Mozilla can (and arguably must) work on many things at the same time. Just like there are people working on shiny new features, there are also plenty who are fixing bugs all over the code base. That you disagree with the direction we take on new features hopefully shouldn't discourage you to help us address the bugs that cause problems for the majority of users.
The point is that developers rely on reports from users to figure out what problems are out there, and which ones are more prevalent or more damaging to the user experience. Bugs are reported all the time about all sorts of things, so the dev team needs to prioritize them somehow. Filing bugs with good steps to reproduce (which can be rare) helps a great deal in resolving problems in Firefox.
Yes, we're aware Bugzilla is a significant barrier for people who aren't used to it. I've heard talk of making big changes there, but I don't know if there are concrete plans for it. Bugzilla is a fairly integral part of the Mozilla project. Submitting crash reports and using the feedback tool are easier and better ways to report issues, so thanks for doing that.
There are currently several sites I visit regularly -- as part of work, mind, so these are professional business sites not bleeding edge web geek blogs -- that will crash Firefox.
Have you filed bug reports for those crashes? Care to share more information about the websites that cause them?
I'm serious, I can try to help get those bugs resolved.
The version of Superfish included in Firefox add-ons (at least the ones on addons.mozilla.org) don't do any cert store manipulation. All they do is inject scripts into shopping sites to show offer ads.
Read the blog post. Developers will still be able to distribute their add-ons outside of the official add-ons site. And we've always had the capability of blocking add-ons that are not on the official site.
Signing doesn't change in any way whether AdBlock Plus can be blocked or not. We get complaints about it on occasion and it's still hosted on the official add-ons site.
See my other comment below. We discovered a problem and we're trying to get it fixed now. After the block is fixed, you should be able to re-enable the blocked plugin.
Quick update: it looks like something broke in the blocklist after the block was put in place, so many users are seeing a hardblock and not a softblock. We're working on fixing this now.
I'm talking from experience - I work for Mozilla and was partly in charge of the block. Unless you're using a Firefox version older than 3.5, you should see a checkbox next to the plugin name in that window you just mentioned. Unchecking it should prevent the plugin from being disabled.
Yes. Unfortunately there's no alternative, so we must favor warning users. We haven't added the Mac OS X block yet, but we will probably do so soon. Like the Windows block, though, users, will have the option to keep the vulnerable plugin enabled.
Plugin blocks apply to all versions of Firefox and they don't require you to update it. Firefox downloads the blocklist regularly to see if there are new add-ons or graphics drivers that need blocking.
Have you reported this bug on Bugzilla? And do you have any themes enabled? I wonder if the blue color comes from a theme or window transparency.
Re:Time to post the top 20 excuses... again.
on
Open Source Payday
·
· Score: 1
I'm only pointing out that the methodology you're using in that specific comparison is flawed. I'm not even saying you're wrong (I don't know if you are).
I'm not making up excuses, I'm actually trying to help you come up with more compelling arguments.
You can spare us the list/rant. I know I've read it many times before.
Comparing crashes this way isn't quite fair. Firefox interacts with other software (plugins, extensions, injected DLLs) and it is likely that a new release will cause more crashes that a release that has been out for 6 weeks already because the developers of this software haven't tested or updated it to work in the new version. One would need to compare the current crash rate in 11 vs. the crash rate in 10 at the same point in the release cycle to come up with meaningful numbers.
That's not true. The profile manager is still part of Firefox. There are plans to remove it once a suitable replacement is created, but that hasn't happened yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you point me to the bug report, please?
Mozilla can (and arguably must) work on many things at the same time. Just like there are people working on shiny new features, there are also plenty who are fixing bugs all over the code base. That you disagree with the direction we take on new features hopefully shouldn't discourage you to help us address the bugs that cause problems for the majority of users.
The point is that developers rely on reports from users to figure out what problems are out there, and which ones are more prevalent or more damaging to the user experience. Bugs are reported all the time about all sorts of things, so the dev team needs to prioritize them somehow. Filing bugs with good steps to reproduce (which can be rare) helps a great deal in resolving problems in Firefox.
Yes, we're aware Bugzilla is a significant barrier for people who aren't used to it. I've heard talk of making big changes there, but I don't know if there are concrete plans for it. Bugzilla is a fairly integral part of the Mozilla project. Submitting crash reports and using the feedback tool are easier and better ways to report issues, so thanks for doing that.
There are currently several sites I visit regularly -- as part of work, mind, so these are professional business sites not bleeding edge web geek blogs -- that will crash Firefox.
Have you filed bug reports for those crashes? Care to share more information about the websites that cause them?
I'm serious, I can try to help get those bugs resolved.
It's a reference to this old comic of his. Hint: click on the red button.
The version of Superfish included in Firefox add-ons (at least the ones on addons.mozilla.org) don't do any cert store manipulation. All they do is inject scripts into shopping sites to show offer ads.
Read the blog post. Developers will still be able to distribute their add-ons outside of the official add-ons site. And we've always had the capability of blocking add-ons that are not on the official site.
Signing doesn't change in any way whether AdBlock Plus can be blocked or not. We get complaints about it on occasion and it's still hosted on the official add-ons site.
Yeah, same here. Lefty and have no use for those keys.
Yes, Firefox Click-to-Play has the same feature.
See my other comment below. We discovered a problem and we're trying to get it fixed now. After the block is fixed, you should be able to re-enable the blocked plugin.
Quick update: it looks like something broke in the blocklist after the block was put in place, so many users are seeing a hardblock and not a softblock. We're working on fixing this now.
I'm talking from experience - I work for Mozilla and was partly in charge of the block. Unless you're using a Firefox version older than 3.5, you should see a checkbox next to the plugin name in that window you just mentioned. Unchecking it should prevent the plugin from being disabled.
Apple released a Java update today, so everybody should be checking Software Update now, before we block on Mac.
Yes. Unfortunately there's no alternative, so we must favor warning users. We haven't added the Mac OS X block yet, but we will probably do so soon. Like the Windows block, though, users, will have the option to keep the vulnerable plugin enabled.
Plugin blocks apply to all versions of Firefox and they don't require you to update it. Firefox downloads the blocklist regularly to see if there are new add-ons or graphics drivers that need blocking.
It's not an all or nothing deal. You are free to ignore the block and continue using the vulnerable versions of the plugin.
Instead of Mozilla just fucking DISABLING it, how about adding a huge blinky warning to it?
"Oh, wow. I should upgrade as soon as I get the opportunity." vs "Fuck, it broke!"
That is almost exactly what we did. You get a warning with the option to ignore it and continuing like nothing happened.
This is a softblock, meaning that you can ignore it if you want to or need to.
Have you reported this bug on Bugzilla? And do you have any themes enabled? I wonder if the blue color comes from a theme or window transparency.
I'm only pointing out that the methodology you're using in that specific comparison is flawed. I'm not even saying you're wrong (I don't know if you are).
I'm not making up excuses, I'm actually trying to help you come up with more compelling arguments.
You can spare us the list/rant. I know I've read it many times before.
He never said only Christians. The GP would probably agree that this applies to most if not all religions.
Crashes per 100 active daily users, version 10.0, the version before the most recent:
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox/versions/10.0
Version 11 is less stable. Crashes per 100 active daily users, version 11.0, the most recent version:
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox/versions/11.0
Comparing crashes this way isn't quite fair. Firefox interacts with other software (plugins, extensions, injected DLLs) and it is likely that a new release will cause more crashes that a release that has been out for 6 weeks already because the developers of this software haven't tested or updated it to work in the new version. One would need to compare the current crash rate in 11 vs. the crash rate in 10 at the same point in the release cycle to come up with meaningful numbers.
That's not true. The profile manager is still part of Firefox. There are plans to remove it once a suitable replacement is created, but that hasn't happened yet.