See bug 216466 on bugzilla.mozilla.org (no link because I'm assuming preventing/. referers means they don't like people to link to them from/.). Please don't comment on the bug unless you are helping to fix it (in terms of code, since it looks like the problem is pretty well defined at this point).
You can go to about:config and set browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to true, but it's buggy. Hence why it's off by default. Partial workaround extension.
Also, (yet another) prefs window rewrite is expected. The new cookie manager (finally groups cookies by domain) looks good; too bad we can't try it yet. (It's on a branch, i.e., not in the nightlies)
Instead of using JS (which can be turned off), maybe consider using IE's conditional comments? If you're just targetting IE anyway, that's ideal - no way to turn it off (AFAIK), and only works for IE-based browsers.
I thought the installer was due to the 7zip compression / self-extrator (seeing as MoFo seems to have wrote the rest of it), which is now LGPL? Not really clear on this though.
Talkback - I don't care, non-Mozilla.org builds don't get talkback anyway:p Basically the non-official build I'm using doesn't touch that.
If that's it, then I guess I'm safe for now - they're the fluff I don't care about. Hopefully nothing into the core Firefox though...
Intersting random thought: I wonder if they can package Firefox with non-Free extensions (like DOMi is packaged with the installer now)...
(Also, for your bugzilla link - intersting; you might also want to mention not including branding / talkback. I suspect they'll only do releases, if they accept, though.)
1. It has been nailed to the wall; the fix was just too big for Firefox 1.0 (it will be in 1.1) 2. AFAIK, Goodger's mostly on the frontend stuff - not layout. Which means he probably won't be as good at fixing that bug as some other people.
I doubt privacy would be too much of a concern... At least, I don't think Google would be able to get a serious leg up in this direction.
There are seriously people reading the checkin logs everyday[1], and people who pull sources from CVS and make their own builds (minus official Mozilla branding). They already apply some patches not in the Mozilla.org tree (in an attempt to get stuff to go faster, trading stability). Which should mean that patches to kill privacy problems should stick around.
(Would like to know more... Or do you mean the branding stuff? If that's the case, then I don't care - I'm using a copy with the free branding stuff anyway)
Considering that Google apparently lets their people spend some percent of their time working on personal projects, and since Goodger's job is Firefox... Would that mean his "play time" would be on something non-Firefox?
Actually, given that people who like to color the scrollbars (that I have seen at least) also tend to color them something like dark-grey-on-black so I can't even see the arrows...
I think that, in this case, not allowing sites to change scrollbar colors is better. At least I can see the page can be scrolled.
IIRC, Asa (Mozilla Foundation person) updates that counter using stats from the mirrors; i.e., it doesn't matter if it goes through spreadfirefox.com.
Interesting sidenote: according to Asa's blog, Firefox downloads have been pretty constant - the total number of downloads over time graph looks pretty much like a straight line (after the first two days). Or at least it was so at the time of the last graph (Jan 3).
IE isn't part of the kernel, but certainly is part of the OS now - it's part of the system as a whole. Most OSes would be kind of useless without a shell of any sort... Would you consider a Linux system with nothing in/bin and/sbin (i.e., no shells what so ever) to have an OS? (Since, obviously, it would make the system somewhat difficult to operate...)
So an intermediate solution would be to use CSS to generate PDFs server-side? While that wouldn't push the work client-side, it should still allow you to share elements between the client and server. (It would be nice to do it all client-side, certainly, but that probably won't be happening in the short term...)
So as to avoid, you know, totally screwing with the Mozilla (+ bugzilla, etc.) bug database if stuff breaks? Granted, Mozilla does use really up-to-date installations of bugzilla...
In fact, b.m.o seems to be on 2.19+ now (according to the banner up top)...
Copernic lets you add file extensions to search as plain text; I'm using that now.
GDS (as of when I tried it last week) doesn't want that, so I can't seem to add *.in and *.js... That and it wants admin privileges (I'm one of those weird people using a non-admin account by default), which is just annoying.
setowner lets you assign arbitary owners (via the Backup Operators' ability to set owners for restoring backups). It can be useful. IIRC, Norton thinks it's a trojan or something...
Really? I'm Power User but can't see (restricted) User accounts... I'm pretty sure it's just the Administrators group having read permissions in everyone's profile.
SmartSearch populates its menu from JavaScript (it grabs them out of your bookmarks, but you don't have to care about that part); you may want to look at its source. I assume example code is always good:)
It makes a <menuitem> (via document.createElement) then appends it to a <menupopup>.
Hmm, so in my case, since I don't have that much physical memory, most of that would have to be virtual... And if I'm allocating that much virtual memory, I'll be trashing to death anyway. Heck, I can already trash to death on a 32bit system... If anything at all on my system wants 2 gigs of RAM, I won't be using it effectively.
The X10 they're talking about is not the X10 of the popunders. One is a standard for controlling stuff via computers, the other is a nasty site. They happen to share the name. (Or was it the second deliberately naming itself after the first? I can't remember...)
Considering that Mozilla uses its own image decoders, I doubt it. (Mozilla even re-implemented the BMP decoder, so that it can be cross-platform.)
All Windows sees from Mozilla is something like a bunch of decoded 32-bit images or something. Not sure on this, but definately not the original image data (and thus no vulnerability).
And the window caption of the text editor says hello.il, yeah it's probably just a test of the.NET runtime stuff. (According to the screenshot, ilrun is external GPLed software too.)
Slashdot Mirror
See bug 216466 on bugzilla.mozilla.org (no link because I'm assuming preventing /. referers means they don't like people to link to them from /.). Please don't comment on the bug unless you are helping to fix it (in terms of code, since it looks like the problem is pretty well defined at this point).
You can go to about:config and set browser.xul.error_pages.enabled to true, but it's buggy. Hence why it's off by default. Partial workaround extension.
Also, (yet another) prefs window rewrite is expected. The new cookie manager (finally groups cookies by domain) looks good; too bad we can't try it yet. (It's on a branch, i.e., not in the nightlies)
IIRC, a parrot cage? (At the party where he met Trillian)
Instead of using JS (which can be turned off), maybe consider using IE's conditional comments? If you're just targetting IE anyway, that's ideal - no way to turn it off (AFAIK), and only works for IE-based browsers.
Hmm
:p Basically the non-official build I'm using doesn't touch that.
(Agree on the artwork / branding)
I thought the installer was due to the 7zip compression / self-extrator (seeing as MoFo seems to have wrote the rest of it), which is now LGPL? Not really clear on this though.
Talkback - I don't care, non-Mozilla.org builds don't get talkback anyway
If that's it, then I guess I'm safe for now - they're the fluff I don't care about. Hopefully nothing into the core Firefox though...
Intersting random thought: I wonder if they can package Firefox with non-Free extensions (like DOMi is packaged with the installer now)...
(Also, for your bugzilla link - intersting; you might also want to mention not including branding / talkback. I suspect they'll only do releases, if they accept, though.)
1. It has been nailed to the wall; the fix was just too big for Firefox 1.0 (it will be in 1.1)
2. AFAIK, Goodger's mostly on the frontend stuff - not layout. Which means he probably won't be as good at fixing that bug as some other people.
I doubt privacy would be too much of a concern... At least, I don't think Google would be able to get a serious leg up in this direction.
There are seriously people reading the checkin logs everyday[1], and people who pull sources from CVS and make their own builds (minus official Mozilla branding). They already apply some patches not in the Mozilla.org tree (in an attempt to get stuff to go faster, trading stability). Which should mean that patches to kill privacy problems should stick around.
[1] It's on bonsai.m.o
Wait, so they have non-free software in Firefox?
(Would like to know more... Or do you mean the branding stuff? If that's the case, then I don't care - I'm using a copy with the free branding stuff anyway)
That makes sense...
Considering that Google apparently lets their people spend some percent of their time working on personal projects, and since Goodger's job is Firefox... Would that mean his "play time" would be on something non-Firefox?
Actually, given that people who like to color the scrollbars (that I have seen at least) also tend to color them something like dark-grey-on-black so I can't even see the arrows...
I think that, in this case, not allowing sites to change scrollbar colors is better. At least I can see the page can be scrolled.
IIRC, Asa (Mozilla Foundation person) updates that counter using stats from the mirrors; i.e., it doesn't matter if it goes through spreadfirefox.com.
Interesting sidenote: according to Asa's blog, Firefox downloads have been pretty constant - the total number of downloads over time graph looks pretty much like a straight line (after the first two days). Or at least it was so at the time of the last graph (Jan 3).
I fail to see where the GP mentioned kernels.
/bin and /sbin (i.e., no shells what so ever) to have an OS? (Since, obviously, it would make the system somewhat difficult to operate...)
IE isn't part of the kernel, but certainly is part of the OS now - it's part of the system as a whole. Most OSes would be kind of useless without a shell of any sort... Would you consider a Linux system with nothing in
So an intermediate solution would be to use CSS to generate PDFs server-side? While that wouldn't push the work client-side, it should still allow you to share elements between the client and server. (It would be nice to do it all client-side, certainly, but that probably won't be happening in the short term...)
Err, I thought the test site had been landfill.bugzilla.org?
So as to avoid, you know, totally screwing with the Mozilla (+ bugzilla, etc.) bug database if stuff breaks? Granted, Mozilla does use really up-to-date installations of bugzilla...
In fact, b.m.o seems to be on 2.19+ now (according to the banner up top)...
[NB I'm just an interested bystander]
Copernic lets you add file extensions to search as plain text; I'm using that now.
GDS (as of when I tried it last week) doesn't want that, so I can't seem to add *.in and *.js... That and it wants admin privileges (I'm one of those weird people using a non-admin account by default), which is just annoying.
It could be the file version stuff... (VS_VERSION_INFO or whatever; the stuff that shows up when you go to file properties in Windows)
setowner lets you assign arbitary owners (via the Backup Operators' ability to set owners for restoring backups). It can be useful. IIRC, Norton thinks it's a trojan or something...
Really?
I'm Power User but can't see (restricted) User accounts... I'm pretty sure it's just the Administrators group having read permissions in everyone's profile.
SmartSearch populates its menu from JavaScript (it grabs them out of your bookmarks, but you don't have to care about that part); you may want to look at its source. I assume example code is always good :)
It makes a <menuitem> (via document.createElement) then appends it to a <menupopup>.
Hmm, so in my case, since I don't have that much physical memory, most of that would have to be virtual... And if I'm allocating that much virtual memory, I'll be trashing to death anyway. Heck, I can already trash to death on a 32bit system... If anything at all on my system wants 2 gigs of RAM, I won't be using it effectively.
How does that help me?
The X10 they're talking about is not the X10 of the popunders. One is a standard for controlling stuff via computers, the other is a nasty site. They happen to share the name. (Or was it the second deliberately naming itself after the first? I can't remember...)
Considering that Mozilla uses its own image decoders, I doubt it. (Mozilla even re-implemented the BMP decoder, so that it can be cross-platform.)
All Windows sees from Mozilla is something like a bunch of decoded 32-bit images or something. Not sure on this, but definately not the original image data (and thus no vulnerability).
Assuming you are running Win32 (as opposed the Win64), try turning DEP off via boot.ini (look under /noexecute).
Considering that the terminal says
.NET runtime stuff. (According to the screenshot, ilrun is external GPLed software too.)
$>ilasm --format exe hello.il
$>ilrun hello.exe
And the window caption of the text editor says hello.il, yeah it's probably just a test of the
Actually, that's the third party compression utility MoFo is using for the Win32 Firefox installer (since it packs better than plain zip).
/mozilla/other-licenses/7zstub/firefox/ in the source tree)
(For those interested, the installer self-extracting stub is in