Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Releases Firefox Toolbar Beta
eWarz writes "Following Google's footsteps, Yahoo has released a beta version of it's toolbar for Firefox. The new toolbar is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I read the headline to this article and I just couldn't figure out what a Firefox toolbar was, let alone why Yahoo would release one.
Perhaps a better headline would be "Yahoo toolbar beta for Firefox"
I thought so too. While it's neat that a big company like Yahoo! is developing for firefox on several platforms, why would anyone want the yahoo toolbar?
I mean, currently in Firefox, I have the FF Bookmark toolbar, the BioBar (a FF add-on for biomedical research; PDB, etc), and the google toolbar. Now they want me to add the Yahoo! toolbar?!?! Please!
Now, a Slashdot Toolbar could be pretty cool, on the other hand,... ;-)
And those of us using safari, still don't care. A yahoo toolbar will be a great idea when Yahoo becomes a worthwhile place to visit for something other than yahoogroups, internet poker, and webcam girls.
The Firefox extension system is cross-platform, or at least most of it is.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
> Nice way to steal my post.
If you hadn't posted AC, I would surely have given attribution. But as things stand, I don't see a point to your sarcasm.
The unofficial
how is this news? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/002920 4&tid=154&tid=95&tid=1
No kidding. Is it too much to ask the Editorial|Approval Board to make a simple check for it's and its before they post it to the public system?
They almost need to have a c/it's/its/ macro run by default and they'd be 100% correct. It seems practically every time it's appears in article text it's supposed to be its
You know, if programmers had feedback from compilers which merely said "Sorry, there are errors" and didn't tell them where they were or what they were, they'd be far more meticulous about their coding and would likely be more careful about their use of the English language as well. I think the only reason they're able to deal with the structure of code and not the written word is because they receive pretty explicit feedback regarding their errors from compilers.
It's why I said a long, long, long time ago: In this business, you don't have to be good, just good enough. It's why most software sucks and why a lot of things questionable programmers write (prose-wise) is of the same [dubious] quality.