Mozilla 1.0 RC2 is out 412
ferratus writes "The Mozilla organization just released the second release candidate for the upcoming 1.0 due out in a few weeks. See the updated release note and remember to see the mirror list before hitting the main server."
According to Bugzilla... (Score:2)
Re:According to Bugzilla... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/slashdot/index.html
shows:
Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.
Slashdot is really the bully of the net
Re:According to Bugzilla... (Score:2, Informative)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cg
damn HTTP_REFERRER
(im)proper HTTP header spelling (Score:2)
with only one "R".
The original writers of the HTTP protocol were somewhat careless spellers, but the protocol got adopted "as-is". it's really moot but this may confuse you when configuring your httpd.conf or writing CGI code and looking for a slightly-misspelled http header :)
cheers!
Re:According to Bugzilla... (Score:2)
Mozilla Has Finally Crossed The Line (Score:2)
[This is not intended to be a karma whore message. These comments are my honest reactions to RC2. I have already hit the karma cap.]
In my humble opinion, based on the speed of this browser, the overall feel of the menus, the way the messages in the status bar work, the handling of text boxes in forms, the (much improved!) snappiness of the menus, inclusion of CCS2 and overall feel of the way everything fits together, this browser is finally in a position to be called "Ready for Primetime."
Past builds, even RC1 did not have the menu snappiness. There was a noticeable lag when changing menus and cancelling out of the preferences. The messages in the status bar would stutter. Pull down menus did not pull down as fast. My 0.99 would crash every 5 minutes on linux but not windows.
To the Mozilla crew: This is fantastic. Finally there is an open source windows browser that is ready to challenge IE. Great work everyone and kudos to everyone who helped the project. If things stay on track, RC3 should be amazing. I now will seriously consider this browser to be a viable recommendation for an alternate to MSIE for non-technical users. After some more testing, I may rank it (in my head) above opera.
Now if only.... (Score:2, Funny)
Better story about RC2 (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla 1.0 RC 2 has just been released and is already available for download [mozilla.org]. This is what has changed from the previous RC [mozilla.org]. New stuff include support for "HTTP pipelining" [mozilla.org], something which can increase performance by 50%! (disabled by default, check the releases notes).
This was the story I have submitted, Slashdot staff is weird, really.. =)
Re:Better story about RC2 (Score:2, Informative)
Au revoir link-toolbar (Score:5, Informative)
Back for 1.1, hopefully...
Re:Au revoir link-toolbar (Score:2)
Re:Au revoir link-toolbar (Score:4, Informative)
--Asa
Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla is good, mozilla is great. The only thing keeping me from using it over Konqueror right now is the fact it seems to ignore my proxy setting. I use The Internet Junkbuster [junkbuster.com] to remove unwanted (read: all) ads and other things. Mozilla up to RC1 seems to overlook this and I see ads all over the place. It may be due to JavaScript url fetching not going through the proxy, but I'm not sure
And don't tell me to use moz's built-in ad blocking, because I've already got a huge blockfile, I want to block for all browsers across the network, and it usually screws up rendering to use the builtin stuff anyway.
This is a great web browser; it's really faster than other GUI browsers I've used, renders nicely, and has all the features. But until it respects proxies (I use Squid [squid-cache.org] to cache stuff too, helps a lot when all you've got is a modem), I can't use it. :-(
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Informative)
I think mozilla rules. Go mozilla.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Informative)
And here is the text for those too lazy to scroll down....
Mozilla needs to be configured to work properly with proxies such as Junkbuster that do not support the most recent HTTP specification. By default, Mozilla tries to use HTTP 1.1. To use Mozilla with a proxy that only supports HTTP 1.0, edit the HTTP Version from 1.1 to 1.0 in Edit | Preferences | Debug | Networking. (Bug 38488)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
Yep, Privoxy is great. For most users, the fact that it supports HTTP/1.1 is enough. What's a real killer, is the ability to to modify the block/rewrite rules via the built-in web interface.
The new configuration file formats are not altogether clear, nor are they concise. For lazy users, getting their blockfiles updated without the need to edit those files by hand is a blessing. Especially getting the blockfile rulesets right takes a good amount of time, because there are so many options to choose from. Not to mention that the default behaviour (so far) has been to accept all cookies by default.
I have also encountered two websites that show an empty page through Privoxy, although the action log doesn't state that anything was blocked. Once I find a third one, I'm going to report that behaviour to the development team so they have a good set to work with. But other than these few glitches, it works absolutely great.
Yes, I do miss the simple "prefix address with tilde to let it through" blockfile format. I also understand that the new features allow for much more and hence require a bit more sophisticated configuration format.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Actually, joking aside, Konqueror kicks butt. I'm simply amazed what the KDE folks have done with the very little time and resources they have had to make such fine suff. If the Mozilla team was as procudtive at the KDE team, Mozilla would be sentient right about now.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm actually working on a proxy server myself which resolves this problem, and is much faster than junkbuster (does keepalive and is multithreaded). check it out, the url is in my sig </PLUG>
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
If all you have is a modem, then wwwoffle [demon.co.uk] is an even better proxy server than Squid, because it knows about 'online' and 'offline'. If you go offline then the proxy server never tries to download anything - it always serves the page in the cache without checking the (unreachable) server for a new version. So you can browse through already-visited sites without any hassle.
More than that, if you visit while offline a page you haven't seen before, then wwwoffle returns a message saying 'I don't have this page, but I will fetch it'. Next time you go online, you can run 'wwwoffle -fetch' and all the queued pages will be fetched. So in effect you can keep browsing while the phone line is disconnected, and then 'catch up' afterwards.Re:see the hipocrats (Score:2)
Note: I'm as anonymous for protection from the hipocrats...
Re:note (Score:2)
Re:see the hipocrats (Score:2)
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Insightful)
This guy EXPECTS mozilla to respect it's adkiller tools, yet he doesn't care to even help the sites he is looking at that base their revenue on ads.
If you don't find an ad usefull and you don't pay attention to it, it's ok. If you are concerned about your privacy is ok. But if you mod me down (go ahead, i don't care) for merely expresing my point of view, then it speaks for the biasedness of moderators.
And beign pro open source and avid slashdot reader, i never trully realized how much this moderation hurts the discusions, putting away all the mess that _we don't want_ to read.
Also, i would like to ask to the guy that uses these adkillers and to the people that modded my initial post down if they are paying for a slashdot subscription (so that they don't see the ads). And if they are not paying it, if they are using it when they visit slashdot. And lastly, if they don't think it's at least one tiny bit unfair to "have the no-ad" version without paying what the site owners.
Eat my karma, i prefer my dignity.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Informative)
First of all: you guys rule, the HTTP 1.0 thing worked great. I'll have to see if I can make Junkbuster HTTP-1.1-aware sometime.
Second: free-riding. Well, it goes like this. I've always ad-filtered since I discovered Junkbuster (and will soon try Privoxy, because I've wanted HTML-filtering for awhile too), because ads are annoying and are the largest consumer of my meager 2k/s bandwidth. So screw ads. Web pages look lots prettier without them.
That said, I have nothing against supporting sites I like, especially this one. I support IGN [ign.com] but subscribing to IGN Insider. [ign.com] for over $20 a year. You know what? It was the best $20 subscription I've ever bought. IGN has lots of content, up-to-date stories, the IGN Unplugged PDF magazine (free for insiders). $20 a year for daily updates is great.
What's the difference? IGN's subscription is value-added. I pay to get stuff I didn't have before. Slashdot's subscription is stupid: I pay to not get something I had. In fact, since there's junkbuster (the geek solution; isn't this a geek site?) I'm paying for not getting something I already didn't have. Kinda silly.
When slashdot starts offering exclusive pay-only features with enough value-added pay-only content, you will see me being the first to pay $20 a year to subscribe. Spellchecked and slightly edited stories would be kinda nice too.
Think of it like this. If the RIAA started giving away CDs (ok, implausible, but follow me here ;-)) that had ads between tracks, and offered ad-free versions for $20, would you pay or just rip and skip those tracks?
Add value, ask money for it, I'm there. Otherwise, something strikes a sour note in my geek side for paying for not getting something I could avoid anyway.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
It truly confirms my views. I'm glad I've been moderated down on this one, just to remember me beign more doesn't mean being right (i had forgotten that).
And by the way, I still do not know how can your post be insightfull if you where just plain wrong, blaming the great mozilla for a problem traced to your particular adkiller software?
Trully awakened now...
Privoxy is junkbuster. (Score:3, Informative)
Then his site seemed to stop updating, and many people wondered what had happened
But soon, the software was brought back [privoxy.org] by some great efforts by other people. It has many features I like. However, there are still bugs keeping it from 3.0:
* It stops responding after a few days unless you HUP it.
* It doesn't re-gzip data after it's been deziped and filtered.
* The re_filterfile code sometimes doesn't work (I use it to filter Google's link-wrapping, which I feel is a big of a cheater's way of looking at what I go to)
* Some minor HTTP 1.1 unhappyness.
All in all, a good piece of software -- just not complete (yet).
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
The subscription money is not to block the ads, but to fund the website. Seen you are a huge fan of Slashdot (you have a userid of #379) i cannot really believe you don't find value added in slashdot.
Regarding the support of "IGN", I opted to support the FSF with a $35 donation. And i get a value added from them, they protect our rights. Yes, your rights as well as mine.
Good luck!
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
[ First, I use both Mozilla and IE (my employer has pages that are designed only for IE, and it's their computer anyway, so fine.) I have Mozilla running through the Proxomitron filtering out ads, but I have IE running straight. ]
Anyway, I accidentally went to some news site on the IE browser. O My God! It has been literally years since I saw crap like that on my screen. These giant flashing blocks of color went sweeping across the screen, swooping up to an advertisement. The banner ads across the top were flashing contrasting colors so violently and rapidly that I had to scroll them out of view before I could focus on the text. I then closed IE (and the pop-unders it had left behind) and brought the same news site up in Mozilla behind the Proxomitron. I'm very serious, all I could see was the news article, but all I could feel was an overwhelming pity for folks who don't have blocking software.
Am I taking a free ride? I have certain sites that I frequent in my Proxomitron bypass list, and occasionally click on an ad just to give them a hit or two. (Hi Thinkgeek!) I pay for the shareware I use. I support faqs.org via the Amazon Honor System. The next time I use sneakemail, I'm sending them $12. Others (such as that news site) inspire me to implement and even write new filters. But is it a free ride?
So now I have other questions. Do you hit "30-second skip" on your ReplayTV remote while watching prerecorded shows? If you don't own a ReplayTV, do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape? Do you wait for the end of a TV show to go to the bathroom, or do you temporarily forget your ethics, sneak out and do it while the commercials are on? Are you taking a free ride then?
It gets even more absurd: does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper because you feel you have to read all the ads before you read the comics? Do you read every flyer tucked under your windshield wiper? Of course not! Nobody does. But where do you draw the line? So, then what makes it OK to dodge this ad because it's on paper or videotape, but not duck that ad because it's on the web?
Ads on TV still hit lots of viewers -- those who are watching real-time, those who can't afford a VCR, those who are watching a TV not under their control. Ads on the web still hit lots of viewers, too -- those who aren't savvy enough to realize they don't have to.
My vote is this: advetisers that are patently offensive (flash, animation, javascript, DHTML, motion or blinking all qualify to me) should be blocked on principle. For example, I haven't felt the need to run out and write a 'Google Sponsored Link blocking filter,' but I sure devoted time to wipe out a handful of obscene javascript and flash tricks. I view ads on a few selected sites. So, am I free-riding? I've finally decided that I don't care if I am.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would, but if everyone used ReplayTV, there would be no free channels whatsoever. So I do undestand I am killing their revenues and my favorite shows as well.
"Do you fast forward through the commercials at the start of a video tape?"
Of course is skip them, I paid for movie and that's how keeps movies alive (i sometimes watch them thought, to see the new movies trailers).
"does it take you two hours to read a "free" newspaper"
No. I am not saying you should pay attention to any ad. Just read the paper, if an ad happens to catch your attention, then great. If not, then that's ok. Same with the TV, you don't NEED to watch the commercials. But completely baring them from existing (ReplayTV) will kill your shows. And if it does not, it means that a lot of people are supporting the show (by not using ReplayTV).
ReplayTV is great. But those shows are paid by companies that (to fund the shows) expect you see one or two ads from time to time.
"But where do you draw the line?"
IMHO, where you have drawn it seems fair enough (to sometimes block some ads from high polution sites, but with a caring attitude)
Thanks for your post (you seem to care).
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2, Insightful)
insightful? What a laod of crap. They did come up with another way of dunding TV back in the day, its called the BBC - no adverts, no product placment, enforce £100 a year.
Do you subscribe to all the websites you go to? Or are you a freeloader?
Oh and to the mods - if you mod me down I've got 47 other points to come back with - and I really dont care.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
This guy which ask that mozilla respect his proxy setting does not respect the website will to display an ad. Can it be technicaly done? Yes. But is it ok? I don't think so.
A note: I don't make money with ads, but i respect a site wich is funded by ads. I don't necesarilly look at the ads, but some times I find them usefull.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
Anyway, i already stated that the problem is not technical or wheter i can force them to load the ads. It's the attitude. I find this usefull but i don't care if you can survive or if i am helping you just by loading this ad.
This is the same exact reason loki and many other great companies got broke. While some people helped, the mayority just though they could get it for free (as in no contribution at all). A shame.
Re:Does it respect proxies yet? (Score:2)
Oh, i see. I'd tend to think that it would depend on what is beign adverticed. And not the fact that advertisement is for idiots and that free-riding is for the EliT3z.
Sure, i'm tired of the casino ads and shoot the monkey. No, i don't think that means adverticing is a bad thing per se.
Alternate Mail Handlers (Score:4, Insightful)
Mail Handler : sylpheed -to %email
Or something to that effect. Maybe a substitution for ?subject= as well.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
Re:Alternate Mail Handlers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Alternate Mail Handlers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Alternate Mail Handlers (Score:3, Informative)
woohoo (Score:2, Funny)
Such irony!
Re:woohoo (Score:5, Funny)
Nukem Forever will get released. *grin*
Re:woohoo (Score:3, Funny)
Bug list too big for prime time (Score:2)
Especially obnoxious are bugs like trashing the preference files [mozilla.org] on upgrades from Netscape. If they can't do that right, they shouldn't try to do it at all.
Re:Bug list too big for prime time (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could show you the "known defect list" for the software on your computer. I don't care what it's running. It's long.
Software sucks. Mozilla less then most. And this is the big run up to 1.0, after all.
Do you expect perfection? Are you prepared to pay the millions of dollars it costs you? (And still sometimes lose the rocket to a small, small bug...?)
Re:Bug list too big for prime time (Score:2)
If it doesn't work, it should be turned off in the released product. For example, ChatZilla probably shouldn't be in 1.0, because it doesn't work yet. It should only be in some later beta.
Re:Bug list too big for prime time (Score:2)
Get Mozilla Now! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm stuck on a Windows machine at work, and I've been using MSIE 6.0 to surf, and once I learned about Mozilla's ability to block pop-ups and the tabbed browsing feature, I switched, and I'm not looking back. It's about time someone added these features. I just wish I had learned about them sooner. I was actually beginning to dread getting online because of pop-ups, but now I can surf with impunity again.
If you are in the same situation I was, download and install Mozilla now. You'll thank yourself later.
Icons? (Score:2)
I use Mail all day and open several browser windows and if I'm not careful to open the Mail app first, I can never find it because all the icons are the same!
Here's another weird thing - When I open my Mail first, it always opens a browser window trying to find: something and forwards to www.oingo.com owned by IdeaLabs. Do I have some sort of spyware on my computer or is this normal? I can't find anything in the prefs.js file... I'm using RC2 right now and it seems to do the same thing...
-Russ
Re:Icons? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.lotekk.net/index.php?page=moz&sub=icon
This is a link that will auto-install the icons (and some additional ones including for "mail compose" and bookmark windows) into Mozilla for the title bar:
http://www.grayrest.com/moz/resources/icons.shtml [grayrest.com]
Lotekk.net [lotekk.net] has a few other useful Mozilla tricks, like some alternative Splash box graphics and a couple of search engine additions to the sidebar.
Google Search [google.com] can get you more references as well.
Re:Icons? (Score:2)
YYEEEEESSS!!! These are GREAT! Thanks!
-Russ
Re:Icons? (Score:2)
Oh Christ. What a dumbass reply. I hope that you were trying to be funny because if not you're a total moron.
Get a clue... I was asking whether or not this minor detail will be addressed in the 1.0 release. I'm quite sure no one wants the crappy icons that I would come up with anyway (I'd probably just copy Netscape's like I did for my toolbar...)
-Russ
Re:Icons? (Score:2)
I have, and I don't have anything that it can find.
I'm actually chatting on irc://moznet/mozillazine right now and I just confirmed that other people go to oingo.com when they type "find:" with some text in their url bar. like "find:blabblah".
That's very interesting. Now I just wonder why it does this when I start the mail app with the mozilla.exe -mail command...
-Russ
T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is riddled stupid looking cheap, white software promo t-shirts. Mozilla folks: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't do this. Charge the whole whopping $2-$3 you'll need to make it a NICE shirt.
Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! (Score:2)
ABSOLUTELY PERFECT MY GOOD MAN! EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND!
Re:T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! T-SHIRTS! (Score:2)
A red star with a red dino in the middle all on a black t-shirt. And below the star, the word: Hack, subtitled "this technology could fall into the right hands".
Unfortunately, the only time they're given out is at the developer conferences for $10/a pop (where I got mine).
What I'd like to see is a commemorative CD with the 1.0 releases and source code on it.
Where's the criticism? (Score:2)
I hate to sound like a troll, but there's an obvious double standard here.
Re:Where's the criticism? (Score:5, Insightful)
--Asa
Re:Where's the criticism? (Score:3, Informative)
--Asa
one website that screws it up (Score:2)
Mozilla (even RC2, I just tried it) hangs when you're almost done answering the questions on the third page.
Konqueror 3 seems to have a problem with the Next button -- it just clears the radio buttons and returns the same (first) page.
Amusingly, i got through the whole thing with Links!!!! But due to the lack of Alt tags, I couldn't figure out where to go once I got through it.
I'm not sure if I can bring myself to fire up Netscape 4.79. Aaaaugh, the pain of even THINKING of using that peice of junk again!
Re:one website that screws it up (Score:2)
Re:one website that screws it up (Score:2)
Re:one website that screws it up (Score:2)
Hmm if it works in Galeon but not Mozilla it probably has nothing to do with Gecko. But it DID hang BOTH times I tried it with Moz, roughly at the same spot (no pun intended).
And for me it suggested Spokane and Anchorage. They both sound good to me.
crashes on me on "wants to load image, allow?" (Score:2)
Danny.
CSS rendering bug (Score:2)
Mozilla incorrectly renders this w3c CSS1 "float" test [w3.org]. How do I determine if this is known: what kind of bug do I search for? If it is not known, where and how should I file it, or should I report it to a Mozilla insider to file for me?
Re:CSS rendering bug (Score:3, Insightful)
That and the failure of any test of standards to validate in an HTML validator kinda casts doubt on the validity of the test...
Re:CSS rendering bug (Score:2)
Use Xprint for printing in UNIX (Score:4, Interesting)
Xprint replaces the underlying XFree86 drawing primatives with ones that generate PostScript. Mozilla has the necessary code to support this and it can easily be activated. This results in printouts that look almost exactly like the display. It will even print wacko fonts by downloading them or, as a last resort, embedding them as bitmats. If you have good Type1 font's it looks pretty good. It is very popular with non-U.S./Canadian users for just this reason. There's minor setup but it's all explained in detail here:
Using Xprint with Mozilla [erols.com]
I'd like to see this developed further so the distros catch on and support it. Spread the word.
Download Manager (Score:2)
No source RPMs for RC2? (Score:2)
1.0 Really? (Score:2)
US control? (Score:2)
Considering the fact that Mozilla is under the GPL and the mirrors are not in the US I don't see how the US has the right to claim jurisdiction over the code. Also add to this the crucial fact that many of the programmers involved do not live in the US. What happens to contributors who happen to live in one of those countries? I know that it is just blowing smoke, there is no possible way to enforce this blockade on software but where does the US get the legal, or ethical right, to control the distribution of the Mozilla source code which is an INTERNATIONAL effort.
Re:US control? (Score:2)
It makes no claim to control the distribution of anything not originating in the US. If you want to put a server under US jursidiction, then yes, the US will restrict what you can export from that server, and to where.
RC1 was a terrible release. (Score:2, Troll)
By now I am sure most people have seen that Mozilla RC1 has been released [mozilla.org]
The press has picked this up and now there are a number of reviews [mozillazine.org]
They all fail to compare RC1 to the last release (0.99) which leads to almost
all positive feedback.
The truth is that Mozilla really screwed up their release process. This is the
worst stable Mozilla build I have tested in the last year. They litterally
broke every rule in the book:
- They introduced major UI changes which are incompatible with all of the builds
since 0.80 or so.
- Saving files locally (at least on my system) is totally broken. Want to save
a PDF file locally?
- They have completely changed around a lot of the preferences. Where did
these come from?
There are also numerous other small bugs.
RC1 should have been 0.99 with *only* patches to fix critical bugs. How many
release candidates do they expect to have?
Will there every be a Mozilla 1.0 or is it just going to be asymptotic to 1.0?
Watch out for flaky skins! (emergency fix) (Score:2)
Use the mirrors they say! (Score:2, Interesting)
I went through EVERY
DHTML compatability is perfect (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, this code has already been carefully constructed to be compatible with NS4,NS6 and IE, but still, I'm impressed.
If you like tabs, stick with RC1 (Score:3, Informative)
This bug seems to have been reported several times in Bugzilla.. but if you're a tab maniac, you might want to stick with RC1. It's annoying that you focus the tab you want to close every time now..
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Re:What gives?.. (Score:5, Informative)
--Asa
Re:What gives?.. (Score:2)
Make sure you keep your plugins... I sometimes forget to do that..
Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the right conclusion. That measure is taken in addition to many others. And is designed to protect your profile from attacks to other software too!
Suppose your profile were stored in a fixed well-known location like c:/program files/mozilla/profiles. Suppose you still used outlook (eew!). A worm which gains access to reading files could easily get your profile! And there was no security bug in mozilla in that. So randomizing the directory avoids some kind of attacks. Everything counts!
Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, take a nanosecond to think, or at least to ponder the definition of the term you use, before you post something.
Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity.... (Score:2)
Egads... twidle dee dum trolls away... (Score:2)
Security through obscurity defines the act of concealing flaws in the hope that since 'nobody' knows about them an expoit won't we found by crackers. This well established Microsoft practice has done little to shield them from the major exploitation of the security problems that plague Windows whilst the open approach of such systems as Linux have yielded very robust and securable platforms.
I must assume you are trolling in the hopes of either gathering attention or spreading FUD. I hope you enjoy looking like a moron.
Re:Mozilla employs security through obscurity.... (Score:2)
Note, that many attacks are really primitive, and against those blunt attacks simple measures do help, so why not employ them?
Re:Are back menus fixed yet? (Score:2)
Er, isn't the whole point of context menus that they're kinda, you know, contextual in their function?
The act of context-clicking on an image most likely indicates an urge to do something with that image, like save, open or deface it. Navigation items are much more appropriate in the context of clicking on a blank area of the page.
Incidentally, Galeon approaches this by taking the navigation tools onto the bottom of the image context menu. It makes for a really, really ugly and annoyingly large context menu. I consider this a bug.
Re:Are back menus fixed yet? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are back menus fixed yet? (Score:2)
Re:please!!! produce an unstripped linux nightly (Score:4, Informative)
--Asa
Re:4.79 communicator for me (Score:2)
Re:4.79 communicator for me (Score:2)
Re:Just to keep us more informed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Check out this great Mozilla easter egg! (Score:2)
Re:plug-ins (Score:3, Informative)
Yes - it can cause Win2K to BSOD - Re:Odd problems (Score:3, Informative)
There is also a bug on it [mozilla.org]. The bug has been marked as INVALID because the powers that be deemed it impossible for Mozilla to crash Win2K. If it's valid to your situatiom, please comment on it, and perhaps it will get re-opened.