Talk:Firefox/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Infobox image

Should the screenshot of Firefox be in Windows Vista? Windows is the world's most common operating system. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 23:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Octane [improve me] 06.07.07 0120 (UTC)
Why not Ubuntu? It's FOSS as Mozilla Firefox, it fits the best. --Emx 10:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Image of Version 2.0.0.3

The current main image is of 2.0.0.2. The image I've uploaded isn't Firefox 2.0.0.3 straight out of the box (i.e., it uses a different theme and shows a few extensions) because this shows some of Firefox's essential elements that its encyclopedia article shouldn't be without. SteveSims 02:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

400px

If it is so essential why doesn't it come that way straight out of the box? Perhaps someone sees this advertisement page and decided to download the browser in question. He or she may be disappointed and hate wikipedia forever. Also I think your should log out of WP so your username and whatnot is not visible. Also new sections such as this belong at the bottom of the page. :) -Indolences 09:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Error in Java Script of 2.02?

I have no documentable source for this ~ but on bungie.net when you click on the "new topic" button, the browser does not actually open it. I have heard that this is caused by a problem with the Java Script.The new topic button works fine in IE7, so it is a problem with firefox I am not sure if this ought to be included with the article ~ if it did it would have to be a note on the recent release. It is an error with the browser ~ and i have no idea if it ought to be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.97.198.222 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not familiar with that particular forum, but it could very well be a bug in the implementation of the forum, and not in Firefox itself. There are many websites that do things in an "IE-friendly" manner that are actually incorrect. Sometimes Firefox handles the errors in a manner that the web site designer intended, other times, it doesn't. Neither is an example of Firefox handling such a page "correctly" or "incorrectly," because if the page is incorrectly defined, the "correct" way of handling it is undefined. Alternately, this could be something that's being caused by a configuration or extension conflict (i.e. having NoScript installed and forgetting to allow bungie.net). The forums on mozillazine.org are a better place to go with this problem than Wikipedia, which isn't really an appropriate place to track a comprehensive list of bugs or get tech support for Firefox. —Erik Harris 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have scripts turned off? SteveSims 19:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Top image

Why not put a picture of the wikipedia Firefox page in the screenshot area? I think it might be more appropriate (and more fun). Deepdesertfreman 05:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style explicitly states that the WP frontpage should be used in such screenshots. Chris Cunningham 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What part of the MOS does it state? I would think that using the frontpage for MediaWiki's site would be more GFDL friendly, as screenshots of WP are fair use because of the Wikipedia logo. --wL<speak·check> 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. That would be wikipedia:Software screenshots, which i see is now inactive. Nevertheless, that's what it says. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of that image, can we replace it with a different day's? I mistook the blue dot in the illustration accompanying that day's FA for a speck on my monitor... --zenohockey 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded this one a while ago—it's for February 4th—but someone thought a Linux screenshot would be better. Fvasconcellos 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ask and ye shall receive. I'll leave it to someone else to make the swap, since I'm biased in favor of my own version.  :) --FunnyMan 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh...Vista screenshots should never appear full-screen, as that black bar is somewhat unnatural. Could you re-upload that picture not-full-screen? Also, it just looks weird having that fraction of the Orb in there. -KingpinE7 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Mine's not the vista one, it's under Linux. -FunnyMan 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please see this for information on how to tag these images. -KingpinE7 02:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the tags on the one I uploaded. Wouldn't Windows screenshots need {{software-screenshot}}? Fvasconcellos 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Linux version has been updated as well. -FunnyMan 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the blue Linux screenshot the best. It looks more like Windows and therefore is more familiar to people, while at the same time being completely free. However, the resolution is too high. Can someone re-upload it with an 800x600 resolution? -KingpinE7 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Still 2.0.0.2, though, since Gentoo hasn't declared .3 stable yet. -FunnyMan 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
.3 is Gentoo-stable now. I'll put up a new version if someone wants it, but I don't know that it'll look any different, aside from having a more recent main page. -FunnyMan 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like that, as the version currently on the article displays the Flag of Quebec with wrong colors (see here for discussion). Yes, that may sound kind of ridiculous, but we should strive for accuracy in everything, shouldn't we? :) Fvasconcellos 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
In showing Firefox showing Wikipedia pages, Both screenshots are breaking Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I'll tag those accordingly. —Ben FrantzDale 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the policy for screenshots of browsers is to have one of the wikipedia mainpage to provide uniformity across the site. It isn't a reference, it is an example shot.-Localzuk(talk) 12:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The only policy page I see is Wikipedia:Software screenshots, which is "inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest". That said, I'll take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Avoid_self-references#Screenshots. —Ben FrantzDale 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mozilla Images

Please apply the following tags and only the following tags to all screenshots of Mozilla software:

{{free screenshot}} {{mozilla}}

Apply this tag if the screenshot was taken in Microsoft Windows or Mac OS:

{{software-screenshot}}

Apply this tag if the screenshot is taken of a browser displaying the Wikipedia Main Page, which is standard practice:

{{wikipedia-screenshot}}

KingpinE7 Updated: 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Man, that one of the screenshot with the screenshot of the screenshot in the screenshot was funny.65.33.64.202 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Error in 2.0.0.3 ?

Having just upgraded, I no longer see the correct Wiki screen. Just My Watchlist at top left. How do I get the globe back? - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Resizing appears to be another problem. When I hover my cursor, FF maximizes or minimizes without warning. I do not even see where to complain to the FF team on the browser. --Ancheta Wis 12:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Could that be solved with Fn 7 ? - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh. I'm running 2.0.0.3, en-gb and everything's just dandy. Fvasconcellos 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I am en-gb and virtually unable to use firefox+en.wiki. IE is fine and fr.wiki is fine. Most odd. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have no problems, just like Fvasconcellos. 2.0.0.3, en-GB. Stormscape 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It works fine with me. They seem to have stabilized it a lot since 2.0.0.0. I downloaded IE7 to see if it compares when this happened and it couldn't load Microsoft's website correctly so I quit using it. I've used Opera and it's pretty good too; if Mozilla's screwed up on Firefox 2.0.0.3 and I'm just lucky hopefully Opera's quality (not Microsoft's marketing) will force them to get their act together. SteveSims 04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

End of life

Looking at the article , there is no mention of the end of life dates for Firefox 1.0 and the upcomming end of life for Firefox 1.5 on April 23, 2007 as mentioned in the March 20th announcement. Isnt that something that should be included? Kilz 17:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be mentioned, be bold and go ahead! Fvasconcellos 17:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is a main article, I didnt want to step on any toes. I have added a small end of life section with the dates. Kilz 19:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG

The article mentions that Firefox supports SVG, but I think it should be noted that the current implementation does not offer full SVG support. [1] -Indolences 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

LWN reference

From "Version 3.0" section:

"LWN.net notes that "ping" has advantages over current click-tracking techniques because it can more reliably get the user to their intended destination and the user has the option of turning the "ping" feature off.[101]"

So, this sentence suggest that this is somehow good feature. But when you read the reference (i.e. article on LWN) you'll notice that author of the article is rather critical toward this feature... So, I think something should be changed in this sentence. 8.14.146.250 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

Please, no one change the screenshot. The current one is formatted to work best with this article, so unless there is another milestone release or something visually changes, leave it alone. -KingpinE7 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not antialiasing in the screenshot. --Emx 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I feel an update may be needed. Visually the application has changed. --DMW 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I'm running the latest release with no extra addons and it is identical to that screenshot...-Localzuk(talk) 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe whoever took the screenshot has a windows theme in place, but mine looks different. the screenshot is v2.0.0.2 while i'm using 2.0.0.4. I'm using the standard XP style. -DMW 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The screenshot that is present is one of Ubuntu in use on Linux, not Windows - so the frame will look different, but this isn't the focus of the image - the toolbars and gui within the frame is the same between 2.0.0.2 and 2.0.0.4.-Localzuk(talk) 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, I guess next time i'll pay more attention to the details underneath the image :) --DMW 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Add "New Features" section to Firefox 3

As the development of Firefox 3 continues rapidly the features of Fx3 are going to fill its section and will become cluttered and unorganized. I think we should add a "New Features" or something along those linkes that to the Firefox 3 section. --Daytonlowell 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the version 3 changelog (first appearance) should not be included in the article, because it's very long and, in my opinion, provides too much information. A complete version history should be available somewhere on the web (here's 3.0a4, for example); I would suggest linking to it instead of including the contents. Aditionally, the changelog as it is now appears to be unsourced. Anyone else have an opinion about the v3 release notes? —Nightspark 22:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just came across this Firefox release history, which might be an appropriate place to move the v3 changelog to. Just my suggestion, additional comments on this topic are wanted. —Nightspark 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the changelog as it is far too verbose to include on this article. Also, I don't think, in the overall 'scheme of things' listing each feature/change with each alpha/beta release is encyclopedic - it just isn't important. We should summarise these changes, using prose, and not just insert large lists.-Localzuk(talk) 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Add New Section

Hi, I wanted to get everyone's opinions on this idea before going ahead with it. I think that, in order to balance this article, a section detailing what is fact and what is myth about FireFox, ala FirefoxMyths, should be added. I personally use both FF and IE for differing purposes, and I think it would be helpful to show people it's strengths and weaknesses, minus all the made-up stuff that seems to be floating around the internet. --With love, J. Dublin 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality

Let's give attention for impartiality of this article. FirefoxMyths is a propagandistic site that's, inclusively, violates copyrights. All content of it's is false, as they can confer here, here, here and here. There's another lots of links about this, as they can search in Google. The original article about Firefox Myths is here: http://www.webdevout.net/firefox-myths/ .

Pure lies. The site is completely sourced. Absolutely none of the content is false since it is all directly sourced. Web Devout is a biased site run by David Hammond who is even mentioned on the Firefox Myths page as redirecting visitors coming from Firefox Myths to include biased warnings just for his page. That is hardly reputable. Absolutely no copyrights are violated anywhere on the Firefox Myths site. It was David Hammond who violated the Firefox Myths author's copyrights and slandered the Firfox Myths author. You are 100% wrong. David Hammond's Firefox Myths article is NOT the original. Go ask him. www.FirefoxMyths.com allows people to get the whole picture and is completely sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.187.23 (talkcontribs)

Note: The portuguese version of Wikipedia, after a long quarrel, decided to remove this link, because it wasn't being encyclopedic.

Again, let's give atention. --201.82.36.224 19:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (portuguese wikipedist)

How is removing a link critical of this article's topic promoting impartiality? The last time I read this article it did not say a single thing negative about the browser in question. When I put a template reflecting this observation on the appropriate article section, it was quickly removed by Firefox zealots. Everything negative is backed up by links to blogs and other dubious sources. Also concerning your allegations of everything on the page being false, I do not believe that to be the case. I used to use the Firefox browser on my computer, which boasts 128MB of RAM. The huge memory usage and other factors led me to switch back to Internet Explorer after more than a year of frustration. Also, what copyrights does that page violate? Regards, --Indolences 01:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
About the Firefox memory consumption, it's a very particular case that i've already heard some other times. Additional comment: due to fact that IE core is already integrated into the Windows Explorer, your process obviously consumes less memory than expected. It's a long history... For the copyright violation, see here. My allegations can be proven by reading the links (and their respective comments) that I posted above, that's says everything. ;) --

201.72.62.158 23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (I'm again, my IP have changed)

I do not think reading a website will make my computer perform better. What I mean to say is that my personal experience with my computer is more proof to me than something written by someone else who may very well be using a much faster machine. When I use my faster computer (512MB of RAM), recently I have been using the Firefox browser quite often. I still use Internet Explorer for website development. The reason for this is that the "find" function in Internet Explorer allows me to search inside of text boxes. My Internet hosting service uses CPanel, which give me the ability to edit text based files within the browser window. The last time I checked the Firefox browser lacked this ability. I visit very few websites and the ones I do frequent are universally well known websites or ones which I am familiar with. I utilize the hosts file to block all obtrusive advertising. I strongly believe in the right to choose[2], but some parties resemble a militia more than they do a friendly Internet campaign group[3]. -Indolences 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A computer's performance is subject to numerous factors, from hardware to software. Your dissatisfaction with one software reflects only your opinion about it, a time that your experience is an isolated case. To each modified factor you have a new experience. About the link that originated this discussion, it's only a propagandistic link that uses lies of much-besieged Firefox to improve a biggest attention possible to it. If thus it wasn't it wouldn't advertise it on the page, obviously. Zealots and fanboys exists, but they aren't applied in this specific case. All false myths contained in it can easily be demystified in trustworthy sources or by neutral users that really understands of the subject. ;) --201.72.62.158 02:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I used the browser in question for many years. I understand it well. In fact I used to be a Firefox zealot. I even went so far as to have Portable Firefox on my flash drive so I could use it on computers which only had the dreaded blue e. It just took me a while to realize that the Internet is the Internet, no matter what it is viewed on (see exhibit a). I do not hate Firefox. I do not hate Internet Explorer, I just feel the reader should have a choice. This article, in my opinion, is very one sided. The "Critical reception" section is filled with praise for the browser. I think most people would agree with me that "critical" invokes a negative connotation. The only negative mention of the Mozilla Firefox browser in this article is "Softpedia notes that Firefox takes longer to start up than other browsers,[63] which was confirmed by browser speed tests." --Indolences 04:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that an user should have your choice, by the way, it's just by it that related link shouldn't contain in the article, it isn't encyclopedic. User choices must be based only in its concepts, otherwise will be based in preconception. Critical (negative) connotations are welcomed, of course, however, they must receive our attention to their sources and veracities. I'll demystify the three first of these myths to demonstrate the total falseness of this site:
Myth - "Firefox and Mozilla are the same thing"
Out of context quote. Any geek user would deduce that quote represent the Gecko engine shared in both browsers.
Myth - "Firefox and Mozilla are Not for Profit"
The Mozilla Corporation was founded in August 3 2005, as they can see in its respective article. The false myth it's based on a user outdated quote from February 22 2005.
Myth - "Firefox is not a Religion"
Sees to what point the author arrives to manipulate the user naveity. It's an easter-egg, documented here in the The Book of Mozilla article.
I could desmistify all here, but I believe that it will not be necessary, a time that links already posted make this and this site violates the WP rules. --201.72.62.158 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually you have done no such thing because you like other fanboys failed to read the page which states: "However I have added some search engine located examples as additional proof. Keep in mind these are not the "origins" but a simple demonstration that these Myths do exist."
This site is well within the rules as stated: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" as per Wikipedia:External links

Copyright

With regards the copyright infringement. According to our rules we should not be linking to sites which break copyright law. As the above link posted by anon201 shows that the design is 'almost public domain', we have to assume that this means some rights have been reserved and as such the myths site is breaking that copyright by copying it.

Absolutely no copyrights are broken anywhere on the page.

Also, with regards its factual accuracy, WP:EL also says that sites which are factually incorrect should not be linked to.-Localzuk(talk) 09:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you cannot prove this linking to it is acceptable.
Thanks for your important reply. I've contacted the author about this link and am waiting on a reply to confirm the copyrights of this layout. I'll keep them informed here. --201.72.62.158 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You cannot violate a copyright on an opensource CSS design!

Including this link

WP:EL, under links normally to be avoided, suggests not linking to personal web pages except those written by a recognized authority. firefoxmyths.com redirects to a personal Comcast page. If the content of this site is factual and sourced (from reliable sources) then it can be paraphrased and directly added to the article (can't be added verbatim since the site is copyrighted). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. It is not a blog and hosting location does not define content. Presonal Web pages are defined as "World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature." A site about Firefox is not personal. The page is sourced and under Wikipedia:External links rules can be added: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" You should not be so afraid of a factually sourced webpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.187.23 (talkcontribs).
"Discussing" with them is completely pointless. There is very strong pro-FF lobby here and you can do nothing to change this. Just tell everyone you know that WP is not reliable source, problem solved. 209.250.234.50 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is relevant. The difference is one of control and oversight of the content. A personally hosted website does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable references. The guidelines at WP:EL reflect this standard. Please feel free to incorporate the material into the article (with references, of course), but this site is not an appropriate link. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else weigh in on this topic? I refuse to engage in an edit war. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be linking to this article due to it being on a personal hosting page, and we can't guarantee that its content is correct, in fact there are quite a lot of incorrect assessments on that page that are linking to references that do not back them up. We can, however, incorporate the material that is correctly referenced directly into the article.-Localzuk(talk) 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to concur with Rick and Localzuk here. (vishwin60 - is User:O in 5 days (possibly)) 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Firefox

There should be a section with issues and critisims of Firefox. For instance the browser deletes bookmarks randomly in some cases, wont let you add bookmarks in some cases, and some addons will completely dissappear from firefox for no reason. All of these have happened to me, and it was not my error, nor my computers error (trust me i did everything i could to find out what i did). Besides this article doesnt give any other opinion for firefox. If this article had a section about its criticisms and technical issues it would be much more unbiased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

With all due condolences to your trouble with Firefox, I don't think your experiences are as common as you may think. All software has its issues; even the most tested, "bug-free" application still screws up sometimes. In regards to neutrality, there already exists a criticism section; see "Critical reception". — Sam 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, many criticisms are spread throughout this and its sub-article, where relevant (eg. user interface criticisms in parts about the user interface). Note that whilst you may think something is significant, it must have been reported by a reputable third party for it to be admissable on the site - opinions aren't allowed as they are unverifiable.-Localzuk(talk) 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Criticism sections are a bad idea - integrate criticism into the appropriate sections. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

Where does FF place those temporary files/archive? --Howard the Duck 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Type about:cache into the location box to go to the special about: page for the cache. It will say where it is, probably in the Cache folder in your profile folder. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationships with other companies

Is it worth mentioning (after the google section) Mozilla's relationship with other companies via the "Companion" browsers such as the Firefox Companion for Kodak Easyshare Gallery (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/add-ons/kodak/) and the recently (in beta) Firefox Companion for eBay?

Lap

Người viết trang web này là Nguyễn Tiến Lập.

          Nguyễn Tiến Lập
          Lớp Thông tin 2
       Học viện Kỹ thuật quân sự khoá 41.


Link to FirefoxMyths

Hi. I am going to add link to FirefoxMyths. Adding it is a service for our (Wikipedia) readers. I hope nobody will oppose this action, and I hope aggresive Firefox fanboys are not going to block me again because of it... 209.250.234.50 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And it shall be removed on sight, because there was wide agreement that it should not be linked, failing WP:EL. (O - RLY?) 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't people ever get tired of this? The site violates all sorts of External Links and Source criteria, nevermind that there's an established consensus not to include it here. Please, please, PLEASE find something more productive to do.--128.222.37.20 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly 128. Please respect our policies on external links and the consensus to keep it out of the article.-Localzuk(talk) 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you be more specific why does this link violate WP:EL, please? 80.221.247.223 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The spamming IP has since been blocked indefinitely because it is an open proxy. (O - RLY?) 19:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It was not spam. BTW - Ryulong has indefinitely blocked not only that IP, but also whole /20 class -- i.e. 4096 IP addressess! (Feel free to read about CIDR notation here.) 218.247.167.36 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)