Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
It's only an insult if it's not true.
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.
What the hell is this?
Taken in Deer Park Alpha 2, default theme.
Mozilla always delays the automatic updates for a while to spare their servers the sudden mass downloading.
You should really consider downgrading to it.
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.
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.
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.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
1. Why do they still release just complete versions? I want an update to distribute to all our clients. Mozilla products are update hell.
...\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default.21a. That's hilarious.
...\Local Settings\ like internet explorer! (local settings belong to the machine, thus they do not roam like the application data folder)
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
4. Why do they use Application data folder for cache? It's making the users' profile LARGE! They should use
... they're there to prevent a path-guessing attack like the ones used to fake out the security zones in Internet Explorer.
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.
Mozilla adblock css works with Safari. Go to safari's advanced tab, and choose the .css file. No ads.