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.""
I've been running it for 3 minutes, and I must say... it's VERY stable. Probably more so than ever!
(please understand this is a joke)
...are here here.
Also, from the Mozillazine article, looks like Portable Firefox has been updated as well.
And I'm posting this with 1.0.7, good times...
The Army reading list
Slashdot subscription: $10.00.
Getting to download the next version of Firefox before the site gets Slashdotted: priceless !
That's perfectly fits with yesterday's news about Mozilla foundation being more reactive to security fixes than M$.
Of course. If they had both Automatic Update AND the normal download links active at once, it's just ASKING to have their servers smoked.
And yet again, users of localised build were left in the cold.
Think about your grandpa, who doesn't know english. He can't use non-translated build and is left with vulnerable, older version.
Good work, Firefox developers!
:wq
Download it now if you're impatient, or wait a day or two for it to appear in the browser updates, as usual.
The unix/linux bad-link problem allowing malicious URLs to run shell scripts is a bit nasty. Maybe Symantec wasn't entirely blowing smoke the other day with their warnings about Firefox not really being that much more secure than IE. The patches come out faster, but there sure are some nasty bugs in there yet.
The Firefox team waits for a few days to direct the auto-update feature to the latest version. It just has to do with managing server load. The article points out where you can get 1.0.7 now.
It's like saying it's "New and Improved".
Ok, I'm a geek and all, but this week I just installed 1.5 Beta 1 - so is it now vuln to this, whereas 1.0.7 is not? I understand branches, tags and such, but after awhile this could really confuse joe_user. Is anyone trying out the new Opera since it's now free? I've only tried the Win version, but darnit, it's very nice. Tonight I'll try it on Unbuntu, after updating FF to 1.0.7 of course (I don't run dev software at home, else I"ll hear about it crashing from my wife! ;))
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
It has, but, at the moment, it doesn't work instantly. In other words, you'll probably be notified of a new version tomorrow, or the day after.
Supposedly, 1.5 will be better in this respect, as it can update itself using small patches.
The Tlog - a technology blog
I've tried to hammer 1.0.7 and see if I could reproduce the same crashes that happened in 1.0.6 and this issue *seems* to be fixed. Also, upgraded to (ewww!) Flash Player 8. Seems to be an improvement as well. (I say this because the previous issue usually happened on sites with Flash)
Not to take either side on this I have to disagree with your the relavance of your argument. The web has changed drastically since IE was first made.
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.
wow, amazing what speeds I saw on that, over 1mbit which is pretty nice. Sure its not a super large file, but nice to see good speed when the server hasnt been /.'d
;-)
Now I wonder if my extensions will crash or act buggy...ah, well....the price was right
How wrong you are. The people that care are the ones who were constantly barraged with Mozilla fanboys telling them how much IE sucked and how much more secure Mozilla was. Now that the vulnerabilities are popping up in Firefox like hotcakes the fanboys look like fools. /Firefox fanboy
Yeah, well I downloaded 1.07 twice and install twice on my Mac Mini, crashes everytime you try to launch it. Must not of had any Mac's to test on.
Too many regressions caused by security updates, and people will turn off auto-update. That's the very reason that Microsoft moved to a monthly update cycle. Getting updates out quickly is important, but unless the security hole is being actively exploited, it's probably more important to make sure nothing else gets broken by the fix. If you convince people not to install updates, then you're in really big trouble.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Now will it stop using anywheres from 73,788 K to 253,000 K RAM? I thought Firefox was supposed to be small and efficient, but that's the ram usage reported by Task Manager.
C:\>
That is not a problem, it is a feature that has already been explained in this article. Hint: try going to http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-1.0.7 &os=win&lang=en-US
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."
You can't just fob it off with a blah blah yada yada...this is a serious issue, as Symantec pointed out in a report on Monday: http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39 152423,00.htm,
9 152480,00.htm.
although soon afterwards the pres of Mozilla europe retorted: http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,3
I don't work for silicon.com, that's just what my google search lead me to...that said, this symantec things been in my RSS feeds a lot recently...
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
1.0.7 or Beta 1..?
I guess 1.0.7 has more security fixs but beta has some nice new features... which to use?
I like muppets.
You have to download straight from the website. Mozilla delays the automatic updates for a day or so to decrease the likelihood of a /. effect.
I'm sorry, but I wish people would stop asking this question. This question has been asked for the past few updates.
Updates like you are looking for are not available for the 1.0.x branch. Patches will be available for the 1.5.x branch. For now, you have to download the entire browser and upgrade that way.
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." --Barry Goldwater
Manual updates are made available a while before automatic ones, I've heard this will be fixed with 1.1.
I am trolling
and now after the upgrade none of my extensions work. They are there but none of them are active.
From the trunk, every so often (less frequently in the last two years) branches are cut. These branches are the 1.x branches, and from them the stable releases are created. Currently we have the 1.7 branch as the long-lived stable-branch (MoFo is committed to keeping its builds from this branch updated with security fixes for a while yet, while not changing its functionality). Mozilla 1.7.11 and this release, Firefox 1.0.7, are made from this branch. Also expect upcoming Thunderbird 1.0.7 and Mozilla 1.7.12 releases.
The Aviary 1.0 branch is basically the same as the Mozilla 1.7 branch, but is referred to specifically when talking about Firefox and Thunderbird. (It's more a CVS branch tag than something you should know about.)
Then, only recently, the 1.8 branch was created. A number of must-fix bugs still present on this branch have been identified, and these are currently being worked on. Once that's all done, Firefox 1.5, Thunderbird 1.5 and SeaMonkey 1.0 (the successor to the Mozilla application suite) will be released from it.
Deer Park 1.5 Beta 1 and SeaMonkey 1.0 Alpha were releases from this newly formed 1.8 branch, to show what is being worked toward.
It's likely that version numbers of all products/projects will converge at 2.0 in 1-2 years - although this might come after Mozilla 1.7.11 or thereabouts, depending on the necessary functionality specified for Mozilla/Gecko 2.0 (so based on what the backend needs, not frontend functionality).
Of course, it's just as likely that this won't happen. I'd bet MoFo itself doesn't know yet. They're not all that good at planning ahead.
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
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/re
Mac OS X
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/re
Windows
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/re
As usual means you wait up to two weeks before an arrow shows up or if you decide to manually check for updates under Tools>Options>Advanced>Software Updates.
I like Firefox but being forced to wait days -- or longer -- for a security update is utterly pathetic. If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
That's because ms sucks. Get a clue.
err...
s/although this might come after Mozilla 1.7.11 or thereabouts/although this might come after Mozilla 1.11 or thereabouts/.
I am working to spread the firefox browser.
We all know that sex sells.
So try to look at this site http://www.thelovesearch.com/
using Microsoft Internet Explore.
It will try to convince your to use Firefox using sex appeal.
If we could convince all porn sites to only support Firefox the battle
would be won in a few weeks.
Or am I dreaming now ??
Is it any faster? Will it stop bringing my Dual G5 Powermac to its knees? Is it any less of a memory pig?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
One thing is still lacking: - Beauty. Firefox on Linux is still ugly as compared to its windows counterpart. When will they do something about this?
Ah. Mozilla has lept upon more discovered holes and promptly fixed them.
And somehow, these fixes make the browser all the less secure in the eyes of the big guys.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Yes, the one main problem I've always had with FF and the Mozilla suite before it was its horrid slowness. Especially on older hardware I usually find myself using something like links2 or konqueror(when in KDE) instead, unless they run into issues. 1.5b1 seems to have taken a step in improving this, but I still think it could get a bit better.
If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
True, two weeks is pretty long. Honestly, I don't know exactly how long before an update will appear, because as long as it appears in a reasonable amount of time I'm fine with it. You have the option to get the update faster. As far as I know, the purpose of the staggered update schedule is to reduce bandwidth strain, so not everyone is downloading the update at the same time. I don't see a major problem with that, especially since you have another option (download directly from their site).
Fear not!
There will be plenty of posts saying how much FireFox sucks.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Everytime there's a new Firefox release, legions of people incapable of reading other comments complain about this. The browser updates come a day or two after the official release. If you're impatient, download it manually.
feh. stuff.
I like Firefox but being forced to wait days -- or longer -- for a security update is utterly pathetic. If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
You're not forced to wait days. Just download the source, find the bugs, and fix them yourself. After all, isn't the lack of source code what you meant by IE being "a browser... that I can't patch"? It's not like Microsoft doesn't release updates for IE or anything.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Just after 1.1 gets fixed, since for now it is a bit crappy (yes, I know it is beta). I've experienced some hangups, sometimes the back key suddenly doesn't work. Plugins are hard to enable (flash) and hard to get rid off. Besides all that, it is questionable if the new features are enough for a +0.1 update.
So I'm glad that there is an additional +0.0.1 update, even if it is not yet updated automatically. Firefox is one of the nicest browsers out there, but there is still a bit of a way to go for a +0.1 release.
That's because ms sucks. Get a clue.
Microsoft actually is very capable of putting out a really nice product. They just dont have any reason to spend the extra time/money most of the time, because customers will still use/buy a lower quality product. Take Microsoft Office for example. On Windows, office crashes (somewhat frequently... not as often as older versions, but enough to be noticable).
Now look at Microsoft Office for Mac OS X. I have never experianced a crash, it works flawlessly with the windows version (minus encrypted file support), and looks a lot better. Thats because the average Mac user have gotten used to, and expect a better product than the average windows user. (No offense to windows users intended... I still use windows on one of my computers, I have just noticed that I get higher quality apps on my mac than PC)
When the pressure's on, Microsoft can put out a very good product.
Ughh - you are confusing cause and effect. The attackers are a bloody nuisance, but they do not cause the security problems in the code.
Oh well, what the hell...
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".
So you're saying that Firefox is string 750MB of data it got off the web?
Well, let's see, my DSL is quite fast, it is 6mbits/second actually (lucky me). That means that Firefox is storing the equivalent of 1,000 seconds or about 20 minutes of continuous downloading. For other people it could be easily double that.
Why doesn't that seem entirely correct to me? I'd know if I sat through 20 minutes total downloading.
BTW, IE doesn't soak up as much RAM, and it's pretty damn fast.
Firefox probably needs to look at more memory-efficient caching.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
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 can't wait until 1.5 goes live and we can ditch this stupid unmodular system that we've been 'graced' with.
I couldn't agree more. Hopefully that will also bring about improvements on the speed of updates getting out to people.
Then do what I do: don't use your distro's tools to install Firefox, use their Linux installer and install to a subdir in your user directory.
/home/mydir called firefox106. Last time I installed as root there so I had to remove the directory as root.
I had my Firefox 1.0.6. installed in a directory under
Then, as me, I set up a directory called Firefox107. I made a directory under that one called Firefox as the installation area for the install of Firefox 1.0.7. I then downloaded the Linux installer for 1.0.7 directly from mozilla.org. I untarred/gunzipped the installer into the Firefox107 directory. It made a firefox-installer directory under Firefox107 where I then clicked the firefox-installer script to start the install process. Again, I installed as me, not as root. The install was as easy as anything packaged by Vise or InstallShield. I pointed the installer to the Firefox directory. Badabingbadabangbadaboom!
Now I have a version of Firefox that runs as me instead of running as root, which I'm sure is a lot more secure than the way I had it last time. Next time there is an update, I can just do the same thing. Create a new directory for the new version to live, download the installer from mozilla.org, delete the old one, run the installer. Easy.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
It's only security fixes. Not much news here.
http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html
I been searching everywere for a HP-UX port. What I don't understand is that mozilla has builds for OS2 but not for HP-UX. I don't know you guys but I think HP-UX has way more active users than OS2.
I know there is a "official" HP mozilla build. But I like more firefox (slimer and faster). Specialy because my desktop is not that fast (PA8500 400mhz).
BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
For Firefox 1.0.8 to be released
a new feature would have been nice
Hmmm...but FF *isn't* as secure as many people believed. The fansboys, for example, acted like it was bugless and totally secure (which no software is).
I LIKE the way all of these problems are being found (and fixed). It means they're not there anymore. Provided the FF devs don't put too much fluff into future releases it'll also mean a better browser which is good for everybody.
Silly rabbit
doesn't give Firefox the right to fix bugs while the Microsofties are distracted and obvlivious ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The huge RAM usage is not the biggest issue. After opening several windows and tabs, I often see something like 95% CPU usage even when I've closed everything except one tab. I submitted a Bugzilla report about that more than 2 years ago, an it was not fixed in Firefox 1.06.
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.
This Firefox release is an opportunity for me to ask a question I've been thinking a lot about lately: on GNU/Linux, is the web browser a package that's better handled outside of the context of the distribution's package manager? I'm running Gentoo right now, and I love Portage, but there will at least be some delay between the Firefox release and a new ebuild being available. And in order to emerge this new release I'd need to sync my Portage tree again, which I don't have any other particular need to do right now (once or twice emerge sync has caused me problems, usually because it causes me to subsequently update some package that I originally emerged with USE flags set that I neglected to add to my make.conf).
Anyhow, the basic idea is that Firefox is a package that has to be updated at specific times, and I know when those times are, and they aren't necessarily times that my system as a whole needs to be updated.
There are few other packages that depend on Firefox; all I can really think of are plugins and extensions. Plugins don't typically require a specific FF version, and I get my extensions centrally from mozdev. So can you guys think of anything I'd lose by unmerging FF from Portage, installing a stub in its place, and just using the official builds from mozilla.org? Besides the potential optimization? (I would say integration and consistency with the overall system in terms of file placement and stuff, but... that doesn't seem to happen anyway. It's not an easy thing to fit a huge X application into Unix directory conventions based on the concept of many small programs doing one thing well...)
The main other package to which I'd apply this type of thinking is OOo. I wouldn't apply it to KDE or Gnome (though I don't directly use either) because they contain many useful libraries, and I feel that the handling of libraries is a real strength of package management systems. Can you guys think of any other packages that might not be best handled by package management?
I am just expressing an opinion. . . . It's not a contest, it's not a jihad, it's not a playground argument. It's just some guy making a remark.
It's some guy making a remark about how he thinks Opera is better than Firefox, in an article about Firefox. This is accompanied by a patronising coda that attempts to portray users of Firefox as stupid, insecure, and unable to control their emotions.
We have a term for that here on Slashdot: it's "flamebait". It's not generally considered a nice thing to post, you know. In fact, some people think that people who post comments like that are what we call "trolls".
And yes, the same applies to the people who were ranting about open source in the "Opera is free" article. But good little boys know that just because someone else did something naughty doesn't mean it's okay for you to do it as well. I hope you're not a naughty little boy, are you, kahei?
We have SeaMonkey now!
A little bug it didn't fix is one that came up when I downloaded 1.0.6. I always click the spin wheel on my mouse to open a link in a new tab. This used to always work, but now it only works on certain link.
It is a little strange, but I think if the link is in bold or italics or is a jpeg, then it does NOT work. If it is in just plain text, then wheel clicking works.
For examples, got to here. Try wheel clicking on the "Read More..." link of any article. This does not work for me. Then try clicking on any of the Sections ("Apache", "Apple", "AskSlashdot", etc.) This DOES work for me.
Is this happening to anyone else? Is there a fix for this????
GNOME, KDE, and a number of other desktop environments support X11 sessions. Using this standard, an application can save its state when you log out and then restore it when you log back on. Most X11 apps support it to some extent or other. But Mozilla is the oddball in that it doesn't support it. Their bugzilla has an entry for this, which they've been ignoring for YEARS.
I guess Mozilla isn't as interested in being standards-compliant as they claim.
Yeah, 1.5 has differential update support, but since it's in beta, who knows how much testing that code has gotten (for those who don't know, autoupdate is toggled off in beta and CVS releases).
It's only an insult if it's not true.
On a more serious note, I'd be very glad if they took their time to fix the memory leaks in Firefox. Just keeping it running for a week increases its RAM usage by at least 100 MB.
This one is strange.
On my work computer, there is ALWAYS a flashing cursor somewhere on the web page. It doesn't matter if there are no text entry boxes, etc, there's always one there.
The symptoms of this are a lagged up/down arrow key movement. You can't go up and down until that cursor is in the opposite side of the window.
Also, intermittently, paging up/down doesn't work, it pages down, but then instantly bounces right back up.
Yet, this doesn't happen at home. This is 1.0.6. Wish the download&install updates from within the app worked. That has never worked for me.
I know, and thats why I'm using it. I think that a majority of /.ers who do alot of strange but not high-importance web browsing should be using the beta over the newer 1.0.7 to help Mozilla debug the thing. I think it has potential as a decent update, but is currently in a position where they need a good test base. I didn't mean to suggest that admins should be putting this monster on workstations though!
Ugly in linux? I will have to pay more attention when I get home but last I remember it looks practically the same on Linux (FC3) running laptop as it does on my Windows XP running desktop.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Check your 'about:config' to make sure the 'accessibility.browsewithcaret' setting is set to 'false'
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.
Any relation between this release and all the bad firefox press? :)
As it curently is, Firefox 1.5 beta isn't for everyone. I installed it an ran it when it was launched and I simply can't use it. It just segfaults at startup without warning what caused it.
I don't know if this problem is frequent or if there is a fix for it but at least that little showstopper made it impossible for me to try 1.5.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
It seems that certain organizations are trying to hype every vulnerability that can be associated with FireFox. From my point of view they'd be ranked like this:
#1. Remote root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
#2. Remote non-root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
#3. Local root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
#4. Local non-root access that does NOT require human intervention or other app running.
#5. Local root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps.
#6. Local non-root access that requires some human interaction or some combination of apps (this is where this exploit is)
#7. Remote OS crash
#8. Remote app crash
#9. Local OS crash
#10. Local app crash
This is MY opinion. Get your own opinion. There is no way this exploit is "critical". It's one step above a stupid DoS attack and would NOT affect ANY of my servers.
Adblock and Duplicate Tab work. Are you running that Firefox extension that blasts spam to all the people in your Outlook contacts list?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
For those who've been looking for it (LFS people and a few randoms on forums), the source for Firefox 1.0.7 won't be available on the Mozilla FTP for a while yet. There's a pending bug, apparentally to do with the nightly being rebranded to 1.0.7, and the devs will release it when it's been fixed (no estimated time was given).
Well, I'll be damned. That did the trick. Thanks.
It is also an option on the advanced pane of the options panel.
See here:
ile size: 926 K
Download Time Estimate: 2 minutes @ 56K modem
Version: 8,0,22,0
Browser: Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and CompuServe
Date Posted: 9/12/2005
Language: English
I haven't used it. I did hear it is a lot faster for Safari according to MacOSXHints.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Ugly how? Are you referring to fonts, graphics, or the window and its decorations?
while I am using Opera right now (I downloaded it back when they had the party where they gave away free codes), I doubt I will keep it. While some pages that didn't work for firefox do work for Opera, I have noticed the oposite as well...and the pages that don't work for Opera are more important to me than the ones that don't work for firefox. Opera has also crashed on me several times, and I have never had a problem with firefox crashing.
I honestly don't care about the whole open source thing. I don't have a problem with companies keeping their source private. Hell, they wrote it. However, it seems to me that firefox is simply a better product that either IE or Opera.
Dude, it says, right there in the release annoucement linked to from the /. article, "an equivalent update to the Mozilla Application Suite, Mozilla 1.7.12, is expected shortly."
The way you sound, you seem to think you'd have to wait ages for any kind of update to Mozilla. As it stands right now, most people who use automatic updates for Firefox will have to wait a couple days for the update to appear for them.
Get a grip.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
I found that I had to disable each extension by hand, restart, re-enable them by hand, restart, and most are back (haven't checked all of them...).
'Tools' Menu > Extensions > Right-click > Disable
At home, I don't have flash installed, and Fx still tends to gobble up memory.
Because of the Java plugin.
Maybe something's wrong with Fx's plugin architecture?
Is there a picture of all this somewhere, for us visually-oriented people? I remember a while ago there was simplpe drawing of the branches/release schedule a click or two away from the mozilla homepage.
On Windows, I switched from:
Netscape -> IE -> Mozilla -> Firefox (in 2004) -> Opera 8.5 (yesterday)
I wish Firefox 2.0 would incorporate some of the featuers of Opera and the next release of Opera would take some from Firefox.
After a day of using Opera 8.5, I've decided to make it my primary browser. I'm hoping Firefox 2.0 is good enough for me to switch back.
But there are some Firefox 1.06 features that I really miss in Opera 8.5--but not enough for me to go back to Firefox 1.x.
For example, the SEARCH feature in firefox where every matching instance of the word/phrase is highlighted on the page. Also, the COOKIES prompt that comes up (disabled by default in Opera) is simpler in Firefox--it doesn't have as many dropdown choices on what to do--Opera should make a less-advanced dialog available like the one in Firefox. And I got used to the tab pages being below the address bar in Firefox--Opera should let user place tabs there too in case they don't like the new position (I didn't like it for a few hours but now I prefer it).
In terms of what I'd like to see Firefox take from Opera:
1. no more random 100% cpu hogging on Windows that I got with Firefox = 1.06
2. speed. Opera feels snappier (on a 500mhz pc)
3. the nifty auto-hiding dropdown panel that appears when clicking on the address bar, which includes bookmarks, top-10 list, amazon search, etc.
4. ability to quickly change browser identification (IE vs Mozilla vs Opera) by selecting a menu--no need to edit config or dig into dialogs for this. for example, I keep it on Opera except when visiting sites that require IE. I'm guessing IE will show a jump in marketshare starting this month because Opera 8.5 defaults to identifying itself as IE.
Both Firefox 1.07 and Opera 8.5 are currently far superior to IE6--lets see what IE7 brings.
I just got a fresh hdd and had to reinstall Firefox. And when I was just installing all the extensions I need and half of them didn't yet work with the new version along came the news about Opera being free now and my decision to stick with Opera for a while.
I was a registered Opera user before Firefox came and I never regretted that money (even now Opera is free). For some reasons I had switched to Firefox and kept adding extensions so it would behave like Opera...
That's an important observation. Can you provide more explanation, and the URLs?
I visited the Major League Baseball site: http://www.mlb.com/ and my Firefox 1.06 CPU use jumped to 19%, with all pages loaded and NO browser activity.
I wish they would fix this; they've known about it for years. It has something to do with the Flash plugin, I understand.
This bug is a show-stopper for me. I wish they would concentrate on it.
At the end of the day we can but laugh and lock-up our browsers. This guy's post on software racism Hat With Feet has an interesting view. No doubt we all experienced it at least once!
Or do they rely on much user testing?
Obvious flamebait, but I'll respond nonetheless.
None of this is targetted toward consumers. These are just the internals, known only to developers, and confusing none but a handful of geeks on sites such as this.
End users are only ever exposed to "Firefox 1.0", "Firefox 1.5" e.a. (Not even the Deer Park betas - the publicity and marketing around those are carefully limited to only get up to the circle of powerusers who're competent enough to be useful testers.)
I noticed the same thing with 1.0.6 on my Windows XP system. Clicking middle on "Read More" fails, but clicking middle on the article count link works. Similarly, some links in Google search results can be middle-clicked, others cannot. Dunno why.
I'm using Firefox 1.0.6 under Slackware Linux. Everything works as expected.
major.minor[.revision[.build]]
although the naming convention isn't clear moving from 1.0.6 to 1.0.7 is a revision release.
You might want to say 1.5 will be a new version, but the others are, as you say, security fixes or point releases.
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
Symantec the-company-that-sells-security-software-oriented- to-Microsoft-products says Firefox isn't really that much more secure than IE:9 152423,00.htm
1 &c=12&vendor=Microsoft&version=6.0%20SP2&title=Int ernet%20Explorer1 &c=12&vendor=Mozilla&version=1.0.6&title=Firefox
http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,3
But Symantec the-company-that-sells-security-information (through its controlled company SecurityFocus) says IE 6 SP2 has 57 unpatched vulnerabilities, compared to Firefox's 3:
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?l=
http://www.securityfocus.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?l=
http://www.symantec.com/press/2002/n020717.html
Hmm, conflict of interests...?
Santiago Roza (Kq)
I hadn't heard that and I find it hard to believe. A lot of aspects of Firefox's update system will be better in Firefox 1.5, but I don't see why that would result in simultaneous releases to the web site and to automatic update.
The shareholder is always right.
Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 is vulnerable to some of the holes fixed in Firefox 1.0.7. You should upgrade to a newer build from the Firefox 1.5 / Gecko 1.8 branch, preferably today's.
The shareholder is always right.