Many Firefox extensions work in Netscape 8 beta. Hendikins has a screenshot of the Adbar extension for Firefox running in an earlier version of Netscape 8 beta. You have to modify the app-id setting in about:config or modify the extension to say that it works with Netscape 8 beta, but it does work.
AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH. I think it was cut from the Thunderbird 1.0 release tag on the Aviary branch (after Firefox 1.0, but with few changes relevant to Firefox).
I wouldn't call that a "documented bug" just because it's in Bugzilla. You wouldn't call a bug called "Firefox crashes occasionally" full of "I see this too" comments a documented bug, would you? Skimming the bug, I don't see many comments about the cause of the apparently high memory use: which data structures are leaked (if there are memory leaks), what memory looks like (if the only problem is memory fragmentation), etc. The only comment by a developer whose name I recognize is comment 69 by Mike Shaver.
Load balancers that claim to support HTTP 1.1 but do not support pipelining are broken. There more advanced users enable pipelining now and complain to the maintainers of broken web sites, the sooner pipelining can be enabled by default.
There will be a Firefox 1.0.1 release. This entry in Asa Dotzler's blog gives a rough timetable. The CVS branch is AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH and several security fixes have already been checked in there in addition to the trunk.
One reason for the delay is that many of these security fixes require coordination from plugin makers, web application makers, and/or other browser makers such as Opera Software and Apple. Only a few of them are simply fixes for security holes in Firefox.
Your way of computing the expected value of a crime fails to take into account that for most people, utility is not a linear function of money. Would you rather have $100m or a 50% chance at $300m?
I'm pretty sure there haven't been any security hotfixes for Firefox 1.0. There was one for Firefox 0.9.x. Perhaps you were getting new versions of extensions you had installed, rather than hotfixes for Firefox itself?
Many extensions simply add buttons to the Customize Toolbars window. Why would you have an option to make it possible to add a button? And why would you put any option in the installer instead of in the Options dialog?
A CSS file can be used in Firefox to block Google's ads.
The same user style sheet can be used in any browser that supports CSS2 and CSS3 selectors and supports user style sheets. IE has better UI for user style sheets than Firefox, but it does not support the selectors (IIRC).
Google approves if you do this. After all, their toolbar blocks pop-ups.
That's a huge leap. Pop-ups demand users' attention, force users to respond, remain if you close the window that created them, and can disguise their origin using the "pop-under" technique. Animated banner ads, which Google's toolbar does not block, only do one of those things (demand users' attention). Google's text ads don't do any of those things.
If you don't want to block Google's cookie because you use Gmail or other services that require it, you can turn that 2038 cookie into a session cookie.
Slashdot Mirror
How does Copernic compare to GDS for searching local files? I've only used GDS and I think it sucks.
Many Firefox extensions work in Netscape 8 beta. Hendikins has a screenshot of the Adbar extension for Firefox running in an earlier version of Netscape 8 beta. You have to modify the app-id setting in about:config or modify the extension to say that it works with Netscape 8 beta, but it does work.
Google was down for hours the day that virus hit, at least for me. Maybe some of Google's datacenters did better than others.
Google Search: sgiws
Did you mean: shows
Slowsort is even better than bogosort. Read about it in Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis (1986).
There's no branch for 1.1 yet. The bug is fixed on the trunk.
AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH. I think it was cut from the Thunderbird 1.0 release tag on the Aviary branch (after Firefox 1.0, but with few changes relevant to Firefox).
I don't think Firefox 1.0.1 will include this Gecko change. Firefox 1.0.1's differences from 1.0 will mostly be in security and stability fixes.
I wouldn't call that a "documented bug" just because it's in Bugzilla. You wouldn't call a bug called "Firefox crashes occasionally" full of "I see this too" comments a documented bug, would you? Skimming the bug, I don't see many comments about the cause of the apparently high memory use: which data structures are leaked (if there are memory leaks), what memory looks like (if the only problem is memory fragmentation), etc. The only comment by a developer whose name I recognize is comment 69 by Mike Shaver.
Load balancers that claim to support HTTP 1.1 but do not support pipelining are broken. There more advanced users enable pipelining now and complain to the maintainers of broken web sites, the sooner pipelining can be enabled by default.
There will be a Firefox 1.0.1 release. This entry in Asa Dotzler's blog gives a rough timetable. The CVS branch is AVIARY_1_0_1_20050124_BRANCH and several security fixes have already been checked in there in addition to the trunk.
One reason for the delay is that many of these security fixes require coordination from plugin makers, web application makers, and/or other browser makers such as Opera Software and Apple. Only a few of them are simply fixes for security holes in Firefox.
Your way of computing the expected value of a crime fails to take into account that for most people, utility is not a linear function of money. Would you rather have $100m or a 50% chance at $300m?
For me, Ctrl+Alt+[left|right] cause Winamp to rewind or jump forward five seconds.
Not quite. Microsoft Internet Explorer makes it easier to run signed ActiveX. j-turkey suggested making it easier to run XPIs signed by mozilla.org.
Updates come from updates.mozilla.org, unless the extension specifies a different update server.
If you rotate the image, it looks a lot like the Firefox logo.
I'm pretty sure there haven't been any security hotfixes for Firefox 1.0. There was one for Firefox 0.9.x. Perhaps you were getting new versions of extensions you had installed, rather than hotfixes for Firefox itself?
Session IDs should not go in URLs because people usually share URLs without taking the session IDs out.
People who disable session cookies don't want you to preserve session state. Why try to work around it by using a less secure alternative to cookies?
I agree, MSN Search's results are better. My site ranks higher in MSN Search than it does in Google for the searches I tried.
Michael G. Kaplan
New York, New York
mkaplansolution at lycos d o t c o m
Never trust anyone who tries to sell you an anti-spam solution while obfuscating his own address.
Many extensions simply add buttons to the Customize Toolbars window. Why would you have an option to make it possible to add a button? And why would you put any option in the installer instead of in the Options dialog?
base it on Firefox and INCLUDE all extensions people add to Firefox in the browser's installation script
All 150 of them? Including the Bible Toolbar *and* the extensions that are only useful for surfing porn?
Picasa is just a small part of step one in Google's overall plan:
1. Organize the world's information.
2. ???
3. Profit!
A CSS file can be used in Firefox to block Google's ads.
The same user style sheet can be used in any browser that supports CSS2 and CSS3 selectors and supports user style sheets. IE has better UI for user style sheets than Firefox, but it does not support the selectors (IIRC).
Google approves if you do this. After all, their toolbar blocks pop-ups.
That's a huge leap. Pop-ups demand users' attention, force users to respond, remain if you close the window that created them, and can disguise their origin using the "pop-under" technique. Animated banner ads, which Google's toolbar does not block, only do one of those things (demand users' attention). Google's text ads don't do any of those things.
If you don't want to block Google's cookie because you use Gmail or other services that require it, you can turn that 2038 cookie into a session cookie.
A better way to prevent Google from using its cookies to track you is to change the ID part of the cookie to a string of zeros. That lets you keep your Google preferences, such as the number of results per page.
How does a gene "know" when to strengthen a synapse permanently and when to let a fleeting moment fade unrecorded?
I'm sorry, can you repeat that?