Ziggy Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 (edited) the 1.0.1 took a week b4 firefox update checker told me there was an update, even though i new there was one. As asa said on SpreadFirefox, the automatic update will be staggered to prevent a denial of service. They released Firefox 1.0.1 before they completed their server upgrade, and it would probably bring down their web server if 27 million people were downloading the update at the same time. The staggering is happening as we speak. en-US, en-CA, and a few other locales have gotten the update enabled. en-UK has NOT had the update turned on yet, so you won't get a notice until they enable it (there are apparently a lot of en-UK people out there). As to other updates, the browser doesnt get them all cause they usually update with a new version (and dont say about the nightly stuff cause none tech will update from the browser) It's up to individual extension authors to make sure their extensions are compatible with new releases. 1.0.1 shouldn't have broken any extensions, and I'm not entirely sure why extensions don't just say they're compatible with 1.0 to 1.0.99 or something so they work when new revisions are out. Firefox Update is still buggy, yes, but if you look on Bugzilla, you can see that too. They fixed some of the showstopping bugs in 1.0.1. Either way, after upgrading to 1.0.1, you should be able to Options > Advanced > Update > Check Now and have your extensions upgraded if there are any. 1.0.1 left 1.0 still on my comp when i installed it, you would have thought a browser "so good" would have removed the old unused files but it didnt, it even left the links in the start>programs> list so i had 2 links and neither was labeled with the version number Known bug. The 1.0.1 installer crew was so eager to get the patch out that they forgot to change the version number checking (the code that automatically removes 0.1 to 0.8 and 0.9.x). That's why the release notes say "uninstall Firefox 1.0 first". The 1.0.1 automatic update installer has the same bug, so it's since been pulled (they're working on fixing it and should have it fixed in a couple days, if not already). so if they cant even get something so simple correct , i hate to thing what the rest of browser is like. It's not as simple as you think. It might seem simple, but there is a lot of code involved in updating 27 million installations while keeping in mind that: - Your server is on a 100Mbps line and you cannot handle 27 million people downloading an executable at the same time. - Some people might not have permission to install a Firefox upgrade (anyone who has their system secured properly shouldn't have permission to write to C:\Program Files and would need to have an administrator upgrade Firefox) - There are hundreds of different locales out there. Someone who speaks es-MX (Spanish [Mexico]) will probably not want to upgrade Firefox to find out that it's now in en-US (English [uS]). Especially if they don't know a word of English. - Some of the independent localization people haven't upgraded their translation yet. - There's a timeframe you have to release the update in because of a bug in the code that sees what date it is (it only works reliably at the beginning of the month; after the 16th or so it stops checking for updates entirely -- known bug, fixed in 1.0.1). It was an Angloid mistake, if anyone cares. For some reason, in Europe, their week starts on Monday. We start our week on Sunday. The code was really easy to fix, but that doesn't change the fact there was a bug in the first place. - There are an infinite number of Firefox builds. I'd say hundreds, but us Gentoo users usually roll our own (and why not, it's as easy as "emerge mozilla-firefox"). And then there are Moox's builds, the Debian builds, SVG-enabled builds, builds with talkback, builds without talkback, Visual Studio 7.1 builds, Visual Studio 6.0 builds, Cygwin builds, and so on. They can't push the same file to every Firefox installation, because there are quite a few people who are using a build that's configured differently than the official build. But like i keep saying , its the users choice of which browser they use. My choice is only to have firefox for checking tg and td to make sure it shows correctly, apart from that i will stick with ie. It's your choice, yes. Some people also choose to jump off bridges, shoot themselves in the head, and steal cars. Just because other people do it doesn't mean I'm going to. But whatever. Cleric xtx: That's exactly why I will not install SP2. Quite a few of my programs didn't work on SP2, and very few of them had updates to fix it for SP2. Not to mention that my WLAN didn't work. SP2 should have been spread out over many different products instead of just one. MDAC was updated to 3.0 in SP2. They should make that a seperate product release instead of SP2-only. Edited March 6, 2005 by Ziggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 16, 2005 Report Share Posted March 16, 2005 No offense Ziggy, but a lot of what you talk is a lot of "hog wash." If me or others on this board would take our time to write a page on your lies and somewhat miscalculations, with links to back up or statements, you would look like a fool... FireFox has been hit many times and is everyday with adware and malicious files. FireFox sends a message of a great browser with security and quick bug fixes, even though they have taken a week or weeks to complete. Also common sense would tell you that as a browser becomes older, more bugs/security holes will be found. FireFox is somewhat completely re-done, but still uses heavy "icing" or what have you from Mozilla. Windows Media Player license download bug is one of them... Not to mention this bug has been fixed. Just pointing out an example of what Keith uses to gain the upper hand in a situation and back FireFox 100%. Also Keith there is no set code (law of ethics, so you have it) for the version number in which you release your program in. Keith just because you are a, what was it, "web developer"; doesn't give you any more OPINION on matters, which is what you are mostly speaking in half the time. You are like the Democrats in America. Will always defend themselves at the expense of Bush or another Republican. "Yes I know we did that, but THEY DID THAT FIRST." Users don't care who did what first, what we care is who will fix it first and who has a better product. Currently MSIE7 is the best product, wether you like it or not. Every week more and more security bugs/holes are being reported in FireFox. Also not to mention bugs with downloading in FireFox, which have not been fixed since the first version of FireFox was released... Over a year now and simple bugs haven't been fixed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 No offense Ziggy, but a lot of what you talk is a lot of "hog wash." If me or others on this board would take our time to write a page on your lies and somewhat miscalculations, with links to back up or statements, you would look like a fool... lie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression I am not deliberately presenting falsehoods as truth. I may not be right (this is yet to be determined), but I'm not doing it on purpose. FireFox has been hit many times and is everyday with adware and malicious files. Firefox can get attacked just as well as any browser. However, it is far more resistant to spyware/malware than IE6 is. There are many reasons why: - Firefox does not offer any way for code to install or run without prompting the user. If it did, it would be a bug. In fact, the installer code pops up the dialog no matter what (which is annoying if you're writing an extension, but deal with it). - Extensions are written in JavaScript. There are limits to the language. So don't expect an extension to ever be able to write a corrupted BIOS EEPROM file (some malware does this) or corrupt Winsock DSPs (some malware does this). - Plugins, the only things that can be binaries, can only be installed manually or through the PFS, which only lists well-known plugins that get registered through MoFo or AOL/Netscape. - Extensions are installed by the browser; they do not install themselves -- so arbitrary code cannot get executed. - Conversely, the browser uninstalls extensions. So if something did install, the browser could remove the extension quite easily. If for some reason it doesn't, it's a bug. FireFox sends a message of a great browser with security and quick bug fixes, even though they have taken a week or weeks to complete. Also common sense would tell you that as a browser becomes older, more bugs/security holes will be found. Actually, if you hang around Bugzilla, you'd notice that most of the security bugs that got fixed in 1.0.1 got fixed within a day or two. They did not release a new version of Firefox publically to avoid confusion (if they released a new version that fixed just one vulnerability at a time, they'd be on Firefox 1.0.21 -- which would really confuse people). However, the security-minded can run an aviary nightly (which does not contain any modifications to Gecko, the rendering engine -- just mainly bugfixes that will make it to a new point release) if they are very concerned about Firefox's security. FireFox is somewhat completely re-done, but still uses heavy "icing" or what have you from Mozilla. The main things shared between Mozilla and Firefox are: - the XPFE toolkit - the XPCOM toolkit - Gecko - NSPR/NSS The XUL toolkit, extensions/plugin framework, and several tens of thousands of lines of code are different. And now that Seamonkey is dead, Firefox is "the" browser. Mozilla is now just a reference platform. (NB: if you've ever wondered why Mozilla themes/extensions don't work at all in Firefox, it's because Firefox has different XUL bindings and a much different extension framework -- Mozilla doesn't use extension overlays; Firefox does) QUOTE Windows Media Player license download bug is one of them... Not to mention this bug has been fixed. Just pointing out an example of what Keith uses to gain the upper hand in a situation and back FireFox 100%. Okay, I stan-corrected. Last I heard, they said "this is the intended behavior". Also Keith there is no set code (law of ethics, so you have it) for the version number in which you release your program in. As I said before, in my opinion as a developer, Microsoft version numbers are more hype than truth. Especially with IE. IE4-IE6 are all basically the same on the inside, with improvements to the rendering, but nothing too major. Generally, the "major" portion of a version number changes when something seriously major gets changed. Microsoft did the right thing with Windows 2000/Windows XP. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1. That accurately protrays the differences. Longhorn is NT 6.0, which also accurately protrays the differences. However, IE6 should really be IE 5.0 or IE 4.5, since IE6 is basically IE5 + P3P + CSS1 + some CSS2 + better JS/VBS (i.e. it supports document.getElementById) + better cookie handling. And IE5 is IE4 + less buggy + better COM+ support + better JS/VBS support + other minor enhancements. I personally cannot tell the difference between IE5 and IE4 rendering. My site looks the same in both browsers, and Slashdot looks the same to me, and just about every site I've ever tried looks/feels the same. Keith just because you are a, what was it, "web developer"; doesn't give you any more OPINION on matters, which is what you are mostly speaking in half the time. I mention that I'm giving an opinion when I am. And anyways, the point of a forum is to communicate opinions. Can you imagine how boring a forum would be if every post was like "grass is usually green" or "the drummer of Def Leppard only has one arm"? You are like the Democrats in America. Will always defend themselves at the expense of Bush or another Republican. I resent that; I bleed red. "Yes I know we did that, but THEY DID THAT FIRST." Users don't care who did what first, what we care is who will fix it first and who has a better product. You're right. Users care about only a few things primarily: - which product is better - which one is updated more - how complicated the product is Apache is a far superior product than IIS. But people use IIS. The reason is that they may not possess the knowledge to modify a httpd.conf file or setup Apache. Or, they may have to fulfill a request from someone higher up in their organization and do not know how to do it with Apache, or Apache can't (for example, I know a guy who hates IIS but has to run it because his company needed something that was only avaliable for IIS/ASP). There's not much that Apache can't do nowadays (heck, with PHP, you can load COM+ controls [ActiveX controls] and manipulate them just like you can in ASP, and you can load .NET forms and manipulate them just like you can in ASP.NET -- requires Windows though), but it just doesn't suit some people. It's the reason why most ATMs run OS/2. OS/2 died in 1995 with the release of Windows 95. But before then, banks had already deployed OS/2, and most of the ATM software only runs on OS/2 (Diebold's software being the memorable exception -- then again, Diebold ATMs suffer from the Blaster worm....). Switching to Windows would require them to find another vendor, and since Windows is technically superior to OS/2, it would be a smart decision. But they won't until there is some need for them to (it's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule). Currently MSIE7 is the best product, wether you like it or not. MSIE7 is vaporware. Sure, details are being released, but I can't tell the accuracy of the claims. But as I said originally, IE7's standards support will suck. Just like in IE6. This article should confirm this. I also said that 32 bit PNG support is unlikely, but it seems that it is quite likely. Cheers to Microsoft. Now I wish they'd fix CSS2 or add support for the "needs finalization" CSS 2.1 (the W3C is mainly waiting on the company members to say "okay, ship it" -- Microsoft is one of the people holding it up). As for the claim that it's going to be a tabbed browser, I'm not going to say anything until I see it. I highly doubt it, since one of the "selling points" in Windows XP was that all of your MSIE windows would get grouped in the taskbar. Microsoft has done a complete 180 before, so it's anyone's guess. IE6 is not technically superior to Firefox. It may have some pros that make it better than Firefox in some respects. ActiveX, for example. Though ActiveX is far less powerful than XPCOM, it's more widely adopted. So you need IE to view ActiveX. Firefox can host ActiveX, but it's highly unlikely Mozilla will ship with it enabled (if there's a vulnerability in ActiveX, it becomes Mozilla's responsibility to fix it, and makes MS fanboys go "ha, so your browser is really not secure!"). The few things that IE has that Firefox doesn't (P3P being a major one) aren't really all that great (P3P information can be faked, spoofed, and so on, so it's not really all that good of an indicator of the site's privacy policy). And there is a P3P plugin for Firefox, if you want it. IE7 will make the competition somewhat closer, since it might add tabbed browsing, but feature-for-feature and technical aspect-for-technical aspect, Firefox will weigh out better. That is, of course, assuming that the Gecko development team doesn't revolt after the news that they killed Seamonkey (they won't, but maybe a member or two will leave to make a Seamonkey fork). Every week more and more security bugs/holes are being reported in FireFox. And the same amount or greater are reported in IE (you can only count holes -- bugs are not reported in IE, and I'm sure that if there was some sort of bug tracker for IE, there'd be thousands and thousands of open bugs). Sure, Firefox has bugs. They fix them. They make it in a new release. IE has bugs too, but the ones that really piss me off (only 24 bit PNGs [alpha channel ignored], no position: fixed, background-attachment: scroll only on body) have persisted since IE4 or IE5. That's 5 years. Too long to wait for patches. Also not to mention bugs with downloading in FireFox, which have not been fixed since the first version of FireFox was released... Over a year now and simple bugs haven't been fixed... I'm aware of them. Most of them were fixed in Gecko 1.8. If you're up to it, download a trunk Firefox nightly (using latest Gecko 1.8) and see if you can reproduce it. If you can, search Bugzilla and confirm bugs or file new ones. The more people who try and break Firefox, the better Firefox will be. Also, this article implies that the WMP fix is cosmetic; it implies that you can still install the malware that is exploiting this bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 being open source means that anyone can get at the code to fix bugs etc etc who was linux developed by ..... it was developed by hackers not very many people want to hack or destroy somerthing that THEY can have a part in building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morph3us Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 being open source means that anyone can get at the code to fix bugs etc etc Some people dont have the experience to edit code to patch exploits.. who was linux developed by ..... it was developed by hackers not very many people want to hack or destroy somerthing that THEY can have a part in building Thats debateable because there are so many idiots wanting to cause chaos in the cyber word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haggis Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 i know some dont have the experience but the peole that do can fix stuff they can also add to it aswell lol it just seems to be the way that people dont want to attack linux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morph3us Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 hrmmm maybe so .. I think its time to close this topic as this may go on forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy10 Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 topic close, its getting out of hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts