Slashdot Mirror


A Few Firefox 3 Followups

An anonymous reader writes "Using data generated by the Mozilla Firefox download pledge page, the map on this blog post ranks countries, not by absolute number of pledges made, but rather on a per capita basis. This analysis yields some interesting conclusions about where open source is strongest and weakest." Anonymous Warthog writes "That didn't take long. In a blog posting from the TippingPoint DVLabs security team (of Kraken and CanSecWest hacking contest fame), they confirmed that they reported a vulnerability in Firefox 3.0 to Mozilla a mere five hours after it was released. Additionally, there was a posting on the Full Disclosure security mailing list from someone that purports to have another vulnerability in the works as well. In the grand scheme of things, this probably means nothing to the general security of Firefox, but you can be sure the browser zealots on all sides will be watching carefully." Finally, from reader Toreo asesino: "Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe) to Mozilla's Mountain View headquarters to congratulate them on shipping FireFox 3, which went live right on time last night." Congratulations are indeed due on both the browser and the release process — looks like the Firefox fever (despite some seriously taxed servers) resulted in more than 8 million downloads in 24 hours.

407 comments

  1. Is it finally safe to download? by WaltBusterkeys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I gave up yesterday after a few too many server errors.

    That said, the map of countries is pretty cool. Ignoring the island micro-nations (the Falkland Islands won with 2% of 3000 people pledging to download), it's interesting to see how high Firefox penetration is in Eastern Europe. I wonder if that's a function of very connected economies without a lot of love for Microsoft and a strong desire for free software?

    Oh, and good luck to the Firefox team trying to save the "E" logo from this year's cake! That thing is HUGE!

    1. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you here - this is safe.

      What is e?

      If I was in Hawaii, th water would really heat up with me in the ocean !!!

      I think that this is a good thing. Security is a good thing to have, and unfortunately MS can't patch everything.

    2. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by GarfBond · · Score: 1
      Well, now that this download record attempt is over, there's probably millions of places to get it from now. It looks like mozilla.com has returned to normal, and BitTorrent's a solid option :)

      Oh, and good luck to the Firefox team trying to save the "E" logo from this year's cake! That thing is HUGE!
      Maybe that's the point :P
    3. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

      it's interesting to see how high Firefox penetration is in Eastern Europe. I wonder if that's a function of very connected economies without a lot of love for Microsoft and a strong desire for free software?

      I wouldn't be surprised if it's both directly and indirectly fueled by the far superior native language support included in Moz.

      Way back when Mozilla was still early milestones, I directed a Russia exchange student to try it, when IE wouldn't allow the proper entry of Russian characters for a URL.

      No doubt he went back home, spread the word about Mozilla, and is single-handedly responsible for the popularity of Firefox across Eastern Europe... *cough*

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Comparing pledges against raw population I think is misleading. 1) Pledges don't reflect the actual download numbers, and 2) In many countries, the internet-using % of the population is actually quite low due to poverty.

      A better gauge of Firefox's penetration would be to look at actual downloads against number of internet users in a given country.

    5. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by kjart · · Score: 1

      A lot of people tend to read lot from Firefox usage numbers. I use Firefox because I find that it works better; if IE, Opera or Safari, for that matter, ever surpass it, I will switch. Most people I know use it because of this same reason (i.e. it's a good browser, or it being recommended as such by someone else), not out of some desire for free software.

    6. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      That thing was laughable, the whole pledge thing. I mean, if I recall, there were hundreds of users in Western Sahara pledging. Svalbard and Jan Mayen, too (if you know anything about Svalbard, 2,000 people living on about three small islands near the North Pole. I think there were some for British Indian Ocean Territory. Hundreds in countries with GDPs less than $1000 a head. I'm curious where they were getting their computers, in between putting a roof over their head (not an example of prejudice, more at the laughability of these stats - "People in every country on earth pledged to download Firefox 3!" - no, people were able to look at a map, see which countries had no pledges, and made up one).

    7. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To: WaltBusterkeys

      IE is free, too. All browsers are free.

    8. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      actually MS beat Mozilla for language support.[1]
      Its just that mozilla dont do language support as a function of popularity but because its OS as a function of who cares.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Map page has had its account suspended. I assume it got /.ed, and went over the usage limit for the hosting provider.

    10. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      In our office, 4 or 5 people tried to get the download from their windows desktops and couldn't get to the download page. wget got the download fine though, so I downloaded the Windows, Mac an Linux versions 3 times each to make up for it 8)

    11. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Mista2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup. For me one selling point was the British English version. Dictionary spell checker having no problems with colour and customise 8)

    12. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're all imposing arbitrary rules on people before they're allowed to type anything, why don't you stop being an Internet Tough Guy before you offer advice?

      Thanks!

    13. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are not "Russian characters." The writing system is called Cyrillic. Maybe Wikipedia's page on languages written using the Cyrillic alphabet will help alleviate your ignorance.

      Speaking of learning "geography and languages," huh?

    14. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's weird, I downloaded it 7.5 million times with no problems at all ;)

    15. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by wildem · · Score: 1

      Polish Universities and colleges have very high regard for Unix , Linux and open source in general. I think it's pretty much the same in most of the other countries in that table. It's more than just about Firefox penetration, it's about software license knowledge.

    16. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by AstronomicUID · · Score: 1

      To: WaltBusterkeys IE is free, too. All browsers are free. In the short run. In the long run IE will demand your soul.
      --
      You must write The Book, and then tear away belief. Only you can save the light of man --Gary Numan
    17. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by donaldm · · Score: 1

      I run Fedora 9 on my laptop and upgraded yesterday via "yum" which is not really a download from Mozilla since I get the update from one of the repos, since all a repo needs to do is make the download from the official site and then all the other repos most likely get updated from the master repo which in turn serve out the update to the many client Linux distributions. This is not just Fedora which like Redhat and CentOS use "yum" but other distributions which use app-get and yast as well.

      This actually brings up an interesting question. I would assume the 9 million downloads are from Mozilla but how many millions of Linux users have actually updated from their respective repos?

      On a different note. When I downloaded Firefox from Mozilla this time I was struck by it speed it's startup (a few seconds) and its update performance over the Firefox 3 beta that comes with Fedora 9. Even updating from 2 to 3 on my company laptop running Win XP I would say I get a 50% or better performance.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    18. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked up "Cyrillic" in the dictionary. Apparently, Cyrillic is the word for "Russian characters."

      Speaking of being an anal-retentive detail nazi...

    19. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I looked up "Cyrillic" in the dictionary. Apparently, Cyrillic is the word for "Russian characters."

      Apparently, your dictionary sucks.

    20. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cyrillic" actually means "of or pertaining to Cyril", i.e. Saint Cyril, the traditional creator of the alphabet now used to write Russian and other Asian languages.

    21. Re:Is it finally safe to download? by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      What I find bad is that Mozilla does not offer packages for Ubuntu Gutsy. All this sucks. Once Mozilla was part of the community but they sucked too much money.

      Eastern Europe. Maybe they like to download. Everyone is using Firefox.

  2. Hey timothy: by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What happened to backslash?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:Hey timothy: by timothy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, I went to law school, and it just sort of got dropped as a priority during that time :)

      Perhaps it'll return one day -- or not.

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:Hey timothy: by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it doesn't return, can we taser the people who put idle on the front page? Or at least block it?

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Hey timothy: by mctk · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed it, fwiw.

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
    4. Re:Hey timothy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, so long as you (wait for it...)

      Don't tase me, bro!

  3. Re:If it ain't broke don't fix it. by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't bash it if you haven't used it. FF3 will do it's best to migrate all the add-ons and stuff you have on FF2. If the add-on isn't compatible, it will tell you when it is.

  4. Why is this considered a world record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Adobe has routinely hit greater than 10 million downloads per day.

    There are other companies as well. Hell, what about MS updates? How many of those bastards get downloaded on Patch Tuesday?

    This is a fake attempt at a record.

    1. Re:Why is this considered a world record? by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Informative

      My guess is this is a record for a complete application downloads in a day, rather than patches or add-ons.

      As in, it's supposedly unique people choosing to download the setup package, and presumably running setup thereafter - not some automated installation.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:Why is this considered a world record? by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who cares? It's called publicity and they got it.

    3. Re:Why is this considered a world record? by FF0000+Phoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

      And actually, Firefox's downloads is going to be one fewer, once I get this all straightened out. See, I accidentally downloaded two copies yesterday. Now, obviously I only need one, so the second one was clearly a mistake. It's never been opened, so I figure I should be able to return it once I find out who to talk to.

    4. Re:Why is this considered a world record? by BZ · · Score: 1

      The record is for number of human-initiated, non-automated downloads.

  5. Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st day by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It wasn't very smart to encourage millions of downloads when it was very likely there would be bugs.

  6. Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by NoobixCube · · Score: 2, Informative

    The map referred to in the summary is already slashdotted - that, or I'm having troubles with my internet connection. Both are equally likely...

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  7. Well done Mozilla People by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...and indeed everyone that contributed towards FireFox project. You have set the bar very high for others to follow, and more importantly, you have proved that OSS model can be both financially prosperous and highly desirable to normal users too.

    And at the end there was cake too!

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:Well done Mozilla People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget the reach around and the happy ending!!

    2. Re:Well done Mozilla People by theJML · · Score: 1

      But... The cake was a lie!

      --
      -=JML=-
  8. True Lies? by freenix · · Score: 2, Funny
  9. Re:Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by billlava · · Score: 1

    Nope, it was slashdotted. I would have liked to see it too. Looks like I pressed F5 about 5 minutes too late...

  10. Re:If it ain't broke don't fix it. by moore.dustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nah. It saves all that stuff for you. It even saved my session from FF2 to FF3.

    This browser is much more responsive than FF2. My performance in Gmail is much improved. The memory leak was not fixed, but it was finally addressed it seems. The memory usage still creeps up very high, but it takes much longer to reach the point of a performance hit than before. The memory leak was/is my biggest issue with FF and as far as I can tell with FF3, it may be only a minor annoyance... which I am happy to have when compared to the numerous Force Quits needed per day with FF2.

  11. I can't help but wonder by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

    Would they have gotten to their goal if they hadn't had so many server outages? Seriously, how hard is it to make sure you have the iron to support your stated download target?

    1. Re:I can't help but wonder by dingen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously, the Firefox team wanted the servers to go down by all this. "Firefox Servers Down Because Of Massive Downloads" is a great headline to give the project more exposure. Getting in the news is what this whole action has been about from the start.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:I can't help but wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think that a headline Firefox 3 downloaded more than 15 million times in a single day would have been a much more impressive headline and much much better publicity.
      Lay Person #1: "15 Million people downladed Firefox 3?"
      Geek #1: "Affirmative."
      Lay Person #2: "Damn! I'd better get me a copy while they last!"
      Geek #1: [rolls eyes]
      Lay Person #1: "Yeah you said it! It must be really hot! Did you see the chick in that photo with the tank top! DAMN!"

      Furtermore, responding to the grandparent poster. It's hard to predict what amount of iron you're going to need, to handle massive downloading. They may also have been caught off guard, thinking they would only have half the traffic they got. They might have been expecting slightly higher numbers and got triple what they asked for.
      Now I'm off to read some actual articles on the Phenomenon. If' they're not all /.ed.

  12. CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Troll

    Have the big bugs been fixed? Or is this just a mostly cosmetic release?

    For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?

    1. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by gazbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FF3 is almost infinitely better than 1.5 and 2 in terms of performance, stability, and memory usage. However, there are still some niggling performance issues that make me tear my hair out. Still, from someone who is most definitely NOT a FF fanboi, it's actually their best release by far and worth checking out.

    2. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use
      Care to cite your sources on that?

    3. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the management (...) has been that the big difficult things don't get done I don't see anything out of order here.
    4. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by raddan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea how complicated a modern web browser is?

      Let's see, Firefox:
      • Can render many different doctypes: HTML 4.01 traditional, HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict, XHTML 1.1, RSS, etc, etc, etc
      • Includes a Javascript interpreter
      • Has its own platform-independent GUI drawing code, and those widgets are designed to match the native widgets on each platform
      • Supports UTF-8 and many, many other character encodings.
      • Stores bookmark and preference data in a RDBMS (not a very capable one, admittedly, but still)
      • Has a plugin framework
      • Runs on virtually every OS that is still in use
      • Is very friendly to web developers (e.g., supports neat stuff like Firebug)
      • And a zillion other features.
      This is a serious piece of work, under active development. The fact that they were able to add more features, plus stability, plus better memory management, plus better security handling (like seriously addressing XSS), PLUS address many of those only-a-problem-for-technical-twits issues that are out there says to me that the Firefox development team really has their shit together. This is an application that I have open all day, every day, and for me, it works great.

      (of course, I'm currently posting using Safari, so YMMV)
    5. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by setagllib · · Score: 1

      You're completely forgetting the most impressive part, that it has a very fast JavaScript interpreter integrated into the entire browser, not just for web page scripts but for browser addons. So that's an entire dynamic programming language with support for quirks from other browsers and bindings to the entire browser's functionality. Knowing that's at the heart of Firefox I can't believe it works at all some days.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    6. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?

      Eh? Anecdotally; I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and haven't found it too buggy, or at least unstable. Firefox 2 might crash once a month with my usage patterns, which is about on par with most other programs. Not ajusting for use, its even with the two big OSs for stability. Ajusting for use, its still close to them, since how often do you not have a browser window open?

      Granted one of the Fx 3 betas crashed regularly due to an odd Java bug, but on tracing it, it seems equally a bad Java installations fault as Firefox's. Also, extentions add a layer of doom to things, since the main devs can't really anticipate what assanine things the addon devs will do.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    7. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Previous versions of Firefox ran my old machine out of memory (512M) in three or four days and crashed about once a week. No other application I use comes close to that degree of instability. Firefox 3 isn't running me out of memory yet, but I've got 2.5G now. It has already crashed once.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Merusdraconis · · Score: 1

      Look, I'm going to have to quibble with the memory use. My Firefox 3 on my laptop uses about 30M more than Firefox 2 on my desktop. My desktop's got more extensions, too.

    9. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      oh yeah? 100 lines of perl can do all of that and even more.

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    10. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      It also supports Gopher! Don't forget that behemoth of a feature!

      (Also, while the latest release of Safari might have the edge with regards to speed, FF3 blows everything out of the water when it comes to memory use. It's still not perfect, but it's about the best darn thing that there is*)

      *I'm sure somebody is going to tell me that Opera does it better. Frankly, I don't care.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    11. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      I hate to say this, but I've submitted about half a dozen crash reports every day since the betas and through the release candidates. The browser is great, but the Windows version does crash more for me than previous Firefoxen. Anyone else notice that? It's slightly better with the final release.

      The Linux one I have on Ubuntu Hardy hsa been much more stable for some reason.

    12. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by raddan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I didn't really want to mention that since it's an awesome idea really just for technical users. BTW, I shared your non-enthusiasm for JavaScript until recently, when I discovered that the modern language, ECMAScript, is a lot more mature than the JS I played with nearly a decade ago. And now that I have some formal mathematics training, I can appreciate some of the more... er, esoteric... features of JavaScript, like its scoping rules. Not that it's my language of choice, but I understand why a designer would get that fuzzy feeling when using it for the GUI engine *and* the layout engine.

    13. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by setagllib · · Score: 1

      Oh believe me, I've been keeping up with ECMAScript and Mozilla Rhino and all of that. It's still rubbish compared to Python and Ruby. I'm just impressed Firefox manages to use it on such a large scope in spite of all its flaws. Well, the same could be said of C++ :P

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    14. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      But thats missing details, such as do the desktop and laptop have the same amount, and same type of RAM? and is there an equal amount of free RAM? are the page/swapfiles/partitions the same size, are they running the same OS with the same additional software, etc.

      FF3 on mine uses about 80% of what FF2 used for the same things, for instance FF2 on start-up, used about 35 to 40 MB's of RAM, but FF3 uses 26MB's, and likewise, FF3 is about 20% quicker in most things, which I find more important than how much RAM it uses...

      However, I still prefer Opera, which is actually using 140MB's right now with only this one page open, but... its been open for about a week continuously since 9.5 was released, if I figure out how to minimize FireFox to the systray (im on Windows currently) then I could test that aswell...

    15. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by ArAgost · · Score: 1

      • ...
      • Has its own platform-independent GUI drawing code, and those widgets are designed to match the native widgets on each platform
      ...and they still FAIL big time on this point, at least on Mac OS (can't speak for Windows). Seriously, are they thinking Mac users won't notice? Or they don't care about the looks? :|
    16. Re:CPU and memory hogging bugs still there? by miro+f · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a single crash with Firefox on Windows (which I use all the time at work, and have been using since beta 3). On Linux at home, the only crashes I had were due to flash.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  13. From the article by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

    The more grim news is at the bottom of the list. Perhaps unsurprisingly, but still another sad reminder, virtually every country on the bottom 20 is African (Bangladesh and Myanmar are the exceptions). In short, the countries most in need of this software, software that is freely available, still are least likely to have the capacity and infrastructure to download it.
    To me, it means people have other things to think about that downloading a browser. Plus, we are actually looking for those who made a pledge. Heck, even I didn't make a pledge even though I live in Germany.

    PS: I composed a long reply, but since Slashdot won't let me post as AC, I had to login... and then I pressed cancel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  14. Re:OSS Incompetence by pandrijeczko · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is just further proof hat Open Source Software is most useful for little independent projects - not trying to win download records or writing secure software.

    Hey! Guess what, Einstein! It's FREE! So if you've tried Open Source and don't like it, then it's really no great loss to you, is it?

    I mean you show up at their website when all kinds of news outlets are running stories about firefox download day and the website doesn't even say that download day starts at 1 EST. What kind of amature shit is that?

    Yes, they underestimated demand and probably have a little egg on their faces. But Firefox WORKS! And it's FREE! So what's your problem?

    Oh, and it's spelt "amateur".

    Then you finally download it and it's full of security holes. What the fuck?

    No, it has A security hole. It will be fixed. Someone will find more holes. They will be fixed. So don't use it. Whatever the hell works for you.

    I put more effort in to jacking off than these clowns put in to their "Record Download Day". What an embarassment.

    Perhaps this explains your short-sightedness and/or blinkered vision. And your obvious frustration. Maybe keep it in your trousers for one day, see if you feel better then, eh?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  15. The cake by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. "

    I guess the cake is a lie ?

    --
    My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  16. Lies and trickeries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Lies and trickeries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up and smell 2008. That spew was written in the time that keyboards only had ones and zeros.

    2. Re:Lies and trickeries by ZaSz-RH · · Score: 1
      Well, keyboards were the same as today, but still, that page is old:

      Disclaimer - This page originally came out in 2005 and thus the relevance of any Myth can change. This does not mean they will be removed from this page. Frequently links, sources and the information on them can change which is out of my control. This page is in no way affiliated with Microsoft, Comcast or anyone else. This page does not claim the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation is the originator of all of these Myths. This page is not an endorsement for any web browser. This page is not a review of Firefox. This page is not a comparison guide. (Use the Freeware Browser Guide to compare browsers) All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no Extensions. Please read carefully and look at the sources. The examples and sources are two different things, read the Myths Origins sections for more information. Firefox Myths is designed to debunk the most common Myths heard about Firefox - Period.
    3. Re:Lies and trickeries by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      That is the absolute dumbest site I've ever seen. Let me begin with the easy one. "Not for profit" doesn't mean they don't bring in revenue, it means that at the end of the year they can't show a PROFIT. They can make millions, pay their employees, throw huge parties, hire hookers or whatever but they can't show a profit. Why trolls, of any subject, will focus on the non-profit status is a mystery to me but I suspect in Troll School they teach you to just make shit up as you go along. Oh, that's right, you do.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  17. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Should they have waited when there were no bugs?

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  18. Instructions Please!!! by ClarisseMcClellan · · Score: 1

    What hope is there for Linux taking over the desktop when the main application has no install instructions online for easy reference?

    Since I run Fedora I obviously do not need any instructions whatsoever, however, they would be nice. I know what the command line is, but what do I type into it? I doubt that will be difficult to figure out, however, blow me down with a feather if I can find install.html on the Mozilla site.

    Any clues for the Fedora command line?

    I don't close my browser down that often and I expect all 39 tabs to start up if it stacks it, will FF3 pick up my 39 tab FF2 session to 'restore', or do I *have* to save all tabs as bookmarks?

    1. Re:Instructions Please!!! by lordofthechia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Amen to that. Too many apps distributed in tar.gz format have no instructions with them (or on the website). How hard is it to include the following lines of instructions (preferably near the download link):

      1. First you should check your OS repositories to ensure you cannot install this program via that method. Search for: blah
      2. If the program is not available in your distro's repositories (or you desire a newer version)
              a. Download the following tar.gz file to your HDD
              b. Move the downloaded file to the location you wish to install it
              c. Open a command window and type:
                        blah -xyz filname.....
      3. To launch the program type "blah"

      About your 2nd question though. I would go ahead and select "Bookmarks" -> "Bookmark all tabs" and save them in 1 folder. Then if it works and your session is still there you just need to delete that folder. Else, just go to your bookmarks and right click on the folder you created and select "Open all in tabs".

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    2. Re:Instructions Please!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What hope is there for Linux taking over the desktop when the main application has no install instructions online for easy reference?


      To be fair, you should be getting packages from your linux distributor. It's not Mozilla's job to provide installers for every OS -- but they could do a little more. For example, there's no 64bit builds so I had to compile it manually (I auto-build it all the time on gentoo). Source tarballs weren't even linked from the download page, this is still OSS right?

      In the case of the Linux binary, they could start by labeling the arch and placing an INSTALL file (telling you how to customize firefox and run-mozilla.sh) in the download archive. Could you have installed it with that info or are you asking for the unpossible?

      PS lazyweb: Try as I may I can't install extensions. Is there something other than --enable-extensions I need to pass to configure? If so where's it documented?

    3. Re:Instructions Please!!! by raddan · · Score: 1

      It's up to the package maintainer for your distro to do that. There's just no way the Firefox people can write instructions that would apply to even all Linux distros out there-- at least, not without being either hopelessly vague or too verbose for practical use. That's like asking trees how to build a house.

    4. Re:Instructions Please!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will FF3 pick up my 39 tab FF2 session to 'restore', or do I *have* to save all tabs as bookmarks? Will the bathroom clean itself automatically, or do I really have to piss into the toilet?
    5. Re:Instructions Please!!! by Malawar · · Score: 1

      HEY! I'm an ADD-addled freak and I can easily concentrate for almost 20 seconds. I resent your comment.

    6. Re:Instructions Please!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off the internet. It's not for you.

    7. Re:Instructions Please!!! by bouchecl · · Score: 1

      If you have F9, it's the following:

      [root@fedora ~]# yum update firefox

    8. Re:Instructions Please!!! by BZ · · Score: 1

      > What hope is there for Linux taking over the desktop when the main
      > application has no install instructions online for easy reference?

      Almost all Linux users install things like this as distro packages, and get them from their distro... Firefox is no different: very few Linux users download if from Mozilla.org (compared to the number that actually use it).

    9. Re:Instructions Please!!! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The download they already supply works on all distros, and last I checked it was installed in the same way on all of them, by simply extracting to the desired directory and running a particular file.

      That linux users really shouldn't be visiting the mozilla website to install it in the first place is beside the point.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  19. CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "The memory leak was not fixed, but it was finally addressed it seems. The memory usage still creeps up very high, but it takes much longer to reach the point of a performance hit than before."

    It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also.

    Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. The list is not complete. There have been other excuses that I haven't had time to add to the list.

    Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
    for Not Fixing the Firefox Memory
    and CPU Hogging bugs.


    These are actual excuses given at one time or another.
    1. Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of seven years.]
    2. Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug eventually takes 100% of CPU power, and makes Windows XP unusable, even after Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox.]
    3. Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users have reported the bug. See the links.]
    4. Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]
    5. No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]
    6. If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information provided.]
    7. This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
    8. You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
    9. I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or think about it.]
    10. You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself. [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem, and we may fix it.]
    11. Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.
    12. If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.]
    13. Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
    14. Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]
    15. If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox. [Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users will have severe problems. !!! ]
    16. I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]
    17. It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when users report so many problems.
    18. To spend smart developers' time going over reports of bu
    1. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually the "corrupt profile" thing is bad enough by itself. This has been going on since the early days of Mozilla and the devs are still going "doh, corrupt profile".

    2. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even more fun is the firefox advocates. EVERY firefox update (allegedly) fixes memory leaks and instabilities [read the fucking release notes], but some people insist there are no problems and blame it on plugins [the ones that give it functionality that opera has out of the box].

    3. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly, this comment caused the "[Read the rest of this comment]" link to appear for me, but there was no more comment (not even a single character) afterwards.

    4. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you whiney faggot. Don't like something, learn to program? Too dumb? Pay someone to do if for your? Too poor, then fsck off and use something else.

    5. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by ClamIAm · · Score: 5, Informative

      You've posted references to or versions of this little diatribe three times in this thread. This is rather tiring, because the only reference I see you making to any actual Bugzilla entries is in a post from over two years ago. Of the two bugs you reference in that post, one is marked "fixed" and the other "invalid".

      Now normally I would request that you either give us links to actual bugs that are outstanding. But I'm not going to do that, because I know you can't be objective when discussing this issue.

      How do I know this? Because the bug marked "invalid" appears to be submitted by you. Thus I suspect that your vitriol for the Firefox/Mozilla people is a personal response to feeling scorned or something, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who argues because they had their feelings hurt and therefore holds an irrational grudge about something.

    6. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Hmm... 4 tabs (gmail + 3 /., open for about 4 hours), running 3 extentions (adblock+, CS lite, Noscript), and Firefox is take 101,156K, CPU at 3%-10% (counting other processes). On Vista.

      I haven't optimized anything yet, not even pipelining, so this isn't as good as it gets.

      I'd say the memory bug, if not fixed, is pretty squashed.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    7. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by daffmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      So just don't use it.

      No one's holding a gun to your head. If it's causing you such pain just use another browser.

    8. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mozilla developer spotted

    9. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Yawn, if its so easy to fix, go do it.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    10. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by johannesg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not trying to belittle your problems and I am in no way affiliated with Mozilla or Firefox, but on the dozen of machines I use regularly I have never seen the problem you describe. Even though I regularly have twenty, thirty, or more tabs open at a time, and have lots of extensions installed, and leave FF open for the entire day.

      And I haven't seen FF crash. Never. On any of those machines. Apart from your little report, and the link (which conveniently points to another posting by you(!)), I haven't heard of people complaining about it either.

      The way you repeat the same accusations (at least) four times in the space of two screens, and offer no proof at all beyond that link to your own message, suggests very strongly that you have an agenda. Your bug report 222660 (yes, I read your text!) doesn't contain any "easily reproducable steps", it actually reads

      Reproducible: Always

      Steps to Reproduce:
      1.
      2.
      3.

      Do you call that a bugreport? No wonder it gets marked as invalid. Similarly, your list of articles fails to convince: some pointers to decreasing the cache size is not proof of a usability-destroying bug in the application.

      Also, next time just say "...when I'm browsing porn". We all know what you mean with "performing research" anyway...

    11. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by aeoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      In all honesty though, I use Firefox all the time on all the computers, PC and Mac, and I use gmail, and I've never seen my memory use go above 200M (usually around 150M). And even if I can get the memory usage to go up by opening 20 tabs full of pages with huge images, together with gmail, I don't get a CPU spike.

      In fact, I've never gotten a CPU spike. None of the friends I have that use FF got a CPU spike, ever.

      So, I hope you can see the problem here. Many people use FF and never experience what you're talking about. In fact, every time I read it, I think it's just trolls bullshitting. I hope someone can post a video of a computer with FF3 suffering from that bug so we can have proof that the bug exists. I don't think it's a real bug.

      But let's say it is real. This bug, since it occurs in corner cases, is going to be hard to fix. It will be hard to find. It probably has to do with multi-threaded code and data sharing between threads, or it has to do with garbage collector. Either way, it's not easy.

      Let's talk about other browsers now. I won't bother with IE. Let's take Opera. I use Opera Mini 4 all the time. That piece of shit has bugs and breaks all the time for me. The only reason I use it is because it's better than the built-in browser, which works better than Opera, but gives me a bookmark list that's controlled by my phone carrier, which I don't want. So because I want to control my own bookmarks, I have to use Opera on my blackberry. Clearly Opera is no angel. I am a very unsatisfied Opera user. And how hard is it to fix a bug in an app that's only 130kb long? EH?? Should be cake, right? Opera Mini does crappy rendering on many pages and the most annoying thing is that sometimes it loses my feeds or breaks them so that I have to reinstall them. And there are usability issues, such as when I want to search Google, I have to click way too many times for comfort (why can't I use the enter key, once? Why do I have to click to start typing, then type, then click to open a menu and select "OK", then scroll down to search button and again click on it... why ????? WTF OPERA??).

      I think Mozilla does a fine, fine job. That they can't please a certain vocal minority is understandable. And the constant "angel" example of Opera is pure bullshit.

    12. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just don't use it.

      No one's holding a gun to your head. If it's causing you such pain just use another browser.


      Well, exactly. Anyone who wants to minimise the level of memory usage and also use a modern, capable browser should of course use ... Errrrr ...

      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.html


      ... Firefox 3. :)

      How embarrasing is that finding for the OP on this topic?

    13. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by the+brown+guy · · Score: 1

      The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox. This is true, the whole world is against us aren't they? But +1 informative for sheer effort, not that it really helps/matters (7 YEARS.)
      --
      Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
    14. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hmm... 200 tabs (Gmail among them, lots from /. and more or less everything you got out there), having similar functionality (at least not different in any way when it comes to impact on browser performamce), and Opera is taking 323,656K, CPU at 3%-10% (counting other processes). On 6-year old AthlonXP 1700+.

      Everything out-of-the box.

      What were you saying about squashing something? (ok, seriously - probably not a bug, just testament to something...)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    15. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see firefox crash all the time. That seems to have stopped, though, now that I'm using the Totem plugin instead of mplayer.

    16. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait...you're seriously comparing Firefox to Opera MINI, which is just a small java app to fetch pages remotelly reformatted to somehow fit on miniature screen and not eat too much bandwith? How about, you know...Opera proper?

      (nvm that I have more positive experiences with Opera Mini than you do...and could also mention how "nicely" Minimo compares to Opera Mobile (Mobile != Mini))

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by herve_masson · · Score: 1

      I am experiencing this memory problem all the time, and it has a direct link with the javascript interpreter. I might be wrong, but I think the problem has been widely analyzed and documented. And partly fixed on FF3.

      A simple test that works for me consist of using the phpmyadmin program on FF/ubuntu: after one hour or so, my FF process starts lagging a lot and need a restart, reaching approx 500MB memory usage. This stinks memory fragmentation and leak.

      I'm also seeing this problem with my own "web2" applications. I've spent some time to run various experiments to see how this memory problem occurs, but I could not detect a "pattern". Google map API, for example, added a "cleanup" callback that breaks circular references in their javascript data. This dramatically improved one of my app, which previously was barely usable after viewing just a dozen pages containing gmap data.

    18. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to belittle your problems and I am in no way affiliated with Mozilla or Firefox, but on the dozen of machines I use regularly I have never seen the problem you describe. Even though I regularly have twenty, thirty, or more tabs open at a time, and have lots of extensions installed, and leave FF open for the entire day.

      And I haven't seen FF crash. Never. On any of those machines. Apart from your little report, and the link (which conveniently points to another posting by you(!)), I haven't heard of people complaining about it either.
      Ironically, my FF (2) died on me just before reading this post.

      I suspect it was due to a combination of one of the pages I was watching + some extension.

      NBA.com used to freeze my machine due to their Flash boxscore pages, now they switched to Silverlight but it was probably the culprit again as it was open on one of the tabs.

      Still, I have to agree that the OP's bug report is not the way to go (no steps to reproduce means it's unhelpful, totally useless for the devs)
      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    19. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

      I normally always have a Firefox window open and memory usage always climbs right up to 500-600MB. This is unacceptable for a mere web browser. Once it gets to the point where it starts needing to page memory, it really slows the entire system down unless I shutdown Firefox and restart it. I can reproduce these problems on a daily basis.

      In addition, I have seen Firefox crash a number of times. Not often, but it does happen.

      All problems have happened since about the release of v1.5 (though became drastically worse by v2.0) on numerous computers.

    20. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      I would laugh if this weren't so blatantly true. I've gotten the same excuses over and over again, and have even been chastised for "daring" to question them on it. One guy flat out told me to figure it out myself and tell them how to fix it. I've posted already, but after 24 hours, FF3 was taking almost 700MB of memory on my machine. I wonder what excuse they will dream up for that.

    21. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Opera Mini 4 works flawlessly for me. The problem must be your phone. I didn't see a FF3 installation for phones, so I think you are comparing apples to oranges anyway.

    22. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Okay, FF fanboy, here are the steps to reproduce the problem on my machine:

      1) Start FF
      2) Do not close for a couple of days

      That's all it takes. It works every time without fail. It is NOT MY JOB to diagnose and fix the problem. I will answer all the questions they have that I am readily capable of answering, but I am NOT going to use a debugger and trace out the problem (as they have asked me to do for them). That is THEIR job, not mine.

      When I take my car into the shop with a problem, my only responsibility is to describe the symptoms. They don't throw an apron at me and say "ok, there's the shop, have at it. Let us know when you find out what's wrong."

    23. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      "The memory leak was not fixed, but it was finally addressed it seems. The
      memory usage still creeps up very high, but it takes much longer to reach the
      point of a performance hit than before."


      It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also.

      Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully
      fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. The list
      is not complete. There have been other excuses that I haven't had time to add to the list.

      Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses

      for Not Fixing the Firefox Memory

      and CPU Hogging bugs.


      These are actual excuses given at one time or
      another.

      1. Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly build. [The same memory and CPU
        hogging bug has been reported many, many times over a period of seven
        years
        .]
      2. Yes, this bug exists, but other things are more important. [The bug
        eventually takes 100% of CPU power, and makes Windows XP unusable, even after
        Firefox is killed. The bug affects the heaviest users of Firefox.]
      3. Yes, this bug exists, but it is not a common occurrence. [Numerous users
        have reported the bug. See the links.]
      4. Works for me. [The bug is complicated to reproduce, so the developers did
        a simplified test, which didn't show the bug.]
      5. No one has posted a TalkBack report. [If they had read the bug report,
        they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes
        TalkBack, too, or a TalkBack report is not generated. TalkBack does not
        generate a report if Firefox is hogging the CPU. TalkBack cannot generate a
        report if the bug takes 100% of the CPU time.]
      6. If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. [They
        didn't bother to reproduce the bug using the detailed information
        provided.]
      7. This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is
        invalid. [The other bugs aren't specified.]
      8. You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. [But the
        same use does not crash any version of Opera.]
      9. I don't like the way you worded your bug report. [So, he didn't read it or
        think about it.]
      10. You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
        [Then when you have done most of the work, tell us what causes the problem,
        and we may fix it.]
      11. Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the users.
      12. If you are saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox, you must be
        trolling. [They say this even though Firefox and Mozilla instability is
        beginning to be reported in media such as Information Week. See the links to
        magazine articles in this Slashdot comment: Firefox is the most unstable program in common
        use.]
      13. Your problem is probably caused by using extensions. [These are extensions
        advertised on the Firefox and Mozilla web site, and recommended.]
      14. Your problem is probably caused by a corrupt profile. [The same bug has
        been reported many times over a period of five years. One of the reports
        discusses an extensive test in both Linux and Windows that used a completely
        clean installation of the operating systems, not just a clean profile. The CPU
        hogging bug and instability was just as severe.]
      15. If you are technically knowledgeable, you can spend several hours (or
        days) trying to discover the problem: Standard diagnostic - Firefox.
        [Firefox has "Standard Diagnostics". It has become accepted that some users
        will have severe problems. !!! ]
      16. I won't actually read the (many) bug reports, but I will give you some
        complicated technical speculation. [This pretends to be helpful but, on
        investigation, is shown to have nothing to do with the bugs.]
      17. It's understandable that Firefox developers become defensive when
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    24. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      They certainly provide a full service. Not only do they flame the 'lusers' on the bug tracking tool, they follow them outside and flame them on forums.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    25. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by DarkEmpath · · Score: 2

      I'm not trying to justify the GP's whinge, I've found FF 1 & 2 crash every few days on me. And while it's a fairly regular occurance, I can't reproduce it on demand.

      I'm guessing it's a JS error, as it usually crashes when I'm browsing DeviantART (it's a pretty JS heavy site).

      FF crashed on me so often, I returned to Seamonkey. I'm now trying FF3, and will see how that goes. My initial impression is good.

    26. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera only uses more resources because it has more better.

    27. Re:CPU hogging bug not fixed: Top 20 excuses by aeoo · · Score: 1

      Opera Mini 4 works flawlessly for me. The problem must be your phone. I didn't see a FF3 installation for phones, so I think you are comparing apples to oranges anyway. I'm comparing companies and their products. I wanted to make an honest comparison. I use Opera Mini 4 (4.1, actually) all the time, so I can talk honestly about it. I've also used Opera browser, but it was too long ago to talk about that. I just installed Opera 9.5, just for shits and giggles. I plan to use it once in a while just so I have some experience with it. The point is that Opera when I first used it was crappy. I hated its "MDI" interface. It didn't have tabs back then.

      The point is this. If Opera can screw up Opera Mini, I am more than certain it screwed up Opera 9.5 as well. It would only take some time to find many things I hate about it. In the few seconds I used it, I already disliked the way Opera did their tabs.

      Then I compared memory usage. Firefox appears to use only a tiny bit more. The difference is negligible. I'll take a tiny percentage more memory usage for a vastly superior browser. Firefox is not just technically superior. Firefox has a real community behind it. Opera, on the other hand, is just a small private company without any kind of community. And you can see why. Why would any dev freely contribute something to a for-profit, closed source app? Thus, no community support for Opera. Software freedom really does mean something to me. I also noticed that Firefox loads pages about twice as fast as Opera. Closing tabs on Opera wasn't instant for me. Blah blah blah.... Opera has flaws too.

      Opera does well for a closed source company. But as long as Firefox devs remain as good and as enthusiastic as they are now, there is no way Opera can compete with Firefox.
  20. Wow, that's a strange map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I managed to get connected; but the map is kinda boring; just black on white.

    Strangely, it also looks exactly like the letters "Error establishing a database connection".

    1. Re:Wow, that's a strange map by Omestes · · Score: 1
      Oddly, I get:

      This Account Has Been Suspended
      Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible. First I got the error establishing a database connection map, and now this... Man, continental drift sucks.
      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  21. Surprised by the server issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded Fx 3.0 at about 4 or 5pm, EST. Not only was the download flawless, but it came at a 1.13MB/Sec. I have a pretty standard Roadrunner cable connection, so this was by far the quickest download I've ever seen.

    I guess they had some problems for an hour or so, but it seems they cleaned up pretty quick.

  22. No recipe... by rocjoe71 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe)...

    Well of course there was no recipe-- that cake was a proprietary, closed-source dessert.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
    1. Re:No recipe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe)...

      Well of course there was no recipe-- that cake was a proprietary, closed-source dessert.

      ...and possibly full of bugs!
    2. Re:No recipe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe)...

      Well of course there was no recipe-- that cake was a proprietary, closed-source dessert.

      yes, that's the point of the minus recipe comment, you doofus.
    3. Re:No recipe... by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was also a lie.

    4. Re:No recipe... by eh2o · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the other hand, if one was to eat a Firefox cake, one would undoubtedly become bloated and fat after just a few bites, and finally fall to the floor, become catatonic and die. I'm not sure which fate is worse...

    5. Re:No recipe... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Well of course there was no recipe-- that cake was a proprietary, closed-source dessert.

      And let's not get into finding the bugs in it...

    6. Re:No recipe... by tobiasly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe)...

      Well of course there was no recipe-- that cake was a proprietary, closed-source dessert.

      Yes, thank you for explaining the joke to us, it was way too difficult to understand.

    7. Re:No recipe... by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      I would have some concerns eating that cake... it is probably full of bugs!

    8. Re:No recipe... by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      And the penalty for violating said proprietary, closed-source recipe is not only a visit from Microsoft Legal, but also the angry dessert chef and/or Ballmer's mother.

      You think a chair-tossing monkey was bad?

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  23. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the vulnerablility also affects FF 2.x, I'd say whoever discovered the problem waited to disclose the issue to rain on Mozilla's parade. So waiting to release 3.0 would have been pointless since the Mozilla team didn't know about issue.

  24. Re:Firefox is the most unstable prog in common use by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Posted in 2006, and that's about 50 years in computer time.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  25. Self-centered, even in kindness by superyooser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, and good luck to the Firefox team trying to save the "E" logo from this year's cake! That thing is HUGE!

    Really, if you didn't have the story behind the photo, you'd think that the IE Team was congratulating itself for shipping IE.

    Memo to MS: When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. I mean, you're recognizing the shipping of Firefox. Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.

    1. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did. That is the cake the IE team received when they shipped IE 7. They just 're-gifted' the cake.

    2. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its MS cake, so after you consume it, 2 ports will open and you will be ejecting data for days.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.

      Somebody's even more humorless than Microsoft...

      Is this the time to mention that the cake was a lie?

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    4. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Actually the cake is probably an in joke in retaliation for the IE4 launch joke, if only JWZ was there to "appreciate" it.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    5. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by astrotek · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe they were trying to imply:

      You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      Hence the IE logo. Its IE's cake but Mozilla is surely eating it.

    6. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by charlieman · · Score: 2, Funny

      First they ignore us,
      Then they laught at us,
      Then they send us cake,
      Then we win!

    7. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by hanzoach · · Score: 1

      I think its their way of saying that they wished IE to die so they don't have to support it anymore.

    8. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does this mean the cake was a lie?

    9. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by tokul · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake?
      In order to avoid being sued for trademark infringement.
    10. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by Supergibbs · · Score: 1

      Memo to MS: When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. I mean, you're recognizing the shipping of Firefox. Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.

      But now Mozilla will blog about it and advertise for IE! Sounds like MS knows exactly what it's doing...
      --
      First post! (just in case I am...)
    11. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by democrates · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great example of crud re-use.

      PS If the IE cake gives the Moz team indigestion, is that down to ACID compliance?

    12. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by nicklott · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. Why? When you recieve a cake you know who the recipient is, you might not know who the sender is.
    13. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by Fri13 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration. They did bake there IE logo because this way they get free commercial time on the news when bloggers and others are showing photos from the cake and they see IE logo and not the Firefox :-)
    14. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by initialE · · Score: 1

      Don't be a jackass. Do you put your recipient's name on your calling card?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    15. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Funny
      In order to avoid being sued for trademark infringement.

      Then they should have put an iceweasel on the cake.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    16. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Really, if you didn't have the story behind the photo, you'd think that the IE Team was congratulating itself for shipping IE.

      Memo to MS: When you give someone a cake, it only makes sense to put the RECIPIENT's name on the cake. I mean, you're recognizing the shipping of Firefox. Why didn't you put a Firefox logo on the cake? That's the object of the celebration.


      Perhaps it was a symbol for the Firefox team eating the IE team?

      Or maybe the IE team was trying to say that the Firefox team can have their cake and eat it too...?

      Or maybe...never mind, I'm lame.
    17. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      No, the object was for microsoft to promote themselves, if they put the firefox logo on the cake then how would you know it was from microsoft when you look at it ?.

      I don't consider this to be insidious, the moz team should just send a firefox cake to MS when they ship IE8.

    18. Re:Self-centered, even in kindness by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Better than Firefox, where you consume it and begin bleeding memory from a hole no one can find, and then the doctor says, "I don't know what you're talking about."

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  26. Download safe, but useless by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of the strengths of Firefox for some time has been that right out of the box, the binary just ran on lots of Linux versions. With FF3 (starting with betas) they broke this.

    A non-trivial portion of the commercial and research Linux user base has to stick with EL4 or a source rebuild from CentOS, Scientific Linux or whatever because of third party tool support requirements. And not everybody wants to upgrade their OS just because a new browser is out.

    FF3 requires a pretty new library (libpangocairo 1.0). I spent an hour trying to come up with it this afternoon for my 100+ users. No luck so far.

    The firefox team really let us down big time. We've been anxiously awaiting this release because it's supposed to solve the memory bloat problems (several of us here have to restart the browser several times a week because it's consumed insane amounts of RAM).

    1. Re:Download safe, but useless by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A non-trivial portion of the commercial and research Linux user base has to stick with EL4 or a source rebuild from CentOS, Scientific Linux or whatever because of third party tool support requirements. And not everybody wants to upgrade their OS just because a new browser is out.

      But so far most of the "mainstream" distros have done a great job in providing Firefox 3 (Ubuntu even has it included in 8.04). I wouldn't necessarily blame Mozilla for this, but rather the distro makers for failing to include a package. However, I think you are looking at this all wrong, it is more or less as huge as a leap forward as KDE 4 was for the desktop, as such some of the more "stable" distros such as CentOS are reluctant to include it as it is so new just as KDE 4 is still unavailable for some distros, but KDE 3 still is and much like Firefox 2 it still will receive updates for a while. But honestly, most of the people who use Linux use Ubuntu or a derivative (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint, etc) or a more "unstable" distro then CentOS (Fedora, openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, etc). So I think it is just CentOS being CentOS, being stable, don't like that? Change to Ubuntu.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Download safe, but useless by prockcore · · Score: 1

      FF3 requires a pretty new library (libpangocairo 1.0).


      "Pretty new"? As close as I can tell, that library was first released in 2004.
    3. Re:Download safe, but useless by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Wait, you have to have a bleeding-edge version of Firefox, but it has to run on old, crusty libraries?

      Considered re-prioritizing your updates?

      -Peter

    4. Re:Download safe, but useless by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Informative

      The RPMs for the version required by FF3 are only available for FC7 and newer. EL4 is based on FC3. In the world of stable OSes, that's pretty new.

    5. Re:Download safe, but useless by Chirs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Applications should be able to work with reasonable installations. Especially a browser, which is one of the more critical apps on most systems.

      There's a fairly significant installed base of "enterprise" linux distros out there that are still using older versions of libraries. FF2 works just fine on these systems, but FF3 breaks that compatibility.

      At the very least it would have been nice to be able to obtain a version that statically links in libpangocairo.

      By not providing some solution for this problem, the Mozilla Foundation is depriving themselves of a significant number of users.

    6. Re:Download safe, but useless by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They got a fair number of complaints about this in beta. As far as I can tell from searching their site, they pretty much blew it off. I certainly couldn't find anything helpful WRT resolving this, other than "upgrade, dude".

      An upgrade cycle is a major effort in an environment like ours, requiring testing with dozens of EDA tools and a variety of desktop apps. An upgrade that breaks a vendor tool or even access to critical docs, or that requires us to rebuild tools, modify user configs, etc, impacts schedules in a negative way, which means major headaches for everyone. 150+ desktops, 150+ compute farm systems. And don't even get me started on fixes that require users to restart X or reboot. High powered engineers working 80 hour weeks, some running things that require hours to set up? You have no clue what you're talking about when you blithely suggest upgrading.

      And switching is not an option. Our app vendors support their apps on very few OSes. Typically one or two versions of EL and one or two SUSe. That's it. Ubuntu and Fedora aren't even in the picture.

      When we upgraded most of the company from EL3 to EL4, we lost about a week. That's extremely expensive.

    7. Re:Download safe, but useless by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      In fairness the old firefox used to run on no libraries that wernt part of a standard install

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    8. Re:Download safe, but useless by prockcore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, crappy support from RH is one of the reasons so many people left RH in the first place. EL4 came out after libpangocairo 1.0 did... why didn't they include it even though it would become an integral part of GTK2? Who knows.

      Won't be added now though, Redhat Full Support for RHEL4 stopped May 15, 2008. The only thing you'll be getting is security fixes.

    9. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      libpangocairo 1.0 is in the pango-1.16.4-2 RPM for Fedora 7. Pango 1.16 was released in July of 2007 according to the Pango web site.

      You may run into some dependency problems, since this version of the pango RPM depends on (in part) the following:

      • cairo >= 1.2.2
      • freetype >= 2.1.3-3
      • glib2 >= 2.12.0-1

      If that creates problems with other packages, then FF3 may be an issue.

      Without knowing a little bit more about your particular configuration, that's about all I can offer.

    10. Re:Download safe, but useless by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      "(several of us here have to restart the browser several times a week because it's consumed insane amounts of RAM)."

      And you're complaining!?!?! When I use FF on my (one)XP machine, I have to restart several times per day it seems. The other day I caught it using 750Mb of memory with maybe 5 tabs open. I was not pleased.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    11. Re:Download safe, but useless by Eil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the strengths of Firefox for some time has been that right out of the box, the binary just ran on lots of Linux versions. With FF3 (starting with betas) they broke this.

      I downloaded Firefox3, untarred it it to my desktop, and it ran just fine.

      A non-trivial portion of the commercial and research Linux user base has to stick with EL4 or a source rebuild from CentOS, Scientific Linux or whatever because of third party tool support requirements. And not everybody wants to upgrade their OS just because a new browser is out.

      I posit that open source application developers should not be expected to support every OS that might be in use at the time of release. This is basically how the open source world works: Project X releases a stable version of their source code and then the distribution developers port, test, and package the software for use with their specific distribution.

      Since RHEL5/CentOS 5 has been out for quite some time, RHEL4 and variants are considered legacy OSes in many circles, especially when it comes to the fast-changing world of the Linux desktop. It's not fair to blame the Firefox devs for linking against a library that brings them many benefits and new features but might not happen to come pre-installed on any number of old distributions. If anyone's to blame here, it's your "third party tool" vendor because they're locking you into a distribution that rapidly becoming unsupported by the rest of the world.

    12. Re:Download safe, but useless by lewp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we had to wait for "stable OSes" and corporate adoption nothing would ever move forward. FF3 is a cutting edge browser using cutting edge libraries to get the best functionality available right now, like it should.

      It's your vendor's job to live in the past with you. That's what you pay them for.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    13. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, several times a week.

      You know, many users close browsers when they leave work and open them when they come back the next day!

    14. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, we just barely moved the place from EL3 to EL4 in the past year, and there are still a few EL3 machines around, and a few packages that *require* EL3.

    15. Re:Download safe, but useless by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      I'm using FF3, have one tab open and FF is using 94,865 K of RAM. And they were supposed to have fixed all those memory leaks?! Doesn't look like it from here. It's about:config time again, I see.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    16. Re:Download safe, but useless by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Informative
      At the very least it would have been nice to be able to obtain a version that statically links in libpangocairo.

      That's the distro mainteaners' job.

      And I'm sure one will be available in a few weeks if enough people want it.

      In the mean time, Pango/Cairo is the font layout and rendering engine that makes the new Firefox look better, and the rest of us want that, so you'll have to pry it out of our cold, dead hands...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    17. Re:Download safe, but useless by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Since RHEL5/CentOS 5 has been out for quite some time, RHEL4 and variants are considered legacy OSes in many circles, especially when it comes to the fast-changing world of the Linux desktop. And this is why most OSS is not suitable for enterprise environments.
      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    18. Re:Download safe, but useless by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If anyone's to blame here, it's your "third party tool" vendor because they're locking you into a distribution that rapidly becoming unsupported by the rest of the world.

      Wow, I'm sure glad that Linux users avoid all that "DLL Hell" I keep hearing about on Windows.

      Yeah, yeah, mod me down...

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    19. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm using FF3, have one tab open and FF is using 94,865 K of RAM. And they were supposed to have fixed all those memory leaks?! Doesn't look like it from here. It's about:config time again, I see.


      Meanwhile, here are some unbiased results from Ars Technica, showing the memory usage of firefox 3 in comparison with other browsers, with 50 tabs open.

      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.html

      If you want lower memory usage than what firefox 3 can give you ... you would need to use no browser at all it would seem.
    20. Re:Download safe, but useless by linzeal · · Score: 1

      No, they are not losing a significant amount of users. Those same users are the ones who will likely fix and post a solution shortly. When I worked IT I never assumed the first time I went to fix someone's computer that they were tech-savvy but if they were they were the last people I checked in on after a major upgrade because by the time I got to their questions they had usually answered them for themselves and other people.

    21. Re:Download safe, but useless by BZ · · Score: 1

      Redhat will be backporting the relevant libraries and Firefox 3 to EL4.

      The reason for the new dependencies is basically better system integration, which both Linux distros and Linux users kept crying for...

    22. Re:Download safe, but useless by BZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Last I checked no more than 2-3% of Linux users get Firefox from Mozilla directly. The rest get it through their distro.

      Distros do in fact plan to create versions that statically link in not just libpangocairo but also GTK (because of the 2.10 dependency).

    23. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (several of us here have to restart the browser several times a week because it's consumed insane amounts of RAM)
      Good... God. Save the tabs and shut the machine down once in a while. It's good for the environment and the wallet's half of the power bill.
    24. Re:Download safe, but useless by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Have you tried Konqueror? I've used it for years, because it is faster, uses less memory, and has a bunch of useful features built-in that Firefox lacks (out of the box), such as web shortcuts (type "g some words" to search on Google, "w something" to search on Wikipedia, etc.) and a good implementation of access keys (press control, every link will get a key displayed next to it, press that key to follow the link).

      The problem with Konqueror is website support. It generally works, but there are some sites that don't work in it, but that do work in Firefox. I think this is sometimes because of missing features in Konqueror and sometimes because of bugs in the sites in question.

      So, when I heard that Firefox 3 had severely reduced memory usage and increased speed, I was very excited about it. Alas, thanks to it requiring GTK+ 2.10, it will require some duct taping to get it to run on Debian etch, and I'm not willing to put in the effort. I'm sticking with Konqueror for now. Maybe it's a good choice for you, too.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    25. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I can't get the download to run on Ubuntu Dapper either; it halts and complains that I don't have a specific version of GTK+.

      Couldn't get anything from Feisty on my laptop either (although it is in the repos).

      Very sad.

    26. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Firefox 3 is supported on ye olde Windows 2000 then. Hope you don't suffocate on your own bullshit, btw.

    27. Re:Download safe, but useless by ryszard99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      i guess one could look at this type of problem in quite an analytical flowchartesque way.

      do you want the upgrade?
      can you upgrade easily?
      how badly do you want it?
      is the cost of upgrading to hi?

      pretty much if you need it you need to swallow the cost, if you just want it, then you dont. ok want and need can be a little blurred at times, but at the end of the day, if its too painful to upgrade, just dont.

      in my experience in IT, major upgrades just sometimes have to happen, its a matter of fitting them in the most effective way possible, which sometimes is the lesser of n evils.

      from a professional POV, (IMO) just stop whinging and start planning.. :-)

      --
      -- $_='ab-bc ratvarre';tr"'a-z'"'n-za-m'";print
    28. Re:Download safe, but useless by trip11 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I fought with the libpangocairo issue as well. Running on a lesser used redhat variation at work, I didn't want to start doing major upgrades only to break everything and have to reinstall (boss would be less than thrilled about the loss of a day). But I found a nifty trick on one of the forums.

      Install the package frysk and you get libpangocairo free. And frysk is small enough I didn't mind.

      For me at least it was as simple as switching to root, and doing:
      yum install frysk

      Hope that helps you!

    29. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in my experience, in the biggest of companies, major upgrades are put off indefinitely, and when they do occur its part of a whole business strategy that ignores the existing system - ie, the upgrade doesn't only consider upgrading the system with its new version, but also considers upgrading to other systems too.

      So you could imagine a large company that has a lot of FF2 desktops deciding to upgrade. If the upgrade to FF3 was mindlessly simple, then the decision would be a done and dusted affair. If the upgrade to FF3 required a lot of other infrastructure changes though, then its a different story and Opera/Safari or whatever would be investigated.

      Its like our customers who still run NT4, one day they will upgrade. If we cannot easily get our system upgraded to running on Vista, they'll go and look at our competitors.

      Of course there is 1 other aspect to this:
      do you want the upgrade?
      can you upgrade easily?
      how badly do you want it?
      is the cost of upgrading to hi? (sic)

      is it safer to stick with IE and not worry?

    30. Re:Download safe, but useless by xtracto · · Score: 1

      If you want lower memory usage than what firefox 3 can give you ... you would need to use no browser at all it would seem.
      1 word:

      Dillo

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    31. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just stick to FF2, it's not EOL. If you really hate FF, just get Opera. The static builds run on any old shit.

    32. Re:Download safe, but useless by donaldm · · Score: 1

      I sort of agree with limiting or dropping Redhat support however your IT person better be in good with management and knows how to properly manage a Linux environment. If you are managing a small Linux environment then just about any reasonable distribution will do, however if the environment is part of a large corporation's IT structure then I would not like to be the IT manager to go to the business and tell them that we only need limited (it is possible to justify this) or no support (good luck) for our Redhat or Novel Linux machines. Even worse recommending a non-commercial Linux for a large commercial installation would IMHO be corporate IT suicide so if this is the case I hope your CV is up to date.

      Actually no matter which distribution of Linux you have you should never run the GUI if your Linux machines are servers so you should not care about upgrading Firefox on these machines anyway. Use the normal updates and if they do upgrade then hopefully you won't have any issues.

      I run Fedora 9 (no dual boot) on my laptop and have successfully upgraded to Firefox 3 ("yum update firefox") but then again my machine is not only a server and a personal computer I actually own it so I don't care what the corporate world thinks. At work I do care and from a corporate perspective if you put on a commercial Linux (Redhat or SuSE) then the company will buy licenses and I don't get any flack for this stance, in fact I actually get praise for doing this.

      On a side note I noticed you mentioned RHEL4. You do realise that you can run YUM on this distribution to a YUM server which need not be Redhat (we use CentOS 5.1). This is very useful when you can go to management and suggest that you have the ability of "locked" upgrades (eg RHEL4 U6 or even a specific day) to all machines. This does go down well with corporations although I would still strongly suggest a support contact even it is limited and it actually can assist in removing any finger pointing at you from management.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    33. Re:Download safe, but useless by indifferent+children · · Score: 1

      But honestly, most of the people who use Linux use Debian or a derivative (Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint, etc) or a more "unstable" distro then CentOS (Fedora, openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, etc). There, I fixed it for you.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    34. Re:Download safe, but useless by donaldm · · Score: 1

      To just try and install the latest release of an application on an older version of an OS is IMHO stupid you are going to run into so many incompatibility problems it is not worth it. Just about all Linux distributions use a package manager and updater (yum, apt-get, yast) and if that updater does not install the latest version of Firefox with the correct dependencies then you have to consider an OS upgrade or baring that forget about it. If you have a server why would you even consider upgrading the browser anyway?

      As for a Linux desktop I would strongly suggest an upgrade if you can. Example: Fedora 8 to Fedora 9 fresh install. 1) One hour to backup. 2) One hour to install Fedora 9 from first principles. 3) One hour to recover data. 4) 30 min for minor customisation or if you don't like this you can take approx 1 hour to just upgrade. Most of the time you are waiting and the same would be true for other Linux distributions.

      Using YUM on Fedora 9 successfully updates to the latest release of Firefox (the performance really has improved) but if it did not I would not worry about it. Now if only KDE 4 would be more stable so I could go back to it :-)

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    35. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I had some trouble installing it on my Yggdrasil system, it doesn't like libc5 and upgrading to glibc will totally trash my setup!

    36. Re:Download safe, but useless by donaldm · · Score: 1

      Since RHEL5/CentOS 5 has been out for quite some time, RHEL4 and variants are considered legacy OSes in many circles, especially when it comes to the fast-changing world of the Linux desktop. And this is why most OSS is not suitable for enterprise environments. That is not just a problem with Linux it is a problem with all OS's. You find in many medium to large corporations it is very hard to arrange to apply patches or updates, as for upgrading try to convince management that their multi-million dollar machine has to be shut-down for 4 hours just to upgrade the OS.

      At least with Linux you can run updates live without even shutting down the machine although a new kernel does require a reboot (normally about 15 minutes - depends on the application) before it takes effect. What I normally do now is set-up a corporate "yum" (most sites I manage/consult with use Redhat) server to manage updates. This is very easy to set-up and manage and appears to work well.

      The problem you nearly always get with doing OS upgrades is with the vendor only supporting a particular OS version and patch/revision level. When this happens you are stuffed.
      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    37. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. The equvivalent to FF3 in KDE-land would be Konqueror 4. Try running that under EL4.

    38. Re:Download safe, but useless by donaldm · · Score: 1

      If anyone's to blame here, it's your "third party tool" vendor because they're locking you into a distribution that rapidly becoming unsupported by the rest of the world.

      Wow, I'm sure glad that Linux users avoid all that "DLL Hell" I keep hearing about on Windows.

      Yeah, yeah, mod me down...

      You do deserve to be modded down but there is some element of truth in what you have said since many people don't have any idea how updating works on Linux thinking that anything can be installed.

      If you have a good updater and package manager then installs and upgrades are easy however if you want to grab say an "rpm" file from "some site" (the Microsoft users lament) and expect to just install it then IMHO you are in for a world of pain.

      Even with an updater you have to be careful on your choice of repositories. I use Fedora and by default I only use the normal repos however I do have another repo called "livna" which I enable when I want video drivers and codecs. I try and avoid other repo sites since some of them can cause problems although if I need them I only use them for specific packages and even then I find it safer to just get the source and compile it.

      While I don't expect a first time Linux user to be on top of all things Linux I always suggest going to the appropriate forums and some of the "how to" web sites. A little bit of common sense can go along way and if after installing an application from a site it does not work and no one can help I would always suggest you give up (if you are keen get the source) and look for something similar that works. Definitely remove the offending package though (--nodeps can be your friend here).
      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    39. Re:Download safe, but useless by donaldm · · Score: 1

      If you are paying for RHEL 4 then you most likely have a server and you don't need a browser or GUI for a server. If you are using RHEL4 for your desktop again I would question your reasoning for using RHEL4 why would you not use CentOS 5 or if you want to pay, RHEL5 both of which have been out for some time now and you can easily get the latest updates from the appropriate repositories. Upgrading a desktop is so much easier (approx one hour) than upgrading a server considering the politics involved.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    40. Re:Download safe, but useless by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      OS X Fink Project has documented why they use experimental "pangocairo" tree on their Wiki. Although Linux reasons could be different, I kinda feel that it could be related.

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/5bsmaw

      Right now, if you opt-in to use pangocairo Fink tree with current GTK, thousands of things change (while it is safe).

    41. Re:Download safe, but useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Donaldm, I keep seeing you advocating this silly point that the Linux situation requiring constant upgrades to libraries to run new binaries is somehow OK. It's not OK for people in enterprise environments.

      If you want people to use Linux instead of Windows, get out of denial and stop going on and on about how it's OK to force a number different libraries to be updated in a three-year-old OS just so someone can use a new version of a web browser. This is completely unacceptable for corporate IT usage.

      Firefox 3.0 runs just fine in Windows 2000, an 8-year-old version of Windows. So Windows is a superior operating system for the corporate desktop, since new applications are pretty much guaranteed to run for a decade after installing a given OS.

      You want Linux on the desktop? You will have to match Windows' record, and not force users to play "DLL hell" just to get Firefox 3 to run with a version of Linux only three years old.

    42. Re:Download safe, but useless by BZ · · Score: 1

      > Upgrading a desktop is so much easier (approx one hour)

      Actually, that I disagree with. Perhaps if you never change any configuration on the desktop, but if you have various local configuration changes... it takes a while to update it and make it work again. My experience with RedHat/Fedora has been that between changes to X and updated versions of _all_ the applications, a dozen or so things would break and need about a week's worth of time to fix (if they could be fixed at all).

      For example, there is a history of ld being broken (in the sense of 2 orders of magnitude performance regression linking gklayout) in the several .0 releases of Fedora in a row... then they fix it in an update, and rebreak it with the next major release.

    43. Re:Download safe, but useless by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

      Whether RH or CentOS, plenty of commercial and research facilities run the same version of EL on desktops and compute server farms. It makes tools support much easier.

    44. Re:Download safe, but useless by tgd · · Score: 1

      Thats what you get for using Linux in a commercial environment!

      *ducks*

    45. Re:Download safe, but useless by ultranova · · Score: 1

      One of the strengths of Firefox for some time has been that right out of the box, the binary just ran on lots of Linux versions. With FF3 (starting with betas) they broke this.

      Good. Firefox has a large enough memory footprint without statically compiling all the libraries into it just because someone might want to run it on an outdated distro.

      FF3 requires a pretty new library (libpangocairo 1.0). I spent an hour trying to come up with it this afternoon for my 100+ users. No luck so far.

      Cairo is available from http://www.cairographics.org/. Pango is available from http://www.pango.org/. What, exactly speaking, is the problem ?

      The firefox team really let us down big time. We've been anxiously awaiting this release because it's supposed to solve the memory bloat problems (several of us here have to restart the browser several times a week because it's consumed insane amounts of RAM).

      Using the same shared libraries as everything else will reduce memory usage, because that way there will only be a single copy of the code in memory. Statically compiling libraries into programs for distribution was always a stupid, stupid, stupid hack.

      Now, maybe the Firefox team should also provide a self-contained Firefox version for people who insist on using it on outdated distros - it's not much work, just a single linker flag if I remember correctly - but that certainly shouldn't be the default.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  27. All your Cake... by AllIGotWasThisNick · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was also revealed today that Mozillians keep the IE logo piece frozen since then! Looks like Mozilla can have IE's cake, and eat it too!
    1. Re:All your Cake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why shouldn't they? They're already drinking IE's milkshake.

  28. Re:MS Cakes by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Funny


    Nah. Classic Microsoft.

    They set DefaultLogo OnCake to "Blue-E".

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  29. Error establishing a database connection by jfern · · Score: 1

    I guess that open source is strong on the site called Slashdot; the database just got Slashdotted.

  30. Opera 9.50 is Also Out by BountyX · · Score: 4, Informative

    Speaking of internet browsing, Opera 9.50 just came out as well. Has full text history search and my favorite feature...Opera Sync. I opened 10 of the same internet sites with Opera and Firefox 3 and compared the memory imprint, FF3 was 10 mb greater. Opera was already configured to grab a ton of my RSS feeds, so I believe without RSS feeds bein pulled 9.50 could have had a good 20 mb on ff3.

    Just wanted to shed some light on a lesser known, but in my opinion, very good browser.

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    1. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is also closed source, and doesn't have nearly as many useful extensions and plugins as firefox. My laptop has 4GB of ram, and these features are EASILY worth a 20MB footprint over Opera.

    2. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by setagllib · · Score: 1

      I like Opera as well, but every time I try it it's just web-incompatible enough to piss me off. And even when it's very good, it still doesn't fit at all into Windows *or* Linux. At least Firefox 3 in particular fits right in to GNOME.

      --
      Sam ty sig.
    3. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Zerimar · · Score: 1

      Did Opera fix it's incompatibilities with Yahoo! yet? Yahoo's Javascript would bring Opera to it's knees in 9.27 so I gave up on it and went to IE7, before finally moving back to the Fox with 3.0 RC2. I might have to check out Opera 9.5 again, although so far I'm enjoying FF3.0 with the FireGestures and Speed Dial add ons.

    4. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Not sure about yahoo...but they fixed a js compatibilty relating to imeem. I deleted my 'View in IE' button for the first time =)

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    5. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Eil · · Score: 1

      I'll have to second this. I never really cared much for Opera in the past, but this 9.5 stuff is pretty darn good. Works on all the sites I can find, has a clean interface, is blindingly fast, and has better standards support than anything else. Opera also just released a bunch of really cool web developer tools to go with it.

      I'm not 100% sure whether Opera will be my main browser anytime soon, but this is the first time I've actually taken more than a cursory glance at it.

    6. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Plus, Opera has a Back button and a Forward button. The first thing I noticed in FF3 was the shitty IE7 styled "Back Forward" control.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Zerimar · · Score: 1

      I downloaded it on my Gentoo laptop and it would hang trying to load the login.yahoo.com page. Oh well, back to Firefox 2.x waiting for the Gentoo team to deem FF3 to be stable. :)

    8. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AdBlock+

      That's why Opera sucks in comparison.

    9. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 MB! Wow, that's such a huge difference - it's almost a quarter of a percent of the RAM that my computer has available. Clearly, I'm going to ignore all other considerations now and go with Opera simply because of THIS.

    10. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I also uninstalled FF3 immediatelly after seeing that.
      What a stupid idea, making the button which is used more often bigger than the forward button. And the worst part is that you can't even change it!

    11. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by nrbarnard · · Score: 1

      Just putting in another good word for this very underrated browser, it's incredibly well designed. It made stuff I'd never thought about (like the speed-dial) absolutely indespensible for me.

    12. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sod back and forward buttons, use mouse gestures and you'll wonder how you ever lived without them!

    13. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by xet7 · · Score: 1

      Try this for Opera Adblock: http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

    14. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by nem75 · · Score: 1

      Opera is also closed source, and doesn't have nearly as many useful extensions and plugins as firefox.

      Because 90% of the functionality you'd use an extension for on FF is already built into Opera. But don't let that get in your way.

      Though I admit that for the missing 10% and flexibility in general an extension mechanism akin to FF would be nice to have.

    15. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      milli-bits? who cares about 10-20 milli-bits? ;)

    16. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I tested with the most problematic pages, My Yahoo Beta (notice the B) and new Yahoo mail. It seems to work fine. I must confess, I used those compatibility hells as benchmark to see if Opera 9.5 is ready or not ;)

    17. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Because 90% of the functionality you'd use an extension for on FF is already built into Opera.

      Huh, when did you get a list of all the functionality the GP requires from his browser?

    18. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... And the worst part is that you can't even change it! ...

      Erm..., themes?

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    19. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... Opera has a Back button and a Forward button. The first thing I noticed in FF3 was the shitty IE7 styled "Back Forward" control ...

      The only difference I can see is that the FF back forward control has added functionality that you can choose to use (or not) if you click on the down arrow.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    20. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Any specific theme? All the ones I've looked at don't restore the fully functional back button, they just change the theme of the IE7 style back/forward junk.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    21. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Begone, foul Opera troll! Leave the surfers in peace!

    22. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      CrystalFox Modern. You still have that little drop down on the right hand side but the buttons are the same size.

      I'm still not convinced there is a lot of difference.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    23. Re:Opera 9.50 is Also Out by BountyX · · Score: 1

      opera has ad block built in

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  31. Re:If it ain't broke don't fix it. by Denyer · · Score: 1

    I've just overridden compatibility on the extensions I'm using (using the Nightly Tester Tools extension) with no problems so far.

    Most extensions tend to work fine if you do this, but as always YMMV. It's rightly not a default option because it could screw up a profile for a less confident/techy user who wouldn't know how to fix things.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  32. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, 8 million all set to exploit? What was the marketshare for Windows again? 91.13% according to Wikipedia. Now figuring that there are around 1.2 billion Internet users which figures to at least that many computer users. I would have to say that the odds are higher of exploiting one of the many flaws in IE which is slower to patch and who's users are computer newbies. With Firefox whenever a toolbar somehow pops up most people know something bad has happened, with IE it is seen as "just something a computer does". Oh and don't forget OS versions, I bet that a lot of the people downloading it were Linux/Mac users and they are harder to exploit to run malicious code on (yes you can destroy the home directory and perhaps add in a keylogger but that is about it).

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  33. Re:Don't trust the results by sidnelson13 · · Score: 1

    Riiiiiiiiiight, German nazi bots! Sure, and the numbers for US are Photoshoped, right! Give it a break. It was a happy day for the Open Source community, leave the analysis of the records for the Guinness guys and be happy for Mozilla! Cheers!

  34. Re:Firefox is the most unstable prog in common use by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Funny

    And, since then, Safari for Windows came out.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  35. Buggy or an improvement? by nixkuroi · · Score: 1

    I've noticed a few minor rendering differences in Firefox 3 from Firefox 2 in terms of positioning. Does anyone know if they made rendering 'improvements', or if these are bugs that need to be logged?

  36. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every software has bugs, be it written by Microsoft, Mozilla, the Hacker living in his mom's basement, or even by RMS or Linus Torvalds. It is a fact of computers. Now the good thing is, a fix will be released quickly, and if you really feel like it you can patch it yourself, compare that to IE, Opera, or Safari*. Basically, no development method is perfect, but open source comes close to eliminating all the bugs and if you are complaining then write up a patch.

    *Yes, yes I know the core of Safari is WebKit which was forked from KHTML and you can get the source to that

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  37. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you just don't get how IT works do you? Here's the most commonly used design pattern, to help you on your way:

    1. function follows form;
    2. form follows public relations;
    3. public relations follows ...;
    4. ... follows profit!
  38. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    As opposed to Internet explorer, which comes PREINSTALLED BY DEFAULT and is filled with tons of bugs, too?

  39. Re:Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by cuby · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
  40. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

    Oh fucking shit? Already? Douche, the fucking security hole was released 4 hours after the product was released. An open source product where anybody could have seen the code at any time. This is nothing but strategic fear mongering. Your Firefox will download its update in a day or so and you can go see your tentacle porn safely.

    --
    Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
  41. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should they have waited when there were no bugs? Hmmmm...

    "June 17, 2028. Firefox 2.9.948 released. Soon we'll go to 3.0 RC1!"

    And why am I suddenly reminded of WINE?
  42. Anyone doing research keeps tabs open. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Buyers for computer parts often have to keep lots of tabs open.

    Anyone doing research that cannot be finished immediately needs to keep tabs open.

  43. Awesomebar? by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm very tempted to switch; I am particularly eager to get the enhanced javascript performance.

    But I installed the Beta on my son's machine, and was shocked at the 'awesomebar'. What a monumentally bad idea, implemented in the most annoying of fashion! It is seriously the one factor keeping me from switching.

    Evidently there used to be configuration options to turn it off in the about:config window, but those have been removed, in a nearly microsoftian attempt to force users into behaving how the designers wish. There is an ad-in I found that reduces the awesomebar so that it looks similar to the Firefox 2.0 version, but it still searches 'intelligently', i.e. unpredictably and unintuitively.. Is there any fix for this due out?

    The other thing holding me back is firebug... does that have a 3.0 enabled version out yet?

    1. Re:Awesomebar? by Just+some+bastard · · Score: 1

      I find the awesome bar irritating because I'm not used to it, but I know I'll have adapted by next week. As for firebug, Google is your friend Everyone I've updated has commented on how much faster it is compared to v2.

    2. Re:Awesomebar? by dedazo · · Score: 1
      I agree with the whole "awesomebar" remark, I don't like it at all.

      ...but seriously, using your kid's machines to try out new stuff is just evil!

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    3. Re:Awesomebar? by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      One size does not fit all. Get the oldbar add-on.

      "Oldbar makes the location (URL) bar look like Firefox 2. Specially designed for those that dislike the AwesomeBar."

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6227

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    4. Re:Awesomebar? by springbox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I actually really like the new address bar. Now I know how those people who like Vista must feel.

    5. Re:Awesomebar? by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      There is an extension named "oldbar" that will revert the address bar functionality back to something similar to Firefox 2.x. In addition to loading the "oldbar" extention, you may want to use about:config to change "browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped" to "true" from its default of "false".

    6. Re:Awesomebar? by amaupin · · Score: 1

      Many, many users are complaining about the so-called "awesome" bar. Unfortunately, there is no way to completely restore the old no-nonsense location bar behavior. You can just approximate it with about:config settings and the oldbar extension.

      Make your voice heard if you'd like the option to restore the old location bar behavior.

      The Firefox team's feedback system is here.

      If enough users complain, maybe this will get fixed. Or forked.

      The location bar is for URLs, not searches through my bookmarks or wildcard searches through the titles of pages I visited last week.

    7. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why you don't like the awesomebar but an easy search would have turned up an option to turn it off, or at least make it search like Firefox 2 did. In about:config look for: browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped and set to true.

      For Firebug, the 1.2 beta has been out for a while at getfirebug.com but can now be found in add-ons. With another tweak you could have enabled the previous versions to work in Firefox 3. I'm shocked you didn't know that. :)

    8. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't tried this since I keep my history pretty clean, and the awesome bar doesn't seem to annoy me too much (yet).

      Google is your friend:

      CNET Download tab
    9. Re:Awesomebar? by flar2 · · Score: 1

      My first reaction to the awesomebar was also negative. But now I think it's great. After a few days' use it is much better than the old addressbar. I've always navigated to my favourite sites by typing the first letter or two of the site's address in the addressbar. Now with the awesomebar I don't have to push the down arrow to select the correct site, it just automatically knows which one I meant.

    10. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see if they post stats on the number of people who download 3.0, try the "AwesomeBar", and immediately revert to Firefox 2.

    11. Re:Awesomebar? by vaz01 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't so sure about the awesomebar when I read about it, but in practice I actually like it a lot. What I did was turn off my history completely. If I want it to remember a page to "search intelligently" later on, I can star it so it goes in unsorted bookmarks, and tag it if I want. Being able to type "/." and have slashdot come up as a match is pretty nice. I'd rather have it search intelligently through things I ask it to remember than search dumbly through everything I've visited since I last cleared my history. :)

    12. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Firebug is available to download directly from addons.mozilla.org :)

    13. Re:Awesomebar? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand the complaints about the awesomebar. You can still type in URLs like you always did. The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select.

      To those who don't like it, please explain this to me: What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now? Honestly, I don't get it.

    14. Re:Awesomebar? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If by awesomebar they mean the drop-down menu that gives you actually useful information instead of some URLs I may or may not have typed once, I like it too. (On the other hand, I tried Vista, and I don't understand how the people who like Vista feel. Sorry.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Awesomebar? by Eil · · Score: 1

      But I installed the Beta on my son's machine, and was shocked at the 'awesomebar'. What a monumentally bad idea, implemented in the most annoying of fashion! It is seriously the one factor keeping me from switching.

      *sigh*

      This seems to be the standard reaction from people who want a new shiny upgraded program but are absolutely stunned when the developers actually attempt to, I dunno, change the program's behavior in some way. The fact that it's a web browser seems to amplify this effect even more. My god, I remember when people went up in arms because Mozilla changed the freaking icons in Firefox.

      I actually like the awesome bar. While its presentation is a tad on the annoying side, it does let you quickly search within all of the pages you've recently viewed, rather than just the URLs you've recently happened to type in. Think of it as Google, only inside your browser. It's worth noting that Opera has had this functionality for quite a long time, so those who like it should should thank the Opera company rather than the FF devs.

      And just think, even if you hate it now, a year down the road you won't want to use a browser that doesn't have an awesome bar because you'll have gotten used to using it by then.
    16. Re:Awesomebar? by amaupin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now as I start to type "s" for slashdot, instead of a list of URLs like slashdot.org, somethingawful.com, etc. I get a huge list of pages where "s" appears anywhere in the URL or title of the page. Flash MX Design, CBS News, gamesocks.com, etc. ... all apparently culled from my bookmarks or pages I visited recently. It takes much longer to scan through the list (partly because the page titles are now shown along with the URL) and find the actual page I want.

      The location bar is for URLs. Not page titles. Not search queries. Just addresses.

    17. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firebug ver 1.2 requires FF3.

    18. Re:Awesomebar? by raddan · · Score: 1
      Yeah, actually, when I went to download Firebug the other day, the FF3 version was the one on the main page, before FF3 was even out! You have to hunt now to find the old one.

      Firebug 1.2 requires Firefox 3. Firefox 2 users should install the older 1.05 version of Firebug.
    19. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      And just think, even if you hate it now, a year down the road you won't want to use a browser that doesn't have an awesome bar because you'll have gotten used to using it by then.

      That is unlikely, for two reasons.

      Firstly, the change isn't just a change, it actually removes a feature many of us found useful: searching through the recently typed addresses quickly. If I want to visit a bookmark, I'll go click on the bookmark I bookmarked. Duh.

      Secondly, the name "awesome bar" is just stupid. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I want to be running software where teh URL iz pwned by l337 hax0rs, thanks all the same.

      For what it's worth, you're right that this is a pretty standard reaction. I recently had the same reaction to Office 2007. I did come to it with an open mind; I even challenged a few posts on Slashdot that predicted gloom without ever trying it, on the basis that the majority of those I knew who did try it actually liked it. However, now I've had some personal experience with it, I have reached two very clear conclusions: Microsoft did indeed do a good job of making the most often used features easy to find, but unfortunately the cynics were also right that all the little details and so-called power user features I've spent years learning to use have now changed for no good reason at all, dramatically reducing my productivity. So it appears to be with Firefox 3 as well.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    20. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firebug 1.2b works well with Firefox 3

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843

    21. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other thing holding me back is firebug... does that have a 3.0 enabled version out yet? Here you go.

      And I don't see what's so bad about the "awesomebar". It gets some time to get used to, and either way you should not reject Fx3 just because of that one feature.
    22. Re:Awesomebar? by felipekk · · Score: 2, Funny

      I feel GREAT! I _LOVE_ the AWESOMEAWESOMEAWESOMEbar and I like Vista. Use it daily at home and at work and it is stable, secure and feels "snappy". I can't, for the life of me, understand how people DON'T like the awesomebar.

    23. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but agree. I didn't even notice it at first but was pleasantly surprised when I did (though calling it "awesome" is a bit of a stretch). It's still just like a regular address bar for typing URLs, only a bit more clever because it looks for matches in your bookmarks.. do people really nitpick about stuff this subtle? Someone who hates it has to step up and shine some light on this, because so far I really don't get what's bad about it either.

    24. Re:Awesomebar? by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Firebug does have a BETA available for FF3.
      http://getfirebug.com/releases/index.html
      Get Beta 1.2, not 1.0.

      I've been using it for awhile. It "works". It even has some nifty interface changes (eg. being able to disable specific parts of Firebug but not others). But it's certainly a lot less stable. The Net panel sometimes lies to you and the JavaScript debugger can break or change the behaviour of pages. So, it's not as good an experience, but it works.

      (Also as I said above, you can disable bits that are misbehaving).

    25. Re:Awesomebar? by tokul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand the complaints about the awesomebar. You can still type in URLs like you always did. The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select.
      When I type URL in location bar, I expect that only URLs are suggested. If I wanted to search for something, there is other text box.
    26. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select."

      More like "The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that you have to write the whole URL before the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select."

      I tested this with some URLs and it gave me some useless image files I don't even remember visiting ever and I had to scroll down to get to the page I wanted and which was, before the "Awesome Bar", on the top of the list (and should be the most visited address on that site).

    27. Re:Awesomebar? by Toonol · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're supposing that I'm resistant to change. I'm not. Many features in Firefox 3.0 are better than 2.0. As I said, I'm eager to upgrade.

      The problem is that the awesomebar is worse than what it replaces. You know another search feature that went from being a simple search, to one that tries to guess your intent, point you in helpful directions, and so forth? Windows Search. That went from being a simple wildcard match to... something much, much less useful.

      The worst thing is that in, as I researched the issue, I saw that there was originally options in about:config to revert the behavior to simple URL matches (like a search in an URL text field should behave). But that option was removed in later betas. Why?

    28. Re:Awesomebar? by beuges · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      This seems to be the standard reaction from people who want a new shiny upgraded program but are absolutely stunned when the developers actually attempt to, I dunno, change the program's behavior in some way.


      Remind me to quote you whenever slashdot users complain about the ribbon interface in Office 2007, or the interface changes in Vista that make things different from how they were in XP.
    29. Re:Awesomebar? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      I don't mind it, have just started using it. But it is ugly, damn ugly. Everything else looks great, because it highlights all the combination's of letters, it looks really messy. Everything else looks so damn pretty.

    30. Re:Awesomebar? by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you can make a keyword for your most visited sites, right?
      For example, if you use keyword 's' for slashdot, you just type s and press enter.

      Even better, you can right-click a search field, and create keywords for searches, e.g. Wikipedia, and then just type something like "w star wars" to get to the wiki page on star wars.

      The point I'm trying to make is that if you just try adjusting your workflow to the possibilities offered by the technology, you may find that it will improve.

      Then again, one size doesn't fit all, but I suspect that most people hating on the awesome bar are just resisting to change.

    31. Re:Awesomebar? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The location bar is for URLs, not searches through my bookmarks or wildcard searches through the titles of pages I visited last week.

      Why?
    32. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could get perfectly repeatable behavior with the old address bar. Now you have to stop and look at what you're typing because the list can be sorted differently than the last time you tried.

    33. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > [...] please explain this to me: What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now?

      You could begin to type an URL and have it list everything visited earlier that match, quickly.

      Now it's slow and also match on title, which means that when I type "op" because I want to visit openbsd.org, Firefox suggests undeadly.org (because both have OpenBSD in their title).

    34. Re:Awesomebar? by boteeka · · Score: 1

      Awesomebar works fine for me. And it _is_ more inteligent. But finally... there are people who can keep up with new and innovative things, and there are others who can't.

    35. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now? Be reasonably sure what URLs would and, more importantly, *wouldn't* show up when you start to type. I only started allowing my browser to maintain any kind of history after discovering Stealther. For those who still don't, the awesomebar may be a problem.
    36. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In previous versions of Firefox, I would almost never directly type in a URL. Just typing in terms and getting directed where I need to go 99% of the time was faster for me, and I don't have to remember addresses. Now, with the awesomebar, not only can I still do that, but it will search my bookmarks to make /sure/ that when I type in a term, it will send me somewhere that I've been to before.

      I can understand people not liking the awesomebar if they used the URL bar for just typing in URLs in the past, but not everyone did that. I find the whole bookmark tagging and searching system, well, awesome.

      And yes, there's a new version of Firebug for 3.0, but I think it's a new addon, not something that'll automatically upgrade.

    37. Re:Awesomebar? by CByrd17 · · Score: 1

      And as you type the "sl" for slashdot, you'll probably see slashdot, right at the top. And even moreso as you visit slashdot more. Oh no! Not an extra letter of typing! But seriously, I get that people are a little upset about new technologies; change is hard. I didn't like the awesome bar originally either, but I've been using it for a number of months on the daily builds and I wouldn't want to go back. I now rarely use bookmarks. All I have to do is remember part of the url or part of the title of the page and awesome bar shows me. That is a HUGE plus.

    38. Re:Awesomebar? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... The location bar is for URLs. Not page titles. Not search queries. Just addresses ...

      Yeh, let's just go back to, like, netscape 1 or something. After all, the display part of the browser is for text. Not images. You should download pesky images to your hard drive first, and as for JavaScript, css or, OMG AJaX!!!

      Nice to see new ideas are welcomed on /. or am I still just a noob?

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    39. Re:Awesomebar? by theodicey · · Score: 1

      Try typing "sl" instead.

      Seriously, you're using the location bar wrong. Why would you expect a search for "s" to be determinate? And why spend time hunting with the mouse when you can type?

      It's like the Google search suggestion feature from Firefox 2; it's fun for about a minute to see what popular sites and queries begin with "s". Then you start using it the way it's supposed to be used, and it becomes useful.

      p.s. I hear you can train it so that "slashdot.com" is the #1 result for "s".

    40. Re:Awesomebar? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Ok, I had the same objection. But it learns what you select when you type 's' and alters the ordering based on that. Try it. When the first item isnt the one you want, select it, then type the same thing and select it again, then type the same thing and select it again. Notice how the ordering of the results changes and your selection gets promoted?

      After 2 days of using FF3 it seems to "know" exactly what I am looking for most of the time.

    41. Re:Awesomebar? by colesw · · Score: 1

      The location bar is for URLs, not searches through my bookmarks or wildcard searches through the titles of pages I visited last week.

      Why? Because that is the way he would like it, as someone said they had the ability to turn off how it works so it works more like FF2 ... why take a option out? Especially when its in about:config, and not actually under tools->options.
    42. Re:Awesomebar? by ppz003 · · Score: 1

      fwiw, type 'sl' or whatever it takes to filter out the other cruft and select slashdot enough times and soon it will start becoming the first choice when you just hit 's'.

      A lot of people who hate the "AwesomeBar" never tried it for a week. This thing does try to learn what you were expecting and will sort the results accordingly.

      Seriously, give it a week.

    43. Re:Awesomebar? by magus_melchior · · Score: 1
      If you don't give the learning algorithm (and that's what the "awesomebar" is) a chance, it will never learn to put slashdot at the top of your list when you begin with "s". There's presumably a way to force slashdot to the top using keywords (say, "s"), but I haven't played with those yet.

      The location bar is for URLs. Not page titles. Not search queries. Just addresses.

      They're going for the mass market. You know, the kind of people who will give you a blank, slack-jawed stare when you try to explain what a URL is?
      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    44. Re:Awesomebar? by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the complaints about the awesomebar. You can still type in URLs like you always did. The only difference is that now as you start to type the URL in, it's more likely that the place you wanted to go will pop up for you to select. To those who don't like it, please explain this to me: What could you do with the old address bar that you can't do now? Honestly, I don't get it. It's new, it's different ooohh scary
      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    45. Re:Awesomebar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AwesomeBar certainly is a step backwards in useability. It doesn't even work, displaying shit that has absolutely no relevance to what I've typed.

  44. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

    Be prepared to never release, then? All software have bugs, it's a fact of life. Good development practice can minimize this, but never eliminate entirely. Not to mention that FF3 already went through 2 RC's prior to this "gold" release, so one cannot say that they haven't gone through the proper quality assurance routines.

  45. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

    yah the code for a lot of the final product has been available for years.

  46. Warning: clear history before updating from FF2 by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

    Warning, if you are using firefox 2 clear your history before upgrading to firefox 3. Tools->clear private data does delete the "history" but seems to keep everything from my FF2 history in the awesomebar. I have everything checked in clear history options except for passwords.

    1. Re:Warning: clear history before updating from FF2 by Acer500 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is the awesomebar and the URLs it quick-fetches(?) customizable?

      Sounds nice but it could be annoying (and potentially embarassing).

      From what you say, I'd actually want to keep my history so it already recognizes my surfing habits (if I understood correctly...).

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  47. 1st Day of What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, don't be ridiculous. Do you think there's ever a time without bugs? You know that there were several release candidates? And you know that it'll auto-update to 3.0.1 (or whatever) when they put out a patch in a day or two, right?

    Why would they wait until many people had already downloaded it?

  48. Maybe slightly OT by sunami88 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone else had the mysterious "cookies disappearing" problem?

    Neither of the RC's, or the Beta 5 that I tried had this problem. I have googled and it seems a few other people are having the same problem, but I've yet to find a fix.

    It's really quite annoying. I've tried loading up in Safe Mode (no extensions), but even then my cookies just "vanish", seemingly after a random amount of time. I'm also having a problem with Foxmarks (endlessly syncing but not actually syncing), but I guess the Foxmarks devs will bang that one out soon.

    Overall my followup is I'm not too impressed. Might just go back to RC2...

    --
    Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    1. Re:Maybe slightly OT by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm seeing it also, but only when I close the browser completely. I'm using FF 2.0.1.14 (I think?) My copy of FF Portable doesn't have a problem, though.

      So long as I don't close-or crash-the browser, all my login cookies are retained. But after a restart, they're all gone. It's odd, FF will remember where I was and what I was doing, but it doesn't retain the cookies.

      Could this possibly be a "security feature"? Y'know...the Feds are bashing in your door, so you just hit the power button and kiss all your login cookies goodbye?

      Ooops...I just gave the developers an excuse. Oh well...

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:Maybe slightly OT by sunami88 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm seeing it also, but only when I close the browser completely. I'm using FF 2.0.1.14 (I think?) My copy of FF Portable doesn't have a problem, though.

      So long as I don't close-or crash-the browser, all my login cookies are retained. But after a restart, they're all gone. It's odd, FF will remember where I was and what I was doing, but it doesn't retain the cookies.


      For me it happens even if I keep the browser open. One time it took ~10 minutes, another time it was about an hour or two.

      Could this possibly be a "security feature"? Y'know...the Feds are bashing in your door, so you just hit the power button and kiss all your login cookies goodbye?

      Ooops...I just gave the developers an excuse. Oh well...


      I get it now! It's not a bug, it's a feature! :P.
      --
      Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    3. Re:Maybe slightly OT by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if it was the same bug causing my problem, but I was running Firefox 3.0 RC2 (on Windows XP sp3) and suddenly lost the ability to save logins between browser sessions. If I closed Firefox and reopened it, I would have to log back in to my homepage (MyYahoo!) and any other site that requires authentication. To fix it, I uninstalled Firefox 3.0 RC2, deleted whatever was left in the install directory, restored my Firefox profile from backup, and reinstalled the most recent Firefox.

      I upgraded to Firefox 3.0 (release version) last night, but this time I uninstalled Firefox 2.x and deleted the install directory before installing FF 3.0. Firefox 3.0 managed to find and re-register the plugins that were originally stored in \plugins under the old install directory. So far, things are working ok for me.

      I don't run a lot of Firefox add-ons, but the ones that I normally use are all compatible with FF 3.0: ColorfulTabs, FlashBlock, Forecastfox, FireFTP, and Card Games. with the upgrade to FF 3.0 I have also starting using a new plugin named "oldbar". Oldbar makes the address bar in FF 3.0 work more similarly to the address bar in FF 2.x. The only add-on that I have loaded that is listed as incompatible with FF 3.0 is "AVG Safe Search 8.0", and I had that disabled anyways because I didn't like it.

    4. Re:Maybe slightly OT by sunami88 · · Score: 1

      I was just about to come back and post an update. I uninstalled and reinstalled, and everything SEEMS to be working better (it no longer forgets when I close the browser, we'll see if it forgets in a few minutes/hours).

      Also, it seems my problem with Foxmarks was related to Torbutton. Very shortly after I wrote my comment here (of course), I got a response back about my bug report from Foxmarks and it seems that Torbutton was causing the problem. After disabling Torbutton Foxmarks is working great, and the Foxmarks devs said they were in contact with the Torbutton devs and were working on the issue as we speak.

      So aside from some oddities from my first install, and a slight add-on incompatibility, I guess FF3 is working ok. Can't be too mad for free eh, and it seems to be working alright for the time...

      --
      Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    5. Re:Maybe slightly OT by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Somebody probably put a decimal point in the wrong place when calculating the expiration times. They're always screwing up some mundane detail like that.

      Anybody see my red stapler?

    6. Re:Maybe slightly OT by miro+f · · Score: 1

      there is an option in firefox to automatically delete all cookies when you close the browser... might want to check on that.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    7. Re:Maybe slightly OT by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      That Cookie disappeareance has hit the OS X Leopard 10.5.0 Safari in a funnier way. Check that for details:

      http://www.unsanity.org/archives/apple/apple_hates_bug_filers.php

      The "Apple Hates Bug Filers" title is not flamebait, once you went to report bugs of your brand new OS with Intel Mac to Apple, your cookies disappeared literally. Of course, the "Time Machine" was to rescue (in case you use it). It is said to be hotfixed in later versions of OS X 10.5

      I noticed it happened once to my PPC Mac on 10.5.3 , couldn't reproduce though. I wonder if your cookies vanish after random amount of time or you visit a specific site randomly?

  49. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by mangu · · Score: 3, Funny

    It wasn't very smart to encourage millions of downloads when it was very likely there would be bugs.

    Maybe they want to try to beat the download record again, when all those people come looking for the patches.
  50. Told You So! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I told you so! So now we have what? 8 million suddenly vulnerable machines?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Told You So! by Nushio · · Score: 1

      Not upgrading isn't an option either.

      It seems that this bug affects Fx2 too.

      --
      Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
    2. Re:Told You So! by gloryhallelujah · · Score: 1

      I told you so! So now we have what? 8 million suddenly vulnerable machines? And my odds of being pwnd just went way down!
      --
      The Turing test cuts both ways
    3. Re:Told You So! by BZ · · Score: 1

      The vulnerability in question is present in Firefox 2 as well.

    4. Re:Told You So! by gwniobombux · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not surprising. But as other posters mentioned the vulnerability exists in FF2 as well. So these security "researchers" have known about this for quite a long time, it's highly improbable that they just now, after FF3 has been released, discovered the vulnerability.
      The right thing to do, would have been to contact Mozilla immediately, to have it fixed in time for the FF3 release, so that the millions of downloaders don't end up with vulnerable browsers. Well, unless they want to partake in the release publicity. Understandable, but it still makes them asshats.

  51. Congrats by pravuil · · Score: 1

    In the sake of adding a comment strictly for fluff and doing it without posting as an anonymous coward, the least we could do is say thanks for all the work you guys did. Mitchell Baker's speech was more than on par with where our minds and hearts should be. A free and open Internet to express one's thoughts, regardless of how misguided they may be, is a right we must protect. Congratulations on a job well done. Keep up the good work.

  52. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Never mind the whole Release Candidate process. Seriously, security researchers waited until release day to start looking for the bug?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  53. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Corale cache worked for me, but it seems sluggish now.

    downloaded version

    Lameness filter prevented me from pasting in the text.

  54. Which bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also.

    > Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. The list is not complete. There have been other excuses that I haven't had time to add to the list.

    A) What do you mean "the" bug? Memory leaks happen in most non-trivial programs. And some of it isn't "leak" so much as "You're browsing lots of porn. It has to store it SOMEWHERE in memory."

    B) It's nice, responsive & fast. They have a new cycle counter which killed pretty much any memory leaks serious enough to get noticed. Most of them were with extensions, anyhow (e.g. people using Adblock instead of Adblock Plus).

    C) Why don't you actually try it before trotting out old troll lists for karma? There haven't been serious memory issues for people using non-buggy extensions in ages.

  55. Vulnerabilities and Leaks by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I can't speak to vulnerabilities, but, I started it about 24 hours ago, parked tabs at slashdot, cnn, and weather.com, and after 24 hours, it's taking 674MB of memory...

    Nice job, guys...

  56. First.. by whereiswaldo · · Score: 3, Funny


    First they ignore you.
    Then they laugh at you.
    Then they fight you.
    Then they send you a cake.
    Then you pay your ISP for 8 million downloads.
    Then you profit???
    What are we doing again?

    1. Re:First.. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Getting paid by Google for search traffic.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:First.. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      No, no, you don't profit. That's against the rules. You make a substantial amount of money, and then pay it to people like Mitchell Baker.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  57. Re:Hi twitter by freenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where did that come from? You guys need to get a life.

  58. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by dedazo · · Score: 1

    But I thought market share had nothing to do with this?

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  59. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that FF3 already went through 2 RC's prior to this "gold" release... Three RC's. Although the last one was only a Mac OS X bug fix, IIRC.
  60. Err, technical solution? (was:Still Slow) by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this one of the reason that bit torrent exists?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  61. Re:Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cache has been slashdotted :-(.

  62. Re:This is Arnold speaking by valentingalea · · Score: 0

    Now that I've downloaded it - I will delete it:)

    Just kidding - planning to install tomorrow and review my add-ons compatibility...

  63. Making Use of Bookmarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the new awesome bar I've found myself using bookmarks a lot more effectively than I have in the past. Until now my homepage has always been a list of some what organized page of links. What I'd like now is something a bit more dynamic making use of bookmarks, folders, and possibly the tags that they're given. Anyone know how I might accomplish this?

  64. attn: metamods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's actually not just a memory leak. It is a CPU hogging bug, also. Since that bug is now 7 years old, and still not fully fixed, I suppose I should post my list of Firefox developer excuses again. How is that post Intersting?! Complaining that firefox uses CPU time and is 'still not fully fixed' sounds like perpetual motion machine craziness. How is firefox supposed to render pages without using the CPU?

    Or is poster trying to say there is actually some 7-year-old bug where firefox uses too much CPU, and will write a 20-point rant about it but not even post a link to bugzilla? And somehow firefox uses 100% cpu even after the process has been killed? Come on. The guy's system is hosed, how is that Interesting?

    Complaining that since mozilla recommended some extensions that somehow all extensions should work together and not cause problems and mozilla should be responsible for other people's code is just dumb. The post should have been modded flamebait.
  65. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by cheater512 · · Score: 1

    Its been available for quite some time.

  66. Re:OSS Incompetence by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    yawn you trolled the other story with this already.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  67. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did that to some extent with 1.0, which was only a minor change from version 0.9.8, but which was considered a big deal (for a project as minor as Firefox then was)

  68. Free Software? by FranTaylor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where do I download the source code for these Adobe and Microsoft products you're talking about?

  69. How to make the Awesomebar show only history by zzxc · · Score: 2, Informative

    A lot of the complaints about the Awesomebar have been that bookmarks which have not been visited show up in the results. Luckily, there is now an extension to make the Awesomebar show history only.

    Also, if you are not sure what the point of the Awesomebar is, Mike Beltzner recorded an informative 2-minute screencast showcasing what the Awesomebar can do.

    Finally, Support Firefox Day is this Friday, which will include interactive video workshops and Q&A about the new bookmarks features. Several Mozilla developers will be in attendance, so it is a great chance to voice your opinions. The new bookmarks and history API is very flexible, so extensions will no doubt make it better.

  70. you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there is another Mozilla browser, it is called Seamonkey and works just great. Give it a try for a few days, you might like it. A lot of people prefer it over FF, and you don't have to install the full suite, the stand alone browser is available. And FWIW, I never see this memory hogging bug people talk about that they get with FF. Well, I also restrict Flash severely, I am sure that helps.

  71. Don't post bugzilla links! by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    Good god, we've slammed their poor servers hard enough. I can just see this:

    21. Bugzilla is slashdotted and I can't even read your bug report.

  72. Re:Hi twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It came from the journal he linked to. Evidence of the real owner of this account is detailed there for anyone to see.

    > You guys need to get a life.

    As opposed to you, correct?

  73. Add-on Hell: No cake from me by Hackerlish · · Score: 1

    Damned thing broke lots of my Add-ons. Even though I installed FF3 in a separate directory, the stupid thing keeps the extensions in the *same* directory, even though they're incompatible between versions. Firefox Developers: If you can't release a new version without breaking add-ons, don't release a new version at all. If your API is that fragile, you need to understand what APIs are. I'm back at FF2.

    1. Re:Add-on Hell: No cake from me by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Same thing delaying my upgrade on most of my machines. Almost no themes, and very few plugins ready. I do like the new add-on search though, filters out those that wont work in your version. Some changes to the way certificates are handled though has broken some applications I use at work, mostly the management interfaces on some firewalls. Probably a poor implementation on the server, but annoying and stopping me sing Firefox daily 8(

  74. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by ArcticFlood · · Score: 1

    Webkit itself is also open source. From what I understand, Konqueror and Epiphany are both evaluating the use of Webkit and have had a "proof of concept" build made with Webkit. There's also Arora, a simple Qt 4 cross platform browser built on Webkit.

    --
    This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
  75. Re:Hi twitter by dedazo · · Score: 0, Troll
    Eventually you'll use this account the same way as all the others. You can't help it. They all started nice and good citizens of Slashdot but eventually turned into this and this, which is what got you into karma hell to begin with. You are being given a chance that you choose to throw away because you're too proud and self-centered.

    In any case you'll just blame everything on M$ and carry on with the same useless drivel.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  76. Cake is a commercial for IE, no mention of Firefox by julie-h · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please understand why MS sends the cakes!

    The cakes doesn't mention Firefox or Mozilla in any way, but very clearly IE. Hence, MS sends the cakes not to congratulate Mozilla, but to get Mozilla to advertise for IE.

    Very clever move by MS!

  77. What could 9 million people do.... by mariushm · · Score: 1

    ... a bit off topic but here it goes...

    Total Downloads 9,525,757 as I write this...

    Imagine if every person donated 10-25$ cents, or a dollar for every US person... how much good could this kind of cash do.

    People can get together to do great things but just can't seem to find a worthwhile idea sometimes.

    1. Re:What could 9 million people do.... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      No need to.

      You know that Mozilla get paid by Google for every single request coming from the Google search integrated in Firefox, right?
      AFAIK, no official figures yet, but it already represents a few M$.

    2. Re:What could 9 million people do.... by mariushm · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the gains of a for-profit company like Mozilla but about donating to some non profit that helps homeless people or children with problems or something like that.

      9 million people can get together and so some useless thing like this but can't get together to do something that may improve the life of thousands of people for the better.

    3. Re:What could 9 million people do.... by drodal · · Score: 1

      golly what have you done to save humanity today....... Chill :P

  78. Re:Hi twitter by freenix · · Score: 0, Troll

    When I look at your account, all I see is Twitter posts. This can't be by chance, please go away.

  79. Re:Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    We haven't properly slashdotted a server in years.

    Servers got more powerful, bandwidth increased, and the number of users on slashdot declined. Do the math.

    The server outage is either unrelated, or due to another site.

    Of course, it is a bit odd, considering that we've had two or three "slashdotted" articles in the past day, and hadn't had any for quite a long time before that.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  80. Re:It's all about extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extensions. It would be really amazing if they figure out a way to get extensions without significantly increasing the size (even more so if they could somehow run firefox plugins, although this is probably impossible) and somehow figure out a way to promote it the way firefox has (maybe even sponsor a few popular plugins).

  81. Lets see how big it gets now by ouachiski · · Score: 1

    Stephen Colbert just gave Firefox 3 the Colbert bump on his show.

    --
    sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
    1. Re:Lets see how big it gets now by drodal · · Score: 1
  82. Microsoft: Let them eat cake! by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

    Um. of course microsoft kinda forget what happened to the last person who said that :P

    although on another note they did make one hell of an improvement visually over the last cake. Its now more colorful and everythings all rounded....just hope its not as weak taste wise as the last....

  83. If all else fails, then follow the instructions... by ClarisseMcClellan · · Score: 1

    Let's road test the instructions for the application that matters most to Linux. Do they work, could they be more succinct?

    1) The download.

    The site defaults to the download option. Why would you try anything else?
    The installation instructions are don't say what you do thereafter, and simple distro specific lines, e.g. "type 'yum update fedora' as root" are not given as an option without digging around on the site. Hence...

    2) Unpacking and running the installer. I unpacked the tarball, hopefully to find a INSTALL.TXT inside:

    tar xvf firefox-3.0.tar-1
    ls
    cd firefox
    ls
    more README.txt

    This was to a URL that redirected back to square one - the page with no useful instructions. Several clicks later I found them:

    http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Installing+Firefox+on+Linux#Installing_outside_of_a_package_manager

    Silly me for not finding that page before unpacking the tarball. I followed these to then try to run the installer - ./firefox (with path or else the browser launches). I did this as root with the browser closed down. This came up with an error that xhost+ could not fix. This error could have said - 'you are running as root, hit CTRL+D and try again' but it did not.

    I then tried enabling all the depositories for the 'yum update firefox' route as well as the package manager search. This did not work and held me back by some time. I gave the command line a try as a normal user. Note that 'yum' is run as root - I expected FF3 to have an installer that would be the same or an error message that made things clear.

    The instructions lead me down the command line route. Nowhere was I told whether I needed to close down my existing browser session or not. The use of the folder browser was not suggested either.

    The quicker way is with the folder browser:

    Download tarball. Extract it to the home folder.
    This will create a 'firefox' folder.
    Open it with the graphical file browser and double click on the 'firefox' icon.
    Choose to run this in a terminal window and you are all set.

    Now, I know what you are asking, what happened to the 39 tabs?

    Miraculously they all loaded again with FF3, unscathed.

  84. Re:Hi twitter by dedazo · · Score: 2, Informative

    When I look at your account, all I see is Twitter posts

    That's hilarious, I was going to say exactly the same thing to you!

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  85. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by edschurr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (yes you can destroy the home directory and perhaps add in a keylogger but that is about it).
    Personally, those are about the two worst things that could happen to my computer.
  86. Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously man, I've been watching you and your sock puppets for some time. Am posting AC now, to save my karma (and so I don't get some shill named after me).

    Twitter, and it is you -- we can all tell, you need to take a step back and look at your life. All this anti-Microsoft bollocks and shilling can't be doing you mind tank any good. You _need_ help, honestly. If you weren't so fucked up, you could be such a great force for good in the Free software world, don't throw it away.

    This is your wakeup call. I'll post this again, next time I see you sockpuppets in action. :)

    1. Re:Twitter by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Seriously man, I've been watching you and your sock puppets for some time. Am posting AC now, to save my karma (and so I don't get some shill named after me).

      Now, now, don't you know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  87. Awesome bar not so awesome by gaspacho_soup85 · · Score: 1

    The title preview on the 'Awesome Bar' really annoys me, I don't really like the websites I visit to show up in big bold letters (Mostly political stuff etc) for my whole office to see! Has anyone figured out a way to disable it?

    I found this video for disabling the "awesome bar"'s auto-sort (which I actually like), but it still shows the big title preview (which I don't like!)

  88. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by impur1ty · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    mmmm sexymagicalgirl

  89. Re:Firefox is the most unstable prog in common use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, stop linking to your own post.

  90. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by bunratty · · Score: 1

    Gaping security hole? You mean this? Sounds like a dupe of this hoax.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  91. Big win for Linux accessibility by GarrettK18 · · Score: 1
    As soon as this gets picked up by the major distros, it'll be easier for more blind people to switch to Linux, although most of the ones that have are using Ubuntu 8.04.

    Gecko-1.9 actually has a propper accessibility implementation for *nix, see this page for the details on using firefox with Gnome/Orca.

    Yes, I do use Linux for most of my daily work, and it's mostly okay, although for GUI things at the moment, windows still beats it hands down. See here and Here.

  92. Not many going back to FF2, I imagine by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Quoth the AC:

    Let's see if they post stats on the number of people who download 3.0, try the "AwesomeBar", and immediately revert to Firefox 2.

    I'm going to guess not so many, given that despite deliberately installing FF3 in a new folder and a separate location on my Start menu, attempting to run my old FF2 installation just loads up FF3 anyway. Way to go helping the web developer who needs to check a site works in multiple browsers, FF team.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  93. Re: Firebug for FF3 by MarsLander · · Score: 1

    Is available, and has been for quite some time. You just need to click on the "releases" link on the http://www.getfirebug.com/ site. Or just go directly to the extension page: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843

  94. Wouldn't Internet access help? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

    That's kind of a weird perspective, to begin with. OK, economic disparity in the world is bad, mmmkay ... but wouldn't it be kinda pointless to download a browser if you didn't have the Internet connection to, um, download anythi -- er, ah, my head asplode.

    I think the point here is that, sure, open source is helping with the world's problems, but it's not solving anything on its own. No reason to act all mumbly and ashamed about it. The coders are doing their part. The real problems in Africa have a whole lot less to do with closed-source software than with corrupt African governments -- as has long been the case.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Wouldn't Internet access help? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is what I wanted to say initially but it got lost :(

  95. Re:OSS Incompetence by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Yes, they underestimated demand and probably have a little egg on their faces. But Firefox WORKS! And it's FREE! So what's your problem? They signed away their rights to the 'you get what you paid for' excuse when they ran an ad in the New York Times.
    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  96. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    But to a hacker, your home directory is utterly worthless. Unless they plan on stalking you, your pictures mean nothing to them, and hopefully you don't have your credit card numbers in a file creditcards.txt. As for a keylogger, that would be bad, but I doubt that it would run at a level not to be noticeable.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  97. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    Yep, however none of the browsers are in Ubuntu's repos yet, and I assume that Konqueror would use WebKit as it is the natural continuation of KHTML and using the same renderer as Safari would get them recognized as a real browser (rather then the file manager that just happens to have a built-in browser)

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  98. Re:Foolish idea: Millions of downloads on the 1st by ArcticFlood · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I disagree that using the same engine as Safari would help too much. My Konqueror identifies as "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/4.0; Linux) KHTML/4.0.5 (like Gecko) Fedora/4.0.5-2.fc9", while Safari identifies as something like "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en) AppleWebKit/XX (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/ZZ Safari/YY". The sniffing I've seen identifies Safari by the presence of "Safari", and I could see them using "AppleWebKit", but not just "WebKit".

    In any case, people who are aware of lesser known browsers like Opera, Safari, Elinks, and Konqueror probably won't use user agent sniffing, and good riddance.

    --
    This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
  99. Re:Hi twitter by drachenstern · · Score: 1

    Okay, I'm being a sap and jumping on a top post. So sue me.

    Does anyone know if there is a Fx3 plugin that can synchronize all the plugins across all your O/S installs, to make sure that you're using the same set on all of your computers? I've got two work desktops, and both my laptop boots (Ubuntu, XP) and then there's the new laptop I hope to pick up when Uni Fall semester starts, so I'ld like to not revert to pen and paper...

    Obviously thanks in advance, but this being /., I predict the first three replies to be snarky :D

    Snark away fellas (and ladies, as present)

    --
    2^3 * 31 * 647
  100. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by DarthJohn · · Score: 1

    The plans have been on display at your local planning office in Alpha Centauri for the past fifty of your Earth years...

  101. Re:Already slashdotted. That was quick 0.0 by david_a_eaves · · Score: 1
  102. Though there are a *lot* of bugs still present. by bradbury · · Score: 1

    Though the "untitled frames"/"windows unexpectedly destroyed bug (#263160), which has been present for perhaps 3+ years is still present.

    As are a host of other problems. Including a lack of catching memory allocation failures, a lack of handling large numbers of tabs (which use Javascript), and extremely slow restart times if one is restarting a large session (lots of windows and tabs).

    I believe this was just an attempt to push a new release out the door without sufficient attention to quality control. If I were in charge of the Mozilla organization, I would have serious questions about continuing to employ the managers of the project.

    (And I'm not just some know nothing idiot spouting off. I was the Unix Product Development manager at Oracle Corporation from 1982-1987.)

  103. How to remove awesome bar features by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

    This may have been said before but I think that it is important enough to risk being modded redundant. Others may disagree but I found the awesome bar a PITA within two minutes, rather than endure it or revert to the old firefox I decided to change it, if you want to do the same read on. Type about:config in the soon to be slightly less awesome address bar and agree to the disclaimer. Look for browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped and change the value to true and you will lose any form of dropdown when you type an address. Alternatively you can look for browser.urlbar.maxRichResults and set the value to 0 but this will still show one item, or as others have said use the oldbar plugin (although this isn't quite such a complete solution).

  104. Well deserved congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suffered through Firefox 2.x, 3 is so much better it's like a different application.

    On my work platform (Windows), it's rock solid, fast, and *always* running.

  105. Here is the recipe, check it for yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 18.25 ounce package chocolate cake mix.
    1 can prepared coconut pecan frosting.
    3/4 cup vegetable oil.
    4 large eggs.
    1 cup semi-sweet chocolate chips.
    3/4 cups butter or margarine.
    1&2/3 cups granulated sugar.
    2 cups all purpose flour.
    Don't forget garnishes such as:
    Fish shaped crackers.
    Fish shaped candies.
    Fish shaped solid waste,
    Fish shaped dirt.
    Fish shaped ethyl benzene.
    Pull and peel licorice..
    Fish shaped volatile organic compounds
    and sediment shaped sediment.
    Candy coated peanut butter pieces, Shaped like fish.
    1 cup lemon juice.
    Alpha resins.
    Unsaturated polyester resin.
    Fiberglass surface resins.
    And volatile malted milk impoundments.
    9 large egg yolks.
    12 medium geosynthetic membranes.
    1 cup granulated sugar.
    An entry called 'how to kill someone with your bare hands'.
    2 cups rhubarb, sliced.
    2/3 cups granulated rhubarb.
    1 tablespoon all-purpose rhubarb.
    1 teaspoon grated orange rhubarb.
    3 tablespoons rhubarb, on fire.
    1 large rhubarb.
    1 cross borehole electro-magnetic imaging rhubarb.
    2 tablespoons rhubarb juice.
    Adjustable aluminum head positioner.
    Slaughter electric needle injector.
    Cordless electric needle injector.
    Injector needle driver.
    Injector needle gun.
    Cranial caps.
    And it contains proven preservatives, deep penetration agents, and gas and odor
    control chemicals. That will deodorize and preserve putrid tissue.

  106. Re:Hi twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anyone can see this is another sockpuppet. You're the only person on /. that uses the phrase "intentional waste". You misspell the same words. You always change the subject title on your posts. You started this thread as "Odder" and then probably forgot to switch accounts and replied as "freenix". Here you are following the same "reply to twitter with supporting links" pattern.

    If your past use of all the other accounts is any indication, we can expect this one to end up the same. And then I'll remember to post a link to this thread so you can bask in the enormity of your lies.

  107. Portal by mbeisser · · Score: 1

    The cake is a lie!

  108. Win95 launch again? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    Not to be too pessimistic (as usual), but... should we really be happy that 8 million people immediately ran out and got a brand new version release on the first day? A bugfix I can understand, but, a new version?

    Open Source or not, a massive, sudden adaptation of a new version without a shakedown period is generally not a good thing. I, for one, will be waiting at least a few weeks before upgrading, as I always do when new software is released.

    1. Re:Win95 launch again? by zrq · · Score: 1

      Normally, I'd agree with you. On this occasion, I did download it because I *will* be using it, and I wanted to add my vote to the statistics. The way I saw it, this wasn't just about a new version of a web browser, the event was a public vote of confidence in FireFox and OpenSource in general.

      I won't be installing it from the zip, because it is included automatically in Fedora 9. At the moment my desktop is running Fedora 8, but I plan to update all my machines to Fedora 9 in the next month or so. Installing it from the Fedora package I should (hopefully) get the most recent security updates as well.

    2. Re:Win95 launch again? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      My reason to update all Firefox 2.xx to 3.xx on OS X was the Cairo which some seems to bitch about. Firefox 2.xx was like the worst performing OS X application I have used in my life. I hated the fact that it doesn't use any features of the World's most accelerated GUI. I also hated that it can't/doesn't use OS X font rendering somehow resulting broken Turkish support.

      Now they use Cairo and magically, the font rendering issues, sluggish scrolling are all gone.

      Its fans may hate me but besides the extension mechanism, there was no reason to run Firefox until 3.0 released. Now it is a real competitor on OS X which will benefit other browsers too.

  109. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you! Time after time I've heard people proudly proclam.."You can't get viruses on Linux. Because you don't run as root." Let's see how long they say that for if a Linux distro ever becomes more popular on the desktop than 'not really very popular at all'.

  110. html5 followup by bigmammoth · · Score: 1

    Perhaps lost in the hoopla over Fierfox 3 impressive new features set is the html5 video support which did not make it into this release
    read on for some observations about the mozila html5 video situation.

  111. Re:Hi twitter by KURAAKU+Deibiddo · · Score: 1

    drachenstern: I assume that you mean Firefox add-ons, not plugins (since plugins like Flash, etc. would be OS-specific), and as far as I know there isn't anything that does this currently, but this seems like an awesome idea for a Weave add-on.

    Weave already provides sync features for bookmarks, history, cookies, saved passwords, and saved form data; without looking into it, it seems that what you're asking for is a logical expansion via the add-on framework that Mozilla Labs appears to have in mind.

  112. Re:Don't trust the results by quantumphaze · · Score: 1

    Students coming home from high school is a plausible explanation.

    The counter isn't really "Live". It just seems to update every 30 sec to give a new overall count and then JavaScript fakes the "Live"ness with the counts per second value. Similar to how Gmail's available space is continuously counting without any network activity.

  113. Latest statistics by marijonas · · Score: 1

    First link points to a preliminary data. There is the latest update on download statistics: http://ehsanakhgari.org/mozilla/downloadday/stats/pledge-ranking-by-country-population [ehsanakhgari.org]

  114. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by Robmonster · · Score: 1

    Right, time to rename my file to NOTcreditcards.txt . That'll fox them!

    --
    I have no sig yet I must scream.
  115. What surprises me... by LLKrisJ · · Score: 1
    ...is this:

    they confirmed that they reported a vulnerability in Firefox 3.0 to Mozilla a mere five hours after it was released. If they can find a vulnerability 5 hrs. after release, chances are it was probably already their in the RC's.

    Why didn't they file a bug _then_????

    Just smells like cheap attention seeking on their part...
  116. Re:MS Cakes by oloron · · Score: 1

    oh HAI, I heer you has cakes

    I can has some? i has foxfire for u

    okplzkthxomfgbbqponies!!!!

  117. Re:Don't trust the results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am happy for mozilla, I don't know why my comment was modded flamebait..but I guess thats why I posted anonymously because people take things the wrong way. I love firefox, I have used it for years. All I was saying is that I thought it was a bit suspicious the downloads jumped from 300 to over 4000 per minute within 2 minutes. Why is someone running a bot to download it thousands of times so unthinkable? I was just pointing it out because I thought it was interesting.

  118. Re:OSS Incompetence by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    The story will be repeated and repeated until no one snarks it?

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  119. Re:Cake is a commercial for IE, no mention of Fire by nem75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me recap your understanding of a "clever move": sending a big cake to a rivaling company with the logo of your own application (which comes with ~90% of the world's desktop OS) on it, to get free advertising.

    Clever. Yea, I can see it now.

  120. Microsoft cake... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Microsoft have congratulated the Mozilla team by sending them their second cake (minus recipe) to Mozilla's Mountain View headquarters to congratulate them on shipping FireFox 3, which went live right on time last night." Well, even without the recipe, we can guess one key ingredient...

    laxatives!

  121. Still crashes all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... on my ubuntu Hardy box when watching flash content. It's a shame.

  122. Re:Hi twitter by drachenstern · · Score: 1

    @Kuraaku Deibiddo:
    Yeah, you see what I mean (I never bother to keep straight on the proper terms for those, as every browser uses a different term _it seems_. If I say add-on to an IE dev, they think it means anything in the browser, etc). But yeah, I do mean add-on, so that it is O/S unspecific.

    It does seem like a natural extension of what's already being done, doesn't it? I've been checking around with some other dev teams, so maybe there will be some competition on this front in the marketplace directly, so to speak... Time will tell.

    --
    2^3 * 31 * 647
  123. Re:8 million, all set to exploit by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that most Linux users would wait for their distro to produce packages to download, and Mac users would mostly use Camino, or Safari.

  124. Re:OSS Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last line left me ROFTL.

  125. Good news, bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good news is, you can download it.

    The bad news is... you can download it along with all it's security holes, bugs, memory leaks, etc.

    The even badder news is- all the hackers are gearing up their 0-day exploits, and once they have everything set up... your computer belongs to them.

    Enjoy!

  126. Re:Cake is a commercial for IE, no mention of Fire by asaivan · · Score: 1

    THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!!

  127. Typing; It works by Tabernaque86 · · Score: 1

    Here's a tip:

    Try typing "l" after the "s". This should reduce your list considerably.

    If your list is still too long, follow up with "a", maybe "s" and "h", too.

  128. Couldn't get version 2 anymore?! by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

    Was making a new ISO image using nLite and Windizupdate yesterday when it turned out that the plugin didn't install automatically on firefox 3; not wanting any other surprises, I tried to download version 2 instead and simply couldn't navigate to it for the life of me!

    (I did end up installing the windizupdate.com plugin using their installer.)

  129. Re:Firefox is the most unstable prog in common use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safari for Windows has some serious security flaws that make it the about as safe to run on windows as IE 5.0

  130. Re:Cake is a commercial for IE, no mention of Fire by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come on. It's a friendly gesture by the IE team. It's the higher ups and the marketing people who are evil.

  131. cake by celle · · Score: 1

    It's edible, right? Maybe Microsoft wants to poison the competition. Nothing else has worked.

  132. Re:MS Cakes by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

    Oh well. The cakes for Microsoft staff.

  133. Browser Zealots by smartdreamer · · Score: 1

    In the grand scheme of things, this probably means nothing to the general security of Firefox, but you can be sure the browser zealots on all sides will be watching carefully."
    Is that how slashdotters are now called?
  134. MOD PARENT UP! Useful information. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "after one hour or so, my FF process starts lagging a lot and need a restart, reaching approx 500MB memory usage."

    MOD PARENT UP! Useful information.

  135. More good information. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    MOD PARENT UP.

    "I normally always have a Firefox window open and memory usage always climbs right up to 500-600MB."

    "Once it gets to the point where it starts needing to page memory, it really slows the entire system down unless I shutdown Firefox and restart it. I can reproduce these problems on a daily basis."

  136. $50,000,000 each year should buy something... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Quote: "I am NOT going to use a debugger and trace out the problem (as they have asked me to do for them). That is THEIR job, not mine."

    Google pays the Mozilla Foundation $50,000,000 every year to have Google as the default browser in Firefox. Seems like for 50 million Mozilla Foundation could do more than tell other people to do the work.

  137. What kind of argument is that? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Something like this?

    I never got cancer, so I don't believe cancer is a real disease. I think the people who say they have cancer are just trying to get sympathy.

    And besides, heart attacks are worse, even if there is such a thing as cancer.

  138. Very good point. Except that, ... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Very good point. Except that, whenever there are no Bugzilla links, there is complaining that the bugs have not been reported.

    Besides, Mozilla Bugzilla does not accept visits coming from Slashdot. You have to copy and paste the link.

  139. Good insights. MOD PARENT UP! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "In a commercial software environment developers will try the same thing until the manager tells them to cut it out and fix problem (US). Or he'll back them in return for popularity and the company will go slowly go bust."

    "In the absence of any commercial pressures the developers can feed the users any bullshit they want and nothing will happen."

    No one should forget that Mozilla Foundation makes $50,000,000 per year from Google for making Firefox the default search engine.