Talk:Firefox

Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.

• Archive 1: Discussion prior to December 13, 2004
• Archive 2: Discussion prior to July 9, 2005

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)

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Outdated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)

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

"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

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:

File:Layout engine usage share.png

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)

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. [9] 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helbrax (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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.