Talk:Firefox/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Gecko

There is no wiki about Gecko. Would someone knowledgable (not me!) make one and make a link from "The builds use the latest Gecko core (1.8b4) as a basis" to the new page? It would be very interesting to know since it's the "core" of Firefox and other browsers.

Huh? We have the Gecko article. --minghong 04:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Recursion

Just for shiggles, someone should take a screenshot of Firefox on the actual Wikipedia page for Firefox and then replace the image here. Do that a couple times and it would look like a neat effect... I'd do it but I have Deer Park installed instead. Jeff schiller 20:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it would be annoying and confusing, though a neat idea. Andre (talk) 00:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it would probably seem annoying to most people. (Including me) Wizrdwarts 00:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Firefox & Wikipedia logo

File:Firefox-Wikipedia.png

I've created a combination of the Firefox and Wikipedia logo. Feel free to use it how/where you want. -- BRIAN0918  02:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not use this logo as it is soon to be deleted, see talk page ed g2s • talk 12:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a derivative work of the Firefox logo, which I'm told is distributed under rather egregious terms for an open-source project. What can you say about the copyright status of your combination logo? --FOo 03:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Consider it a parody. :)  BRIAN0918  03:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Didn't we take someone to task for posting a modified Firefox logo with the Soviet flag in the background? Shouldn't we give this image the same treatment in consideration of fairness? --Jtalledo (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, if you like. Boo! Hiss! Bad logo! --Bonalaw 15:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Outdated

This article needs to updated to reflect the change of version numbering for "Deerpark" from 1.1 to 1.5

"The next planned release of Firefox was supposed to be version 1.1, but has been renamed to 1.5" What else needs to be changed? --taestell 20:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I'm waiting for the release of 1.5, so that the whole future developement section can be replaced with something new and less messy. And I agreee with tasetell that the only change was the version number (similar to Java 1.5 which is marketed as Java 5.0). --minghong 10:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Tastell the change was made between the time I posted and you posted your reply ;) ---Benbread 17:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia extension in External links: Self-reference?

Isn't it a self-reference to list the Wikipedia extension ([1]) in the external links? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The extension does not appear to still be listed in the external links, but it does appear in the text of the article. While this information is useful for someone looking at the article on Wikipedia, I can see your point that when the material is used on a non-Wikipedia page it seems out of place. It should probably be removed, though perhaps the article should mention that popular websites google, yahoo, dictionary.com, and wikipedia are all searchable through a special search feature. The other problem is that there is not just "one" wikipedia engine, but several. Theshibboleth 02:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mentioned the keyword search feature and listed the five provided "out of the box", including Wikipedia. --Bonalaw 06:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There are at least two instances in this article where Firefox services are mentioned with regards to their applications toward Wikipedia. These are inappropriate self-references and should be removed, particularly given the context in which they are applied. If references to Wikipedia are to be included as site-specific applications provided by Firefox, then there should be a comprehensive list of other sites to which Firefox also has devoted applications. Niffweed17 03:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

How are UMO and Extensionsmirror.nl not notable?

• Mozilla Update — Official site for Firefox Extensions, Themes, and Plugins.
• Extensionsmirror.nl — Mirror site for nearly all Firefox extensions and themes.

This is where most people get their extensions from, how are they not notable? --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 23:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Why aren't they in there? Extensions are a key part of Firefox, and those are the main sources. -P.

For the first one, it is already listed in the "see also" section. For the second one, it is not official, and is essentially similar to Mozilla Update. --minghong 15:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the second one in Mozilla Update. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 15:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The screenshot's license

I copied my question from the screenshot's talk page, but nobody answered: --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 13:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible for this image to be released under the GFDL? Firefox (and all Mozilla software, for that matter) is free software, and I've seen plenty of GFDL'd Linux (and other GPL'd software) screenshots on Wikipedia. I am aware that Linux and Firefox aren't licensed under the same license, but would it be possible for MPL'd software to have GFDL'd screenshots? --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃənz/ 18:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

But the Firefox logo is not free. It is copyrighted/trademarked and it is shown as a tiny icon on the screenshot. --minghong 03:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Developer" of Firefox, Thunderbird, etc

With the launch of Mozilla Corporation, code will NOT be developed by Mozilla Foundation, but other organizations and individuals (including MoCo). But MoCo is wholly owned by MoFo. What should be use for the "developer" field in the software infobox? --minghong 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla Corporation - 81.174.247.96 04:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning please? --minghong 12:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the role of the Mozilla Corporation? The Mozilla Corporation is responsible for productizing and distributing Firefox, Thunderbird, and related branded products built on the Mozilla open source code base.[2] Also: The Mozilla Corporation will have approximately 36 employees.[3] The Mozilla Foundation currently has three employees.[4] But since the Mozilla Foundation controls and directs the Corporation and the Corporation was formed only for tax reasons, I would leave the developer as the Foundation. --Pmsyyz 15:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. After all, MoCo is wholly owned by MoFo. e.g. for a product produced by a subsidiary of Microsoft (e.g. IE team, MSN team), the "developer" should still be Microsoft, right? --minghong 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. The IE and MSN teams are not subsidiaries, they're business units or divisions. The Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary and as such has a separate legal existence. - 81.174.247.96 14:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mozilla Corporation was formed to develop Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird. It will employ Firefox developers, manage Firefox releases, distribute Firefox binaries and provide Firefox support. Put "Mozilla Corporation (a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation)" if you want to explicitely note that the Corporation is part of the Foundation. - 81.174.247.96 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

According to my understanding, MoCo is created since MoFo was making too much profit for a non-profit organization. --minghong 16:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it is more like there were some deals they wanted to do to promote Firefox that they couldn't do as a non-profit. Also, one of the developers said that businesses know how to talk to a business, but don't know how to talk to a non-profit. --Pmsyyz 17:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. Non-profits are very restricted in the types of revenue they can receive and business-like stuff they can pursue. Corporations aren't. Hence the Corporation. Organizationally, future Mozilla Firefox releases will come from the Mozilla Corporation, which is a taxable wholly-owned subsidiary of the not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation. - 81.174.247.96 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Security - POV problem?

It strikes me that the security section of this is largely incorrect and gives the impression that Firefox is more secure than it really is. The phrase "Firefox was designed with security in mind" is clearly incorrect - no browser designed with "security in mind" would include javascript bindings to functions such as local file IO and process creation with only a flimsy separation between the trusted and untrusted zones - a separation which has already caused, I think, two serious vulnerabilities since Firefox went 1.0.

The fact you could easily cross `zones' in Internet Explorer gains almost an entire article - Criticisms of Internet Explorer - but the same problem has been proven to exist in Firefox but does not glean even a mention here. Why? Instead we get a section exhalting the security virtues of Firefox with no mention of its poor security record for a product marketed as "the secure alternative to Internet Explorer". --194.106.52.133

I don't think so. e.g. In the Internet Explorer article, there is also a security section similar to this one, and there is also a criticism section like this one (similar in length and detail). Don't forgot that we also has the criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article which addresses the security issues. Security is a process, not a product. It doesn't matter how many bugs there are, as long as they got fixed really quickly. (Of course, it should try to prevent bugs from happening, which Mozilla did very well) --minghong 00:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there is a systematic bias towards the open source movement and against Microsoft. This may be due to the fact that the Wikipedia is based on open source software, and the nature of the beast attracts an OSS crowd. I've tried NPOVing the IE and Firefox articles, but it's no use, my changes get diluted or reverted. Unfortunately there is a disproportionate representation of OSS supporters amongst the editors. The most active editor on this page (Minghong) is a staunch Firefox/OSS promoter (see his talk page). I've pretty much given up, as I don't have the spare time to compete with these guys --Beachy 12:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can be constructive one time, instead of just spreading FUD and insulting people (maybe just "person", as I was the major target)? --minghong 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't insult you - I merely repeated what you yourself have written on your talk page. If I accused you of "spreading FUD," THAT would be an insult. --Beachy 08:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm frankly not concerned with any bias this way or that. What I would like is for the article to accurately reflect the security properties of Firefox's design.

minghong, when Schneier coined the phrase "Security is a process, not a product", he was emphasising that security is not something tacked on after the fact - a `product'. Instead, he was explaining that security stems from good design from day one. Which is the whole point here, isn't it?

Right. That's why the paragraph originally contains the line "Firefox is designed with security in mind". Maybe that line sounds biased, but it isn't. --minghong 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Support for PNG in IE

why does article on firefox needs to include comments on ie's lack of png support i think it is not neccesery

The article merely mentions that Firefox contains PNG support, as opposed to Internet Explorer. The article does not target IE's flaws specifically but instead uses them to show Firefox's features though comparison.--Sampi 02:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"No publicly known exploits"...?

"No publicly known exploits of the Firefox browser have emerged since its launch."

What's this about? What about the IDN exploit? What about the XUL spoofs? What about Secunia's statement about these two exploits: "NOTE: Exploit code is publicly available."? Why do we leave in statements like these that's highly likely they'll sooner or later be incorrect, but forgotten about they were in the article? -- Jugalator 20:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

While the exploit code was available, no public exploit was really carried out. It's like that "the method of killing a fox was known, not no one really killed any foxs". --minghong 06:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, the word "exploit" is used to mean "exploit code" pretty commonly in security-related forums. E.g. "Joe wrote an exploit for that hole in Foocode" -- doesn't imply that he used it to do any damage, just that the code exists.

If the point is to say that there aren't any reports of attacks against Firefox, that's a different matter. The expression "in the wild" is often used to refer to bad stuff (attacks, viruses, etc.) that is actually being used by criminals to commit crimes, as opposed to just being "in the lab" of some security researcher.

If it's true that there has been no attacking of Firefox security holes in the wild, then we should say that. I'm not sure if that's true or not, which is why I'm not editing it right now. :) --FOo 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Applied the change. --minghong

An exploit does not need to be used in the "wild", to be an actual exploit. Therefore the statement should be revised. JedOs 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbiased statistics references

[The w3schools statistics, indicating a decline in Firefox usage over the last few months, have been reverted several times by Minghong]

For convience, all the statistics references for general public should be listed at usage share of web browsers. Since W3Schools is targeted to a specific "market segment", it has been removed in various browser article a long long time ago. Please don't re-introduce it. --minghong 23:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you point me to the discussion on W3Schools - I believe you, but, as per the principle that the best way to resolve a conflict is write an article describing all the sides of it, I'd like to write such an article, on the subject of W3Schools. Thanks for all your work on the 'pedia! JesseW 06:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The w3schools stats are independent, and represent mid to long-term trends in browser usage. They are perfectly valid as an inclusion within the Market Adoption section of the Firefox article. Minghong would like them removed because he is a strong proponent of Firefox (see his talk page), and the stats show Firefox market share falling. Unsurprisingly, he has no reservations about the inclusion of Mozilla's own, more optimistic-sounding stats, some speculation about the effects of IE's security holes, and a quote designed to make Microsoft appear short-sighted --Beachy 22:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The article mentions the decline and so does the usage article it refers to. Isn't that enough? --Jtalledo (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. The problem is the source of statistics. I didn't deny the decline of usage. Let's me repeat again: (W3Schools) has been removed in various browser article a long long time ago. --minghong 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Please point us to the discussion on this, as JesseW asked. There was a discussion, right? --Beachy 09:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the questionable nature of the w3schools stats... they seem to be derived from browser visits to their website and thus don't seem to be a good statistical reference. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures)" [5] --Beachy 09:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, someone with a heavy anti-Firefox bias (I recognize your website) is complaining about someone with a heavy pro-Firefox bias? I understand you disagree with each other, but calling Minghong on his bias is dishonest if you don't acknowledge your own, and just plain silly if you do. --Kelson 18:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not anti-Firefox and I'm not pro-IE. I simply hate organised zealotry of any form, and the SpreadFirefox campaign (which Minghong practically represents here on WP) is a prime example. My aim is to provide the counter-arguments in a situation where pro-OSS and pro-Mozilla biases are considered the norm. --Beachy 21:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As per Minghong's logic on the w3schools statistics, I will remove the Mozilla statistics, as they are not independently obtained, and are likely to be biased towards highlighting or even exaggerating the growth of Firefox. --Beachy 09:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you please stop being a baka? The download count is given by mozilla.org. There is nothing wrong with it. And the SEC Filing was created by Microsoft. No one made this thing up. And why are you removing stat from WebSideStory and XiTi?! They are perfectly neutral. --minghong 10:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't removed WebSideStory and XiTi stats. Please read and understand an edit before you even think about reverting. Whilst I'm sure you trust and approve of Mozilla's download count, it is not an independent statistic suitable for the Market Adoption section. Oh, and your personal insults (whatever language they are in) are not in-keeping with Wikipedia policy. I hope you calm down a little bit before you make your next edit on the article. Also, please answer the questions that have been posed to you in this talk page section. --Beachy 10:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is biased, the fact remains that it is often cited by many. I believe it should be included in the article, but its status as being from a non-neutral source clarified. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

So, if I can prove that the w3schools stats have been "cited by many," then do you agree that they are equally valid for inclusion? --Beachy 10:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You need the prove then. --minghong 11:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Google has spotted 874 links to the w3schools browser statistics, from various blogs, news sites etc. I'd say that counts as Johnleemk's "cited by many" --Beachy 11:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a prove. --minghong 03:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Beachy had made a graph using W3School's data:

File:IeFirefoxGraph.gif

However, instead of focusing on just one single site, an overall graph based on various source in usage share of web browsers would be much more meaningful and less unbiased:

The graph should also show Firefox only. Like competition? We already have this nice graph:

That's why the graph about W3Schools was removed. If you object, please give reason below. :-) --minghong 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated in the discussion above (please read), w3schools are an independent source of statistics (ie not affiliated with MS or Mozilla), they have high granularity (offering month-by-month data), are verified against usage stats on multiple sites and are well-cited. I see no reason why the two graphs should not coexist on this page. --Beachy 14:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

So? Many other sources are also independent. What made W3Schools so special that there is need to have a graph dedicated to it? In addition, this is an article about Firefox. We shouldn't add any other browsers to the usage share graph. Your graph seems to be suggesting Internet Explorer and Firefox are the only browsers on the Earth, which is obviously not true. --minghong 14:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

IE6 is a frame of reference, as it is the market-leading browser. As I have explained several times, the high granularity of the data makes w3schools stats interesting and relevant. I have also explained why they are valid in the context of this article. Please re-read what I have written, and if you require any further explanation, message me directly to avoid clogging this page and the article. --Beachy 14:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if the data includes other source, it just make itselfs reach the same level as other source listed in usage share of web browsers. In that case, why are there no graph for sources like OneStats, WebSideStory, NetApplications, Janco Associates, etc? We can't afford to have so many graphs. More importantly, we do not need so many graphs. So one graph which combines all these source is good enough. The smoothing effect in averaging help reduce noises and extremes. --minghong 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can find "unified" data that is as granular and up-to-date as w3schools, then fine. As far as I know, such a report simply doesn't exist at present, so can we please draw a line under this episode? --Beachy 16:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, have been reading through your discussion. While I can see you point Beachy, I have not yet seen arguments for the validity of the statistics w3schools provides. Maybe they are granular and up to date, but this just means that the are nice to analyse, not that they're valid. I can make the log file from my homepage available on the web, that'll be both granular (as it can get) and up to date (updated instantly after each visit), but completely invalid, since my site has only few visitors and they are technically minded people. W3schools may be unbiased, but that does not suggest, that it is a good source. An interesting information would be, how many visitors this site has. A site like Wikipedia or Google is a good source (if you really have to rely on statistics that a single site provides, which is always a bad idea), because they are in the Top 100 sites. If there are fewer visitors, there is greater risk of a bias of the visiting people. W3schools are claiming, that they are correcting their statistics, but they don't say how. If collecting statistics on the web was that easy, big companies would not be paying a lot of money to professionals providing them with good statistics. By the way: The download counter of mozilla.org should to be considered valid, unless you have some reason to believe that they are manipulating it, because Mozilla should be able to correctly count downloads from their site. Maybe you could also claim this count has nothing to do with browser usage, but you'd have to give arguments for that thesis. --84.178.88.79 11:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Who else agree with 84.178.88.79? --minghong 06:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree. --Sketch-The-Fox 18:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. I can hardly imagine W3Schools being visited by a significant number of end users, and after all, they are the ones that make statistics valid. Denis Kasak 14:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Browser screenshot

I thought it was Wikipedia policy that browser screenshots should always show Wikipedia's front page, the current screenshot show this article instead. Any thoughts? --Berkut 06:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

IMNSHO there are these issues : Not front page. User logged in. Not default theme + etc. It does however have a recursing screen shot of the page ( look closely ). I prefer : [6]. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Software_screenshots --2mcm 08:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted to the original correct one. --minghong 12:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Market share dropped again

Market share dropped around 7.5% because of Netscape bug that identify itself as Firefox. Many news said, the bug raised the Firefox share about 1%.

What's the reference? --minghong 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

First thing, i don't use IE(use Maxthon!). Just search "Firefox" for the news. (You see, Yahoo and Google is NOT MS.)

and, not only this kind of sites, also many tech sites has this article.

Last thing, be honest and frank, i think you people are pretending NEVER see this kind of news.

Well, it would be really nice if you had cited some sources regarding this claim. As it is, I had to look it up. And yes, it does look like these claims hold water. [7]. [8] Second, please avoid personal attacks. They're not very productive at all. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Developer Tools

Could add to Developer Tools a reference to the extensions, I for one use the Web Developer extension daily. Jwestbrook 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Compatability with Wikipedia forms

Will Firefox users ever be able to search for text in Wikipedia edit boxes??? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-22 20:41

I used to be able to search in the edit box using Firefox v.0.9x, but after my upgrade to v.1.07 that capability disappeared. It looks like a Firefox change and not a Wikipedia problem, so programming wizard will have to write an extension that allows searching in the edit box. Or we could try to arrainge a mass bug report/feature upgrade protest from Wikipedia's Firefox users. BlankVerse 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can... don't know what is different but I can. Shark Fin 101 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't search in a textarea using Firefox. Bug 252371 [9]. There's an extension at the bottom that fixes it (somewhat unintuitively) but it works. Get it here. Off-topic: I'm looking for a bookmarklet/userscript that does this. Gflores ^Talk 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Usage stats

Since it's not that much different than in the article, I didn't do any editing, but the Washington Post just reported that for Sept 2005 page views, Firefox had a 16.705% share. [10] BlankVerse 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ubuntu

Why is Ubuntu listed as a "not supported" OS, when Linux is listed under the supported OSes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helbrax (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 November 2005.

Ubuntu, like Debian, doesn't ship the "supported" "official" binary release of Firefox. They ship their own build which sometimes includes (for instance) bugfixes that haven't made it into an official point release yet. Ubuntu's and Debian's builds are officially supported, of course -- by the Ubuntu and Debian community, rather than by Mozilla. --FOo 11:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that, but that still didn't fit into the context of the article. Firefox on Ubuntu is supported, just not the version that ships with Ubuntu. It would be more accurate to say Ubuntu's firefox build is not supported by Mozilla, not Mozilla's firefox build is not supported on Ubuntu.

After IE7 comes out, IE will up again

Here is the thing. When IE7 comes out, people will use IE7, not Firefox.

I'm talking about regular and normal users, NOT talking about hi-teched or geeks. you know, most people still uses IE6(about 90% in the world).

I know, people like us use firefox. You see, just like Linux or Mac.

To be realistic, IE with better things than previous version, more will use IE7. even some firefox users will turn into IE7 users(It already has better things than firefox, even better than the deer park.).

You see, think of the real world, not just geek or hi-teched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.48.9.222 (talk • contribs) 08:19, November 4, 2005.

blasphemy!        :-) J\/\/estbrook       13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, simply inappropriate speculation for an encyclopedia. If you think you know what the market is going to do, go put your money in a prediction market. --FOo 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's see, IE7 is to be available only for XP SP2 and Vista. We won't see it in a lot of XP machines, since it'll be available as a separate download, and if they do that they'll probably hear about Firefox anyway. As for Vista, we're not even confident if it'll sell as much as XP did. --210.5.113.177 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Avant browser, Maxthon and Slim browser are much better

Many said that Avant browser, Maxthon, and Slim browser are much better than IE, Firefox, Opera, Netscape, Safari and Konqueror.

Don't you think so?

So, many uses Avant browser, Maxthon, and Slim browser

I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is regarding the article, but at least two of those browsers use IE's rendering engine, so they're not original browsers. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggeting Safari and Nescape is not a real browser? You know, Safari uses Konqueror engine, and Netscape uses Firefox engine, and IE engine. It's the same thing. So, you mean there are only 4 web browsers in the real world which are IE, Konqeror, Mozilla, Opera ??

Err.... I was referring to Maxthon, Avant and Slim. But that's beside the point. This discussion is not doing anything to improve this article. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no Firefox engine. Firefox uses Gecko, just like Maxathon etc. use the IE-components. Just being a Firefox-zealot does not make your statements true, you know.84.161.238.146 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Caption

Why does the infobox caption consist of a seemingly random tidbit about the "Latest Headlines" Live Bookmarks? It seems to me that a broader piece of info in the box would probably be more useful to readers. Thebogusman 04:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

True - it's not descriptive of what the screenshot is illustrating either. It should be changed. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Firefox 1.5

Seems that 1.5 is already released to 1.5 Beta people over the new Updates feature. Frankchn 14:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Its also avalible on Mozillas FTP server-I'm using it right now. But its not on any of the Firefox Webpages.--Canageek 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The features pages also needs to be updated.Gflores ^Talk 02:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article claims that 1.5.0.1 was released 2006-01-30, while the official release notes claim that it was 2006-02-01: [11] . Could someone explain this, or fix the date, if there is no explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.221.158 (talk • contribs)

Their FTP lists it as January 30 for all win32 releases except the xpis. I wouldn't say it's too big a deal either way. --Kamasutra 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Uploading files to a server doesn't mean a "release date" to me. So if that is the reason, I think that the date is wrong. It's not that big error, but there are people who actually count errors to make wikipedia look bad. That is why I was concerned about this. But I leave the choise of the correction to those who are not anonymous as I am.

Considering it's a public server and files are put there explicitly for anyone to download, I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider that "releasing". Just because it's not listed/announced as that on their http site? The day a software becomes (legally) available for download I'd consider that the release date, so I won't be the one to change it. --Kamasutra 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Page size

This article is crawling dangerously close to the infamous 50 KB mark. Any suggestions regarding trimming the article down a bit? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What about stripping the IE-bashing and "omg teh firefox is soo great"-fanboi-isms? This should cut 2/3 of the bullshit. 84.161.238.146 18:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What specifically did you have in mind? Adrian.baker 05:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FF 1.5

Since installing 1.5 on windows, the menus look so bad, its unbelivable. helohe 17:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem was an inch-high status bar and certain pages that just *would not load*. Fine in FF1.07, fine in IE, page timeout in FF1.5. But anyway. :) --Stevage 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the...umm...people behind Firefox have made an...ummm... decision to base their Windows theme exclusively around the XP Luna theme, ignoring all pre-WinXP versions and XP Classic users. Personally, I won't be upgrading until I get a fix for this... (and a *proper* fix at that - there's a half-hearted attempt bouncing around as both an extension and userChrome.css code that only half-fixes the problem) - SoM 22:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, apart from being hideously off-topic (this is not a forum for discussing Firefox, it's a forum for discussing Wikipedia's article about Firefox), isn't Firefox completely skinnable anyway? So, y'know, you can just download a new theme!

(Oh, and Stevage - sounds like you have a serious bug in your install somehow, if Fx1.5 was like that for everyone, there'd be a stink right now) - IMSoP 23:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I *think* the problem I had with the status bar was not 'skin' related - the status bar at the bottom of the screen was seriously wide with very little text. That was RC3. But yeah, back to the article. --Stevage 01:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an known issue introduced by bug 303806. If you follow the Firefox releases, you should have known it in September. For this moment, one can install the Classic Menus extension, or wait until Firefox 2.0 (probably 3.0?). --minghong 01:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm having problems with some of my keyboard functions such as Home, End, etc. I didn't have this problem with 1.0.7. Any fixes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.16.107 (talk • contribs) .

This isn't a support forum. But if you insist on asking, if you focus on a non-firefox window and then go back to firefox it goes away. I had the problem back in the betas for 1.5 but haven't seen it since final.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually figured out the problem. In the options, under advanced, there is the general tab. If you deselect the allow keyboard to select text, the buttons work.

Another problem though, 1.5 vs. the 1.0.7 version: it takes a lot more resources than the older version. When I check my task manager the memory it takes up is at least twice as it used to be under the same conditions. Can anyone verify this?

Some users report very high memory usage in Firefox 1.5, but when other users check the same sites in Firefox and other browsers such as Opera and IE, all browsers use about the same amount of memory. There are some known reasons for this, such as the Adblock extension causing runaway memory usage. When users remove Adblock, memory use returns to normal. I think we should change the statement Another common criticism involves Firefox using much more memory than other browsers. to Another common criticism is that a small precentage of users complain of Firefox using much more memory than other browsers. And we should also add some information about the Adblock problem. -- Schapel 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Calendar Extension Discontinued?

The Mozilla calendar extension does not work with 1.5. The latest version of Mozilla Sunbird it now includes proxy settings, etc - in fact everything browser-related. This makes the Firefix extension somewhat redundant. Has the extension been dropped. -- Chris Q 14:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC) (changed terminology myself and removed now redundant comments)

-- Chris Q 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Sunbird is simply a standalone version of the extension, thus when Sunbird is updated so is said plugin. Though i may be totally wrong ;) -Benbread 16:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not quite, AFAIK; I think they're developed separately. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The current focus is Lightning, which would integrated Thunderbird and the calendar. See the Mozilla wiki for details.

ActiveX

Why Firefox cannot support ActiveX (or am I wrong)? If I am not, why isn't this a part of Firefox, but an optional plugin?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox doesn't support ActiveX because it's a proprietary IE-only thing, and also because it's notoriously insecure and unsafe. Many people also likely won't need ActiveX (I rarely ever run into sites requiring it), so the plugin is optional — if you need it, you can always install it. The plugin is also a bit unstable, from what I've heard. Johnleemk | Talk 16:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right it is very unstable. But ActiveX can and will run on FireFox. Ocasiionally though I have to use IE if I want to run ActiveX. Shark Fin 101 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is exactly as proprietary and insecure as Firefox' extension - no sandboxing at all, no regression-testing... 84.161.238.146 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Obviously, some discussion over which links are relevant to the Firefox article. Personally, I agree with Minghong's decision to remove those third-party links. [12]. Beachy, Firefox-ko is not an external link, it's an article on WP that may be of interest to Firefox users. The link you're persistently adding, while it may be related to Firefox, is already a Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox page. Maybe that link can go there. What do others think? Gflores ^Talk 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We should remove all the links except informational ones. Links to alternate builds and forums and such would go to go too though. There's already a Secunia link there and that's what's important. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Wikipedia is not a link farm. :-) --minghong 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some users are adding an external link to their own pages where people can download Firefox with the Google Toolbar. These users are all after the $1 commission from Google for each download. Please delete these links as soon as they are added. -- Schapel 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aim of "Firefox project"

From the article, "To combat what they saw as the Mozilla Suite's software bloat, they created a pared-down browser, with which they intended to replace the Mozilla Suite.". This should be the "aim" of the "Firefox project". So there is no need to replace this again in the introduction paragraphs. --minghong 17:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You've made some good balancing NPOV edits recently, Minghong - on this and the IE article. --Beachy 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox Wikipedia Extension vs Firefox v1.5

I added the version numbers of Firefox that the Wikipedia extension listed would work with perfectly here. The problem with Firefox 1.5 + that extension is that the TAB and INSERT keys cause a dialog "insert link" to pop up on any page viewed anywhere on the internet which is extremely annoying. The extension still works otherwise but it appears to be an abandoned project. --That Guy, From That Show! 10:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla Foundation/Mozilla Corporation

Isn't it on Mozilla Corporation now? I saw the message on Mozilla Foundation site that "Firefox and Thunderbird have a new home ... at Mozilla.com" Infobox says "Maintainer:Mozilla Foundation" --manop 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation as noted at the bottom of the pages at mozilla.com (not .org!) --That Guy, From That Show! 10:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes its a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, but Bungie is owned by Microsoft; Halo is still developed by Bungie even though Microsoft owns it. So shouldn't it work sort of the same way here? Simonkoldyk 02:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

someone changed the screenshot into porn, I took it out, I don't have any picture to replace it with though

website

Amusing little rollback battle going on about the the website. I thought I'd make mention of it here on the talk page so people can...well.. talk it out rather than rolling it back and forth. I'd just like to cast my vote for using mozilla.org (in fact if you google for "firefox homepage" [13] first result is http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ --ShakataGaNai 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

All other issues aside, the fact that the other site automatically forwards to mozilla.org makes changing the link on the page from mozilla.org to getfirefox.com completely pointless. -- That Guy, From That Show! 08:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Getfirefox.com is a shorter and much easier url to remember... No reason to use the longer one when there's an *official* redirect page for it :p --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we want to go with 'easy to remember' rather than 'correct', why not firefox.com?

Recent statement from Mozilla: "While we establish the new sites, mozilla.org will continue to act as a landing page and will help redirect people to the most appropriate sites for specific audiences." Until they say that another site is the primary one, we need to respect their wishes rather than cater to people who can't type "firefox" at google, msn, yahoo, or the address bar. -- That Guy, From That Show! 09:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Up until recently, www.getfirefox.com was an unofficial website. Now, it's just a redirect. Honestly: what's the point? www.mozilla.com/firefox is the official website so it should stay. FireFox 09:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

GetFirefox.com:

<quote>Name server: NS.MOZILLA.ORG / 207.126.111.203</quote>

It's jsut as "official" as the other one. It's the same page, and it's a shorter address. There should be no problem here.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. It may direct to the same place, but it's not the official website. There really is no more I can say. FireFox 10:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:FireFox. It is the official website. It doesn't make sense to link to a redirect site. Gflores ^Talk 01:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox myths

Deleted this link because of the number of Google ads and ads for the product they're apparently selling. Also, some of the "myths" are apparently made up out of whole cloth -- I've never seen anyone claim Firefox has no bugs.--SarekOfVulcan 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of people claim that IE is buggy in the context of Firefox, as if Firefox has no bugs itself. But that's not really the point is it? There are more Firefox fans than neutral editors at work on this article. Once again, I've given up hope of balancing the pro-FF POV. As a fellow Trek fan I'm disappointed in you! :-) --Beachy 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That site is unprofessional. See the reply. Those "myths" are simply "made-up myths". --minghong 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

And, that site is spammed all over the WWW, mostly in popular help forums. The addition here was just (IMO) a google ranking tactic to help sell an extremely overpriced disc drive defragmentation program. -- That Guy, From That Show! 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That manipulative article has no place here. See another reply.

—Tommyjb 02:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, I've just edited the original article to link to a different "Firefox Myths" article, one that is educational, and not a money-making, attention-grabbing spin article.

—Tommyjb 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Still, the article is just a list of made up "myths". The "opinions and responses" section is for opinions and responsese from organization like Microsoft, not individuals. --minghong 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Link isn't unnecessary - some of the content is common sense, some of its POV. I believe the link(s) to http://nanobox.chipx86.com/firefox_myths.php can be removed Triona 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The link should stay. At least it's a glimmer of NPOV hope in an article riddled by FF fanboy rhetoric --Beachy 21:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me point you to WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not for myths, as isn't any encyclopedia. FireFox 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox, have you checked the contents of the new page? It seems to be reasonably NPOV.--SarekOfVulcan 21:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, checked the contents. I am not getting involved any further with this article directly. I will continue to monitor the page and block for 3RR if neccessary, but it's up to other editors whether the link stays or is removed. FireFox 21:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you know that the link I'm currently defending isn't the same as the link I previously deleted. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 21:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I know. I just don't want to get involved after this appauling edit summary from Beachy: Do we think it's coincidence that lan13 is 15 years old, from the UK and a Firefox fan -- just like User:FireFox? Wouldn't be calling on the good squad would you, FF? FireFox 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The mention of "15-years-old" was clearly a reference to the obvious (and dubious) connection between the profiles of lan13 and FireFox. School friends perhaps? Who knows. Whichever way, it's pretty disturbing that Firefox fans are allowed to exercise their agendas as Wikipedia editors on the Firefox article. User:FireFox has not blocked other users for 3-reversion edits - User:FireFox has blocked Beachy for edits which he personally disagreed with. This contravenes the supposed neutrality of the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.32.83 (talk • contribs) .

As I said to beachy, many hundreds, possibly thousands of people in the UK fit the criteria of "15 years old, prefer Firefox". By saying "it's pretty disturbing that Firefox fans are allowed to exercise their agendas as Wikipedia editors on the Firefox article", do you think that blocking Firefox fans from using the article would create a proper one? I think the article is NPOV due to the mix of Firefox pro's and against's. Finally, no I haven't blocked other users for the three revert rule, because no other edit has violated it yet. If I am mistaken, please show me. And also, I did not personally disagree with the edits Beachy made, I was following what was a shown consensus at the time, shown by the discussion on this page. If you note, I said I am not really bothered about the content on this page anymore, I will just monitor other's actions in the case of violation of WP:3RR. FireFox 22:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me just add, I don't know how Ian13 likes his information to be available on the internet, but I can assure you that we are not school friends, and do not live remotely near each other (and never have done). FireFox 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You asked "do [I] think that blocking Firefox fans from using the article would create a proper one?" Who said blocking anyone makes a better article?? I'm concerned that any editor of this article has the ability to block other editors who disagree with their point of view. It's a very obvious rule of neutrality. 138.38.32.85 22:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have said it before, and I will say it for the last time. I am no longer bothered whether the link stays or goes. I remain neutral on this matter. The reason for blocking Beachy was not because he disagreed with my point of view (which I will come back to later), it was because he violated the three revert rule. If I had done so, then I would have also expected to be blocked by another admin for doing so. Now, back to what I was saying about disagreeing with my point of view. I said before as well that I didn't have a point of view and I was following a general consensus shown by user's comments on this page. FireFox 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to continue this discussion, I am happy to reply to any further questions in 12 hours, as I need some sleep. Thanks, FireFox 22:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

Let's just vote for deletion… :-/

• Delete - As mentioned, Wikipedia is not for myth. Not to mention that the article is not even actuate. --minghong 01:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your linked article (the "not even actuate" page) is discussing the original myths page - NOT the one in the current article. You are being deliberately misleading.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.32.85 (talk • contribs) .
    • No. The linked article is appliable to both the "original" and "fake" articles as the content of those two articles are the same. The only difference is that the "fake" one contains ads.--minghong 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I am David Hammond, the author of the second Firefox Myths article, and I just wanted to mention that my article was written in response to the bias and inaccuracies in the original article. I have attempted to write mine in NPOV and I would appreciate feedback if you consider it otherwise. I'd be surprised if you regard it as biased against Firefox, as Firefox is my personal browser of choice. Whether or not a link to my article should be added here isn't my call, but I do disagree with some of the reasons you have presented regarding why it shouldn't.--Nanobot 04:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Leave - This vote is a farce, firstly, as it is blatently inciting deletion rather than neutral discussion. Secondly, Minghong demonstrates a bias toward Firefox on his talk page, hence has personal reasons for removing the article. Thirdly, the article is designed to dispel myths, not to include them within a Wikipedia article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.32.85 (talk • contribs) .
  • A Firefox fan doesn't necessary bias toward Firefox. Hope you can get this message. If you follow my edit history (not just on this article), you know that I always try to be as neutral as possible. --minghong 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete -- Agreed. Although I like Firefox a lot, I use Konqueror and Opera more frequently. But, this myths addition is silly considering that there are plenty of criticisms and links in Criticisms of Firefox which is directly linked to from this article as it is.

Every browser (or any software) has it's own limitations or problems. Criticisms of Firefox makes that quite clear and it's not like anyone here seriously wants to hide all information that's not positive about Firefox. Good criticism isn't a bad thing. People can easily find it at the above linked Wikipedia page.

• Delete - We could have every tom dick and hary setting up "myth" sites and then linking them as a resource. An opinion by an unknown person has to justify itself very highly on the accuracy or interest scale. -- Chris Q 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Myths are just that. It doesn't seem to add anything credible or knowledgeable to the article, just a cluster of speculations on the parts of individual parties may or may not have gained some momentum as "myths" so called "urban legends"--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - As I said before, I don't want to express my personal opinion any more against the risk of being called biased. So, I vote neutral. My personal opinion on the matter is to delete, but I stick with neutral. FireFox 11:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • So, you "don't want to express your personal opinion," yet in the same breath you express your personal opinion? What are you playing at? Are you deliberately trying to appear biased? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs) .
    • If I wanted to express my opinion, then I would have said delete wouldn't I. Instead, I say neutral. FireFox 13:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - The link to this site should be deleted. Triona 14:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Custom Keywords

I've just put back my custom keyword repository wiki. Since there is a full paragraph dedicated to Custom Keywords I would suggest adding a link to (what I believe to be) the largest list available in one place. http://www.wormus.com/leakytap/internet/customkeywords Awormus 14:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections I'll add the link Awormus 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to my Custom Keywords repository was removed by an anon in [this] edit. I think the link is a good resource since the article already has a section dedicated to custom keywords. This page has been up for the last 2 years, it comes up second place in google when searching for "Custom Keywords" I'm not spamming, this is just a good resource. I won't be re-adding it myself, but if someone thinks the article could use it go ahead and add it.Awormus 10:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

Fixed a few grammatical errors and edited for clarity; previous text sometimes shifted between second and third person "the user/'s" and "you/your". Rexmorgan 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

suggestion to add prediction that market share will reach 40%

Predicted that Firefox's market share will reach 40 percent. "I foresee Firefox doubling its audience as more people fall for its higher level of security" download.com staff predictions --Adam1213 Talk + 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just some random guy's speculation, it doesn't seem too terribly relevant or actually based on a study of the matter. I don't think it would contribute much. --FOo 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Firefox/OSS zealotry at its most transparent --Beachy 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why NOT firefox with ActiveX?

I'll tell you what. Why NOT ActiveX? I say. Many research companies say, "Because of no activex support with firefox, it can't display almost 15% of web pages all over the world. This is huge problem, right?

Firefox with ActiveX would be perfect web browser and then, nobody will use IE. I think firefox can handle ActiveX just like ActiveX OptIn in IE 7 build 5299(the leaked build) and it will be no problem with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.48.10.227 (talk • contribs) .

Several things:

• This is not really the right place for this debate.
• Talk pages are for discussing current, past, or potential issues about the article itself, not so much its subject matter.
• It says in the article, and on the mozilla site why.
• The reason for it would be that removal of active X is indeed a way to make the browser more secure. Whether or not it is practical may be a matter of opinion, or may not be, but doesn't need to be discussed here.

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

More things:

• If any research company said "Because of no activex support with firefox, it can't display almost 15% of web pages all over the world." they would be completely wrong. It's rare to happen upon a site that doesn't work in Firefox.
• The goal of the Mozilla Foundation is to promote standards. Supporting ActiveX, a proprietary technology, would be counter to that goal.

-- Schapel 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Plug-in For Hosting ActiveX Controls --Adam1213 Talk + 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

simple usage share data worldwide in common

internet explorer - 85% mozilla firefox - 10% the others - 5% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom2006 (talk • contribs) .

Tom, what is your source for the above data? --M@thwiz2020 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Those numbers look close to what's currently reported for the Usage share of web browsers. It looks like "the others" are roughly divided into (to the nearest percent): other gecko - 2%, safari - 2%, opera - 1%, others 0% -- Schapel 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

There are some points in [14] related to [Mozilla Firefox] article to be discussed here, how they correspond to NPOV. 1. If one browser (Firefox) have been critised for download size of updates, another browsers (e.g. Opera) should be logically critised too. 2. If article about one browser (Firefox) contain section about common criticism, another browsers (e.g. Opera] should contain it too, as there is often some points for this browsers (e.g. comatibility with non-standards web pages) that should be clear up there.

MozBackup??

Hi!

I can't see Mozbackup article It isn't important? homepage, I'm in a Hungarian Wiki --193.6.138.75 17:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fire Fox 2.0 (Code name Bon Echo)

Article needs to be updated for Bon Echo release. See Nightly Builds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerzworld (talk • contribs)

The latest version/latest beta version refers to the releases, not the nightly builds. A list of releases arranged by date last modified can be found here. --M@thwiz2020 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true, nightly builds shouldn't count as a release. The official 2.0a1 isn't supposed to be released until Friday I believe. However, Gamerzworld may have meant that the newly implemented features should be made more prominent in the article since the nightly builds at this point do give a good idea of what the alpha release will be. I personally believe that we should wait until the Alpha 1 release to be sure how everything is supposed to work. --Kamasutra 03:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The alpha will be released this Friday? Woohoo! The roadmap does say Q1 2006, which is quickly drawing to a close. --M@thwiz2020 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The roadmap is outdated just so you know. They are over a month behind schedule already. The final release isn't expected until August or so, but that's fine with me. Keep in mind that the Alpha 1 is marked as a developer preview, so the end user would do well to wait until at least Alpha 2 (expected in May). --Kamasutra 01:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It says to leave a message, so here it goes. The release can be found here and it is official. --Kamasutra 03:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why didn't they update Firefox's site with this? — File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Firefox's site is for end users and Bon Echo is for testers and developers only, perhaps? -- Schapel 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This is only the first alpha release and as I said is a developer preview, so putting any information on the main part of the site wouldn't be very useful. The site for the new version is http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/ if you want to check it out. --Kamasutra 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Bonecho did come out but not until 8 hours after the comment starting "The roadmap is outdated..." Now it is okay to update the template, so I'll remove the links and comments. --M@thwiz2020 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Both the text and the screenshot caption referring to Bon Echo mention a "new logo," which in the screenshot appears to be a rather uninspired blue globe. Down below, however, the article says "In an attempt to dissuade end-users from downloading the preview versions, 'Deer Park' [i.e., Firefox 1.5 alpha] versions do not use the standard Mozilla Firefox branding." If this is true, doesn't it seem likely that the Bon Echo logo has been deployed with a similar intent, which would make it a temporary logo at best? If that's the case, calling it a "new logo" without qualifying the statement is misleading. --phh 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Moezilla

I'm sorry that the 'Moezilla' thing was wrong, but... well, according to the Moezilla page, they're basically mascots, similar to OS-tans, pretty much for Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and Opera... srely they deserve a mention? Sounds like they DO have something in common, or Firefox-ko at least. VJ Emsi 16:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

signature button not working

My firefox signature button is no longer working. Has there been a wikipedia software change, that might have caused this, because it used to work a few days ago. Putting in tildes by a hand.Technicaltechy 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

the buttons have recently been enabled in Konqueror. See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5572 --MarSch 09:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if that "fix" broke firefox. I guess not, otherwise more people would be encountering this problem. Maybe I've disabled scripts or something in my preferences. Thanks. Technicaltechy 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that this is really the place to discuss it, but NONE of the editor buttons work in Firefox for me anymore. At home or at work (not that I edit WP from work, ho hum). I was thinking about posting in the Computer Help area about it, but I'm not sure anyone is actually monitoring that. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 16:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a 'This user uses Mozilla Firefox to access Wikipedia' tag?

If so what's the code for it? CMIIW 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe {{user browser:PrefersFirefox}} is close enough... GregorB 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User Firefox}} says "This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox." That implies using Firefox to access Wikipedia (contributes). --M@thwiz2020 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - implemented it. CMIIW 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Main Page Firefox 2.jpg

Should we add Image:Main Page Firefox 2.jpg as the main image? It is a picture of firefox on the main page, with firefox tabs, extensions, themes, firefox's bokmark toolbar, and firefox's ability to curve borders on the "edit this page" tab. I think this shows a better example of firefox than the one they have currently. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its generally better to show screenshots in their default settings, with minor exceptions such as to display features (such as disabling the hide tabs with only one window open feature). Otherwise though it is generally accepted to keep them as clost to "stock" format as possible, in their default themes without any plugins or addons that are not explicitly distributed as part of the program package.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Text-zooming

I use Firefox to browse Wikipedia and other websites. I often use the Control +/- function to make the text larger or smaller. For some websites this works really well because the lines of text stay the same width. For other sites though, the lines of text get wider and wider so that I have to scroll back and forth horizontally just to read them. On some sites, like Wikipedia, when I make the text larger it makes the lines get narrower and narrower.

So is there anything you can do with your Firefox settings or extensions to fix this problem, or is it just up to the webpage designers (including those who maintain the MediaWiki software) to code their pages better to fix this problem?

Any help with this would be much appreciated. I've got a small monitor, and I often need to make the text bigger so that myself and others can read it without being real close to the screen. Thanks!

I have asked your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. -- Chris Q 07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an answer there now -- Chris Q 11:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on helping these people? This is not a helpdesk. The talkpages are reserved for ARTICLE RELATED discussion only. I reverted this asinine comment once and he just put it back. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on biting the newbies? Sometime being helpful is a good thing especially when they're not familiar with Wikipedia policy. Sasquatch t|c 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I also wouldn't be calling other user's comments "asinine" as it's bordering on a personal attack. Just try to be nice and have patience with new users. Remember, we were all new once. Sasquatch t|c 00:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We were all new, but some of us read various guidelines and policies like good little wikipedians before posting. As for the word Asinine, I chose the most gentle word I could to still get my point across. This comment most certainly did excercise a lack of judgement, specifically the second time around when the user reverted my actions, obviously knowing what they are doing. There is a fine line between biting newbies and doing what needs to be done. I didn't bite until bitten, and I would do it again. Normally I'm perfectly complacent about new-user issues but this page is abused as a help page too much, and when a user has the gall to revert an edit asserting that, problems arise. WP:BITE is not policy, and as a result, when it serves the greater good, I have no qualms in breaking it. In this case it needed to be broken. Unless an example is set it will keep happening.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion invited

I wanted the opinions of the editors of this article whether there should be a change of referencing style from the current footnote to m:Cite.php. Nothing wrong with the way it works in this article but I feel its easier to maintain the latter. Also, I would request the active editors to move the external links within the article to bottom (using footnotes or other kind of referencing). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be good --Zr2d2 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this statement about Firefox specifically?

This is the main stumbling block whenever any other browser tries to compete - Most people have never even contemplated the very existence of an alternative browser.

This comment seems like it doesn't belong on an encylopedia page, is not specific enough for this topic, and is more of an opinion. Although I agree with the sentiment, I believe this could be worded better. Does anyone know a better way to say this? Otherwise I would probably relegate this comment to a discussion page. Josh Clarkson 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism overly opinionated, should be renamed "Opinions"

Most of the criticism is refuted inside the topic, however done so in an extremely minor way. And in addition, most of the criticism is incorrect.

For instance web pages arn't appearing the same as in IE, is correctly attributed to be a page problem, not a browser problem however then it shouldn't be criticism, rather "false criticism".

If everything being asked for is available as extensions, then it's a feature that it's extendability, not a fault that these "features" arn't available Navtively, especially when most of them are not needed or not wanted by large groups of users, and leads to bloatware.

This is like complaining that my PC program doesn't work on Macintosh, or I need to load drivers on a PC to get certain features, such as network connectivity.

These two should be called "opinions" rather than "criticism" seeing as they are highly opinionated, and are not the companies faults, or have been addressed since the beginning.

Obviously load times is a problem and criticism and such, but these two are hard to call "criticism"--Kinglink 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism should be defined as exactly that. End users and published media criticizing aspects of the program. In order to main neutrality however, I suggest that Criticism be converted to "Criticism and praise", and a number of published advantages over other browsers and referenced in the same section. Given firefoxes high ratings it shouldn't be a problem. Both this praise, and the previously mentioned criticism would need citations though, otherwise weasel words may abound.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed unofficial video guide

I removed the following link: * http:// download.firefox.lt/how-to-install.html How to install Mozilla Firefox with Google toolbar – An unofficial video guide for end-users.

The reason is because the guide serves very little purpose and amounts more to advertising the firefox.lt site. Furthermore, the video starts off on a Windows desktop double-clicking Microsoft Internet Explorer -- surely, for someone to see that video they'd already have launched their internet browser!!! Furthermore, surely something such as 'how to install' is unnecessary - particularly as it is only one platform, too.

Firefox as an alternative to Safari

I've reverted AlistairMcMillan's removal of the reference to Safari in the fourth paragraph:

Firefox has attracted attention as an alternative to other browsers such as Microsoft Internet Explorer and Apple Safari, which are included as standard with versions of Windows and MacOS X respectively.

This sentence isn't suggesting that Firefox is vastly better than Safari and that there is an overwhelming demand for it's replacement. It's merely pointing out Firefox's position an as alternative browser. As such, I see no reason for it's removal. Rishi 03:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Rishi's views, as I originally added 'Apple Safari' to the sentence. The reason for this is not only because it is an alternative, but there seems to be a distinct prejudice against Microsoft, which is inappropriate in an encyclopaedic article. However high Microsoft's market share is or however it achieved that share is immaterial. Therefore the addition is merely strivance for objectivity. --Rcandelori 11:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

British/Commonwealth English

While the Mozilla foundation was founded in the United States, I do believe that since the browser is a co-operative development from people all over the world, it would be more appropriate to use Commonwealth or British English spellings for all words as American English usage and spellings are far less prevalent than those of British english. I was accused of "Britishisation" when some preliminary changes were made. What are your thoughts? --Rcandelori 12:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• As you had already been informed, this issue has already been decided in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The Firefox talk page is not the place to debate this issue. For what it's worth, my using the non-word "Britishization" in the summary was just an subtle allusion to the spelling issue, not an accusation KelleyCook 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)