Talk:Firefox/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Performance section

• Performance section should be rewrittent. It contains too many FF/IE/Opera comparaisons. You can always use Browser Comparaison and Browser Wars articles to compare these browsers. Cleanup-Rewrite tag added. --seifip 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The performance section contains only criticisms of Firefox. The criticisms are that some users report that Firefox uses more memory than other browsers, and Firefox takes longer to start than other browsers. How do you suggest we rewrite the section without making comparisons to other browsers? They are a key part of the criticisms discussed. -- Schapel 03:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. You'r probably right :) I have removed the tag and added one [citation needed] --seifip 11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I added a note that Acrobat Reader 6 plugin might cause firefox to use excess memory (with citation) to the note about misbehaving extensions causing trouble. For some reason my citation is getting #42 in the document but sharing #41 with another citation in the cite index. Whats up? Thadk 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Size of article

This article seems to me to be too large for Wikipedia. Is all the information necessary in the Features section when we have a perfectly complete (27kb) article on the features by themselves? --T. Moitie ^[talk] 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and do a major rewrite to the whole features section. I understand this is a featured article, but I think that since the complete features article is referenced, the summary I placed is *more* than enough. In fact, the article size is still 44K, so the it still needs work! As least it is down from 57K. --Unixguy 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is the technical aspect of it being too much data for some browsers, but if only the readability/organization were to be taken into account, WP:SIZE says "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose." Consdering the large amount of such text this would make a significant difference. --Kamasutra 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles generally have a length of 30kb-50kb. In addition, I don't think the Features section should be a list: we should include prose explanations for at least the most important features. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the list looks awful and many of the things in it would completely confuse non-techy readers. We should maybe do a brief intro for the section, expand a couple of the main features, create a 'standards supported' subsection, a 'platforms supported' subsection and leave the rest to go on the main article for this section.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the list does look awful. I moved the images and it slightly improved the look of things. The list should be formed into prose, even if the prose contains an embedded list. It should even bring down the size slightly. I'll have a go now. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a re-write. I've also incorporated the security section into my re-write, as the section was to small on its own to give itself good reason to exist. The prose of the section increases the total page size by 1kb. Not bad considering how large it was before. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this re-write to reduce size is just awful. If I can find time I will be bringing back most of the old material without stepping on edits made since Unixguy's ill-advised romp. The Be Bold policy says making huge, undiscussed (beforehand) changes to FA is usually a bad idea, and it's right. WP:SIZE is much disagreed with, and it's only a style guideline, not a guideline, never mind a policy. If wiser heads prevail, size won't be a problem until 90kb. Look at Enc. Brit. articles or Jewish Enc. articles-- they are routinely over 120kb. JDG 00:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JDG - Sorry about the quick and undiscussed change. I didn't take into account that this was a large change. I did preserve the original article in its entirety in my sandbox[1]. I still believe that the features section was *too* long - even for an FA. Plus the Features of Mozilla Firefox does have its own article. In my opinion, the prose that the other editors changed my initial list (which I *do* agree was ugly) looks much better now. --Unixguy 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Firefox section

To whom it may concern -the section and the page are being kept seperate due to size constraints. The Firefox article is already too large by Wikipedia's standards, and merging the two would be impractical. The idea is that the Criticisms fall under the Firefox article, but is an article on its own. Thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the extra criticism in the separate article is too large to be merged. In light of that, the lack of comments here, and that it is clearly linked in the correct section. I consider the merge banner a distraction at minimum, or FUD. I've checked the article for IE, and although it has a slightly larger criticisms section, it has no dedicated criticism page, so for balancing both articles, the banner will be removed. Widefox 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also check the comments in the page Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla FirefoxWidefox 12:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms page and section no longer exist. --69.54.29.23 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did this section go anyways? Firefox is far from being perfect... iamthebob^{(talk|contribs)} 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. No one is trying to say Firefox is perfect. The criticisms have been merged into the article instead of being placed in their own section. Many people claimed before that the article seemed to say that Firefox is perfect, except it's not. Now the article should provide a balanced point of view throughout. -- Schapel 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why does Internet Explorer have their own criticism page? Clearly the size of the criticism does not represent how it should be dealt with.207.81.184.128 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and simply working the criticisms into the article is almost like hiding them! Other browsers like IE and Opera have seperate criticism sections, this makes the criticisms easy to find. Working them in and not having a section for them not only seems sinister, but also makes it difficult for someone looking specificially for criticism to find what they are looking for. Aufs klo 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what makes me wonder. We should have consistency within Wikipedia. Having specific criticism sections in IE and Opera and not in the Firefox article does seem odd, yes maybe sinister. Either the criticism section should be restored to this article or removed from IE and Opera or some compromise needs to be reached which keeps things equal and neutral to every article. To apply one thing to Firefox and another to IE and Opera seems unfair to me, maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV. --tgheretford (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. When the criticisms were separate, it was sinister because they were hidden, and now that they're merged, it's sinister because they're hidden. Look — there was a discussion about merging the articles, and a consensus was reached. Did you not participate in the discussion? -- Schapel 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my point, what I am trying to say is that there needs to be consistency within articles. If the criticisms have been merged within the article here but not in IE or Opera, that isn't totally fair and maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV (I am aware of the discussion that took place by the way). --tgheretford (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood my point. You should have brought up your consistency idea in the planning stages, instead of waiting until the merge was complete, and then claiming that something "sinister" occurred. The discussion of the merger occurred on the Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox page. If you want to bring back the section called "Criticisms of Firefox" we should probably reach a consensus on this talk page first before doing anything. -- Schapel 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that any page which has seperate criticism sections or pages is wrong, not this page. Take a look at the archives and see why the pages were merged - there are very strong reasons to not have such a section. To the user above who said about working criticism into the page is like hiding them: why is it? Why should information be split between 'pro' and 'anti' points? It damages flow in the article and just allows people to persist with their own POV's when they come to the article - ignoring everything else.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the Criticism page... it simply fowards to here... Im sure there are plenty of them (I know I gripe with the new look of Firefox 2.0; and yes I know there is a replacement theme) I just find it odd that other pages (Internet Explorer, Opera, etc...) have a section yet Firefox has nothing, what gives? 216.220.15.211 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms are spread throughout the article instead of in a separate section. -- Schapel 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Version 2

Version 2 of Firefox is coming out in 2 months time, so should we start thinking about how we are going to organise the new information into the History section of the article? Features of Firefox will need reviewing, as will Criticism. All in all, some sections are going to require a re-write that could compromise the integrity of the featured article, and I'm writing here to ask if we should set up a sandbox to prepare for the changes to the articles we are about to have to put in? Is someone already working on this?

Many thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

23/10/06 20:59)Version 2 final is avaible at ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0/

Lou Carpenter from Neighbours uses Firefox!

Let's add a section for Firefox in popular media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AStaralfur (talk • contribs)

Now if that isn't a reason to switch i don't kno what is! Only problem with your proposal is that there are so many places Firefox pops up in tv shows,films etc, it'd make for a very long article! Though a seperate article on this topic might work... Benbread 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Memory use

I reverted the discussion about heap fragmentation because it is not specific to Firefox and no sources at all were cited. There is some discussion about memory use criticisms in the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article; perhaps that's the best place to discuss the issue. -- Schapel 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been instances of memory leaks within Firefox, especially in with version 1.5. I've experienced it myself. Not sure if this has been rectified in version 2.0.

I've never gotten any memory leaks with firefox while it's running in Linux. I think it's not an application issue but a platform issue. Stormscape 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it (i.e. that memory leaks has been rectified). Antiphishing (new feature, so not tested as well as rest of the codebase) is enabled by default in new FF, so performance is degraded (because each URL that you visit must be compared with [huge] list of known "bad" URLs) and memory usage is possible bigger (because list is probably in memory all the time). Most of this functionality is implemented in JS, so it further degrades overall performance. You don't have to believe me, check source code of FF. Also, look for file "urlclassifier2.sqlite". Data in it is downloaded for each user using FF (separately), and it is quite huge (~6 MB at the moment, I think). If someone doesn't need antiphishing, this file(s) unnecessarily takes space on HDD. 193.219.28.146 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What we need is reliable sources to cite verifiable information on memory use. Speculation and analyzing source code won't cut in on Wikipedia. -- Schapel 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Highest usage

The article claims that Germany has the highest percentage of Firefox users, at 39.02% in July 2006. Finland had market share 38.4% already in January so I'm positive it is higher than Germany. Finland was not included in that onestat.com study

Is it verifiable? -- Schapel 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The article should probably mention the source of that number and the 12% inline. The citation is good, but an "According to blah,..." would help. -- Steven Fisher 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox and Word Web Pages

Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [http:elianostamatov.hit.bg]

On the contrary, it is Microsoft Word that does not create proper web pages. See [2]. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

True. Opera can't properly open MS Word pages too. --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you say it?

Is it MAW-zilla or MOH-zilla? Or am I starting the pa-TAY-to pa-TAH-to thing again? --172.197.192.11 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'O' sound is long, thus it is MOH-zilla — JT (TRAiNER4) [^T_C][E] 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a definitive pronunciation? Or is that just your pronunciation. Gronky 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much say with the long 'O'. I'm pretty much going to take a wild stab in the dark and say it's pronounced the same way as Mosaic. Mosaic is pronounced with a long 'O' sound, so most likely, Mozilla is pronounced the same way. — TRAiNER4 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Moh-zilla (or Moe-zilla). Trust me, I know. - Kingy

Unless you are from Cumbria... :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Images

All screen shots of Mozilla software products should displsy the following License tags {{mozilla}} {{free screenshot}} {{GPL}}

All screenshots of Mozilla browsers displaying a web page should display the site en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page and display the additional License tag {{wikipedia-screenshot}}

Also, it would be greatly appreciated if all screenshots were taken while the OS was using one of the default themes (for example Luna (default blue/silver/green) or Classic on Windows XP), and that Firefox was using the default theme, unless the screenshot was taken to illustrate how themes work in Firefox.

Why?--Black-Velvet 13:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What for? I don't see any point in these rules. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fx 3 and Acid2 Test

Firefox 3.0 passes the Acid2 Test! 70.111.224.252 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it that when I tried today's build of Firefox 3 it doesn't pass Acid2? -- Schapel 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] Scroll down to firefox and the respective Fx 3 picture. 70.111.224.252 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK/Cancel or Close?

The current article contains an assertion that OK/Cancel have been dropped from Preferences in favor of Close. This doesn't seem to be the case. Is it perhaps a distribution-specific thing? Either way, that sentence wants fixing. -- Steven Fisher 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's so in the Linux version, don't know anything about the Windows one. - Sikon 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just checked the Windows version. Indeed, whether it shows OK/Cancel or Close depends on the platform, just like the placement of the Preferences menu item into the Edit or Tools menu. - Sikon 03:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have attempted to resolve the issue, by making it clear that it has only been replaced in the Linux version.--Edjackiel 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambig for [Firefox]]

What are people's thoughts on creating a Firefox disambiguation page, instead of having Firefox redirect to Mozilla Firefox? --NEMT 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. It has been discussed a mozillion times. When people search for "Firefox", they, for the most part, expect to find the browser. - Sikon 03:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, I was just now looking for the article on the real animal behind Firefox, the one that wasn't a fox. Was that page deleted or renamed? Where can I get to it? Although I agree, most people are going to be looking for the browser. 67.23.84.125 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's Red Panda, and it's accessible from Firefox (disambiguation). - Sikon 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it wasn't there, but I added a redirect template so that your problem doesn't occur again. --Kamasutra 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots

Is it a policy/guildeline that all browser screenshots should show the Wikipedia main page? Articles are not expected to contain self-references. - Sikon 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not an official guideline, but it simplifies/standardizes things, and deals with a lot of copyright issues. It really should be official, though. -Kingpin

"Overfanboyed"

You know, I think this article makes Firefox look like something holy. You know, It's not the best thing ever. I tried to put some facts of Firefox not being in this article, but they got removed immediatly.

Did you ensure your "facts" were verifiable by citing reliable sources? -- Schapel 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Beat me to the post :). Anyway I too think they were reverted because they were kinda bias POV comments. While the issue itself is a point of view, it is written in a way that makes it NPOV (adding sources to prove the point etc). We at Wikipedia have a policy of writing articles in a in a neutral tone, and your comments kinda violated that policy. Harryboyles 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it seems to "fanboy" the mozilla project and the creators of firefox more than the browser itself. The criticisms section seems to balance out a lot of the firefox love fest contained in the rest of the article. It essentially read "firefox is great, but it's not." --NEMT 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read it as "Firefox is great" then either there is POV in there that you may want to make neutral, or that is your own interpretation of the facts and there's not much anyone can do about that. --Kamasutra 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting of the article

The Wikipedia guideline on splitting articles says when split, a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. The section on History, Features, and Criticisms in this article seem a bit too long to me. The Criticisms section also seems to me to be selectively listing criticisms rather than summarizing all the criticisms present on the child page.--Nonpareility 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've summary-styled the History section.--Nonpareility 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The article's introduction doesn't read as a summary. In particular the paragraphs 2 and 4 on adoption and usage statistics. --69.54.29.23 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Market adoption

What do "Portable versions of Firefox" have to do with market adoption?--Nonpareility 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Today this was vandalism. When you saw it before I did not check, but is probably the sign of the same vandal. Widefox 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When will trademark issues become notable enough, if ever?

As most people involved with Debian know, the Mozilla Corporation is now actively enforcing the trademark on Firefox and is threatening Debian over the version of Firefox the include. While verifiable, I'm not convinced that this issue is currently notable enough to be included, as nothing substantive to end users has happened yet - there has only been considerable discussion among those interested in the development of Debian and Ubuntu. Does anyone think this should be mentioned now? When, as currently expected, Debian actually forks Firefox and changes the name? If Ubuntu also changes the name? --Constantine Evans 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox trademark issues have been discussed in Criticisms of Firefox for quite some time now. -- Schapel 11:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Where? The only mention I can see is that "the official Firefox binaries ... have trademark restrictions". The non-theoretical trademark issues have only surfaced in recent weeks. Also, part of the question is if and when this issue will become important enough to note in the main article. --Constantine Evans 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RC2 release date

The second release candidate is scheduled to be released on October 6 2006, and may become the final release if there are no major bugs found.

Hi, where did that info come from? Could someone add a source, please? If one isn't added soon, I'm going to tag it with "citation needed." --Kjoonlee 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Source added. --Kjoonlee 02:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox merged

Previous discussion was here Talk:Criticisms_of_Mozilla_Firefox#Proposed_merging_into_Mozilla_Firefox

The material under the section heading "Criticisms" duplicates the material at Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. There has not been an objection to synchronizing this material, and nor a further objection based on file size, since the Mozilla Firefox article is currently shorter than it was when those objections were made. So the proposal isn't for a merge. That's already effectively happened. The proposal is for a redirect so that the section on criticisms in the main article and the sub-article on criticisms don't need to be maintained simultaneously. This is a proposal for a merge as much as it is a proposal for a redirect (or a proposal for deletion). Some editors hope to be able to move material that has been put in criticism sections into the less POV commentary parts of the main article. It is suggested moving material back to the main article may facilitate this process. Unfortunately, we're required to reach consensus to just get a redirect to both avoid duplication, and move the article forward. --72.92.129.247 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY AGREE! This should be merged. At least put a Main Article: Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox . I would even do it. -- User:Tyson Moore

I replaced the "Main Article" link with the merge tag. --71.169.132.247 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the article has stabalized a lot more since the merge of the criticisms section. Not to say that the article couldn't still use improvement, but at least the flame wars have ceased from disrupting the article. --75.68.201.202 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Industry vs institutional adoption

Do we want to merge/what is the a distinction between the industry adoption and the institutional adoption sections? To me, institutional adoption is when an organization deploys Firefox to its employees. The industry adoption section currently talks about many things: web app support, third party extensions/distributions, institutional adoption, and OEMs.--Nonpareility 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Plug ins

I'm disappointed with this Firefox browser. Whenever I try to get playback from say, Amazon.com I recieve a box that says I need a add on or a plug in or whatever to get music samples. I let them run a search for what I guess is required, and it comes back and says it can't find any suitable add ons. I'm running Windows 98 and if I can't get this browser to cooperate, I'm going to have to take it off.209.179.168.54 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)petofkey1@peoplepc.com209.179.168.54 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use this page as a place to air your personal grief's. It is supposed to be a place to discuss improvement of the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

TOC and Legal Issues

Hi! There's some talk on Template talk:Firefox TOC regarding the legal issues with inserting the TOC on distribution/forks that I think you'd be interested in participating in. Particularly its insertion in Swiftfox. talk. Feureau 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

History Section

The history section is way to EXTREMELY short. It must be lengthened a lot. The old history section was better. I understand that you want to make more room for FF2, but it doesn't need that much room -KingpinE7

History has its own article, so anything we write here should be in summary style. It could be lengthened, but it should not be the entire text of the history article as it was before.--Nonpareility 05:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The History Section must be longer. I cannot stress that enough. The main reason is that the template box is causing some strange formating. In the mean time, I added some extra spaces, which seems to have fixed the problem, but it is only a temporary solution. -KingpinE7

Did you read the response about this from another user? There is a 'history of mozilla firefox' article and as such we only summarise it here. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vulnerabilities

The article states However, recent studies show that Firefox has surpassed Internet Explorer in the amount of vulnerabilities in the year 2006 (through September 2006). This implies that there are exploitable vulnerabilities in Firefox. However, these vulnerabilities were generally (if not always) fixed before they became publicly known, and thus could never be exploited; none of the vulnerabilities discovered this year remain unpatched. I'm not sure how to point this out without sounding confusing and while staying NPOV. -- Schapel 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this has now been clarified without sacrificing NPOV. -- Schapel 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Javascript speed test

I have removed the JS speed test information that has been added a couple of times and people keep re-adding it. Please can we have a look at WP:RS and WP:V. The person in question appears to have no 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' as such. The reason I state this is: Did he run these tests in a controlled environment, were other services on the windows machine enabled? Were other programs open on the box at the same time?

We just don't know. I could easily go out there and create a near identical website, create some javascript to run tests and then bog down the testing results by messing with the test environment. As a quick example, on no occasion have I been able to reproduce the low results for opera or the drastically high results for firefox.

For something like this we need a reputable site to do it, such as arstechnica or the like.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll expand on my statement above:

From our verifiability policy:

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

This means that personal websites are not acceptable.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the howtocreate test results. The person who created and ran those tests is a professional expert in the field of web browsers (he works for Opera as a techincal writer for their browser). His testing methods are more substantially documented, although not perfect. -Localzuk^(talk) 11:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's Time...

We better start migrating the information on FF2 from the Future Development section to the rest of the article, especially to History and Features. After all, it comes out tomorrow, and we're going to have our work cut out for us...

YAY FIREFOX 2 -Kingy 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It comes out already :) [4] Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an official release until it's announced. Anyway, Wikipedia policy states that articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, so we need to wait until a reliable source states that Firefox 2 has been released before we can update the article. -- Schapel 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We can use a mozilla press release for a mozilla article... See the policy on self published sources. But as they haven't made one, we can't write about it.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy from Template talk:Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox:

You can download v2.0 from http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-2.0&os=linux&lang=en-US for example (this is the official site!). This means, that version 2.0 has been released (although not yet publicly announced). They call it "2.0", and any! following version will get an other version number (because it is in the "release" folder on every moz-ftp-server now)! --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you can download a version that calls itself Firefox 2.0. I don't dispute that. That build has been available since October 10 and was also called Firefox 2 RC3. However, we don't know that in fact it will be the official release, and even if it will be we cannot verify it. Until then, we should not change Wikipedia articles to say that it is the official release. -- Schapel 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They changed some things in the publicly available "Firefox 2 RC3", so they have to call the changed version differently. Now they call it "Firefox 2.0", and it's public, too. When they change something now, they will have to higher the version number (2.0.1 or 2.0.0.1 for example). You could say: "Maybe they don't". But then they could do so whenever they want. A publicly available software revision is out there within minutes, so you just have to higher a version number when changing something. --- Greetings, Melancholie 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they did not change anything from Firefox 2 RC3 to the build that is available now. I have Firefox 2 RC3 installed on my computer, and it does not identify itself as Firefox 2 RC3, but as Firefox 2. Because they have not officially released Firefox 2 yet, they could indeed come out with a new build that is different without changing the version number. -- Schapel 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Melancholie 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they called "Firefox 2 RC3" just "Firefox 2" (generation 2)! They did not call it "Firefox 2.0". ---Melancholie 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When I run Firefox 2 RC3, the About Mozilla Firefox dialog says "Firefox 2.0" and the user agent string is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0". They did call Firefox 2 RC3 Firefox 2.0. It's a release candidate, so it must be identical to the final release if they choose to make that the final release. -- Schapel 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but all of this is conjecture and blatant original research. Unless we have a press release or news report regarding the release it will not be going into the article. It would be a violation of WP:V WP:OR and WP:CITE.

I agree. Unfortunately, now even the news on the Wikipedia front page states that Firefox 2 has been released! -- Schapel 17:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Front Page Note is premature

According to the frontpage under recent events, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 has been released. However, unless something has changed, the release date is tommorow not today. - Damicatz 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed from In The News now. -- Schapel 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Will readd when Mozilla finally updats their page, but from the timestamp on the file 23-Oct-2006 10:42 there is no way this is anything but a final, is Mozilla seriously going to release a RC for a day? I doubt it -- Tawker 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they'd make a change and still release Firefox 2 tomorrow. More likely would be that they would delay the release if they need to make a change. -- Schapel 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But why would they put it in the release folder of the files list if it wasn't the release build. Timestamped less than 4 hours before the official live date in a release folder - add up the clues -- Tawker 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current plan is to release that build as the final build. However, if they find a bug in it, they could still change their minds. -- Schapel 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But then the firefox version will be called "2.0.1" or "2.0.0.1"! --84.156.117.203 19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No. So far, they have released three different versions, all called 2.0 (see the user agent article for confirmation). They were release candidates. Until the release is official, there could be a fourth release candidate, also called 2.0. -- Schapel 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now a word from Mozilla's build engineer, for those who are still not quite convinced that Firefox 2 has not been released yet. -- Schapel 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to mention Monday's premature release announcements, the link above is probably a good reference to use. Remember not to link to any builds before release, and let's not simply say the build was made available and let people find it on their own, as that's nearly as bad a providing a direct link. We should at least clearly state that the builds are not ready for download because the release is not yet complete. -- Schapel 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, even some of Mozilla's build engineers just do not know the difference between the act of releasing something (to release = "to make available to the public") and the act of announcing something! Someone made all the binary (and now also source) files, named "firefox-2.0"..., available for the public on the ftp servers, declaring it as a release version (see folder hierarchy). What's on a ftp server is for the public. It's like putting your book into the public shelfs of booksellers (book shops) without announcing that you have written a book. Did you release your book although telling nobody that your book can be found in book shops? Yes, because everybody can see it and get it and read it and use it! If you just provide those booksellers with your book (only storing it somewhere in a repository) in advance, you do not release your book, of course. But do you consider the link http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-2.0&os=linux&lang=en-US pointing to a storage room or to a book shelf? I would say ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0/ is pretty much a book shelf, while ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla1.8.0/ is like a back room for example. --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can also compare it with this wiki: If you save a page, the page is online and public. It does not matter in which namespace you saved your page, you have released it by clicking on "Save page". The announcement (by a link) would come after that. Maybe on the Main Page or wherever. Only if it's a potential article (the potential "release") that actually belongs to the main namespace, and you created it in your user namespace, you didn't release it as an "article" but just as a "page" (in development). But Mozilla released their "article" in the "main namespace"! --- Greetings, Melancholie 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing one important point. Releasing one file is not the same as releasing an application that works on multiple operating systems, with multiple locales, onto many servers worldwide, available in both standalone and update versions. When they released one file, it was accurate to say that one file had been released, or that the release process had begun, but it was not accurate to say that the release process was over. Anyway, we need the announcement that the release is complete before we can say so in an article to adhere to the policy of verifiability. -- Schapel 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what...

"Client-side session and persistent storage" means, in layman's terms (in the "Version 2.0" section)? --zenohockey 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a WHATWG specification. As Mozilla puts it in their release notes, "Client-side session and persistent storage: New support for storing structured data on the client side, to enable better handling of online transactions and improved performance when dealing with large amounts of data, such as documents and mailboxes." --Kamasutra 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word or two missing here?

From the "Institutional support" section:

Some observers, such as Serdar Yegulalp of TechTarget and Jim Rapooza of eWEEK note that Firefox does not provide tools that make institutional deployment easier, such as a client customization kit (which Mozilla has since released), [______] Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages.

--zenohockey 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Preview Release

The page currently lists none for preview release, it should be changed to 3.0a1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superway25 (talk • contribs) .

3.0a1 hasn't been released yet; the article links to a nightly build. As a side note, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ doesn't carry alpha builds. --Kjoonlee 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. When you download Minefield, the first thing it says to you when it opens up is "THIS IS NOT A PRE OR FINAL RELEASE!" In big red letters.--168.254.226.35 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does carry alpha builds, but only under their code names. --Kamasutra 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3 PM PST?

I'm pretty sure Firefox 2.0 was released at 3 PM PDT, not PST.--168.254.226.35 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the time even important? --72.92.132.225 02:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the person who made this annon. talk part at school, I don't think it matters that much. However, if the time is going to be included, the correct time zone should be included. Just what I think. --XMBRIAN 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (using his home computer this time. ;) )

UK users not noticing updated page

I removed that little part from the first sentence of the section on "Current Version", seeing as 1. I found it unnecessary, and 2. Unless UK users are seeing a different site than I am, I saw Mozilla.Com updated at when I checked it at 6:30 PM EDT.--XMBRIAN 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm from the UK, and am getting the standard 2.0 download info. English (British) is avaliable for download from the "other systems + languages" link. I see no problems. for the UK. --h2g2bob 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 1.5 does not Update to 2.0

The built in "Check for Updates..." function in Firefox 1.5.0.7 reports that no new updates are available. Mozilla's official development Wiki seems to indicate that a 1.5.0.8 release of Firefox is in development. If anyone could clear up why updating the Firefox 1.5 branch makes any sense at this point, in addition as to why the 1.5 branch will not update to 2.0, it would be greatly appreciated. In addition, could this post and/or the revised information please be posted in Wikipedia's Firefox entry? User:Johnhutchenson

The automatic update to Firefox 2 is still weeks away. One main reason is that there are still problems running Firefox 2 on Vista. Previous branches are updated for about six months after the initial release off a new branch to give security updates to the users who are sticking with the older version. In the future, perhaps a better place to ask these questions would be MozillaZine. -- Schapel 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for this is because they're also waiting for extension authors to update their extensions to the Firefox 2.0 version before they get it onto the automatic updater. I have to reference to point you to, but that's what I've heard in Branch discussion over the past months.  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the roadmap to get a better idea of how a release is handled. --Kamasutra 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems off-topic. --71.169.132.97 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a relevant question regarding the browser and could have been implemented in the article as a issue in the news. 70.111.218.254 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Altered hotkey behaviours for Wikipedia

Just to let new Firefox 2 users know that the hotkeys used when editing Wikipedia have changed somewhat from Firefox 1.5:

Access key definitions provided by web pages can now be triggered using Alt+Shift+key on Windows, Ctrl+key on Mac OS X, and Ctrl+Shift+key on Unix.

e.g., previously it was 'Alt+P' to Show preview, etc., on Windows, it's now 'Alt+Shift+P', and so-on. Ian Dunster 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. Do you know of any way to switch it back to ALt+P standard? I got used to it... //Halibutt 13:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no - I don't know if it can be changed back - I also got used to using 'Alt+P' - I could do a preview with one hand, now I need to use two! - LOL. Ian Dunster 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Response from competition section

Someone should add a picture of the cake from the IE team to this section: http://fredericiana.com/

I don't even think the cake is notable enough to mention, let alone provide an image.--Nonpareility 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Section on Version 2.0 is unreadable

The section, "Current version", is unreadable. It needs to be written in summary form. --71.169.132.97 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for a "Current version" section. It contains history and a list of features, so put the information in History and in Features.--Nonpareility 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it yourself --Kingy 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is protected. Anons are people, too, you know. --69.54.29.23 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as people they can register for an account and would be able to edit the article in a few days. -- Schapel 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Firefox 2 Image

Someone keeps placing a new main image of firefox 2 up, because they believe that it should be in windows XP's default blue theme. I don't have a problem with this, but they keep putting it up without the correct tags. If you put up an image of Firefox please:

• include the mozilla, free screenshot, GPL, and wikipedia-screenshot licensing tags
• Have the browser on the Wikipedia homepage
• use 800x600 screen resolution (this makes the browser stand out more than the wikipedia homepage when the image is shrunk)
• and because Firefox is on all OS's, use the default themes from Windows (blue, silver, or Media Center's Royale theme), apple OS X, or the Linux OS you are using.

Can anyone else think of something to add to this list? --Phnx2ashes 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I say we run a screenshot of it on GNOME or KDE over a Windows install any day... but that's just me -- Tawker 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As an after thought: Our best bet is to put a windows image for the main screen shot, because most people use windows, but we could put in a gallery at the bottom of the page to show firefox on different systems. So if you could produce an image in Gnome we could put it there --Phnx2ashes 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you verify that the main image is actually version 2.0 final? The reason I ask is the icon in the top left is the one normally used for non-official builds. --Kamasutra 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the icon in Ubuntu, not non-official build. That's 2.0 --Emx 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Emx is correct, in Ubuntu the icon only shows the globe --Phnx2ashes 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The gallery is up. If someone is using Firefox in Mac OS X, please contribute an image of it. --Phnx2ashes 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this article, but I hope I can help. Maybe we can include some of the following bullets in the instructions?

• There is no {{mozilla}} tag on Commons, as the Firefox trademark artwork is not acceptable there.
• If the Firefox logo (icon) is visible then upload it to English wikipedia with all these tags: list of tags to copy and paste directly into upload form
• If the blue globe icons are visible instead, such as on Debian and Ubuntu, then it can go on Commons, with all the tags except {{mozilla}} and {{logo}}. (Commons accepts the non-free {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag, but no other non-free content.) Paste this: list of commons tags to copy and paste directly into upload form

Instructions could point to an example of a good image on Commons, commons:Image:Firefox2.png, and one on English Wikipedia, Image:FFX2winmedia.PNG

Final question: although Commons accepts the Wikipedia logo, it is non-free; might it be more true to the five pillars to create free content that doesn't show that logo? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage

Be careful with the Firefox usage percent, as I know it's around 12 % and not more, these things should be truthful and relevant. --Emx 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of 2.0

Considering the reponse that I have seen I think it's important to add the criticism of Firefox 2.0. Where would be the best spot to place it? Mozilla Firefox#Current_version or a new section of it's own? Mikemill 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the 2.0 section I guess -- Tawker 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What criticism have you heard about? Gdo01 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically the alt-s and alt-p changes along with an issue concerning the use of "Content-Type: application/octet-stream" and "Content-Disposition: attachment". I will also be looking for other criticisms to cite. Mikemill 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this criticism from a reliable source? -- Schapel 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that enabling antiphishing by default is worth criticizing. Why? Because (on default settings) Firefox connects with Google's servers (to update blacklist of phishy pages) with only half hour intervals, sending also google cookie (linked with your searches). (Sources: source code of FF (after installing, listmanager.js lands, among ohters, in components/nsUrlClassifierListManager.js I think); analyzing of logs from locally ran ngrep: http://nomorepasting.com/paste.php?action=getpaste&pasteID=70619 ). And why this setting is in Security tab, not Privacy??? It connects after each 30mins. interval even if you don't use browser at all (I mean - FF is running, but you don't actively browse pages)! For me this is more related with my privacy, than security (I consider browser more insecure because of this, BTW, because I really don't care about antiphishing, 'cos I am able to recognize phishy page and don't click on all links in spam).

Another not-so-great thing about new FF is removing "allow sites to set cookies for the originating site only" setting in Privacy tab in GUI (compare with FF1.5).

Worth criticizing is also lack of option in GUI to disable prefetching (IMO controversial and AFAIK non-standard feature) and enabling it by default at the same time. (Bugs in Bugzilla related to these issues are closed with WONTFIX: look here and here).

One more thing, again related with antiphishing: switching to full antiphishing protection will send each URL that you visit to google. Why is that? Why doesn't browser send only MD5 or SHA1 hashes of URL to google to compare with their database of phishy sites? It can be done in this way, but it isn't. I think google wants to gather more URLs to index, but that's only my opinion of course... 193.219.28.146 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Have you seen this criticism from a reliable source?"--Nonpareility 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What will you consider 'reliable source' in this case? Few mentioned by me facts you can check by yourself in source code (but you have to know JavaScript, C++ and HTTP protocol).

If you expect criticism about FF from developers of FF, then, well, this is quite unreasonable expectation for obvious reasons ;-) 193.219.28.146 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case, an article or review in an online magazine like PC World or eWeek is acceptable and likely to contain the source you're looking for. Looking in the source code is original research. If you find a good source, please don't create a criticisms section - try to fit the text in with an existing section. For example, if the source says the anti-phishing feature sucks, put that in the Security section of the Features article.--Nonpareility 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be kidding. I am not going to look for "reliable source" that will please you and fulfill your definition of "reliable source". "Reliable sources" mentioned by you are quite often not so reliable, but biased and unobjective. BTW, large "Criticism" sections are in articles like Pope John Paul II (even full article) or Mother Teresa.

There is total invasion of privacy in this release of Firefox. If you want to keep biased, unobjective article in Wikipedia (that doesn't mention very important facts) that's your (and readers' of Wikipedia) problem, not mine. I know what I saw, and this is sufficient for me. I don't trust developers of Mozilla anymore because of this issues (among others) and I've recently switched to Konqueror (after using FF from version 1.0.3 [or sth like that], and Phoenix before that). (BTW: Konq passes Acid2 test right now, not in some 'future versions' like FF.)

If you consider looking into source code as "original research", then what is the benefit of using Open Source software? Imagine the following hypothetical situation: there is backdoor in some new release of some popular OpenSource software. Some curious individual audited the source code and found it. Then I guess this person couldn't put this information in article about this software in Wikipedia to warn other users, is that right? 193.219.28.146 14:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not cite a reliable source and instead add your own original research to the article, it will be removed. -- Schapel 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is 'reliable source' for you in this case?

BTW - could [http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html this site] (I couldn't add hyperlink to this site, because it is censored...) be considered as 'reliable source' (perhaps not in this particular case, but in general)? 193.219.28.146 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source is a peer reviewed publication, a well known and respected website (such as arstechnica), a press release from the mozilla foundation etc...

Scroogle is a biased organisation and as such are not a reliable source. That page is poorly sourced and full of conjecture.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tech Digest has some reliable and correct information about privacy concerns in the anti-phishing feature. I was going to add a sentence about these concerns to the article, but I notice that the article needs to be updated for Firefox 2. Anti-phishing is a new feature, but is described only in a sentence under Future Development along with lots of other features. I think we need to fix the article before I can cleanly add the information. -- Schapel 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer the anon users question - yes that is right. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or findings. If the information is important enough to include, someone will have published about it. If there are security flaws in the software, one of the well known and respected computer publishers out there will undoubtedly report on it. Once they have done that, it can be included here with a citation to back it up. Otherwise, it is simply original research as it requires 1) knowledge of how the software was written, 2) knowledge of secure programming practices and from them the ability to draw the conclusion made. Please see our policy on original research for more information about what it is exactly.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"(...) yes that is right."

Ooooook, thank you for clarification. (Note to myself: don't rely on Wikipedia when it comes to software, especially new versions.)

"If the information is important enough to include, someone will have published about it. If there are security flaws in the software, one of the well known and respected computer publishers out there will undoubtedly report on it."

In general - wishfull thinking, really. But I know this is quite comfortable; after all, as someone in Matrix pointed out, "ignorance is bliss".

Here is my proposition to avoid misunderstandings such this one in the future -- please, add to articles about reliable source and/or original research some clear note, that source code IS NOT considered as "reliable source" and that findings based on source code are always considered as "original research". Thank you. 193.219.28.146 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the matter is quite well covered already by our policies and guidelines. In this case (source code), you have 2 conditions (the source code knowledge and the knowledge of secure programming) and to come to a conclusion that the software is not secure you have to use both of them. That is pretty much definition of original research. If you think it needs clarifying, please visit the policy page in question and post about it on the talk page there.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Source code is a reliable source. If the source code contains the line flubtribble = 3;, feel free to say that the source code contains the line flubtribble = 3; as long as you cite the source. However, if you analyze source code and draw conclusions from it, that is your own original research. Isn't all this clear in Wikipedia's official policies? If not, what part do you believe should be clarified? -- Schapel 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you probably know, this is not that simple. One line alone means completely nothing (or can mean everything), so without analyzing some larger part of source code (context of this line) citing one line is useless. 193.219.28.146 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, the point still stands. Even though source code is a reliable source, you can't really claim anything except what the source code says, which as you point out, really doesn't tell the reader anything. You also can't post your own analysis of the source code, as that is original research. You need a reliable source to publish an analysis of the source code, and then you can put that analysis in the article. -- Schapel 00:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"(...) the source code says, which as you point out, really doesn't tell the reader anything."

Sorry, but I haven't said that. I pointed out, that one line alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusions. But context of this line and source code as a whole says all and everything about analyzed piece of software. 193.219.28.146 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can post source code and its context, but it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. If you put in your own conclusions, that's original research. As the vast majority of readers do not read source code, again we come back to the point that posting lines of source code is pointless. Something like that would simply be removed as not being encyclopedia in tone. My point is that the problem is not that source code is not a reliable source, but that the source code alone really doesn't mean anything to the reader of the article. -- Schapel 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[5] heqs 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That source is incorrect. If you include anything like that in the article, it should also have the other side of the story for a neutral point of view. -- Schapel 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to vouch for the source. Here's a slashdot link. Just throwing it out there for now. heqs 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "throw it out" is the correct term. A Slashdot article isn't considered a reliable source. -- Schapel 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the article seems to use quite a few blogs as references. heqs 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only blogs I see used as references are the blogs of Mozilla employees (Asa Dotzler, Blake Ross). Should Mozilla employees not be considered reliable sources of Firefox information? -- Schapel 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Our policy on sources allows for the use of information sourced from Mozilla and it's employees on this article as it is one of their products. External blogs are not acceptable though as no-one can vouch for their longevity, editorial abilities, bias, and quality of their information. -Localzuk^(talk) 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Should Mozilla employees not be considered reliable sources of Firefox information?" It seems that the Mozilla response to criticism is simply ad hominem. It would be a shame if Firefox were held as beyond all criticism for the purposes of Wikipedia, especially when claiming that Slashdot is not a reliable source - yet a potty-mouthed developer blog with heavy bias is. 2c.

Could you give an example of an ad hominem attack to criticism from Mozilla or one of its employees? Perhaps you should read the linked article before you respond. -- Schapel 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V. Essentially, if a developer said the next release of Firefox will be on a certain date, that's can be used as a source because it's not contentious. If a developer said Firefox is perfect, that wouldn't be acceptable. I also think it's irrelevant to this article whether Mozilla employees respond to criticism with ad hominem or not.--Nonpareility 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fall Cleaning...

It's time to do some fall cleaning! Guess what that means! We've got to clean up the article, make it a little more coherent, get a screenshot of FFX2 running Windows Vista, for which the current theme was designed, and more flow to the article. More pictures would be nice also, and I like the idea of a gallery at the bottom. But changes must be made. See you soon when it's time for spring cleaning (FFX3) Kingy 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the designers of the FFX2 UI, they kept an XP look and decided to hold off on using a Windows Vista look until FFX3. You can listen to the interview with them at TWiT.tv---> http://www.twit.tv/itn38 --Phnx2ashes 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. However, I am aware that most people think it looks a lot better in Vista than it does in XP Kingy 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You know very well that that statement contains "weasel Words" :). I like the way any application looks in Vista, but FFX2's UI was made for XP, Linux, and Mac OS X "Tiger". --Phnx2ashes 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How should we include other builds?

I tried to make a separate article but that got deleted. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put it in this article but,I still think we should included it somewhere. Does anyone have any ideas? Mike92591 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I fixed some vandalism (someone had put "FIREFOX IS BETTER THAN EXPLORER!!!!! above the picture). Let's try and keep this page nice and NPOV, thanks. ManicParroT 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft buys Firefox

Removed spam link to spoof site. We are not an advertising platform for your pet project.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted passage from intro

On October 19 2005, Firefox reached its 100 millionth download (see Download count below). Firefox 1.5 was released on November 29 2005, with more than 2 million downloads within the first 36 hours. Firefox hit 200 million downloads on July 31 2006, according to the Spread Firefox website.

Criticism - prefetching

I have added this comment on Talk:Link prefetching, but after a while I think it more belongs here.

The following has been recently removed from the article with comment "rvt. link prefetching is explain on own article.":

"Link prefetching involves an optimization technique that utilizes the browser's idle time to download or prefetch documents that the user might visit in the near future.

For example, if you search for "internet explorer", Firefox may connect with Microsoft's server (first link returned by Google), even if you eventually choose a link to Wikipedia."

I think it should be mentioned in this article, because this has obvious privacy implications. (And considering the fact that it is used by Google, it can also falsify referer stats on http servers.)

Standardization body of HTML is w3c.org. Prefetching used in Firefox (and other Gecko-based web browsers) is enabled by default AND is NOT standardized in the same time. (In FF there is even no GUI to disable this feature. Bugs in Mozilla's Bugzilla related to this are closed with WONTFIX; look thread "Criticisms of 2.0" above for more info.)

How does prefetching work in FF? When there is somewhere in the page <link rel="prefetch" href="http://some.url"> then browser may in idle time "prefetch" http://some.url. But you know what? There is no value "prefetch" for "rel" in HTML standard! See here then click on "rel", you land here, then click on "link-types" and you finally land on "Link types". You see? There is no "prefetch".

Also, standard says (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.3): (about <link>) "This element defines a link. Unlike A, it may only appear in the HEAD section of a document, although it may appear any number of times." But Firefox (and other Gecko-based browsers) recognizes <link rel="prefetch"> even in <body>. Another breaking of standard. 193.219.28.146 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Implementing a feature not in a standard is not the same as breaking a standard. Does any W3C standard say that a user agent MUST NOT do link prefetching? If not, then link prefetching is allowed by the standards. Also, the W3C standard you are quoting above saying that <link> many appear only in the HEAD section of a document applies to whether the HTML is valid. That means an HTML document with a <link> element in the body does not conform to the standard; it does not mean that a browser that recognizes a <link> element in the body does not conform to the standard. Please read standards documents carefully; they mean only what they say, not other things that you might want to read into them. -- Schapel 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details."[6] "Although LINK has no content, the relationships it defines may be rendered by some user agents."[7] Regardless, this constitutes original research.--Nonpareility 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Version image

For some non-existent reason the infobox uses an image for the version number. This seriously needs changing, it looks weird and is ^completely pointless.

List of Firefox extensions prod

Just to make people aware that List of Firefox extensions has been placed for proposed deletion. Dunno what impact this will have. --tgheretford (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It'll have no impact if the deletion template is removed. I've requested further justification of the deletion on the talk page. The deletion template specifically says that anyone who objects should remove it, and if the requester can't fully justify deleting the article, I'll remove the proposed deletion template (if someone else doesn't do it first). It may be a legitimate concern, it may be a misunderstanding, or it may just be creative vandalism. If it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of its deletion, but judging from all of the other articles that fit the requester's objection, I kind of doubt the article should really be removed. -Erik Harris 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have de-prodded it as the article has some value. It does need work to get rid of the non-notable and unimportant ones.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)