Talk:Firefox

Default theme please!

Again, I think we should put the default theme for Firefox screenshot, not a custom theme which can bring some negative impression. tablo (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a custom theme, that the default "Tango" visual style that firefox uses on Ubuntu. If you mean why not use a Windows screenshot, Linux screenshots are used because they only contain visuals released under free licenses. A Windows screenshot contains copyrighted computer software and can be used only in the absence of a free alternative. --Chris Ssk _talk 10:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But a screenshot of Firefox under Ubuntu does not accurately depict what the majority of Firefox users would see. I would argue that there isn't a free alternative depicting Firefox in it's vastly most common environment and so a Windows screenshot should be used in this case.

Get over it, and sign your posts!--Alex at kms (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a Windows screenshot

Windows screenshot

if someone wants to change it (I don't want to, I agree with maintaining the Ubuntu sshot).--Felisbino —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Up to Firefox 3.6, the operating system draws the titlebar and the window control buttons, therefore these are parts of a copyrighted software and can't be used in Wikipedia (it fails fair use rationale). In Firefox 4.0, Firefox itself draws the titlebar and the window controls, so the entire screenshot is of free software and can be used. BTW there was some vandalism made to these comments so I changed them back --Chris Ssk _talk 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just thought I'd share my 2 cents and say, "It took big balls to change that Linux screenshot to a Windows one". I figured the Linux fanboys would have jumped all over the Windows fanboy nuts for changing that screenshot. To my dismay, it appears that a rationale was given to justify changing the screenshot (Firefox now draws the titlebar and window controls therefore making the entire screenshot free). This is the saddest, loosest excuse and it would be hilarious to see it hold up. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged yet. Who cares if the Window controls are drawn by Firefox and not the OS? It's simulating the Windows 7 theme almost pixel perfect. Isn't that grounds for something? There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles with screenshots of proprietary OS specific software elements when there are Linux versions available, and those don't get removed! Point is, there isn't a single good reason why the Linux screenshot remained for as long as it did aside from some very self conscious Linux fanboys trying to remain significant in an imaginary OS war. The Windows version of Firefox is the most popular (not to mention prettier), therefore it should be elected to portray Firefox in its true glory. Embrace Firefox for what it *REALLY* is--A program designed for Windows. Linux and Mac have always been on the backburner in terms of its development. Fact. --Neillithan (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead image not free because of Wikipedia logo

Since Firefox is free software, a screenshot of its browser is free. This screenshot is not free because it contains the Wikipedia logo. This is a clever bit of branding, but it also encumbers an otherwise free image with a copyrighted logo. Since we should "strive to find free alternatives to any media" on Wikipedia, I suggest we replace it. The difficult is finding a totally free site. The Creative Commons homepage seems to fit the bill, although the licensing for that is so complex that something more straightforward may be a good idea.--Chaser (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The image was nominated for deletion and kept, I see no reason to waste such a ruling by changing images.--Topperfalkon (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the Wikipedia logo was not brought up at that discussion. Rehevkor ✉ 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the DR is not germane.--Chaser (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The copyright issue posed by the Windows Aero interface in the image is of far more legal/policy concern than the usage of the Wikipedia logo, the copyright of which is held by the parent organisation of this encyclopaedia. By all means file another DR, or find a better different image. I honestly don't really see the issue here. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone mass discussed all Wikipedia screenshots (TLDR) and they were all kept. Marcus Qwertyus 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That misses the point. The logo is still not free for re-use like the rest of our content. Commons hosts it as an exception to their usual requirements. That image is effectively fair use.--Chaser (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

One comment: it really doesn't matter that the copyright is held by the parent organization of this encyclopedia, the purpose of having free content is to enable people to re-use it wherever they want, both issues: Aero and Wikipedia logo (unless the logo is available under CC or GFDL) make the image not free for other use. (by the way, the reason used in the DR "is fair use" is ridiculous, it's not only about Wikipedia content being legal, it's about having free content that everybody could use) man with one red shoe 12:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This change proves my point--the image with the Wikipedia logo is fair use. It requires a rationale under the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. A valid rationale is impossible because it fails the first criterion, the availability of a free alternative. I have substituted a free alternative. Those that think this requires consensus or has anything to do with Commons policy are mistaken. Wikipedia's local policy forbids non-free images where free alternatives exist. The lack of a consensus is moot when policy dictates a particular result. Those that are not happy with this free alternative should produce a different free alternative.--Chaser (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a question. Are there any problems with your image, which contains the Google logo? Regards, —Tommyjb (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing up with the past image. It was nominated for deletion under copywrite grounds and was kept. Wikipedia can be used in web page screenshots. The new image is not anywhere near as good as the last one! Oddbodz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to Ubuntu screenshot. Why? Read this essay by Jimmy Wales especially this part: "A free encylopedia, or any other free knowledge, can be freely read, without getting permission from anyone. Free knowledge can be freely shared with others. Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others." I'm not sure a shot of Windows, even if covered by fair use in Wikipedia is free knowledge that can be freely shared and adapted. man with one red shoe 19:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After Firefox 6 has been released I created a new screenshot of FF on the current Ubuntu Desktop. IMHO, the screenshot has at least the following advantages over the one currently used in the article:

• It shows English version of Firefox which is more appropriate for the English Wikipedia.
• It is really a free image as it does not contain Wikipedia logo (which was removed from the web page opened in FF using the Nuke Anything Enhanced add-on).

I put my screenshot in Infobox but User:I need a name reverted to previous screenshot explaining that "the Windows screenshot is used specifically because it includes features which are exclusive to the Windows version of Firefox". I'd like to know why should the FF screenshot in Infobox show the features exclusive to Windows version? I don't see a need for that. --Rprpr (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

System requirements

Firefox#System requirements refers to officially distributed binaries but not unofficial ports. There has been a port to RISC OS since 2005, hosted at riscos.info. Maybe there are also ports to other systems, which could be included in the article. I'd just add this now, but as there's currently no mention of unoffical ports I thought it best to discuss here first. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is now included. Are there any others? --Trevj (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

SafeBrowsing isn't a proprietary protocol

The current article says:

Firefox also implements[86] a proprietary protocol[105] from Google called "safebrowsing" (used to exchange data related with "phishing and malware protection"), which is not an open standard.

And refers to: http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec saying: Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google.

However, calling this a "proprietary protocol that is not an open standard" is pure FUD. The link above does describe the entire protocol, so how is it not open? Google asks that you do not hammer *their* server without asking permission first, but there is obviously nothing stopping you from implementing your own and replacing the root update URL. There is GPLv2 implementation code in Firefox, contributed by Google, so there is no way the protocol classifies as proprietary and no way for Google to close the protocol itself down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.80.252 (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "Google asks that you do not hammer *their* server without asking permission first ..." -- but that's not what the text on the site with the protocol description says. Your comment seems like an original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. The text is pretty clear: Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google. It says protocol, not server. Feel free to contact Google and ask them to change this text, then we can change the article. Now it is unclear whether or not implementing this protocol eg. on server-side is allowed. BartłomiejB (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW - source code of Firefox is trilicensed (and not GPLv2+ only), and yes, GPLv2+ is one of the license, however there are many signs that this is not the most "favorite" license by Mozilla (to put it mildly...). See eg. here (GPL wouldn't allow distributing Firefox along with closed-source proprietary software) or some discussion about GPL starting from this comment in Bugzilla. BartłomiejB (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think the license is 'favored' or not by Mozilla or Google, or whether it is the only license it's available under, the code *is* available under GPLv2+, and was licensed as such by Google. That gives you permission to use it and even grants you a patent license. That's not original research, it's literally what the license says. Google may claim in their textual description what they want, their code under GPL already gives you all the permissions you need to do your own version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.80.252 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Safebrowsing"-related code in Firefox contributed by Google only implements client-side part of the protocol. The server-side part (and the citation above comes from a description of the protocol of this part) is totally opaque - AFAIK Google doesn't release code of the server-side part of the thing. They also don't explain in detail how they are gathering the list of "bad" URLs to block.

In any case: the fact that some code is GPLed doesn't automatically mean that you can do whatever you want with it (well, as long as you are in compliance with the terms of GPL) - for example, the fact that one of the license of Firefox is GPL doesn't automatically mean that you can redistribute changed Firefox without also making additional changes -- namely, you must also change "branding", ie. name and logo, even if changes made by you are as minor as switching some pref from "true" to "false". The related laws are outside of scope of GPL, namely trademark related laws. I suspect that something similar could be argued by Google lawyers (at least under some jurisdictions) with regard to the usage of the protocol (and eg. related patents) itself (and the link given by you seems to confirm this suspicion). Perhaps you can use client-side part of the protocol (since it is implemented in GPL-licensed code by Google), however implementing server-side part is a completely different issue. Once again: just ask Google to change/clarify the text: This specification is not yet for general use. Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google. For now it says what it says and I think it is pretty unambiguous. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

/* UI Changes */ Added Citations and made more neutral.

This is not original research, I have provided multiple citations and I made it more neutral by removing the butthurtedness-like statements near the end. If you still feel like it is original research, perform a Google search related to this section and you will find more than enough to go on. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillithan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 6.0

Firefox 6.0 came out today, but I can't edit the page as it is semiprotected. 93.143.174.143 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Scrolling broken

IIRC, Firefox 4.0 didn't support any scrolling input, not even mouse wheels. 4.01 supported mouse wheels but no other scroll input device. Same goes for version 5. How did Mozilla manage to break compatibility with an ubiquitous input device protocol/API that all other apps use? It's a service provided by the operating system so program writers don't have to do it - yet Mozilla acts like they're writing a DOS program from the days when each program had to take care of its own peripheral support. I want my 4-way nav buttons, TrackPoints and edge dragging on touchpads working in Firefox like they do in *every other program*. Earth to programmers, STOP MAKING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELVES! Use the @#%@#% standard APIs and you'll have fewer bugs and smaller code. Bizzybody (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. While scrolling has worked in all the versions Ive used, it doesn't work well. The main problem is how Firefox requires to be the active window AND the pointer to be over the page for scrolling to work. My laptop touchpad has entirely software-defined scroll area (at the right edge), without any ridges or other indicators. Too often when I try to scroll I put my finger too far to the left, and the pointer just moves down instead. I try again, still too far left, pointer moves down. On the third try I get it right, but now the pointer is over the taskbar instead, and Firefox still refuses to scroll. This, combined with the utterly craptastic "single-click bookmarking" implementation (you can bookmark in a single click, but must dig deep down into a hidden "Unsorted Bookmarks" folder to actually find it back) makes me wonder if Firefox is about to jump the shark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.68.247 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Win95

Using this article for guidance, I've just selected Firefox 1.5.0.12 for a Win95 system. It failed to install, though that's not conclusive. (Installed fine on Win98.) Though the Mozilla release notes say at the outset that Win95 is supported, the system requirements for this particular version only mention Win98 and subsequent. So I doubt the assertion in the article that 1.5.0.12 was the last version "supported" on Win95. (Regarding "supported," it deserves mention that doing this exposes you to security flaws that will never be corrected for this version, as well as performance problems with Firefox and with add-ons, and no one at Mozilla will be motivated to help you fix or even troubleshoot them.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

11 September 2011 17:02 EDT: 71.234.217.82: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is the latest version I have gotten to run on Windows 95. Simply do a custom install, unselect the two options that appear, "DOM Inspector" and "Quality Feedback Agent".. Then search the Win95 system for and delete "nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js". Firefox 2 will then run fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.217.82 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Taocp, 6 September 2011

I am a registered user, but nevertheless can not edit the page. What is wrong here? taocp 19:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello taocp. The article is semi-protected, which doesn't just mean registered users can edit, but autoconfirmed users can. You will need to make a couple more edits to be able to edit this article. Яehevkor ✉ 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Firefox is not entirely free software

According to the links below, Mozilla Firefox name and logo are Trademarked. Shall we delete the mention of free software in the article?

Debian & the Mozilla Firefox Trademarks

Mozilla Licensing Policies

Mozilla Foundation Open Letter Orders Unofficial Mozilla Merchandise Sellers to Stop, Legal Action Hinted

Mehdus (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Trademarks are allowed. That doesn't stop it from being free software. It's more common than you think. Take a look at the list of trademarked open source software. Trademark issues can be avoided entirely by changing the name and logo, as Debian and the GNU Project have done. Reach Out to the Truth 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand what "software" is, that's why you are confused about what is free software or not, the actual code is free, the right to call it Firefox is not because Mozilla has the trademark and they have the right to protect it (also a logo is not software either :) man with one red shoe 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from archived FAR page

"On April 3, 2003, the Mozilla Organization ..." - how come? That is more than 3 months before it was exist - according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation "The Mozilla Foundation was founded by the Netscape-affiliated Mozilla Organization, and was officially launched on July 15, 2003. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.98.139 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What you quote is that the Organization founded the Foundation, so the Organization did exist before the Foundation. --AVRS (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Acid 3 Rendering

The article has been updated regarding the 100/100 score for Firefox 7 but the image needs to be updated.

Do we need a notation about the changes in the Acid 3 test?

Ryan Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, it all needs to be sourced - and that should be added before an image of the test can be added really. Яehevkor ✉ 09:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Acid3 and Standards

In the article say: Mozilla had originally stated that they did not intend for Firefox to pass the Acid3 test fully because they believed that the SVG fonts part of the test had become outdated and irrelevant, due to WOFF being agreed upon as a standard by all major browser makers.

SVG font are a standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/fonts.html).

WOFF yet is not a standard, is RC (http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.136.144 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which OS should be in the lead?

In my personal opinion, when it is legally possible, any browser should have the interface of a free and open source operating system such as Ubuntu or FreeBSD. While we won't be using a lead of Internet Explorer running in Ubuntu via WINE anytime soon, should Firefox and browsers in general use a photo of the browser running in a free and open source operating system? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this was briefly touched on in Wikipedia:Software screenshots, which was also about Firefox. Some further points:

1. IANAL, but: It is likely that Windows screenshots of open-sourced software windows still qualify as "free" anyway because the window decoration (the Microsoft Windows frame around the outside) may be considered de minimis under copyright law; that is, that the amount used is so small that it attracts no copyright at all, and so one doesn't even need to assert fair use. (Do note again that I'm talking about the incidental window decoration on software screenshots otherwise are already known to be freely licensed, e.g. Firefox showing a freely licensed web page. A screenshot of the Windows desktop with the stock Microsoft background still selected would be difficult to argue as de minimis.)
2. If an existing screenshot already qualifies as free (see the previous paragraph), and it looks substantially like the layout of the current or best-known appearance of the software, it shouldn't be replaced, even if it's a different OS; that might be interpreted as just editing to edit, or non-NPOV views on copyright politics.
3. If, however, the existing screenshot qualifies for Wikipedia only under fair use (i.e. it uses enough of a copyrighted work that the non-free copyright actually might apply to the screenshot), it should be replaced because Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy #1 says that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created".
4. If a new screenshot needs to be used (because no screenshot exists, or the existing one is only "fair use" where a free version could substitute), one might prefer one with the window decoration totally "open-sourced" as well, as long as its layout is substantially what the most common appearance looks like. (That is, you don't use some weird skin's layout that 99% of users will never encounter.)
5. On the subject of always switching the image to free/open-sourced whenever legally possible instead of legally necessary: That may present WP:NPOV issues, particularly with desktop programs that are also popular in Windows, since, as open-sourced OS users are acutely aware, Usage share of operating systems#Web clients approximately 80% of web browser requests are from Microsoft Windows, and Unix/Linux share of desktop GUI use remains very small. That being said: this might only be a NPOV issue for software that is very, very well known among non-open-sourced OS users, like Firefox specifically, or open-sourced software that is primarily targeted towards Windows, like Paint.Net or WinFF. It's probably fair to say that most other open-sourced software is targeted at open-sourced OSes as much as or more than Windows or Mac; in that case, window layouts that are arranged approximately like one would expect in Gnome, KDE, or whatever would be the "usual" layout.
6. Also, it's worth noting that stock Windows, Mac, Gnome, and KDE installations in most OSes all put the window controls in approximately the same places these days.

--Closeapple (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Closeapple and Rich Farmbrough. Though I use Ubuntu myself, with copyright issues put aside, I think we should use the most common implementation in the lead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and i'ts not clear to me either if screenshots of programs running under Windows are free, so it depends on the response to this question. If they are not free then we should replace them ("fair use" is not enough, the image needs to be free, that's because Wikipedia mission is to provide free content that can be used in any other places, if the image is not free, and merely qualifies as "fair use" then it might not be used for other purposes and Wikipedia is failing in its mission. And by the way, this might seem like a minor issue and some people might discount it as "I wouldn't worry about it" but licensing and precedents are important and serious issues. man with one red shoe 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What OS runs the software doesn't change the status of the software. Opera will still be proprietary even when running on a FOSS OS, Firefox is still FOSS even when running on a proprietary OS. As I said above up to Firefox 3.6, Windows draws the titlebar and the window control buttons, therefore these are parts of a copyrighted software. In Firefox 4.0+, Firefox itself draws the titlebar and the window controls, so the entire screenshot is of free software. Chris Ssk _talk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the status of the software, it's about the status of the image of Windows elements, please don't muddy the waters with straw men. man with one red shoe 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just answering your question. Screenshots of programs being free or not depends on the program, not the OS. If a program is under a free license like Firefox, any work that is a result of the program code is free. Chris Ssk _talk 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

For what reason? provided the screenshot is free it makes sense for the most common version (in this case Windows) to be used, otherwise I think it may be a case of undue weight. Chris Ssk _talk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors above and would not worry about it. Although the argument could be made that a screenshot of a software program is not actually a screenshot of the program, but rather a screenshot of an OS's rendering of the software program, the way that different OS's render software is typically done universally enough that there shouldn't be copyrightable differences.AerobicFox (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree there should be no worries about which OS the screen shot is on. Why can't a screen shot be taken of just the application and not including anything from the source O/S? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Update 64-bit section

Can someone in the know update the 64-bit section? It is rather outdated at this point, for instance Flash has been 64-bit for some time now. I don't know what the hold-up is exactly, but plugins like that are not holding them back any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.165.36 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Version Release Table

The "main changes" column in the Version Release Table had started to become a massive duplication of text in the "History" section above and the "History of Firefox" article, expanding well beyond "significant changes", and over-extending the length of the table by cramming a mass of information into a single column. I've fixed it for the moment by simply chopping out the column. Apologies to anybody that had been dutifully populating that column. In the next few days, I'll have a go at resurrecting any non-duplicated stuff from that column and putting it in the "History" section or the "History of Firefox" article.--Farry (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't list UX mockup/branch info in future release notes

"Version 10.0 (future release)" currently lists silent updates and a new user interface as features, both of which are still in development and not in 10.0 or 11.0 yet. Please don't include features that are only in UX mockups or even the UX development branch until they actually land in a Nightly.

Due to semi-protected status I can't update at the moment. Please fix and update for the 11.0 bump as well. 108.16.105.106 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Firefox's rendering engine, able to use multiple cores?

One thing I find missing from both Google Chrome's and Firefox's articles is that there is no mention of how or if they take advantage of 2 CPU or higher systems. Chrome can use one CPU to render each tab, whereas Firefox (as of version 8) has a rendering engine that cannot span more than 1 CPU no matter how many tabs are open or need to be rendered. Some Smartphone browsers can use more than 1 core per tab for rendering. I don't know about Opera, IE or Safari. Something to think about when revising articles.