Firefox has some integration with Windows Vista parental controls. I think that at the moment you only get some kind of warning when trying to download inappropriate material.
Just like any other big project, Mozilla needs to prioritize their tasks. Quite frankly I had no idea about this problem until I read that they had resolved it, and I'm sure there are a *lot* of users that don't find much need for the download window.
Evidently there were lots of users complaining about this problem and that is why they decided to fix it for this release, but I think it's reasonable to see that one's requests aren't always on the top of their list.
It shouldn't take over 5 seconds for the download window to display, it doesn't matter how long my download history is. (And the browser shouldn't be entirely locked-up while it's opening!) Hopefully FF3 will take care of some of those issues.
Actually, Firefox 3 has a new Download Manager, designed with this specific issue in mind. The download list is loaded in "chunks", to prevent the UI from freezing.
I have been using their new keyboards for quite some time, and I find them very comfortable. Plus, they are as compact as I think is humanly possible (until the next one comes along to prove me wrong), which is a big plus for me.
[Improved in Beta 4!] Integration with the Mac: the new Firefox theme makes toolbars, icons, and other user interface elements look like a native OS X application. Firefox also uses OS X widgets and spell-checker in web forms and supports Growl for notifications of completed downloads and available updates. A combined back and forward control make it even easier to move between web pages.
I read somewhere in the Mozilla blogs that AppleScript has been somewhat neglected, so I guess no one has taken the task in that specific area.
Laptop users don't power off their computers all that often, specially if they're not running an OS that requires constant restarts, *ahem*. That's my case, and Firefox is always open, so yes, it can run for weeks. But I haven't experienced important performance problems. Beta 3 feels faster, though.
Just wait for Firefox 3. It will have much, much better OS integration, specially on Linux and Mac OS. Next week you'll probably be able to take at peek at Firefox 3 Beta 3, which will include the new Linux and Mac OS themes.
I partly agree, but it's kind of an over-simplification. There are of course intermediate levels of poverty where children have access to the very basic resources as well as education, but their families or schools can't afford your average computers. OLPC is aiming to that crowd, I think, which is likely to be quite large and will largely benefit from it.
There are already thousands of these being ordered worldwide, so the idea can't be that bad.
I'm a rather new subscriber, but something I'm sure of is that Slashdot is waht it is because it has focused on doing one thing right: delivering the right content to people like us. It could certainly have more users, make more money, be more popular... for a while. And the sad thing is that corporate typea don't care that much about the long run. Long-term gain is preferred, not required. Strong communities can't survive in this context.
From a relatively new user: let's keep Slashdot like it is.
Central America (Spanish: Centroamérica or América Central) is a central geographic region of the Americas. It is variably defined either as the southern portion of North America, which connects with South America on the southeast, or a region of the Americas in its own right.
FWIW, most people I've ever known (from various parts of the world) consider Central America a continent on its own. I can clearly see the case for the opposite, but I disagree with it.
I have met with the Xiti team a few months ago to get a better understanding of what they measure. Basically, they have what they call markers (actually small images) on literally millions of Websites, mostly in Western Europe. This means they get billions of hits every month, and then analyse which browser engine were used to display these images.
The only problem I see with.bank is its ineffectiveness against one of the most common phishing URL formats, which uses the form of paypal.com.fakedomain.com. Chase.bank.omgphished.com would probably fool quite a few n00bs.
But we can trust that if this becomes a standard, browser makers will take advantage of it to make life easier to users, or at least to some users. Just like Firefox turns the URL bar yellow for SSL sites, and IE7 turns it green (I think), there could be some UI cue telling the user that he's visiting a real.bank website. Whether users will pay attention to this and realize that the lack of this cue means potential trouble, well, that's a different story.
I think.bank would add an extra layer of online banking security, and that's a big plus IMO.
An improvement? Maybe. Foolproof? No. DNS poisoning is still just as prolematic, and appended URLs (i.e. www.mybank.bank.badurl.com) will still fool *some* people.
I think that if this solution were to be adopted as a standard, browser makers would follow and reflect the "secure" TLD on the main UI. Firefox and IE7 already to this to some extent (yellow URL bar for SSH enabled sites, green (I think) on IE). There could be a special UI state that indicates you're on a secure.bank site. This would help make this solution even more robust and harder to circumvent.
This is obviously not fool proof, and I don't think such a solution exists, as there will always be someone oblivious or stupid enough not to notice the blatant lack of security signs, or highly sophisticated attacks (window spoofing, for instance) that confuse even savvy users.
I thought that was how science came about. And if you have some way of explaining things that works for you, what makes you wired wrong?
I agree with the GP, but you also have a good point.
Religion came about to explain everything that couldn't be explained, namely what happens after death, the beginning and end of the world, the boundaries of the world, etc. Most religions throughout the world have their own story "explaining" these. Science came about with a similar motivation, except that instead of just making up convenient answers, science attempts to actually explain them through (almost) objective reasoning and inspection.
Science is as perfect as the people who practice it, but at least it takes us in the right direction. Religion stubbornly refuses to be contradicted because it was created to fill in all the gaps and be unquestionable. And that's the reason there are so many clashes about evolution and the origins of the world, because ignorant fanatics refuse to diminish the power they attribute to their beliefs.
Spell checkers, just like most tools, are useful as long as you don't forget to use your brain. Something as simple as "fo" could've been prevented using a spell checker. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't revise what you type, since they're not perfect - as you point out - and they won't check your grammar and logic.
It sure is nice to come to Slashdot and get unbiased news coverage, eh?
Well, blame the poster, not the editors. I don't think they changed the original post one bit, although I would like to replace("fo", "of"). Spell checkers people, if your browser doesn't have them, well, it sucks.
I would volunteer for the job, but only long enough to find and hire and train the right person. Could I really do that? Yes, but I don't expect to be asked.
If I were the temporary head of the Mozilla Foundation, my priority would be to fix the remaining bugs.
The second quote pretty much implies you're not the right person for the job. Having a "flawless" product is not the number one priority for Mozilla, or most software producers for that matter. Why? Because by the time you're done polishing your precious baby, all you competitors will be about a decade ahead of you, feature-wise, and you'll be out of business. Firefox has its current position in the market because it was released at the right time and it had the right amount of innovations. Timing is essential it seems you can't see that.
The issue with the CPU hogging bug is this: Browsers are our windows on the world; they are VERY important. I don't accept any cynicism about the importance of browsers; it is literally true that they are important to the human efficiency. People like me who often have 10 windows with 30 tabs each really suffer when every window and tab crashes. I'm not the only one.
I agree with you regarding the importance of browsers. And I agree that these are real bugs that need to be fixed, but there are always priorities, and you're talking about a bug that occurs to a small segment of the target audience of Firefox. My guess is that a regular user has one window and less than a dozen tabs open at a time. It's no excuse for having a product that doesn't scale well, but it's still important to cater for the needs of the many, and there are much more important bugs to fix in that sense. (Disclaimer: I don't work for Mozilla, the most I've done is resolve duplicates and invalids and post one or two bugfixes)
Opera is stable and also free, but suffers from some bad design decisions. For having a look at Digg and Reddit and other common destinations, I use a separate computer and 10 installations of Opera. I like that Opera can be installed in separate folders that don't interfere with each other.
I like Opera as well, but I prefer Firefox. You can have multiple installations of Firefox in different folders, and you can also run them without interfering with each other. Again, it's something that the majority isn't interested in. I only use it for extension development.
I was surprised by this in your comment above: "You're probably just trolling,..." You really owe it people and yourself to visit the extensive documentation to which I linked, for example, before you think that someone is trying to do harm.
That's why I used the word "probably", because I wasn't entirely sure, and I'm still not sure. Your 20 reasons post looks more like a list of disadvantages and features of a distributed bug tracking system. Bottom line is: your priorities are not necessarily Mozilla's, nor are your views. I can mention one specific bug which annoys the hell out of me and I don't understand the reasoning behind the INVALID resolution, but that doesn't make me think any less of Mozilla or their bug resolution process, it only means we have a different view on how things should work.
I think your language and persistence is what makes me wonder if you're trolling, but I'm sure you have your reasons to have a beef with Mozilla. I strongly disagree with you, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox has some integration with Windows Vista parental controls. I think that at the moment you only get some kind of warning when trying to download inappropriate material.
That'd be Cmd+W on Mac and Ctrl+W on Windows and Linux. And I think the site just got text-link Slashdotted :D.
Just like any other big project, Mozilla needs to prioritize their tasks. Quite frankly I had no idea about this problem until I read that they had resolved it, and I'm sure there are a *lot* of users that don't find much need for the download window.
Evidently there were lots of users complaining about this problem and that is why they decided to fix it for this release, but I think it's reasonable to see that one's requests aren't always on the top of their list.
I have been using their new keyboards for quite some time, and I find them very comfortable. Plus, they are as compact as I think is humanly possible (until the next one comes along to prove me wrong), which is a big plus for me.
Yes, yes, and no. From the Beta 4 Release Notes:
I read somewhere in the Mozilla blogs that AppleScript has been somewhat neglected, so I guess no one has taken the task in that specific area.
That should be fixed in Firefox 3, which looks much more integrated for all 3 major OS. It's out in beta right now.
Laptop users don't power off their computers all that often, specially if they're not running an OS that requires constant restarts, *ahem*. That's my case, and Firefox is always open, so yes, it can run for weeks. But I haven't experienced important performance problems. Beta 3 feels faster, though.
Just wait for Firefox 3. It will have much, much better OS integration, specially on Linux and Mac OS. Next week you'll probably be able to take at peek at Firefox 3 Beta 3, which will include the new Linux and Mac OS themes.
Douche.
I partly agree, but it's kind of an over-simplification. There are of course intermediate levels of poverty where children have access to the very basic resources as well as education, but their families or schools can't afford your average computers. OLPC is aiming to that crowd, I think, which is likely to be quite large and will largely benefit from it.
There are already thousands of these being ordered worldwide, so the idea can't be that bad.
I agree.
I'm a rather new subscriber, but something I'm sure of is that Slashdot is waht it is because it has focused on doing one thing right: delivering the right content to people like us. It could certainly have more users, make more money, be more popular... for a while. And the sad thing is that corporate typea don't care that much about the long run. Long-term gain is preferred, not required. Strong communities can't survive in this context. From a relatively new user: let's keep Slashdot like it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_rica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America
FWIW, most people I've ever known (from various parts of the world) consider Central America a continent on its own. I can clearly see the case for the opposite, but I disagree with it.
Walmart is about to build at least one store in Costa Rica.
That's Central America, in case you were wondering.
Well, aren't you a bossy fella?
Not that I disagree with you or anything :).
But we can trust that if this becomes a standard, browser makers will take advantage of it to make life easier to users, or at least to some users. Just like Firefox turns the URL bar yellow for SSL sites, and IE7 turns it green (I think), there could be some UI cue telling the user that he's visiting a real .bank website. Whether users will pay attention to this and realize that the lack of this cue means potential trouble, well, that's a different story.
I think .bank would add an extra layer of online banking security, and that's a big plus IMO.
I think that if this solution were to be adopted as a standard, browser makers would follow and reflect the "secure" TLD on the main UI. Firefox and IE7 already to this to some extent (yellow URL bar for SSH enabled sites, green (I think) on IE). There could be a special UI state that indicates you're on a secure .bank site. This would help make this solution even more robust and harder to circumvent.
This is obviously not fool proof, and I don't think such a solution exists, as there will always be someone oblivious or stupid enough not to notice the blatant lack of security signs, or highly sophisticated attacks (window spoofing, for instance) that confuse even savvy users.
I have to agree, Preparation H feels good on the whole.
Unreadable as well. Your point being...
I agree with the GP, but you also have a good point.
Religion came about to explain everything that couldn't be explained, namely what happens after death, the beginning and end of the world, the boundaries of the world, etc. Most religions throughout the world have their own story "explaining" these. Science came about with a similar motivation, except that instead of just making up convenient answers, science attempts to actually explain them through (almost) objective reasoning and inspection.
Science is as perfect as the people who practice it, but at least it takes us in the right direction. Religion stubbornly refuses to be contradicted because it was created to fill in all the gaps and be unquestionable. And that's the reason there are so many clashes about evolution and the origins of the world, because ignorant fanatics refuse to diminish the power they attribute to their beliefs.
Spell checkers, just like most tools, are useful as long as you don't forget to use your brain. Something as simple as "fo" could've been prevented using a spell checker. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't revise what you type, since they're not perfect - as you point out - and they won't check your grammar and logic.
Well, blame the poster, not the editors. I don't think they changed the original post one bit, although I would like to replace("fo", "of"). Spell checkers people, if your browser doesn't have them, well, it sucks.
The second quote pretty much implies you're not the right person for the job. Having a "flawless" product is not the number one priority for Mozilla, or most software producers for that matter. Why? Because by the time you're done polishing your precious baby, all you competitors will be about a decade ahead of you, feature-wise, and you'll be out of business. Firefox has its current position in the market because it was released at the right time and it had the right amount of innovations. Timing is essential it seems you can't see that.
I agree with you regarding the importance of browsers. And I agree that these are real bugs that need to be fixed, but there are always priorities, and you're talking about a bug that occurs to a small segment of the target audience of Firefox. My guess is that a regular user has one window and less than a dozen tabs open at a time. It's no excuse for having a product that doesn't scale well, but it's still important to cater for the needs of the many, and there are much more important bugs to fix in that sense. (Disclaimer: I don't work for Mozilla, the most I've done is resolve duplicates and invalids and post one or two bugfixes)
I like Opera as well, but I prefer Firefox. You can have multiple installations of Firefox in different folders, and you can also run them without interfering with each other. Again, it's something that the majority isn't interested in. I only use it for extension development.
That's why I used the word "probably", because I wasn't entirely sure, and I'm still not sure. Your 20 reasons post looks more like a list of disadvantages and features of a distributed bug tracking system. Bottom line is: your priorities are not necessarily Mozilla's, nor are your views. I can mention one specific bug which annoys the hell out of me and I don't understand the reasoning behind the INVALID resolution, but that doesn't make me think any less of Mozilla or their bug resolution process, it only means we have a different view on how things should work.
I think your language and persistence is what makes me wonder if you're trolling, but I'm sure you have your reasons to have a beef with Mozilla. I strongly disagree with you, that's all.
And as I said, the bug has been fixed. Let's see how long it takes for the next updates to roll out.