![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
"Former release; no longer supported" are clearly distinct and finite thoughts, independent from each other, but not complete sentences.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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.
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)
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)
These specific slides do not indicate how the NSA obtains Google PREF cookies or whether the company cooperates in these programs.
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.
Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly
In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent".
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?
Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
User:Comp.arch added the following comments into the main text, which more certainly belong into Talk:
- Mardus ( talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This is very wrong:
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. Reinis talk 11:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
"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.)
"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)
"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)
"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.
"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.
The Performance section almost exclusively includes tests where Firefox came out on top. Contrast this to 2006:
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
![]() | 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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
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)
"Former release; no longer supported" are clearly distinct and finite thoughts, independent from each other, but not complete sentences.
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)
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)
@ 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)
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.
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)
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)
These specific slides do not indicate how the NSA obtains Google PREF cookies or whether the company cooperates in these programs.
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.
Most importantly, unreferenced contributions and original researches about living people are removed mercilessly
In this case, the black sheep is "presumably with Google's consent".
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?
Overall, this paragraph blackballs Google and instructs users to lower their security.
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)
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.
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.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
User:Comp.arch added the following comments into the main text, which more certainly belong into Talk:
- Mardus ( talk) 09:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This is very wrong:
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. Reinis talk 11:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
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:
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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
"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.)
"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)
"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)
"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.
"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.
The Performance section almost exclusively includes tests where Firefox came out on top. Contrast this to 2006:
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)