Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla

Happy 5th Birthday To Firefox 252

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the they-get-bloated-so-fast dept.
halfEvilTech writes "Five years ago today, Mozilla released Firefox 1.0. Ars celebrates the occasion by taking a trip back in time to revisit our classic coverage of the original release." For fun, we dug up the oldest Slashdot Firefox story, which was a Firebird story proclaiming yet another name change from Feb '04. At least this name change stuck.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Happy 5th Birthday To Firefox

Comments Filter:
  • by danbert8 (1024253) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:14PM (#30033912)

    I think Microsoft should send them a cake to celebrate.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:15PM (#30033948)
      A "Thanks for trying but we are still #1" cake?
      • by garcia (6573) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:36PM (#30034262) Homepage

        I was going to say something like, "thanks for beginning as a faster and better alternative but ending up just as bloated and crappy as we are" cake.

      • by H0p313ss (811249) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:03PM (#30034694)

        A "Thanks for trying but we are still #1" cake?

        More like "thanks for raising the bar and forcing us to improve". I have long argued that the role of OSS isn't necessarily to take over the world but to make it a better place by doing things better for free than most companies do for profit. (Sort of like the NDP party in Canada, they'll never run the country because every time they have a good idea the Liberals take it, implement it and claim it as their own.)

        • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:15PM (#30034860) Homepage

          More like "thanks for raising the bar and forcing us to improve".

          This!

          I remember in the days of Windows 3.1, it seemed like a big deal that you could change IP address on Linux without rebooting. Once a few thousand geeks realised there was nothing inherent about the PC platform that prevented things like this, and memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking etc., there was a strong market incentive for Windows to improve.

          I don't think Windows would be as good as it is today if it weren't for competition from Linux. I'm sure MSIE would be far, far worse if it weren't for Firefox. (Yes, yes, OK, Opera. But for years Opera cost money.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I remember in the days of Windows 3.1, it seemed like a big deal that you could change IP address on Linux without rebooting.

            I remember being in a meeting with a bunch of windows people... guys were talking about changing IP addresses on WfW.. not being familiar with Windows (but familiar with TCP/IP on Unix and Unix-like systems) I asked "why on earth do you need to reboot just to change an IP address?"... everybody in the room turned to look at me like I had grown an extra arm out of the top of my head.

            I couldn't believe it when they told me that Windows needed a reboot for that. It *still* boggles my mind.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by inhuman_4 (1294516)

          (Sort of like the NDP party in Canada, they'll never run the country because every time they have a good idea the Liberals take it, implement it and claim it as their own.)

          The NDP had a good idea?

      • by Kjella (173770) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:55PM (#30035500) Homepage

        Meh, I can tell you why Internet Explorer has any market share at all - because there's millions and millions of corporate PCs where it is too much trouble to get anything else installed. I end up using it on a regular basis for no particular other reason than it's there. Just like my #1 most used graphics application at work is MS Paint to crop screenshots, doesn't mean it competes with Photoshop or really anything at all, just that it works good enough you don't get anything else installed. Even corporate intranets are starting to figure out it's not 2001 anymore, but there's still not a big return on switching or offering multiple alternatives...

        • by Nerdposeur (910128) on Monday November 09, 2009 @02:54PM (#30036342) Journal

          FYI - If you're using Paint to crop photos, Paint.net is a free program that does much better resizing, cropping, saving in different formats, and a lot else (although the rest may not matter to you).

          I don't do much with images besides crop and resize, but I still strongly prefer Paint.net to Paint.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ebh (116526)

          Then there are mandates: Our internal corporate web site FORCES you to use IE for much of its content, for two reasons. Internally developed web apps are only tested on IE, because the beancounters won't give IT the budget to test and certify on anything else, nor will they give tech support even the meager extra money to handle the calls where they say to Firefox users, "What part of 'Only supported on IE' didn't you understand?". External apps (benefits, etc.) may or may not be supported on browsers oth

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) *
      Don't fall for it, Mozilla! The cake is a lie!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:42PM (#30034366)

        lol! elrous0 strikes again with his knowledge of yesteryear's pop culture references

        • MOD Parent UP (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          This isn't a troll. It's a hilarious comment that pokes fun at the fact the original poster's comment really wasn't that funny. There needs to be more comments like this to discourage people from trotting out the same tired jokes that weren't really that funny back when they were popular.

          elrous0 needs to learn to be more original or just not say anything at all.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake):

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q [youtube.com]

    • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige@@@trashmail...net> on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:02PM (#30034688) Homepage Journal
      A big, ever bloating cake that is all flavors to everyone, that allows you to extend it with pie and ice cream and allows you to skin it so it looks like a steak.
    • Probably laced with Arsenic/Belladona etc etc etc

  • by jkrise (535370) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:16PM (#30033962) Journal

    Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      uh. what?
      First off, there isn't going to be any ribbon interface.
      Secondly, Firefox is still focused on only being a browser, nothing else.
      What is this bloat?
      addons.mozilla.org is where all the bloat is.

      • by Neil Hodges (960909) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:30PM (#30034184)

        GP is confused due to this sort of news [pcpro.co.uk]. Parent is correct [mozilla.com] in that there will be no such interface.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Thanks non-AC.
          And of course, if you get right down to it...
          http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com]

          Now of course, Firefox has a process-per-tab build too, I just hope it never becomes default. (although forcing plugins into a separate process might be nice, esp since I whitelist Flash anyway)

          In terms of rendering speed, Firefox tends to be slightly ahead on rendering, and TM/SFX/V8 are basically all tied up way beyond IE8's JScript. TM does have a couple of issues. I'd say the work on implementing merge trac

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BrokenHalo (565198)
        Secondly, Firefox is still focused on only being a browser, nothing else.

        Exactly. Firefox has certainly got bigger over the years (though of course not bigger than its ancestor Mozilla), but it has also grown in the features it provides. If it had stayed at the minimal functional level it had at the earliest levels of its development, everybody would be whining that it doesn't offer enough features.

        We can't have it both ways. If we want more features, then we have to accept that they will take more cod
    • by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:26PM (#30034124) Homepage

      Which piece of bloat would you remove first?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by characterZer0 (138196)

        Awesomebar.

        • Uninstall Firefox. Install Opera.

          I'm just kidding. I really don't see any difference between the two... opera 10 seems as "bloaty" as Firefox 3. K-Meleon is nice-and-lean but buggy.

          I'd like to see Firefox optimized to run the same as now, but with less memory. I don't understand why programs in the early 2000s could run on only 32 meg, but now they need 256 meg (or more). It makes no sense.

          • by BZ (40346) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:52PM (#30035442)

            Gecko's memory usage now is less than it was in the early 2000s in many cases. So this particular program is actually using less memory than it was in the early 2000s. Since just the shared libraries for it are bigger than 32MB (uncompressed, on some OSes, etc), it's hard to see how it could fit in 32MB of RAM...

            If your question is why there are these big shared libraries, the answer is that it's trying to do too much. The SVG1.1 spec is about 800 pages last I checked. And this is not because it goes into excruciating detail or anything. The CSS2.1 spec is about 300 pages (and while it's better on the detail, it's not perfect). You just end up with a huge gob of code to handle all those behaviors the huge specs require.

            How much memory do you think a web browser handling modern web standards should take up? How does that number stack up against existing web browsers?

            There's also the data set. People think nothing of sending hundreds of kilobytes of JS per page to the browser (last I checked, cnn.com has upwards of 500KB of JS just linked directly from the page; who knows whether they load more?). People think nothing of sending large amounts of graphics, etc.

            Which brings us to the last point: programs are bigger because they _can_ be. If you have to fit into 32MB of RAM, then you can't just decode a 3000px by 3000px image into memory (it's be 4 * 3000 * 3000 bytes, or 36MB). You do it piece by piece and forget the pieces after painting them, or something. You don't even cache decoded smaller images, since it's so easy for that to fill up memory. If you feel like you have more ram to work with, you might make the space/performance tradeoff of keeping the decoded image in memory instead of decoding on every paint...

        • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:42PM (#30035280)

          You can disable it entirely (the functionality not just the look) in FF3.5, so what exactly is your problem with me using it?

          • by bcrowell (177657) on Monday November 09, 2009 @03:33PM (#30036902) Homepage

            You can disable it entirely (the functionality not just the look) in FF3.5, so what exactly is your problem with me using it?

            I spent a lot of time learning how to disable it as much as possible in firefox 3.0. It was a huge time-sink, and I still didn't succeed in disabling it entirely. So that in itself is a problem: there is functionality that a lot of people wanted to disable, and hated so much that they were willing to work hard to disable it, but they couldn't disable it. This reminds me of the situation with IE on Windows. A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.

            Are you saying that as of firefox 3.5 it is now possible (which it wasn't in 3.0) to easily and completely disable the awesome bar? If so then (a) please tell me how to do it, and (b) the fact that it's such a well-kept secret how to remove it shows that there is a problem with loading this much bloat into the browser.

            • by duguk (589689)

              Are you saying that as of firefox 3.5 it is now possible (which it wasn't in 3.0) to easily and completely disable the awesome bar? If so then (a) please tell me how to do it, and (b) the fact that it's such a well-kept secret how to remove it shows that there is a problem with loading this much bloat into the browser.

              Yes. It's about:config [about], then set "browser.urlbar.maxRichResults" to ZERO. Simple enough?

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by bcrowell (177657)

                Yes. It's about:config, then set "browser.urlbar.maxRichResults" to ZERO. Simple enough?

                Nope, I already knew about that setting, and it actually doesn't turn off the awesombar's behavior. Here are the two configuration settings that I know of that I've already applied:

                user_pref("browser.urlbar.maxRichResults",4); // only show 4 matches when typing in url bar
                user_pref("browser.urlbar.matchBehavior",2); // only match at word boundaries when typing in url bar

                With these settings, I still don't get back th

            • by nabsltd (1313397)

              Are you saying that as of firefox 3.5 it is now possible (which it wasn't in 3.0) to easily and completely disable the awesome bar? If so then (a) please tell me how to do it

              Depending on what you find objectionable, the MozillaZine Knowledge Base [mozillazine.org] has information that might help.

              If it's not the matching/searching/etc. that you object to, but rather just the multi-line display, then you need to edit userChrome.css and add something like the following:
              /* Set the location bar to show only URLs, on one line */
              .autocomplete-richlistitem spacer,.autocomplete-richlistitemlabel{display:none}
              .ac-title description{font-size:11px!important}
              .autocomplete-richlistitem{border:none!import

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              a) preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing

              b) It's not a well-kept secret it's just some people prefer to bitch about stuff rather than bother looking

              A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.

              No i think people that remove IE from windows are idiots, if you don't like some functionality don't use it, removing it from the OS to save 100MB on a 7GB install is a waste of time.

          • by nabsltd (1313397)

            Maybe I'm missing something in the "options" dialog, but I can't find anything that controls the look of the URL/location/awesome/whatever bar.

            OK, so you say I need to make some changes in "about:config". Not exactly easy, seeing as how not every configuration item exists by default, and the available help information is poor (to say the least).

            Once I work through all that, it turns out there isn't actually any way to disable the two-line display (which shows page titles along with URLS) without doing some

            • preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing, that completely disables the awesome bar.

              If you want to get the old bar then you need an extension or an about:config hack (browser.urlbar.maxRichResults=0, IRRC)

      • Which piece of bloat would you remove first?

        JavaScript.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        The [not] "awesome bar".

        Somehow it always makes it harder to find what I want, not easier [eg, for some reason, it appears to have decided that penny-arcade.com is the correct url when I type in "facebook"]

        And no; "just turn it off" studiously avoids the OP's complaint - which was that things like this shouldn't have needed to be added in the first place. How soon we forget - the name "phoenix" didn't even appeared in the news post [although it is in TFA].

        • by Jugalator (259273)

          And no; "just turn it off" studiously avoids the OP's complaint - which was that things like this shouldn't have needed to be added in the first place.

          But some people like to search in page content.

      • by Pascal Sartoretti (454385) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:18PM (#30034904)

        Which piece of bloat would you remove first?

        I am sure that many will say "the awesome bar". I don't. In fact, I use it so much that I think that I could now live without bookmarks.

        YMMV, of course.

        • I have my bookmarks toolbar filled with links (hide the text and only show icons) of all of my commonly visited sites. That combined with anything rare I want to return to being bookmarked by hitting the star. I not only don't need bookmarks but I've hidden the whole menu bar (It is now shown as a single icon to the left of the go back button). Also the awesome bar doesn't slow anything down, can be shut off and if you simply ignore it it won't react differently than the old bar.
      • by Zoxed (676559)

        > Which piece of bloat would you remove first?
        Built in RSS reader.
        Also:
        - Caching and filtering could easily be done in a separate process
        - Themes

    • Maybe bloated by your standards, but I use almost all of Firefox's features on a daily basis.

    • by y5 (993724) * on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:57PM (#30034616)

      I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes...

      As a web developer I actually appreciate the bloat. The average user does not have patience to look for extensions that fill in the core features that other browsers offer. Without the "bloat", those users would have likely stayed with IE, Microsoft would have no motivation to improve, and we'd likely be stuck developing for something much closer to IE6... ugh...

      So for me, bloat is forgivable -- I'm just happy we're finally at a spot where web standards are taking hold. It's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they're losing so much ground.

      Happy Birthday, Firefox =)

      • by y5 (993724) *

        It's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they're losing so much ground.

        Sorry, /if/ they're losing so much ground.

    • by Jugalator (259273) on Monday November 09, 2009 @02:12PM (#30035788) Journal

      Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.

      The original goal was to make a browser that was just a browser, not a suite of browsing, mail, newsgroups...

      Firefox is still that. This is why the Thunderbird project was started, and is still going, for that matter.

      It was intented to be a project that did a browser, and did a browser well. It wasn't about making minimalist barebones features everywhere. There are other browsers for even leaner feature sets.

    • by AP31R0N (723649)

      Bloat... or added features working within ever expanding RAM and HD space?

      i'm not saying that there is no bloat in FF. But rather, questioning whether we are calling it bloated because it is bigger. Bigger doesn't not mean bloated. An F-22 is much bigger than a P-51, but that's not bloat. It's improvement and dealing with modern options. The amount of RAM available in a 09 machine vs. an 04 is quite different. Processor speeds and HD space grew faster yet. The Wright Flyer didn't need radar. Should we

  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:19PM (#30034004) Homepage

    5 years old? It's getting on a bit and I imagine its memory is starting to suffer a bit. You could almost go as far as to say that it's memory might start leaking soon.

  • by syrinx (106469) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:25PM (#30034114) Homepage

    Been using it since one of the early Phoenix versions (0.4 probably) in late 2002. It has come a long way, certainly, though not everything is good, as everyone's posts about "bloat" show. Still, I much prefer it over any other browser.

    • by wiredog (43288)

      Netscape 1.0

      • by Kozz (7764)

        Blech. I stopped using the Netscape browser around version 4.72, long after most Netscape users had switched to IE5. I had to abandon Netscape for a while because it was so incredibly crash-prone and unstable. It pained me to do so.

        Did you actually hang in there with all versions of NN up through Firefox? If so, you've got the patience of a saint. ;)

      • No you haven't. Netscape was a completely different code base. Its like saying you've been using BSD since 1969.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by donaggie03 (769758)
      You may have jumped the gun a bit there. While I'm sure there's bound to be a few posts complaining about bloat, as of right now, there is only one serious one in this disucssion.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:38PM (#30034298)
    Firefox is great. But it's all the amazing addons that make it really shine. So kudos to Mozilla, but even more kudos to all the hard-working code monkeys who gave us addons like NoScript, Adblock, and (appropriate for this forum) Slashdotter.
    • For all those people who made scripts to disable features... I always find funny how Anti-Technology the slashdot community is. Everything was cool and gee-wiz until the late 90's then it is all get off my lawn and if it doesn't run a P2 then it is not worth running, dag nabbit, I was able to get by 10 years ago without fancy JavaScript I should still do so today... I WANT to download the full page every time I click a button. I don't want to use a little less bandwidth at the expense of extra CPU proces

    • And for web devs, the Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug people. Those guys are total heroes.
  • Open source cake! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Recipes here. You can pick your own and then compile it yourself:-)

    http://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/recipes/Cake

  • by Ardeaem (625311) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:39PM (#30034318)
    Come on, Firefox has such bad feature bloat. I just use Emacs-w3m to surf. It's just as nice, but instead of feature bloat, you get the web via Emacs!
  • by charleste (537078) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:47PM (#30034462)

    Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes
    Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes
    Hippo Birdie, dear Firefox
    Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes

    No one else sang.

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:48PM (#30034486) Homepage
    While it is fun to say that Firefox is all bloated now in comparison to when it started (and many comments above seem to say that) this misses four points: 1) Software naturally becomes larger with more features over time. 2) Many of the features added are very good and very helpful 3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity. It isn't like you are going to have a problem if you can't fit your web browsing program on your floppy disk or can't run it on 64K of memory. The real issue with Firefox is much more limited: There are memory leaking and stability issues that should have been better handled by now. Instead of adding all the features that have been added (some of which are very nice) many people would likely simply prefer to have just the really commonly used features and have it not crash so frequently.
    • by netsavior (627338)
      3) We live in an era where memory is not a precious commodity.
      No, we live in an era where the configurations and limitations for each machine are incredibly diverse.
      Anyone still have FireFox as your primary browser on a 1.6 atom netbook after the June 30th release? How is that working out for you?
      Default configuration for XP for HP 1010s worked fine, install firefox and you're good to go. Now FF is so much worse, even maxed on RAM, you cannot watch Hulu or Netflix streaming on them.
      Oh Noes you shoul
  • 5 Years (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pgn674 (995941) on Monday November 09, 2009 @12:58PM (#30034624) Homepage
    Here's the Slashdot story from 5 years ago: Slashdot | Firefox 1.0 Released [slashdot.org]
  • In a continuation of the Open Source Mozilla party started in January 1998, the ongoing Firefox party has now reached it's five year mark. Mozilla.org announced their intention to keep the party going indefinitely.

    The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy describes the Mozilla / Firefox party as follows:

    The longest and most destructive party ever held is now into its fourth generation, and still no one shows any signs of leaving. Somebody did once look at his watch, but that was eleven years ago, and there has b

  • I *still* think they should have renamed it "Suzaku".

  • NY Times Ad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bucklesl (73547) on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:23PM (#30034996) Homepage
    I can't believe it will have been 5 years in December since supporters chipped in to place an ad in the NY Times [mozilla.org]. I'd definitely help place another one if only to get my name in the paper again! I hear the NY Times needs the revenue (*cough* adblock *cough*).
  • by rmcd (53236) * on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:24PM (#30035004)

    Just curious to know if I'm alone. As the web has gotten more bloated (not just firefox), I find I use lynx more for quick, routine checking of websites. And you can script it.

    I like firefox a lot, but sometimes Lynx is better.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Why use lynx? Why not use something that renders a little more nicely, like elinks or w3m? There's even image support if you want it. There's also dillo, which is graphical, but still really fast as it doesn't support things like javascript. I can't think of any reason to use lynx anymore.

    • by godrik (1287354)
      I usually prefer w3m for those things (in particular to read the HTML mails in mutt). but lynx get the job done as well.
    • by Nimey (114278)

      I like ELinks in console mode, but I still fire up lynx now and again for kicks. Back in '99 to '02 I used lynx exclusively and had it open images in zgv, so I could still read webcomics and see what weather was on the radar, and yet not wait ages for pages to load on the dorm's overloaded connection.

      Did you know that lynx has a very basic Usenet client built in? That's what I used before I settled on slrn.

    • by skeeto (1138903)
      I use Lynx for the occasion when a program has an http configuration which is binded only to the loopback device, and I want to give it a quick check over ssh.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JeffSchwab (1159723) *

      I'm not sure why this got modded "funny." A lot of my Linux interaction is command-line only, and elinks is a life-saver. On occasion, e.g. when the only documentation for a package is in HTML, the console-mode browser is almost indispensable.

  • by cygnusx (193092) * on Monday November 09, 2009 @01:41PM (#30035268) Homepage

    I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.5 (December 2002 iirc, almost seven years now) and I have to say, the community process and the extensions make Firefox what it is.

    Yes, these days there's another open source browser on the block (Chrome) and it too is very good. But it's great to have Mozilla and Firefox around because you can be sure that Mozilla will look after users' interests far more than Google or Microsoft will. If nothing else, it keeps the others honest.

    So congratulations Firefox, and here's to five more years!

  • Weren't many of us using (at least trying) Firefox well before the 1.0 release? I thought I remembered using 0.8 or something. So isn't Firefox older than 5 years?

  • check out this Slashdot story about Phoenix 0.2: http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/10/07/1739241.shtml [slashdot.org]

    I remember Mozilla and its slowness and seemingly hundreds of configuration options that I didn't care about. It was like they were trying to fit every possible feature into the software. Then I tried Phoenix and it was so much more pleasant to use, even at that young stage. I'm happy to see Firefox has survived this long and remains, for the most part, as great to use now as those early days.

  • ...and I think it is major win for all of us. Without Firefox it would be harder for Opera, Chrome, Safari to shine. Firefox pushed compatibility level of writing web pages, so for last years usually when you have done with FF, page worked for rest of bunch too (ok, except JS which is still major PITA). Yes, our mighty fox have experienced several shortcomings time after time, but overall, it have been smooth ride.

    Ohh, and it has been excellent study case and example that with clever crowd marketing, art te

  • Hmm... This is the initial announcement I found from Sept 24, 2002... Back before the project was renamed Firebird, then FireFox

      Enjoy: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/09/24/1215252 [slashdot.org]

  • Is there anyone who used the old Mozilla browser and mail suite who doesn't hate Firefox/Thunderbird? I don't understand how anyone can like the dumbed-down Firefux and Thunderturd apps.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...