Talk:Firefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Firefox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

10.6–10.8[edit]

Starting with the Firefox version 49 release, so long to support for 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. - See https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/48.0/releasenotes/ So 48 should still support 10.6 - 10.8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.94.237 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How Firefox Makes Money for Mozilla Foundation[edit]

Hello Everyone,

I'm new and this is my first post on a Talk page. Please excuse me if I don't follow all of the protocols exactly (I'm still learning)

I was curious about the topic since Mozilla is a nonprofit and IE and Chrome have more obvious ways to generate income for Microsoft and Google.

According to: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome-make-money.asp the search feature makes money for them.

I think we could link to Mozilla Corporation which explains the business aspect of Mozilla.

I'm grateful for any pointers. There is so much to learn.

What do you think? I'm interested in opinions, thoughts, ideas, etc.

Thanks, --Greenchile99 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The "ref" doesn't need to be added as you've got the link above.
Otherwise, a brief summary would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Greenchile99. As Walter says, the link you provided acts as a better source. You can study WP:SECONDARY to find out why. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Firefox is not sandboxed yet[edit]

According to Firefox's official doc, or this page from Trend Micro, Firefox does not use a sandbox as of 2015. I don't use it anymore, but I've not found a mention of that in recent release notes.

Yet this page claims (§2.2) that Firefox uses a "sandbox security model", based on a source from 2007. The page linked as a source is in fact about a non-standard, deprecated, non-Firefox-specific browser feature that used to improve JavaScript security. This feature was removed in Firefox 17 and is no longer used in browsers.

This sentence about a "sandbox security model" is completely false and extremely misleading, as it makes the reader believe that the browser uses a proper sandbox like Edge and Chrome, when Firefox is in fact the only well-known browser that still does not properly isolate Web content from the rest of the system.

I'm therefore removing the part about the sandbox, which can be put back in the article with a proper source when Firefox security catches up with the competition. I don't expect this to happen before 2020 given the time it has taken to implement e10s (not finished yet), but maybe I'm too pessimistic.

If someone thinks I'm mistaken, I'm of course open to corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigSmallCat (talkcontribs) 10:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

To the person that reverted my edit : saying that the browser was sandboxed is as wrong as the original sentence, which was based on a misunderstanding : the only ref deals with a minor JavaScript feature that had nothing to do with what we call a "sandbox" in modern browsers. Web content in Firefox has never really been sandboxed, contrary to all other browsers. We could add a reference to the current work on e10s though, as it could potentially open the way for a proper sandbox mechanism, but as I said, I'm not very optimistic about that. BigSmallCat (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Stop removing referenced content. It's not wrong to say it was sandboxed as the reference supports it. It could be sandboxxed, so fix the wording rather than delete the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for erasing content so quickly, I'm new here. While the sentence is technically correct, I think the use of the word "sandbox" and the lack of details make it too vague and very misleading : mentioning a "sandbox" at the beginning of the "Security" paragraph, on an article about a Web browser, makes one think immediately of advanced tabs sandboxes that most browsers use, ie. sandbox as exploit mitigation technique, while it is in fact totally unrelated. It may have its place in the paragraph, but with way more details. I'll add that it's related to JavaScript isolation and privilege management, and has nothing to do with process/tab isolation.
If anything, I think that we should mention the lack of a real sandbox as a downside of Firefox in the same paragraph, reflecting the fundamental difference between it and the competition. But I will just stop editing aggressively for now and just improve the wording of this first sentence. BigSmallCat (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
That would be good too. Thanks for discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

YesY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)