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Discussion on this article has been archived.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

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)

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Outdated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:

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)

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? — 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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.48.9.222 (talk • contribs) 08:19, November 4, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment 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?

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)

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. [11]. 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)

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)

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" [12] 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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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 refers to the original myths page - NOT the one in the current article. You are being deliberately misleading
• 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.