Here is the Bugzilla bug for turning on the feature. Remember that you have to copy and paste the link into the address bar because Bugzilla blocks slashdot.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32929 2
From what I understand, the idea is to make the feature an extension that is installed by default, kind of like the talkback error reporting tool. In "normal mode", the extension will make decisions on phishing sites based on a blacklist file that is downloaded from an update server, and every address that you visit will NOT be sent to Google or Mozilla for verification. If the user goes to turn on Enhanced Mode, a warning dialog will pop up telling them that information WILL be sent to Google or someone else, for the purposes of finding new sites to add to the blacklist files and online blacklist database. I don't think that enhanced mode will be turned on by default, but there are still a lot of things that are undecided.
People who are complaining about broken extensions or crashes should read the warning on the download page for the beta:
Note: This is not the final release of our Web browser, it has been made available for testing purposes only, with no end-user support. If that sounds scary, you'd probably be better off with the latest version of Firefox 1.0.
Basically this is saying that you should not install this on the computer of your grandma, who barely knows how to hit the power switch, because something will probably get broken and grams will call you about it. I'm not suggesting that everyone here who is a noob, I'm saying that people shouldn't say things like, "I've installed this on 100 computers and the new theme is ugly. These people don't know how to change any options or fix the problem." Well, they're not the type of people who should be using beta software.
Yes, it is kind of annoying that extensions get broken with most new releases, but they are working on improving the update procedure. Currently, the program warns you when you first update that the following extensions aren't compatible and it offers to search for updated versions. If new versions aren't available, it disables the extensions. I believe they are working on a feature that warns you BEFORE you update that the following extensions may be incompatible. There is also some discussion about implementing a blacklist feature so that extensions with major issues, like the greasemonkey security flaw, are disabled until a fixed version is released.
Like others have said, to get extensions to work you can do one of three things: Unzip the xpi and change maxversion to 1.6 or something similar, or you can install nightly tester tools and right click on every disabled extension and click "make compatible," or if you are trying to install a new extension that might not work and you have nightly tester tools installed, it has a checkbox at the bottom of the xpi install window that says "install using nightly tester tools to force compatibility." Basically you can force almost any extension to load in beta 1, and assuming the extension isn't really old, it should work without a problem.
Oh, and for the person who said that they should work on a stable 1.0.7 build; builds with a number after the second decimal point (ie. 1.0.x) are basically just security fixes and don't try to fix usability problems, unless the problem breaks almost all extensions like 1.0.5 did.
For anyone using XP classic theme, or a version of Windows previous to XP, here's a link to code that you can put in your userchrome.css file to get things basically looking the way they used to.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_windows_classic
What if the networks used the basic idea of Launchcast; user can get free access with lower quality and ads or can pay a monthly subscription for ad free higher quality content. Obviously the size of a video file means it could not be streamed like a song, but the basic idea still works. In addition, when the user signs up for a free account they must enter their location, which allows the network to provide local commercials thereby satisfying their affiliates. This system would be even better if each network was simply considered a channel and all channels could be accessed from the same location. Finally, for those who want extra features they can still buy the DVDs of the show.
The only remaining question is how the DRM would be setup to allow users to burn the file to a DVD, but prevent people from uploading the hi-def "premium" pay files to a peer-to-peer network. Also the files would need to be setup so that the commercials could not be edited out of the free files, which would defeat the purpose of having a pay service.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a some design documentation for the safe browsing add-on: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Safe_Browsing:_Design_Docu mentation
Here is the Bugzilla bug for turning on the feature. Remember that you have to copy and paste the link into the address bar because Bugzilla blocks slashdot. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32929 2
From what I understand, the idea is to make the feature an extension that is installed by default, kind of like the talkback error reporting tool. In "normal mode", the extension will make decisions on phishing sites based on a blacklist file that is downloaded from an update server, and every address that you visit will NOT be sent to Google or Mozilla for verification. If the user goes to turn on Enhanced Mode, a warning dialog will pop up telling them that information WILL be sent to Google or someone else, for the purposes of finding new sites to add to the blacklist files and online blacklist database. I don't think that enhanced mode will be turned on by default, but there are still a lot of things that are undecided.
People who are complaining about broken extensions or crashes should read the warning on the download page for the beta: Note: This is not the final release of our Web browser, it has been made available for testing purposes only, with no end-user support. If that sounds scary, you'd probably be better off with the latest version of Firefox 1.0. Basically this is saying that you should not install this on the computer of your grandma, who barely knows how to hit the power switch, because something will probably get broken and grams will call you about it. I'm not suggesting that everyone here who is a noob, I'm saying that people shouldn't say things like, "I've installed this on 100 computers and the new theme is ugly. These people don't know how to change any options or fix the problem." Well, they're not the type of people who should be using beta software. Yes, it is kind of annoying that extensions get broken with most new releases, but they are working on improving the update procedure. Currently, the program warns you when you first update that the following extensions aren't compatible and it offers to search for updated versions. If new versions aren't available, it disables the extensions. I believe they are working on a feature that warns you BEFORE you update that the following extensions may be incompatible. There is also some discussion about implementing a blacklist feature so that extensions with major issues, like the greasemonkey security flaw, are disabled until a fixed version is released. Like others have said, to get extensions to work you can do one of three things: Unzip the xpi and change maxversion to 1.6 or something similar, or you can install nightly tester tools and right click on every disabled extension and click "make compatible," or if you are trying to install a new extension that might not work and you have nightly tester tools installed, it has a checkbox at the bottom of the xpi install window that says "install using nightly tester tools to force compatibility." Basically you can force almost any extension to load in beta 1, and assuming the extension isn't really old, it should work without a problem. Oh, and for the person who said that they should work on a stable 1.0.7 build; builds with a number after the second decimal point (ie. 1.0.x) are basically just security fixes and don't try to fix usability problems, unless the problem breaks almost all extensions like 1.0.5 did. For anyone using XP classic theme, or a version of Windows previous to XP, here's a link to code that you can put in your userchrome.css file to get things basically looking the way they used to. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_windows_classic
What if the networks used the basic idea of Launchcast; user can get free access with lower quality and ads or can pay a monthly subscription for ad free higher quality content. Obviously the size of a video file means it could not be streamed like a song, but the basic idea still works. In addition, when the user signs up for a free account they must enter their location, which allows the network to provide local commercials thereby satisfying their affiliates. This system would be even better if each network was simply considered a channel and all channels could be accessed from the same location. Finally, for those who want extra features they can still buy the DVDs of the show. The only remaining question is how the DRM would be setup to allow users to burn the file to a DVD, but prevent people from uploading the hi-def "premium" pay files to a peer-to-peer network. Also the files would need to be setup so that the commercials could not be edited out of the free files, which would defeat the purpose of having a pay service.