Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 Released

Posted by CowboyNeal on Fri Jun 02, 2006 03:33 AM
from the pointy-point-releases dept.
Mozilla The Internet Announcements Upgrades
KrayzieKyd writes "God Bless Mozilla. Firefox has just notified me that Firefox version 1.5.0.4 has just been released with release notes and according to Mozilla's website, the same has been released for Thunderbird with its own release notes."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 Released 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Freshmeat? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mtenhagen (450608) on Friday June 02 2006, @03:38AM (#15452114) Homepage
    Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products? I tought freshmeat was created for that.

    Is there something special about this release? According to the release notes these bugs where removed. Great but not enough for a slashdot article.

    MFSA 2006-43 Privilege escalation using addSelectionListener
    MFSA 2006-42 Web site XSS using BOM on UTF-8 pages
    MFSA 2006-41 File stealing by changing input type (variant)
    MFSA 2006-39 "View Image" local resource linking (Windows)
    MFSA 2006-38 Buffer overflow in crypto.signText()
    MFSA 2006-37 Remote compromise via content-defined setter on object prototypes
    MFSA 2006-36 PLUGINSPAGE privileged JavaScript execution 2
    MFSA 2006-35 Privilege escalation through XUL persist
    MFSA 2006-34 XSS viewing javascript: frames or images from context menu
    MFSA 2006-33 HTTP response smuggling
    MFSA 2006-32 Fixes for crashes with potential memory corruption
    MFSA 2006-31 EvalInSandbox escape (Proxy Autoconfig, Greasemonkey)

    • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cperciva (102828) on Friday June 02 2006, @03:43AM (#15452133) Homepage
      Are we getting slashdot articles for each verion bump of the mozilla products?

      Well, we seem to get slashdot articles about every MSIE security flaw; by that standard a new release of FireFox which fixes 12 security flaws (5 of them rated "critical") is certainly slashdotworthy.

    • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2006, @04:05AM (#15452199)
      Well the FAQ of the release notes does say:
      What can I do to help?

      We need all the exposure we can get ... Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release.
      Someone was bound to follow the instructions.
    • But it's Firefox! :-p

      • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Xamataca (921539) on Friday June 02 2006, @05:51AM (#15452465) Homepage
        memory leak?... that's why I can't surf more than five of those neat sites with tinny porn video thumbs... ermm, shit.

      • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by lpcustom (579886) on Friday June 02 2006, @07:26AM (#15452843)
        You know this flamebait made me think, which almost caused me to have a stroke, so try not to let it happen again. I wanted to compare the two browsers to see just how much of a memory leak I get from FF.
        I started with FF with my normal three tabs each with a different site open. I pulled up taskmanager and looked at all running processes. There was firefox at 31 meg.
        So then I open IE6. Since I rarely use it I haven't changed the default home page from MSN. I check taskmanager, again. iexplore starts up using 45 meg. So I think maybe it's because of the website. I point IE6 at google. Sure enough the RAM usage goes down to 42 meg. To be fair however I thought I should open the three sites I have open in my FF tabs in IE.
        iexplore.exe ---> 42,976k
        iexplore.exe ---> 24,444k
        iexplore.exe ---> 38,408k
        Total iexplore.exe RAM usage 105,828k
        Firefox with the same sites open in three tabs ---> 31,776k
        If firefox is leaking on my machine it's into a big bucket called iexplore.exe

        • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mrchaotica (681592) * on Friday June 02 2006, @10:45AM (#15454564)
          Leave it open for a few days. The reason that it's called a "leak" is that the free memory slowly decreases over time.

            • Re:Freshmeat? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Now leave both browsers open for a day. IE6 will still be at 63 MB. Firefox wil be above 100 MB.

  • Seamonkey also updated (Score:5, Informative)

    by darteaga (806257) <darteaga AT ya DOT com> on Friday June 02 2006, @03:46AM (#15452144)
    Seamonkey, the new version of the old mozilla suite (Netscape-like) has also been updated. The release notes: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/releases /seamonkey1.0.2/ [mozilla.org].

  • Incremental Updates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nighttime (231023) on Friday June 02 2006, @03:46AM (#15452147) Homepage Journal
    I thought one of the benefits of Firefox 1.5 was incremental updates i.e. patches that that are in the 100s of KBs range. However, watching the progress meter for this latest update it will have eventually downloaded 6.1MB, which is basically the full version of Firefox.

    • Re:Incremental Updates (Score:5, Informative)

      by fondacio (835785) on Friday June 02 2006, @03:56AM (#15452173)
      In that case, you were updating a version lower than 1.5.0.3. If there is no incremental patch, the updater reverts to downloading and executing the full installer. I just updated 1.5.0.3, and the file it downloaded was quite small. Incidentally, Mozilla Thunderbird has also been updated to 1.5.0.4.

      • Re:Incremental Updates (Score:5, Informative)

        by (arg!)Styopa (232550) on Friday June 02 2006, @07:58AM (#15453005) Journal
        Firefox 1.5.0.3 to 1.5.0.4 = 511kb on my Win98 box.
        • It would, indeed, be nice if we had partial patches more than one version back. We simply don't have the capacity to do so and ship timely releases. We're already juggling 3 platforms (4 while we transition from Mac PPC to Mac Universal Binary releases) times around 40 languages times 2 update packages (full and partial). Adding even one version back means another 120 update paths to build and test and ask our mirror sites to host.

          For what? Anyone with automatic updates turned on is at most one version back
    • The update worked fine for me and only took a second. There are some issues that may lead to incremental update failure. In that case, Firefox will simply re-download the full version. Probably what happened to you.

    • Re:Incremental Updates (Score:5, Informative)

      by masklinn (823351) <slashdot...org@@@masklinn...net> on Friday June 02 2006, @05:56AM (#15452480)

      My FF 1.5.0.3 downloaded a mere 600k, and Thunderbird's update to 1.5.0.4 was roughtly the same size (~500k).

      Your FF probably failed a hash check or something and downloaded everything to reinstall from scratch, that's the fallback when the updater doesn't manager to install incremental updates.

  • Here we go... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jginspace (678908) on Friday June 02 2006, @03:57AM (#15452174) Homepage Journal
    I'd like to hear about memory management issues, frequent crashes and how Opera was there first - in that order. I need a refresher; it must be while since v1.5.0.3.
    • I used to hear a lot about such "memory management" issues, and a lot of them turned out to be lack of knowledge about configuration options regarding firefox's memory cache and page history cache sizes. Some issues are there besides these easily manageble ones, no debate about that, but most of them only come up after firefox running continuously for days (for me that is sometimes 1-2 weeks), which makes them unnoticable for most home users. Still, it would be good to solve these issues someday.

      • I don't think the average user should have to worry about "memory management". Memory is something that should be abstracted away and not exposed to anyone but an advanced user. If in normal usage the caching features cause undesirable behavior, I consider this a defect in the design, if not the implementation.

        LS
        • I like FireFox, but it can consume a lot of RAM on any operating system. I've gotten it up to 700MB in Linux before. Tabs are a both a blessing and a curse.

  • Show the world and be taken seriously! (Score:5, Informative)

    by MindPrison (864299) on Friday June 02 2006, @04:00AM (#15452181) Journal
    I think it's excellent with all these updates. Firefox if absolutely worth the attention.

    Before Firefox - our local banking etc. where only accepted on Internet Explorer and nothing else, leaving out Mac and Linux users. Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!

    Way to go FIREFOX!.
    • Today Firefox is so respected that our country's Largest Bank support it!
      So, they are supporting only certain browsers? Seems like an indication that _they_ shouldn't be taken too seriously. I have the same problems with some (but not all) banks where I live.

  • Menu Delay (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02 2006, @04:01AM (#15452182)
    Is it just me or are the menus like 4 times faster at least? Or is it this patch changes firefox so that my old registry tweak setting windows menu paint dealy from 400ms to 0ms now being recognized by FF? I'ts not a simple memory leak fix because I have 1.5 gigs and I never noticed FF slowing down after long term use.

    Or am I just crazy and nothing changed at all? maybe it was the extention update to cute menus cyrstal SVG
  • for software update notifications. Really mind boggling technology isn't it?
    Oh wait, it's not 1996....

      • Re:Thank God (Score:4, Funny)

        by Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) on Friday June 02 2006, @04:51AM (#15452326)
        I guess your suggestion is this (although you didn't really specify what "work" means):
        1. All firefox copies poll mozilla.org every minute to check for updates
        2. All firefox copies download the update at the exact same moment

        Looks good. Can't see any flaws there.

  • 1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by k1980pc (942645) on Friday June 02 2006, @04:05AM (#15452196)
    Hardly looks like news. And I'm already tired of Mozilla team not addressing the most critical issue - memory hogging. Brushing that aside is not going to help the developers or the users.

    • Re:1.5.0.4 is major.significant.minor.forget-it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jerf (17166) on Friday June 02 2006, @09:37AM (#15453855) Journal
      Fixing "memory hogging" generally require significant architecture changes. This is not the sort of thing you get on a x.x.x.1 release.

      I'm sure they're addressing this issue as it is easily now the #1 complaint about Mozilla. I recall it having memory issues even before plugins and the memory-hogging history-full-page-store feature (the one where you hit "back" and the page is just supposed to pop up, not re-render or re-request), but those two issues have magnified the issue into something that can't be ignored or poo-poo'ed anymore; I, too, will often see my Firefox hovering around the 600MB mark, and I recently installed that memory leak test tool and it didn't come up often at all.

      Probably ought to shut off that feature; doesn't seem to do much for me anyhow.

  • disappointing (Score:5, Funny)

    by distantbody (852269) on Friday June 02 2006, @04:28AM (#15452258) Journal
    And I *still* can't find text within a textbox...

  • Spellbound (Score:3, Funny)

    by Supurcell (834022) on Friday June 02 2006, @05:18AM (#15452387)
    If only my Spellbound plug-in would work again. Now howe will aye bee able two correct my pore spelling?

    Now if only there was a plug-in for the correction of misused homonyms.
  • Just tested with the newest macintel universal binary, and it is significantly faster than 1.5.0.2 (which also claimed universal binary, but they fucked up).

    If you let software update happen on a mac intel, it doesn't update to 1.5.0.4 universal, but just updates the PPC image. You need to download the new universal image, and install that over the older version, and then it runs.

    They still haven't addressed all the networking problems yet, but I really don't ever expect them to.

    the AC

  • Bon Echo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vexorian (959249) on Friday June 02 2006, @07:31AM (#15452869)
    I am currently using Bon Echo Alpha 3 . I tried 1.5.0.4 and it seems much stabler and faster than 1.5.0.3 but it seems to me that Bon echo is still the best firefox version, It seriously is awesome.

  • Default update setting flawed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LS (57954) on Friday June 02 2006, @07:43AM (#15452932) Homepage
    Considering that privacy and security are big concerns for every large software project these days, I believe that Firefox's default update setting should be changed. If you go to Tools --> Options --> Advanced --> Update, and you haven't changed your default settings, you will find that it is set to "Automatically download and install the update". Even Microsoft wouldn't do this, so why is it acceptable in Firefox? It should default to "Ask me what I want to do.", and during the first update, a checkbox should be provided asking the user if he wants automatic updates from then on.

    My 2 cents.

    LS

    • Re:Opensource is FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rogue Pat (749565) on Friday June 02 2006, @06:18AM (#15452537)
      Looking at the source code, you can see which code got changed and which changes were made. The bug is not for your eyes, as it may give detailed steps to exploit the vulnerability.

      Remember when Microsoft releases a patch it would say "a maliciously crafted web page may" etc. The bugzilla entry for Firefox may actually GIVE you all you need to build that maliciously crafted page.

      As said before, there's no need to publicize detailed steps to exploit a browser.
          • Hey I know you, you are that guy that always complains about having to REGISTER FREE on the NYTimes links on slashdot no?
            Wow, so you _don't_ find the NYT bureaucracy annoying?!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.