This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Per 'Wikipedia is not a change log', I propose to trim down the release history section significantly by relocating it to a different article (
Firefox Release History
Firefox release history). At present, there are 38 'Show Release Notes' buttons and the user is required to click all of them to look at all the release notes. Plus, this section is an eye-sore.
How about removing all the minor releases and listing only the significant changes for the major releases? The
Google Chrome page presents the release history in a more lucid manner and I suggest that we should adopt its style.
Suggestions most welcome.
EngineerFromVega
★
17:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There seems a rough consensus here to change the Release History section as per the corresponding section in Google Chrome. I've gone ahead and have made the changes now. Please feel free to improve it as necessary. [1] EngineerFromVega ★ 06:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently it is hard to organize the article because we don't have any active WikiProjects helping us out. We could greatly improve the article if we have some people working on an area. Most of these areas only need one person working on it, although many people can work on fixing dead references & links.
Tasks Please consult discussion before adding additional tasks |
Suggested resources Please find additional resources |
Assigned Replace with ~~~ |
Completion status |
---|---|---|---|
Update security section | [2] [3] | Unassigned | No |
[4] | ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | |
ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | ||
ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | ||
Update Microsoft w/ Windows RT controversy | [5] [6] | Unassigned | No |
If you have any questions, concerns, suggestions, or anything else not covered here, please post below in the discussion section. Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Windows 2000 be listed as supported with the latest version as 10.0.5esr. MacOSX v10.4-10.5 (PPC) were listed as supported until 2012 when 3.6.x was dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.93.123 ( talk) 16:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This article displays something labeled as the current Aurora logo but never otherwise (as far as ctrl-f indicates) mentions Aurora or explains what Aurora is. (And I don't know myself.) Theoldsparkle ( talk) 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Firefox Editors, We have officially created WikiProject Mozilla, and we need your help. Please visit WP:WikiProject Mozilla! Thank you very much! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I imported the Version Template from the German Wikipedia to en:WP. It introduces a standardized color scheme, accessibilty and some convenient shortcuts to create version history information. I suggest to introduce it into the Firefoy release history table (here and on the Firefox release history page), esp. because yet the colors in it are (1) hard-coded and (2) not related to a corresponding color scheme (or is it?). Please give me your thoughts about that. The template is used at WordPress and TYPO3, and on more than 100 pages in German. Here is a preview of the usage:
{{Version |t |show=111111}}
Legend: | Old version, not maintained | Older version, still maintained | Current stable version | Latest preview version | Future release |
---|
Yes
No
I think Aurora and Nightly channels should also be addded to the infobox in the preview release section. Currently Firefox 16a2 is on aurora channel and firefox 17a1 is on nighly channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePariahOne ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I had the firefox 15 updated pushed to me this morning, but I can't find any release notes (the "guessable" URL gives 404), and there's no mention here. Has this update been pushed silently? HuGo_87 ( talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the distinctions section seems to overlap with some info in the awards section, should these be merged? Kelvinsong ( talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions obsolete versions for HP-UX and RISC OS but does not mention still-maintained tier 3 ports, such as Solaris, ecomStation, OS X/PPC, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. In the light of WP:UNDUE, I think it would make sense to remove the mention of HP-UX and RISC OS—especially when existing tier 3 ports are not mentioned. Hsivonen ( talk) 12:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The IT-World doesn't ACCEPT such old data as 6 years back of this kind! Remove? *blush*
It concerns:
A 2006 Symantec study showed that, although Firefox had surpassed other browsers in the number of vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities that year through September, these vulnerabilities were patched far more quickly than those found in other browsers – Firefox's vulnerabilities were fixed on average one day after the exploit code was made available, as compared to nine days for Internet Explorer. Symantec later clarified their statement, saying that Firefox still had fewer security vulnerabilities than Internet Explorer, as counted by security researchers.
Cheers! -- 109.189.67.109 ( talk) 07:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone in the know update the 64-bit section? It is rather outdated at this point, for instance Flash has been 64-bit for some time now. I don't know what the hold-up is exactly, but plugins like that are not holding them back any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.165.36 ( talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a note about Waterfox. Zepppep ( talk) 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I also cant find any 64 bit nightly builds for windows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.43.60 ( talk) 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Firefox →
Mozilla Firefox – I think this article should be moved to Mozilla Firefox, because that's the complete name of the browser and how it is officially called (just see in the wordmark and in Mozilla's web site). "Firefox" is just a shortname, like Chrome is for Google Chrome and Thunderbird is for Mozilla Thunderbird.
Internet Explorer, instead, is currently officially called "Internet Explorer" since IE9, so it dosen't need to be changed.--Relisted
RA (
talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
187.74.175.188 (
talk)
20:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Google says:
I think you can see the progression and what each does. Not making a point, just offering data. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So, the reason to keep the title as "Firefox" is because it is according to Wikipedia's policies, now I understand. I know, there are some articles in which the title is not complete or seems strange, but it cumply the policies. OK, you that oppose are right. I wanted to move the page because I was extremely against the reason given in that previous move request, but now you have gave me a valid reason I agree the article must be kept with the current title. 187.8.151.36 ( talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the only screenshot of Firefox 17 is File:Firefox17.0.png. Please do not replace it until a newer and better free screenshot is available. The new screenshot should be made in accordance with Commons:Screenshots#Software, notes in Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox, and en:Wikipedia:Screenshots. - Mardus ( talk) 12:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Searching WP for the term, "Waterfox" redirects here, although there is no actual reference to the build in the Firefox article at all. I see in the conversation above that a reference to Waterfox was added, deleted and then added again, but I'm assuming since it is not there, it was deleted again, but this time without a mention on this page. I would very much like to add a section about it. Whether it is an official Mozilla build or not, the fact remains that Waterfox is a 64-bit browser based on the Firefox code, and it uses Firefox profile data. As such, it should be at very least mentioned as an unofficial version.
That said, are there any objections to my adding a mention of Waterfox so long as I mention it is not officially supported by Mozilla? I hesitate to add it myself because it has been removed so many times previously. Alternatively, maybe a separate article can be written about all of the unofficial 64-bit variants, since they've gotten so much press (good and bad) recently? In addition to the following How to Geek source, there are numerous other articles in the last two months about the builds, and going back a ways. Thoughts? ( "Alternative Browsers Based on Firefox". HowToGeek.com. Retrieved 2012-12-18., "About Waterfox". Waterfox.org. Retrieved 2012-12-18. ) JC.Torpey ( talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Some users (e.g. Ohconfucius in May 2012, and Walter Görlitz in Jan 2013) have used a script to convert dates from “2013-01-04” and “4 January 2013” into “January 4, 2013”, citing guidelines (not policies) like WP:DATERET, apparently because someone has written a date like that 10 years ago. Let’s change that to more readable non-middle-endian formats. -- AVRS ( talk) 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Can multiple screenshots be used? The thumbnail is almost only useful as a link to a bigger version anyway. -- AVRS ( talk) 09:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If only one image file can be included, what about making a single file containing multiple screenshots with captions? E.g. Cat shows multiple pictures in one file, although it is legible even as a thumbnail. However, the Russian species template Таксон accepts arbitrary data with “images set” (see ru:Кошка), and the English {{ Automatic taxobox}} accepts two images. -- AVRS ( talk) 10:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Following the above conversations, I have proposed a new section for the software screenshot guidelines. Basically, it's designed to clarify the standard for what OS should display what screenshot (without being too rigid). Please would you have a quick look at my initial proposal and make suggestions, give feedback, and hopefully get things moving. I note from older talk sections there that this has previously been a topic of discussion, so hopefully we can clarify it sometime! I've also put an invitation on the WP:SOFTWARE project, so we can get a wider community in on the subject. Thanks. drewmunn ( talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I must say the second (or additional, as it appeared as a first one) reference list was no intentionally added. I used the respective reflist tag to see what the final result is when editing references, but it sometimes happens that I forget to leave it in when saving. Sorry. - Mardus ( talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done Somebody rework the sidebar caption to indicate 'Firefox can run on several operating systems, including Knoppix, and OS X, and WIndows.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.100.79 ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As nobody's touched this discussion in a good few days, I shall close our unofficial request for change as opposed. The change suggested by (proxy for) Reisio is not supported by any other community members, and consensus determines that no change is to be made to the current structure; we will continue to list the OS alongside the infobox screenshot. Reisio: If you should wish to contest this conclusion, you may open an official request for change here and invite other editors from relevant wikiprojects. You may also open a discussion at a wikiproject talk page if you feel your change should be adopted on a project-wide basis.
(Proposal by proxy for Reisio: Remove OS notation from caption of infobox screenshot) Reisio, you're skating very close to the 3RR line here, so please do not make further edits to the main article. You can voice your reasoning behind wanting to remove the OS from the image caption below. Other editors, please voice your opinions so we can resolve this matter civilly and without any more edit wars. My personal opinion is in Opposition of Reisio's changes, as the OS should be noted. Some graphic elements look different within different OSs. Having no notation of the OS used may confuse readers, and also make for a less complete overview in the infobox. We're not listing a million tons of info, just 40 characters of so to inform readers. Precedent suggests leaving the OS in place as well, unless you plan to edit it out of nearly every cross-platform application article on Wikipedia. drewmunn ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS should be used, it doesn't matter if Google points to HTTP. Why would Mozilla provide an encrypted version of their site if they didn't consider it useful? 85.245.88.18 ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not insecure using http as you are not logging into the website. HTTP is just fine. -- JetBlast ( talk) 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That we start with citing some valid (World-)worries (yes, that 7.1 Bn population, a bit more than your neighbourhood or your nose (only)),
with all the f*ck-rock democratic powers of the World, also
Jimmy Carter Center in here:
How easy does Mozilla rate its accessibility to acquire the mere "reading the code"-software?
Isn't Mozilla by its Firefox still on the democracy note?
Is this article properly allowing criticism of Mozilla (Firefox) to be voiced?
What is the fuzz of earlier of people choosing Firefox 3.16-18 over Firefox 5 - 12/13, whatever?
How easy is it to get to Firefox discussion forums?
Is there a code-reporting routine for when:
- people start up their browser?
- for when begin to use Firefox?
- other reporting routines to Mozilla "central", right there in USA?
How actively is Mozilla using its IP-registry and are this routines transparent?
There has been a time when the Open Source Software Frontier has been all about democracy. That the eminent quality of Mozilla remains its "democracy" mark, and we, as users/potential users have a splendid right to know definitely how the Mozilla Foundation cares for this/protects this... Good?
109.189.228.145 (
talk)
23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Size issue: How does Mozilla rates its size on the Firefox and other. The size is now rated to 20 MB. How big a part of this is fx. the HTTPS-protocol and how do they match with the legally responsible MS Internet Explorer and other? Can we get more details on how the pie of Mozilla Firefox splits up, thank you, also on grahpics? 109.189.228.145 ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That "In July 2010, all IBM employees (about 400,000) were asked to use Firefox as their default browser.[145]" also entails a customised version only for IBM/USA-club? The company services? The customisation levels with the clients and so on? 109.189.228.145 ( talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The security section of the article contains out-of-date information. Most recently, Mozilla Firefox has presented itself with two new key pieces of information. On January 28, 2013, it was announced that Mozilla was recognized as the most trusted internet company for 2012. Furthermore, Mozilla also stated that it will implement the blockage of all third-party cookies in its upcoming builds.
Award (January 28, 2013) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/ New Web Policy (February 22, 2013) http://webpolicy.org/2013/02/22/the-new-firefox-cookie-policy/
I plan on implementing both of the above ideas within the section. Please comment and provide suggestions. Sweettooth3343 ( talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [45]
The current sidebar picture features Firefox 17 running on Knoppix Linux. By changing the picture to Firefox 17 running on Windows it will represent Firefox in a better way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.166.207.10 (
talk)
05:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to provide my two cents in this discussion. My own opinion is that the screenshot of Firefox should be displayed with the most recent version of the most common OS. At present, the most common OS is Windows, and the most recent stable release of Windows is Windows 8. My belief is that currently we should display Firefox 17.0.1 on Windows 8. You're all correct when you say it's not about browser wars. There really is no other way to decide which other OS Firefox should be displayed on; albeit if there are numbers someone can show me that display which OS Firefox has the highest install base on, that would be preferential (ex. Firefox has 100 million users on OS X, and 80 million users on Windows, we would display the Macintosh version). Anyone want to chime in on this? Looking for some consensus here. Thanks, ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 06:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
-- AVRS ( talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some small differences between the look of Firefox on GNU/Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. Here are some questions I want to ask those who think a Windows screenshot should be present:
-- AVRS ( talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This was the root of the question. My summary of the points above are, if it's of suitable quality and has no copyright issues, the first screenshot should be used. The OS used is inconsequential. This discussion is only to be about that topic and not the question about whether any particular OS does or does not carry inherent copyright over applications that run under it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
With this edit some balance has been restored. It's FF 19 running under Windows, but not Windows 8 as was suggested. I'll fight just as hard to keep that image there as I did for Knopix with FF 18. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not an issue for this talk page. As KDesk stated so well: "if the image is in Commons, it is valid to use in Wikipedia; and any legal issue should be managed in Commons, not in this Talk page." Anyone who wants to argue that Microsoft holds a copyright on all screenshots of applications running under Windows should carry on that discussion at the appropriate commons location and not here. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does the infobox only mentions the MPL. There's discrepancy between the infobox and the licensing section, which documents a tri-licensing scheme, though also lacks explanatory links to many terms such as the GPL that may be intimidating for the unlearned reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.15.213 ( talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that Firefox is the 3rd most popular browser, but only three of the four provided sources support that assertion. The other says that Firefox has the no. 2 spot. Considering that the dissenting source is also the most up to date, even if by only a month, maybe this has shown a change in the ranking? 68.39.25.229 ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a little inaccurate as it stands. Firefox is written in C, C++, Java, Javascript, IDL, Python ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Coding_Style) and assembler ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Yasm). Although CSS and Javascript are used for some features in Firefox, it provides a platform for these languages ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/learn) so suggest that they should not be listed as "written in". Also XUL ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XUL) and XBL ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XBL) are file formats used in defining applications in Firefox but there is little sign of take-up outside of Mozilla. Support for remote XUL was dropped because of potential security issues (in ref) and although XBL was proposed as a w3c standard it is no longer in maintenance and XBL 2.0 is unlikely to be implented ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/), so would suggest these are removed from this section. Instead the references to these languages could be put in the detail of how add-ons,formatting and the user interface are rendered. ( 77.100.10.66 ( talk) 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC))
On the original Website, the date for the beta versions differ due to the here mentioned. Please use the original site and date for release dates: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ -- 80.245.147.81 ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As covered in https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/11/03/mozilla-foundation-irs-audit-now-closed/ (the blog of Mozilla Foundation Chairwoman Mitchell Baker), the IRS audit has been closed. Walter Görlitz feels he is the supreme owner of all knowledge and that is a poor source. I'm not sure what a better source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.126.3 ( talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The source code is entirely free (FLOSS) and the binaries on free platforms, but not (somtimes?) on Windows at least. See: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale.html http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/ http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html and by typing the "URL": about:license See (on Windows) above "Mozilla Public License 2.0", if I recall, two components.
How should the page be changed? I thought they would refer to H.264 binaries but can't see that. Non-free software/hardware ( patent encumbered) is sometimes (on Andriod only? Older Windows?) used or has been planned. I don't think that software is currently bundled, only used when already installed. Comp.arch ( talk) 14:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to deal mostly with start-up time and memory usage. Could some data about graphical performance be included as well? Landroo ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the release history need to go up to version 24 (still in pre-alpha), on a blue background (future release)? George8211 ( talk | mail) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Just run into this: http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-schedules-metro-firefox-for-december-release-7000019532/
Apparently, a metro-style version is coming. Question: Should be mentioned in this article or one of those specific articles? e.g. Features of Firefox or History of Firefox § Version 5?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
In the platform section, the screenshot of Firefox on windows is largely mismatched. The screenshot used there is that of a Mac in place of a windows one. The cause is that, it was linked to the page's default image which now has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitosh.swain ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the decision was to keep the first screenshot posted but this editor seems to think that Windows is the only correct one. Should we resurrect the debate or point to the discussions in Talk:Firefox/Archive 15? Then again, I could be wrong about consensus. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."
This would mean that you depict it on the most common operating system platform. As Firefox is most commonly used on Windows, people are expecting to see a screenshot of it on Windows. There is already a section for depicting how different Firefox looks between platforms. The discussion you cited also did not show any consensus or decision towards which OS to use, and was talking more about copyright-related concerns surrounding depicting it on Windows 7, which are moot because the Windows 8 UI is {{ pd-shape}}. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you still don't understand. Your point is that the current version of the most popular OS should always be used. My reductio ad absurdum argument is: where does "most popular" end? You didn't answer that. The argument that English requires an English language screen shot doesn't wash either, that is obvious from the use of this image by other locales. Also, it's not about you, it's about who came first and edit warring because your preferred OS (or language) is not displayed is not at all valid. If anyone had made this edit, I would have reverted and expected WP:BRD, not an immediate revert which is the first step in an edit war. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And now I have discovered that there is already a consensus: [[: WP:Software screenshots#Choice of platform. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Google and Microsoft aren't affiliated with Firefox just like when you go to buy stocks you don't buy the iPhone shares, you buy Apple shares (silly analogy is silly). So will someone please move that section to another article, likely one of the several Mozilla articles. I won't do it because I don't have the time anymore to do this, but I do have the time to see what's wrong and hope to god someone will actually help for once and stop bickering like internet children. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 08:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I moved it to Mozilla Corporation. — rybec 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article takes more than 4 minutes to load on IE with 2.6GHz celeron. Is there a way to split the article in a way that saves time (esp. on IE) without throwing away any content?
I'm thinking of the references; is there a way to put them on a separate page, or any other way that loads the refs on demand rather than by default? That might come in handy for readers looking for the download link. IDK how to do it, and IF it can be done at all, but if it can, this could be a WP:IAR case.
Any suggestions? - ¡Ouch! ( hurt me / more pain) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I meant it was "dangerously long" WRT formatting, not file size. I have a network usage average of ~0.6% so I guess I had a bugged revision when I opened the page, or something that caused IE to slow down because of a bug in IE. I'm running another test right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by One.Ouch.Zero ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Still 4 minutes plus. OTOH, the celeron has 100MHz bus, so once it runs into L2 cache misses, it slows down tremendously. I guess the IE code has to go several times through the HTML to format it and that causes a lot of the slowdown. Disabling images didn't help either; I should have written that before.
Clearing the cache resulted in a peak (>1Mbps) followed by several minutes of processing, even without scripting.
It would be a non-standard interpretation of "simple" but would it be more appropriate to tune the Firefox page on simple.wikipedia.org than this one? - ¡Ouch! ( hurt me / more pain) 08:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert on all this and reluctant to add material, but did read these to see if my firefox highly at risk and some of info probably belongs in security section:
The Schneier article does say that "According to Snowden, FoxAcid is a general CNE [computer network exploitation] system, used for many types of attacks other than the Tor attacks described here." — rybec 20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Noticed Gopher template at the bottom [ [46]] (was included in Firefox 3, not sure if later, still might be in an add-on, but should they have any relevance here?). Guess it sould be taken out. [I'm having a discussion at Internet Explorer talk page. The consensus there is to keep things such as PA-RISC processor support, that is all of the history in Infobox.] That Gopher was included should be in some history page and when discontinued but I say not mentiond it at all on this page. comp.arch ( talk) 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
84.132.138.221 posted this comment on 25 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
Criticism on Firefox. Especially about changes /design-decisions (no, not the Logo, but about old features removed or new features added)?
Goldenshimmer ( talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia looking for information on Waterfox, which I believe is or was a 64-bit Windows build of Firefox. On Wikipedia, Waterfox redirects to Firefox, which contains zero information on Waterfox. Can someone either create a page that tells people what Waterfox is or was, or put similar information on the Firefox page? Because I'd like to know a bit more about it. For now, I'll have to look elsewhere. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The used screenshot shows a customized version of Firefox. The most notable difference is that the search bar is removed and replaced by some omnibar add-on. I think the screenshot should be as "default" as possible, to show users what they can expect when they download Firefox. It should probably also show about:home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.22.80 ( talk) 22:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
108.50.168.140 posted this comment on 1 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
I am tyrying to choose what web browser I wish to use on my new HP desktop, I would like to see in a simple chart what browsers offer what and how efficient each one is. A SIMPLE chart that we may use to compare. At the moment I like both Firefox and Chrome. I would like to make a choic. Thank you
If you click on the Web browser pointer in the introduction, then scroll down to its See also section, and there follow the link to List of web browsers in which you also scroll down to its See also section, you'll find yet another link : Comparison of web browsers where is to be found what you are seeking. — Jerome Potts ( talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Per 'Wikipedia is not a change log', I propose to trim down the release history section significantly by relocating it to a different article (
Firefox Release History
Firefox release history). At present, there are 38 'Show Release Notes' buttons and the user is required to click all of them to look at all the release notes. Plus, this section is an eye-sore.
How about removing all the minor releases and listing only the significant changes for the major releases? The
Google Chrome page presents the release history in a more lucid manner and I suggest that we should adopt its style.
Suggestions most welcome.
EngineerFromVega
★
17:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
There seems a rough consensus here to change the Release History section as per the corresponding section in Google Chrome. I've gone ahead and have made the changes now. Please feel free to improve it as necessary. [1] EngineerFromVega ★ 06:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Currently it is hard to organize the article because we don't have any active WikiProjects helping us out. We could greatly improve the article if we have some people working on an area. Most of these areas only need one person working on it, although many people can work on fixing dead references & links.
Tasks Please consult discussion before adding additional tasks |
Suggested resources Please find additional resources |
Assigned Replace with ~~~ |
Completion status |
---|---|---|---|
Update security section | [2] [3] | Unassigned | No |
[4] | ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | |
ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | ||
ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ | Yes | ||
Update Microsoft w/ Windows RT controversy | [5] [6] | Unassigned | No |
If you have any questions, concerns, suggestions, or anything else not covered here, please post below in the discussion section. Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't Windows 2000 be listed as supported with the latest version as 10.0.5esr. MacOSX v10.4-10.5 (PPC) were listed as supported until 2012 when 3.6.x was dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.93.123 ( talk) 16:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This article displays something labeled as the current Aurora logo but never otherwise (as far as ctrl-f indicates) mentions Aurora or explains what Aurora is. (And I don't know myself.) Theoldsparkle ( talk) 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Firefox Editors, We have officially created WikiProject Mozilla, and we need your help. Please visit WP:WikiProject Mozilla! Thank you very much! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I imported the Version Template from the German Wikipedia to en:WP. It introduces a standardized color scheme, accessibilty and some convenient shortcuts to create version history information. I suggest to introduce it into the Firefoy release history table (here and on the Firefox release history page), esp. because yet the colors in it are (1) hard-coded and (2) not related to a corresponding color scheme (or is it?). Please give me your thoughts about that. The template is used at WordPress and TYPO3, and on more than 100 pages in German. Here is a preview of the usage:
{{Version |t |show=111111}}
Legend: | Old version, not maintained | Older version, still maintained | Current stable version | Latest preview version | Future release |
---|
Yes
No
I think Aurora and Nightly channels should also be addded to the infobox in the preview release section. Currently Firefox 16a2 is on aurora channel and firefox 17a1 is on nighly channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePariahOne ( talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I had the firefox 15 updated pushed to me this morning, but I can't find any release notes (the "guessable" URL gives 404), and there's no mention here. Has this update been pushed silently? HuGo_87 ( talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the distinctions section seems to overlap with some info in the awards section, should these be merged? Kelvinsong ( talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions obsolete versions for HP-UX and RISC OS but does not mention still-maintained tier 3 ports, such as Solaris, ecomStation, OS X/PPC, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. In the light of WP:UNDUE, I think it would make sense to remove the mention of HP-UX and RISC OS—especially when existing tier 3 ports are not mentioned. Hsivonen ( talk) 12:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The IT-World doesn't ACCEPT such old data as 6 years back of this kind! Remove? *blush*
It concerns:
A 2006 Symantec study showed that, although Firefox had surpassed other browsers in the number of vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities that year through September, these vulnerabilities were patched far more quickly than those found in other browsers – Firefox's vulnerabilities were fixed on average one day after the exploit code was made available, as compared to nine days for Internet Explorer. Symantec later clarified their statement, saying that Firefox still had fewer security vulnerabilities than Internet Explorer, as counted by security researchers.
Cheers! -- 109.189.67.109 ( talk) 07:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone in the know update the 64-bit section? It is rather outdated at this point, for instance Flash has been 64-bit for some time now. I don't know what the hold-up is exactly, but plugins like that are not holding them back any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.165.36 ( talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a note about Waterfox. Zepppep ( talk) 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I also cant find any 64 bit nightly builds for windows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.43.60 ( talk) 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Firefox →
Mozilla Firefox – I think this article should be moved to Mozilla Firefox, because that's the complete name of the browser and how it is officially called (just see in the wordmark and in Mozilla's web site). "Firefox" is just a shortname, like Chrome is for Google Chrome and Thunderbird is for Mozilla Thunderbird.
Internet Explorer, instead, is currently officially called "Internet Explorer" since IE9, so it dosen't need to be changed.--Relisted
RA (
talk) 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
187.74.175.188 (
talk)
20:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Google says:
I think you can see the progression and what each does. Not making a point, just offering data. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 22:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So, the reason to keep the title as "Firefox" is because it is according to Wikipedia's policies, now I understand. I know, there are some articles in which the title is not complete or seems strange, but it cumply the policies. OK, you that oppose are right. I wanted to move the page because I was extremely against the reason given in that previous move request, but now you have gave me a valid reason I agree the article must be kept with the current title. 187.8.151.36 ( talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the only screenshot of Firefox 17 is File:Firefox17.0.png. Please do not replace it until a newer and better free screenshot is available. The new screenshot should be made in accordance with Commons:Screenshots#Software, notes in Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox, and en:Wikipedia:Screenshots. - Mardus ( talk) 12:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Searching WP for the term, "Waterfox" redirects here, although there is no actual reference to the build in the Firefox article at all. I see in the conversation above that a reference to Waterfox was added, deleted and then added again, but I'm assuming since it is not there, it was deleted again, but this time without a mention on this page. I would very much like to add a section about it. Whether it is an official Mozilla build or not, the fact remains that Waterfox is a 64-bit browser based on the Firefox code, and it uses Firefox profile data. As such, it should be at very least mentioned as an unofficial version.
That said, are there any objections to my adding a mention of Waterfox so long as I mention it is not officially supported by Mozilla? I hesitate to add it myself because it has been removed so many times previously. Alternatively, maybe a separate article can be written about all of the unofficial 64-bit variants, since they've gotten so much press (good and bad) recently? In addition to the following How to Geek source, there are numerous other articles in the last two months about the builds, and going back a ways. Thoughts? ( "Alternative Browsers Based on Firefox". HowToGeek.com. Retrieved 2012-12-18., "About Waterfox". Waterfox.org. Retrieved 2012-12-18. ) JC.Torpey ( talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Some users (e.g. Ohconfucius in May 2012, and Walter Görlitz in Jan 2013) have used a script to convert dates from “2013-01-04” and “4 January 2013” into “January 4, 2013”, citing guidelines (not policies) like WP:DATERET, apparently because someone has written a date like that 10 years ago. Let’s change that to more readable non-middle-endian formats. -- AVRS ( talk) 09:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Can multiple screenshots be used? The thumbnail is almost only useful as a link to a bigger version anyway. -- AVRS ( talk) 09:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If only one image file can be included, what about making a single file containing multiple screenshots with captions? E.g. Cat shows multiple pictures in one file, although it is legible even as a thumbnail. However, the Russian species template Таксон accepts arbitrary data with “images set” (see ru:Кошка), and the English {{ Automatic taxobox}} accepts two images. -- AVRS ( talk) 10:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Following the above conversations, I have proposed a new section for the software screenshot guidelines. Basically, it's designed to clarify the standard for what OS should display what screenshot (without being too rigid). Please would you have a quick look at my initial proposal and make suggestions, give feedback, and hopefully get things moving. I note from older talk sections there that this has previously been a topic of discussion, so hopefully we can clarify it sometime! I've also put an invitation on the WP:SOFTWARE project, so we can get a wider community in on the subject. Thanks. drewmunn ( talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I must say the second (or additional, as it appeared as a first one) reference list was no intentionally added. I used the respective reflist tag to see what the final result is when editing references, but it sometimes happens that I forget to leave it in when saving. Sorry. - Mardus ( talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done Somebody rework the sidebar caption to indicate 'Firefox can run on several operating systems, including Knoppix, and OS X, and WIndows.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.100.79 ( talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As nobody's touched this discussion in a good few days, I shall close our unofficial request for change as opposed. The change suggested by (proxy for) Reisio is not supported by any other community members, and consensus determines that no change is to be made to the current structure; we will continue to list the OS alongside the infobox screenshot. Reisio: If you should wish to contest this conclusion, you may open an official request for change here and invite other editors from relevant wikiprojects. You may also open a discussion at a wikiproject talk page if you feel your change should be adopted on a project-wide basis.
(Proposal by proxy for Reisio: Remove OS notation from caption of infobox screenshot) Reisio, you're skating very close to the 3RR line here, so please do not make further edits to the main article. You can voice your reasoning behind wanting to remove the OS from the image caption below. Other editors, please voice your opinions so we can resolve this matter civilly and without any more edit wars. My personal opinion is in Opposition of Reisio's changes, as the OS should be noted. Some graphic elements look different within different OSs. Having no notation of the OS used may confuse readers, and also make for a less complete overview in the infobox. We're not listing a million tons of info, just 40 characters of so to inform readers. Precedent suggests leaving the OS in place as well, unless you plan to edit it out of nearly every cross-platform application article on Wikipedia. drewmunn ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
HTTPS should be used, it doesn't matter if Google points to HTTP. Why would Mozilla provide an encrypted version of their site if they didn't consider it useful? 85.245.88.18 ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not insecure using http as you are not logging into the website. HTTP is just fine. -- JetBlast ( talk) 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That we start with citing some valid (World-)worries (yes, that 7.1 Bn population, a bit more than your neighbourhood or your nose (only)),
with all the f*ck-rock democratic powers of the World, also
Jimmy Carter Center in here:
How easy does Mozilla rate its accessibility to acquire the mere "reading the code"-software?
Isn't Mozilla by its Firefox still on the democracy note?
Is this article properly allowing criticism of Mozilla (Firefox) to be voiced?
What is the fuzz of earlier of people choosing Firefox 3.16-18 over Firefox 5 - 12/13, whatever?
How easy is it to get to Firefox discussion forums?
Is there a code-reporting routine for when:
- people start up their browser?
- for when begin to use Firefox?
- other reporting routines to Mozilla "central", right there in USA?
How actively is Mozilla using its IP-registry and are this routines transparent?
There has been a time when the Open Source Software Frontier has been all about democracy. That the eminent quality of Mozilla remains its "democracy" mark, and we, as users/potential users have a splendid right to know definitely how the Mozilla Foundation cares for this/protects this... Good?
109.189.228.145 (
talk)
23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Size issue: How does Mozilla rates its size on the Firefox and other. The size is now rated to 20 MB. How big a part of this is fx. the HTTPS-protocol and how do they match with the legally responsible MS Internet Explorer and other? Can we get more details on how the pie of Mozilla Firefox splits up, thank you, also on grahpics? 109.189.228.145 ( talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
That "In July 2010, all IBM employees (about 400,000) were asked to use Firefox as their default browser.[145]" also entails a customised version only for IBM/USA-club? The company services? The customisation levels with the clients and so on? 109.189.228.145 ( talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The security section of the article contains out-of-date information. Most recently, Mozilla Firefox has presented itself with two new key pieces of information. On January 28, 2013, it was announced that Mozilla was recognized as the most trusted internet company for 2012. Furthermore, Mozilla also stated that it will implement the blockage of all third-party cookies in its upcoming builds.
Award (January 28, 2013) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/ New Web Policy (February 22, 2013) http://webpolicy.org/2013/02/22/the-new-firefox-cookie-policy/
I plan on implementing both of the above ideas within the section. Please comment and provide suggestions. Sweettooth3343 ( talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [45]
The current sidebar picture features Firefox 17 running on Knoppix Linux. By changing the picture to Firefox 17 running on Windows it will represent Firefox in a better way. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.166.207.10 (
talk)
05:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to provide my two cents in this discussion. My own opinion is that the screenshot of Firefox should be displayed with the most recent version of the most common OS. At present, the most common OS is Windows, and the most recent stable release of Windows is Windows 8. My belief is that currently we should display Firefox 17.0.1 on Windows 8. You're all correct when you say it's not about browser wars. There really is no other way to decide which other OS Firefox should be displayed on; albeit if there are numbers someone can show me that display which OS Firefox has the highest install base on, that would be preferential (ex. Firefox has 100 million users on OS X, and 80 million users on Windows, we would display the Macintosh version). Anyone want to chime in on this? Looking for some consensus here. Thanks, ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 06:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
-- AVRS ( talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There are some small differences between the look of Firefox on GNU/Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. Here are some questions I want to ask those who think a Windows screenshot should be present:
-- AVRS ( talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This was the root of the question. My summary of the points above are, if it's of suitable quality and has no copyright issues, the first screenshot should be used. The OS used is inconsequential. This discussion is only to be about that topic and not the question about whether any particular OS does or does not carry inherent copyright over applications that run under it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
With this edit some balance has been restored. It's FF 19 running under Windows, but not Windows 8 as was suggested. I'll fight just as hard to keep that image there as I did for Knopix with FF 18. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not an issue for this talk page. As KDesk stated so well: "if the image is in Commons, it is valid to use in Wikipedia; and any legal issue should be managed in Commons, not in this Talk page." Anyone who wants to argue that Microsoft holds a copyright on all screenshots of applications running under Windows should carry on that discussion at the appropriate commons location and not here. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why does the infobox only mentions the MPL. There's discrepancy between the infobox and the licensing section, which documents a tri-licensing scheme, though also lacks explanatory links to many terms such as the GPL that may be intimidating for the unlearned reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.15.213 ( talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that Firefox is the 3rd most popular browser, but only three of the four provided sources support that assertion. The other says that Firefox has the no. 2 spot. Considering that the dissenting source is also the most up to date, even if by only a month, maybe this has shown a change in the ranking? 68.39.25.229 ( talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a little inaccurate as it stands. Firefox is written in C, C++, Java, Javascript, IDL, Python ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Coding_Style) and assembler ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Yasm). Although CSS and Javascript are used for some features in Firefox, it provides a platform for these languages ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/learn) so suggest that they should not be listed as "written in". Also XUL ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XUL) and XBL ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XBL) are file formats used in defining applications in Firefox but there is little sign of take-up outside of Mozilla. Support for remote XUL was dropped because of potential security issues (in ref) and although XBL was proposed as a w3c standard it is no longer in maintenance and XBL 2.0 is unlikely to be implented ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/), so would suggest these are removed from this section. Instead the references to these languages could be put in the detail of how add-ons,formatting and the user interface are rendered. ( 77.100.10.66 ( talk) 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC))
On the original Website, the date for the beta versions differ due to the here mentioned. Please use the original site and date for release dates: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ -- 80.245.147.81 ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
As covered in https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/11/03/mozilla-foundation-irs-audit-now-closed/ (the blog of Mozilla Foundation Chairwoman Mitchell Baker), the IRS audit has been closed. Walter Görlitz feels he is the supreme owner of all knowledge and that is a poor source. I'm not sure what a better source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.126.3 ( talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The source code is entirely free (FLOSS) and the binaries on free platforms, but not (somtimes?) on Windows at least. See: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale.html http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/ http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html and by typing the "URL": about:license See (on Windows) above "Mozilla Public License 2.0", if I recall, two components.
How should the page be changed? I thought they would refer to H.264 binaries but can't see that. Non-free software/hardware ( patent encumbered) is sometimes (on Andriod only? Older Windows?) used or has been planned. I don't think that software is currently bundled, only used when already installed. Comp.arch ( talk) 14:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This section seems to deal mostly with start-up time and memory usage. Could some data about graphical performance be included as well? Landroo ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Does the release history need to go up to version 24 (still in pre-alpha), on a blue background (future release)? George8211 ( talk | mail) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Just run into this: http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-schedules-metro-firefox-for-december-release-7000019532/
Apparently, a metro-style version is coming. Question: Should be mentioned in this article or one of those specific articles? e.g. Features of Firefox or History of Firefox § Version 5?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
In the platform section, the screenshot of Firefox on windows is largely mismatched. The screenshot used there is that of a Mac in place of a windows one. The cause is that, it was linked to the page's default image which now has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitosh.swain ( talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the decision was to keep the first screenshot posted but this editor seems to think that Windows is the only correct one. Should we resurrect the debate or point to the discussions in Talk:Firefox/Archive 15? Then again, I could be wrong about consensus. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."
This would mean that you depict it on the most common operating system platform. As Firefox is most commonly used on Windows, people are expecting to see a screenshot of it on Windows. There is already a section for depicting how different Firefox looks between platforms. The discussion you cited also did not show any consensus or decision towards which OS to use, and was talking more about copyright-related concerns surrounding depicting it on Windows 7, which are moot because the Windows 8 UI is {{ pd-shape}}. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you still don't understand. Your point is that the current version of the most popular OS should always be used. My reductio ad absurdum argument is: where does "most popular" end? You didn't answer that. The argument that English requires an English language screen shot doesn't wash either, that is obvious from the use of this image by other locales. Also, it's not about you, it's about who came first and edit warring because your preferred OS (or language) is not displayed is not at all valid. If anyone had made this edit, I would have reverted and expected WP:BRD, not an immediate revert which is the first step in an edit war. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
And now I have discovered that there is already a consensus: [[: WP:Software screenshots#Choice of platform. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Google and Microsoft aren't affiliated with Firefox just like when you go to buy stocks you don't buy the iPhone shares, you buy Apple shares (silly analogy is silly). So will someone please move that section to another article, likely one of the several Mozilla articles. I won't do it because I don't have the time anymore to do this, but I do have the time to see what's wrong and hope to god someone will actually help for once and stop bickering like internet children. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 08:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I moved it to Mozilla Corporation. — rybec 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article takes more than 4 minutes to load on IE with 2.6GHz celeron. Is there a way to split the article in a way that saves time (esp. on IE) without throwing away any content?
I'm thinking of the references; is there a way to put them on a separate page, or any other way that loads the refs on demand rather than by default? That might come in handy for readers looking for the download link. IDK how to do it, and IF it can be done at all, but if it can, this could be a WP:IAR case.
Any suggestions? - ¡Ouch! ( hurt me / more pain) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I meant it was "dangerously long" WRT formatting, not file size. I have a network usage average of ~0.6% so I guess I had a bugged revision when I opened the page, or something that caused IE to slow down because of a bug in IE. I'm running another test right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by One.Ouch.Zero ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Still 4 minutes plus. OTOH, the celeron has 100MHz bus, so once it runs into L2 cache misses, it slows down tremendously. I guess the IE code has to go several times through the HTML to format it and that causes a lot of the slowdown. Disabling images didn't help either; I should have written that before.
Clearing the cache resulted in a peak (>1Mbps) followed by several minutes of processing, even without scripting.
It would be a non-standard interpretation of "simple" but would it be more appropriate to tune the Firefox page on simple.wikipedia.org than this one? - ¡Ouch! ( hurt me / more pain) 08:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert on all this and reluctant to add material, but did read these to see if my firefox highly at risk and some of info probably belongs in security section:
The Schneier article does say that "According to Snowden, FoxAcid is a general CNE [computer network exploitation] system, used for many types of attacks other than the Tor attacks described here." — rybec 20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Noticed Gopher template at the bottom [ [46]] (was included in Firefox 3, not sure if later, still might be in an add-on, but should they have any relevance here?). Guess it sould be taken out. [I'm having a discussion at Internet Explorer talk page. The consensus there is to keep things such as PA-RISC processor support, that is all of the history in Infobox.] That Gopher was included should be in some history page and when discontinued but I say not mentiond it at all on this page. comp.arch ( talk) 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
84.132.138.221 posted this comment on 25 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
Criticism on Firefox. Especially about changes /design-decisions (no, not the Logo, but about old features removed or new features added)?
Goldenshimmer ( talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I came to Wikipedia looking for information on Waterfox, which I believe is or was a 64-bit Windows build of Firefox. On Wikipedia, Waterfox redirects to Firefox, which contains zero information on Waterfox. Can someone either create a page that tells people what Waterfox is or was, or put similar information on the Firefox page? Because I'd like to know a bit more about it. For now, I'll have to look elsewhere. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The used screenshot shows a customized version of Firefox. The most notable difference is that the search bar is removed and replaced by some omnibar add-on. I think the screenshot should be as "default" as possible, to show users what they can expect when they download Firefox. It should probably also show about:home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.22.80 ( talk) 22:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
108.50.168.140 posted this comment on 1 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
I am tyrying to choose what web browser I wish to use on my new HP desktop, I would like to see in a simple chart what browsers offer what and how efficient each one is. A SIMPLE chart that we may use to compare. At the moment I like both Firefox and Chrome. I would like to make a choic. Thank you
If you click on the Web browser pointer in the introduction, then scroll down to its See also section, and there follow the link to List of web browsers in which you also scroll down to its See also section, you'll find yet another link : Comparison of web browsers where is to be found what you are seeking. — Jerome Potts ( talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)