I remember when I was a kid my mother didn't have to work and my father earned a slightly better than average wage. The house we lived in was brand new, in a new estate on the shores of the largest saltwater lake in the southern hemisphere. The house cost my father 3 times his yearly wage.
So we were better off when women weren't accepted in the workplace, but remained at home barefoot and pregnant? The reason a two-earner income is all but required today is that everyone else does it. It started by a few families wanting to get ahead by having two incomes. Then others joined in to also get ahead. As more and more people do it to also keep up with the Joneses.
Except pretty soon, having two incomes isn't the exception, it's the rule. Then prices of homes and everything else adjusted accordingly. And it happened because of human nature, which drives the "invisible hand". So yes, we as a society are better off because we're more productive as a whole. We got that way by many individuals doing what was in their best interest, and those effects were compounded on a macro scale. That's capitalism. That's progress.
If you want to complain about wasting time in Congress, look up which party has done more filibustering in recent years.
Whichever party is in the minority. Right now that would be the Republicans; a few years ago it was the Democrats. The majority party doesn't filibuster; they simply don't let legislation they want to die get out of committee.
Not sure exactly what your point is though; many people would argue that filibustering is an important tactic to prevent a very narrowly divided Senate from railroading the minority party. I'd hardly call that a waste of time.
Are you thinking of Tools->Add-Ons->Extensions? Because that exists on my FF. Similar control of Plugins does not.
Firefox 3 added a new Plugins tab to the Add-Ons dialog. If it's not present for you, I'd suggest starting with a new profile; your old FF2 themes or extensions may be keeping it from showing for some reason...
UPDATE: The browser.urlbar.richResults preference checking was removed in bug 407836.
After which it suggests oldbar. And believe me, I have yet to find one single person who suggests oldbar is also using it.
Yes, I was referring to OldBar, not the disabled preference. And you're correct in that I haven't tried OldBar, since I love the new address bar, but the fact that it has a five-star rating from its users, plus many comments saying that it works very well, led me to believe it would serve the OP's needs.
Right-click, Save Link As...
What save as? Javascript?
Right-click on the big green box that says "Add To Firefox", and choose "Save Link As", then save it as.XPI, which is the standard extension format for XUL-based apps such as Firefox and Thunderbird.
Enough with the fanboyism, ok?
Sometimes a little fanboyism is needed to counter others who spew nonsense that hasn't been true for a very long time, or hasn't been researched at all.
Believe me, I was as big a critic of Firefox 2 and its horrendous memory management issues as anyone else, but in the open-source world it's also very important to give credit where credit is due, and in the case of Firefox 3 they have done an excellent job.
I'd add to that list that there's no way to manage plugins except to manually delete the files.
iTunes has helpfully made itself a FF plugin, and the only way to stop the iTunes plugin from loading when FF launches is to either disable loading of ALL plugins, or delete the npitunes.dll file from my computer. But iTunes puts the file back every time I launch it, so that doesn't really work.
And I assume you've tried going to Tools -> Add-Ons -> Plugins and disable it? (I agree, iTunes is garbage and I don't use it so I can't test this explicitly)
- New versions break older extensions. Until the extension is updated, bye bye extension. I don't enjoy that hassle and it makes me think twice about upgrading.
What's your solution here? Freeze the extension API forever? It's up to the extension developers, not Mozilla, to make sure they're compatible and mark them so. If you know what you're doing you can bypass this check, but at your own peril.
New versions force you to use new features without providing functionality to back it out even when the user wants it. Eg. The new supercoolsearchbar garbage. I don't want my browser looking though my bookmarks when I type a URL but I don't mind it searching history that clears itself regularly.
See, there's this great new search engine called Google.com, and if you go there and type "Firefox 3 disable awesomebar", the very first link describes exactly how to do that. But somehow I get the feeling you'd rather complain about it than actually take it upon yourself to do something about it.
Firefox is the one application i use regularly that I find myself killing using task manager regularly. It either hangs or hogs memory which is only released by restarting. Don't deny or try to explain in excruciating technical detail why the browser slowly saps all your memory if left on a page that refreshes itself regularly. It's a bug. Deal with it. Fix it. Even refuse to fix it. But stop denying there are memory management issues.
OK, now it's painfully obvious you're either a troll or haven't been paying attention at all. Every Firefox 3 article I've read since the betas started coming out gushed over how memory management was so much better than in 2, how faster it is, etc. The Mozilla devs publicly discussed in many locations all the work they went through to find and plug memory leaks, prevent circular references in Javascript and extensions from tying up memory, etc.
Again I'm pretty sure you'd rather just complain than actually read about it but your friend Google will help you find plenty of information on this.
There's no graceful way to exit that doesn't pop up a thousand confirmations if you do keep the close tab confirmation active.
I can't even parse this one. You leave the tab-close confirmation on, but don't want it to confirm when you close tabs? Whatever your issue here is, I'm sure there's a setting or extension for it if you'd take 2 minutes to research.
I can't download and keep my extensions for future install. I really don't like using up bandwidth downloading the same extensions each time I install Firefox.
Right-click, Save Link As...
Firefox USE to be a better user experience than IE. I can't say that anymore and it stinks that I can't. I want my Firefox browser back!
What exactly is it about IE you would like Firefox to emulate?
And how does drivel like this get modded "Insightful"?!
Gee whilickers, thanks for the heads up Timothy! That's the quite possibly the lamest and most pointless opening sentence in a Slashdot summary I've ever read...
3) You traffic would not drop to nil in a week, so that is your biggest "I am lying" thing. You are suggesting that all your past users accessed your site that week, saw it didnt work right, and decided to not come back ever again.
Your math is as bad as your English. 20% of his visitors are using Firefox at any given point in time. So if none of them could make a sale, then indeed his sales would drop 20% in one week.
You assume that Firefox users are making a conscious, principled decision to leave the site, but I've been on sites that are so badly broken you can't even submit a form in non-IE browsers because they have some stupid IE-only javascript submit hook. In that case, all Firefox users would be prevented from making any purchases, and the loss in sales would be immediate.
Are Intel ever going to do anything interesting with processor architecture that actually works better?
You mean an interesting new architecture like Itanium? Yeah, that was a great success!
Intel and every company that targets Intel platforms have lots and lots of time, money, resources, and knowledge invested in their current architecture. Sure, there's lots of historical baggage and inefficiencies it also brings along, but if you're hoping for something new just for the sake of "interesting", you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Like it or not, we're stuck with it for a very long time.
You know, I wonder how hard it would be to do a Twitter clone on Google's App Engine. It seems like it would be the perfect fit: relatively simple application that needs to be massively scalable.
They wouldn't have Twitter's killer feature, which is free SMS updates. That's the only reason we don't already have 100 Twitter clones.
Other websites that I know of have had this happen in the past, and the common trend seems to be that Network Solutions has been their domain registrar. The largest site in recent memory that this occurred to other than Comcast was SomethingAwful.
Perhaps it's a sign of a more underlying flaw in Network Solutions' security?
No, this serves Comcast right for being so cheap and not getting a Network Solutions Extended Validation Certificate. The green address bar would have stopped these two right in their tracks.
That said, I'm quite fond of what Opera has done for mobile devices. Opera mini is far and away the best mobile browsing solution for virtually any hand-held device (particularly Windows Mobile devices).
I would wholeheartedly agree, if it weren't a JME app! Which means no copy and paste of URLs, no sending links via SMS, etc.
I sure wish they would hurry up and release Opera Mobile 9, it sounds like it will have all the great rendering and zoom/navigation features of Mini with the benefit of being a native app like Mobile. I will gladly pay the $25 or whatever for it when it's released; Pocket IE is worthless.
If Opera has so many great features so far ahead of everyone else, why is its usage still somewhere around 1% on a good day? If Opera can figure that out, maybe they'd get somewhere.
Maybe they need more silly publicity stunts like this one.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but yes, that's my point. Just having a good product isn't enough. I've used Opera, I use it for testing websites, it's really not my cup of tea but if their marketing was better I'm sure it could double or triple its user base.
Not to disparage Mozilla, but lately it seems like they've been a mite too concerned with press releases. They should release when it's ready, and we'll get it when we think it's ready. What's the big rush?
Press releases, viral marketing, and publicity stunts like this are a big reason why worldwide Firefox market share is somewhere in the 30% range. Yeah, you've gotta have a solid product to begin with, but more open source projects would do well to emulate Mozilla's marketing and branding accomplishments.
Also, your post implies that Firefox will somehow be rushed out the door before it's ready, but if you've been following along you know that's very far from correct. Even the "download pledge" page says they don't know the date yet.
And something Opera invented first! (Among other things like tabbed browsing, mouse gestures in a browser, a zoom feature that also resizes images, etc, etc.). And Opera 9.50 even searches the contents of pages you have visited for more WIN.
Hehe, Opera fans are the Browser War equivalent of "Frist P0st!". Not really adding anything, just making sure everyone knows: We had that feature first! No, look at us! Over here!
If Opera has so many great features so far ahead of everyone else, why is its usage still somewhere around 1% on a good day? If Opera can figure that out, maybe they'd get somewhere.
A thing that is especially troublesome is that not only does it basically make it so that no one can afford to
be in the business area (software development for money) competing with the free thing
(software given away for nothing), but also no one can afford not to use the free
thing because the cost of the luxury of buying an alternative brand will be exposed by the market
as superfluous if passed along to end users.
Correct, "software development for money" is dead. That's a very astute observation, but you're several years late in making it. Selling support for software is the new business model; see: Red Hat, MySQL, Canonical.
Those who realize this truth and embrace it fully will prosper. Those who still cling to business models of the past will be eliminated. It sounds like you're still on the wrong side of the issue; I strongly encourage you to reevaluate your position soon.
There are actually only 892 results. Google constantly inflates their results numbers...(yes, it says duplicates ommitted, but if you turn that off, it goes to 893.
And if you munge the results URL to try to view results starting at 1000, you get the following explanation:
Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 1000.)
That doesn't mean there are no more than 1000 hits; it means you need to refine your query. The 177000 number is an approximation (thus "about") but it's much closer to that than to 893 (even with duplicates included, the numbers don't jive exactly so it's difficult to actually get 1000 hits from a query).
For some reason I found myself browsing through those results and found this little FUD gem (warning:.doc format; here's Google's HTML version) which is a "Customer Case Study" on the City of Indianapolis switching from their "heterogeneous" environment to an all-Windows one.
As part of this case study, the following is given as one reason for their need to upgrade:
For instance, the city has many multiuser applications based on Microsoft Access 97 database software. When employees were given a new PC with a newer version of Microsoft Office, they would open the Access database and upgrade it when prompted. At that point, all the other users, who were still running Access 97, were locked out of the application, because Access 97 did not recognize the newer format. The city IT staff would have to recover the database from tape, remove the newer version of Microsoft Access, and replace Access 97 on the users' PC to prevent the issue from recurring.
Fascinating! They're fully admitting the existence of the Microsoft upgrade treadmill and using as a selling point! (OK, forget the fact that Access is a horrible choice for a multiuser application in the first place, and that the client's IT staff is apparently completely incompetent). Upgrade your servers to Windows Server 2003! You too can be part of a Customer Case Study 5 years from now when we tell you how crappy Windows Server and Exchange 2003 are so you must upgrade to Windows Server 2012!
What about diet, etc?
Diet is a major part of the metabolic pathway that goes into the smell of urine. Your dogs metabolism will change throughout its life so if it were alive it wouldn't thing the clone was it.
You're thinking like a human.:) We are very far away from understanding how dogs process smell. For one thing it's very difficult for us to comprehend the concept of smell being the dominant sense.
I read as an example somewhere to consider a pot of chili cooking on the stove. To us humans it smells like a pot of chili. To a dog, it smells like ground beef, tomatoes, individual spices, etc. They can pick out each individual ingredient by its smell, even after they're combined.
That's why you can't fool a drug-sniffing dog by covering your stash with dryer sheets. It doesn't mask the smell, it just adds another one. The same with their urine; there are parts of it that are affected by their diet and metabolism but part that is also very unique to that dog.
What I'm curious about is whether the cloned dog will smell exactly like the original to other dogs. Scent is more important to dogs than sight; that butt-sniffing ritual they perform when they meet each other lets them remember each other for a long time. Smelling another dog's urine will let a dog know who the other dog was, whether it was male/female (and if the latter, where it was in its menses), whether it was sick, etc.
So if I cloned Aloysius, would my other dogs think the new dog was him? If I cloned him while he was alive, would he think he was smelling himself?
I like this quote from the article, about Apple QuickTime: "... what is this, Make Microsoft Look Good day?" Personally I enjoyed the sentence before that: It spends half its time trying to sell us stuff and the other half trying to stop us [from] using it.
Couldn't any disgruntled employee set up a webserver on their computer, send out a mass email, telling people to visit the url. and infect a large portion of the computers in the office?
At my last employer, setting up a webserver wouldn't have been necessary. Everyone could get read/write access to the real intranet servers via their C$ share. Oh, Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
So we were better off when women weren't accepted in the workplace, but remained at home barefoot and pregnant? The reason a two-earner income is all but required today is that everyone else does it. It started by a few families wanting to get ahead by having two incomes. Then others joined in to also get ahead. As more and more people do it to also keep up with the Joneses.
Except pretty soon, having two incomes isn't the exception, it's the rule. Then prices of homes and everything else adjusted accordingly. And it happened because of human nature, which drives the "invisible hand". So yes, we as a society are better off because we're more productive as a whole. We got that way by many individuals doing what was in their best interest, and those effects were compounded on a macro scale. That's capitalism. That's progress.
Whichever party is in the minority. Right now that would be the Republicans; a few years ago it was the Democrats. The majority party doesn't filibuster; they simply don't let legislation they want to die get out of committee.
Not sure exactly what your point is though; many people would argue that filibustering is an important tactic to prevent a very narrowly divided Senate from railroading the minority party. I'd hardly call that a waste of time.
Google! It's got what plants crave!
Firefox 3 added a new Plugins tab to the Add-Ons dialog. If it's not present for you, I'd suggest starting with a new profile; your old FF2 themes or extensions may be keeping it from showing for some reason...
Yes, I was referring to OldBar, not the disabled preference. And you're correct in that I haven't tried OldBar, since I love the new address bar, but the fact that it has a five-star rating from its users, plus many comments saying that it works very well, led me to believe it would serve the OP's needs.
What save as? Javascript?Right-click on the big green box that says "Add To Firefox", and choose "Save Link As", then save it as .XPI, which is the standard extension format for XUL-based apps such as Firefox and Thunderbird.
Enough with the fanboyism, ok?Sometimes a little fanboyism is needed to counter others who spew nonsense that hasn't been true for a very long time, or hasn't been researched at all.
Believe me, I was as big a critic of Firefox 2 and its horrendous memory management issues as anyone else, but in the open-source world it's also very important to give credit where credit is due, and in the case of Firefox 3 they have done an excellent job.
Correct, it has been in feature freeze for quite a while and no more changes will be made to the rendering engine.
And I assume you've tried going to Tools -> Add-Ons -> Plugins and disable it? (I agree, iTunes is garbage and I don't use it so I can't test this explicitly)
What's your solution here? Freeze the extension API forever? It's up to the extension developers, not Mozilla, to make sure they're compatible and mark them so. If you know what you're doing you can bypass this check, but at your own peril.
New versions force you to use new features without providing functionality to back it out even when the user wants it. Eg. The new supercoolsearchbar garbage. I don't want my browser looking though my bookmarks when I type a URL but I don't mind it searching history that clears itself regularly.See, there's this great new search engine called Google.com, and if you go there and type "Firefox 3 disable awesomebar", the very first link describes exactly how to do that. But somehow I get the feeling you'd rather complain about it than actually take it upon yourself to do something about it.
Firefox is the one application i use regularly that I find myself killing using task manager regularly. It either hangs or hogs memory which is only released by restarting. Don't deny or try to explain in excruciating technical detail why the browser slowly saps all your memory if left on a page that refreshes itself regularly. It's a bug. Deal with it. Fix it. Even refuse to fix it. But stop denying there are memory management issues.OK, now it's painfully obvious you're either a troll or haven't been paying attention at all. Every Firefox 3 article I've read since the betas started coming out gushed over how memory management was so much better than in 2, how faster it is, etc. The Mozilla devs publicly discussed in many locations all the work they went through to find and plug memory leaks, prevent circular references in Javascript and extensions from tying up memory, etc.
Again I'm pretty sure you'd rather just complain than actually read about it but your friend Google will help you find plenty of information on this.
There's no graceful way to exit that doesn't pop up a thousand confirmations if you do keep the close tab confirmation active.I can't even parse this one. You leave the tab-close confirmation on, but don't want it to confirm when you close tabs? Whatever your issue here is, I'm sure there's a setting or extension for it if you'd take 2 minutes to research.
I can't download and keep my extensions for future install. I really don't like using up bandwidth downloading the same extensions each time I install Firefox.Right-click, Save Link As...
Firefox USE to be a better user experience than IE. I can't say that anymore and it stinks that I can't. I want my Firefox browser back!What exactly is it about IE you would like Firefox to emulate?
And how does drivel like this get modded "Insightful"?!
Hmm, I thought the singularity would be more impressive than this. I bet Singularity 2.0 will be awesome.
Gee whilickers, thanks for the heads up Timothy! That's the quite possibly the lamest and most pointless opening sentence in a Slashdot summary I've ever read...
Your math is as bad as your English. 20% of his visitors are using Firefox at any given point in time. So if none of them could make a sale, then indeed his sales would drop 20% in one week.
You assume that Firefox users are making a conscious, principled decision to leave the site, but I've been on sites that are so badly broken you can't even submit a form in non-IE browsers because they have some stupid IE-only javascript submit hook. In that case, all Firefox users would be prevented from making any purchases, and the loss in sales would be immediate.
You mean an interesting new architecture like Itanium? Yeah, that was a great success!
Intel and every company that targets Intel platforms have lots and lots of time, money, resources, and knowledge invested in their current architecture. Sure, there's lots of historical baggage and inefficiencies it also brings along, but if you're hoping for something new just for the sake of "interesting", you probably shouldn't hold your breath. Like it or not, we're stuck with it for a very long time.
They wouldn't have Twitter's killer feature, which is free SMS updates. That's the only reason we don't already have 100 Twitter clones.
No, this serves Comcast right for being so cheap and not getting a Network Solutions Extended Validation Certificate. The green address bar would have stopped these two right in their tracks.
I would wholeheartedly agree, if it weren't a JME app! Which means no copy and paste of URLs, no sending links via SMS, etc.
I sure wish they would hurry up and release Opera Mobile 9, it sounds like it will have all the great rendering and zoom/navigation features of Mini with the benefit of being a native app like Mobile. I will gladly pay the $25 or whatever for it when it's released; Pocket IE is worthless.
Maybe they need more silly publicity stunts like this one.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but yes, that's my point. Just having a good product isn't enough. I've used Opera, I use it for testing websites, it's really not my cup of tea but if their marketing was better I'm sure it could double or triple its user base.
And, perhaps most ironically of all: Opera had the publicity stunt tied to number of downloads feature WAAY before Firefox. :)
Not to disparage Mozilla, but lately it seems like they've been a mite too concerned with press releases. They should release when it's ready, and we'll get it when we think it's ready. What's the big rush?
Press releases, viral marketing, and publicity stunts like this are a big reason why worldwide Firefox market share is somewhere in the 30% range. Yeah, you've gotta have a solid product to begin with, but more open source projects would do well to emulate Mozilla's marketing and branding accomplishments.
Also, your post implies that Firefox will somehow be rushed out the door before it's ready, but if you've been following along you know that's very far from correct. Even the "download pledge" page says they don't know the date yet.
Hehe, Opera fans are the Browser War equivalent of "Frist P0st!". Not really adding anything, just making sure everyone knows: We had that feature first! No, look at us! Over here!
If Opera has so many great features so far ahead of everyone else, why is its usage still somewhere around 1% on a good day? If Opera can figure that out, maybe they'd get somewhere.
A thing that is especially troublesome is that not only does it basically make it so that no one can afford to be in the business area (software development for money) competing with the free thing (software given away for nothing), but also no one can afford not to use the free thing because the cost of the luxury of buying an alternative brand will be exposed by the market as superfluous if passed along to end users.
Correct, "software development for money" is dead. That's a very astute observation, but you're several years late in making it. Selling support for software is the new business model; see: Red Hat, MySQL, Canonical.
Those who realize this truth and embrace it fully will prosper. Those who still cling to business models of the past will be eliminated. It sounds like you're still on the wrong side of the issue; I strongly encourage you to reevaluate your position soon.
And if you munge the results URL to try to view results starting at 1000, you get the following explanation:
That doesn't mean there are no more than 1000 hits; it means you need to refine your query. The 177000 number is an approximation (thus "about") but it's much closer to that than to 893 (even with duplicates included, the numbers don't jive exactly so it's difficult to actually get 1000 hits from a query).
Why is it that Linux is mentioned 177000 times in the Microsoft website?
For some reason I found myself browsing through those results and found this little FUD gem (warning: .doc format; here's Google's HTML version) which is a "Customer Case Study" on the City of Indianapolis switching from their "heterogeneous" environment to an all-Windows one.
As part of this case study, the following is given as one reason for their need to upgrade:
Fascinating! They're fully admitting the existence of the Microsoft upgrade treadmill and using as a selling point! (OK, forget the fact that Access is a horrible choice for a multiuser application in the first place, and that the client's IT staff is apparently completely incompetent). Upgrade your servers to Windows Server 2003! You too can be part of a Customer Case Study 5 years from now when we tell you how crappy Windows Server and Exchange 2003 are so you must upgrade to Windows Server 2012!
You're thinking like a human. :) We are very far away from understanding how dogs process smell. For one thing it's very difficult for us to comprehend the concept of smell being the dominant sense.
I read as an example somewhere to consider a pot of chili cooking on the stove. To us humans it smells like a pot of chili. To a dog, it smells like ground beef, tomatoes, individual spices, etc. They can pick out each individual ingredient by its smell, even after they're combined.
That's why you can't fool a drug-sniffing dog by covering your stash with dryer sheets. It doesn't mask the smell, it just adds another one. The same with their urine; there are parts of it that are affected by their diet and metabolism but part that is also very unique to that dog.
What I'm curious about is whether the cloned dog will smell exactly like the original to other dogs. Scent is more important to dogs than sight; that butt-sniffing ritual they perform when they meet each other lets them remember each other for a long time. Smelling another dog's urine will let a dog know who the other dog was, whether it was male/female (and if the latter, where it was in its menses), whether it was sick, etc.
So if I cloned Aloysius, would my other dogs think the new dog was him? If I cloned him while he was alive, would he think he was smelling himself?
At my last employer, setting up a webserver wouldn't have been necessary. Everyone could get read/write access to the real intranet servers via their C$ share. Oh, Windows.