Firefox 2.0 Update To Remove Phishing Detection 351
An anonymous reader writes "Computerworld and others are reporting that Firefox 2.0.0.19, the last security update to be released before 2.0 goes end-of-life, will remove the phishing detection at the request of Google. The browser is using an older version of the Safe Browsing protocol that Google will discontinue. According to the latest NetApplications report, about 25% of all Firefox users were still on version 2.0. This move ought to result in an increased adoption of Firefox 3.0 and other browsers, unless it goes unnoticed by most users."
A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Interesting)
Hrm.. I don't think that's the intended use of security updates that causes users to be willing to accept and enable such updates.
In a way, it's a breach of trust if they were intentionally holding back on upgrading to 3.0. Users would be in slightly better shape if they refused to accept this update (at least until Google finally does turn it off).
I anticipate not necessarily a massive increase in users updating to Firefox 3.0, but more likely a massive increase in phishing targetting 2.0 users who still think they're protected (they didn't pay attention to the update release notes).
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Insightful)
Even a minor increase in 3.0 adoption would be worth it, as the phishing detection won't matter once google turns it off. I think Mozilla is doing well by making one last effort to move people towards Firefox 3.
At least the version 2 users are being given some warning, as opposed to just being left out to dry without any heads up at all.
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I already tried Firefox 3 and it ran very poorly, so that's why I went back to Firefox 2.
IMHO rahter than disable the feature, thereby making users vulnerable to scams, the correct solution is to upgrade the anti-phishing to v2. Toturn it off completely is somewhat akin to a AntiVirus 2.0.0.19 program deciding to turn-off its scanner, to force users to move to AntiVirus 3. The ends do NOT justify leaving users vulnerable to attack.
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I still don't see why they're pushing people so hard to upgrade to 3.0. The version 3.0 still seems slower and more buggy than the version of 2.0 I have been using for some time. Does the firefox corperation get more money from google every time you download the latest version or something? I would argue that FF 2.0 is not and obsolete product - it does everything I need perfectly, and I would consider myself a power user. The mozilla corp. has been pushing people to upgrade now pretty hard for about six m
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are going to stop working on that version. I hate to point out the obvious, but this isn't really a complicated question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it is going to "end of life", I still don't see why they need to disable the security protection. If Microsoft did that with XP, in order to try to get people to move to Vista, people would scream bloody murder.
But because this is Firefox, for some reason it's okay where if MS did it, people would call foul. Double standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly it is a double-standard, but they haven't done any significant development on 2.x for quite a while, only security updates. Updating the Safe Browsing protocol may be considered "significant development" (I have no idea how much work would actually be involved) and therefore isn't really an option.
Since Google is going to be disabling their service which makes the phishing detector thing work at all, stopping the browser from trying to access it is a reasonable measure. It perhaps depends on the ma
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons to upgrade are the same as for any software. Sooner or later, FF3 or higher will have features that FF2 does not have and that you will need or wish you had. Whether that's patches, plug-ins, or new features, I can't say... but it is coming. Maybe a new version of HTML or a new scripting language... maybe a plugin that only works with 3.0 or higher for web pages you need access to -- who knows.
As for why they choose to turn the anti-phishing off rather than move to the next version, I think it's fair to say that turning off something is easier than re-coding it to work with something new. Also, why code it to work with the new Google version when you're discontinuing support? At some point, Google's API will change and FF 2 users will be left without a working anti-phishing engine again -- only without any warning because Mozilla will have moved on to FF 4 or beyond by then.
You are, of course, welcome to continue to use FF 2 if you enjoy the product, but it is not Mozilla's responsibility to continue to support it once they've moved on to a newer version.
You are correct that Mozilla could wait until Google discontinues its service to turn off the feature, but that is only prolonging the inevitable. They likely want the upgrade in place before Google shuts down its service so that users have advanced warning. If I were Mozilla, I'd even put up a splash screen upon installing the update to warn people that the anti-phishing no longer works and to upgrade to FF 3 if they wish to continue using the feature.
I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing. It sounds as if you're upset that Mozilla is "pushing" people to FF3 by discontinuing a feature in FF2, but really it's Google that's changing and Mozilla is reacting to that change by turning off the feature in advance in an effort to control the situation. It's not as if Mozilla turned off FF2's ability to use tabs or plugins or other features to intentionally cripple FF2.
Honestly, your post sounds a bit like a rant that eventually you'll have to move to something other than FF2 and you're upset that the reasons to move have only just begun to pile up. I can understand that you like the software and believe it is still worth supporting and/or forking to continue updating, but apparently Mozilla isn't going to be the one to do that for you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The version 3.0 still seems slower and more buggy than the version of 2.0
Well it might SEEM slower and more buggy, but objective tests I've done (as I wanted to know which was better) indicate this isn't true.
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Informative)
I still don't see why they're pushing people so hard to upgrade to 3.0.
Because they won't work on 2.0 anymore. It will not be supported and will no longer receive security updates. How hard is that to understand?
The version 3.0 still seems slower and more buggy than the version of 2.0 I have been using for some time.
Except it's faster. Java Script improvements, less memory leaks, a garbage collector of sorts, etc. FF 3.0 requires less resources.
I would argue that FF 2.0 is not and obsolete product
By definition, it is. It will reach End of Life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not really, is it - the scanner is the crucial part of the AV program, the phishing filter is just one small feature of Firefox. Also the replacement product is free. Nobody would complain if a free AV package forced you to upgrade. In fact they (Clam, AVG) do it on a regular basis. Really not "somewhat akin" at all.
Re:A security update that reduces security (Score:5, Insightful)
Your FF 2.0.18 won't have any phishing protection, either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google has too much power, but you're just being ridiculous. This is the last FF2 security release ever. Leaving in an automatic information query to a dead server would be a GAPING security hole.
Re:The real "problem" is (Score:4, Insightful)
Run their own phishing blacklist? Is that really a good use of their time?
Maybe they should sue Google, without any contract having been broken?
Or break into their data center and force them at gunpoint to turn the machines back on?
Mozilla should have gotten Google to contractually agree to keep the servers running through the end of life of Firefox 2, and they didn't, which is their screwup. But you're just conspiracymongering.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I think Mozilla has screwed up a lot lately. Some decisions they made for the 3.0 series reek of the same corporatism force-feeding of unpopular options that we get from other big annoying software companies. But this wasn't one of them. I'm sure everybody understood Google wouldn't support that feature forever.
Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Informative)
Have you checked back to see if your extensions/scripts have been updated to work with FF3? I could see that being the case right around when it was released, but hopefully they should be updated by now (assuming that they are still actively developed).
There are a variety of themes that you can use to make FF less ugly - I don't like the default theme myself on Windows (the default Mac one is fine; I'm not sure about the default Linux theme). Personally, I like Qute [mozilla.org] when running on Windows (it was the default theme during the pre-1.0 days, if you were using FF back then). I'm sure there are other themes that make FF less ugly, as well.
Personally, on OS X at least, I've found FF3 to be much, much better than FF2. It's very stable, and uses a lot less memory. I only have about 5 extensions installed, but I haven't had any problems with it at all since its release (aside from some extension oddness, but that is hardly Mozilla's fault).
Re: (Score:2)
Thus far, I haven't found any effective way to clear FF3's location bar. Dubbed the "Awesome bar", it remembers URLs of certain sites you've visited. The last time I tried it, clearing private data did not clear the location bar. I tried several settings changes that were suggested. One change will cause FF3 not to display these URLs but they are still stored. If you change the setting back, they are all still there. Apparently, the "Awesome bar" feature was so highly thought of that none of the developers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks, Mozilla, for deciding that I need to change my tried and tested browsing habits of 15 years, simply because you think your way is better - you could have at least given us a way to revert to the old url bar behaviour, but you didn't.
And yes, I've installed various extensions, I've tweaked the about:config and no, it doesn't get the behaviour anywhere near FF2 - infact, some of it is just plain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Mozilla, kill the Gruesome Bar and I might give FF3 another look.
Until then, you can pry FF2 from my cold dead hands.
Re: (Score:2)
*ring ring ring*
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com]
If you don't want to register to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how you don't appreciate the feature (which I think is the most beneficial addition to browser tech since tabs), but you can simply rid your computer of browsing history and that should do it. It forms queries from what you type, and I haven't checked but it looks like it has an index of those queries as well, stored somewhere under it's installation folder (it adapts to your choices so it must store query history).
Seriously though, take off the tin foil hat and try it out. It's awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you can't understand that some people don't like this 'feature'?
It's one thing to say you like it, but another thing to attack others for not doing the same. Grow up and accept that it is a legitimate criticism of FF3 that it forces users to adopt a particular auto-complete system for the address bar which runs contrary to years of established practice.
As for "install another bare bones browser", I think you'll find it's called Firefox 2 and it's all you need...
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't! You can always be dick and type the whole URL out, it won't stop you. It probably just sets a variable "userIsSadistic" or something. Jeeze.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't! You can always be dick and type the whole URL out, it won't stop you. It probably just sets a variable "userIsSadistic" or something. Jeeze.
You don't get it do you? In FF2, if I want (say) google, I can type g+[enter] in the address bar and rely on the fact that Google is my most commonly visited site with an address starting with 'g'. If I need more precision, one or two letters is usually enough.
Now if I type 'g' I get a random range of options from my bookmarks, history etc which contain the letter 'g' anywhere in their name or URL. THIS IS NOT USEFUL. More to the point, it's not the behaviour I want, and I know many, many other Firefox
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using Mozilla since M12 or so, but the awesome bar drives me crazy. If I start typing "nytimes," I want it to find www.nytimes.com. I don't want it to find a blog entry whose title is "NYTimes Fails Again" or some page at the nytimes that I visited more recently than the homepage (like www.nytimes.com/oped/krugman14.html).
I know the sites I browse to. I just want Firefox to autocomplete to the domain. I don't need it to search my browser history for me, because I know where I want to go.
I'm not sa
Re: (Score:2)
>>I consciously refused to upgrade to 3.0-- a number of my extensions and scripts don't work right and it's incredibly ugly in my opinion
Yep, and yep.
For me, merging the left and right arrows was the biggest issue for me.
Re: (Score:2)
The addon NoUn Buttons [mozilla.org] fixes that.
Hey... it's open source! (Score:3, Interesting)
(sorry about all the commas... I have no idea why I used them)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it have been easier to just delete them instead of writing that apology?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You must be on your comma.
It's like being on your period. But with less bitching.
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading Slashdot from a typewriter?
I don't understand why (Score:2)
RHEL4 support anyone (Score:2, Insightful)
I still use Firefox 2 at work because the Firefox 3 downloads won't run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation 4. Seems to want libpangocairo, as I recall. Also, a couple plugins I like haven't been updated for Firefox 3 (FLST and Open Link In... come to mind).
I wonder how many of the 25% are in similar situations to mine?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many of the 25% are in similar situations to mine?
You're probably the only one.
No, seriously, think about it. The 25% figure includes people running Windows, Mac, and Linux. I'd bet Linux is the smallest bit of that, and I'd also assume (poosibly incorrectly) that Linux users are more apt to upgrade their software (when not prompted by an auto-update feature; the FF2 updater doesn't prompt you to update to FF3). Then take this likely-tiny fraction and reduce it further for people who are not just running LInux, but who are running RHEL WS 4. And a si
Mac Os X 10.2.8 (Score:2, Interesting)
Will anyone notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain that anyone who actually needs phishing detection probably won't even notice that it's gone, or won't know what it means. For example, people like my parents who only have Firefox because some well meaning geek installed it for them a year and a half ago...
Re: (Score:2)
I use neither firefox nor windows, so I don't know for sure, but wouldn't the automatic updater have upgraded most of those people to Firefox 3 when it was released?
If that is the case, then the only people impacted by this would be those who deliberately refused the upgrade.
People on older distros (Score:5, Informative)
can't upgrade.
On Linux Firefox doesn't distribute RPM's or DEB's for the various major platforms, and most vendor's don't provide new software for distros once they've been released.
Also, getting firefox 3 compiled from source on older distros is incredibly difficult due to version skew of various libraries. I got most of the way there, and gave up.
People who use linux for work are often stuck on older distros due to long corporate maintanance cycle's. It costs them a lot of money to roll out a major update to thousands of machines, especially if you are developing software on top of them.
Thus, it really sucks that there is no way to put newer software on older linux OS's without running into library version hell. Especially since this is so easy on other platforms. After all, who has trouble getting software working on XP?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not just download the firefox binary, and unzip it to your home directory? Then you can just run it from there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a good long term solution to this general problem, due to the fact that other software could have dependencies on the 'deprecated' official distro version of firefox.
I'm not saying that anything does actually have dependencies on the official distro version of firefox or that they would rely on the anti-phishing feature but if this was an official package it could happen at some point. Therefore breaking a feature of a distro packaged piece of software and not offering an official distro upgrade R
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox 3 relies on the Cairo (svg) and Pango (typesetting) libraries, which are included with and used by newer versions of the GTK (I thought it was >= 2.8, but meh). Especially when using older linux systems (like RHEL4) to which you do not have root access, trying to build all of the updated libraries in a little bottle just to run firefox 3 is a pretty tall order. IIRC, when I tried, I had to start at glibc and work my way up - I never did get it to work properly.
Re:People on older distros (Score:4, Informative)
Yep same problem here. Running SLES 10 sp1 and FF 3 requires GTK 7.x and GTK 7.x requires a whole host of lib updates. I tried valiantly to get them all updated and totally crapped my system. I had backed up everything so it was simple enough to boot from CD and restore back, but man what a PITA!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*points* *laughs*
A couple of days ago, T. Boone Pickens made me his business partner. He wants me to raise funds for his Texas wind farms. For only $500, you can get in on the ground floor of this amazing revolution. Moreover, I've been authorized to offer you 5% of future revenues to anyone who donates $1,500 or more.
Whaddya say? You game?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this help?
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/mikewillis/entry/of_firefox_3/ [warwick.ac.uk]
First hit on "Firefox GTK", btw.
Re: (Score:2)
(posting to undo an accidental moderation. I meant to moderate your post informative, not overrated)
I've got the very same problem here. I'm using Ubuntu Dapper (6.06), which is a long-term service release (LTS). It's supposed to be supported by the Ubuntu team for 5 years; guess they'll have to create their own security patches for FF2 from now on.
As a web developer (among other things) I'm all for getting people to use newer browsers, but FF2 doesn't feel old enough to be abandoned yet. Like a lot of othe
Re: (Score:2)
Does this help?
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/mikewillis/entry/of_firefox_3/ [warwick.ac.uk]
I was thinking of converting back from 3.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
the anti click jacking code and the really miserable handling of self signed certificates is starting to really annoy me.
How to get me to switch to Firefox 3 from 2. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I go "Check for updates" I get the dialog box that informs me: "This update will cause some of your extensions and/or themes to stop working until they are updated." Clicking on "show list" shows me that Compact Menu and Whitehart will be disabled with FF3. If that extension and that theme get updated, then I'll switch to FF3. Until then, I'll "suffer" with my working browser, anti-phishing or not.
It Makes Sense (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox 2 uses an older version of the anti-phishing that will no longer be supported by Google (the provider of the database). So, whether Mozilla removes it or not, v1 is giong away.
2.0.0.19 is the final release of Firefox 2. As soon as it is released, Firefox 2 has reached its end of life and will no longer be updated or supported (no new features, no bug fixes, no security updates). So, it doesn't make much sense to worry about the anti-phishing feature being updated when the browser itself can no longer be assured of being secure due to possible bugs, etc.
"Privacy" knobs in FF3? (Score:2)
Is there any list of knobs I have to tweak to get a stock FF3 install to behave normally, i.e. no transmission of entered URLs/searches to third parties, no "auto-complete" with www. and .com/.net and any of that bullshit that has become accepted nowadays?
Yes, that's a rhetoric rant, but if anyone knows, please reply anyway.
Re:Why would anyone use FF2? (Score:4, Insightful)
You just gave a reason for Firefox 2 users not to upgrade to Firefox 3.
The reason not to switch from Firefox 2 to Opera instead (for older systems) is the same reason for Windows '98 users to not switch from MSIE to Firefox.
They are more familiar with their chosen browser, and there is an inherent resistance to switching.
It's ashame the last major, tried and true, stable release of Firefox is EOL'ed so rapidly, in favor of the bleeding-edge FF 3.
What would you think of Microsoft if they had discontinued further security updates for Windows XP in 2007, one year after the release of Vista?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, you have a point there, I can't say you are wrong, but I don't get why wouldn't you give up for something that is newer and works on your older machine (and is supported too) than use what you are used to, but get significantly slower browsing.
I certainly would give up from something that I am used to, to something that works better.
Older machines (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm unsure of Windows compatibility, but Windows XP *is* over 7 years old, so users of older PCs are probably in good shape, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would anyone use FF2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Faster? Has the fsync issue been resolved yet?
Firefox 2 works fine for me, and I really see no reason to upgrade (I did have a compelling reason to move to OpenOffice.org3, though). FF2 works for me, and it is a "known quantity". FF3 isn't, and hasn't provided a single compelling reason to upgrade (yet). I upgraded from oo2 to oo3 to take advantage of: limited pdf import, read support for latest microsoft office(tm), better presentation controls (these three are very useful, and where compelling).
ff2 to ff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I consider it bleeding edge, is a bunch of plugins don't work at all with FF3.
It's a relatively new, unproven release, in the grand scheme of things.
Mmm.
In the grand scheme of things, VMS and masonry are new and unproven things, too.
If someone complains about the site not working and describes that message, I tell them to downgrade to FF2, which actually lets you still access the site (with just a simple dialog box).
*points* *laughs*
Moron. I hope that you don't work a helpdesk or IT somewhere.
FF3 keeps needing updates frequently, security bugfixes (I guess), and I kept running into crash bugs with FF3, several times a day, even the latest version of FF3, whereas FF2 and FF1 were rock solid, rarely ever crashed.
System specs? Installed plugins?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be fine with going to Firefox 3.x under Windows98 if there were support for it. I cannot get FF3.x to install under Win98... says it needs Windows 2000 or newer. So if I want to run my Win98 VM, it can't have FF3.0... annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
They are more familiar with their chosen browser, and there is an inherent resistance to switching.
Kind of like the US and the Metric System?
Or like the dumb blonde and her abusive boyfriend?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it's ridiculous: if you like Firefox you should upgrade to the 3rd version and if in any case your OS is older and it doesn't support Firefox 3 I see no reason not to use Opera which supports every OS from Win 95 to Vista and from OS X 10.0 to 10.5 (unlike Firefox 3 of course).
And what if you are still on FF version 2 because you don't like some of the 'features' introduced in FF version 3? I'm looking at you, 'Awesome Bar'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if you are still on FF version 2 because you don't like some of the 'features' introduced in FF version 3? I'm looking at you, 'Awesome Bar'.
There was a lot of resistance to the awesome bar, and I thought it was a stupid idea at first, but honestly, give it a week and you'll get used to it and wish it was there when you're forced to use other browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me why the 'Awesome Bar' decides that, when I start typing the domain name of a website I visit daily, it thinks I would prefer the url of a site I visited once several months ago? Daily or several months ago. What makes more sense?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I totally agree. After how much trying is one entitled to simply decide that one does not like a particular piece of software?
FF3 has decided that people like me, who actually like using URLs to access on-line resources (crazy, I know) would rather have some higher-level language based address system which trawls through your history and bookmarks and spews them forth into the address bar whether you want them there or not. I have tried everything to disable this "feature" without success.
It would be triv
Re: (Score:2)
oldbar only affects the presentation of the results.
You didn't look too hard, did you? Oldbar doesn't change what we want changed - the algorithm behind the url bar function. I wish people would stop offering it as the ultimate solution to the 'Awesome Bar', because it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware of that add on. Call me when it displays URLs only, and only suggests them based upon the same algorithm used by FF2. Until then, it just reduces the level of annoyance produced by the new address bar.
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com]
If you don't want to register to install it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have been using Firefox 2, then you *haven't* been giving Firefox 3 a chance "since it was introduced"; you only gave it a chance until you switched back. It's obvious that you're too stubborn to use the awesome bar regularly because it learns which sites you like to type into it, and it only takes *one* try. If you type a single letter in the bar, then select the site you want from the list, the very next time it will appear at the top of the list. In the worst case, you have to type the whole ur
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Firstly, who said I wasn't using FF3? I certainly never did in this (or any other) thread - you simply surmised that from things I did say, and your assumption has proven to be wrong. I use FF3 daily, because it has better memory usage than FF2 - but the Awesome Bar still sucks, even after six months of usage and 'training' as it certainly doesn't seem to learn my browsing habits.
Take
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking.. (Score:2)
It's pervasive in software, the developers decide changing behavior without preserving the old should be fine, as their opinion is that the new behavior must be better.
Take, for an additional example, the 'keyhole'. They decided the same context menu should open up regardless of the forward or back button being clicked on. In fact, it is just one control instead of separate. It would be great if they had added this variant and let the user choose between the unified keyhole or the classic distinct button
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with Mozilla including the awesomebar in Mozilla 3.0; I dislike how they stripped out the functionality to revert to the simpler, more rational original toolbar. 3.0 betas had configuration options to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar.
"I can't install it!"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com] If you don't want to register. This is a different extension from the other extension which only changed the appearance.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one reason why is that computers using Win9x can't run FF3 so you're stuck with FF2 (especially in cases where upgrading the OS is not feasible either economically or for other reasons).
Re: (Score:2)
That seems to be the best explanation for all people still on FF2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it isn't. Quoth the oldbar site:
The presentation isn't the problem - it's the "search everything but the kitchen sink and suggest a bunch of irrelevant results" behavior that annoys people. AFAIK, there is no existing plugin that brings back the proper autocompletion behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some settings to be changed under about:config - my FF3 behaves well now.
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com]
If you don't want to register to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't mind the Awesomebar, but those are just my two cents. Then again, I'm still with Safari, holding out for a Mac version of Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he can just not upgrade and not bother with obscure settings.
What you need to do is give people a reason *to* upgrade, not find ways to get around reasons not to upgrade. What does FF3 give an FF2 user that is worth the hassle and changes they don't like? Upgrading is a PITA, people don't do it without a reason.
Of course, personally I stick with Seamonkey- the UI is simple, easy to use, doesn't have idiocies like the awesome bar or the separate search bar. Firefox has a long history of UI experimenta
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com]
If you don't want to register to install it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because contrary to your notion, it's an end-user's right not to upgrade.
Yet another example of the following aphorism:
Open Source != Socialism
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's all just a ploy to get us all to update to Firefox 3.0
I don't know why the parent is modded "flamebait", it's pretty obvious this is what Mozilla (Google) is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7637 [mozilla.org]
Old location bar works with the algorithm and appearance.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/5/14/1079307/old_location_bar-1.3-fx.xpi [fileden.com]
If you don't want to register to install it.