Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 Released

KrayzieKyd writes "God Bless Mozilla. Firefox has just notified me that Firefox version 1.5.0.4 has just been released with release notes and according to Mozilla's website, the same has been released for Thunderbird with its own release notes."

Comments

thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks

ok

Re:thanks

[Adolf Hitroll]

Thanks my ass: This article is only of interest for FF Benützers who were informed long before getting to this scheisse propaganda site.

Re:thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Gehen Sie weg und nehmen Sie die anderen trollen und den goatse Mann mit Ihnen, kthx.

Re:thanks

[j0nkatz]

Redundant? On a first post?

Good to see the moderation system working like it should huh?

Re:thanks

[Adolf Hitroll]

Maul zu, schweinli.

Re:thanks

[deesine]

yes, thanks mozilla foundation.

I like the security fixes, but now FF takes about 3 times longer to load :(

Freshmeat?

[mtenhagen]

Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products? I tought freshmeat was created for that.

Is there something special about this release? According to the release notes these bugs where removed. Great but not enough for a slashdot article.

MFSA 2006-43 Privilege escalation using addSelectionListener
MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
MFSA 2006-41 File stealing by changing input type (variant)
MFSA 2006-39 "View Image" local resource linking (Windows)
MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
MFSA 2006-36 PLUGINSPAGE privileged JavaScript execution 2
MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
MFSA 2006-34 XSS viewing javascript: frames or images from context menu
MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

Re:Freshmeat?

[cperciva]

Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products?

Well, we seem to get slashdot articles about every MSIE security flaw; by that standard a new release of FireFox which fixes 12 security flaws (5 of them rated "critical") is certainly slashdotworthy.

Re:Freshmeat?

[KiloByte]

The thing is, you don't ever hear about MSIE security issues unless there is already a popular exploit in the wild.

Re:Freshmeat?

[antikarma]

You think this isn't news-worthy? Just wait for the dupe. Or better yet, wait for the dupe of this: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/03/121720 0

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the FAQ of the release notes does say:

What can I do to help?

We need all the exposure we can get ... Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release.

Someone was bound to follow the instructions.

Re:Freshmeat?

[WalterGR]

...a new release of FireFox which fixes 12 security flaws (5 of them rated "critical") is certainly slashdotworthy.

And actually, MFSA 2006-32 fixes *7* "potential memory corruption" vulnerabilities, so the count of critical flaws alone could be as high as 12.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is mainly to print crap like "God Bless Mozilla", "Firefox gives me a stiffy", and "This is the greatest program to ever leak half my memory."

Re:Freshmeat?

[Jugalator]

But it's Firefox! :-p

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

And actually, MFSA 2006-32 fixes *7* "potential memory corruption" vulnerabilities, so the count of critical flaws alone could be as high as 12.

If a single critical update is actually 7 (not 1), that's an extra 6 critical updates because it has already been counted once. So the total would be 11 (5+6), not 12 (5+7).

Re:Freshmeat?

[Cyvros]

Well, I think Slashdot should - it might be a minor update, but it is important. Mind you, I haven't seen any mention of Firefox 2 alpha 3, which was released a week ago.

I'm sure someone out there realises why I mentioned this.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Xamataca]

memory leak?... that's why I can't surf more than five of those neat sites with tinny porn video thumbs... ermm, shit.

Re:Freshmeat?

[rm999]

"we seem to get slashdot articles about every MSIE security flaw"

Yeah, but those articles are made to host flames against microsoft in the forums, not to actually educate anyone about them (not many people on Slashdot actually use IE).

Re:Freshmeat?

[Jeian]

Well, we seem to get slashdot articles about every MSIE security flaw

Yeah, the average Slashdotter likes to think they're STICKING IT TO THE MAN by not using Microsoft products. The actual quality of the replacement is not really relevant.

I just use Firefox because I'm tired of people lecturing me when they see I use MSIE.

Re:Freshmeat?

[LiquidCoooled]

I believe you mean "articles" like "OMG Kevin rose went for a dump" :P

Re:Freshmeat?

[DrSkwid]

show us the logs !

Re:Freshmeat?

[indifferent children]

Instead of switching to FireFox, why didn't you just load a FireFox-ish theme into IE?

Re:Freshmeat?

[linvir]

It's vastly outnumbered by Firefox, but IE is still one of the two or three main browsers used by Slashdotters. The usual explanation is the sheer amount of people visiting from locked-down work PCs.

Re:Freshmeat?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Someone was bound to follow the instructions."

Ah, so this is a Slashvertisment.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here.

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

You know this flamebait made me think, which almost caused me to have a stroke, so try not to let it happen again. I wanted to compare the two browsers to see just how much of a memory leak I get from FF.
I started with FF with my normal three tabs each with a different site open. I pulled up taskmanager and looked at all running processes. There was firefox at 31 meg.
So then I open IE6. Since I rarely use it I haven't changed the default home page from MSN. I check taskmanager, again. iexplore starts up using 45 meg. So I think maybe it's because of the website. I point IE6 at google. Sure enough the RAM usage goes down to 42 meg. To be fair however I thought I should open the three sites I have open in my FF tabs in IE.
iexplore.exe ---> 42,976k
iexplore.exe ---> 24,444k
iexplore.exe ---> 38,408k
Total iexplore.exe RAM usage 105,828k
Firefox with the same sites open in three tabs ---> 31,776k
If firefox is leaking on my machine it's into a big bucket called iexplore.exe

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone was bound to follow the instructions.

Unfortunately for the editors, several thousand someones just submitted Firefox stories in the span of about fifteen minutes.

Re:Freshmeat?

[mrchaotica]

That's okay though, because it's a Free Software Slashvertisement!

On the other hand, it is preaching to the choir a bit -- it would be better to try to get it listed on news sites with less technical audiences.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Main Gauche]

"Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products? I tought freshmeat was created for that"

Please read the summary again. It clearly states "Firefox has just notified me that Firefox version 1.5.0.4 has just been released". The news isn't Firefox; it's the fact that KrayzieKyd got his notification.

Now it would have been nice to know exactly how he was notified. Was it an email? A personal phone call? I heard Western Union finally stopped the telegram thing, so it wasn't that. Discuss.

Re:Freshmeat?

[wysiwia]

Unfortunately for the editors, several thousand someones just submitted Firefox stories in the span of about fifteen minutes.

Nevertheless the editors should care more for qualitiy than quantity but I agree they have to keep an eye on the numbers as well.

O. Wyss

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, shut the hell up already. Any news article is better than nothing these days on Slashdot. They're just recycling the same old shit over and over again. When's the next article on case modding coming out with some dude making a computer out of a darth vader helmet?

Re:Freshmeat?

[sgage]

"Grammar tip: "Effect" is a verb. "Affect" is a noun."

Your sig affected me greatly. It had quite an effect on me. It did effect a change in my affect, in fact.

"Effect" and "Affect" can act as both verbs and nouns.

Re:Freshmeat?

[LoganEkz]

So then I open IE6. .. To be fair however I thought I should open the three sites I have open in my FF tabs in IE. iexplore.exe ---> 42,976k iexplore.exe ---> 24,444k iexplore.exe ---> 38,408k Total iexplore.exe RAM usage 105,828k Firefox with the same sites open in three tabs ---> 31,776k If firefox is leaking on my machine it's into a big bucket called iexplore.exe

This is fair? For a more fair 'benchmark' instead of launching 3 iexplore.exe processes, use the 'New Window' feature of Internet Explorer to open the 3 URLs in the same Internet Explorer session. That or launch 3 firefox.exe processes.

Re:Freshmeat?

[BecomingLumberg]

Are you kidding? 9 / 10 linux evangelists have news about one as their signature....

(Please don't shoot me... I heart Tux too...)

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

Ok, to be fair I opened IE6....launched two new windows.....opened up my three sites.....now the one iexplore.exe process is 63 meg. ...Is that fair enough....it's still double the RAM

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now leave both browsers open for a day. IE6 will still be at 63 MB. Firefox wil be above 100 MB.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Nutria]

Job Description: How many of you have ever heard of Unidata?

Me. It was a Pick variant back in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how Firefox weenies always shout "SHARED MEMORY!" whenever anyone does something like that with Firefox? Guess what... SHARED MEMORY!

That'd only be slightly valid if you used one instance of Internet Explorer to launch all three windows. Try the test again by hitting Control-N to open new windows in Internet Explorer and see what happens. I guarentee you it'll be less than Firefox uses.

Re:Freshmeat?

[BecomingLumberg]

Sadly, its still is a Pick variant in usage at a large company...

Re:Freshmeat?

[jo42]

...and it still crashes a handful of times a day.

Back to IE...

Re:Freshmeat?

[ashtophoenix]

There's a difference between an article about a security flaw exploit and a security flaw fix. That about a flaw exploit IS slashdotworthy since it spans it's ramnifications, cause, affected community, details of the exploit (code). It's a lot more informative, detailed and usually educational too. An article about a new version of a software having fixes...I don't know how much 'slashdotworthy' it is...

Re:Freshmeat?

[phorm]

Well it's not as if people (outside of MS) are auditing/viewing the source-code and finding them. Either you hear about them on patch-day or you hear about them on crack-day.

Re:Freshmeat?

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

but Firefox will still be cooler Open Source. . . It's what the cool kids are doing.

Re:Freshmeat?

[mrchaotica]

Leave it open for a few days. The reason that it's called a "leak" is that the free memory slowly decreases over time.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Tumbleweed]

> Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products? I tought freshmeat was created for that.

New here, ain't ya? And you got modded insightful? New moderators, too, I see.

Welcome to the n00bs!

Other activities you'll likely enjoy:

Complaining about dupes
Complaining about grammar in stories (and comments)
Spelling Microsoft as M$
(or Complaining about the constant bashing of MS)
Getting snarky when a security flaw is found in open source software
Complaining about a submission not being 'news for nerds' or 'stuff that matters'

You guys are gonna have a ball!

Re:Freshmeat?

[Kelson]

Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products?

Apparently not, since Seamonkey has also been updated.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Firehed]

Well, that's how the MS engineers track them down. None of this pre-emptive bugfixing for the boys in Redmond, nosiree.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

We prefer the term "slashmercial".

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

Control-N to start the new windows......60meg .....next I left firefox from when I did the first "benchmark" no memory leak that I can see. It has actually dropped a couple hundred kilobytes. Does this memory leak happen at a certain hour? Like maybe 6pm every night or something [/sarcasm]

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

Maybe it'll leak...maybe it won't....I'll find out.....My question to you is this: If I'm going to use a browser, I'll open one up, use it and close it out usually. Why should I open one up that uses twice as much memory as Firefox from the get-go? I'm not using a plain stock version of firefox either. I have six additional extensions installed on it. Firefox isn't just a trend or fad. It's a better browser.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Nutria]

Sadly, its still is a Pick variant in usage at a large company...

(Stunned silence) Wow.

Still on it's own hardware, or does it now run on Windows/Linux?

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

I opened up firefox on my home linux server box as well just to see if it leaked. It has been open for a couple of hours and it is still at the original 2.2% memory usage. I'll wait till midnight on sunday just to make sure it's not some crazy leak that only happens when the sun goes down or something.

Re:Freshmeat?

[gakon5]

What I find hilarious is that you aren't kidding. They actually want you to "spread the word" about this automatic update.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Quess]

The Firefox browser notifies the user when an update is available.

Re:Freshmeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't leak memory (or that's not the main problem). It just hogs memory. From what I understood, it just keeps in RAM some previously opened pages. So if you browsed quite a few pages, and then close most if not all tabs, then firefox memory use might still be 60Meg, 80Meg or even more. The barrier seems to be the current amount of RAM. This was especially true with 1.0 on linux:
Start with a 128Meg laptop
Do a bit of 56k browsing, opening loads of tabs (1 hour is more than enough).
Close all tabs.
Memory use stays up at over 100Meg
Now start other apps, work, email and stuff (basically make linux swap out firefox mem).
Go back to firefox and wait 30sec for linux to swap back in the firefox mem.
Click on File menu and try to close firefox. Another 30sec.

So much for optimizing access. 1.5 is a bit less worse. Linux on a 128Meg laptop last for weeks. Firefox usually doesn't last a day. Sub-Win9x standard.

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

Actually, I found that IE6 did this after viewing many pages....not firefox....

Re:Freshmeat?

[mrchaotica]

My question to you is this: If I'm going to use a browser, I'll open one up, use it and close it out usually. Why should I open one up that uses twice as much memory as Firefox from the get-go?

Beats me -- I use Firefox, leaks or no!

Firefox isn't just a trend or fad. It's a better browser.

You're preaching to the choir, buddy. It was a better browser even when it was called Phoenix, let alone now!

Re:Freshmeat?

[khedron the jester]

Great. You just killed the discussion.

Re:Freshmeat?

[bigpicture]

Firefox runs on more than one OS. You could say that it is multicultural? Not mono-cultural. Were the security issues related to all OS versions, or any particular OS?

Re:Freshmeat?

[scumbaguk]

All I know is firefox has been about unsuable for long periods for about the last month.

After having 10+ windows open for a while, firefox will be using 300+ MB, not a problem with 2GB of ram but it also seems to become ungodly slow until killed and reopend.

I love firefox but they have created some major issues in the last few releases.

Re:Freshmeat?

[scumbaguk]

If it dosn't leak I can't belive you are actualy using it.

Re:Freshmeat?

[BecomingLumberg]

It sits on HP-Ux now, we run 3 superdomes and one 'super-duperdome'. We have about 10k Pids on the big boy (which we, by the way, had to inform IBM that it was possible). Apparantly, we picked up a software package coded in it back before I was born and have developed it largely in house. Now, over 90% of our code is proprietary... and management is suprised that its taking so long to move to ERP.

To be honest though, a building supply company gets by just fine on greenscreen based stuff. Were there not such problems with disk I/O times, we wouldn't be looking to upgrade to a new platform.

Re:Freshmeat?

[ikegami]

IE can have multiple windows per process just like Firefox can have multiple windows and tabs per process.

Try using "File | New Window" from within IE to open the second and third IE Windows instead of starting 3 IE process. Then you'll have a much more accurate comparison.

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

You are the third person on this thread to tell me how to do this. First, I tried it with seperate processes. Second, I used file...new window to start up the other websites...Lastly I used Ctrl+N to create the new windows because someone must have thought this was different than clicking File..New Window. Either way, IE6 used twice the amount of RAM initially and I have yet to see a "leak" after quite a few days.

Re:Freshmeat?

[lpcustom]

In fact here is my running process of firefox and when it was started
five 4189 0.0 2.0 104024 32504 ? S Jun03 0:05 /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox-bin -a firefox
This is straight from "ps aux".....and this is a "top" display showing memory usage.
4189 five 16 0 101m 31m 31m S 0.0 2.1 0:05.40 firefox-bin
It was initially 2.2%...now it's 2.1%.....3 days later....with the same webpages pulled up. WHERE IS THE LEAK?
If you guys are just going to BS about non-existent memory leaks don't even comment. It's like people just pull stuff straight out of their ass. Its great that you like IE for some reason. That's fine. Making comments about ficticious leaks in firefox that people won't even research and just assume you know what you are talking about is different. There are a lot of smart people on Slashdot. I'm not in the top 50%. I do however know BS when I see it. I just wish people who have no clue what they are talking about would just stay out of conversations here. I like to read. I don't really like to comment, but lately there have been so many dumbass comments floating around I could write a book from just the past week. The sad part is too many people just assume someone who sounds smart really is. They will believe whatever they read on here because they think everyone is smart. They read about a memory leak in firefox and they won't even try it or they'll post stupid comments like that elsewhere.

Re:Freshmeat?

[ikegami]

I'm sorry, I didn't see your previous reply since I was working from a stale copy of the thread. You have indeed already addressed my point.

Ummm first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be really fast

Fixed in Firefox 1.5.0.4

[millwall]

Fixed in Firefox 1.5.0.4

MFSA 2006-43 Privilege escalation using addSelectionListener
MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
MFSA 2006-41 File stealing by changing input type (variant)
MFSA 2006-39 "View Image" local resource linking (Windows)
MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
MFSA 2006-36 PLUGINSPAGE privileged JavaScript execution 2
MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
MFSA 2006-34 XSS viewing javascript: frames or images from context menu
MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

wtf

[daveb]

so what?

Will it stop crashing?

[Lalakis]

I hope the new version stops crashing every time the planets are not aligned perfectly. I for one have down^Wupgraded to firefox 1.0. What are your experiences with 1.5? Is it better or worse than 1.0?

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[OffTheLip]

Not so much crashing but 1.5 seems slower. Especially noticeable with several (or many) tabs open. Systems I've noticed this on were not low end either. And OS did not matter, Windows XP, RHEL and Fedora all were sluggish. Seems like 1.0.7 offered a better all around browser experience.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up windows boy. It run's just fine. You either have a slow box or a pretentious personality. In my experience people like you invent flaws in applications so you can say you have enriched insight about said application to impress your friends and help your small penis issue.

This generally manifests itself in using older versions of applications and changing the windows system font to courier-new. and saying you're a 'nix expert the day after you installed it for the firest time.

feck off.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't had any crashes in the last couple releases. Dont remember if i was having trouble with the first 1.5 release.

Have you checked to make sure its not the extensions that are causing the crashes? I have about 10 or so, but they are all well known ones (less likely to be badly coded).

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[ozmanjusri]

Is it better or worse than 1.0?

It's OK, but the troll-blocker doesn't seem to be working very well.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[root_42]

This is known and actually a feature, which can be turned off:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749 .html

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[surendran]

Why the hell it takes.... lot of time in startup????

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 1.5 is much, much slower than 1.0. It seems to be related to pages with large tables. It's the most annoying mis-feature of 1.5.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[OverlordQ]

No, no it's not a feature. The problem is *alot* worse then having cached 8 silly tabs.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[F�an�ro]

I tried that, it did not seem to have much effect. After a day firefox still approaches 300 mb.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[m0thr4]

Heh, you're obviously not hardcore enough, mate. Try running it on Solaris 10 and watch it crash (by which I mean the entire application shuts down without warning) whenever you access any ASP pages.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[masklinn]

I have very few crashing issues (the only ones I had were when I removed one of the RAM sticks, nF4 really don't like running on a single RAM stick, and DFI's Lanparty motherboards like it even less, so the whole computer was hellishly unstable anyway), and the JS rendering is much much faster than in Firefox 1.0... A good thing which is balanced by the even higher number of extensions i'm interrested in, which means that i bumped my extensions count from ~20 in the days of Firefox 1.0 to more than 40 now... bah

overall, I like 1.5 much better than 1.0.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[suv4x4]

This is known and actually a feature, which can be turned off

What kind of a feature is it, if everybody complain about it.

Plus turning caching off doesn't solve Firefox's speed. Part of the problem is bad memory management and coding, part of it is slow rendering engine, and part is the fact all tabs share a single thread, so when one takes more CPU, the whole window freezes.

Those are software design mistakes, and calling them various funny names, like "features" won't solve the fact we've actual problems with it.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[PhoenixFlare]

I love FireFox, but c'mon....

You're trying to tell me that it's normal for FF to have behavior by which it will go up to 150 megs and beyond (more like 200+ most days) of memory usage overnight if I leave it open (with static non auto-refreshing pages)?

Further, according to the article you linked and the nice little chart, my system has 512 MB of memory, so it should cache at most 5 pages back in my browsing history per session, not per tab.

In some rare occasions I could see it using that much memory, if I was browsing pages with gigantic images or Flash files or something....But my usual browsing is almost purely text and fairly small images, nothing in the range of the memory usage I routinely see FF hit. Not to mention that the usage will continue going up even when i'm not actually moving between any pages.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Frenchman113]

That's funny, because I never notice any memory issues. Maybe it's because I don't constantly peek at the task manager? If I have RAM, why should I care if my programs use it? That's what they do.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this what the ondisk cache is supposed to do? I don't see the reason to store so much history in memory when it could be done nearly as fast on disk (as has traditionall been done).

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[HaydnH]

I have been using browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers = 0 for ages and it still leaks on my machine =/

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're stupid. Firefox got that caching feature in version 1.5. It has been leaking memory long before then. This has been explained in every Firefox thread since that erroneous solution was first proposed.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[deesine]

Don't bother trying to explain. Mozilla doesn't need obtuse and dishonest marketeers when there are plenty of fanboys willing to shill for free.

FireFox has had memory management issues from version .8. For many people, those problems haven't gone away. Mozilla is trying to fix this, but that doesn't stop fanboys from going around claiming the problem has already been fixed when it hasn't.

Pheonix, I believe you still have memory problems, because I do too. Never can I go more than about 3-4 hours without restarting FF. The new version still has the problems, and now it takes about 3 times longer to load up :(

Still my favorite browser, though.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us with less than 4GB of physical memory, leaving Firefox open leads to massive swapping by the end of the day.

Re:Will it stop crashing?

[bradbury]

It will not stop crashing because the Mozilla / Firefox people have not gotten their act together.

If you bother to limit the maximum amount of memory under Linux (anywhere in the range of "ulimit -Sv 41000" to "ulimit -Sv 350000" (41-350MB) [4]) and try visiting enough web sites you will crash Firefox [1]. I've filed a number of bug reports on this (search the talkback database for "ulimit") or try Mozilla Bug 336807. (If you have Bugzilla votes you might want to vote for it...).

The stack traces suggest that there are multiple problems involved with many different types of memory allocation failures. IMO, Firefox should never made it out of alpha testing with these kinds of bugs [2].

There is a separate problem in Firefox which in some cases shows up as the so-called "memory leak" but which I believe is in fact a "heap fragmentation" problem. This is due to poor use of malloc() & free() and non-explicitly freed memory which is subject to poorly managed garbage collection processes. This is aggravated under Linux because the swapping algorithms do *not* manage programs which continually scan fragmented memory exceeding the available memory (Firefox resident set (RSS) > ~350MB on a 512MB machine). Any minor leaks can aggravate the heap fragmentation problem but solving all of the leak problems will quite probably not solve the problem of heap fragmention leading to increased memory usage the longer the browser remains running. This requires better memory management strategies at higher levels.

The only way this will be resolved is if the Firefox user community make it clear to the developers that they should stop adding features and focus on making the browser reliable and efficient [3].

1. Under Linux, I made up a simple shell script to run Firefox in limited memory, e.g.

   # ulimit -Sc 200000 # uncomment if you want the core dumps...
   ulimit -Sv 100000 # why should any browser need more than 100MB?
   /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox-bin
   

   the more memory you give it the longer it will probably to crash but I've yet to see it continue running as long as the Energizer bunny... It should be noted that setting a lower virtual memory requirement is no different from say running out of swap space or creating memory bottlenecks which under recent versions of Linux 2.6 will trigger the oom-killer causing memory 'hogs' to be explicitly killed. [I've seen Firefox memory hogging result in the oom-killer kill azureus downloads (azureus (java) is also a memory pig but thats another discussion).]
2. I was the one of the first 10 programmers hired by Oracle and responsible for a significant fraction of *all* of the early Oracle releases under UNIX. I presumably know something about software being "ready" for release.
3. It is worth noting that I've tested Firefox running under Windows 98 on a system with 98MB of main memory. It *will* run, it just takes a rather long time to do some things (it will also crash the system from time to time, presumably due to the previously mentioned memory usage problems).
4. Getting it to load in 41-45MB is tricky (the Firefox code is only ~10 MB but the libraries require a lot of space, as do things like history data, bookmarks, etc.). You have to use a profile with no history, minimal bookmarks, preferences set to minimize memory usage (esp. no javascript & no java), about:blank home page, etc. The minimum usable memory seems to be in the 50-60MB size range. Even then you can crash it by opening too many tabs or windows.

Whores Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you mods don't have to feel dirty modding up a karmawhore...
The following security bugs have been fixed for Firefox 1.5.0.4:

MFSA 2006-43 Privilege escalation using addSelectionListener
MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
MFSA 2006-41 File stealing by changing input type (variant)
MFSA 2006-39 "View Image" local resource linking (Windows)
MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
MFSA 2006-36 PLUGINSPAGE privileged JavaScript execution 2
MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
MFSA 2006-34 XSS viewing javascript: frames or images from context menu
MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

And these for Thunderbird 1.5.0.4:

MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
MFSA 2006-40 Double-free on malformed VCard
MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

Is this intereseting?

[KiloByte]

Well, it's good to see security issues fixed instead of having them swept under the carpet. Indeed, both Microsoft and Opera lack the guts to admit they're not perfect.

However, the automated updates (Mozilla devs be praised!) make putting releases like this not worthy of a news article.

Re:Is this intereseting?

[taskforce]

Actually Opera does outline security issues which were fixed in each new incremental version: Opera Changelogs

Re:Is this intereseting?

[flobberchops]

They are swept under the carpet, just try viewing them in the bugzilla database :)

Re:Is this intereseting?

[Anonymous Coward]

opera is fucking garbage.

Re:Is this intereseting?

[bunratty]

Security bugs that have not already been publicly disclosed cannot be viewed until users' systems are updated with the patches. From a standpoint of trying to keep users' systems secure, it makes no sense to give malware authors easy access to information on how to write exploits. Mozilla is being responsible by keeping the bug reports secret for now. They will be opened later, after users' systems are patched.

Re:Is this intereseting?

[Kelson]

Opera admits to security fixes -- they just make arrangements with places like Secunia to synchronize the reports with the updates.

Here's how it seems to go when someone fins a security hole in...

Firefox:
Vulnerability announced through SecurityFocus, BugTraq, Secunia, etc.
Mozilla works to fix bug.
Mozilla releases updated version and their own advisory.

Internet Explorer:
Vulnerability announced through SecurityFocus, BugTraq, Secunia, etc.
Microsoft tries to decide whether they're better off fixing or downplaying the bug.
Microsoft works to fix bug (maybe).
Microsoft releases updated version and their own advisory.

Opera:
Vulnerability reported to Opera.
Opera works to fix bug.
Opera releases updated version and publishes advisory to Secunia.

Re:Is this intereseting?

[Aladrin]

So you're saying that Firefox isn't greasing the right palms and needs to work to keep these exploits a secret longer.

No thanks.

Re:Is this intereseting?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's fast garbage.

Opera 9

[Anonymous Coward]

IE7 and Opera 9 are comming soon too. Personally I prefer Opera over all others as it's both smaller and faster. It also has a ton of features, so that I don't need to spend the next 6 months of tracking extensions and manke configurations as when using Firefox. However, it's nice to see that we're all getting what we want.

A nice year for browsers, indeed, at has taken too long to get here.

Re:Opera 9

[markild]

"tracking extensions and manke configurations as when using Firefox"

click, click, swoosh, click

and that's tricky??

The only thing I ever had to fix manually was when Firefox upgraded from 1 to 1.5. I had to reinstall FlashBlock, because they didn't support the old upgrade feature.

Re:Opera 9

[Kelson]

A nice year for browsers, indeed, at has taken too long to get here.

Oh, yeah!

Opera 9 should take care of most of the lingering compatibility issues with AJAX, rich text, etc. that web developers are currently able to use with IE and Firefox. Most Opera users will probably upgrade, making it much easier to do things like formatted web mail.

Internet Explorer 7 is a huge leap forward for what we'll be able to do with cross-browser design, though it'll probably take a couple of years before it supplants enough IE6 installations that we can really make use of it.

I haven't really been following Firefox 2 -- most of the work on the rendering engine is going into what will become Firefox 3 -- but I'm definitly looking forward to O9, Fx2, and IE7 this summer!

Well, fall, probably. IIRC Fx2 is scheduled for late summer and will probably slip, and IE7 is scheduled for... when is IE7 scheduled for?

Seamonkey also updated

[darteaga]

Seamonkey, the new version of the old mozilla suite (Netscape-like) has also been updated. The release notes: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/releases /seamonkey1.0.2/.

Re:Seamonkey also updated

[Kanasta]

Seamonkey? So no more mozilla suite ? I have Mozilla 1.7.13. What am I supposed to upgrade to!?!?!

Re:Seamonkey also updated

[Mini-Geek]

Seamonkey, the new version of the old mozilla suite (Netscape-like) has also been updated. The release notes: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/releases /seamonkey1.0.2/.

I know it was released! I submitted an article for it but it got rejected!

Re:Seamonkey also updated

[DRM_is_Stupid]

Check out the Mozilla Downlaods page: http://www.mozilla.org/download.html

They even list Grendel (last released in 1999) but they don't list SeaMonkey. Asses.

Re:Seamonkey also updated

[amcdiarmid]

Good thought. I wish that Seamonkey would incorporate the auto-update feature of firefox & thunderbird thought. Manually un/reinstalling is a bit of a pain to do at mom's house. (Requires a visit.)

$.02

Incremental Updates

[Nighttime]

I thought one of the benefits of Firefox 1.5 was incremental updates i.e. patches that that are in the 100s of KBs range. However, watching the progress meter for this latest update it will have eventually downloaded 6.1MB, which is basically the full version of Firefox.

Re:Incremental Updates

[fondacio]

In that case, you were updating a version lower than 1.5.0.3. If there is no incremental patch, the updater reverts to downloading and executing the full installer. I just updated 1.5.0.3, and the file it downloaded was quite small. Incidentally, Mozilla Thunderbird has also been updated to 1.5.0.4.

Re:Incremental Updates

[Nighttime]

Nope, previous version was 1.5.0.3. I am using the en-GB build of Firefox, I wonder if that has any effect? I'll see what happens this evening with my home PCs when I launch Firefox.

Re:Incremental Updates

[digital-hell-native]

The update worked fine for me and only took a second. There are some issues that may lead to incremental update failure. In that case, Firefox will simply re-download the full version. Probably what happened to you.

Re:Incremental Updates

[rincebrain]

One may presume then that for some reason either it downloaded the small version and a hash failed or somesuch, or it couldn't find an en-GB incremental patch.

Unfortunate.

Re:Incremental Updates

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, I am using here the en-GB version (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3) and have just updated from 1.5.0.3 to 1.5.0.4 - only a 511KB file was downloaded, and will (apparently) be installed the next time I restart FF. The download took only a second or two.

Re:Incremental Updates

[masklinn]

My FF 1.5.0.3 downloaded a mere 600k, and Thunderbird's update to 1.5.0.4 was roughtly the same size (~500k).

Your FF probably failed a hash check or something and downloaded everything to reinstall from scratch, that's the fallback when the updater doesn't manager to install incremental updates.

Re:Incremental Updates

[jez9999]

No need to worry. In future, Firefox will by default silently download updates in the background and silently install them when you restart the browser. You won't even know! Who says it has to be spyware to install stuff without your knowledge?

Re:Incremental Updates

[argStyopa]

Firefox 1.5.0.3 to 1.5.0.4 = 511kb on my Win98 box.

Re:Incremental Updates

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate these incremental updates. It failed last time and I somehow fixed it, now this time around I cannot remember what I did!

Re:Incremental Updates

[Kjella]

Firefox 1.5.0.3 to 1.5.0.4 = 511kb on my Win98 box.

So how many other security holes do you have open on that box?

Re:Incremental Updates

[MullerMn]

This man deserves more karma simply for having a functioning Win98 box.

Re:Incremental Updates

[Blakey Rat]

They should make incremental to cover at least the past 3-4 versions, IMO. It's dumb that he has to download 6 MB when a simple 800k incremental updater probably would have been enough.

Re:Incremental Updates

[dveditz]

It would, indeed, be nice if we had partial patches more than one version back. We simply don't have the capacity to do so and ship timely releases. We're already juggling 3 platforms (4 while we transition from Mac PPC to Mac Universal Binary releases) times around 40 languages times 2 update packages (full and partial). Adding even one version back means another 120 update paths to build and test and ask our mirror sites to host.

For what? Anyone with automatic updates turned on is at most one version back--they've had several weeks of daily update checks to get them there--so we're talking about people who have updates turned off and one random day decide to hit the "Check for Updates" button. It's not worth burning our people out and adding to our mirroring burden to optimize the experience of a very small number of people.

another important release note

[Anonymous Coward]

procps-3.2.6-3.4.i386.rpm for fedora core 5 was released yesterday too. yawn, nothing to see here, move along.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

KrayzieKyd writes "God Bless Mozilla.

More like God damn Mozilla. Twelve crippling bugs (four of which are critical) are in this patch. Is this what open source promises? A dozen exploitable bugs per point release? How many more dozens of bugs are there in that bloated piece of shit? It kinda makes one wonder if IE is really the safest browser on the market. Shame on you Mozilla.org for touting FF as secure.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever caught a virus using firefox. Have a nice day.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. I caught one using Firefox with an out-of-date Java Plugin. I blame Sun for not being able to write an updater that works properly. AC because of shame.

Re:What?

[Chicken04GTO]

this is slashdot.
Microsoft is evil, and always does wrong.
Anyone who opposes MS is good, and can do no wrong.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you perfer that they fix the bugs, like Mozilla does, or that they simply ignore them, like m$ does? Be careful what you wish for.

Re:What?

[d_jedi]

It's funny..
if this were about Microsoft (replace Mozilla with MS, open source, with proprietary..), this would be modded +5 insightful.

thats it?

[chiseen]

Wake me up when version 2.0 arrives. Opera 8 (and the upcoming 9) is just as good, if not better than firefox.

Re:thats it?

[aussie_a]

I used Opera 8 for several months and found it to be slower and broken on more sites then Firefox.

Re:thats it?

[HeroreV]

You make an excellent point. Let me see if I can counter it.

Don't bother waking me up when Opera 10 arrives. Firefox 1.5 (and the upcoming 2.0) is definately much better than Opera.

There, I win. I discussed just as many issues as you did - zero.

Here we go...

[jginspace]

I'd like to hear about memory management issues, frequent crashes and how Opera was there first - in that order. I need a refresher; it must be while since v1.5.0.3.

Re:Here we go...

[l3v1]

I used to hear a lot about such "memory management" issues, and a lot of them turned out to be lack of knowledge about configuration options regarding firefox's memory cache and page history cache sizes. Some issues are there besides these easily manageble ones, no debate about that, but most of them only come up after firefox running continuously for days (for me that is sometimes 1-2 weeks), which makes them unnoticable for most home users. Still, it would be good to solve these issues someday.

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

> lack of knowledge about configuration options

Sorry, but I think it's a bit insulting to say "lack of knowledge" as the out-of-the-box configuration does indeed consume large amounts of RAM on the dominant operating system.

Joe Public isn't going to type about:config and piss around with an overwhelming list of options just to keep his box ticking over nicely, he's going to click on the blue "e".

Re:Here we go...

[Vo0k]

Joe Public isn't going to type about:config and piss around with an overwhelming list of options just to keep his box ticking over nicely, he's going to click on the blue "e". ...and one porn-browsing session later have the computer down to a crawl with 400 different dialers and spyware hogging the system.
Get Firefox at current, moderate speed and keep it that way or get faster-loading MSIE (because windows starts slower, desktop won't appear until MSIE loads into the memory) and have the whole system, on the net or not, crawling with worms hours later.

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice answer, but it addresses an unrelated topic. Let me simplify it for you:

Problem: Firefox consumes lots of memory on win32.
Cause: Out-of-box configuration is wrong. Options for user to change are cryptic and scary.
Solution: Make default configuration more conservative. Accommodate Joe Public by putting options into nice dialog box.

Re:Here we go...

[SnowZero]

I like FireFox, but it can consume a lot of RAM on any operating system. I've gotten it up to 700MB in Linux before. Tabs are a both a blessing and a curse.

Re:Here we go...

[lon3st4r]

1. well, i have 2 computers and only 3GB ram. i want them both to have 2Gb when i'm working on them. so i have to physically shuffle the 1gb module between the two computers. so, there are memory management issues.

2. sometimes the modules don't go in very well. they cause frequent crashes.

3. and as we all know about tabs, opera was there first!

* lon3st4r *

Re:Here we go...

[LS]

I don't think the average user should have to worry about "memory management". Memory is something that should be abstracted away and not exposed to anyone but an advanced user. If in normal usage the caching features cause undesirable behavior, I consider this a defect in the design, if not the implementation.

LS

Re:Here we go...

[Vo0k]

Nope, your solution would work for Joe Public Advanced.
The right solution: Make good defaults.

Re:Here we go...

[mrchaotica]

most of them only come up after firefox running continuously for days (for me that is sometimes 1-2 weeks), which makes them unnoticable for most home users

You forget that Firefox is still mostly used by the techical minority -- there's probably quite a lot of us with heavy usage patterns like that. I, for example, tend to keep Firefox up until it crashes, and usually have between 1 and 5 windows with at least 10 tabs each open all the time.

Memory leaks, crashes, and the fact that each tab isn't handled by its own thread are the biggest Firefox issues for me. Otherwise, the program is great (and pretty much has been since it was called Phoenix).

Re:Here we go...

[SoapDish]

I recently started using opera (under Fedora 4 - FC5 disks are sitting on my desk), and I found a strange issue. I can't -- or couldn't -- post to slashdot with it.

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now close those tabs. Firefox will still be using 700 MB. It's a memory leak, not an inherent problem with tabs.

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not talking about "the average user" - we're talking about people who posting on MozillaZine and Slashdot who are looking at task manager (or whatever) and criticising the design of the software based on the memory usage, assuming that their having 40 tabs open is normal usage.

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jim,

Stop reading Slashdot and get back to the small size.

Manuela

Re:Here we go...

[HeroreV]

When I used IE I usually only had about 2 windows open at a time and only about 8 during very heavy usage. Now that I'm using Firefox, I routinely have more than 40 tabs open. I have Firefox set to display 14 tabs on each row and sometimes - such as when searching around through many sources for info on 3 or 4 issues - I'll get over 6 rows of tabs. When using IE, I would have never in a million years done that.

I would be very interested to see how many tabs normal people use when they've gotten comfortable with Firefox.

Of course, I have 1 GB of RAM which handles 80+ tabs just fine. Is 1 GB really that much? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Re:Here we go...

[dbc001]

I've had probably more than 40 crashes since the update a few days ago. Just downloaded 1.5.0.3, will be reinstalling immediately. I just don't have the time to sit around troubleshooting this sort of thing.

Show the world and be taken seriously!

[MindPrison]

I think it's excellent with all these updates. Firefox if absolutely worth the attention.

Before Firefox - our local banking etc. where only accepted on Internet Explorer and nothing else, leaving out Mac and Linux users. Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!

Way to go FIREFOX!.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you capitalize "Largest Bank" in your post?

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[novus ordo]

It is a lameness filter.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Bromskloss]

Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!

So, they are supporting only certain browsers? Seems like an indication that _they_ shouldn't be taken too seriously. I have the same problems with some (but not all) banks where I live.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Mafia$oft]

This reflects much more on your CRAPTASTIC bank than on the wide distribution of Firefox.
Any bank that still has been restricting access to IE only during the last two years (many would say even longer than that) should be beaten unconscious and shot, given IEs widely known rather big insecurity issues (sure, Firefox also has its share of issues, but it's nowhere near as severe, often and unpatched as is IE).

What, online banking, using IE? Eeeeeeckck!!

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Threni]

> So, they are supporting only certain browsers? Seems like an indication that
> _they_ shouldn't be taken too seriously

It would be a strange person who chose a bank based on which browsers it supported. Perhaps, all things being equal, it could be a deciding factor, but in the UK at least there are usually enough differences between banks, and the services they offer, to make browser support a little irrelevant.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[jrumney]

Does your bank specify what brand of shoes you must wear to walk into its branches? Would you consider that a little irrelevant when choosing your bank?

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Threni]

> Does your bank specify what brand of shoes you must wear to walk into its
> branches? Would you consider that a little irrelevant when choosing your bank?

As is the case 99.999999% of the time an analogy is used, especially on Slashdot, that doesn't really apply.

In this case, for the analogy to be correct, shoes would have to be as easily carried as pocket fluff, and able to be switched with another pair in 5 seconds, and there would need to be some valid reason for needing to switch shoes, such as a slipper floor.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[killjoe]

I wonder how much of that is because firefox is so popular with geeks. I don't know of any geek that doesn't use it as their primary browser. Chances are very high that whoever developed the site was using firefox (with the awesome web developer extension) to test it all along.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[aussie_a]

able to be switched with another pair in 5 seconds,

I'd like to see a Linux user who can change to the latest version of Internet Explorer (which a lot of bank sites demand) in 5 seconds.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Dave2 Wickham]

Non-Windows users can't just switch to a maintained version of IE (assuming that's the browser required by a bank, which I believe used to be the case with mine), thus for those people, switching browsers would require a considerable investment of money and time. I wouldn't say that someone's strange for switching away from a non-responsive bank that only supports IE; I know I would.

Of course, my bank also doesn't support Opera, and I'm not going to switch away from them for that (I can just fire up Firefox on machines where I'd normally use Opera), but I'm saying that there are some very real cases where lack of browser support could be a major factor in switching away from a bank.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[malsdavis]

You can always tell when someone doesn't have a proper case ...they revert to the use of an analogy. In addition the analogy completely misses the point.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[GeckoX]

You're completely right. Why would a BANK give a hoop about browser support? Why would they maybe be a bit anal about security concerns?

Who CARES if they only support a couple browsers because they're so paranoid they don't trust opera/safari/konq etc. That is a GOOD THING.

But you'd throw your trust at a bank simply because they supported everyone? Whether that support is tested to be secure or not?

Silly argument you've got there, if you value your money that is.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're completely right. Why would a BANK give a hoop about browser support? Why would they maybe be a bit anal about security concerns?

Who CARES if they only support a couple browsers because they're so paranoid they don't trust opera/safari/konq etc. That is a GOOD THING.

But you'd throw your trust at a bank simply because they supported everyone? Whether that support is tested to be secure or not?

Arguing against yourself?

I'd have to agree though, I don't understand either why a bank would care so little about security that they would require customers to install the most insecure piece of software on the planet, risking not only the banks systems, but also the customers system.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Malc]

"I think it's excellent with all these updates."

Why? And why is god involved?

"God Bless Mozilla. Firefox has just notified me that Firefox version 1.5.0.4 has just been released "

So when MSFT releases patches for IE, they are bashed. When Mozilla does, they are praised.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seeing things? Which one did the GP say, this:

Today Firefox is so respected that it is the only browser which our country's Largest Bank support!

versus this:

Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!

?

Now, the whole bank issue is really sketchy, since the people who complain about their bank not supporting their browser never mention the bank's name, so it's not really clear if people are just shitting with us or not. If your bank doesn't support your browser, YOUR BANK REALLY BLOWS, PERIOD!

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[BecomingLumberg]

Any bank that still has been restricting access to IE only during the last two years (many would say even longer than that) should be beaten unconscious and shot, given IEs widely known rather big insecurity issues

Banking executives dont know about online browser security, as it is not in their primary function. They are becoming more aware of it, but most of these guys are 55+ and have their secretaries print their email for them. So don't get your heart broken that they dont run linux or use firefox or know how to tweak their kernel. They are the Hugos on the information superhighway.

Keep your pants on. Seriously.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mistyped "the most secure piece of software on the planet," doodooface! No backsies!

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[GeckoX]

Damned, my 3 year old can't type...how'd this child manage?

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[rsborg]

Banking executives dont know about online browser security, as it is not in their primary function.

Given things like Sarbanes-Oxley, as well as California's security disclosures, they better well get on the ball.

most of these guys are 55+ and have their secretaries print their email for them

In fact, I think more and more clearly, this stereotype is diminishing.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[BecomingLumberg]

I know i know... i should have indicated that it was sarcastic to a large extent. I just dont like the slashthink affect that everyone wants to use firefox or they are stupid, everyone's mom will be able to use linux after a 'small' learning curve, etc...

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[nuzak]

> It would be a strange person who chose a bank based on which browsers it supported.

If online banking for a particular institution just doesn't work on my computer when I am booted to Linux, then yes, it's rather a factor in whether I'll arrange my payments from that bank or not, seeing as how it's whether I'm actually able to do so or not. Naturally I put my money in the bank that I make payments from.

I'm not a zealot; in fact, I use Windows almost all the time these days. It's not boosterism or advocacy, it's just being practical. I'm a developer, I sometimes work on Linux, that's just the way it is. I know there are workarounds like running Wine, but I'm lazy and gravitate toward the easily-available alternatives, of which there are plenty.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is, by far, the most obvious way such things will change.

Like it or not, every web developer makes sure their page works in "their" browser. It happens that a great deal of developers use Firefox, which leads to Firefox being supported. Additionally, these same developers realize that they must support IE as well, so they add in hacks to make their page work in IE.

Basicly, if you make the browser most developers use, most pages will work in that browser.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Blakey Rat]

There's a large proportion of geeks using Safari and Konquerer. In addition, Opera has a user interface that only a geek could love.

I think what you're really meaning is that geeks *don't* use IE.

Re:Show the world and be taken seriously!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who CARES if they only support a couple browsers because they're so paranoid they don't trust opera/safari/konq etc."

If they are "paranoid" enough to see some correlation between installed base and security properties, then perhaps YOU should care.

Menu Delay

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or are the menus like 4 times faster at least? Or is it this patch changes firefox so that my old registry tweak setting windows menu paint dealy from 400ms to 0ms now being recognized by FF? I'ts not a simple memory leak fix because I have 1.5 gigs and I never noticed FF slowing down after long term use.

Or am I just crazy and nothing changed at all? maybe it was the extention update to cute menus cyrstal SVG

Re:Menu Delay

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's just you. You're crazy.

Re:Menu Delay

[howlingmadhowie]

you know what i think? i know, i'm way off topic here, but it suddenly hit me. there you are saying, 'it can't be a memory leak fix because i have 1.5gigs...', and i thought 'ooo, 1.5gigs...', cos i'm suffering in the dark ages here with 256 mb. but then i thought, in the year 2016, people are gonna read posts like yours and think 'how the hell did he open a web browser with just 1.5gigs? i mean don't you need like a brazillion bytes to do that?'

whatever, i'd best be getting on...

China invades Taiwan !

[Anonymous Coward]

China has invaded Taiwan! it doesn't look good, folks.

Thank God

[Chris Kamel]

for software update notifications. Really mind boggling technology isn't it?
Oh wait, it's not 1996....

Re:Thank God

[flobberchops]

I never got the notification, I only found out when I read this article and clicked manual check for updates... SO much for auto updating technology. It obviously does not work, the idea is we get it BEFORE its headline news?

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the update while I was browsing slashdot, restarted Firefox, went back to slashdot, and voila, article about the new release. So, it's working here.

Re:Thank God

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

I guess your suggestion is this (although you didn't really specify what "work" means):
1. All firefox copies poll mozilla.org every minute to check for updates
2. All firefox copies download the update at the exact same moment

Looks good. Can't see any flaws there.

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

1. All firefox copies poll mozilla.org every minute to check for updates
2. All firefox copies download the update at the exact same moment

Looks good. Can't see any flaws there.

Well, if they used akamai for hosting, I'm sure they could handle it without any bandwidth issues.

Re:Thank God

[bunratty]

It obviously does not work, the idea is we get it BEFORE its headline news?

No, that is not the idea. The idea is that the software updates itself even if you don't see it in the headlines or check for updates manually. As has already been pointed out, there's no way to update everyone before news of the new version is out. It would require far too much bandwidth.

Re:Thank God

[Apraxhren]

Lucky you, I can't even manually check for updates as it is grayed out. What is the point of that? Do i have to suck someone to get the update?

Re:Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what we call a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately, there's not a problem here, even though some people want there to be one..

Re:Thank God

[stripe42]

I wondered the same thing for too long -- why it was grayed, not the sucking part. Permissions. Like installing software, higher rights are needed to apply the update. I run firefox with sudo and option was ungreyed. That was my scenario.

Cheers

Watching on CNN Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, bloody fighting

Re:Watching on CNN Now

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't talk about unimportant stuff like wars here. This article is reserved for talking about a 4th order version number increment.

1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[k1980pc]

Hardly looks like news. And I'm already tired of Mozilla team not addressing the most critical issue - memory hogging. Brushing that aside is not going to help the developers or the users.

Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I'm already tired of Mozilla team not addressing the most critical issue - memory hogging."

Actually Mozilla team and the contributors have done much work to address the memory problems but the fixes for those are mainly coming on Firefox 2.0 and Firefox 3.0.

Based on my own experiences I think one of the main offenders for memory leaks are browser plugins like Macromedia Flash. But YMMV.

Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[Jerf]

Fixing "memory hogging" generally require significant architecture changes. This is not the sort of thing you get on a x.x.x.1 release.

I'm sure they're addressing this issue as it is easily now the #1 complaint about Mozilla. I recall it having memory issues even before plugins and the memory-hogging history-full-page-store feature (the one where you hit "back" and the page is just supposed to pop up, not re-render or re-request), but those two issues have magnified the issue into something that can't be ignored or poo-poo'ed anymore; I, too, will often see my Firefox hovering around the 600MB mark, and I recently installed that memory leak test tool and it didn't come up often at all.

Probably ought to shut off that feature; doesn't seem to do much for me anyhow.

Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[Kelson]

And I'm already tired of Mozilla team not addressing the most critical issue - memory hogging.

Actually, they've been whacking memory leaks in each of the ".forget-it releases," except for 1.5.0.3 which was just one security fix.

Firefox 1.5.0.1 Changelog
Firefox 1.5.0.2 Changelog
Bugzilla query: fixed in Gecko 1.8.0.4/Firefox 1.5.0.4 (remember, Bugzilla doesn't allow direct links from ./, so you'll have to copy that URL and paste it into your browser).

I believe more major work on memory fixes is going into 2.0, which can accept larger changes.

Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[HeroreV]

It's more like "major.significant.here-for-no-reason.minor". I doubt Firefox 1.5.x.x will ever get to version 1.5.1.x.

Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it

[dveditz]

Our intention is to never ship a 1.5.1.x, if we do it means there was some security issue we couldn't fix without breaking extensions (as happened in 1.0.3). With this scheme extensions can claim compatibility into the future (1.5.0.*) and we can warn the user about potentially incompatible extensions before they update.

If it helps, think of it as version "1.5.04" -- the extra decimal is for internal use.

Mozilla bug database is a joke

[flobberchops]

Open source? SO why do I have to SIGN UP to VIEW the bug database? IT says I am not authorized to view the bugs in the release notes. So much for open source. I do not want to EDIT it, just VIEW READ ONLY.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[ClamIAm]

You're either a grade A moron or a grade F troll. Go to bugzilla.mozilla.org. I'm looking through dozens of bugs right now. No reg required. (oh, and they don't like links from slashdot. so copy and paste the URL)

In addition, the definitions of "open source" and "free software" have nothing to do with anonymous bugzilla access, but rather with the availability of source code and the rights one has with regards to use and modification of said code. If you don't believe me, read the definitions yourself.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[flobberchops]

Read this one then ... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33683 0

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[flobberchops]

So complaining about not reading Microsoft's bug database when one cant read opensource's bug database fully is different? I dont think so. Pot meet the kettle.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[NutscrapeSucks]

Hate to break it to you, but he's right and the Grade A moron here is you. Mozilla does lock their security bugs so only the privledged few can see them:

Go here and click just try to click through to bugzilla from the issues:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vul nerabilities.html#firefox1.5.0.4

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[flobberchops]

So what, theyre FIXED.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

and it never ocured to you that they might want to stop bots from farming them and so they just created a simple log in requirement to stop them? or maybee they just need something that they can ban in case you post stupid stuff.... or maybee just freaking maybee they feel like making you waste time, cause we all know how evil mozila corp is.... go home you microsuck fanboy this is the wrong place to yell at about that kind of stuff.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/createaccount.cgi OMG! I have to signup to have access! What to do, what to do...

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[flobberchops]

OMG i have to sign up to NYTimes articles OMG what shall I do! Oh wait...

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[WilliamSChips]

For NYTimes, you have to give a lot more than an email address and a password. That's all you have to give to sign up for a Bugzilla database.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[WilliamSChips]

WHY do you HAVE to USE so many CAPITAL LETTERS?

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[NutscrapeSucks]

OMG! I have to signup to have access!

Good job talking out of your ass. The security bugs are still inaccessible wihtout a special account.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

The security bugs are still inaccessible wihtout a special account.

And the problem with this is what exactly? I want access. I sign up giving away only an email (they urge not to be my main one because spam will probably follow). I have access. What is the problem you guys are having other than firefox bashing or trolling? Idiots...

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[bunratty]

That bug is a security bug that they're keeping closed until they release a patch. It's common practice to attempt to keep security bugs secret until a patch is released. If they didn't, malware authors could easily exploit the flaws, and tens of millions of computers running Firefox would be vulnerable.

If you forget to lock your door one day, do you want someone coming by to put a big red sign announcing that fact to the world so anyone can walk into your house and take whatever they want?

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[bunratty]

After users get a chance to patch their systems, the bug reports will be opened. Not everyone can upgrade to the latest release within a few hours.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Vo0k]

Open Source requires free access to the source code. You are stiff free to diff the tree from before and after the patch and find differences by yourself. They can't forbid doing this.

Open Source does not require granting you access to every single piece of plan, report, draft, helper service or conversation log that was created in the process of making the software. The fact that you can use Bugzilla at all is just a good will of the Mozilla Fundation. The content of the Bugzilla database is neither open source nor free to access and modify to anyone. You can view or edit chosen sections of it through provided mechanisms, but no law forces the Mozilla people to disclose all the reported bugs in the database to you.

Grade A Asshole is you.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Vo0k]

Yes, they are fixed already. That means no need to fix them. Go pick one of a million other bugs that need to be fixed and fix it if you want to help so much.

Is there maybe a some specific reason why you want to see them BEFORE most of people have the upgrade installed?

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[NutscrapeSucks]

> Grade A Asshole is you.

When did I say anything about Open Source? Go reply to flobberchops, fuckwit.

Funny how the people preaching open source in this thread are all insulting jerks who lack basic factual knowledge and intellectual skills. I guess that's what one would expect from a movement started by Bruce Perens

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[NutscrapeSucks]

If you can access these bugs, you must work for Mozilla or something, because I sure can't.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Vo0k]

OP: "Open source? SO why do I have to SIGN UP to VIEW the bug database?"
Follow-up: You Troll||Moron, "I'm looking through dozens of bugs right now. No reg required."
You: You moron, Mozilla restricts...
I: You asshole, Restricts, not conflicting with OSS.

The follow-up took the wrong point in disproving the OP stupidity. You just attacked the follow-up without ever taking into account that OP was completely wrong. That's being an asshole, attacking just one side when both are wrong. Now when I pointed out what you either purposedly (asshole) or in ignorance (moron) omitted, you attack me.

Asshole or moron. I don't know which.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[NutscrapeSucks]

If you have a problem with the OP, take it up with him, you slobbering opensores tard. Don't insult me because I clarified the facts of the matter.

> Asshole or moron. I don't know which

In your case, both, voOk. Stay off the Internet until you figure out how it works.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Vo0k]

So you think you clarified... That confirms it.
Moron. Grade A.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[ClamIAm]

Sorry, looks like the joke's on you. He was (originally) referring to the "bug database". I had no info to know that he was referring to a locked bug.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They're fixed? How do I verify this? How do I know that the bugs are actually fixed? I have access to the source code, of course, so I can look through it.

But - whoops. I have NO IDEA what the bug is! I have no idea what the test cases are. I have no idea what needed to be done to fix it. I have no way to verify that the bug has ACTUALLY been fixed.

The whole concept behind open source is transparency, something that the Mozilla project completely lacks.

Re:Mozilla bug database is a joke

[bunratty]

So complaining about not reading Microsoft's bug database when one cant read opensource's bug database fully is different?

I can access the Bugzilla database for Firefox with no problem. Now where's Microsoft's publicly available bug database?

Opensource is FUD

[flobberchops]

When going to the bugzilla database for a bug ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33683 0 ) in the release notes on this build of firefox I get... Access Denied You are not authorized to access bug #336830. To see this bug, you must first log in to an account with the appropriate permissions. Opensource is FUD. Security bug? So what, its FIXED so SHOW ME THE DAMN BUG.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[flobberchops]

Its not flamebait its a real problem with mozilla opensource mentality and their bug database. Its suppost to be OPEN no? So much for OPEN in OpenSource. I guess you dont like to be criticised. OMG no hes saying something bad about us, mommy! *puts on blinkers and mods down* Must not listen! Must not listen! This is the mentality that is destroying opensource from within.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[tuomasr]

There is actually a good reason for limiting access to a bug report: security issues with the browser.

To fix a security issue, it is really useful for the developer to have material that can be used to exploit the issue to verify if it's fixed or not. And would you like this information to be publicly available? Propably not. Doesn't matter if it's fixed, because there will be people running versions of the software which are still vulnerable.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[flobberchops]

Its FIXED so make them PUBLIC. AUTOMATIC updates withing the browser itself no? Are you saying it doesn't work? :) I feel shame on their part.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[tuomasr]

You have realized that the automatic updates are not mandatory, right?

Re:Opensource is FUD

[flobberchops]

Then if they disable a protection system then tough they chose to not be protected automatically. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[WilliamSChips]

So, every Firefox browser should poll Mozilla every minute, and should download every update at the same time? Great Plan!

Re:Opensource is FUD

[Rogue Pat]

Looking at the source code, you can see which code got changed and which changes were made. The bug is not for your eyes, as it may give detailed steps to exploit the vulnerability.

Remember when Microsoft releases a patch it would say "a maliciously crafted web page may" etc. The bugzilla entry for Firefox may actually GIVE you all you need to build that maliciously crafted page.

As said before, there's no need to publicize detailed steps to exploit a browser.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[Vo0k]

Yep. Just give everyone enough time to update.
The fact that you have updated doesn't mean everyone else did. Some installs will take a week or more to just update, someone's on holidays, the computer is off, or the network is damaged, down. Opening them the moment the problem is fixed would give everyone a short but significant time window to exploit them.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[TangoCharlie]

If you don't like the way the Mozilla folk manage the Firefox project
then get a copy of the source code and do your own management....

Equally, If you don't like the way Microsoft manage Office releases, then
use another office suite.

The thing about free (as in speech) software is that you have the choice to
do what you want with the code. It doesn't say anything about how FOSS projects
are managed.

However, I think that the Mozilla projects are particularly well managed, and Firefox in particular, is a very very good product.

Have fun.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone else has done a pretty good job of arguing for those bugs to remain hidden. I have yet to see your reason for wanting them opened. So I guess you've pretty much defaulted.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[bunratty]

Then if they disable a protection system then tough they chose to not be protected automatically. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Many users can't update automatically or even manually, because they don't have permissions to install software on their computers. They have to wait until the IT department upgrades them.

Re:Opensource is FUD

[pdpTrojan]

SO? Information wants to be FREE!!!!! Yay!!!!

Re:Opensource is FUD

[TorAvalon]

Unless it's IE then publicize, publicize, publicize.

What does God have to do with this?

[Reverse Gear]

I find it at bit thought provoking that the phrase "God Bless Mozilla" has not spun of a any comments yet, while any talk about intelligent creation will make /. glow from the furios comments.

And yes you are right that this post is not about anything that has to do with God which of course it the reason for people not commenting this little feature of the ./ post.
I don't know if KrayzieKyd partipates in the frequent discussion about (bashing of?) Intelligent Creation here on /., but I can't but feel a bit awkward reading the words on /.
It's probably just me being touchy, so here goes my good karma (which again is a term I according to my previos (lack of) logic of this comment shuold get annoyed by).

Re:What does God have to do with this?

[Bromskloss]

What does God have to do with this?

Yeah, like he is be some omnipresent person having to do with everything in the universe or something.

Re:What does God have to do with this?

[WilliamSChips]

Probably because the former is a joke and the latter is pseudoscience disguised as science.

Re:What does God have to do with this?

[CowboyBob500]

Because nobody cares about your beliefs?

This is a technology site and I don't care if you believe in God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Cthulhu himself. There is nothing more annoying than someone else pushing their beliefs in your face. So with respect, f*ck off and stop evangelising.

Bob

Re:What does God have to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

like he is be some omnipresent person

What you say? We get signal!

Re:What does God have to do with this?

[Bromskloss]

What you say? We get signal!

Ehh... I get your point. It went wrong in the transition from "like he would be" to "like he is".

Always clueless MF whining..

[Anonymous Coward]

Viewing the bug database has NOTHING to do with open source or not.

You get a bitch-slap you whiney SOB.

You should be happy you don't have to sign away your rights by signing NDAs effectively barring you to work on competing products, or have to pay ANYTHING..

Re:Always clueless MF whining..

[flobberchops]

It has EVERYTHING to do with opensource, they scream and shout "open" and "many eyes" when they refer to open source but in reality it is everything but open.

Re:Always clueless MF whining..

[Anonymous Coward]

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rele ases/1.5.0.2/source/

Is this what you were looking for? Have a nice day...

Why can't they render this site properly in OS X?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to give this site a slashdotting, but lets see what happens.

http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/

It hasn't displayed in any Firefox version on Mac OS X properly. I've reported it but it hasn't been fixed in the last 4 versions.

Firefox will be like IE in a future...

[badevlad]

I like Firefox very much. It works much faster and consumes less resorces then IE. But with every release it becomes more and more heavy, and will reach IE soon.

Re:Firefox will be like IE in a future...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the bashing ? This is a bugfix release, I highly doubt that it became heavier. Moreover, the alpha releases of FF 2 show that performance is taken into consideration: on my slow machines, it's noticeably faster.

Re:Firefox will be like IE in a future...

[Dan Ost]

I think it's interesting that you say that, because every release since v1.5 has
improved performance for me (running on Gentoo).

Re:Firefox will be like IE in a future...

[badevlad]

I use it since its first release. Now it loads much longer.

There's always Opera.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast, small footprint, low resource use. More customisable than any other browser I've tried, stable, secure, free. And did I mention it is fast?

Get it here:

http://www.opera.com/download/linux/

Re:There's always Opera.

[HeroreV]

More customisable than any other browser I've tried

You obviously haven't tried Firefox. Unless you're just plain stupid or lying. Firefox is built with XML and JavaScript and styled with CSS. Any part of it can be viewed and changed at any time. Extensions are so easy because they just add and change bits of XML, CSS, and JavaScript.

I'm not saying Opera isn't great. It is. And I'm not saying the design of Firefox is superior in every way. It isn't. But Opera is nowhere nearly as customizable as Firefox.

All of this in addition to being open source so that every teeny tiny thing is open to alteration.

disappointing

[distantbody]

And I *still* can't find text within a textbox...

Re:disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry you expect such changes to appear in a x.x.+1 release. That's not how things work.

Re:disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just Ctrl+F, type in what you're searching for, click "highlight all" and look for the bright yellow highlighed text? So the "find next" and "find previous" buttons don't work, but that's no biggie.

Re:disappointing

[xtracto]

Oh yeah, and the search in multiple frames function is broken.

And do not tell me frames suck... they ARE being used and the functionallity is broken.

Re:disappointing

[xtracto]

And please do not tell me to add a extension because adding a 200K memory leaking piece of shit just to add some functionallity that MUST have implemented in the main program is stuid (yeah, along with the search in textbox and the memory leak extension among others.

Yeah, kill me for bashing our beloved firefox, and no I wont use Opera of Explorer

Re:disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

write your own then and stop your fucking bitching. If you wont take suggestions then fuck off.

Re:disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Broken? I just did a Find (/) for "awt" and when a frame was fully searched (ctrl+g iteration) it switched to the next frame. Pressed enter and the link is loaded in the appropriate frame.

captcha: phoenix!

Re:disappointing

[jZnat]

For one, JavaDocs include a no frames version, so you can use that just as easily. Also, why are you using the 1.4.2 docs when the recent version is 1.5.0? As a matter of fact, 1.6.0 should be coming out soonish (they're on [weekly] build 86 or so), so I'd recommend that you get with the picture ASAP.

YOU FAIL IT!

[YOU FAIL IT!]

Not fast enough! It looks like your plan to get the first post was riddled with more holes than Firefox (Just look at that changelog!)

YOU FAIL IT!

WTF??

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from someone who can't be bothered by registering a free account, and then bitches about it all over /. to show everyone what a lazy SOB he actually is. You didn't even contact Mozilla Foundation about this, did you? What do you think bitching about it on /. will do. Really, what do you expect from others that you can't do yourself? When you eat, who will hold your golden spoon?

Open Source do not need people bitching about missing features, telling other people what to do and putting them down.

That is not support.

Speech is cheap, work is what really matters.

Have a nice day!

Re:WTF??

[flobberchops]

Hey I know you, you are that guy that always complains about having to REGISTER FREE on the NYTimes links on slashdot no? OH wait, pot, meet the kettle.

Re:WTF??

[Bromskloss]

Hey I know you, you are that guy that always complains about having to REGISTER FREE on the NYTimes links on slashdot no?

Wow, so you _don't_ find the NYT bureaucracy annoying?!

Re:WTF??

[WilliamSChips]

NYTimes registration forces you to disclose personal information. Bugzilla database: email and a password. If you don't see a difference there you're technically illiterate. And critical security vulnerabilities are a bit different from various news articles.

Most of these are already fixed on my machines...

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally, if you care about security then you too will have javascript disabled.

Swiftfox

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, you can get a processor optimized verison at http://getswiftfox.com/

Yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the office we use mostly "low end" machines - 800 to 1300 Mhz Athlon/Via processors. We're running Debian Sarge on most machines. Recently I upgraded from sarges 1.0.7(?) to the binary linux bundle and _everyone_ has told me they've experienced faster rendering and more stability, and we use it a lot - most of our apps are web-based. About the tabs/pre-caching problem/feature, see previous post.

Who the fuck is 'God'?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is blessed by some dude they refer to as 'God'. I have no idea what they're talking about, but it seems this release is divine, and must be mentioned on slashdot.

Or maybe they should let that 'God' stay the 'hell' out of science. They just don't match.

The earth is flat, over and out.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you were served bugs for dinner, and not bug-fixes.
Way to bite the hand that feed you..

All software contains bugs. It's just that those security-holes that Microsoft products are so full of, were already known to be problematic. ActiveX, VB for applications: Java/Javascript came long before these, and contained proper sandboxing, something these security-riddled hacks sorely miss. Microsoft were warned many times, and the world is now paying billions of dollars repairing the damage every year.

Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[flobberchops]

There is no reason to keep them locked away to a selected view, the bugs are fixed, if anybody wants to exploit them they can just do a DIFF on the source which is viewable anyway. We have automatic updates that notify them (even without installing) of such changes. Why hide them in shame? Sweeping them under the carpet? There is NO REASON at all to keep them HIDDEN.

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[Vo0k]

Just give them about a month or two after they made it into the update.
A bug is marked as "Fixed" as soon as the patch makes it into the trunk. Then it needs to be backported to release branch, added to update and sent out through update mechanisms. And leave people some time to download the update and patch their installs. Otherwise it will be a race between black hats and admins, who gets to exploit/update first, and there -will- be victims.

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[Rogue Pat]

Maybe a diff on the source will tell you the coded solution. But it's quite likely that the entry in Bugzilla itself gives you the exploit.

I see no particular reason to publicize exploits.

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[flobberchops]

How do you think they exploit current Microsoft bugs? They run a diff on before and after the hotfix and they dont have source then.

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly would you gain by knowing the exploit details?

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[Rogue Pat]

I know that evil people do it that way and that they'll always find a way. But that still doesn't mean that fully functional exploits should be made public.

Note that Microsofts security bulletins say "a maliciously crafted web page". They do not lower the threshold (and SHOULD not!) to help script-kiddies and anyone else how to write that "maliciously crafted web page"

There's a difference between "hackers/crackers FINDING an exploit" and "HANDING out exploits"

Re:Open the FIXED security bugs in the database..

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly would you gain by knowing the exploit details?

Well for one thing I'd be able to verify for myself that the exploit was real and not imagined, which would help me decide if deploying the upgrade is worth the risk (there are always new bugs in any non-trivial upgrade...) Besides that it's the principle of the thing. It's not full-disclosure until all the known data is made public.

Spellbound

[Supurcell]

If only my Spellbound plug-in would work again. Now howe will aye bee able two correct my pore spelling?

Now if only there was a plug-in for the correction of misused homonyms.

Re:Spellbound

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can say is either try out the Bon Echo alpha relases or just hang in there: Firefox 2 is going to have a spellbound-like feature built in.

Re:Spellbound

[Anonymous Coward]

When I upgraded to FF1.5, all I needed to do was bump the Max_version string in the Spellbound XPI (install.rdf, I believe) and in the spellbound_lib XPI. You need to use the 'Nightly' library XPI for it to work (Even though those are several months out of date now)

Re:Spellbound

[thetoastman]

Actually, there is a development version of spellbound that works with Firefox 1.5.0.x. It's quite useful, and has some nice features. You can get it here.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=3511 30&start=0

The install link is a little difficult to find, but look for "Install SpellBound Dev" near the end of the first message.

This works for me, but as always, your mileage may vary

Re:Spellbound

[Elf_h34d3r]

Also, the Mozilla Firefox trunk build (3.0) has an automagical speel cheeker. I'm using it now, and it's not bad. Recognized "Mozilla" "Firefox" "speel" "automagical" and "cheeker" as errors.

No, thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll wait until Mozilla hits 1.5.1 -- and from what I hear, that magic milestone is a long way away.

Re:No, thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/rel eases/mozilla1.5.1/
26-Nov-2003 02:54

Oh wait, you meant Mozilla FIREFOX 1.5.1...

Re:No, thanks.

[baadger]

Unless i'm mistaken, that probably won't happen. The 1.5.x tree has essentially been dropped from active development and now consists entirely of bugfixes. Firefox 2.x and Firefox 3.x are were active development is atm. You can see progress being made in trunk at The Burning Edge blog

Re:No, thanks.

[gimple]

You might want to get your sarcas-o-meter checked. I think it might need calibrating.

How is this news ...

[Grismar]

... -after- the update has installed itself in a friendly way on my machine? I mean, come on: anyone who needs this update already has Firefox installed and will get a notification -or- has turned such notifications off for some very good reason and won't be interested to read about it here.

"Oh, they actually fixed some security issues in Firefox? That must means it's now completely safe, I'm going down there to download straightaway..."

Re:How is this news ...

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone who needs this update already has Firefox installed and will get a notification
I use firefox daily and the updater didn't kick in for this until a few hours ago.

Auto updating doesn't work for everyone anyway - what about mutiuser systems where the normal user doesn't have write access to the firefox directory? What about OSes that don't support the auto update feature?

Re:How is this news ...

[Grismar]

What about mutiuser systems where the normal user doesn't have write access to the firefox directory?

As far as I know, they will still get a notification of the availability of the update, they just won't be able to install it. This article on /. didn't change that.

What about OSes that don't support the auto update feature?

The OS does not need to "support the auto update", it's a built-in Firefox feature, it does its own checking and downloading.

Web 2.0 dangers

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla and IE are implementing complicated, but eye-candy nontheless, technologies. If sites use these technologies for Web 2.0, they will lock in to Mozila and IE and lockout any new www browsing product. While what really matters is the *information* contained in a webpage, these complicated standards will render it unviewable by other programs.

So while WWW was all about ''information in a simple form where everybody can see it'', now it's turning into ''files that can be viewed by the Gecko runtime system (js, XUL, SVG, etc)''.

The Mozilla-Google syndication is pushing futher this lockin for the Web. Google funds mozilla (5 of mozilla's developers are already "very rich people"). Google got money from MS. MS's public image is destroyed forever, but the stockholders are using "good Google" now. Think about these matters before you go to sleep. It's a good way to fight insomnia...

Thunderbird now in mac universal binary

[anticypher]

Just tested with the newest macintel universal binary, and it is significantly faster than 1.5.0.2 (which also claimed universal binary, but they fucked up).

If you let software update happen on a mac intel, it doesn't update to 1.5.0.4 universal, but just updates the PPC image. You need to download the new universal image, and install that over the older version, and then it runs.

They still haven't addressed all the networking problems yet, but I really don't ever expect them to.

the AC

Re:Thunderbird now in mac universal binary

[Anonymous Coward]

If Thunderbird transitions to universal binaries in the same way Firefox has just done, then from the next release it will be universal only, and the updater will map PPC-->Universal and Universal-->Universal.

Re:Thunderbird now in mac universal binary

[anticypher]

We can hope that will be the case. I noticed the update last night, but with no speed difference. This morning I checked the release notes, and it said for mac owners to just DL the whole image. Took a minute to do, and worth it for the speed advantage. Now they just have to fix the stop button :-)

the AC

Ubuntu users?

[cciRRus]

Any Ubuntu users here? How should I update my Firefox on Ubuntu Dapper Drake 6.06 LTS?

Re:Ubuntu users?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu will update it for you the same way all the other updates are handled. It takes some time for them to make the new package.

update my arse, I'm having big multi-profile probs

[distantbody]

...And now they're forcing the "mozilla has been updated" page to load on startup on my other two Firefox profiles EVERY TIME - DESPITE MY ACTUAL HOMEPAGE!! What the hell is going on!?

For me it was 500 KB

[p3d0]

Maybe you were starting from an out-of-date version?

All your home pages are belong to use

[Anonymous Coward]

All your home pages are belong to use. China - get out of taiwan /////

Re:SeaMonkey for Security

[bunratty]

Anyone wanting to stick with the Mozilla Suite should upgrade to SeaMonkey soon for security updates. SeaMonkey gets all the core security fixes Firefox and Thunderbird do, but the old Suite isn't being developed any more and therefore won't get any security fixes.

Re:Why can't they render this site properly in OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked fine for me. Oh, sorry, on a mac. Right.

Someday maybe mommy will buy you a real computer.

DON'T TRUST THE LYING LIBERAL MEDIA!

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN is for commies! TRUE PATRIOTS watch FoxNews!

(-1 Redundant)

[Sigg3.net]

I updated my blog just now. Just in case you were interested.

Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[Hugo Graffiti]

In 1.5.0.3 if you go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/ and scroll to the bottom, the "Contact us" link is all messed up. Much as I like Firefox, I see loads of stuff like this.

Re:Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[nicolastheadept]

looks fine to me

Re:Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[nicolastheadept]

And besides, it fails validation:

Re:Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It works just fine, the problem is yours.

Re:Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[Per Wigren]

I run 1.5.0.3 and I can't see what's "messed up". It looks fine to me...

Re:Can it display the BBC web site properly yet?

[Hugo Graffiti]

Ah, ok, I see. I had a "minimum font size" set. But I also had "Allow pages to choose their own fonts instead of my selection above" which I would have expected to override my minimum, but obviously not. (And that site does specify its own font). Thanks!

Profile

[Rapsey]

It created it's own user profile and is ignoring my old one. Now I have to re-enter all my passwords to sites, import my bookmarks and re-install all my extensions.

Re:Profile

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Firefox's profile manager will help. From http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/profile:

On Linux or Mac, start Firefox with the the -profilemanager switch, e.g. ./firefox -profilemanager (this assumes that you're in the firefox directory).

Hth.

Fucking stupid moderators

[linvir]

Weren't the other two identical posts by this guy clue enough? Or do moderators usually skip to the end of the comment tree and mod up the first thing they see? Hopefully whoever modded this trash up will be killed out of moderation by metamoderation.

Re:Fucking stupid moderators

[linviir]

Well said

Re:Fucking stupid moderators

[kwoff]

Ah, who's a gwumppy widdle fewwow..?! Not everyone has the amount of extra time you apparently do, so relax and maybe try to find a way to not waste space.

Re:Fucking stupid moderators

[linvir]

Hurray for you! Hopefully you got a nice pleasant ejaculation out of what was a veritable celebration of your superiority to me.

Opera - best browser out there

[mankey wanker]

Opera is the best of everything. It renders almost everything IE will render, yet is more standards compliant, smaller, and faster than all of its competition. Since it's free (as in beer), I don't care that its not open source.

Firefox has a loooooong way to go yet. It's great to have it on board as it could one day be the browser of choice. But that day has not yet arrived.

Re:Opera - best browser out there

[MrPink2U]

I think I just threw up in my mouth. Opera sucks.

Re:Opera - best browser out there

[Nicolay77]

I do agree, but FF has made a lot of websites to take standards into account.
And as Opera users we benefit from standards compliant web pages.

As long as IE has the lions share of the market, I want both browsers to increase their use.

Re:Opera - best browser out there

[Ant P.]

The reason Opera is freeware on the desktop is the same reason Netscape was also forced to become freeware. Someone came along with a superior product and made it free first.

Re:Opera - best browser out there

[j79zlr]

I like Opera alot, but to imply that its rendering engine is less picky than firefox's is irrational.

Firefox vs IE

[heffrey]

Good to see that Firefox is now surpassing IE on all fronts, including the frequency of security flaws being plugged!!

Actually I'm a big fan of FF, especially now that I've got 2GB memory installed...... ;-)

Re:SeaMonkey!!!!

[bunratty]

Q: I have Mozilla 1.7.13. What am I supposed to upgrade to!?!?!
A: SeaMonkey!!!!

Changelist

[krunk4ever]

Fixed in Firefox 1.5.0.4
MFSA 2006-43 Privilege escalation using addSelectionListener
MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
MFSA 2006-41 File stealing by changing input type (variant)
MFSA 2006-39 "View Image" local resource linking (Windows)
MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
MFSA 2006-36 PLUGINSPAGE privileged JavaScript execution 2
MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
MFSA 2006-34 XSS viewing javascript: frames or images from context menu
MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

Re:Changelist

[jesser]

That's just a list of security fixes. There were non-security fixes in Firefox 1.5.0.4 too.

Bon Echo

[Vexorian]

I am currently using Bon Echo Alpha 3 . I tried 1.5.0.4 and it seems much stabler and faster than 1.5.0.3 but it seems to me that Bon echo is still the best firefox version, It seriously is awesome.

Default update setting flawed

[LS]

Considering that privacy and security are big concerns for every large software project these days, I believe that Firefox's default update setting should be changed. If you go to Tools --> Options --> Advanced --> Update, and you haven't changed your default settings, you will find that it is set to "Automatically download and install the update". Even Microsoft wouldn't do this, so why is it acceptable in Firefox? It should default to "Ask me what I want to do.", and during the first update, a checkbox should be provided asking the user if he wants automatic updates from then on.

My 2 cents.

LS

Re:Default update setting flawed

[Cheeze]

it's acceptable because it's a web browser, and not the whole operating system. IE does not have an option for automatic updates, Windows does.

Firefox DOES ask you if you want to install it or not, mine did at least.

Re:Default update setting flawed

[smoker2]

If you go to Tools --> Options --> Advanced --> Update, and you haven't changed your default settings, you will find that it is set to "Automatically download and install the update". Even Microsoft wouldn't do this, so why is it acceptable in Firefox?

And there was I thinking that we were trying to stop dumb windows users from just clicking yes to everything they get in their browser. It's an update, for Firefox. There are no privacy or security concerns there (IMHO).

BTW, win xp security center defaults to download and install updates automatically. In fact it complains if you alter that setting. I don't particularly want to install the Genuine Advantage "patch", so I set mine to notify when updates are available, and that's all.

Re:Default update setting flawed

[jvervloet]

it's acceptable because it's a web browser, and not the whole operating system.

My parent's firewall complains when an application that wants to access the internet has changed. If you don't know that Firefox installs its updates automatically (like me ;)) this is rather confusing.

Sometimes the browser matters...

[IANAAC]

It would be a strange person who chose a bank based on which browsers it supported. Perhaps, all things being equal, it could be a deciding factor, but in the UK at least there are usually enough differences between banks, and the services they offer, to make browser support a little irrelevant.

Well, I do all my banking online. All of it, from transferring money to paying bills. You don't think browser support would be a big issue for me?

And truthfully, I live in a large enough city in the US (Chicago) that it would be unlikely that I couldn't find a bank that offers all the services I want/need without having to stipulate which browser I used.

I don't understand this attitude of just blindly accepting what's handed to you. YOU define what you need, not the other way around. And if a business can't provide what you need, you go elsewhwere.

It not only fails validation but also....

[burnttoy]

But, as I've brought up with them before, the site is full of wasted space. I even wrote them a tool to remove all that guff but was told (about 6 months ago) that they were working on the problem.

I only noticed it when I was parsing the thing for an new aggregator and found a big input file to output file sise diff. The XML parser was set to discard pointless whitespace.

Validator... http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnew s.bbc.co.uk%2F

---

Sometimes I feel like I'm repeating myself. Sometimes I feel like I'm repeating myself.

Re:It not only fails validation but also....

[ynohoo]

Something I don't understand about about the W3 rules - why is the font tag considered subordinate to the paragraph tab, forcing you to repeat it for each paragraph?

Maybe it makes a crap browser coder's life a bit easier, but every browser already supports the fact that the two concepts are entirely independent, so what is the point of this pedantic rule?

Re:It not only fails validation but also....

[ben there...]

Something I don't understand about about the W3 rules - why is the font tag considered subordinate to the paragraph tab, forcing you to repeat it for each paragraph?

The proper method to create a section that is all in one font would be to create a div with a specific class, and then put your paragraphs in it.

<div class="content">
<p>Paragraph 1</p>
<p>Paragraph 2</p>
</div>

<style>
.content { font-family: Times, serif }
</style>

Re:It not only fails validation but also....

[ynohoo]

well I'm not going to rewrite all my five+ year old pages to use the new div tag! It would be nice if I could identify a header to support the old rules though...

Firefox

[certel]

When they fix the Windows Media Player plugin for the MacBook (Intel) then I'll be impressed.

Re:Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame MS not Firefox for that.

Are we at the mercy of the update gods?

[fury88]

Is there now way to for an update from Firefox anymore? I haven't had a notification yet.

Re:Are we at the mercy of the update gods?

[NalosLayor]

Help->Check For Updates

Re:Are we at the mercy of the update gods?

[fury88]

Ugh.. thanks.. how did I miss that? I was looking in Tools->Options. Sometimes the most obvious places are the ones you DON'T look

Re:Are we at the mercy of the update gods?

[Kris_B_04]

Soon after I read this, I had a little message box come up saying that the update has been installed and I needed to restart Firefox. It did the update automatically! :)

Fortunately, I had the ability to finish what I was doing before restarting... ;)

TGIF!

Kris

Re:Are we at the mercy of the update gods?

[Apraxhren]

What if that option is grayed out?

Triggering Incremental Update

[The MAZZTer]

How do you TRIGGER the incremental update without waiting for Firefox to figure out there is one? I find it's quicker to download the full 4mb installer than it is to wait for the 500kb patch to be detected.

Re:Triggering Incremental Update

[digital-hell-native]

Takes only two mouse clicks:

Help -> Check for Updates

Re:Triggering Incremental Update

[blazerw11]

How do you TRIGGER the incremental update

I believe it's consistent across platforms (I'm using Linux) and it's Help->Check for Updates...

Firefox is so slow

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Firefox as my primary browser except when test for compatibility web app (I am a developer). Recently, I tried mozilla 1.4 and netscape 7.2 on our app because some @#$%@ still run them and have problem. I was very surpised to find out that these browser is several times faster showing up same webpages than Firefox. It's not only noticable, but it could be said that it's many times faster, not just faster. I know that Firefox support alot more. However, with this speed, I think it's definitely possible to be way faster, and support more. If to support more and it's slower, something wrong with the design that does not scale well. This is almost a shock to me. I have been using Firefox for so long that I couldn't think it would be slower than it's predessor. I always think it's problem the same or faster.

Re:Firefox is so slow

[metallidrone]

Depending on your test environment (if you're testing through a dial-up-emulator proxy or just files across an intranet), you might simply be seeing the initial paint delay. It may or may not be this (or it could even be that it's really slower), but you can search for "delay" in about:config. By default, it waits about a half a second before painting the page (to avoid frequently flashing/rearranging the first page of contents for, e.g., people browsing over dial-up).

Google for initial paint delay to see more discussion of that. That's not to trivialize your experience--it could well be that FF is slower than some older browsers for intrinsic reasons instead of configuration reasons (examples include architectural decisions for compat/maintainability over speed, supporting more features/standards, etc.).

Firefox 1.5.0.3 Loop DoS Exploit

[SassyOS2]

Firefox 1.5.0.3 Loop DoS Exploit
yet?

grammar?

[a55clown]

confused on your sig... text is hard to use when conveying sarcasm unless you go overboard.

Grammar tip: "Effect" is a verb. "Affect" is a noun.

"effect" is more commonly used as a noun than a verb. and i have yet to see a use for "affect" as a noun.

Usage Note:

Affect and effect have no senses in common. As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health). Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings. Thus the sentence These measures may affect savings could imply that the measures may reduce savings that have already been realized, whereas These measures may effect savings implies that the measures will cause new savings to come about.

Re:grammar?

[Ctrl-Z]

i have yet to see a use for "affect" as a noun.

I seem to recall it as a noun in PSYCH101. Merriam-Webster Online defines it as "the conscious subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes".

/. stats

[jthill]

This quote

It's not ideal to swap one browser monopoly for another

threw me for a loop for half a beat (half a loop? whatever), but then I remembered I wasn't actually on /. at the time.

So that's all right then.

too minor a change...

[mcn]

Too minor a change to be posted here. Just a month minus one day ago, we received news of 1.5.0.3 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/03/121720 0. Nevertheless, it's nice to see firefox patches released on a regular basis.

Re:SeaMonkey!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, I use Moz suite, and tried out seamonkey when 1.0 came out, since after all it IS supposed to be the upgrade, right? Corrupted mail, crashing web browser. How can Mozilla take something that worked and fuck it up so badly?

Lots of bugs, lots of fluff

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the firefox mission of FIXING BUGS rather than adding features??

Sure would be nice if they would fix the focus bugs under Linux. They were reported many years ago and they remain pervasive.

Sure would be nice if they would fix the keyboard binding problems. Getting emacs style bindings is a major pain and doesn't even work in some environments. The current approach is a joke and has been for years. Bugs were filed years ago..

Yeah, I'm bitching. But these are serious problems that keep me at version 0.8 with potentially dire security consequences.

It's not the plugins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard often about how it's various plugins and extensions that cause Firefox to leak memory. But I have come to doubt that theory.

I recently started using Firefox 1.5.0.3 on Linux. I didn't bother to install Flash, Sun's Java plugin, or anything else like that. I didn't bother finding any extensions beyond what might come with the default Firefox installation.

Nevertheless, I did notice the memory leaks that others were talking about. After about a week of fairly heavy use, the browser would be consuming 600+ MB of RAM. Konqueror doesn't do that, and Opera doesn't do that. Any piece of software that consumes 60% of my system's memory, while its competitors do not, is flawed in my book.

As I said earlier, this was with a default installation from mozilla.org. If it is the fault of any extension, it's due to extensions they themselves included in the official binary distribution for Linux.

That alone makes me not want to use Firefox in the future, regardless of what version it is or how much work they put into it. It's sort of the same feelings towards Microsoft products. There are only so many times that one wants to deal with low-quality software before saying to hell with it, especially when promises of "it'll improve in the next release!" never materialize.

Firefox has a loooooong way

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly doesn't firefox do that it has a long way to go?

Patched?

[SphericalCrusher]

Hopefully this update will fix some of the stability issues the software has as of late...

We need some examples. And try Opera 9!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide some examples of sites that didn't work? If it truly was as much of a problem as you make it out to be, I'm sure that you'd remember those sites. I find your claims doubtful, because having been an Opera users for years, I cannot say I've run into the same problems ever.

And give the Opera 9 prereleases a try sometime. They're quite fantastic. I just tried Firefox 1.5.0.4, and it does feel slower in comparison to Opera 9. But then again, Opera has put a lot of work into making their browser speedy and efficient.

Re:We need some examples. And try Opera 9!

[aussie_a]

[url=http://www.armageddon.org/login.php?returnURL =/request/index.php]This is just one of many sites[/url] (try logging in).

Oh, and it's Opera 9 I'm using, not 8. It's slower then Firefox.

Re:SeaMonkey in Mozilla Downloads page

[bunratty]

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335249

Re:SeaMonkey auto-update feature

[bunratty]

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=283580

Minefield

[RaNdOm OuTpUt]

No, I tried it, and Minefield is MUCH better. Try it.

Re:Minefield

[TeknoHog]

Minefield is MUCH better. Try it.

I second this with a link: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/latest-trunk/

Actually, I haven't tried Bon Echo, but it appears to be the beta for Firefox 2. I like bleeding on the edge, so I prefer to use Minefield (FF 3 alpha) even if it's occasionally a little unstable. I also like the fact that Minefield uses the new Cairo display system of GTK+, so that will undergo testing at the same time.

Re:Minefield

[jvervloet]

No, I tried it, and Minefield is MUCH better. Try it.

I first thought this was a sarcastic joke, but after some Googling I discovered that ‘Minefield’ is the trunk build of Firefox.

STOP IT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this news?!?!?!?!?!?!

STOP TELLING US WHAT MINOR VERSION FIREFOX IS ON! Anyone that cares (I assume those people are the ones using it) learn rather quickly when they get the "new version, update?" dialogue. So why does /. feel the need to put it on the front friggin page?!?!?!

Re:STOP IT!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick! Call the waaaaaaaaaahmbulance!

Re:STOP IT!!!

[chawly]

To each his own. I didn't see anything else but the slashdot notice. So I read the release notes and then downloaded it to my LINUX machine, installed it, and tested. It works like a charm and I now have better security - thanks to slashdot and, of course, mozilla

I say please put notices like this on the front page . It may not be news for you, bubba, but it surely was for me. As I understand it, the dialogue about new versions only happens on Windows machines - and if you're running Windows you need and deserve all the help you can get.

information in a simple form

[cyfer2000]

We call that "Web 1.0".

Lagging Cursor problems have kept me away

[alfredo]

from Thunderbird. I have been sending bug reports for years without a fix. http://home.infionline.net/~arm3/images/cursorlagg ing.png Until that is fixed, I can't use it. Other than that, it works well. As long as I don't have to edit my e-mail it is not a problem, but trying to change anything in the body of the text is impossible.

Unidata and Microdata?

[lenski]

Unable to resist...

In the '70's, MicroData built a (get this) User Microprogrammable machine. Naturally, not too many people other than E.E. and C.S. researchers wanted to write their own microcode, so MicroData needed to find another line of business. So, they developed the Reality system.

I worked on a MicroData Reality system in during a summer job in 1977. I know that Pick and Reality use the same underlying database approach, but I don't know who derived from whom.

Where did UniData fit in?

Re:Unidata and Microdata?

[Nutria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick_System

True Genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant.

Seriously burned by previous release

[Anonymous Coward]

..carshed whenever it tried to print, etc. etc. with no backup path.

max suckiness.

links2 also released

[tarzeau]

Links 2.1pre22. does braille, text and graphics modes, alots of configuration, much better downloadmanager, can do graphics in framebuffer or svgalib as well. Much smaller, much faster, alot of languages, auto size single pictures *hint, hint*...

Standards base.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or did your large bank just decide to make a standards based web site?

It's a Feature

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a big deal. Whenever Firefox grows that big, or I open too many tabs, it tends to crash, thus bringing memory usage back down.

Re:stupid moderators

[Anomalyst]

Gosh, shouldn't the comment have been something like:

1. Strip stupid moderator
2. Copulate/Sodomize (gender dependent)
3. ...
4. Profit!

Or maybe "On American /. moderators screw you!".

Fixes, 1..10, breaks 11..14

[Anonymous Coward]

And SSL with my online banking croaked. I've now disabled automatic updates, but the horse hath bolten. Anybody know how to REVERSE one of these %$#@ patches, say to v1.5.0.3?

You do know...

[Phil John]

...it pops up a stonking big window telling you as such, then asking your permission (and telling you it will restart the browser). It then brings up another nice window that tells you it's downloading an update.

Then, when the browser restarts it opens up a page telling you your browser has been upgraded to the latest version.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 should get the gist.

And it really blows...

[Lord Flipper]

On a Macintosh. I'm in the middle of my 5th consecutive crash trying to load the "Pirates Bay" article from 03-June. It hangs in between the initial page draw and the Slashdotter kicking in. All the less-populated pages on the Slashdot open in FF, but not the P-Bay article. Meanwhile, the Slashdotter Extension works fine for the "Reply to selected text", and even has my user-chosen color scheme for the "reply-to' page, but the main page is a stiff, no color. Lousy stuff.

If the guys wrote three or four of the Extensions (Slashdotter, Developer Tools, AdBlock, and a couple others) for any other app out there, I would toss FF in a second. What a dog.. If the 'community' (har har) can't write for the Mac, then then they ought to admit they're a windows/Explorer thing, and get out of the pool. what a waste.

Safari, Camino, and OmniWeb rip through the same page like it isn't even there. What's FF's excuse? I ask you...Shabby bullshit..and Safari is way faster and they have a clue about CSS, what gives? It's like 1998 over in FF-land, jesus, wake the fuck up, or roll over and find a new gig.

Re:disappointing (OT)

[Spunk]

There are many situatutions where you can't use 1.5 (or 5.0 or whatever the Marketing dept. is coming up with this week) but pretty much everyone has 1.4 already installed. For one example, my work machines are locked down so I can't upgrade Java to 1.5. For maximum compatibility, I always write my Java with the 1.4 API.

Back to the original topic, using Java's API with frames is much nicer than without. But what problem was xtracto referring to? I just did a Find and it hopped around the frames looking for matches just fine. This machine is Windows 2000, BTW.