had to go back to 1.0 to avoid BSODs and profiles and extensions that no longer worked.

It would be nice if the update part is fixed to make upgrading a lot smoother.

Using Camino instead of Firefox in OS X

[espek]

Personally, I prefer Safari in OS X, but on my work computer I can't use Safari because of some f'up Proxy reason. So I have to use non-Safari browsers to get through the proxy and firewall.

I was using Firefox, but recently switched to Camino after seeing a post on Slash. I think Camino uses a lot / most of the stuff developed for Firefox. Not really sure what the difference is, but if anybody knows the finer points between Camino and Firefox, please educate me.

Camino is REALLY fast, and uses a lot less system resources on OS X than Firefox. But the best way I can describe Camino is that it's Firefox optimized for OS X. Camino has a better look and feel in OS X than Firefox. Don't be put of by 0.8 release, it's solid. I encourage all OS X people using Firefox to try Camino.

One thing I don't like is the name....I can't get the ugly station wagon with the rally wheels out of my head.

wtf

[gothzilla]

Within 15 minutes of installing 1.0.2 I had 3 crashes. 0.9 was stable as hell. 1.0 crashed sometimes. With every new version the crash level increases. Believe it or not, but one crash today was so bad I had to restart my pc and I had 3 instances of firefox that I couldn't kill. How did I have 3 instances when I only launched it twice? I don't know. How do you make a program worse with every release?

Can we get off the firefox bandwagon now, since it's proven itself to be no better than IE and certainly not better than mozilla or netscape? Yeah it's got more toys than the other browsers but I could care less if it crashes constantly.

Huh

[antizeus]

That's funny, Firefox crashes so inrequently on me that I don't remember the last time it happened. Also, it just took three seconds to load (not ten) on a machine that has half the memory and clock speed as what you describe.

Of course, I'm using it with an OS that's not a total piece of shit, so your mileage may vary.

Re:Uninstall first please

[Ark42]

Actually now Windows 2000 and Windows XP forces programmers to store user data in either the Application Data folder or HKEY_CURRENT_USER registry key, instead of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE or the applications own directory, if you expect the program to be able to run under a limited user account. What this means is that if you install a program as User A, then run it as User B (and C, D, E, etc) then go uninstall the program as User A, the uninstaller CANNOT possibly in any way access user B's HKEY_CURRENT_USER registry area, and data is left behind.
It is now standard and recommended practice according to Microsoft to orphan user specific data that the uninstaller cannot reach. Only HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE keys are deleted at uninstall time. Many Microsoft programs as well as 3rd party programs will do this exact thing.

what's so 'auto' about it?

[drew]

all it does is download the installer for the new version. how is that an 'autoupdate'?

How about these?

[hawk]

Hmm, looking at how those were done, I set the filter to "middle" and finally found "middlemouse.openNewWindow" to set to false, which could make firefox actually usable to me.

And I was also going to ask about a setting to make the space and pageup/down keys live by default on a new page rather than needing a click, but that seems to be the case in firefox (it's drifted out of mozilla, though).

Ahh, but there's still one left to ask:

In the last few weeks, ^K, ^D, and ^U stopped working in the url line and in text entry fields. Is there a setting to turn them back on? Firefox seems to be similarly disabled . . .

And for some reason, it doesn't seem to successfully talk to junkbuster, with identical proxy settings to mozilla . . .

hawk

BIAS?!?

[freeweed]

WHAT?

Slashdot has a pro-OSS bias???

When did this happen? Why wasn't I informed?? Damnit, I'm handing in my UID PRONTO!

Now I know why you want to filter comments with "In Other News..."

"Slashdot has a pro-OSS bias. In other news, water is wet, the Sun rises in the east, and Microsoft-funded studies show that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux or Solaris."

Re:Uninstall first please

[UltimateRobotLover]

Aah! A veil has been lifted! :)

In that case, it'd be nice to have an equivalent to Add/Remove Programs for each user's personal profiles so we can easily clean out our unwanted configuration information. (Not that I'd want to do that for FireFox!)

is there one critical hole? that is the question

[free2]

Wether there is one known critical hole is the real question.
For example, "allowing cookies to be sent between subdomains of the same domain" is one of the Firefox minor holes that could be a feature (considering Yahoo Mail and others need that feature).

Mozilla Security Bugs Policy

[jonasj]

Yes, by mailing security@mozilla.org. Read http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/security- bugs-policy.html.

They done good

[doombob]

Whatever they did in this update was able to fix my problem. My Firefox kept freezing everytime I tried to move the mouse and would stay frozen for about 10 seconds. It was a problem at least a dozen people in message boards were having but it appeared to not have the same cause in all systems. Anyway, Firefox works now! Thanks Mozilla team!

OSS rant!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Some of the moderators are engaging in censorship:

I posted that open-source software isn't "polished" or "finished". Does even Apache have a decent full feature GUI that can handle SSL, virtual hosting, etc? Aren't there still security holes 33 versions into the 1.xx series? Doesn't getting a printer or any novel hardware working or even to see if it is supported involve reading wikis (and all the garbage/wrong/missing/irrelevent info in them), incomplete docs, mailing list archives and a lot of good luck, blood, sweat and tears? I.E. it doesn't work until you plow throug h all of the above and MAKE it work by hacking config files and still end up with either a non or low functional product, and get told if you see anything wrong and even make constructive criticism, you are told to WRITE THE CODE YOURSELF. As if user testing and usage was useless and only programmers should talk.

We need to clean things up in the Opern Source world, girls and boys.

There is a lot good, but a lot that needs fixing.

How about eliminating WONTFIX as an option in BugZilla? Would you tell your employer you "WONT FIX" a bug? I sure wouldn't!

Still many entries in Install/Uninstall Programs

[MaDeR]

Thats tell all, eh? http://mader.no-ip.org/_graph/other/ff102.png Bugzilla: bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=247884 (copy & paste, note date of entry) Resume: Nice browser with fucked up installer/updater. Waaaay to go, Firefox developers!!!!! And I bet that same people whom fucked up installer, will cries if IE7 recap market share...