Mozilla Rolls Out Firefox 3.6 RC, Nears Final 145
CWmike writes "Mozilla has shipped a release candidate build of Firefox 3.6 that, barring problems, will become the final, finished version of the upgrade. Firefox 3.6 RC1, which followed a run of betas that started in early November, features nearly 100 bug fixes from the fifth beta that Mozilla issued Dec. 17. The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page. Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox. The code was pointed out by a Mozilla contributor, and after digging, another developer found the original Microsoft license agreement. 'Amusingly enough, it's actually really permissive. Really the only part that's problematic is the agreement to "include the copyright notice ... on your product label and as a part of the sign-on message for your software product,"' wrote Kyle Huey on Mozilla's Bugzilla. Even so, others working on the bug said the code needed to be replaced with Mozilla's own."
So what was the code from? (Score:2)
Inglorious Netscape days, or sneaked in by some saboteur into Mozilla/Firefox?
Re: (Score:2)
Inglorious Netscape days, or sneaked in by some saboteur into Mozilla/Firefox?
I thought the new, hip thing to do was blame it on your contractors.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So what was the code from? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then for some of my clients' intranet sites, there's this thing about not being able to turn off security for "risky" (certificate broken) sites that pose no threat but I have no control over and have to add an exception for every time. The browser.ssl_override_behavior setting is there, but it is completely ignored now, just like the "never update" option.
Every new version of Firefox removes my control a little more, and it has gotten really old. It makes me wonder what version 3.6 is going to bring--if anything--and why they keep changing things for the sake of changing them.
Re:So what was the code from? (Score:4, Interesting)
> I get a new Firefox update.
Have you tried disabling updates if that's what you want ?
Preferences -> Advanced -> updates...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a soft-block, the user is prompted whether to disable the known-vulnerable plug-in.
There are also provisions for a hard-block. This would be _very_ unlikely to happen unless a plug-in had an announced security vulnerability being actively exploited and disabling it doesn't break too much, so not likely at all for Flash. If it did happen, there is no user-facing UI to turn off the block. That said, you could edit blocklist.xml in the Firefox install to remove the relevant entry. Or edit nsBlocklistSe
Re: (Score:2)
I have a prehistoric Moz sitting on an old distro that I have kept since it picked up my webcam before the next release started ignoring it. Back then it wasn't 'self aware' to phone home and check for updates. Didn't see the point as I was using the distro less and less, but the Moz skin http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/negativemod.html [mozdev.org] sure is beyond compare, and I've kept it that way since.
Hmmm considering one poster below said to stick to 'browsers of that era' if your RAM is 'of that era', I think I'd g
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, you could just deny Firefox from writing to its own installation directory. That would be the ideal way to prevent such a thing, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "never" or "ask me later" buttons on the dialog I think you're talking about. There's a "Restart Firefox now" button and a "Later" button. The "Later" button installs the update the next time you start Firefox.
Perhaps, but the alternative is far worse for the vast majority of users.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of a package manager and a repository.
Steam works quite well as a package manager and repository. Sure, it caters specific class of packages, but so does Gentoo's repository.
Will they both expand? Eventually.
Don't be blind to the existence of competent package managers under Windows simply because they don't smell like Portage or have /etc/portage/package.* files for you to dick around with.
Re:So what was the code from? (Score:4, Insightful)
Heres my guess:
Statistically out of every 10 Windows users 7 will be average (mom, dad, grandma, etc) , 1 user will be a moron and will fall for every phishing and malware attack, 1 will be a moderately advanced user and 1 will be a fairly advanced user / developer.
When you're dealing with that kind of audience, your goals are *vastly* different than highly customizable operating systems like Linux. Your criticisms are minor and superficial. Given *ANY* UI decision you can find users that disagree with it. Calling it proof is frankly laughable.
If you're interested in why windows is "bloated" you can read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx [msdn.com]
As far as RAM is concerned, firefox itself is going to consume/require several hundred megs for an average user visiting youtube and other misc. flash heavy websites. That said, I don't have a clue what the actual RAM usage levels are of Win7 vs Ubuntu 9.10
Re: (Score:2)
The former.
well super (Score:2, Offtopic)
Is it possible to check for updates as a normal user on Windows yet?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No because this is a Release Candidate. 'Normal' users using release (final) software, only get update notifications for release software.
Anyone on the beta update channel would have seen this RC available as a normal update any time from several days ago.
Re:well super (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh, slashdot. Come for the condescension, stay for the pedantry. Unpriveleged users don't get offered or notified of updates in 3.5. You can't even use the built in facility to manually check for an update. It is actually less secure to use Firefox as an unpriveleged user than it is to run as an admin unless you actively go and see what the latest release is.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually as I get prompted for UAC elevation on updates I hadn't realised this was a problem and just assumed your original post was written with condescension and/or bad English.
Re: (Score:2)
And no I hadn't even glanced at your UID till just now.
Re: (Score:2)
The Firefox install I have on my Windows machine at work gets updates all the time, and my account isn't a local admin. In fact, I just started it, and it applied updates from the last time it was running. I also used the "check for updates" menu item to find that there was another version available (I don't usually use that machine, which is why there were so many updates).
It is running XP. Maybe this is a Vista/7 problem? Or maybe it's because I installed Firefox using the user account, so that accoun
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Isn't the whole point of being a normal user on Windows that the OS shouldn't let you install those updates?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but a notice for normal users that an update is available and that they should notify their system administrator would be nice I guess. Enabling updates for normal users might seem nice from a home desktop user perspective but it is a no go in corporate environments.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Firefox is horrible to administer in corporate environments already. Adding a hidden pref that is only settable at the system level wouldn't make this any worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Under Linux you can su and/or sudo and under Windows you can right-click and run-as... (it prompts for the password, if the account has one).
Stop this useless discussion...
Admin is for administering the system and updating. User is for using the system set up by the administrator.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to have an updated version (or install extensions, etc.), use the portable version. It's meant to be installed to USB, but it works just fine from a local drive.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable [portableapps.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Gaining write access to the appropriate parts of the system isn't the problem. Finding out that I'm three security updates behind on my home machine is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of other apps know how to elevate to administrator using UAC. Even a notification that an update is available would be swell. Graying out the check for updates menu item.... not so swell.
Re:well super (Score:5, Funny)
You know who else knows how to elevate?
The Daleks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can install it as a normal user. Here's how:
1. Log into Windows as a normal user.
2. Double click installer.
3. Windows prompts you to elevate automatically. Enter password for elevation.
4. Install. Close down FF if it runs after install because it is running as admin.
Then, as a normal user, start Firefox. You are logged in as your normal user and running the browser you just installed. But mysteriously FF's update feature is completely turned off. It doesn't even WARN you that there is an update p
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can sort of see two use cases here. On many corporate installs the version is intentionally held back, and then you don't want the user to be bugged on every launch about upgrades that he can't and aren't supposed to install. I have had that at times and it's very frustrating. I do understand it sucks for anyone being their own admin though.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree that the corporate use-case is different. However Firefox is notoriously annoying to corp admins because they want to customize the install and manage it using a software distribution system. Microsoft provides an IE customization and management kit that allows this, but Mozilla does not have anything similar for Firefox. If they had that it would be the natural place to put in such a feature.
I can understand, though I disagree with, the logic that says regular users shouldn't install updat
Re: (Score:2)
Well, presumably some code-signing can alleviate those concerns, but if not, downloading-after would be fine. At least it would be _possible_ to update it somehow, instead of the asinine way it works now.
Re: (Score:2)
Memeory Leaks (Score:1, Troll)
What memory leaks you ask?
I have 1 tab open(This slashdot article)... my only add on is the Google Toolbar.
Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.
Firefox doesn't properly clear out memory of closed tabs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seconded, I tend to leave my browser window open at all times on my machine, and every other day or so the mem usage hits over 1GB and slows my computer slows to a crawl. It would be wonderful if they fix that because I am seriously considering changing browsers because of it.
Re:Memeory Leaks (Score:4, Interesting)
Though I can't point to any actual crashes that have resulted from it, seems like it would just be best practice for FireFox to be at least somewhat respectful of system memory (I do run other apps too ya know?) and try to keep itself tight when possible. If it were only 10% then I probably wouldn't care, but when I can open the same handful of tabs in 75% less memory...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at work using IE 7. I just closed down to one tab after heavy use, and IE is still at 64 megs of physical memory, and 180 megs of virtual memory. Sound like Firefox wins there.
The only browser I've seen that can properly close memory from closed tabs is Chrome.
Firefox INTENTIONALLY AS A FEATURE (not a memory leak) does keep fully rendered pages, with full history and the cache of X rendered pages, for some time after you close the tab. You can right-click on the tab bar and reopen recently closed tabs.
Re:Memeory Leaks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You know those awful Office/Java/whatever preloaders? Those things that load the program in question when the computer starts, so that when you attempt to start the program, the already-running instance just opens a new window? The ones that end
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, but that's because relatively few linux developers are making an effort with Gecko/Firefox. In particular, Gnome has undergone a 2 year transition to Webkit that so far is showing very limited performance improvements and has meant that many projects have seen no real user visible changes (especially epiphany, which has not been changed noticeably since it reached parity with Firefox 2 a couple of years ago). It's quite sad that a FOSS icon has been largely rejected by the linux community and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true. I love FF on Windows, but on my Linux box at work I have to reboot it fairly often due to its memory consumption being > 1GB
Re: (Score:1)
In a low RAM environment, Firefox is much more aggressive at keeping RAM usage down. Most computers t
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
PC that's already maxed out at 2 GB (Score:2)
That RAM will be good for several years (at least 3).
Including the new motherboard and 64-bit operating system that the RAM requires, and the new CPU that the motherboard requires? I didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. . ., Ubintu 9.10 only cost the price of an issue of Ubuntu User.
Re: (Score:2)
Ub[u]ntu 9.10 only cost the price of an issue of Ubuntu User.
Say I regularly use applications designed for Windows that won't run in Wine, or peripherals that don't have a Linux driver because I bought them before I knew that the manufacturer refused to release specs. For those, I'll still need Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you should have said that in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
My desktop rig has 8GB.
Netbooks and old (paid-for) PCs tend not to even have enough slots for 8 GB of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's silly to argue amount performance if you're using less than 4GB of RAM
For how many years has this been true?
(which netbooks and older desktops will accommodate).
Eee PC has only one DDR2 SO-DIMM slot for 2 GB of RAM, and a lot of them ship with a smaller stick in place. More importantly, Mozilla Corp wants to target Firefox toward 1. older machines that shipped with operating systems now in the extended support phase, and 2. handheld devices (Fennec).
Re: (Score:2)
My Eee900 maxes out at 2GB, according to the docs (and yes, I do have a 2GB stick in there).
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
and with most systems having at least 1 to 4 gigs of ram 174 megs is what?
a pimple on a hippo's butt?
Re: (Score:1)
That's a feature, not a bug. Firefox maintains its own memory cache. If you're that desperate for memory... you should be using Opera Mini or Dillo or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, say, I open a few hundred tabs to Google.com. Every new tab adds more MB ram used. When I close all those tabs, no ram is freed at all. Usage can easily go up to a GB of ram with opening and closing the page enough times. When I open a new tab to Google.com again, more ram is used. That's definitely not a normal cache, it's a memory leaking cache. It's not because it's a cache that it doesn't need to limit it's ram usage.
And they should use the hard disk instead for such a ridiculous > 1GB cache, e
Re: (Score:2)
And they should use the hard disk instead for such a ridiculous > 1GB cache, especially since I also need to be able to run 3ds Max or Adobe Premiere while Firefox is running.
Just open the other program, and Windows will automatically move the cache to the hard disk where you say it belongs. It's called a swap file.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire reason for chaching in RAM these days with broadband is because it's a 1000 times faster (literaly) than the HDD. A swap is for poot-man computers that have their RAM completely full...
Re: (Score:1)
Google Toolbar may be leaky. However I guess the initial amount of memory for Firefox is actually high (higher than say, Opera or IE).
Right now I am using Firefox 3.5.5 on Win XP. I have 3 windows open:
Window 1 with 13 tabs including Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Notebook and Slashdot.
Window 2: 19 Tabs (some wikipedia, Eurostat sites, etc)
Window 3: 2 tabs Google search.
In addition I have the following extensions:Adblock Plus, Delicious bookmarks, DOM inspector, downthemall, fireftp, grasemonkey, pricedrop,
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah... I forgot to add that I have been using the same firefox session for over one week now (since the beginning of the year) as I do not close or turn off the computer but hibernate.
Firefox has come a long way from its leaky days. I was frustrated by the leaking but nowadays it feels OK for me.
Re: (Score:2)
As is noted for at least one or two years, you can disable that behavior.
Also 174 MB (I don’t think you meant megabits ;) is not that much, if you calculate the size of the actual data, in its *uncompressed* form with a full parse tree. Do some calculations. You’ll be surprised at how big that actually becomes.
I’d like to see some memory map for Firefox anyway. Since when Opera can do it, so should Firefox. ;)
My guess is, that Opera has something like a offscreen buffer that is in memory f
Re: (Score:2)
No offense to you, but you're parroting the Firefox team's take on this, and it's utter crapola. Firefox at this moment is taking 638 megabytes on my system, and I normally restart it when it hits 1 gigabyte. That is ABSURD. This is just normal browsing.
I've basically concluded that the Firefox team basically can't fix it. It's not like this hasn't been a problem for a long-ass time. There is absolutely no reason Firefox should cripple computers if you don't close it after a certain amount of time. There is
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox keeps track of what you visited while running (cashin, can be turned of... *sigh*), so when you are 'closing' your tabs and you decide to re-open it or go backwards or forwards everything responds faster. If you close Firefox it doesn't have the cache in the memory anymore...
RAM these days is dirt cheap. Preloading is what makes Vista and 7 use so much memory and I gladly run Linux with preload. Because guess what? On newer hardware these tweaks make your system actually faster. I hate uninformed pe
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 3.5.7 is using a whopping 174Mb of ram.
Put another way, that would be gobbling up an Earth-shattering 2.83% of the RAM in the desktop I'm typing this on. They should drop everything and get that down to no more than 1.4% of my installed RAM.
Yeah, I know: best practices, bloat, netbooks, old computers, etc. Those are all perfectly valid reasons why all software should be well-crafted and should limit wasted resources. I just can't get excited about the raw numbers involved in this case.
Useless Summary (Score:5, Informative)
The summary rambled on about bug fixes and other things that tend not to matter to the end product of FF3.6. Most of the people that read slashdot understand the release process for software. You releases a beta/RC, fix some bugs, release the pre-release. If all is good, you release the final product.
It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user. At least that's my point of view on the topic...
Useful info from the article:
Among the new features in Firefox 3.6 are built-in support for the scaled-down browser skins dubbed "Personas;" warnings of out-of-date plug-ins; support for new CSS, DOM and HTML 5 technologies; support for full-screen video embedded with the video HTML tag; and support for the Web Open Font Format (WOFF).
TraceMonkey has also been refreshed to boost JavaScript performance, something Mike Shaver, Mozilla's chief engineer, bragged about last week on Twitter. "I am excited about upcoming JS [JavaScript] engine work, and I don't care who knows it," Shaver tweeted.
Re:Useless Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed!
I've been running beta5 and RC1 since it came out, this could very well be the final product from what I've experienced. Everything works, including all plugins (or are they called extensions, addons, or components...?).
Much faster startup time (yes, this matters) and switching between tabs seem faster than ever. It's almost Chrome-like in speed now.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been more useful to cover new features and things that would interest the end-user.
Here [mozillalinks.org] you go. It's for beta 1, so it's a bit old though.
Re: (Score:2)
Personas have been in Firefox before, then discontinued. You'll see a lot of submissions there from those days. I'm glad that it's back, but I am hoping for a utility that could make the earlier personas work in this updated version.
Firefox seriously broken - the 5.0 curse (Score:1, Insightful)
The fixes resolved numerous crash bugs, including one that brought down the browser when it was steered to Yahoo's front page. Another fix removed a small amount of code owned by Microsoft from Firefox.
For a piece of software that's been actively developed for so many years, Firefox has way too many bugs that cause it to crash. The memory footprint seems to be getting bigger and bigger with each release and Firefox is noticably slower compared to Opera when it comes to rendering and general GUI responsiveness. I don't want to start any flame wars, I'm just sharing my experience and point of view, it just seems to me that Firefox has been on an unfortunate development path that will lead to its death befor
Performance issues off flash drives (Score:2)
After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.
Did I miss a switch somewhere? It has to be related to some new performance feature because the flash drive continuously flashes with 3.1+ and doesn't flash at all with 3.0.
Re: (Score:1)
After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.
Me too. I'm suspecting the url/keyword database, the one with the file keeping up growing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you go into Options and turn off storage of History then the performance issue all but disappears. A good idea for a thumb drive, but doesn't make much sense if you're mapping profiles over a network.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
This reduced the scale of the problem by about 90% or more.
It's strange that this same feature doesn't hit firefox 3.0 in this fashion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After 3.0, I've had severe performance issues with firefox off of a flash drive.
That'll be the writing to the urlclassifier3.sqlite, file amongst others. I sorted this on my Ubuntu setup (running on a netbook with an internal SSD that had *very* bad write performance) by moving my profile to a RAM drive on boot (and rsyncing it back to the on-disc copy on shutdown and every now and again via cron). You might be able to do something similar on Windows if you have a decent RAM drive implementation but you are unlikely to have that in most circumstances where you are using a portable inst
New Gecko 1.9.2 in FF 3.6 (Score:1, Informative)
I love the new Gecko features, especially -moz-linear-gradient and -moz-radial-gradient. Huge bandwidth savings for gradient loving web developers out there.
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Firefox_3.6_for_developers
IE-specific vs. Mozilla-specific (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean lets be honest here. I mean because it seems, anyway Microsoft goes, its bad, just because the "public" did not have a say so. Which to me is absurd but hey, lol this is Slashdot right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New Gecko 1.9.2 in FF 3.6 (Score:4, Informative)
There are two main differences between this and the old way IE did its IE-specific features:
1) This implementation is based on a public draft of a W3C REC-track document, which is worked on in public in collaboration with other browser vendors, web developers, and anyone else who cares to join the public www-style@w3.org mailing list. In fact, the gradient syntax was changed radically between beta 1 and beta 2 of Gecko 1.9.2 based on feedback and discussion on said mailing list.
2) The feature is clearly marked as Gecko-specific, so it doesn't pollute the namespace for future standardization (e.g. the properties are not called "linear-gradient" and "radial-gradient") and makes it clear to anyone using it that it will only work in Gecko and break in other browsers. This last property makes it less likely that someone will just use it, test only in Gecko, and accidentally break other browsers by just failing to think about testing in them.
But yes, using it as an _author_ for things outside progressive enhancement is of course bad. But even the progressive enhancement uses are a start: they can give valuable feedback on that www-style mailing list I mention if there are serious problems with the current spec draft.
Go get it. (Score:1)
How does Chrome do it? No re-start needed. (Score:2)
I don't quite understand how the Chrome guys do the updates, but it seems like dark magic: I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too. I have no clue how that is achieved.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you do it manually it prompts you to restart it to benefit from the update, otherwise it does it in the background (if you run Windows, in Linux you need to use the package manager to upgrade it)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an unsupported guess.
There's probably two versions of the executable: ones you have already running hot and one that's on the file system. If you update Chrome, it's probably updating only the reference copy on the file system and not the one you're running. So if you shut down all of your instances of Chrome, and then start one up again, it uses that new copy without mentioning anything to you.
What would really be neat is if you could run different versions of Chrome simultaneously so that given th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I never noticed ever needing a restart, but still, the executable is being updated, too.
Chrome runs a process per open page to isolate crashes. I'm guessing that as long as binaries of different versions communicate by passing well-defined messages and only binaries of the same version share memory, multiple versions of the Chrome engine can run at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That is exactly how they do it. They update the renderer executable on-disk, then switch to the updated version it the next time they need to start a renderer process.
Still no Web Socket support (Score:1)
Firefox continues to fall behind Chrome. Unfortunately, there's no web socket support in this release.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no web socket support in a shipping Chrome either, last I checked, just in the developer channel builds (the equivalent of Firefox nightlies).
Do you want a list of things Firefox has that Chrome doesn't in terms of web capabilities? ;)
Does it support SVG animation yet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAICT, SVG animation won't be in until Gecko 1.9.3, which should be in Firefox 3.7. Not sure if there is anything for this in the 3.7 pre-alpha.
You can find more info on the SVG implementation status here [mozilla.org].
Why no Linux x86_64 Firefox releases yet??? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am always dismayed by the lack of Linux x86_64 Firefox releases.
I can download current releases of OpenOffice for Linux x96_64.
Why is it so hard to find Firefox for x86_64???
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
IIRC, lots of popular Linux distributions, such as Ubuntu, have 64-bit versions of Firefox in their repositories (and with Ubuntu 64bit, it ships with it). If you're running the 64-bit version of Firefox, you might want to google the 64-bit flash plugin and how to install it if you use Flash at all (it works fantastic!).
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 3.5 is slower when built 64-bit instead of 32-bit, because the jit shipped in that doesn't generate 64-bit instructions yet. It doesn't really make sense to ship a 64-bit build it if has worse user experience than a 32-bit one.
Firefox 3.6 will have a 64-bit-capable jit. So at that point all that's needed to make 64-bit a tier1 platform is setting up the test infrastructure for it, hiring more people to do the QA for it (or finding more volunteers willing to do it, of course), and so forth. It'll
Re: (Score:2)
> Firefox 3.6 will have a 64-bit-capable jit
Er, apparently not quite. It's there, but still not working well enough, so not enabled by default. Or so I'm told.
Re:Slow... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an odd question considering that Firefox continues to gain market share.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if "smaller" and "faster" are really the dominant factors driving users to switch browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an odd question considering that Firefox continues to gain market share.
That doesn't by itself tells you much except that people still don't like IE. If you get 3 IE users switch to Firefox, and 2 Firefox users switch to Chrome in the same time, then Firefox share grows overall, but one could argue that it's not a good sign for Firefox if it's got such a high dissatisfaction rate in proportion to the size of its user base.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, one could make that argument, but for now, let's just assume that as long as FF market share continues to grow in the presence of its competitors (IE, Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc), that it must still be a relevant browser which answers the question in the post I was responding to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Until Opera and Chrome get usable, working AdBlock+ and NoScript, then there are no good alternatives to Firefox.
Re:Slow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The add-ons include an XML file which indicates which versions the add-on is intended for. This is what Firefox checks when it runs to ensure the add-ons are compatible. You can edit the add-ons and "lie" about which versions of Firefox the add-on is intended for, and Firefox wo