Talk:Firefox/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Firefox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Backup
Here is a backup table transclusion, just in case the Template Discussion does indeed end in Delete. By the way, I do not think it needs to be a collapsible NavBar. If you look around at other "Version history" or "Release history" tables on software Articles, you will find that most of them aren't. They also usually don't have big green top cells with the phrase "Release history"; instead, they usually fall under "Version history" or "Release history" as a separate Section heading in the respective Article.
| Version | Release date | Gecko version |
Release notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 2002-09-23 | 1.2 |
|
| 0.2 | 2002-10-01 |
| |
| 0.3 | 2002-10-14 |
| |
| 0.4 | 2002-10-19 | 1.3 |
|
| 0.5 | 2002-12-07 |
| |
| 0.6 | 2003-05-17 | 1.5 |
|
| 0.7 | 2003-10-15 |
| |
| 0.8 | 2004-02-09 | 1.6 |
|
| 0.9 | 2004-05-15 | 1.7 |
|
| 1.0 | 2004-11-09 |
| |
| 1.0.8 | 2006-04-13 |
| |
| 1.5 | 2005-11-29 | 1.8 |
|
| 1.5.0.12 | 2007-05-30 |
| |
| 2.0 | 2006-10-24 | 1.8.1 |
|
| 2.0.0.20 | 2008-12-18 |
| |
| 3.0 | 2008-06-17 | 1.9 |
|
| 3.0.19 | 2010-03-30 |
| |
| 3.5 | 2009-06-30 | 1.9.1 |
|
| 3.5.19 | 2011-04-28 |
| |
| 3.6 | 2010-01-21 | 1.9.2 |
|
| 3.6.28 | 2012-03-13 | ||
| 4.0 | 2011-03-22 | 2.0 |
|
| 4.0.1 | 2011-04-28 |
| |
| 5.0 | 2011-06-21 | 5.0 |
|
| 5.0.1 | 2011-07-11 | ||
| 6.0 | 2011-08-16 | 6.0 |
|
| 6.0.2 | 2011-09-06 | ||
| 7.0 | 2011-09-27 | 7.0 |
|
| 7.0.1 | 2011-09-29 |
| |
| 8.0 | 2011-11-08 | 8.0 |
|
| 8.0.1 | 2011-11-21 |
| |
| 9.0 | 2011-12-20 | 9.0 |
|
| 9.0.1 | 2011-12-21 |
| |
| 10.0 | 2012-01-31 | 10.0 |
|
| 10.0.1 | 2012-02-10 |
| |
| 10.0.2 | 2012-02-16 |
| |
| 10.0.3esr | 2012-03-13 | ||
| 10.0.4esr | 2012-04-24 |
| |
| 10.0.5esr | 2012-06-05 |
| |
| 10.0.6esr | 2012-07-17 |
| |
| 10.0.7esr | 2012-08-28 |
| |
| 10.0.8esr | 2012-10-09 |
| |
| 10.0.9esr | 2012-10-12 |
| |
| 10.0.10esr | 2012-10-26 |
| |
| 10.0.11esr | 2012-11-20 |
| |
| 10.0.12esr | 2013-01-08 |
| |
| 11.0 | 2012-03-13 | 11.0 |
|
| 12.0 | 2012-04-24 | 12.0 |
|
| 13.0 | 2012-06-05 | 13.0 |
|
| 13.0.1 | 2012-06-15 |
| |
| 14.0 | 2012-06-26 | 14.0 |
|
| 14.0.1 | 2012-07-17 |
| |
| 15.0 | 2012-08-28 | 15.0 |
|
| 15.0.1 | 2012-09-06 |
| |
| 16.0 | 2012-10-09 | 16.0 |
|
| 16.0.1 | 2012-10-11 |
| |
| 16.0.2 | 2012-10-26 |
| |
| 17.0 | 2012-11-20 | 17.0 |
|
| 17.0.1 | 2012-11-30 |
| |
| 17.0.2esr | 2013-01-08 |
| |
| 17.0.3esr | 2013-02-19 |
| |
| 17.0.4esr | 2013-03-07 |
| |
| 17.0.5esr | 2013-04-02 |
| |
| 17.0.6esr | 2013-05-14 |
| |
| 17.0.7esr | 2013-06-25 |
| |
| 17.0.8esr | 2013-08-06 |
| |
| 17.0.9esr | 2013-09-17 |
| |
| 17.0.10esr | 2013-10-29 |
| |
| 17.0.11esr | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 18.0 | 2013-01-08 | 18.0 |
|
| 18.0.1 | 2013-01-18 | ||
| 18.0.2 | 2013-02-05 |
| |
| 19.0 | 2013-02-19 | 19.0 |
|
| 19.0.1 | 2013-02-27 |
| |
| 19.0.2 | 2013-03-07 |
| |
| 20.0 | 2013-04-02 | 20.0 |
|
| 20.0.1 | 2013-04-11 |
| |
| 21.0 | 2013-05-14 | 21.0 |
|
| 22.0 | 2013-06-25 | 22.0 |
|
| 23.0 | 2013-08-06 | 23.0 |
|
| 23.0.1 | 2013-08-16 |
| |
| 24.0 | 2013-09-17 | 24.0 |
|
| 24.1.0esr | 2013-10-29 |
| |
| 24.1.1esr | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 24.2.0esr | 2013-12-10 |
| |
| 24.3.0esr | 2014-02-04 |
| |
| 25.0 | 2013-10-29 | 25.0 |
|
| 25.0.1 | 2013-11-15 |
| |
| 26.0 | 2013-12-10 | 26.0 |
|
| 26.0.1 | 2013-12-20 |
| |
| 27.0 | 2014-02-04 | 27.0 |
|
| 27.0.1 | 2014-02-13 |
|
There we go. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're clearly unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. The table is already in the edit history of this article and no one is going to delete the article without moving it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-colon or comma
"Former release; no longer supported" are clearly distinct and finite thoughts, independent from each other, but not complete sentences.
- http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/semicolon
- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semicolon
- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/semicolon?q=semicolon
They should not be separated by commas, which are used to, among other things, seperate list items. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Links to latest ESR downloads
For some reason, symlinks to latest ESR releases downloads are left pointing to 24.3.0 instead of being updated to 24.4.0, so URLs such as https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest-esr/linux-x86_64/ are still pointing to 24.3.0. All that applies to various links in Firefox § OS support history section – should we update them to point to explicit version directories (https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/24.4.0esr/linux-x86_64/, for example), or wait for "latest-esr" symlinks to become updated? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just as a note, those symlinks seem to be Ok now. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Portal bar and URLs
@Dsimic: What you mean by visible and invisible URLs? IMO MOS:COMPUTING#Website_addresses applies to {{URL}} as well as to {{Official website}}. And {{Portal}}'s crashes the References layout on my 1280x1024px screen.
@Codename Lisa: You told me many things[Thanks!] about MOS and layout problems. Do I have the right here? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello there! Regarding the URLs, let's start from a quote from the above linked MOS section:
Certain areas of Wikipedia such as infoboxes require website addresses (URL) to be exposed in print. To maintain readability and conciseness, certain parts of the web addresses may need to be hidden or their shorter forms used. [...] However, the reader does not need to see all of these somewhat unappealing and hard-to-remember items, thanks to the web browsers and web servers' ability to infer them. In general, the following parts can be omitted.
- Based on that, removing protocol specifiers ("http://"), common host names ("www") and trailing slashes ("/") from URLs applies only when those URLs are visible on a rendered page, such as when used in infoboxes' "website" parameter. When URLs are specified in {{Official website}}, for example, the URL itself isn't visible on a rendered page. Even for infoboxes, it's better to use complete URLs and get them displayed through additional {{URL}} template. Makes sense?
- Regarding {{Portal}} vs. {{Portal bar}}, my opinion is that using {{Portal bar}} wastes vertical space which is premium in the today's widescreen era. You're right that it clashes with the "References" section below possibly reducing the number of displayed columns, however the recent typography refresh turned its 30em columns width into two columns displayed on 786px-wide screens, for example. Anyway, if you or other editors still find {{Portal bar}} to be a better solution, I'd be fine with that.
- Of course, I'm more than open for discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello guys.
- Here is what I think:
- URLs: This one is a little tricky. Dsimic is right that the criterion is MOS:COMPUTING is what's visible. However, a footnote in MOS:STABILITY says ArbCom has forbidden edits that make no difference and has treated obsessive compulsive edits with bans and blocks. In other words, if it works and looks the same, leave it alone. Neither of you must change {{official website}} into {{official website}}|http://www.firefox.com/ or vice versa and neither of you should revert it if somebody else did it between his edits. (A talk page notice may be okay, depending on situation.) So, both of you please do nothing about it anymore.
- Portal bars: Definitely Rezanansowy's edit, if I had to choose! I tried a 800×600 screen, a 1024×768 one and a 1600×900 one. In all cases, box intersects References section. As the width of the screen grows, the box bumps into the references, causing an unpleasant horizontal bar. I imagine the situation is alleviated on a 1920×1080 screen because of its enormous breadth but not everyone has such big screens and not everyone loves to read on that screen with browser maximized.
- Here is what I think:
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for an insight! I've edited the article so {{Portal bar}} is used. Regarding the URLs, I'd say there officially aren't two alternative styles for non-visible URLs, as MOS:WEBADDR says nothing about the URLs that aren't visible on rendered pages. Also, it's much better to include those elements; for example, not including the trailing slash in many cases generates an additional HTTP redirect whenever such URL is accessed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Defective browser
Why is there no mention that Firefox is highly unstable and will repeatedly crash your computer if you have Windows 7? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Because there's no support for statements like that, however if you could provide a reliable source that supports your opinion, we could add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Safe Browsing API
In Firefox, this stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site, furthermore, and according to the 'safebrowsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". [49] It is worth noting, that (like in Google Chrome or Chromium) although enabled by default, anti-phishing can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes [50] and then by restarting the browser. According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals (presumably with Google's consent).[51]
Whoever removed it before, said it "advances a position", I cannot understand why they would say that because there is no position given on anything in these statements, nor one that I can see which is being advanced. Also the content has been appropriately referenced. J05HYYY (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the weasel word. J05HYYY (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear from the editor as well, but what I see is that advances two positions: 1) Firefox is not as secure as you'd think it is, and 2) it is part of some NSA conspiracy to report your name, address, SSN/SIN or other identifying information to them. The former may be true, but the latter is over-sold. They don't know who I am, only what I do. It does not give sufficient detail to inform the reader and leaves them with a feeling of insecurity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi
- First and most important of all, revert comes before the discussion. It is not the other way around. Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly and their removal is even exempt to WP:3RR rule. In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent". In Wikipedia, we strictly don't presume, especially when the source says:
These specific slides do not indicate how the NSA obtains Google PREF cookies or whether the company cooperates in these programs.
- Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO? Third, the source given does not blames the anti-phishing entirely. In fact it says:
The agency's internal presentation slides, provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, show that when companies follow consumers on the Internet to better serve them advertising, the technique opens the door for similar tracking by the government.
- Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly
- well this isn't unreferenced or original research or about living people.
In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent".
- I'll remove that for you then.
Second, the source does not explain whether the disabling of anti-phishing has any impact on the cookie that it stores. Is it deleted and not sent again? Why say this in the first place when it is against WP:NOTHOWTO?
- disabling anti-phishing disables safe browsing, so no need for the cookie, but that's neither here nor there, you can't blame an edit for not adding information.
Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
- I think you're looking into it too deeply.
- At no point does this paragraph say whether it's a good thing to enable safe browsing or disable it, only that it could be disabled. If anything you seem to have a bias to want the user to keep safe browsing enabled, because it's you who seems to think it's a good thing to have safe browsing enabled, via anti-phishing (thus sending all your URLs for every webpage you visit to Google, then somehow to NSA). I myself simply feel it's up to the user to decide whether or not they want this feature, but to be well informed of it's positives and negatives via websites such as Wikipedia.
According to the 'safe browsing' API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up."Safe Browsing API — Google Developers". Developers.google.com. Retrieved 2014-06-10. It also stores a 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site.[1] According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals."NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-10. It is worth noting, that, although enabled by default, anti-phishing and thus 'safe browsing'[2] can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes"How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? | Mozilla Support". Support.mozilla.org. Retrieved 2014-06-10. and then by restarting the browser.
Would the above suit you better? J05HYYY (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's what we call WP:SYNTH (a form of original research): You took statements from different sources, put them together and made something none of the sources say, sneaking a couple of assumptions of yourself in between. Seriously, you play around with words and the only thing you do not address is my main concern.
- And the entire thing about not saying whether it is a good or bad thing to disable the phishing filter is what makes it weasel wordy. Did you just mention the disabling out of nowhere for no reason? In that case, delete, because of WP:IINFO. Or are you implying that disabling it does something? Then again, delete, because of weasel wordy nature.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are you trolling? Every point I made in the above was referenced. All of the references gave evidence to the points made. Nothing was strung together. Which exact part of the text do you think was made up, which assumptions, if any?
- I wrote that it could be disabled because of neutrality, giving the user the choice whether or not they want it enabled. I read "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and it talks of "Summary-only descriptions of works.", "Lyrics databases.", "Excessive listings of statistics." and "Exhaustive logs of software updates.". Also the references given are not from independent sources. So WP:IINFO does not apply to this edit in any way, shape or form.
- I think we can conclude this discussion, as your only objections to the proposed edit now seem to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please indent your messages properly and sign it. And not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. If you are unconvinced, you can invite additional input via WP:DR.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign. I don't think we need additional input yet, I'm just still left waiting for you to tell me (specifically), which parts of the edit you disagree with and why.J05HYYY (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't call those who object with you trolls. I appreciate Codename Lisa's edits and rational thought process: I did not read the linked sources and obviously Codename Lisa has. I defer to that editor on this.
- I also appreciate J05HYYY's additional and willingness to discuss. Other than what I stated above, I have no opinion, but it's clear that that this material is SYNTHESIS and should not be included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Synthesis how? It's not original research - There are many sources pertaining to this, I just linked to a tiny fraction of them, so I don't understand why this edit shouldn't be accepted. Nobody, including Codename Lisa has objected to any specific points in this edit, which is why I asked if she was trolling.J05HYYY (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign. I don't think we need additional input yet, I'm just still left waiting for you to tell me (specifically), which parts of the edit you disagree with and why.J05HYYY (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Just coming here and saying "Nothing was strung together" does not make it true, because I am afraid from what I see, in fact it is so. For example, "According to the Edward Snowden leaks, the NSA use this cookie to identify individuals"; the source explicitly says that the cookie is not for identifying; rather, it is for finding someone who is already identified. (It uses a laser designator analogy.) So, you seriously might want to have a fresh set of eyes looking at it. Unfortunately, it also appears to me that all you did so far was trying to twist the meaning of what you read. For example, you nitpick on IINFO's example list, disregarding its lead that says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context". In addition, whether you did intent to imply something is a entirely different matter than whether your context-free sentence ends up implying something. After all, there is so much contents about the anti-phishing mechanism and nothing about other cookies, which the source makes it a case from the beginning.
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, your objection is false.
A slide from an internal NSA presentation indicating that the agency uses at least one Google cookie as a way to identify targets for exploitation. (Washington Post)
The slides also suggest that the agency is using these tracking techniques to help identify targets for offensive hacking operations.
According to the documents, the NSA and its British counterpart, GCHQ, are using the small tracking files or "cookies" that advertising networks place on computers to identify people browsing the Internet.
they do contain numeric codes that enable Web sites to uniquely identify a person's browser.
- J05HYYY (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The data is put into context, if you have anti-phishing enabled in FF, then you use 'safe browsing' and thus have the PREF cookie. Any other false objections? J05HYYY (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Don't put the data into context, let the data speak for themselves and let the experts speak for themselves. Don't draw conclusions. That's what we're saying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- You spend way too much effort into falsifying sentences to suit your own need and calling me a liar. Did you even read what you quote? Number One: You are abusing on the ambiguous meaning of "identify". Except the source does clarify:
The NSA's use of cookies isn't a technique for sifting through vast amounts of information to find suspicious behavior; rather, it lets NSA home in on someone already under suspicion - akin to when soldiers shine laser pointers on a target to identify it for laser-guided bombs.
- ...which the same thing that Walter said, without even looking at the source. Number Two: All the while this source does not peep about Firefox. Number Three: How all this going to justify the askewed point of view resulted from leaning too much on vilifying a security feature of Firefox, while millions of other forms of cookies are and may be used for the same purpose? Your own quotation reads: "cookies that advertising networks place on computers".
- My opinion about the article remains what it was. If you think you can really put up a discussion that hold water, take it to WP:DRN; but mind you, they can drop your case and take disciplinary actions, should you resort to gaming the system like this.
- Some regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: You know, if he hadn't made all these strange claims and insinuations, he could have added some decent sentences to the article; in fact we still can do. The DarkReading source from InformationWeek is rather convincing, though without conspiracy theories. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, but as it stood, it was not acceptable. Perhaps we could craft something that might be more NPOV and less SYNTHESIS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- You read my mind. Only our NPOV effort would go into not saying it is "but nothing to worry about" as opposed to J05HYYY's doomsday version. And no more interpretation of "PREF cookie" = "the PREF cookie".
- I'd wait to see if we have a DRN case, so we can discuss this as a compromise there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Wikipedia through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs)
- That would be great. It's not censorship, but you'll be told that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think I probably will take this to DRN, as you are repeatedly removing my edits without sufficient justification as to why. I tried to talk to you to resolve any issues in the edit, and you didn't manage to come up with any valid reasons as to why an edit along the proposed lines shouldn't be allowed, even when I removed any conflicting pieces. Besides this, you have attempted to find faults within the sources, which weren't there and keep on reciting templates which do not apply to the text, as justification. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Walter and Lisa was one in the same person. As Walter seems to agree with whatever Lisa is saying, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary and both remove the edits, with different accounts to avoid being banned with the removal rule. Personally I can only hope DRN makes the right decision to allow the text and to ban the both of you, for A) colluding and B) destroying the neutrality of Wikipedia through what appears to be, blatant censorship. 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs)
Maybe, but it'd be easier if you told me what specifically in the proposed edit you disagree with. To recap here is the edit, (I've taken into account what you said about the NSA link):
According to the "Safe Browsing" API "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up"."Safe Browsing API — Google Developers". Developers.google.com. Retrieved 2014-06-10. "Safe Browsing" also stores a mandatory 'preferences' cookie on the computer, even if the user hasn't ever visited a Google site.http://ashkansoltani.org/2012/02/25/cookies-from-nowhere/ According to the Washington Post, the NSA use this cookie to, identify and "home in on someone already under suspicion.""NSA uses Google cookies to pinpoint targets for hacking". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2014-06-10.</ref> It is worth noting, that, although enabled by default, anti-phishing and thus "Safe Browsing" can be disabled in Firefox by going to Options > Preferences > Security and disabling "Block reported sites" and "Block reported web forgeries" checkboxes[3]"How does built-in Phishing and Malware Protection work? | Mozilla Support". Support.mozilla.org. Retrieved 2014-06-10. and then by restarting the browser. J05HYYY (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since no-ones responded within the past day, I can only assume it's OK. 86.152.89.167 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing worthwhile has been added or needs to be discussed in the past day. It's still a poor addition. I removed your addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- How, exactly, is it "still a poor addition"? J05HYYY (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you not read the rebuttals above? Not enough has changed since then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the user should be informed, so they can turn it off if they wish. J05HYYY (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I do too, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper or a soapbox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's not reporting news, nor spreading ideas, it's saying how to turn it off if the user wishes. I had problems turning it off myself. J05HYYY (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- So we good now? J05HYYY (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I thought we had reached a compromise. Much of the rest was deleted from this page edit, but someone has reverted the final change again. Walter agrees that the user should be informed, so they can turn it off if they wish and so do I. J05HYYY (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- We did not reach a compromise. Silence is not agreement. First, we need to hear from @Codename Lisa:. Second, the OR cannot be included. Third, the SYNTHESIS has to be eliminated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel: not sure if you want to respond as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Came across this at the 3RR noticeboard, and from what I can gather, this seems to be a case of original research, which it's not allowed in WP. Find a secondary source that describe that process and you can keep that material. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a manual. Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Cwobeel, shouldn't be too difficult. J05HYYY (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help. Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- How, exactly, is it "still a poor addition"? J05HYYY (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing worthwhile has been added or needs to be discussed in the past day. It's still a poor addition. I removed your addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since no-ones responded within the past day, I can only assume it's OK. 86.152.89.167 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Interregnum
Well, we have a few hours of calm before his block expires. In the meantime, I reverted his last three edits that were a total violation of WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:WEASEL. Plus, I was studying supplied sources and found a claim that says Safe Browsing communicates over HTTPS and SPDY. That means the traffic is encrypted and NSA must either crack it or, as DarkReading puts it, issue a subpoena to receive it. Then, there comes his "does not hash URL claim"; DarkReading says: "Firefox does fewer lookups with Google's servers because it downloads partial URL hashes that it checks locally. A Google spokesperson said that Chrome also checks hashes locally unless a match is found -- then it initiates a lookup on the server". This person have been trying to fool us all along; discovering his SYNTH was just scratching the surface. I, for one, will not accept one word from this person without triple-checking it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you.
- his initial edit: typical WP:SYNTHESIS
- description of hashing of URL by Google [4]: Google never knows the full URL (Behavior of Firefox is as same as that of Chrome)
When Safe Browsing is enabled in Chrome, Chrome will contact Google's servers periodically to download the most recent Safe Browsing list, containing suspected phishing and malware sites. The most recent copy of this list is stored locally on your system. Chrome will check the URL of each site you visit or file you download against this local list. If you navigate to a URL that matches against the local known-bad list, Chrome sends a partial URL fingerprint (the first 32 bits of a SHA-256 hash of the URL) to Google for verification that the URL is indeed dangerous. Google cannot determine the full URL from this information.
- his latest edit: just HOWTO. no need for encyclopedia
- --Claw of Slime (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Addition: He has already added same contents on Google Safe Browsing#Privacy. The problem is owned by Google Safe Browsing service. There is no need to put same contents on Firefox article (He has not added same one on Google Chrome article. It's quite strange :)). --Claw of Slime (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Add criticism section?
Considering that many users are getting tired of the google-chromesque faggotry and are switching to Pale Moon or SeaMonkey. 177.148.178.239 (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Criticism is always valid to add, it helps the article maintain neutrality. It should only be added when the information is sourced (see WP:V) and can be linked to reliable individuals (see WP:RS). Linking to chat groups, IRC channels, developer forums, etc., where non-notable and non-recognizable individuals are complaining about some feature or other is not appropriate, and should be deleted.
- As for a section on it, it's better not to have one and rather mix the negative in with the positive.
- There's an essay that deals with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Windows XP Support
Any information how long Windows XP will be supported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.85.68 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- The reason why the support of Win 2000 and XP RTM/SP1 has dropped in Firefox 12+ is that Visual C++ 2010 does not support these platforms (Visual C++ 2010 requires several new APIs introduced in Win XP SP2) [5]. Mozilla is now planning to migrate its build system from Visual C++ 2010 to 2013 in Firefox 35+ [6], however, Visual C++ 2013 still supports Win XP and Mozilla developers do not say anything about drop of Win XP support. So, I think support of Win XP will keep for additional several years. --Claw of Slime (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
What's a dairy release?
In the infobox of the article as it currently is, there are 2 references to a "dairy release". Should this read "daily release"? That would be my guess. However, in case there is such a thing as a "dairy release", I won't make the edit myself. I will leave it to others. Oaklandguy (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yea, all I'm seeing while searching is stuff for Dairy Queen press releases and the like. Question is, how do you change it? I'm not seeing anything saying "dairy release" in the code, and it seems weird that the template would automatically fill that in (I also don't see anything in the documentation that would suggest that it would do that). Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. That is my typo in Template:Latest preview software release/Firefox used in Infobox template. Now fixed to "daily release". Thank you. --Claw of Slime (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing this. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Firefox's 450 million users
I just changed a reference to the archived version but then saw that the original page does contain this information. They just changed "450 Million uses" to "half a billion users". I'm going to remove the archived version again and change the wiki article accordingly to say "half a billion users". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.6.25 (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! Looking good, the only missing thing was to date the statement. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
update
Infobox screenshot
Is the infobox screenshot in the article i.e, File:Firefox-33-xfce.png, actually the 33 version of Firefox? I don't think so. Currently I'm using Firefox 33 on Windows XP, I found 2 differences by comparing with it. Differnces can be seen here. The "Google" search button is replaced by an "magnifying glass icon", there's "Restore previous session" option in down but in the infobox image there is no "Restore previous version" option, and sorry that I've checked the Menu Bar in "View" tab.
Since I'm using XP now, I think I shouldn't upload it on Wiki as XP is retired. I think a new screenshot of the latest version of Firefox running in Windows 8 or 8.1 should be uploaded replacing File:Firefox 29.0 on Windows 8.png and should be assigned in infobox. HPD talk 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Browser Marketshares—November 2012—Firefox.svg
Hi.
I am not sure why File:Browser Marketshares—November 2012—Firefox.svg (a pie chart) is removed from the article. This image shows a cross-sectional browser market share for: November 2012. The text discusses this date and the pie chart provides oversight from a secondary source. (Another chart, File:Usage share of web browsers (Source StatCounter).svg provides longitudinal data.)
One of the common mistakes that newcomers do in Wikipedia is to delete information about the past and calling it "removing outdated info", not realizing the Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is very much interested in them. (In fact, the only place that keep up-to-date without mentioning the past is infoboxes.) But again, Marawe is not a newcomer. So, Marawe, perhaps you'd like to explain?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've been active in editing Wikipedia since 2005. If you want to keep the chart, do it. -- Marawe (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yahoo
I came here to read about how Firefox keeps pushing Yahoo's search engine (Do you want to switch to Yahoo? How about now, do you want to switch now? How about now? Click "Yes" or "Not Now" ("%$*&!! you" isn't one of the options)). The word "Yahoo" isn't even in this article. Art LaPella (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's not really important to the product. It is to their marketing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Firefox has never offered me to change the search engine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- More seriously, after I upgraded Firefox, they switched me to Yahoo as a default and I switched it back, Firefox has asked me to return at least 3 times lately when logging on ("Yes" or "Not Now"), and sometimes the choice of switching to Yahoo appears in a toolbar. Windows 8.1 Art LaPella (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- You should complain. It changed mine a few versions ago and since then it's kept my preferences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- More seriously, after I upgraded Firefox, they switched me to Yahoo as a default and I switched it back, Firefox has asked me to return at least 3 times lately when logging on ("Yes" or "Not Now"), and sometimes the choice of switching to Yahoo appears in a toolbar. Windows 8.1 Art LaPella (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved commented out text into Talk: Android and ARMv6/v7 support
User:Comp.arch added the following comments into the main text, which more certainly belong into Talk:
- <!-- Is there an error in this source? Old out-of-date versions supported ARMv6 and Android 2.2 - these versions usually do not get updates on the desktop, will they for sure for Android (but no longer be offered for download otherwise (in Google Play))? There is no ESR for mobile(?) - In Google Play searching for "Firefox ARMv6" or "Firefox Android 2.2" finds the beta but not stable, is the support in the newer betas? Is there a strange ARMv6 (esr) Linux (not Android) build available. -->
- <!-- Redundant as Android's minimum screen size is already as big (except for Android Wear (4.4w) - that nobody(?) at least not Firefox claims support for): "Display size (on mobile) must be at least 320 pixels high and 240 pixels wide.<ref name="mobile_req"/>" -->
-Mardus (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the point is that support was dropped for ARMv6, and support was also dropped for Android 2.2. -Mardus (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. comp.arch (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Mozilla Foundation was created in 2003, not 1998
This is very wrong:
- Firefox is considered the spiritual successor of Netscape Navigator,[21] as the Mozilla Foundation was created by Netscape in 1998 before their acquisition by AOL.[22]
The "source" is TV Tropes and doesn't even support that claim or mention AOL or the foundation at all. The foundation was created in 2003. Reinistalk 11:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Firefox: Adware
Mozilla Firefox has become Adware:
"Adware, or advertising-supported software, is any software package which automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author." This clearly fits Firefox since 2014-11-15. Therefore, I advise including the category Adware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.186.243 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Usually, "adware" means the software whose main purpose is showing ads, in other words, "adware" is a type of malwares. Who says "Firefox has become adware"? Could you show us reliable sources? Does anti-adware software such as Ad-Aware recognize Firefox as an adware and delete it? There are many many softwares which show ads instead of paying fee, but none of them are not in Category:Adware. --Claw of Slime (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The definition on Adware clearly defines adware (or "advertising-supported software") in its first sentence. Mozilla Firefox clearly automatically automatically renders advertisements to generate revenue for Mozilla [7]. When there is "many many software" (please state which!) which show ads and are not listed in the Adware-category, then they should also be added to the adware-category! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.186.243 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- First, please sign your posts by using ~~~~ or similar.
- Second, you need a reliable source that states it's adware, not just a blog that requires interpretation to determine if the statement is or isn't true.
- Third, you've got several editors who disagree and you should try to seek WP:CONSENSUS for a change like this.
- Fourth, a discussion of this should be added to the body to explain why it is adware. The opinions of all of your verifiable sources can be added to a summary of their opinions. Recognize, of course, that blogs, forums and other material from non-experts, is likely to be challenged as not reliable so you might as well stick to reliable sources. No references should be added to the infobox.
- Fifth, it's not a license type at all.
- Sixth, I have the new Firefox and see no ads. So that means either I'm doing something right or it's not classical adware. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The definition to refer malware has a reliable reference Microsoft Encyclopedia of Security, however, the definition on Adware first sentence "any software package which automatically renders advertisements in order to generate revenue for its author" has no reference. In addition, Category:Adware is a subcategory of Category:Malware by type and most of softwares in Category:Adware are malwares, not ad-supported softwares. The examples of "many many software"; Opera (software), Skype, Android and iOS apps which include AdMob, iAd or similar libraries (such as Angry Birds series), etc. Recently, Amazon Kindle#Seventh generation also has ad-supported edition. --Claw of Slime (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The definition on Adware clearly defines adware (or "advertising-supported software") in its first sentence. Mozilla Firefox clearly automatically automatically renders advertisements to generate revenue for Mozilla [7]. When there is "many many software" (please state which!) which show ads and are not listed in the Adware-category, then they should also be added to the adware-category! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.186.243 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding (2) If you have the definition of Adware (also see [8] [9] and even [10]) and Mozilla Firefox exactly behaves like this (shows advertisements to users on the "tiles" [11]then Firefox is clearly adware. It might not be in a magnitude like other adware, but it still is adware. Either that, or the definition of Adware is wrong.
- (3) Then I am stating my argumentation here.
- (4) Agreed, a explanation why Firefox is adware since 2014-11-13 (corrected date in first post) should be given as well. Sources are e.g. given above.
- (5) What do you mean? Are you referring to the software license? Free software can also be adware.
- (6) See [12] for more information and [13] for an example screenshot.
- (7) See my answer to (2). If Firefox is no adware (according to your sources: Microsoft), then the definition is wrong or at least not complete. Firefox definitely uses advertisements to generate revenue. Then it's at least ad-supported software.
- 79.233.186.243 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you see ads in your Firefox, run a malware check - Skysmith (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- He/she thinks "Directory Tiles" introduced in 33.1 has made Firefox an adware. --Claw of Slime (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.linexp.ru/firefox-from-1-to-20-javascript-benchmark-and-distribution-size
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Source for abbreviation is somewhat lacking
"For the abbreviation of Firefox, Mozilla prefers Fx or fx, though it is often abbreviated as FF.[51]" Is this even true? The linked source only mentions the Fx or fx. There doesn't seem to be any reference to FF at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.103.219 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Is everyone cool with the new stacked layout?
Hello
As can be inferred from the edit diff, I have deployed a new stacked layout for version number information. They now occupy the full width of the infobox. This capability has been part of the {{Infobox web browser}} since April 2014. I thought after two years, I might as well push a little harder and bolder for both feedback and bug fixing.
Looking forward for feedback.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071125104648/http://www.mozilla.org:80/security/bug-bounty.html to http://www.mozilla.org/security/bug-bounty.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090804172858/http://www.rietta.com:80/firefox/Tutorial/backend.html to http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/backend.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
10.6–10.8
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
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)
External links modified
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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203005137/http://www.conceivablytech.com:80/5430/products/why-firefox-4-will-never-pass-the-acid3-test/ to http://www.conceivablytech.com/5430/products/why-firefox-4-will-never-pass-the-acid3-test/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304231602/http://pkgsrc-repo.uk.openindiana.org/packages/www/firefox-l10n-3.6.15.tgz to http://pkgsrc-repo.uk.openindiana.org/packages/www/firefox-l10n-3.6.15.tgz
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228204829/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.conceivablytech.com/5430/products/why-firefox-4-will-never-pass-the-acid3-test/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explorer_unsafe_for_2.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for ftp://archive.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105042100/http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/browsers/ to http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/software/aix/browsers/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513062601/http://www-archive.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html to http://www-archive.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306113159/http://mpl.mozilla.org/2012/01/03/announcing-mpl-2-0/ to https://mpl.mozilla.org/2012/01/03/announcing-mpl-2-0
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070125002055/http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/115 to http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/115
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210145456/http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/24241 to http://www.spreadfirefox.com/node/24241
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge "Platform availability" to "Version history"
I am suggesting that the "Platform availability" section be merged/moved to the "Version history" section. It is making the "Features" section too bloated. Also, a clean-up could be used to move extra information to Firefox version history and remove any superficial information. All screenshots should remove copyrighted logos and although the "Restore Previous Section" button can be kept, it is optional and I see it way too often. Only one Firefox screenshot on Mac should be kept, preferably one of macOS 10.10 or newer, as interface changes between both are minor. --LABcrabs (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, no compromise. This dangerous sentence suggests the nominator is extremely misguided:
All screenshots should remove copyrighted logos [...]
. We really should have a copyright exam and certification stage before letting people touch images. —Codename Lisa (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm talking specifically about overusing the Firefox logo, as it is trademarked and unnecessary for screenshots of the open source software. I did say should, though if there is a valid reason to have such imagery, I am willing to listen to it. In the past, screenshots omitted such trademarked images. --LABcrabs (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of wrong things have been done in the past that are not being done today. (One of them is prepending "Comment:" to a reply.
) Neither Wikipedia nor Commons have any policy forbidding or restricting the use of images based on them being trademarks, simply because trademark laws are far off our path. The only thing we have is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks § Use of graphic logos which does not forbid anything. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- A lot of wrong things have been done in the past that are not being done today. (One of them is prepending "Comment:" to a reply.
.svg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/files/2014/11/Screen-Shot-2014-11-10-at-4.51.59-PM.png){kind=link}
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/01/internet_explorer_unsafe_for_2.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616073517/http://www.thebrowserworld.com/2008/03/29/firefox-30-beta-4-vs-opera-950-beta-vs-safari-31-beta-multiple-sites-opening-test/ to http://www.thebrowserworld.com/2008/03/29/firefox-30-beta-4-vs-opera-950-beta-vs-safari-31-beta-multiple-sites-opening-test/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050717012950/http://feeds.spreadfirefox.com/downloads/firefox.xml to http://feeds.spreadfirefox.com/downloads/firefox.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601030624/http://blog.mozilla.org/website-archive/2011/02/25/spread-firefox/ to http://blog.mozilla.org/website-archive/2011/02/25/spread-firefox/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The Promotion section isn't particularly relevant today
The section titled Promotion covers things that happened in the 2004...2008 time frame. While some of it might be of historical interest, it's not particularly relevant to Firefox as it exists today. I suggest removing the section or moving it to the History of Firefox article (repurposing that one to cover more than version history). (Not doing the edit myself in order to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Undue weight given to outdated information about EME support
About half of the section about standards support discusses EME. That is in no way a reasonable proportion. Additionally, the information given is out of date. Firefox no longer uses the Adobe Primetime CDM. (The mention of Google Safe Browsing is out of place in that section, too.) (Not doing the edit myself in order to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Coverage of extensions is out of date
The Features section talks about XUL and XPCOM as the extension technologies. As of Firefox 57, XUL+XPCOM extensions are no longer supported. There is now a new extension API that's largely compatible with Chrome's and Edge's extension APIs. (Not doing the edit myself in order to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Performance section says nothing about the new style system in 57
The section on Performance should probably mention the new style system in Firefox 57. Of course, browser benchmarks usually test JavaScript, so it's not reflected on the typical benchmarks. (Not doing the edit myself in order to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Mention of Firefox Hello is no longer relevant
It has been removed from Firefox, so it would make sense to remove it from the article. Outside of an article specifically framed as a history article, there isn't really value in listing features that have once been in Firefox but aren't anymore. (Not making the edit myself to avoid COI editing.) 08:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsivonen (talk • contribs)
Mention of DOM Inspector and Firefox is no longer relevant
The Features section mentions Error Console, DOM Inspector and Firebug. These no longer exist as supported features of their own. Rather, their functionality is now available in the Firefox Developer Tools. (Not making the edit myself to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Firefox is not sandboxed yet
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
- 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)
- The sandboxing section could really use an update as of November 2017. See a developer blog post on Linux improvements in Firefox 57 and Mozilla's sandboxing status page. (Not doing the edit myself in order to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would make sense to rewrite the whole Security section. It now contains various tidbits from over the years but does not give a good idea of what the situation is now (especially with sandboxing and multi-process architecture.) (Not doing the edit myself to avoid COI editing.) Hsivonen (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
No mention of the new features of version 57
No explanation of Firefox Quantum (Firefox 57). Is it a new engine or is it still Gecko? It would be nice if someone would add this info somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.123.96 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- This can be worked inside the existing articles. The new engine is Quantum, which still has Gecko as its base, but adds new Servo components. Firefox claims: "It’s by far the biggest update we’ve had since we launched Firefox 1.0 in 2004, it’s just flat out better in every way." --LABcrabs (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
It is NPOV to say "inferior"
So, what happened is: I edited the article to the effect that iOS rendering engine is inferior to Quantum and provided a source too. Next thing that happened, ViperSnake151 reverted claiming that "inferior" is an NPOV-violating word. Is he right?
Not really. A wise guy (I forgot who) once said "Wikipedia is not written from a neutralized point of view, but from a neutral one." These two are exact opposite. Neutral point of view means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", even if it means writing scathing remarks or praises from important sources, as well as scathing answers to those scathing remarks. Neutralized point of view means writing in a way that looks neither too good nor too bad, but metaphorically a shade of gray, even if means censoring or toning down some scathing remarks and praises. The example of the neutralized point of view appears in the notorious Full Metal Jacket film, in which the war correspondents were directed to replace "search and destroy" with "sweep and clear" in their writing, so as not to conjure up the image of destruction, ruin and waste in connection with what the U.S. army did.
With the source that I provided, iOS rendering engine is quantified to be inferior by 70 points. This important because iOS runs on exotic hardware and its total cost of ownership is significantly higher.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- It feels like a statement meant to attack WebKit and Safari as being inferior to Firefox. We are here to discuss things from an objective, neutral point of view. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151: To be fair, you are not offering an alternative either. And you deleted my second writing too. In fact, what you have done so far is hiding the fact that the forced engine's performance is scored less than the intrinsic engine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- http://html5test.com/compare/browser/ios-10.3/firefox.mobile-48/opera.mobile-37/chrome.mobile-52.html doesn't state that the Safari render engine is inferior to the Quantum in iOS, it only compares specific elements between "ios 10.3" (whatever that is) to Firefox 48 mobile. Was there another edit I missed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi.
- Quantum is a project name, not the name of a layout engine. The source given compares layout engines.
- "iOS 10.3" is a mobile operating system by Apple Inc. Every app that runs on it (web browser or not) uses its WebKit rendering engine. So, Safari for iOS, Firefox for iOS, Chrome for iOS, Microsoft Edge for iOS and Opera Mobile on iOS all have the same score on iOS 10.3.
- Firefox Mobile 48, Chrome Mobile 52 and Opera Mobile 37 are all old versions of the corresponding Android web browsers. But Wikipedia does not forbid reporting old information. In fact, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must be last thing that updates its information. (Other things that update sooner become its sources.)
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @FleetCommand: I've tried to incorporate your edits while taking a more neutral approach, but your edit essentially undid what I wrote. Truth be told, each engine has its strengths and weaknesses. WebKit might seem inferior on paper, but it does have some capabilities that are absent from Firefox, and vice-versa. ViperSnake151 stepped in, reverting everything back to the previous wording, while also noting that "Quantum is not a layout engine". I suppose that Viper's changes are fine, but I still believe that there should be a better explanation of how Firefox for iOS differs from other Firefox versions, and also stressing that the layout engine is on par with most other iOS browsers like Safari and Chrome. (Opera Mini offers an exceptional server-side rendering option, using Presto instead of WebKit.) --LABcrabs (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi.
- Would you mind elaborating what capabilities WebKit version of iOS has that absent from Gecko and Blink?
- Thanks in advance.
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- http://html5test.com/compare/browser/ios-10.3/firefox.mobile-48/opera.mobile-37/chrome.mobile-52.html doesn't state that the Safari render engine is inferior to the Quantum in iOS, it only compares specific elements between "ios 10.3" (whatever that is) to Firefox 48 mobile. Was there another edit I missed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- @ViperSnake151: To be fair, you are not offering an alternative either. And you deleted my second writing too. In fact, what you have done so far is hiding the fact that the forced engine's performance is scored less than the intrinsic engine. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem is the insistence that we must disclaim how WebKit performs in comparison to Gecko. That is not the point of the article, to talk about Firefox and Gecko and then say "Firefox for iOS cannot, because it must use WebKit, and that's not good." which is the kind of spin I'd see from Mozilla themselves. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, ViperSnake151
- You don't need to turn this into a drama. Writing comparisons between two versions or editions of a product is not forbidden in Wikipedia, especially when we have a source. (Remind me again: How many edits have you made in Windows 7 editions, Windows 8 editions and Windows 10 editions?) If you don't like the word "inferior" and think you can do better, please do so. And whatever you do, avoid writing something that amounts to indirect misjudgment on your colleagues.
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Platform availability
The subordination of this section by some users to compatibility tables using a single format is not acceptable. The desktop release table as it stands is broken; hyperlinks are in different places depending on the release, architectures are not always labelled correctly depending on release, and the information is less comprehensive compared to my latest changes. There is no need for four tables here, the 'Required hardware and software' table sufficiently covers the data applicable to the latest release, and my latest changes should not be automatically rejected by association with the subjectively inferior changes to the templates, which were intended to refocus the tables (they weren't palatable unfortunately and I apologise for that). Equally the proses do not suffer from the censorship issues of my templates, and they are technically accurate (funny how Codename Lisa failed to clarify what they meant by this in their edit comment, although this is the sort of thing I've come to expect). Naturally I'm reinserting my changes, hopefully there will be a resolution to the whole thing in the future. Paianni (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, everyone
- In the past five days, User:Paspie and I have been engaged in a dispute over a table that is rendered by {{Firefox release compatibility}}. Papsie made several different bold contributions to the table, all of which involved some sort of removing information, without giving a reason.
- One contribution, euphemistically called "simplifying" destroyed the spirit of the table, which is showing a compatibility history, making it redundant to infobox: Revision 814224706. Three rounds of revert-warring followed.
- Another contribution turned the table into a vague, accessibility-hostile mess: revision 814459896
- One last contribution made the table leaner but longer, at the cost of removing the start dates of support periods: revision 814560339
- To his credit, he did participate in the talk page discussion; actually, he talks a lot. But he always refuses to answer the main question: Why do you delete info from the table without explanation? (I might add that content removal without explanation is vandalism.)
- And now that he has brought the dispute here, new factors are added:
- This time, the table is removed altogether, replaced with technically inaccurate and original-research–laden text. So far, I have been under the impression that the width and length of the table is the problem. (Well, not just me.) But now, I see a contribution that has removed the table but has added 5,859 bytes more to the article.
- Several objections are registered above, which were not an issue during our past discussion. In fact, his past contributions never tried to address said objections. In fact one of his objections,
"the information is less comprehensive compared to my latest changes"
, is totally false; his bold contribution has always been about removing and abridgment, never about making things more comprehensive.
- It seems to me that Papsie wants make a change of some sort, but so long as a change is a made, the nature of it is totally unimportant.
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- My answer to that question was that I had a goal for consistency between the various templates - the contrib template would have become unpalatable if I listed all BSD versions (some of them made every six months, so the table would have been 20-30 rows long approx., many with links to up to half-a-dozen arches) from the 90s to the present day, and I was unable to source historic data for the FreeBSD segment. Initially I moved the emphasis to architectures on all templates, later on I reinserted Windows information (initially with botched table formatting, subsequently fixed in the final revision), but I eventually realised my template ideas were unworkable. At the beginning, I didn't feel that removing data from the tables would be a problem as they still existed in other articles, particularly Firefox version history. I don't understand why the discussion about the template changes should continue after I abandoned the template concept entirely.
- You have still failed to clarify the "technically innaccurate" allegation. I have not heard a compelling argument not to use proses over the current tables. If anyone has one with proof to show for it, please let me know. Paianni (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your post was edited during the writing of my reply, so I have some more comments:
My philosophy is that tables work for succinct data, but not comprehensivity, especially not for a compatibility table involving several OSes.Keeping the tables meant an unavoidable compromise where it was possible to incorporate some relevant data but not all of it. All of the comments so far have suggested that other readers prefer more information, in which case my solution is to remove the tables and provide breathing space for more historic datanot possible to incorporate into the tables(such as SSE2 compatibility, which last month I attempted to insert into the old table and failed). Paianni (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC), edited 23:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- Oh, hello.
- Let's see; you wrote:
"My answer to that question was that I had a goal for consistency between the various templates"
. Wikipedia's goal is to educate and inform; if your goal of consistency contradicts Wikipedia's goal, then you are not here to build an encyclopedia and I must report you so that your editing privilege is removed. That said, consistency is a problem you yourself invented by creating those useless tables. We don't have to suffer for it."You have still failed to clarify [...]"
. I didn't fail, because I didn't even try. But I might do so as soon we resolve the censorship issue, which has started five days ago and is the underlying problem. The prose problem resolves itself afterwards."I have not heard a compelling argument not to use proses over the current tables."
. Because that's not what you are doing. Your text is not the equivalent of the table. You think I didn't read it? There is one thing you have been consistently and persistently doing in all your contributions: Deletion of info."My philosophy is that tables [...]"
. I don't give one whit about your philsophy while you are deleting info without a valid reason. First, find a way to deliver comparable knowledge. Then, we will discuss its merits. (Or maybe not; as long as it delivers the same or more knowledge, I believe its superiority should be self-evident.)
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
"There is one thing you have been consistently and persistently doing in all your contributions: Deletion of info."
The support start dates for newer OS versions are redundant since even the oldest versions of Firefox for Intel will install on the latest macOS and Windows releases. Apart from that, what info was removed with the proses? Paianni (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- BTW, that article you linked contains a tit-bit I think would be applicable here:
"A newcomer or a constructive user may at times make the occasional error and they may need considerable time to acclimatize their conduct to the community's ways and norms. It is even possible for a well-rounded user to make mistakes. To err is human and it is an acceptable practice to admit when you are wrong..."
Paianni (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)- Well, the purpose of the table to give a release compatibility history, so it mentions two things: The latest release that worked on a given operating system, and the period of time during which that release has been realistically viable. Sure, you might be able to run the next release on the same operating system or outside the support date, but that's not something an enterprise (or even smaller organization) would want to risk. When you remove the start date, the table is not showing a period anymore.
- Of course, I'd have told you all this if you hadn't given the impression that you are an OS afficianado (to the point that you know the version number of every single one of them), with the implication being that you know all this already. How little I knew.
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)"Sure, you might be able to run the next release on the same operating system or outside the support date, but that's not something an enterprise (or even smaller organization) would want to risk. When you remove the start date, the table is not showing a period anymore."
If that were the case, then the support end dates should have been the years when security updates were ended for the OS releases. So for the Windows XP entry it would be 2014 and so on. If that sounds ridiculous to you, then you understand the problem. The table was meant to show the support period for Firefox on the various releases, not the OS support period. There is no need to show the platform release dates when one can use the OS links to see them, and it is misleading in the context of Mozilla's platform support.- Can you explain the removal of information concerning the first 64-bit builds on Windows and macOS, which I had added in by my latest revision? I am aware they needed citations but they weren't original research material. Paianni (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- The dates that we include in the table is something we can discuss. (Perhaps it is better to start a new section for it, so that participants can focus on it without being frightened by this wall of text.) But AFAIK, Windows support policy has zero impact on Firefox, because Microsoft doesn't release patches for Firefox. Any update that Microsoft releases for Windows only concerns Windows itself. In an article about Firefox, you should only talk about Firefox and things that you know for sure that directly impact Firefox.
- As for the text you added, are you under the impression that I see it a separate incident from the removal of the table? In everything you have do so far, removing the table's info (in part or whole) has been an integral part. No wise person ignores this pattern. If the text is meant to faithfully replace the table, then that fact it occupies much more space and cost 5K more size is a good reason to revert on the grounds of wordiness and access time. If not, then the question of whether it is a mere disguise or not comes into play. Finally, there is the fact that your prose is very poor, violates MOS:SLASH, laden with original research and is not design with the existing article infrastructure in mind. Example of original research: "While not officially acknowledged, the 1.x builds were also operable with NT 3.51." It is more of a release history than a platform availability discussion. Then there totally wrong info: "Windows 95 support was dropped with the 2.x branch." There is no 2.x branch, only a 2.x version. "The project had moved to a rapid release cycle by the time the end of Windows 2000 support was announced." No, it hadn't; when the browser ceased to support Windows 2000, it smack-dab in the middle of the rapid release cycle, so much so that nine rapid-release version were supported on Windows 2000.
- Overall, it seems your contribution brough significant problems that didn't have any; they have no purpose and are bourne from purely pedantic views that tables are inherently evil. (You said above.) Instead of comprehensiveness, they introduce wordiness.
- Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)"The dates that we include in the table is something we can discuss. (Perhaps it is better to start a new section for it, so that participants can focus on it without being frightened by this wall of text.)"
That would take up even more space on the Firefox article compared to my current proposals."But AFAIK, Windows support policy has zero impact on Firefox, because Microsoft doesn't release patches for Firefox. Any update that Microsoft releases for Windows only concerns Windows itself. In an article about Firefox, you should only talk about Firefox and things that you know for sure that directly impact Firefox."
Exactly, this is why including the release dates for the various platforms in the table should be avoided."No, it hadn't; when the browser ceased to support Windows 2000, it smack-dab in the middle of the rapid release cycle, so much so that nine rapid-release version were supported on Windows 2000."
Pay attention to the wording; I did not say Firefox was moving to a rapid release cycle, I said it had moved. If my revision had not been reverted I would probably have removed this text as it was kinda redundant.- I appreciate that you alerted me about some of the other violations, but none of them justify the complete removal of the section, especially the removal of info regarding the first 64-bit builds for each platform.
- Tables are not inherently evil, I was making edits to the templates going on two months, it was only a few days ago I decided that an article extension would be more useful in portraying most of the existing info (any info removed I have explained above), plus more info not possible to incorporate into the tables. Paianni (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC), edited several times
- You gotta be freaking kidding me! Not this dang table again! I'd better go grab a LOT of coffee. This is going to be one hell of a long haul. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Performance section feels incredibly cherry-picked
The Performance section almost exclusively includes tests where Firefox came out on top. Contrast this to 2006:
- ...The performance section contains only criticisms of Firefox...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Firefox/Archive_7#Performance_section
It would appear that subsequent edits have caused the section to be cherry-picked in the opposite way.
I'm about to add a NPOV tag to the section.
2601:142:100:DDF5:D953:1D5D:1D76:8E4F (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- ^ "Phoenix 0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Phoenix 0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Phoenix 0.3 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Phoenix 0.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Phoenix 0.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firebird 0.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ Mullen, Edward. "Mozilla Password Viewing". Archived from the original on June 24, 2007. Retrieved October 12, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firebird 0.7 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 0.8 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 0.9 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 1.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 1.0.8 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.12 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.20 Release Notes". Mozilla. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 17, 2008. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.0.19 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 30, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 30, 2009. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.5.19 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. January 21, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.6.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. June 22, 2010. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 3.6.28 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 13, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 4 Release Notes". Mozilla. March 22, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 4.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ a b "Firefox 5 Available for Download". Mashable. June 21, 2011. Retrieved June 22, 2011.
- ^ "News: Firefox 5 heading your way". Hexus.net. 20 June 2011. Retrieved June 20, 2011.
- ^ "Firefox 5 for developers". MDC Docs Firefox 5 for developers. Mozilla Developer Network. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
- ^ "Firefox Beta release notes". Mozilla Foundation. Retrieved 17 June 2011.
- ^ Marshall, Gary (June 22, 2011). "Hands on: Firefox 5 review". Application News. TechRadar UK. Retrieved June 23, 2011.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 21, 2011. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
- ^ "Gecko versions and application versions". MDN. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
- ^ "Firefox 5 minor update for Mac coming soon". blizzard. July 8, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 5.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. July 11, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Bug List (fixed bugs for Firefox 6)". Bugzilla.mozilla.org. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 6.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. August 30, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 6.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. September 6, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 7.0 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-09-27. Retrieved 2012-02-07.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 7.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. September 29, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-11-08. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 8.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla. November 21, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2011-12-20. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- ^ "Mozilla pushes out Firefox 9.0.1". ZDNet. December 22, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-01-31. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-02-10. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla. February 16, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. March 13, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.3 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.4 Release Notes". Mozilla. April 24, 2012. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.5 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.6 Release Notes". Mozilla. July 17, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 10.0.7 Release Notes". Mozilla. 2012-08-28. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-10-26. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2012-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-20.
- ^ "Security Advisories for Firefox". Mozilla. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-01-08.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 11 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-03-13. Retrieved 2012-03-16.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 12 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 24, 2012. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 13 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 13.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-06-15. Retrieved 2012-06-16.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 14 Aurora Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved April 27, 2012.
- ^ Brinkmann, Martin (July 17, 2012). "Firefox 14.0.1 available, Why there won't be a Firefox 14.0 release". ghacks.net. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 14.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. July 17, 2012. Retrieved July 17, 2012.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 15.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-08-28. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 15.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-09-06. Retrieved 2012-09-10.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 16.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-10-09. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 16.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved 2012-10-11.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 16.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-20.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2012-11-30. Retrieved 2012-12-01.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.2 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-01-08. Retrieved 2013-01-08.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.3 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-02-19. Retrieved 2013-02-19.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.4 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-03-07. Retrieved 2013-03-12.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.5 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-04-02.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.6 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. May 14, 2013. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.7 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 25, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.8 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 6, 2013. Retrieved August 6, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.9 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. September 17, 2013. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.10 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 17.0.11 ESR Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 18.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. January 8, 2013. Retrieved January 8, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 18.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. January 18, 2013. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 18.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 5, 2013. Retrieved February 7, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 19.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 19, 2013. Retrieved February 19, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 19.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 27, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 19.0.2 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. March 7, 2013. Retrieved March 8, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 20.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 2, 2013. Retrieved April 2, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 20.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. April 11, 2013. Retrieved April 13, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 21.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. May 14, 2013. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 22.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. June 25, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 23.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 06, 2013. Retrieved August 09, 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - ^ "Mozilla Firefox 23.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. August 16, 2013. Retrieved August 20, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 24.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. September 17, 2013. Retrieved September 17, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.1.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 30, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.1.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 18, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.2.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 10, 2013. Retrieved December 11, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox ESR 24.3.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 4, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 25.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 25.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. November 15, 2013. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 26.0. Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 10, 2013. Retrieved December 10, 2013.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 26.0.1 Mobile Release Notes". Mozilla.org. December 20, 2013. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 27.0 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 4, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014.
- ^ "Mozilla Firefox 27.0.1 Release Notes". Mozilla.org. February 13, 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2014.