Talk:Firefox/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Misleading Graph Problem

The graph near the middle of the article which shows the cumulative downloads of Firefox is a misleading graph. A person who first sees the graph would be like: "Woah! A lot of people downloaded Firefox!" Even though there are only 250 downloads. This is a misleading graph. Someone should change its intervals, and make them higher, and make the graph larger in size, and give an accurate view of the downloads. Thank you! I can't change the image, because I can't make graphs on the computer, or photoshop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grubzic (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Erm... It is a graph showing mozilla firefox downloads between Jan 2005 and sometime near the end of 2006. The numbers, as is stated in the caption, are in millions. I personally see nothing wrong with it, as it accurately shows the cumulative downloads over that period of time...-Localzuk^(talk) 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I see his point (and actually agree with it). The problem is this graph will never be descending... Think about it for a while, especially in context of NPOVization... 193.219.28.146 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is true - but as a cumulative graph that is all it could show really but then again, the purpose of such a graph is to show the overall trend (ie, you can see which months had less downloads by the change in gradient). How about a graph that shows the data per time period rather than cumulatively? (If you get what I mean...) I have no real feelings on this either way really, it isn't really an POV issue though, as it is just a form a graph.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a graph that shows the download rate. The graph does not match the numbers in the table, because the table shows the average downloads per day since November 9, 2004. My graph shows the instantaneous download rate computed by numerical differentiation (specifically the 3 point rules, asymmetrical from sitmo). -- Schapel 22:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What data (which columns) have you used to create this graph? 193.219.28.146 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Number of days" and "Downloads (millions)" columns. Here are the calculations (three-point numeric differentiation, except two-point numeric differentiation is used for the end points):

(25-1)/(99-1)=.245

(50-1)/(171-1)=.288

(75-25)/(259-99)=.313

(100-50)/(344-171)=.289

(150-75)/(479-259)=.341

(200-100)/(629-344)=.351

(250-150)/(732-479)=.395

(250-200)/(732-629)=.485

And then you just multiplied each of this by ~~100~~ 1000 and put on graph, yes? I'm sorry, but I think you completely misunderstood the idea of (numerical) derivative (including ~~equations~~ formulas). 193.219.28.146 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? -- Schapel 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nothing now. My mistake. I guess I was wrong here. I want to apologize to you for my allegations.

OK, and now even better news ;-) -- I think most people here don't like my edits, so I'll go away. Bye bye! 193.219.28.146 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Some sections especially the google relationship one needs a rewriting, it sounds like a telegram or that it was written by a non english speaking person 201.252.216.216 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Schapel, could you elaborate on this edit? On WP:AWW we can read: "Avoid "some people say" statements without sources. Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.". But I gave reliable source. LWN is "a computing news site (or webzine) with an emphasis on Free/Libre/Open-Source Software and software for Unix-like operating systems." 193.219.28.146 02:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you gave a source for the statement "By some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware." But those are still weasel words. Who says that? If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view. Without any sources, it is also unverifiable. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. Unless we can give a reliable source that says "this feature will turn Firefox into spyware," standing on its own without weasel words, the statement should be removed. -- Schapel 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Who says that?" Well, author of the article given as reliable source. This is the same as citing opinion of editor of Forbes that FF is "the best browser". 193.219.28.146 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the author of the article says "By some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware." Who says "this feature will turn Firefox into spyware?" It is not the same as citing Forbes that Fx is the best browser, because Forbes says it's the best browser. Anyone can verify that Forbes makes that statement. Forbes doesn't say "some say Firefox is the best browser." Do you understand the difference? -- Schapel 03:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point Schapel is trying to make is that saying 'by some accounts' forbes is just being a proxy for those other accounts and without providing a source themselves forbes becomes unreliable in that article. The forbes article stating that firefox was the best browser did so directly and didn't say 'some think it is the best browser'. I hope this helps clear this up.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

I'm working on finishing up the items in the to-do list at the top of this pages, and the two items left are (1) merge references into footnotes, and (2) add criticism. We're now down to two remaining references. One is Firefox language coverage and I cannot find where material from that source is used in the article. Should this two-year-old link to language coverage just be removed? The other is Chrome-plated holes, a Heise Security article where they report about problems with the security model and how Mozilla developers intend to fix it. However, this article is also very old — it refers to Firefox 1.1 as the trunk version. Does anyone have updated information about the topic? Lastly, is there any criticism that is verifiable from reliable sources that we haven't included? -- Schapel 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think both refs can be removed as out of date. Also, the 2 items in the to-do list can be removed to I think, as there has not been any referenced criticism suggested for a long while now.

However, I think we need to improve the lead a bit. This is a long, complex article and as such the intro should reflect this. We should have 3 paragraphs as our lead, covering all major aspects of the article. The lead is supposed to be a 'mini-article' which can stand on its own.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the remaining references and updated the to-do list. I agree that the lead needs work. For reference, here's the version of the Firefox article from shortly after it was featured. That should give a start as to what the lead should look like now. -- Schapel 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a certain someone also wants more criticism added to the article. What criticism would that be, exactly? -- Schapel 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See my response on Localzuk's talk page for details and propositions. 193.219.28.146 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see something you don't seem to like about the EULA (remember we need a reliable source to cite before we can add information to the article), and criticism of Google's Firefox extension, which doesn't seem to belong in this article. Can you give a reliable source that criticizes Firefox. -- Schapel 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that there was "Criticism" section in this older version of the article... (But I am not suggesting adding it again.) 193.219.28.146 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the lead: "flagship" is a peacock word. Mistercupcake 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous reversions

I see a certain anonymous editor is reverting my edits for no good reason. One was the claim in the lead that Firefox has a 12% usage share. That is a summary of information properly cited later in the article. The lead is merely a summary of that information, and as far as I know doesn't need to be cited. Am I incorrect? Another was putting back the average download rate column in the graph, with the comment that the numbers on my graph are only an "estimate." How does this justify putting back the completely different and confusing download rate column? In what way is my graph an "estimate" but the rest of the information apparently isn't an estimate? Why does this person seem to be complaining about a graph he asked for in the first place? -- Schapel 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits. The lead does not need to provide a source for information that is sourced later in the article. However, if needs be it can be added with little effort.

I have no thoughts on the graph, as I think there is no real need for the download rate graph anyway as the cumulative one does the job.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've removed the download rate graph as original research, as we don't really know the downloads per day. That's fine with me, but then we need to remove the download rate column also, because again we are taking an average over a period of time and we don't know the downloads per day in that case, either. The only difference between the number in the column and the points on the graph are that there are different time periods being averaged. For that matter, we should plot only points on the cumulative graph, and not draw lines between them, because the lines show a constant download rate in between points. In fact, we don't know what the download rate was at all. It doesn't matter to me which way we do things, but we should at least be consistent. Either we can say only the download numbers and dates from the reliable sources, or we can interpolate and average the data to make nice-looking graphs. -- Schapel 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Consistency - cumulative graph is bad, because it will never be descending in contrast to the graph above ("usage share"). 193.219.28.146 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling we're about to go in circles again. That's the reason you asked for a graph of the download rate, because the download rate can decrease. My download rate can decrease much more easily than the "download rate" column in the table because it's a running average and will be more sensitive to a sudden slow down in download rate. That would make it "good", right? However, you also said that the download rate graph was bad because it was an "estimate." Can you pick a graph that you'd like and stick with it? Please pick criteria for a "good" graph that we can apply consistently to all graphs. -- Schapel 02:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does the anonymous editor also keep removing the reference to Forbes calling Firefox the best browser? It seems like it's in "retaliation" for removing an old, unused reference. If you want to take the old reference and try to use it to add to the article, be my guest. But please don't remove used references and their associated text. Thanks. -- Schapel 02:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it is a matter of consistency and consequence. "Best browser" from Forbes is from 2004, so I think material regarding security issues older than the newest ones should also be included. To-Do was saying about "merging", not "removing", but you've chosen to remove interesting reference to heise.de article completely. How about merging info from it into "Security" section and adding reference to "Footnotes"? 193.219.28.146 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for your convenience: here is edit with removal of heise.de article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mozilla_Firefox&diff=98899433&oldid=98899183 193.219.28.146 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no need to merge the reference into the footnotes, as it was unused. As it is specific to Firefox 1.0, I don't see any reason to add it. That is, unless there's updated information about the situation in Firefox 1.5 and Firefox 2.0. There isn't other information specific to Firefox 1.0 except for historical information such as reviews and download and usage statistics. -- Schapel 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

So, rather than be accused of hiding edits I am posting here first. This talk page is getting too long again. Time for an archive?-Localzuk^(talk) 23:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. It's not like it's being deleted. And it's not like people seem to have a problem with brinign old topics back up if they feel they weren't resolved. Chris Cunningham 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nothing constructive lost. The less flame wars in here the better. Chris Cunningham 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Licensing section

I see our anonymous editor is re-adding redundant information to the Licensing section. Could you please remove the redundant statements, such as "Mozilla Firefox ... contains several elements with copyright and trademark restrictions" and "the official artwork is trademarked and copyrighted." With the redundancies left in, the section seems poorly written to me. Thanks. -- Schapel 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at cleaning it up; I've (hopefully) removed the redundancies, and done what I can to improve the style and clarity of the text (the licensing is a complex issue, though, so I don't consider this anything more than a rough attempt). Ubernostrum 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some friendly advice

I have seen this article go wrong, this is reaching the point of being stupid, this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of internet quotes about a piece of software and a soup opera, so my sincere opinion is this, trash the whole article and rewrite it making it minimal with these sections only: General Description Features History

and thats it, no more criticism, no more praise, no more 300 quotes trying to make it look bad, good, ugly, etc. Just the solid facts Good luck 200.82.113.37 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, this article is filled with facts. The quotes support the facts added in this article. So, pay attention to the article more. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the discussion page you will notice the war that is going on and that is ruining th article, thus my advice to make it minimal, there are facts that belong on an encyclopedia and facts that belong on specialized blogs like "Ill marry firefox if it was human" or "Firefox, devil reincarnated". It seems to me like the only feasible solution here, just get rid of all the unnecesary fat, im sure the user can make an opinion for himself without being spoon fed this kind of things on wikipedia 200.82.113.37 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many details and opinions being added to the article. The details belong in the daughter articles. POV rants belong on a blog or other personal website. This is one of the problems mentioned in the featured article review. Firefox is in danger of being removed as a featured article if these problems aren't fixed. The new edits are simply ruining what used to be a great article. -- Schapel 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Relationship with Google" is too short to make separate article, but OTOH too important to remove it completely... 193.219.28.146 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think you're exaggerating when you write about "ruining the article". There is a lot of talk indeed, but there were not too much controversial edits actually. And about rewriting article to include only few sections -- how about doing the same with other articles about browsers before even thinking about so radical changes here? 193.219.28.146 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Others agree with me. This article is a previously featured article. However, someone recently wrote, There is an edit war going on, and editors are making poorly-sourced edits based on original research and in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. The page has been flagged with {{NPOV}} and {{weasel}}, and includes many technical details which are unnecessary, citing pages from mozilla.org. Because of this, the article can also no longer be considered "Well written", since the prose is not necessarily compelling, and definitely not brilliant. This article needs significant amounts of work in order to maintain its featured article status. Others have expressed similar thoughts on this talk page. Instead of immediately disagreeing, could you look around and think about these other opinions first? What editors do you think they could be referring to? -- Schapel 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Soup opera"? AlistairMcMillan 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Heavy editing

Seeing as this article is a huge mess and the talk page is a wasteland, I'm being bold and editing it heavily. At the moment it's incoherent, incomplete and far too heavily-focussed on adverts for add-ons and what random reviewers said. Chris Cunningham 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The random reviewers part is because originally those statements in a criticisms article/section that said essentially "Some people think Firefox is slow. For example, Joe Bloe from some magazine people have heard of thinks it takes too long to start up...". The statement makes sense in that context because it kept the article NPOV. Now it is indeed just random reviews of the product. I think it would be better to move statements like that into sections in the Features article. "Critical reception" is just "Criticisms" reworded, with two "pro" sentences at the start to appear balanced, and two paragraphs at the end that are off-topic.--Nonpareility 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphs

Are these strictly necessary? Chris Cunningham 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to move the entire Market adoption section to its own daughter article. If I did so, I would be inclined to keep only the usage share graph, not the download table and graphs, in the summary section. Perhaps it's not necessary and we should only state that Firefox's usage share is 12% and has been growing since its initial release? -- Schapel 15:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If there's enough there for its own article I'd suggest that, but I can't see such a thing being particularly useful in itself. Yeah, a simple claim and a couple of good refs should be fine. We're not trying to write an article about how awesome and popular the thing is. Chris Cunningham 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I left the graph there, but if anyone removes it I won't object. -- Schapel 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade

I just upgraded my Fx. As a result I can no longer save in wiki using alt-s. Any solutions pls? - Kittybrewster 23:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alt-shift-S. :) Chris Cunningham 01:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Extensions and Plugins

Please be careful to use the terms for Firefox Add-ons properly. I put in the 6 common Fx plugins -- this short list seems appropriate, and there is no real Firefox Plugins article. But I don't know how we would decide which of 1000 extensions to mention by name here, if any. And I doubt that the set of security-related extensions currently mentioned deserve this special distinction. 69.87.203.136 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see the need for the "Software ecosystem surrounding Firefox" section. The Licensing section already mentions Netscape, Flock, Songbird, and IceWeasel, the Features section/article mentions add-ons, and if it doesn't already, it should probably also mention plugins.--Nonpareility 17:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a quick wrapper for some loosely-related items which didn't belong in whatever sections they were formerly held in. The whole article needs to be reorganised properly at some point. Chris Cunningham 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've knocked the whole section out. Add-ons are discussed under Features, Portable Firefox has its own article and I don't see why it should be discussed in this article any more than Flock or Netscape.--Nonpareility 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox

If Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox redirects here, why is there nothing about critism at all? Darthnader37 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't see any criticism in this article, I don't think you're actually reading it all the way through.--Nonpareility 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I too cannot find anything negative about this cult/browser in said article. --Indolences 05:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read better then. The article contains criticism that is woven throughout it. There is more criticism in the Features article (as most criticism actually relates to specific features so that is the appropriate place for it).-Localzuk^(talk) 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and adding an NPOV banner to a section that discusses both how it was accepted by the world and how it has been criticised (memory leaks, google relationship) seems strange. I am going to remove it unless you explain why that section is not NPOV as it plainly and simply is.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there are plenty of negative statements about Firefox in the article. The official binaries are not free software. Some users complain of memory problems and long startup time. In 2006, there was exploit code available for Firefox that worked even with a fully patched version. It currently has a publicly known security vulnerability. Some users are concerned about the privacy issues of the anti-phishing filter and the new ping attribute. Second, we keep asking for reliable sources that have other negative statements, and no one can seem to produce any. Personally, I think the article is too much focused on negative statements; according to the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Editors have worked long and hard to find all this criticism. Editors should work just as hard (that's the proportionately and without bias part) to find praise, too. -- Schapel 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS. I am busy at the moment I will re-read at a later time.--Indolences 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay I looked over the article. Every negative thing is rebutted by blaming a third party and using weasel words. "Other known causes of memory problems are misbehaving extensions, such as Google Toolbar and some old versions of Adblock [41] or plug-ins, such as older versions of Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose source is a Mozilla fansite wiki. "When PC Magazine compared memory usage of Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer, they found that Firefox seemed to use only about as much memory as the other browsers". So it SEEMS to, not actually does use as much memory as others. "Mozilla developers said the higher memory use of Firefox 1.5 is sometimes at least partially an effect of the new fast backwards and forwards (FastBack) feature". If you don't see the retardedness in this quote please ask me to explain further. "Tests performed by PC World and Zimbra indicate that Firefox 2 uses less memory than Internet Explorer 7." This "Zimbra" (I have never heard of the site) appears to be a blog. I do not think blogs are allowed sources are they? Correct me if I'm wrong. --Indolences 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'll correct you. Zimbra is an open source company that produces software. Next I'll point out that the use of the word 'seems' is a good usage as to state 'does' would be definite - what if it doesn't on another machine? Also, what does the actual source say?

Finally, Mozilla is a good source to quote on the product which they produce. In order to maintain WP:NPOV all criticisms must be be provided with context and where possible rebuttals by other organisations.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to have a separate section and/or article, so that readers do not have to weed through the article to find any criticisms? Many tech related articles have this implemented. And you could always tryfirefox myths for criticisms, since it has sources showing criticisms of firefox compared to other browsers.Darthnader37 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox myths isn't completely reliable, some of the rebuttals Andrew K (the creator) posts aren't too credible, but it's enough to base a criticisms section on. Other users have argued here that there are criticisms in the article, but they're not clearly outlined. The other browsers have a criticisms section. This one doesn't. --84.12.27.67 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The other browsers have a criticisms section." - Opera doesn't, Safari doesn't, Seamonkey doesn't, IE does. In my opinion, IE shouldn't.--Nonpareility 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it woudn't be good to make it as separate article or section, because then you're actually splitting up similar info. For example, currently we talk about Firefox's licensing and the criticisms the FSF has on it together - it doesn't make sense to split that info up. Firefox's licensing and FSF's opinion of it are more closely related than FSF's opinion and Firefox using a lot of memory.--Nonpareility 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are Bad! They break up the flow of an article so that a user has to read about something in 2 places rather than 1. It attracts trolls who hate the program and seem to be unable to follow our policies. It is inherently POV due to it being just negative items. If we have a criticism section should we also have a 'Positive things' section? Where we just give all the good bits? I don't think so.

We spent a lot of effort re-integrating the criticisms into this and the features article so that they would read better and be more well rounded. Can you provide a good reason why we should re-pov fork it?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is very strong pro-FF lobby here, so your efforts toward adding criticism section are probably pointless, unfortunately... See also archives of talk page, if you don't know what I mean... 193.219.28.146 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is as biased as it was before xmas. ualso see the tag was removed and the talk archived but the article reminas like a charm opffensive for FF without any real criticism except it takes a while to load up (very true), SqueakBox 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Relationship with Google" section? Privacy concerns? Memory usage? End-user builds being considered proprietary? Firebird controversy, described in commentary—cited in the article—as "one of the dirtiest deeds...seen in open source"? I'm sorry, but where is the "charm offensive"? Fvasconcellos 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that after recent changes current version of the article is indeed not bad. There are still sentences present like "Forbes.com called Firefox the best browser" leaning toward POV a little bit, but overall article seems balanced... Anyway, we will see how long it stays in this state...

Out of curiosity, are you expecting publications which offer software reviews to try to adhere to Wikipedia's policies? I can see it now -- "Forbes.com, in accordance with WP:NPOV, refused to offer opinions on any of the competing products, choosing instead to provide an encyclopedic description of each..." Ubernostrum 13:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and someone has added recently info about "CSS3 columns" with ref. This ref. says: "In Firefox 1.5 and later we have implemented a subset of these properties to behave as described in the draft (with one exception explained below)." So I am not sure section about version 3.0 is appropriate place to put it in. Perhaps person who added this knows better actual state of implementation of support for these features, I haven't checked it personally... 193.219.28.146 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time and it left a feeling that every non-glorious aspect of the product is extensively debunked in the next sentences. Debunking is not bad, its just the whole feeling of the article suffers from this in my humble opinion. For example it states that Firefox takes longer to start up, but then the "flaw" is fixed in the next sentence by stating that IE loads up faster just because it has some components loaded at system startup. Why bother with that? Ok, if you would just say "Softpedia notes that Firefox takes longer to start up than other browsers, which was confirmed by browser speed tests." it would put Firefox in a bad light. But would it be still correct? About high memory usage in Firefox 1.5 this same thing occurs. Half of the critical section is about explaining why 1.5 consumed so much memory and how it's not actually Firefox's fault.It's only compared to IE when talking about security. "Vulnerabilities were patched far more quickly than those found in IE and other browsers". Yes far more quickly than in IE, but only one day quicker than in Opera according to that cited site. Just some thoughts about the article, anyway it's quite good. 88.114.251.214 22:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pipelining

Pipelining, a feature than can only be enabled by changing a hidden pref, is not notable enough for inclusion in this article, since our discussion of the features of Firefox is only an overview. It may be notable enough for Features of Mozilla Firefox, but likely not as a section on its own.--Nonpareility 16:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Forbes called Firefox the best browser when it was released in 2004."

1: Forbes.com said this, not Forbes magazine. (Even click on the guy's name, it says "Former reporter at Forbes.com. "
2: The article in question is labeled "commentary".

It would make more sense to either change it to "Arik Hesseldahl, a former reporter for Forbes.com..." or "Forbes.com calls..." What do you think? --Indolences 03:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that he's not with Forbes anymore. He was with them when he wrote the piece.--Nonpareility 02:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And what do you have to say about the rest of what I wrote? --Indolences 09:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I say, be bold! and fix it yourself. Stale Fries 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FF as abbreviation for Firefox

Mention of "FF" as an abbreviation for Firefox has been removed from the article before, probably multiple times. I don't see the logic in it because it is an abbreviation, after all. There might be reason to remove it if usage is very minor but this isn't the case. For example, when I searched Slashdot using Google, this is what I got:

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%3Aslashdot.org+ff+firefox --- 2,030 hits
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%3Aslashdot.org+fx+firefox --- 502 hits

I could change the Google search queries around, but in general on most places on the web, "Fx" seems to be in minority use, occasionally hitting about 50-50 with "FF." People who say FF is not an abbreviation for Firefox appear to be playing dumb. —Tokek 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You about done with your speech? Ok, good. You wanna think people are playing dumb by saying it isn't an abbreviation, so be it. You're also calling Mozilla dumb too, as they are the ones saying the abbreviation of Firefox is Fx.--XMBRIAN 06:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Features that IE7 copied off FF

"Many features that previously distinguished Firefox from competitors are now available with Internet Explorer 7" Such as? One or two examples needed here. 196.203.17.67 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tabs and RSS feeds. That's pretty much it. IE7's extensions aren't comparable to Firefox's, and IE7 doesn't have many additional skins (and you have to pay for at least one).SteveSims 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've yet to encounter a feature in IE7 myself that was copied from Fx, most were intriduced in Opera and the like, and a lot of Opera users could agree. From my perspective that statement looks rather ignorant. I strongly agree examples are needed here.--84.12.27.67 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this incredibly incorrect. Perhaps english is not your first language or you just misread the clause you quoted so I shall attempt to enlighten. Nowhere in what you quoted does it indicate that IE "copied" Firefox. Please don't manipulate quotes like that. As a matter of fact, features such as tabs, available on Opera first or not (I don't even know if they were to tell you the truth) still distinguished Firefox from its competitors (a major one being IE, which did not have them). Don't abuse language simply because you don't agree with something, thank you. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If a feature distinguishes Firefox, that means it is unique to Firefox. Features like tabs do not distinguish Firefox: Opera, a FF competitor, had them for years before FF 1.0, along with quite a few of FF competitors. Besides, the point wasn't that the statement quoted was untrue, it was that it needed an example because examples don't occur to the reader spontaneously. And since none occur to me, some-one else needs to do it. Any volunteers?196.203.19.243 12:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there may be features that distinguish Firefox from competitors; but the way it is worded now it implies that Internet Explorer "copied" Firefox. Also, the features that are given as examples of what "distinguished" Firefox weren't unique to Firefox (RSS/Tabs), if anything Internet Explorer (6.0 and below) was distinguised by the fact that it did not have them. I think the statement that Internet Explorer now has these features is out of place - perhaps it should be mentioned in the Internet Explorer article that some of the features were based from other browsers (not necessarily just Firefox), but not in the Firefox article unless its in a section of what. If the statement as meant to say that Firefox is seen as the biggest competitor to IE in Microsoft's eyes and chose to use features from it for that reason than the sentence needs to be changed so as to not imply that those features are unique and distinguish Firefox. DarkJedi613 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the term 'distinguished' is not synonymous with 'unique'. It is a feature that allows it to stand out in some way against a selection of its competitors. In this case those features were tabs and RSS feeds and it stood out in comparison to IE6. Both Firefox and Opera exhibit these features and they distinguish themselves from IE because of them. If 4 people in a group of 50 had red hair you could say that the red hair was a distinguishing feature - but it isn't unique to any one of them. The browser market is made up of dozens of browsers, each with different features. Saying that tabs and RSS feeds don't distinguish FF from competitors because Opera had them is the equivalent of reducing the market down to only 3 browsers - and I would agree with you that 'distinguishing' would be a bad choice of words if there were only 3 browsers. (Note: A dictionary definition of distinguishing: 'Recognise or treat (someone or something) as different)' compared to unique: 'being one of a kind'.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0 using XAML

Firefox's interface is written in XUL (which is rendered by the underlying Gecko layout engine). XUL serves much the same purpose that XAML does: XML-based GUI markup language. For this reason it is unreasonable to suggest that Mozilla would use XAML in the next Gecko/Firefox release. 208.242.14.198 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's weaselly nonsense. Removing. Chris Cunningham 09:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Browser market?

user:Bigdumbdinosaur recently changed the sentence

Web-surfers have adopted Firefox rapidly, despite the dominance of Internet Explorer in the browser market.

adding quotes around the word "market". Rather than simply revert this change, I took a stab at rewording the sentence to explicitly convey the intent (which I believe to be that there really isn't any browser market in any normal sense). My reworded version was

Web-surfers have adopted Firefox rapidly, despite the availability of Internet Explorer on every Windows PC.

This version was reverted. I personally agree that there isn't actually a browser market. Users don't buy a computer and an OS, and then separately buy a browser. IE is bundled with every copy of Windows. Safari is bundled with every Mac. Some people choose to download, install, and use a different browser, but saying there's a "browser market" that IE "dominates" is (IMO) a complete mischaracterization. 90% (or so) of PCs are Windows. IE usage does not reflect share of a "browser market", but the fact that browsers are preinstalled and Windows dominates the PC market.

For now, I've changed it back to market without quotes, but I'm open to other suggestions. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to pay for something for there to be a market on it. Just like you choose what you want at a market, the Internet is the browser market, and you choose which one you want to download and use.--XMBRIAN 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If IE did not come pre-installed on every Windows PC I'd agree with you. But it does. So I don't. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your version actually. While I generally agree that there is a browser "market", there's no reason to use this terminology when it can be presented in a simpler manner. Chris Cunningham 12:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Web-surfers have adopted Firefox rapidly, despite Internet Explorer coming pre-installed with every copy of the Windows OS". While I do feel that there is a "browser market", I also think stating that IE dominates it is somewhat misleading, not because it is not true, but because most users only use IE because they don't know that there are any other alternatives. Some even think that IE is the internet. While the statement that IE dominates the market is true, I do not feel it conveys what the article is trying to state. -KingpinE7 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i think market is being confused with open market. market should refer to market share. this has no capitalist denotation. IE holds the market share. to assert that users are not aware of FF is OR.The undertow 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit looks to be lacking a bit in the NPOV area, KingpinE7. Instead of stating the facts (IE dominates the browser market), it makes an excuse to wiggle around the fact. Your justification explains why IE dominates the browser market, not that it doesn't. It does dominate the browser market. What is the article "trying to state"? This article should be stating the facts, not serving as a promotional platform for Firefox. I strongly prefer Firefox myself, and promote it when I get the chance, but this really isn't the place to do it. —Erik Harris 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is this market? Did I miss something - can I now call up Dell and order a Windows PC with Firefox instead of IE? There's perhaps a case that there's a browser "after-market" (dominated by Firefox, but let's not go there). If 90% of the cars sold were made by GM and came with a radio/CD player made by GM, would we say the automotive radio/CD market was dominated by GM? We could perhaps say the "original equipment" radio/CD market was dominated by GM (GM could source this equipment from another vendor if it wanted to), but IMO calling this a "market" and talking about "market share" is completely misleading. This has nothing to do with POV promotion of Firefox, and everything to do with truth. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That is complicating a very simple idea. There are users of browsers. There are suppliers of browsers. A market does not have to have a monetary value it just has to have the above to items. A market is just the term used to define the users/suppliers of an item. An example, would you say that there is an 'OS market'? This is undoubtedly dominated by Windows but Linux (and its many distro's) all have a share of this market... It is the same with browsers.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that there is an OS market. I still maintain there is not a "browser market" in any normal sense. Microsoft did the same thing to the "TCP/IP stack market". When a previously independent product becomes bundled into a different, larger, product and the larger product has a monopoly position in its market, the "market" for the previously independent product is effectively destroyed. Claiming that there's a browser market that's just like the OS market is silly. I think the "there is a browser market" folks are confusing usage statistics with existence of a market. IE is definitely the most used browser, but this doesn't mean it dominates a "browser market" any more than whoever makes GM's steering wheels dominates the "steering wheel market". -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don’t get it as well. If a vendor of steering wheels who is also a vendor for gm vehicles produced 80% of steering wheels in all vehicles produced are you saying they wouldn’t dominate the market? Each manufacture of goods and services gages market share depending on the market they are after, doesn’t matter if they are supplying ants for ant farms or O-rings for NASA. Cummings makes diesel motors for Dodge, do they not have market share in diesel motors which they specialize in? What am I missing here?--I already forgot 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to state is that, since IE comes pre-installed on all copies of Windows, many people just stick with IE for simplicity, which is a fact. Also, Windows Firefox users end up also being IE users, because there are always tasks that require IE. This further boosts IE's market share. All Windows users are IE users. Fact. -KingpinE7 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, I think not giving a reason why IE dominates the market is non-NPOV, because it infers that IE is somehow better (I'm not saying it isn't, but this is an NPOV violation). -KingpinE7 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact? I'm a windows user and at times do not have IE installed on my machines and FF still works just fine.--I already forgot 05:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

this is simply overkill. the analogies are good, but let's get rid of the tech talk. if it was really a matter of geekspeak, one could argue that europeans have the luxury of having windows OS shipped WITHOUT IE. windows media player is freeware, as is winamp. at one point winamp cornered the market. as of now, wmp has a bigger market share. free or not, IE has a bigger market share. The undertow 11:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Several references seem to be calling the actual percentages "usage share" [1] [2] (although they often use the term "market share" as well, but not when talking about the percentages). I'm pretty sure the reason for this is that the reported percentages are actually "usage share" and "market share" data is simply unavailable (but "market share" is a much more commonly used term, so they sloppily use this term as a synonym for what they actually report as "usage share"). Unless someone can find a reputable reference describing the (current) browser "market" and its "market share" characteristics I suggest we use the seemingly more accurate term "usage share". -- Rick Block (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW...Giving it the old google test:

browser "usage share" returns 46,100 results

browser "market share" returns 1,090,000 results --I already forgot 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exremely unconvincing, since in the early days there really was market share (although even then, nearly all browsers were distriibuted free for the downloading so no "market share" data was ever available). I freely admit "market share" is a commonly used term, but the point is in this case I believe it to be misused. The current "share" data seems to be called "usage share" which is a little awkward, but calling this "market share" implying there's a market in which IE dominates is misleading to the point of being dishonest. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

to say the term is misused and feel compelled to side with 46K over 1 million seems a bit drastic. couldnt it possibly be that you are not quite understanding what market share implies when it comes to freely distributed software? now that america online is free to broadband users, is it fair to exclude them from market share of ISPs? it seems to make no sense that adobe's photoshop has a 'market share,' but if it were to become freely distributed we would have to use your idea of 'usage share.' usage share is not a widely adopted term. The undertow 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, please provide a source that characterizes what we're talking about as a "market" with "market share". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

US Dept. of Justice --I already forgot 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. This is the antitrust case against Microsoft, which discusses the "browser market" before Microsoft crushed Netscape by bundling IE with Windows (thereby killing this so-called "market"). The consequence of this is that there is no longer a browser market. There is an OS market. Browsers are bundled with OSes. There is browser usage data. Surprisingly, users are choosing to download and use browsers other than the ones provided with the OS. I'm not going to edit war in the article, but y'all should really think about whether you're simply buying into disinformation. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it is a simple economic term which you don't seem to understand. We have a source using the term as a 'market' do you have one to state that such a market doesn't exist any more?-Localzuk^(talk) 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

rick, i noticed you mentioned that you do believe there is an OS market, which i agree. however, since linux is a free OS, and windows is not, does that mean that linux must be excluded from market share data? i dont know where the distinction lies in your mind. if all products are free = usage share. if all are for profit = market share. but what about a hybrid situation? The undertow 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you have usage share even in an environement where everything is commercial and indeed the usage share may be very different from the market share (since some people will keep stuff longer than others). The thing with usage share is its very very difficult to measure in an even remotely objective way. Plugwash 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the traditional measure of "market share" is (product revenue) / (total market) which doesn't work very well for free products whether they're competing with other "for fee" products or not (they contribute to neither the total market value nor a product specific revenue number), so some other definition of market share is used (like, number of installed systems per OS in the OS case). As Plugwash notes, usage based numbers are often problematic. In some fields, vendor supplied shipment data is used (this doesn't work for anything that's free). Statistical surveys can work. My issue with "browser market" is not that it's a hybrid of "for free" and "for fee", but that it's a mixture of "bundled with OS" and "obtained independently from an OS". I think I've said this already, but IMO in the case of the "browser market" this bundling has distorted the market so much that "bundled browsers" and "add-on browsers" aren't in the same market. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is reasonable to talk about "usage share". However, I think most economists would include free products in their notion of market. In economics, that notion has less to do with buying things and more to do with choice; a market exists where and when people have different things to choose among -- whether they're spending their money, their time, or their attention. Even outside of economics, we may refer to the "marketplace of ideas" -- which does not suggest that ideas are bought with money, but rather that people choose which ideas to pay attention to. --FOo 07:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What are we doing here? Are we laying down the guidelines on when and where the term "market share" can be used or are we trying to establish if it is a term used in society in regards to browsers? --I already forgot 07:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We're trying to find a way to word the first sentence of the "Market adoption" section. It used to say:

Web-surfers have adopted Firefox rapidly, despite the dominance of Internet Explorer in the browser market.

It nows says:

Web-surfers have adopted Firefox rapidly, despite Internet Explorer coming pre-installed with every copy of the Windows OS.

Is anyone unhappy enough with this version that they want to discuss it more? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am unhappy with it. The use of browser market is perfectly correct. Also, above you use the equation of revenue/market value. This is correct but you are assuming that companies make no money from free software - which is incorrect. Yes they are free products but they include a large amount of paid for adverts etc... (bookmarks, default search engine, initial home page) and also there is a large area of possible income from including links to your own sites and the users buying other software/merchandise/clicking on links. We shouldn't be over-simplifying the term as there is a lot more to it than the initial outlay for a product. (Otherwise, why would Microsoft be producing a browser at all. Why would netscape be producing a browser? etc...)-Localzuk^(talk) 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How about just deleting everything after the comma (the next sentence goes on to say IE usage has declined)? If we must have a "despite", perhaps "despite not being bundled with either Windows or Mac PCs." -- Rick Block (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IE Dominates, despite crashes, becuase it comes w/ WIndoze, however it is worth it to gt..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft RealG187 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Peace out!

Version?

I believe version 2.0.0.2 has been released, im not sure of the date. The article currently has 2.0.0.1 as the latest version

Yea you are right. I just tried to update my Firefox and 2.0.0.2 is now available. Gdo01 00:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)