![Mozilla Mozilla](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mozilla_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla Suite 1.7 Released 339
ESqVIP writes "Not long after Firefox 1.0.2 is out, there's a new public release. Just like the other 1.0.x releases, this is mostly a security fix. The release should hold for a few more days and we could also get bug 171349 (wrong icon displayed on Win9x) fixed. Mozilla Suite, on the other hand, has quite significant changes, some of them "imported" from Firefox. As announced before, this might be the Suite's last major release from the Mozilla Foundation."
1.7 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1.7 (Score:2, Funny)
Mozilla 1.7.*7* (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.7.*7* (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.7.*7* (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mozilla 1.7.*7* (Score:2)
Ironically, the regexp 1.7.*7* matches 1.7 just fine.
A good sign (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know people who argue that the large number of Firefox security fixes is bad -- but in fact, it is the mark of healthy and vibrant software.
Re:A good sign (Score:2, Interesting)
So with Windows and IE having numerous bug fixes, does this mean that Microsoft software is healthy and vibrant?
Re:A good sign (Score:2, Insightful)
So Microsoft still loses.
Re:Acid2 Test (Score:3)
At least 1 fix (Score:5, Informative)
Other than that, mostly just security issues.
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2, Informative)
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2, Informative)
So what else did they fix?
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2)
But
HKLM\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is still there
HKCU\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox 1.0.2 is still there
Still
HKLM\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox\1.0.2 (en-US) is gone
HKCU\software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox\1.0.2 (en-US) is gone
Two out of 3 ain't bad.
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2)
(Or did they stop doing that when it left beta? I've lost track of the Windows version a bit...)
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2)
If I'm supposed to uninstall the existing version first, then either it shouldn't do that, or the installer should do the uninstall for me. The alternative is to download the installer using the update feature, cancel the installation, uninstall Firefox, find the installer (wherever it is)
Re:At least 1 fix (Score:2)
D'OH (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the people I've converted aren't great at installing software, no matter how simple it may be.
What They need to Update (Score:4, Insightful)
For heaven sake,Dont make users download the whole package everytime!Thats a real Inconvenience for all, and its a burden for dial up users to download a 5 MB file that takes anywhere b/w 30 min and a hour .
Planned for Firefox 1.1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What They need to Update (Score:2, Informative)
Re:D'OH (Score:2)
Re:D'OH (Score:2)
According to the devs this is scheduled for 1.1.
Re:D'OH (Score:2)
Did they fix the bug where Safari owns it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did they fix the bug where Safari owns it? (Score:2)
Windows add/remove programs... (Score:3, Informative)
In Windows Add/Remove Programs, I now only see one version of Firefox-- 'Firefox 1.0.3'.
This will please many people.
Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:2)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:2)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:2)
Both Aviary and 1.7 Gecko branch from trunk right after this bug landed and did have it, but it caused a regression of unknown severity and BOTH branches backed it out, so no, it shouldn't be in either, unless Seamon
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to count beta's, the firefox trunk nightlies have gecko 1.8 as well.
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:2)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Firefox startup time... (Score:2)
Mozilla will always be slower than Fx, or there would be no point in Fx in the first place.
Are you sure you haven't enable Mozilla preloading? Or do you have 100 Firefox extensions or something?
hold for a few more days? (Score:3, Insightful)
oh? I wasn't aware Win9x was worth supporting anymore... you *must* be trolling. I'd much rather have a security fix now than to wait for some ridiculous cosmetic bug on a 3rd-tier platform.
Re:hold for a few more days? (Score:3, Informative)
I do admit that the wrong icon being displayed is a fairly trivial issue, however.
Re:hold for a few more days? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hold for a few more days? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not any more, but the bug was reported 2 years ago; I doubt the mozilla foundation would like a joke along the lines of "how do you fix a mozilla bug? Wait until the platform is obsolete, then ignore it!"...
I've been following that bug personally, and I'm still confused as to how it could take 2 years to fix, and why they didn't use the hackaround in the meantime; for a 1.0 app to not have an icon is very embarrasing, and kept making me think the installer was corrupt :/
Re:hold for a few more days? (Score:2)
Sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
It's Mozilla 1.7.7, there's nothing new we didn't already knew about. The update has the same security fixes (scroll down) [mozilla.org] as the new Firefox release, that's all...
/greger
My only request (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I have not submitted a bug report, though I probably will. I've always figured that this was some minor leak that would be fixed "just around the corner," but its looking to be more and more unlikely.
Thanks.
Re:My only request (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla failed the "In your face" test... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, I hate popup dialogs or any other program that things it has to be your center of attention while you are working, and take focus. Mozilla hasnt did this in the past, and firefox doesnt, wtf happened?
Shame.
BTW, wonder if I get marked flaimbait, troll for a noticing this on the new release and commenting on it. Because you cant say anything negative these days without someone thinking you are being rude. Negative comments are just that, something that can be fixed. I have serveral mozilla bugs that are still not fixed, mostly because its due to older hardware. The downloading of files, where it can cripple a sub-1ghz laptop and 4200-5400 drive, freezing the whole laptop (On windows).
Re:Mozilla failed the "In your face" test... (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn shame (Score:4, Interesting)
I started using Firefox once 1.0 was released. I used it heavily, and for a while, it was my preferred browser. (Mainly because the bright orange icon was easier to find than the bluecurve icon on my FC3 laptop)
But, finally, I had to go back. Moz is just simply better. Having separate address and search bars is a stupid waste of space. The find being down at the bottom of the screen was... funky.
But the one that did it? Refresh on view source!
I develop web apps, and the ability to see raw output in HTML, do a tweak on the file on the server, and then hit reload while viewing source, and see the source update, was the straw that broke the Camel's back. In FF, I have to close the "view source" window, hit refresh, then View Source again.
Ugh.
I haven't uninstalled FF, but the icon is no longer on my desktop, and I really don't use it anymore.
Funny, how the STUPIDEST features can make the biggest differences, no?
Re:Damn shame (Score:3, Informative)
Ctrl+R
Ctrl+U
Or you could write an extension...
Customize toolbar and creating search keywords (Score:4, Informative)
2. Create bookmarks with keywords for your searches. Several are predefined. If you want to f.e. have a quick way to search goggle images, go to images.google.com and right-click the entry field. Select "Add a Keyword" from the context menu, and enter "gi" into the Keyword field of the dialog.
Typing "gi whales" into the address bar now searches google for images of whales.
useability (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes i am aware of sevral plugins that will do this, but they are all crap and/or does so much id have to spend a lifetime going trough options just to get it back to a good state (im looking at you multizilla and Tabbrowser Extensions).
Mozilla starts up in around 1 second on my computer (2.7 p4 running debian) and firefox starts up in around that time or slower.
mozilla is more stable and i can keep it open for weeks at a time while firefox starts sucking up memory like a whore in a bank managers convention in only a day or two.
I still use mozilla for mail, why? because it starts as fast as thunderbird or faster and feels smoother so why bother?
Correct link to moz release notes (Score:2)
there you go
Re:Correct link to moz release notes (Score:2)
For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)
please fix this bug ASAP!!
Re:For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:2)
FWIW: Moz 1.7.6 has the same feature/bug. Highly annoying.
Re:For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:2)
That settles it then -- it's definitely a bug.
Re:For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:2)
Is it even a bug? Have you checked [mozilla.org]? If it isn't, have you filed one?
Re:For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:4, Informative)
Hit 'about:config' and toggle 'browser.xul.error_pages.enabled' to true.
Re:For Version 1.0.4 PLEASE (Score:3, Informative)
I still prefer the suite (Score:3, Interesting)
If Firefox had a suite interface skin and a full (browser) set of suite config options available without having to root around in about:config, I'd give it a try. As it stands, it just doesn't feel right and I'd much rather they pushed ahead with suite 1.8.
Re:I still prefer the suite (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I still prefer the suite (Score:3, Interesting)
I always found it a bad idea to fork off projects like Firefox and Thunderbird.
The suite should have remained as a suite and the improvements implemented as part of that.
The Mozilla community does not have the resources to develop so many different versions, and it shows.
Re:I still prefer the suite (Score:4, Informative)
Firefox and Thunderbird on Fedora Core 2 SUCK (Score:2)
0. on fedora core 2, firefox actually has an installer! great! things are looking up.
1. firefox installs to my trash. why?
2. i downloaded and unpacked thunderbird, which is just a bunch of executables that have to be placed somewhere in the file system to run. no installer to be seen.
3. in gnome you have to make a launcher icon for both programs for the panel. this is no better than kde in solaris or unixware as far as usability goes. to add
Re:Firefox and Thunderbird on Fedora Core 2 SUCK (Score:2)
Works for me, you have set interval mail checking haven't you (i.e. told it to check mail every n minutes)?
don't tell me to pitch in and make these apps better. i'm a writer, not a programmer. i want things to JUST WORK on linux.
Then wait for the Fedora guys to package it instead. Then it will come in for free with up2d
Try the FC3 RPMS on FC2... (Score:2)
But I just got done emerging Firefox 1.0.2 dammit! (Score:2, Funny)
And guess what the fucking story is?
Fucking Firebox releases fucking 1.0.3.
Whatever. At least it wasn't a dupe.
Re:But I just got done emerging Firefox 1.0.2 damm (Score:3, Informative)
Bug #287717 (Score:2)
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that, imho, it's much better to see many bug fix releases in a vibrant and alert software project rather than minor patches every year and major releases years apart.
'Being less buggy' isn't the measurement here, identifying and resolving the bugs is. I know it's a half full/half empty argument, but software testing should never be approached with the 'be less buggy' attitude, it should always be approached with the 'find the bugs' attitude.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I was tired of my browser crashing every day so I tried Firefox."
By this philosophy a lot of us should be going back to IE. I call bullshit on "vibrant and alert" - that's just contentless filler. We've seen plenty of patches and no centralized way to manage the browsers in a non-home environment.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:3, Insightful)
All software has bugs, with something like a browser that is a potential vector for viruses, malware and the like the important thing is how quickly they are fixed.
So far the Mozilla seems to be getting stuff fixed pretty quickly.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is much more scary than having frequent product updates is having no updates at all. Just ignoring bugs because they're easier to ignore than fix. I'm not sure why the mindset of some folks is that if an upgrade is being released the program must be garbage. People do not complain about the security (or lack thereof) of Windows because of the number or frequency of updates being made available on the Microsoft website. It's the bugs that aren't being fixed that are the problem.
Slashdot still renders incorrectly (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot still renders incorrectly (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. But the fix caused a regression, and without knowing how many sites it would affect, both Firefox 1.0 and Mozilla 1.7 branches decided to leave it out.
Those regressions have now been fixed too, so it will be fixed in 1.1 and 1.8.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2)
So it's probably not more problems, more like more problems being fixed.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't want to go back to IE but...
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Informative)
In the meantime, just do what I do - install SessionSaver, and close Firefox down and re-open when memory consumption gets too large.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2)
What happened to this ? My less computer savvy friends who I've finally converted would like that ease of use back.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Informative)
I think the point is moot for most people here though. You can just download the installer and install over the top of existing versions - the installer's finally been fixed to remove duplicate entries in Add/Remove Programs under Windows.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:5, Insightful)
If IE works and FireFox doesn't, then it's obvious that something could (and should) be done on FireFox's end to fix it.
Lord knows, MS ain't gonna do it.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2)
ATI graphics cards were lots faster on Quake 3 benchmarks than competitors. Competitors slipped behind? No, ATI were sensing for Q3's filename and disabling some visual effects to give a false benchmarking boost.
It doesn't always follow that it's the fault of the party with the perceived problem.
Now, in this case I reckon it's Moz's fault. There's definitely a known issue related to very slow wak
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, it is entirely possible that, while code may not specifically be written FOR hibernationg purposes, it could affect it. That argument is equivalent to claiming there have never been arbitrary incompatability issues in information systems of any kind.
As for the PDF problem, I'm guessing it has something to d
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2, Interesting)
Luckily, someone made this [acropdf.com], a freeware app that speeds up the acrobat startup because it strips a lot of libraries from it (second down on the page). What remains is a fully functional and very quick PDF viewer. Highly recommended.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2)
Cheers.
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:2)
Re:How does this stack up to IE? (Score:4, Informative)
It is included in the main kernel, and I use it every day. Works flawlessly.
Re:Problems with the Moz and FF plugin interface: (Score:4, Informative)
It's called a realease blocker. At least in the Mozilla world, there are plenty of them for every major release that, err, block it from being released.
Yes, but what problems are release blockers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for security updates, I think that the Slashdot rendering bug and the plugin crash bug should be release blockers. And they have not been.
Re:Open Source has Security Flaws? (Score:4, Funny)
NO no no! When OSS software has security flaws, it's great news because it shows how great OSS is! But when it's evil bad nazi closed source software, it's just further proof that it should be replaced by free (well, we're using the glamorous definition of the word free. 'Liberated code' sounds a lot better than $0.00...) alternatives!
(Disclaimer: I'm picking on sensationalism here, not OSS.)
Re:Open Source has Security Flaws? (Score:3, Funny)
You could have fooled me.
Re:Open Source has Security Flaws? (Score:3, Insightful)
When closed software has security flaws, for a few months only the blackhats know about them, and write worms and trojans and so forth to abuse them. Somewhere in there some corporate flunky somewhere might find out about it, some red tape later some programmers might get assigned to work on it. Then the rest of the world finds out about it when the closed vendor releases a huge binary 'patch' that
Re:Open Source has Security Flaws? (Score:3, Insightful)
meh (Score:2, Interesting)
Why wouldn't Google just provide kick-ass extensions for Firefox and then promote it heavily? It doesn't make sense for them to fork Firefox and make their own browser when they could just pick up on the momentum Firefox has and offer their Google-specific content via extensions.
If there was a "Get Firefox, dumbass" link on google.com, Firefox downloads would hit 100 million in days.
Re:meh (Score:3, Funny)
Re:1.0.7?? What about 1.1PR? (Score:2, Informative)
It says preview release for developers. There's still plenty of April left for this if it doesn't already exist. The normal preview release isn't scheduled until May. The end of May is a month and a half away. Also, you may have missed the part at the top of the table: "This is, as always, subject to change.".
Re:Firefox not updating... (Score:2)
If you bothered to RTFA last time it was discussed (Score:2)