Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 1.0.7 Released
hackajar writes "Firefox 1.0.7 has been released today. From the announcement "Fixes are included for the international domain name (IDN) link buffer overflow vulnerability and the Linux command line URL parsing flaw. There are also other security and stability changes, including a fix for a crash experienced when using certain Proxy Auto-Config scripts. In addition, some regressions introduced by previous 1.0.x security updates have been resolved.""
The british latest is still 1.0.6.
I can't understand why bugfixes, which wont change any of the text shown to the user (other than perhaps the version number), cannot be released for all locals at the same time.
Will middle-clicking to oplen a link in a new tab
ever show up in an official release for OSX? It's really retarded that I must rely on nightly betas in order to use this simple feature, in which case I can't use most of the plugins that made Firefox attractive to me in the first place. Very frustrating.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
I've had a problem with Firefox lately (starting around build 1.04, which may just be coincidental with a new malevolent popup technique being invented) on both my Windows and OSX boxes. Specifically, there are certain ads that cause Firefox to crash hard, and they aren't just bad ads from porn sites. I've occasionally gotten them on Blues News and NY Times for example.
In some cases, I'm lucky to get an exception and can restart Firefox. However, in most cases, the application freezes. On OSX, I get the swirling beach ball of death and have to manually force quit Firefox. On windows, I can usually close Firefox, but only the main window closes. I still have to manually kill the process before I can start a new instance.
Since then, I've moved on to 1.5 alpha and it while I don't believe I am currently experiencing those problems, 1.5 alpha has a whole new set of problems all its own.
My question is... have these ad related crashes been fixed (or am I the only experiencing them)? I'd like us to the most stable version possible, but when 1.5 alpha is better than the 1.0x builds, I'm left wondering what went wrong...
If this isn't resolved soon, I just might have to give AdBlock another shot. I'm trying to be a good netizen, but when you're ads kill my browser, you leave me with little choice!
Bryan
FWIW, there's no updated version of the Mozilla Suite, either - anyone who's using that is, well, stuck. I know that the Mozilla people want everyone to use Firefox, but this kind of "we don't care" attitude is just as arrogant as Microsoft's.
I'm seriously thinking about switching to Opera, myself. It's faster, it uses less memory, it's more standards-compliant, and now it's free, too - I honestly don't know what's keeping me, outside of laziness, maybe.
I hope some of the Mozilla people (Asa etc.) read this and think about it. Do you hear me? This kind of attitude will not convince Seamonkey users to switch to Firefox, it will convince them to switch to something else entirely because you're making it clear that you don't give a shit about them! You have a big problem, and it will come back to bite you sooner or later, so you'd better start working on it - or at least acknowledge that it exists.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
That's simply unacceptable. Whether the reason is good or bad, and I'm understanding of the bandwidth issue and the costs associated, we're leaving potentially millions of machines open to exploit. Hardly a claim to a more secure future.
I can't wait until 1.5 goes live and we can ditch this stupid unmodular system that we've been 'graced' with.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
but unless the security hole is being actively exploited, it's probably more important to make sure nothing else gets broken by the fix.
Enter the paradox: If the fix isn't released until a month, the security hole CAN and WILL be actively exploited.
In other words, is it worth to replace a critical bug (security) with a minor bug (annoyance)?
I noticed some of these too. Quite annoying. Instead of using Adblock or something similar, first try downloading a good hosts file for blocking ads. Info and links
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The worst that should ever happen is that you lose any new data (from this morning until now).
The really important data is usually kept inside databases that the user does not have rights to delete.
Wiping out your home directory is only "annoying" (unless you have an important meeting in a few minutes).
Infecting the system is "BAD" because then EVERYONE's data is vulnerable AND you cannot trust last night's backups. You must go back and find out when you were infected and, in some cases, recreate ALL of the data that was in those databases since that point.
Sure, the user might be pissed that his spreadsheet was deleted by the "cool screensaver" that he just tried to download AND he has a meeting with the division president in the next 15 minutes
but that don't mean jack when the CFO notices that none of the numbers match for the last 3 months anymore.It's not a "miracle cure" but it does protect the most important information the company has.
Ideally, the user's home directories will be set to non-execute so that crap they download won't destroy their data.
Even with both of those in place, I still get people who DELETE THEIR OWN FILES and need them restored from the night before.
Security is all about IDENTIFYING the risks and REDUCING them.
I can reduce the risks of everything else to a point below that of regular human stupidity. But nothing will ever save you from that.
Someone seriously needs to mod the parent UP. This is a very insightful observation about one of the fundamental, systemic problems with desktop OSes (Linux-based and otherwise).
The fact that it is possible for an application to be installed by any mechanism other than the official method provided by the desktop/OS, thus straying from all standard conventions defined by the desktop/OS, means it's too easy for users to screw up and break things. The fact that an application must come with its own installation executable just illustrates how the desktop/OS is failing to provide the services the application developers need.
The desktop/OS should require a software package to provide a data-based manifest of installation actions it needs (generally similar to Microsoft's MSI/Windows Installer technology, but without the notion of Custom Actions), and the desktop/OS should execute the installation. And that should be the ONLY way for anything to get installed onto the system (unlike the architecture of Windows, where standalone installers such as InstallShield can still bypass the central MSI/Windows Installer way of doing things).
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.