Firefox 1.05 Released

Zebbie writes "The Mozilla Foundation released Firefox 1.05 today. The release notes indicate that there have been some 'security fixes' and 'improvements to stability.' From the web site: 'Firefox 1.0.5 is a security update that is part of our ongoing program to provide a safe Internet experience for our customers. We recommend that all users upgrade to this latest version.' It is interesting that these security updates are not yet posted on the security advisories page."

Comments

I beg to differ.

[RexDart]

Just checked the page, and they do seem to be listed now.

Re:I beg to differ.

[An1mus]

Posting it to slashdot may have had something to do with that - The firefox team seem to be fairly aware of the world around them and what it might think of firefox...

Re:I beg to differ.

[yomahz]

I beg to differ

Permission to beg granted. Start differing.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[rincebrain]

I beg to differ. Deer Park is far faster and more stable than previous versions.

Go try that instead of the 1.0 series if you have complaints about speed.

here's the link

[weighn]

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-1.0.5 &os=win&lang=en-US

Re:here's the link

[Anonymous Coward]

os=win

Or try the OS-agnostic link.

Re:here's the link

[Acts of Attrition]

why, you're not running windows?

You should really consider downgrading to it.

Re:here's the link

[the way, what're you]

os=win

Or try the OS-agnostic link

http://

Or try the protocol-agnostic link.

Re:here's the link

[DrSkwid]

where agnostic means Win / Linux / Mac OS X

Re:here's the link

[DrSkwid]

AND the only version that is 1.0.5 on that page is the US EN version

Anybody else experience

[sanmarcos]

Anybody experience the huge memory usage when opening a few big images?.

Firefox should focus on improving the bookmark manager, the preferences, and polishing up the UI, but not forget about the most important things, speed and stability that is.

It started as a lightweight mozilla, but it consumes just as a big chunk of memory as Mozilla does.

Today, Firefox is the only serious competition to IE, (I see a lot of people using FF, even non geeks). Also, remember that another of Firefox key features is security. Lets hope that IE7s new features (that are similar to the ones FF always had, tabs, search box, etc), dont take away market share from FF.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Sark666]

Yes, I hope IE7 doesn't take back this market share, but really I don't know wtf microsoft was doing all this time. They could have easily released a version of IE with a hacked in tabbed browser and stop js popups by default. Even with the current security issues a lot would have probably stayed.

It's not like your going to get them to switch with 'Look! It's open source and standards compliant!'

Re:Anybody else experience

[Demona]

Firefox for Win32 is incredibly stable and fast, only crashing perhaps once every few weeks if not months, and usually only when using video plugins. Under Slackware Linux 9.1, Firefox has been sucking worse and worse ever since it was called Firebird 0.6, to the point now where it runs for LESS THAN ONE HOUR before slowing to a stop and sucking up 100% CPU, requiring a restart. This is not a Slackware problem - a friend of mine with an identical Slack 9.1 setup has never had any problems like this with Firefox. This is not a Linux problem - no other application on the system does anything like this. This problem is still present even after upgrading all Mozilla libraries on the system, and it is incredibly frustrating for my Linux browser to suck so badly that it makes me feel like I'm using Windows. Unfortunately, at this time all the alternative browsers for Linux do not meet my needs. None of the numerous developers I've discussed this with appear to have any idea what the problem could be, despite my providing numerous GDB backtraces. I am currently considering running Firefox for Win32 under WINE. Yes, it's that bad.

Re:Anybody else experience

[eclectro]

Lets hope that IE7s new features (that are similar to the ones FF always had, tabs, search box, etc), dont take away market share from FF.

Actually a new IE "feature" usually means a "new hole to exploit".

So I am optimistic that FF will be able to continue to gain market share.

Re:Anybody else experience

[superpulpsicle]

My preference is still firefox way over IE. But the 100% CPU usage on so many websites is brutal on your hardware. You can't even leave your browsers open for a long period of time.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Igottapoop]

I've found that it's mainly Flash that makes Firefox eat up the cpu. Try running flashblock and see if it clears up your issue.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Slowping]

Hmmm which firefox versions are you using?

I have three computers (all Linux) which has firefox as their browser. Two desktops and one laptop. All three of them run cpufreqd.

My two desktops stay up for months on end. Thanks to tabbed browsing, I leave just one browser window open and use it for everything. I've had firefox stay up for as long as the machine, without problem.

For all three computers, I comfortably browse a various collection of websites, including many which have flash or java. None of the machines are taxed enough to force cpufreq into the gigahertz range.

You sound like you know what you're doing, so I won't question the poor behaviour you're seeing. Maybe you're browsing multi-lingual websites? Multibyte fonts killing the browser? Maybe a bad plugin or extension? I'm not sure what the problem might be or what to suggest if you've already talked to the developers.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Progoth]

If you're using tabbrowser extensions, don't. I did for a long time and finally figured out that it was making firefox suck. I now use Sessionsaver and MiniT (to drag tabs around)

Re:Anybody else experience

[Demona]

As I said, this has been with every version since Firebird 0.6, increasingly worse up to and including the new Deer Park alphas. I should also note that creating a new profile from scratch did result in one improvement -- now it generally crashes quickly instead of hanging on at death's door for days at a time sucking all my CPU. Of additional note is that this problem continues even when I do not have Flash installed, with ALL plugins and extensions disabled, AND with both Java and Javascript disabled. How's that for a boot to the head?

Re:Anybody else experience

[slashdot_commentator]

excuse the question, but what on earth are you doing still running Slackware 9.1? If the 2.4 kernel is under version 25, its probably either a horrible memory leaker, or has kernel security issues.

Note I am not saying your firefox problem is directly related to the kernel. I still use mozilla on Slackware, and have not been experiencing the problems you claim to experience.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Slackware Linux 9.1, Firefox has been sucking worse and worse ever since it was called Firebird 0.6, to the point now where it runs for LESS THAN ONE HOUR before slowing to a stop and sucking up 100% CPU, requiring a restart. This is not a Slackware problem - a friend of mine with an identical Slack 9.1 setup has never had any problems like this with Firefox.

Since you're a Slackware user, I don't feel wrong in telling you to try compiling your own copy. I'm running Slackware 9.1 over here with a personal compile of FF 1.0.4 (I'm about to pull the 1.0.5 patch off of CVS). My uptime is great with the browser, with the only problems resulting from the Java plugin. It's slightly slower than Windows XP w/ FF, but it doesn't exhibit the CPU loads you're describing.

I should probably tell you I've pretty much replaced all the core libraries in my system with my own compiled ones. But don't listen to me, I'm a masochist!

Re:Anybody else experience

[kavin]

Also, remember that another of Firefox key features is security.

A comparison of unpatched known vulnerabilities[1] in latest public version browsers (by securityfocus), ranks firefox as 8/9th:

Browser: Number of known vulnerabilities

1. Konqueror: 0
2. Opera: 0
3. Safari: 0
4. Netscape Browser: 1
5. Camino: 1
6. OmniWeb: 1
7. Internet Explorer for Mac: 1
8. Mozilla: 2
9. Mozilla Firefox: 2
10. ...

so although they are making security a priority, it looks like they're not a "key" leader.

- p

--

1. Comparison of web browsers

Re:Anybody else experience

[Homology]

I've noticed that JavaScript enabled will cause Firefox to continously use 100% CPU and be unresponsive. One fix is to disable JavaScript and only enable it when needed. The culprit is ads served via JavaScript from kontera.com, so I just blackholed kontera.com.

Re:Anybody else experience

[G-Licious!]

The next version of Gator will be the first in the market to sport compatibility with all the new Internet Explorer 7 features, for even more desktop interoperability!

Re:Anybody else experience

[tod_miller]

Firefox has a long standing memory leak flaw. Is isn't the bext pr0n browser, since you shoudl restart is periodically.

I wonder if they fixed css handling on 'save page as' (I doubt it) or if this release will break all my plugins and niceties. (they don't mention) :-(

Firefox wins on security because of philosophy, that is, educate the user, and empower. Microsoft says use 'run executable' if they are signed.

And activeX. And the fact that IE is still closer to the OS, and thus more of a hole.

Re:Anybody else experience

[ultimaga]

I installed an extension once (on Win32) that caused the firefox.exe executable to hand every time I closed the last browser window. As a result, Starting a new copy of Firefox seemed to have absolutely no effect.

Moral: Try running Firefox in Safe Mode before you conclude something's wrong with the browser itself.

Re:Anybody else experience

[darkonc]

Try creating a new user (or even just a new profile) and see if that helps. It might be someting in your user config that's breaking things.

Re:Anybody else experience

[MoogMan]

Additionally, temporarily browser lockups when loading huge web pages. Its quite annoying when you have a couple of tabs open, because it effectively disables your browser until it has downloaded.

Re:Anybody else experience

[yomahz]

so although they are making security a priority, it looks like they're not a "key" leader.

Your inference that security focus listing several browsers with 0 known security holes makes them secure, is erroneous. I'm sure we'd see a flaw or two with some of the other browsers if they were enjoying the recent surge in popularity and attention that firefox is enjoying.

Oh, and your reference URL shows firefox at 0 vulnerabilities now. And Safari now has 1.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox has a long standing memory leak flaw. Is isn't the bext pr0n browser, since you shoudl restart is periodically.

I don't know about you, but I tend to browse porn "periodically" too. As in, sessions tend to last less than 24 hours, and then I have time to restart the browser before I feel the need again...

Re:Anybody else experience

[smagruder]

Firefox should focus on improving the bookmark manager, the preferences, and polishing up the UI, but not forget about the most important things, speed and stability that is.

I'll add fixing the display issues in Print Preview, which I'm amazed were there in v1.0 and have continued through 1.04 (I haven't downloaded 1.05 yet). And I agree, that bookmark manager needs a *lot* of work.

Re:Anybody else experience

[Hugh Lilly]

It's not like your going to get them to switch with 'Look! It's open source and standards compliant!'

How about "Look, it doesn't freeze every twenty seconds, it does FTP properly, you can open more than one website in the same window, and did I mention how it doesn't freeze every twenty seconds??" :-)

why 'automatic upgrade' not working?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I expected to see a red arrow for 'upgrade available'. Then went to Tools->Options->Advanced->Sofware Upgrade->Check now, still nothing!!

Re:why 'automatic upgrade' not working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla always delays the automatic updates for a while to spare their servers the sudden mass downloading.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried Deer Park alpha 2 and it seems it has the same problem that Firefox has with large images that areresized on the fly (like on imageshack). When scrolling and viewing a resized image it stutters like hell.

Firefox also seems to have problems with stuttering when it comes to rendering web pages that have a large static background image.

ok, then

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is this?

Taken in Deer Park Alpha 2, default theme.

Re:ok, then

[PenGun]

That's 'colors' hidden there for you Mac guys.My x86-64 build of Deer Park Alpha 1 rocks. Stable and very fast. The best Firefox so far IMNSHO.

PenGun
Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Re:ok, then

[rincebrain]

Suggesting you submit a patch for that, then. :P

fonts and other prettyness, it's all slow

[green pizza]

The GTK2 version of Firefox consumes even more memory. Between xft/pango and increased load on the system's xserver, there's a lot going on and a lot of RAM and CPU being consumed.

There's always the option of building a faster but slightly uglier GTK1 version, but then you start to get hung up on the performance limitations and RAM usage issues of the Gecko rendering engine itself.

Mozilla/Firefox is slow, even today. Buy more RAM and a faster hardware, I guess.

Yeah, flash...

[shmlco]

I've noticed that 100% cpu usage usually occurs when a page somewhere has a Flash rich-media ad running. With no way to "stop" flash from running on such a page, I've found that installing flash-block and/or ad-block fixes the problem.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[learn fast]

I can vouch for that. The current version is much faster than earlier versions were for the Mac. Still not quite as fast as Safari, but somewhat less of a resource hog and I prefer its feature set.

FF Performance on Linux

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Has anyone else noticed how SLOW Firefox is on Linux?

On Win32, on my Athlon 64 3200+ system, Firefox takes about a second and a half to render a 1000-comment Slashdot page (IE takes about half a second, interestingly - Trident seems to be very good with nested tables).

On the same box, under Ubuntu Linux (and Fedora as well), Firefox takes over NINE SECONDS of 100% CPU to render the page. Konqueror, in comparison, takes under two seconds.

What's wrong here? Why is Firefox on Windows nearly six times faster than it is on Linux?

No one at the LUG seems to believe me until I *show them* the difference - and demonstrate it on *their* system to show that it's not a config problem.

Try it yourself.

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[Chrax]

Yes, it seems Firefox is slower on Linux to me as well. I'm not sure why that might be. Perhaps Windows has a more consistent API? I really don't know, and though it usually doesn't take very long (i.e. most pages aren't so long as to require a lot of work) I do hope they fix that eventually.

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[cerebis]

I use Win32 and Linux side by side every day, and have not noticed any speed difference between the two build targets. I regularly browse Slashdot and don't see render times like you're experiencing, and I am a fairly impatient guy when it comes to waiting for computers.

I cannot speak of the difference between IE6 and FF since I so rarely run IE.

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

No problems here using Debian Sarge and Firefox 1.0.4 from APT on a Athlon 2000+ (Thorton core).

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you have just become used to the slowness of FF.

I am a web-developer. I keep several browsers running all day including IE, FF, Opera, Safari, and Konq on my machines, and FF is the only one which crashes regularly (thats pure FF no extensions).

FF is also the most resource intensive, usually over 100MB when every other browser is at around 30MB.

That said, when it comes to JS intensive pages, FF is the fastest. For everything else, it just sucks.

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[Ma�djeurtam]

Firefox takes about a second and a half to render a 1000-comment Slashdot page

Off-topic, I know, but you'll get my eternal respect and I'll mark you as an official ./ friend if you tell me how you manage to display 1000 comments on one single slashdot page.

My user page says:
Comment Limit (only display this many comments, for best results, set this to a low number and sort by score) If set above 100, then it is ignored and 50 is used instead.

I just _hate_ the way ./ limits the number of comments on one page: the actual page 2 after I read the comments on page 1 is usually very different from the page 2 I want to see, due to the hundreds of comments submitted in between.
It also annoys me when, like now, I'm stuck on expensive dialup in an hotel room and have to establish a new connection just to read the rest of the messages.

Re:FF Performance on Linux

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

I believe that the comment limit only applies to first-level comments, not replies. In articles with 1000+ comments, the number of replies at 4+ is substantial (I show everything 4+), so you can get a substantial number of comments on a page (in nested tables, none the less).

It's not 1000 comments on one page, of course. But it is enough to fring FF on Linux to its knees.

FF/Windows does OK, and, interestingly, Trident seems to chew threw nested tables.

Where is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough there is no source directory under: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rel eases/1.0.5/

Re:Where is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is. Look again.

Disable IPv6

[Rafikichi]

Goto about:config in Firefox. Set this string to true: network.dns.disableIPv6 I don't know why, but having IPv6 enabled slows down the broswer incredibly in Linux... but not on Windows. Turn it off and Firefox loads pages like the rest of 'em.

Re:Disable IPv6

[marcovje]

IIRC it has to do with DNS hosts that don't answer at all (or correctly) to IPV6 DNS requests. Some bad home routers also are said to be a possible cause

(From https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68796 )

When IPv6 is enabled on the client machine, mozilla does a AAAA lookup first,
and if there is none, does a lookup for the A record. Correct response for a
name server if there is no AAAA record (but the domain exists) is to return
NOERROR, with an empty reply. The BBC server returned NXDOMAIN (which was
incorrect), and mozilla exhibited correct behaviour by assuming that the domain
did not exist.

See also
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23160 7

Re:Disable IPv6

[The Wicked Priest]

To elaborate on this, the IPv6 thing isn't a problem in all distros, but it was (for me) in Ubuntu -- the first distro I've used where IPv6 was enabled by default. I disabled it and everything works better.

Disabling it just in Firefox was good enough for the browser, until I got a local DNS running on the same system, at which point it reverted to the slow lookups, until I disabled IPv6 system-wide.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[sabat]

I cannot live without Adblock. If Safari only supported an extension like that -- oh, and Googlebar and Yahoo's bar -- then I'd probably switch.

The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[fluor2]

1. Why do they still release just complete versions? I want an update to distribute to all our clients. Mozilla products are update hell.

2. Why do they still insist on supporting many profiles per user? If I would like multiple profiles, then I would also create multiple users on my Windows.

3. Why are profile paths so strange? The mozilla creates something like ...\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.21a. That's hilarious.

4. Why do they use Application data folder for cache? It's making the users' profile LARGE! They should use ...\Local Settings\ like internet explorer! (local settings belong to the machine, thus they do not roam like the application data folder)

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[The Wicked Priest]

3 (weird paths) is IMHO mainly because of 2 (multiple profiles per user).

I am not sure the purpose of 2... I'd call it a relic from userless systems like Win 9x, but in fact even that can be set up with (weakly separated) users; so I dunno. I've never used the feature myself.

4. Perhaps allowing roaming (for bookmarks, etc.) is exactly why Application Data was chosen over Local Settings.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[zebs]

1. Why do they still release just complete versions? I want an update to distribute to all our clients. Mozilla products are update hell.

Scheduled to be fixed in Firefox 1.1

2. Why do they still insist on supporting many profiles per user? If I would like multiple profiles, then I would also create multiple users on my Windows.

Because it can be usefull to some people.

3. Why are profile paths so strange? The mozilla creates something like ...\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.21a. That's hilarious. Seems pretty reasonable to me!

4. Why do they use Application data folder for cache? It's making the users' profile LARGE! They should use ...\Local Settings\ like internet explorer! (local settings belong to the machine, thus they do not roam like the application data folder)

Yeah that should be fixed! Although you can change the folder location manually.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Richard_J_N]

On Linux, multiple profile support is a bug, plain and simple. I'd love to disable it globally. The problem occurs when you try to open a second instance of the program, (because another one is running, or maybe has a lock still open due to a crash/os-crash, or power failure), and are invited to create another profile. This causes real trouble for non technical users.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[koreaman]

IIRC there is a .mozconfig option that fixes this. Did you compile it yourself, or are you using an official build?

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Richard_J_N]

That's useful to know. I'm using the official build. (from Mandrake)

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Anonymous Coward]

'"3. Why are profile paths so strange? The mozilla creates something like ...\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.21a." That's hilarious. Seems pretty reasonable to me!'

Yep, pretty reasonable...to a geek. Not to a non-technical end-user. You might consider these points:

1. Most people don't use the word "default". If they use it at all, it would be in the legal sense , as in "to default on a contract". They don't use it as a noun, as in IT. Therefore, a folder name with default in it looks off-putting, firstly because it's based on a verb when they'd expect a noun and secondly because it's based on a negative thing: defaulting on contracts is bad.

2. The construct (root word).(number)(qualifying letter) isn't used much, if at all in normal English, so looks strange to most people. Change the dot to a space and it looks a little more familiar. A trivial thing, but enough to cause a sense of wierdness and unease. Having to qualify the number with a letter looks unecessary. Why not 22 instead of 21a? Is 22 unlucky or something :) OK, so it's probably a hex number not a qualified number, but they don't know that; and anyway, what's a hex number mean to a non-IT person?

Any use of technical terms, inhuman punctuation, and specialised counting-systems in names makes them less usable by normal people.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[heffrey]

They should put the user stuff (like bookmarks) in App Data but the cache has to go in Local Settings. No argument.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Kidbro]

>>> 3. Why are profile paths so strange? The mozilla creates something like ...\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.21a. That's hilarious.

>> Seems pretty reasonable to me!

> Yep, pretty reasonable...to a geek. Not to a non-technical end-user.

Application Data is a hidden folder. Non-technical end-users never look at it. Hell, they shouldn't even know it exists.
All your points are moot.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Anonymous Coward]

"4. Why do they use Application data folder for cache? It's making the users' profile LARGE! They should use ...\Local Settings\ like internet explorer! (local settings belong to the machine, thus they do not roam like the application data folder)"

Precisely why they do it... Local Settings belong to the machine not to the user. Now if the local settings folder was used, then anyone that uses that computer would have access to the cached files, cookies, etc. Not a very good thing if you are trying to keep the computer in a secure environment.

Now the next thing: is what if multiple people don't use this computer.... well tough luck

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Dahan]

Now if the local settings folder was used, then anyone that uses that computer would have access to the cached files, cookies, etc.

No, the NTFS permissions on the %USERPROFILE% directory (i.e., ...\Documents and Settings\SomeUser) default to full control for Administrators, SYSTEM, and the user, nothing for anyone else. "Local Settings" belong to the user on that machine, not all users on that machine.

And if you're running Windows with %USERPROFILE% on a FAT filesystem, you're quite obviously not "trying to keep the computer in a secure environment."

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-technical or not, Firefox installation instructions point users to that folder if they want to save their profile before doing an install. Foldernames like t7ib0qq5.default are offputting.

Re:The annoyances of Mozilla products (Windows)

[JadeNB]

2. Why do they still insist on supporting many profiles per user? If I would like multiple profiles, then I would also create multiple users on my Windows.

You must be joking. How about instead I ask:

Why does Windows insist on supporting multiple users? All I need is extra profiles in Firefox.

Nobody stops you from using one profile if you like. I'm very happy on my system, which has one user (plus an administrative account) and multiple profiles (for myself and my wife, who likes a different setup). I could also use new profiles to test extensions that I'm afraid might conflict with existing ones, to allow me to choose between a high-security browsing session (NoScript, GreaseMonkey, Flashblock &c.) and a convenient one (where I don't have to do lots of right-clicking to make sure a Flash- or Java-heavy site works as it's supposed to), and so son.

Why intentionally disable this functionality for me? As to the paths, as has already been mentioned, they're so that the path to your profile can't be easily guessed; and, if you don't like these paths, then you can put them wherever you want.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[The Wicked Priest]

Try PithHelmet for ad-blocking in Safari, although I'm not sure if it's as flexible or capable as Adblock. (I still use Firefox rather than Safari, for other extensions and for a slight advantage in speed on my Mini.)

Firefox 1.0.5 and NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 1.0.5 contains a bug fix to CAPS (Configurable Access Policies), finally removing crashes reported by users of the NoScript extension. This should make Firefox even safer: NoScript's "whitelist based pre-emptive script blocking approach prevents exploitation of security vulnerabilities (known and even not known yet!) with no loss of functionality" - http://www.noscript.net/

Profile paths are strange because...

[argent]

... they're there to prevent a path-guessing attack like the ones used to fake out the security zones in Internet Explorer.

Gecko in Firefox not inherently safe... try KHTML?

[argent]

Looks like the way the Javascript extensions for Chrome are integrated into Firefox are there in all the JS interpreter instances or contexts, they're just privileged. If the script is expected to be run from an untrusted environment, it's run at a lower privilege level.

In an inherently safe model, the interpreter wouldn't contain any mechanism to request unsafe actions... they'd simply be syntax errors. They would only be added explicitly when the script was known to be running from a safe environment.

Same with URI handlers: they would only be available from a reference within a safe environment.

As I understand it, KHTML is an inherently safe design. Extensions have to be explicitly loaded into an instance of the HTML display object through I/O slaves. Gecko, apparently, isn't... at least not in a broser that uses Chrome for its user interface. It's better than the Microsoft HTML control, but it's not an inherently secure design as it sounded like originally.

What are the options for a KHTML-based browser for Windows? On the Mac, of course, Safari is secure (so long as you turn off "open safe files after downloading"), but I haven't been following WIndows browsers that closely.

Did you say that right?

[tod_miller]

First - Firefox is stable and works a dream, I would heartily recommend it, geeks read on:

This is not a Slackware problem - a friend of mine with an identical Slack 9.1 setup has never had any problems like this with Firefox.

If you can prove that Firefox works on your other friends Slackware, then as well as saying there is nor underlying fault with slackware, it also says there is no underlying fault with Firefox (in that equation).

So the factor would seem to be your own system setup.

I had some rough times with FF (nothing scarey!), going back to latest stable cured lots of stuff. 1.0.5 should be nice, don't ever install Deer Park or another coded version release, thinking it will be fun to try things out, because it is not, for one, all plugins automagically break and spazz out.

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[Jondaley]

You mean like this?

http://toolbar.google.com/firefox/

Re:Why bother with a Mac version?

[Jondaley]

oops. You were asking for safari. sorry.

Or use a custom css sheet for safari

[bach37]

Mozilla adblock css works with Safari. Go to safari's advanced tab, and choose the .css file. No ads.

your a

[Anonymous Coward]

moran

Right

[Safety Cap]

Just like how the most popular web server (Apache) has way more vulnerabilities than the less-popular one (like IIS).

Oh wait, it doesn't. So much for that theory.

Re:Right

[yomahz]

Stop and read it again. Nowhere did my comment say that they would have move vulnerabilities than mozilla. It simply said that they would probably have more than 0.

So much for reading comprehension.

Tabbed browsing and mouse gestures

[drange_net]

I like the idea of a light weight browser, but I thing that Mozilla should think about making tabbed browsing default. I see a lot of Opera users not changing to Firefox because of all the extensions needed.

Tabbed browsing is the future in browsing, and Mozilla should think about that.

zip'ed Windows version of 1.0.5

[jvj24601]

If anyone is looking for the zip'ed Windows version of 1.0.5, it's available here.

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/2005-07-11-18-aviary1.0.1/

Do the release notes contradict themselves?

[Tyrathect]

They say both this,

"Prior to installing Firefox 1.0.5, please ensure that the directory you've chosen to install into is clean and doesn't contain any previous Firefox installations."

and this,

"When upgrading, all your Extensions and Themes will be disabled. This is not an issue, but it may appear to be one (hence its listing here). For rationale, see "Extension and Themes" above."

Surely that's a contradiction. If you install into a new directory then you aren't going to get your old extentions.

Re:Do the release notes contradict themselves?

[JadeNB]

Surely that's a contradiction. If you install into a new directory then you aren't going to get your old extentions.

Your extensions and themes are in your profile directory, not your install directory.