Talk:Firefox/Archive 14

Addition of New Award
I added the CNET Editor's Choice Award for Mozilla Firefox 3 in June 2008, in the Awards section 3 hours ago. And I cited the source from CNET's page itself. Just wanted people to know. Thanks. --DoctorFociWhom (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  06:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per your talk page; there is no consensus for this unilateral removal process. --Ckatz chat spy  08:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Avoid self-references, is this article exempt?
Although it is kind of cool to have the sample Firefox image be a Wikipedia page, this seems clearly to be in conflict with the "Avoid self-references" Wikipedia policy, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references Is there an exclusion for web browser articles, maybe to have them all display the same page for comparison? Or is it just a conflict with the policy that needs to be at least acknowledged? - Bevo (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, there is no problem with referring to Wikipedia, as long as it's done indirectly as if it was referred to on a page unrelated to Wikipedia. That is, statements such as "The web browser Firefox displaying the website Wikipedia" or "Firefox displaying the article 'Firefox' on the website Wikipedia" should be ok as per WP:ASR. --Execvator (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A careful read of ASR yeilds that its primary purpose is to prevent refernces such as "this page" and so forth, and making unecessary comparisons to wikipedia. Essentially, when wikipedia is addressed, it should be addressed in the manor it would if a third party was making the reference.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is convention, for the sake of ensuring that screenshots of Web browsers are uniform and don't pick arbitrary sites to display. See WP:SCREEN, a formerly-proposed guideline. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, one thing I failed to mention before, by using wikipedia as the webpage in the picture, the website portion of the image is effectively garaunteed to be compatible with Wikipedia's free and fair use image policies.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We do use fair use images on the front page, actually I can't find the Tiger woods pic in our screen shot. It should probably be re-taken with guaranteed free pictures. -Ravedave (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe any image on the front page (except for the Wikipedia logo) has to be free? Rehevkor ✉  14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that is true, but I don't know if it is clearly stated in policy. It is clearly derivative from the policy on how Fair Use would not apply to not free images hypothetically appearing on the front page. - Bevo (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also useful to have a minimal number of licenses in the screenshot. Thus, for Firefox on GTK+/Linux, a MPL, LGPL, GPL or CC BY-SA -compatible site might be better, so the license is compatible with Firefox and/or the icon theme used. E.g. many of the www.mozilla.org pages are under CC BY-SA 2.0 (but be careful to avoid logos, and credit the authors). For simplicity and compatibility with everything, there are public domain sites, among which are LibriVox and various governmental organizations, e.g. many of the sites in . --AVRS (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the "best" choice is about:robots or about:config then, they are under the same license as the rest of the browser, aren't they? --Execvator (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of all the about: URLs, I vote for about:robots, but it doesn’t look like a normal web page (and it has a button titled “Try again”). about:license does (NB: some parts of it are apparently free, others not!), but it may be too bland. --AVRS (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be too bland, and absolutely pointless to boot. Wikipedia falls under its own license, so there is no way inclusion of the website would hinder licensing concerns.  If this is about the self-referencing specifically, it was already addressed that it refers to article prose, an about: page would show the reader NOTHING of the browser, the wikipedia page gives the reader at least some indication of the browser's functionality and how its engine renders pages.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's Wikipedia's text that falls under GNU FDL, but not images, and the screenshot would still be partially licensed under GFDL-incompatible licenses, so you cannot say for sure that it does not violate them or GFDL. --AVRS (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fennec
I think it is time to start an article on Fennec. This is a mobile version of Firefox designed to run on Smartphones. It is currently in alpha. The Mozilla Corporation are developing the Product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieFoster (talk • contribs) 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu Firefox EULA controversy
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2615

should this news be added to the licensing section? Ufopedia (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I don't understand why is that labeled "controversy", there's no controversy about it, I also don't think it's encyclopedic info whether products come with EULA or not. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we already cover the issue in more than enough detail for an encyclopedia article. It's not a "controversy" that Firefox binaries come with a EULA, and that the Free Software Foundation considers Firefox binaries to be not free software because of the EULA. It's just a neutral fact, as has been reported as such in this article for years. You can read more about the details of the Ubuntu license issues at Mitchell Baker's blog. If Ubuntu decides to ship with abrowser or IceWeasel instead of Firefox, we can include that final decision in the article, as we already mention that Debian ships with IceWeasel. -- Schapel (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 4 (Minefield) Trunk Build
OK I am using the "trunk build" of FF4 codename Minefield (officially version 4.0a1pre) and I added info about this yesterday including a link to the Mozilla homepage for the project (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minefield/) but it was undone after 2 minutes. Am I wrong? Because I am using it myself! Queer As Folk (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not “the” trunk build, it is updated every day or night all year. It is not “released” either, and the version is not official: it is just a stub version number to show it comes before version 4.0a1 (even if it was later decided that it will be, say, 4a1). Those builds are only for testing, and bear the “4.0a1pre” version since after 3.0 and 3.1 are branched off of trunk, and until one of the last 4.0a1pre builds is released as 4.0a1. Thus, 3.1a1pre was almost indistinguishable from 3.0.1, but 3.1a1 was more (didn't check) different. --AVRS (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aaah thanks for the clarification. My mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QueerAsFolk (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading text(?)
In the article it says:

Firefox had 19.73% of the recorded usage share of web browsers as of August 2008, making it the second-most popular browser in current use worldwide, after Internet Explorer.

Long before this statistic, it has been the second most used browser, I think this part should be changed as it may mislead some people. Perhaps to:

Firefox had 19.73% of the recorded usage share of web browsers as of August 2008, it is the second-most popular browser in current use worldwide, after Internet Explorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.191.224 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about, "As of August 2008, Firefox has 19.73% of the recorded usage share of web browsers, making it the second-most popular browser in current use worldwide after Internet Explorer." KeelNar (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Security
Does Mozilla Firefox save history in files similar to index.dat in Internet Explorer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.208.222 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

YES! []
 * As that page explains, only Firefox 2 and below store history in history.dat. Firefox 3 stores it in a database. -- Schapel (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-signed certificates
I know that some Firefox users don't like how Firefox 3 handles self-signed certificates. That doesn't make a controversy. If you want to add information about the issue, remember to avoid weasel words, keep a neutral point of view, and cite reliable sources. I removed the sentence that someone had added on the issue because it broke every one of those policies and guidelines. -- Schapel (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two security sections
We have two different sections that discuss security vulnerabilities in Firefox compared to other browsers. One section has very out-of-date information. Let's combine the two sections into one so that the article is shorted and contains more timely information. Also, because we mention older Windows users must use IE6 and suffer from its vulnerabilities, we should mention that older Windows users must use Firefox 2 and suffer from its vulnerabilities as well. -- Schapel (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception. IE8, IE7 both have critical reception sections. Why doesn't this Firefox page? (or Chrome, Safari for that matter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a Critical reaction section in the Firefox article. For discussion about articles on other browsers, post on their talk pages. -- Schapel (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Popunders
The article talks about popups, but is Firefox supposed to block popunders? I've seen casalemedia and suitesmart.com get these through the latest version "popup blocker" (see e.g. televisionwithoutpity.com) Wnt (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does. But no blocker is 100%, for popups or unders. Rehevkor ✉  05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3.1 Release Date
Someone made the claim in the article that March 2009 was the release date for Firefox 3.1 They did not source it and I could not find anything saying this either. If this is true, and anyone knows where this info came from, please readd it and source it. Jwjkp (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Panda vs Elemental Fox
what is the name supposed to mean? is it Red Panda or elemental fox ?--TiagoTiago (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in the History of Mozilla Firefox article. But according to the official FAQ on the matter: "A "Firefox" is another name for the red panda."
 * Either way, this is a talk page for the article, not a forum. --Execvator (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing it out...
"Features included with Firefox are tabbed browsing, spell checker, incremental find, live bookmarking, an integrated download manager, keyboard shortcuts, and an integrated search system that uses the user's desired search engine" ...

This line is repeated twice in the article, once at the beginning, and a second time in the "features" section. Is it necessary to have this redundancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.229.113 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean it's repeated in the lead? Well the lead is a summary of the article and a basic list of features an an reasonable thing to have. Not a redundancy at all. Rehevkor ✉  22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo?
"3.2 will use the Gecko 1.9.2 engine on the Mozilla 5 platform." This sentence does not seem correct. There is no "Mozilla 5"(they are still working on Mozilla 2). Is the Mozilla reference actually needed?

"3.2 will use the Gecko 1.9.2 engine on the Mozilla platform." "3.2 will use the Gecko 1.9.2 engine." 82.154.227.70 (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * according to my about ocnfig tab on 3.2a1 it says;
 * copyright 1998-2008 contributors. All rights Reserved.
 * Firefox and the Firefox logos are trademarks of the Mozilla foundation. All rights reserved.
 * Mozill/5.0 (windows; U; Windows NT 6.1;en-Us;
 * rv:1.9.2 a1pre) Gecko/20081221 Minefield/3.2a1pre.
 * so it should match that.
 * so it should match that.
 * so it should match that.


 * That's a different "Mozilla". My user agent for example is "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008122103 Gentoo Firefox/3.0.5".
 * Read the reference. On the same topic, I don't see any references that say anything about Fx3.2 being based on Mozilla 2... is there one? If not, that statement should be removed.
 * You can find more information about Mozilla 2 on the Mozilla wiki. --Execvator (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right. I ended up correcting the typo earlier, but I've probably made it sound worse. The fact is we don't know whether or not Firefox 3.2 will be based on Mozilla 2. The 3.2 version number is just a placeholder for the time being. If they decide to base it on Mozilla 2, it will likely become 4.0 instead. Lippy13 (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently, 3.2 seems to be a release with support for touchscreen, SMIL and (therefore) better Acid3 results. However, it is not decided yet.Luiscubal (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to something like this:
 * "Version 3.2's release date is yet unknown with development starting on December 1, 2008.[35] Firefox 3.2 will use the Gecko 1.9.2 engine and will include several interface improvements, such as a new graphical tab-switching behavior, which was removed from 3.1 Beta 2." Zamadatix (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3.1 is now 3.5, so what does 3.2 become?--87.162.16.158 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the currently proposed plan is to re-number version 3.1 to 3.5 after the release of 3.1 beta 3, and re-number the trunk builds to version 3.6 as a placeholder. Theo148 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Contacting sites when clicking off web page?
With Firefox 3.0.6 in updated Windows Vista, I noticed that when: the browser gives a very brief notice that it is contacting IP addresses such as 74.86.135.170, 74.86.167.75, or 67.228.180.66, which are held by personifi.com.
 * 1) browsing a particular source article,
 * 2) selecting any text from that article, and then
 * 3) clicking either in the Firefox Find box or on the Windows status bar

It suppose it shouldn't be surprising that there would be some feature to tell sites when you've clicked away from the main window, yet it makes me wonder just how much other seemingly private user interaction data might be obtained by remote sites from Firefox. (Scroll bar usage? text prior to submission? user-identifiable typing rhythm?) Could someone elaborate what types of user interface information are made available, and whether there is any way to control this? Mike Serfas (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Deactivate JavaScript or install the NoScript extension... though, I don't really see how this has anything to do with an article on Firefox. As for what they can detect, all of your examples, to start with, can be detected. For ideas on more take a look at the listing of DOM events. If anything about this is going to be added it should probably go into the ECMAScript/JavaScript or the DOM article. --Execvator (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me at these articles. But are you sure this isn't a Firefox question?  The list of DOM events you cited is described as "not mandatory", and the decision of whether to embed JavaScript or ECMAScript, and to what degree to support it, would seem to be with Mozilla.  And after all, the two fixes you mentioned (thanks for pointing out NoScript) are both coming from within Firefox. Mike Serfas (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Internet Explorer
I was just using Firefox because I have it and it is better than IE7. All those tabs (csd rfv unlink afd) on Wikipedia never work on IE7, but when I tried them on firefox they worked. I just ignored them because it never seemed to do anything when I clicked on them. Also on IE7, looking up insight and stats on Youtube videos doesn't work' it says things like malformed server, but with firefox it works fine. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

latest build
it is not 3.1b3 anymore,it is 3.1b4pre

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/experimental/latest-mozilla-1.9.1-l10n/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.97.163 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The infobox details the preview release, and 3.1b3 is indeed the latest preview . --Aeon17x (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

safebrowse protocol
Is the safebrowse protocol open source or isn't it? "My" citation that it is: "The box on the right states that the relevant code is available under a "New BSD License""

There's another citation which points to a notice asking people to not implement it, on the same site. I'd appreciate some input on this, since I was just reverted. I did do a partial revert-back, since I think "my" citation is correct. -- Thin boy  00  @023, i.e. 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Info for casual readers: the argument is basically about the beginning of the sentence: "Firefox also implements[66] a proprietary protocol[67] from Google ..." vs. "Firefox also implements[66] an open source protocol[67] from Google ...")
 * Sure, http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/ says: "Code License: New BSD License", however there is no code at all in this project! This license is only about this text itself, not about protocol that this text describes. So, I am inclined to revert back your edit (especially that now the next sentence (about Moz Manifesto) doesn't make sense), but let's wait some time to hear input from others... BartłomiejB (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And the text about the protocol used in Firefox 3 is crystal clear: "Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google. Copyright 2007 Google Inc. All Rights Reserved. (...) Note: This is not a license to use the defined protocol.". It is clearly not an open standard, but a proprietary protocol. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Do not use" part is unclear about whether it's a legal (they'll sue you) or technical (they don't reply to requests done via this protocol unless they gave you permission to use their servers and their list) issue, and as for the copyright statement, BSD Licenses use those too, in exactly that format. -- Thin  boy  00  @893, i.e. 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the copyright statement is pretty standard. The rest of the cited text however, shows pretty clearly that it is a proprietary protocol. If their only concern is usage of the data, not the protocol itself, they should clearly state there. (BTW: it seems the site with the specification allows commenting. I don't have Google account, but if you have one you may try to ask there for clarification. In particular it is worth asking whether or not implementing this specification on server side (as opposed to client side) is permitted.) And re: "they don't reply to requests done via this protocol unless they gave you permission to use their servers and their list": every Firefox on the planet (on default settings) uses their servers and their lists, so practically I don't think this is the issue here. BartłomiejB (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I meant Google doesn't want this to happen without their permission: They are trying to say "client=firefox, for the time being, so don't try to do this in your own third-party app, it won't work" -- Thin boy  00  @054, i.e. 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Also: I added a comment about this, let's hope for a response. -- Thin boy  00  @055, i.e. 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) OSS developer writes some little-used app/browser/whatever and implements safebrowse
 * 2) Malevolent developer writes a DOS attack on the safebrowse protocol (and on Google's servers)
 * 3) Google blocks apps which don't have permission from accessing safebrowse
 * 4) OSS developer gets confused.


 * Why don't you all address Mozilla Foundation or something about this matter? They must be clear about this if people want to use the safebrowse protocol and accompanying code. The Wurdalak (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Firefox 4 section
As I commented on the Firefox 3 comment page, I think this article should clarify whether the 3.6 (= trunk) builds may end up as Firefox 4 or not, and if this is not clear, stop treating Firefox 3.6 and 4 as separate releases, as that is guesswork. &mdash; Northgrove 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5 beta 4 not yet released
Today is Firefox 3.5 beta 4 test day. A candidate build of Firefox 3.5 beta 4 is available for testing purposes only. Firefox 3.5 beta 4 has not yet been released. -- Schapel (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Portable Firefox?
Portable Firefox does have its own page, but should it not be mentioned (and linked to) from this article? Any ideas where it should be slotted in?KoolerStill (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already in "Forks and Related Projects" at the end of the article. I think the article should be cleaned up so readers can find what's already there, instead of adding yet more info which makes it even harder to find what's already there. -- Schapel (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw it in "Forks and Related Projects", but those tiny boxes would not make much sense to the average reader.(They are full of names not mentioned in the article, so their relevance is obscure). I think the existence of Portable and other Firefox based browsers say a lot more about the browser than detailed listings of minor version numbers, their dates, and the minor fixes included in them....which could be easily covered by a link to the relevant Mozilla page. (That would also include further updates sooner than anyone would get around to adding it to the article). KoolerStill (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it needs to be noted in the "Trademark and Logo Issues" section as PortableApps.com was granted unique permission to use the name and logo. According to that site's founder, John T. Haller, they're the only exception to the rule.  The proper name, btw, is Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition. NathanJ1979 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5 releases getting rediculously crowded
Maybe instead of listing every beta, preview and release candidate in paragraph form, someone could make a handy table? Since this paragraph is purely for information and reference, a table would display this information more easily, in my opinion. 216.228.21.194 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5 is now available
Release Notes have not yet been posted, but these links do work (change lang to your preference, these are en-US):

Windows: http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.5&os=win&lang=en-US

Mac OS X: http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.5&os=osx&lang=en-US

Linux: http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-3.5&os=linux&lang=en-US

As mentioned in this article, it is also being sent to major download sites, like Softpedia: http://www.ghacks.net/2009/06/30/firefox-3-5-final/

I suspect the launch is softer now so Mozilla's servers won't be hammered like when 3.0 was released.Julyo (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Version 4.0
"switching to standard C++ features"

Excuse my ignorance, but what does that mean? Thank you. 122.26.131.2 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess they use some third party APIs or features and they plan to remake those things with standard C++ features. Could need some clarification. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don’t know how to put it in three or four words, but basically, the cited source explains it: they currently have a lot of "portability veneer" (as the source euphemizes it) in the code that makes it a maintenance nightmare (particularly if you’re not highly familiar with the code). The API-breaking affords them the opportunity to clean that sort of code up by using now-standard C++ features that I’m guessing weren’t viable options to use when the code was originally written (for whatever reason). The clause does need a do-over because it’s not clear enough. -BRPXQZME (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Firefox 4 and Python
The article says "Additional inclusion of the Python language will be fully exposed in this release having already been stabilized in the Gecko 1.9 branch.[citation needed] The Python Firefox framework is to replace JavaScript and the extraneous JavaFX plugins.[citation needed]"

Claiming Python will replace JavaScript seems a bit... strong. This definitively should not be in Wikipedia without VERY GOOD citations, which are currently unavailable. A few references about Python on Firefox 4 are available, though: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/008865.html However, this has absolutely no reference to JavaFX.Luiscubal (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Portable Firefox 3.5 for Ubuntu Linux
I was mad looking for a Portable Firefox for Linux, until I finally found it. Do you think it is worth adding information about this to the article to let users know a portable version exists for Linux and not only for Windows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.54.213 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other thing missing is mention of Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition, I think that should at least mentioned. SF007 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FireFox have a marketshare of over 30 %
FireFox increases its share in the web-browsing market, and now holds 30.33 % while Ms IE holds 59 %. 83.108.208.28 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Add-ons
".. created by third-party developers, of which there is a wide selection, a feature that has attracted many of Firefox's users". I think the bold part needs a reference. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the second part is weird.. why are addons attracting firefox users who already know that there are addons? anyway, this one needs a source -- Darth NormaN (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2009 (

"Its current stable release is version 3.5.1, released on July 16, 2009". I'm not saying it's stable or not, it just seems weird to state it's stable at this point in time. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mozilla decides whats a stable release and what is not. in general a stable release is a public release, not an alpha/beta/rc. that means 3.5 was a stable version and so is 3.5.1 -- Darth NormaN (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And the stable release at the moment is 3.5.2 - shouldn't that be updated, or is it pointless giving useless and often unimportant information such as this, given that it is out of date within weeks, if not days? --LordSarnoc (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The database
If you know about the evolution of the database in Firefox (SQLite) it would make interesting reading. 85.131.31.130 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

3.6 beta 1
It's released, but I don't know how to change the preview release line. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/173728/firefox_36_beta_available_for_download.html) 24.241.229.253 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. PC World is just too stupid to realize apparently. What they claim to be the beta download page is in fact only a directory on the FTP server where developers propose packages that could be used as beta 1. Those are still nightly builds though and not official releases... Regards  So Why  14:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated info?
"According to the current schedule, Beta 1 was to be released October 28, but due to a technicality will be delayed 1-2 days." This is out of date. I'm not sure of the real date.

--Kuliwil (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are free to change the information yourself but how is this out of date? It's the 30th today, so we are still within the 1-2 days delay period and the FTP server shows that there is a candidate build for 3.6 beta 1. If it has not been released until tomorrow, we can still change it then. Regards  So Why  10:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated Screenshot
I believe somebody may have to update this Page with a new Screenshot, possibly this one:

Ok?

--MetalBluscat (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can anyone tell me why a screenshot of Firefox in Windows always gets deleted? And isn't it possible to upload an image that doesn't show the task/title bar? Just the browser, that should work imo. -- Darth NormaN (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, windows is the most used operating system, so why not have a screen shot with it--A9l8e7n (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)a9l8e7n


 * Because of licensing issues, read Microsoft policy man with one red shoe 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How comes that a screenshot of google chrome on windows vista is accepted then? I thought about something that Opera does: an instance without the window frame. -- Darth NormaN (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I should like to note that the web page you cited only discusses the usage of screenshots of microsoft products, and that it clearly indicates that screenshots of 3rd party software should be used according to the wishes of the software's copyright owner. Please clarify the licensing issues involved with a Windows Vista border on a software window. Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 04:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow that is totally true--A9l8e7n (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no free replacement for a screenshot of Chrome on Windows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes there is, Chrome is on linux, the interface is pretty much what it would be as a final release --Patman21 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone update the image so it's a screenshot in English? I'm not sure why the English Wikipedia uses French for its main screenshot of Firefox. --90.198.80.10 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefox for mobile/Fennec
Fennec is now officially under the Firefox name as Firefox for mobile I moved the Fennec page to Firefox for mobile to reflect the change. Since the mobile version its now an official version of Firefox with the name and logo maybe a "Mobile Version" section should be created in this article? Chris Ssk talk 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with FF 2 in the future release section?
Is this some kind of bug or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.71.247 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Firefox 2, Mozilla 2.0, it's the engine behind Firefox, rather than the browser itself. Rehevkor ✉  22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Google's proprietary protocol in Firefox and Mozilla Manifesto
Schapel and Rehevkor   the following text about Google's so-called "safebrowsing" protocol in "Standards" section:
 * Its inclusion contradicts the Mozilla Manifesto. ref: "(...) Principles ... 2. The Internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible. ... 6. The effectiveness of the Internet as a public resource depends upon interoperability (protocols, data formats, content), innovation and decentralized participation worldwide. (...)"

Could you both provide here an extensive rationale for these removals, please? BartłomiejB (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply original research, lacks third party sourcing. Not much more I can say on the subject. I already explained in my edit summaries, why take it here? Rehevkor ✉  23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You personally me to "take this to the talk page". BTW - why did you advise me to read WP:OP? How is it relevant? Also, could you explain what do you mean by "third party source"? I think guys from The Register just love such juicy stories, so if they wrote about this, would it qualify as a "third party source" to satisfy you? Anyway, third party sources are already there: Google's statements about the necessity of their written permission to use this protocol and Mozilla Manifesto itself (BTW - it is being translated to many languages by volunteers...). I could also add the words from executive director of the Mozilla Foundation, suggesting what is the Mozilla mission: (to provide) "The freedom to innovate and remix without asking permission." and: "the ability to create, remix and innovate without having to ask permission.". When Google requires written permission, then it is in direct contradiction, no? So why did you remove statement that says that? BartłomiejB (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to cite a reliable source that specifically states that Firefox's use of the safebrowsing protocol contradicts the Mozilla Manifesto. You cannot come to that conclusion yourself and add that information to the article; that is called original research, which is disallowed in Wikipedia. -- Schapel (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided what I asked for. Instead of some reasonable arguments you gave a standard wikilawyering statement that may be used to remove almost any content from any article. This is not helpful (I am aware of Wikipedia's rules and policies, thank you) nor convincing. Please, stop this and provide some on-topic rationale. I already provided and cited reliable sources that support the removed sentence. BartłomiejB (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, without a doubt, pure original research, and I feel this has been explained adequately to you. It is not wikilawyering to act against a clear case of what is "one of three core content policies". You've not provided a single third party source or viable reason to include it. It's not our job to justify why it shouldn't be included, it's yours to justify why it should. The source is just the manifesto, from which you have come to your own conclusions which have (As far as I know) not been published anywhere. Original research. You claim you're familiar with this policy but I kindly suggest you take your time and read it though before continuing. Rehevkor ✉  20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Support status of pre-release versions?
In the release history table, the support status of pre-release versions of Firefox is indicated by a green tick mark on a red background. What is this supposed to mean? If there are only green ticks on green and red X's on red, it is obvious that the ticks mean a version is supported and the X's mean a version is not supported. But when green ticks on a red background are thrown into the mix, one has no idea what anything is supposed to mean. This table used to follow the colour key of the table in History of Mozilla Firefox, but I presume that this was reduced to two colours for the sake of simplicity. However, we need to decide whether or not to consider pre-release versions as "supported". Keel Nar  03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be that green is for officially released versions (not Alpha or Beta). Chris Ssk  talk 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote to remove the ".Net Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1" section
I'd like to suggest that we remove the ".Net Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1" section from the article. The information doesn't really add to the subject and, in my opinion, the subject is a non-story anyway -- Microsoft committed a faux pas and fixed it. It really doesn't have anything to do with Firefox as a browser. Brianpeiris (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that should be merged into the Security section, there already a line about it there. -- Chris Ssk talk 09:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Refer to ECMAScript 5th Edition
Refer to ECMAScript 5th Edition (not 3.1?) ? 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

3.7 canceled?
Is this of any interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.194.198 (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is in my opinion. Mozilla changed its release strategy. Maybe we should wait for an official statement, tho, before we edit the article. -- Darth NormaN (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I Just removed a section of the article saying 3.7 was cancelled. As Mike Beltzner (Mozilla's Director of Firefox) posted on his block "rumours of Firefox 3.7’s demise have been greatly exaggerated" He even points to the article linked above as one of the less accurate articles about whats going to happen.
 * I also added some info in the 3.6 section about what Mozilla plans to do next and how they will update their product roadmap soon. -- Chris Ssk talk 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

3.7 codename Firefox.next?
According to the MozillaWiki (specificially this[] article), 3.7's codename is firefox.next. Is this verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.81.39 (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The default codename for each future firefox is firefox.next. It will get a proper codename soon. 93.96.175.64 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh i see, thanks! 124.183.98.220 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'm not sure that the article is objective enough, but that's mostly based on feel and I can't quote any particular thing. Comments?

207.118.74.119 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No comments unless you can be a little more specific. Rehevkor ✉  18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got similar feeling. Generally, any positive thing about Mozilla Firefox is accepted, and any criticism is quickly removed. For example the following was present in lead for some time:
 * "Due to the January 2010, well-publicized vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, the German, French, and Australian governments have publicly issued warnings to Internet Explorer users to use alternative browsers at least until a fix for the security hole is released. The first browser they recommended was Mozilla Firefox, followed by Google Chrome."
 * Last sentence was false, but nobody cared to check the references. OTOH when I was trying to add one little sentence in "Standards" section: "Its [safebrowsing] inclusion contradicts the Mozilla Manifesto.", then it was quickly removed (despite the fact that reliable sources given fully support such conclusion). Funny how it works, isn't it? BartłomiejB (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you find information that you think is wrong, feel free to tag it accordingly or remove it. It sounds like your contribution was removed because it was original research; you cannot publish your own idea, even if it is a conclusion supported by cited references. This way, the article will be neutral, even though individual editors may be biased one way or another. -- Schapel (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you are obviously wrong: there are many voices on this talk page (including archives) that suggest bias in this article. I think one of the reason for this situation is that Mozilla itself is considered as a "reliable source" and any bombastic marketing claim from them is included in a jiffy. BartłomiejB (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you find information that you think is wrong, feel free to tag it accordingly or remove it. I have no intention to continue arguing the point with you. Help to improve the article or don't help to improve the article, but don't complain that others are doing it wrong. -- Schapel (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The manifesto situation you are referring to was not an issue of neutrality or reliable sources but a clear cut case of original research. But of course you already know this as it was explained to you in great and unnecessary detail last time, so why bring it up again? Rehevkor ✉  18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Error
Is there a reason for error when I'm deleted I.explorer? Because Mozilla won't to start and work at this moment!(with exception of Opera) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.26.43.48 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your problem is, but you should remember that this talk page is not a reference desk. Try here: Reference desk/Computing. BartłomiejB (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Firefox screenshot with custom theme?
Can you guys put the original picture back? The custom theme may make people think that it always looks like that by default. tablo (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I took one with a normal theme and replaced it. -- Austin512  ( talk  &bull;  contribs ) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Features
In the third paragraph there is a list of new features, which is updated for about release 1.0/1.5. BMB (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Firefox Chrome
Since chrome is an important part of Firefox (handle look and feel of Firefox's UI) why is there no mention of Chrome in Firefox? 75.92.7.61 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * chrome is the name of the visible parts of the UI (menus, buttons, toolbars, etc...). This is not specific to Firefox. The visible GUI of Opera can be referred to as Opera's chrome, Google Chrome's visible parts can be referred to as Chrome's chrome, etc. In Firefox, the user interface is written using XUL and Javascript and is rendered by the Gecko engine which also renders the webpages (thats the reason Firefox is so customizable) -- Chris Ssk talk 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File size
Aticle mentions Mozilla firefox size is 7.8 MB for windows. Size of firefox 3.6.3 varies according to language, but all languages are greater than this size: Melnakeeb (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * English-US 8 MB (according to website ) /7.96 MB according to file properties.
 * Arabic :7.9 MB (according to website )
 * I think file sizes should be removed. They are file sizes of archived files and serve little purpose. When actually installed, Firefox takes more room on your HDD. Also: these numbers would need to be updated for each new release and are not the same for all languages. GoldRenet (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, useless trivia, I think it started as a virtual penis contest between different browsers: "my browser is less bloated than yours" man with one red shoe 23:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the file sizes. All cheer! GoldRenet (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) man with one red shoe 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Market Adoption of Mozilla Firefox
I have merged all the prose from the daughter article Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox into this article. There is a table and some graphs I didn't bother merging. I think we have too many in the section as it is. -- Schapel (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Performance section NEEDS to be updated
Currently, it only has old information about how much memory Firefox used compared to IE. Memory use and performance are NOT the same thing. We need info about JavaScript performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechFan (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Memory use is not the same as performance, but memory use is part of performance. The section should include memory use, startup time, page loading speed, and JavaScript speed relative to other browsers, including the work that is being done to fix memory leaks and optimize memory usage, speed up startup times, improve cache performance and pipelining, and Tracemonkey and Jaegermonkey. Information about versions of Firefox older than 3.0 can be removed, as those versions are no longer supported. -- Schapel (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just restored all the deleted information in the performance section. How Firefox 1.5 compared against IE6 in 2005 is equally relevant to how Firefox 3.6 compares to Chrome in 2010. This is an encyclopedic article, its not only about current versions -- Chris Ssk talk 09:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that said that "some users" had a problem with memory, for several reasons. First, for nearly any problem you can imagine, "some users" have had a problem with it in every browser. Second, the phrase "some users" is weasel words. Third, the reference cited was a blog, which is not considered a reliable source. It's like putting a statement such as "some people have car accidents in New York" in an article on New York city, and citing someone's personal blog as a reference instead of published statistics on automobile accidents in New York city. -- Schapel (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu Firefox drop
There's a fair amount of talk at the moment about whether the next version of Ubuntu, 11.04, should drop Firefox in-favour of Chrome (and, less so, Epiphany) as the default browser. Considering the significance of the Ubuntu distro (at-least for home-users, less-so for business) surely this could be of note? 86.145.210.103 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mozilla 2
Mozilla 2 redirects to the Future Developments section of this article but there is no mention of exactly what Mozilla 2 is. I'm not convinced that this is the correct article to detail what Mozilla 2 is (or is expected to become), maybe Mozilla or some other such article is a venue.  Kinema  τ  
 * The Mozilla 2 section needs to be updated. Gecko 2.0 is coming with Firefox 4, some of the XPCOM changes already landed with 4.0b2 and JaegerMonkey is the new method JIT for SpiderMonkey. -- Chris Ssk talk 11:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "reading" my comment, Man with one red shoe
That was sarcastic. It's obvious you didn't even read my comment. Yes, it's long, but it has relevance. It is in fact about problems that could be addressed in the article. If you are the self-proclaimed forum police, do everyone a favor and read people's posts in their entirety before deleting them. It's very apparent that any post over a certain number of characters automatically gets the boot without you even bothering to look into the matter. If you don't have the time in your busy schedule to read the longer posts, you are more than welcome to find a new hobby. Let this be a lesson to you, that some "WikiChores" get neglected if they become a "full-time job"; and relevance is in reading people's comments. And I'd recommend that you modify your declaration on your talk page (the one that instructs people to post issues about their post getting deleted back on the original talk page). You are so technical about article relevance. Why on earth would anyone think that cluttered complaints about removed comments improves articles??? If relevance is so important, it should be a no-brainer to you that these complaints DO NOT belong on an article talk page. That belongs on your talk page. If you can't manage your own talk page, go fly a kite. READ in my old comment why the Bold font is all messed up in it. Good day. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you post your concerns at the official Firefox forum, here? I know it's rude to remove your comments like that, but I wouldn't worry about it because no one would have replied, anyway. They're really doing you a favor, when you think about it. You'd get many more responses (and they'd be more informative) if you posted in a Firefox forum.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is for improving the article, is not to ask technical questions or complain about the product. If you have any suggestions about the article you are welcome, but try to "dress" them as comments about article not as rants about your personal experiences with the product which are not relevant, you should direct that to a Firefox forum or submit a bug report. man with one red shoe 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion Best Dog Ever. I think you've shown me what I should have done in the first place. I don't know what got into me. Anyway, I think you're right. I was being done a favor. I just wish I hadn't said what I did to you, Red Shoe. Without people like you, the discussion pages would turn into unruly forums. I am sorry. I hold no hard feelings (except against myself). All right people, I'll take this to Firefox forums. I've got parts of it already typed. Sorry about my unacceptable behavior. Looks like I'm the real person that learned a lesson. Thanks Best Dog Ever for setting me straight, and keep up the good work Man with one red shoe! 24.10.181.254 (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Man With One Red Shoe, I have formally thanked Best Dog Ever on his talk page. So, even if Best Dog Ever doesn't read this, (s)he will read it on his/her talk page. So, if you're feeling the urge to delete this eyesore, go for it. Thanks for your patience. Have a good day, I hope. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You rarely see people on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) admitting that they made a mistake. For what is worth removing comments can be rude, but I didn't see another way to keep the talk page focused on its purpose. Maybe I should have explained how Best Dog Ever did instead of removing your comment. man with one red shoe 17:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. I think removing it in this case was the right thing to do, otherwise I would probably discuss article-worthy material in unnecessary detail on other article talk pages, too. This was a good learning experience. I personally am glad that you did what you did, and that Best Dog Ever did what he did. Both yours and Dog's responses were rarities as well, so thanks. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox Home
The "Firefox Home" app listed in future developments has been approved by apple and is now released so I'm removing it from the future developments section. However the app is not a browser and I don't think it belongs in this article. For now I'm moving it as a section in the Firefox Sync article since the app is based on the Firefox Sync technology but ,aybe it should get its own article? -- Chris Ssk talk 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Firefox isn't Free software; here's why
This article erroneously referred to Firefox as Free software in the lead and in several other places. According to "Freedom 3" of the Free Software Foundation's authoritative Free Software Definition, free software requires "the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others." As detailed in the "trademark and logo" section of this article, Mozilla restricts the use of their trademarks, and the official Firefox includes unfree artwork. Hence, while nearly all of the code underlying Firefox is available under a Free license, Firefox the product is not Free.

Mind you, this isn't just theoretical nitpicking; as that section details, Debian had to create a Free fork (Iceweasel) because they found the unfree licensing unworkable, and the GNU Project itself also introduced their own Free fork, GNU IceCat, around that time.

For these reasons, it's better to refer to Firefox under the broader umbrella of open source software - Mozilla self-identifies as an open-source project, and it's considered a flagship of that movement. (Remember, not all open-source software is Free, but all Free software is open-source.) But the "Free" (-as-in-speech; libre) label should be restricted to software that meets the FSF definition. Fran Rogers❇ 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but also Firefox (and clones too) implements proprietary protocol from Google: see "Standards" section:
 * Firefox also implements a proprietary protocol from Google called "safebrowsing" (used to exchange data related with "phishing and malware protection"), which is not an open standard.
 * Isn't that against some Debian rules or policies or something? BartłomiejB (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't all this discusses in the article? -- Schapel (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firefox is released under MPL and MPL is a free license, In about:rights in firefox it reads:

Mozilla Firefox is free and open source software, built by a community of thousands from all over the world. There are a few things you should know: Using Debian's decision to to create Iceweasel to conclude that Firefox isn't free software seems to be WP:SYN -- Chris Ssk talk 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firefox is made available to you under the terms of the Mozilla Public License. This means you may use, copy and distribute Firefox to others. You are also welcome to modify the source code of Firefox as you want to meet your needs. The Mozilla Public License also gives you the right to distribute your modified versions.
 * Deciding that it's Free Software despite this opposition is also WP:SYN. You're using your own judgement to choose the analysis of the issue that you like, making a biased decision to label one side as right and the other wrong 76.105.10.80 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "but all Free software is open-source"
 * last i checked utorrent is free and closed source along with many others.--Alex at kms (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * +1. This argument is completely absurd, and a waste of everyone's time. This is just uber nitpicking... Avindra talk / contribs 01:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The software is free, the use of Mozilla trademark is not, you can't take Firefox code change it and release it with Mozilla logo or name. Now if you consider that makes the code "unfree" that's up to you, but please don't try to claim it's something generally accepted by everybody. And why would you use Mozilla name or logo on something that they didn't make? That doesn't make any sense to me. man with one red shoe 01:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Alex at kms, utorrent is freeware not free software (free software isn't about price), all free software is open-source. -- Chris Ssk talk 07:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Generally accepted by everybody" Who is "everybody"? Did you miss the part where the Free Software Foundation didn't consider it free enough? The FSF is one of the most respected organizations in the whole open source movement. It's just ludicrous to frame the issue like there's no disagreement at all: "oh, yeah, the FSF, well they're just some crazy fringe group, no biggie, what matters is that commenters on Digg and Reddit agree". The FSF disagrees enough to make the distinction that the source code is free software but the whole browser is not: http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/ 76.105.10.80 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The opinion of the FSF is noted in the article. The issue is not being framed as if there is no disagreement at all. It seems to me that the issue is covered from a neutral point of view. Firefox source code is open source, but the FSF considers that Firebox binaries are not 100% free software because of trademark and copyright issues. -- Schapel (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the word "free" or on its definition. If enough notable and reliable sources consider Firefox free then that's how we should present it here too. man with one red shoe 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Category:Free software says "This is a category of articles relating to software that meets The Free Software Definition." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh the Nerd (talk • contribs)
 * It looks like Firefox meets all the criteria of that definition, and the three licenses the source code is released under are free software licenses according to the FSF. The one freedom users don't have is to arbitrarily modify the software, and then distribute the modified software with the copyrighted Mozilla artwork (e.g. the familiar fox and globe) or Mozilla trademarks (e.g. Firefox or Mozilla). The Free Software Definition does not mention these freedoms. -- Schapel (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Wikipedia would follow these requirements in such a case anyway, where is the consensus to do so? Rehevkor ✉  02:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you're talking about? What requirements for what? The requirements for putting information in an article is that we need to cite reliable sources and keep a neutral point of view. It looks like that's what we've done. -- Schapel (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean why would Category:Free software specifically follow the The Free Software Definition, rather than, as you say, reliable sources? I was responding to Josh the Nerd's comment, sorry if there was any confusion. Rehevkor ✉  11:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I suppose you should ask on the talk page for that category. -- Schapel (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Was just a passing curiosity. Rehevkor ✉  22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Release history
If there's no one disagreeing on this, I'd like to change the color scheme of the current release history table to the one we use at History of Mozilla Firefox, including a transposed version of the color legend table (to use less vertical space). Opinions? -- Darth NormaN (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Web browser flaw secretly bares all
This http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/05/1452951/visited-porn-web-browser-flaw.html contains information that should be included in this wiki article. Question is where should it be inserted - thanks for any suggestions or actions. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than a mentioning Firefox along with other browsers I dont see what that has to do with Firefox, it shouldn't be included. -- Chris Ssk talk 11:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is old news, and is already fixed, or will be fixed in FF4. Avindra talk / contribs 14:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article rename: Mozilla Firefox 3 → 3.0
See Talk:Mozilla Firefox 3.

(Noted here for any interested editors who don't watch the Mozilla Firefox 3 article.) --Piet Delport (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mozilla Firefox 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 4 has dropped support for the Gopher protocol
A mention should be made in the article that the last version of the browser which supports Gopher is 3.6. See http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_4_for_developers#Other_changes_2. 212.163.50.211 (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated image
There is a duplicated image in the article! One in the infobar on the right of the image (that illustrate the article) and another that illustrate the Firefox 4 section. Please delete one of them, preferably the one that illustrate Firefox 4.0 section. There is another screenshot that uses Tango theme on Ubuntu that might be used instead.--Felisbino  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.236.38 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed picture in the Firefox 4 section to the Tango themed screenshot, I believe the Windows version is better for the infobox as Windows is the most commonly used version of Firefox. -- Chris Ssk talk 18:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"64-bit_builds" and past tence
As of Firefox 3.6, Mozilla does not have any official 64-bit builds available and then just bellow 64-bit nightly builds for Mac OSX were made available on early April 2010. Firefox

I would place change the tense in the first paragraph, and place the second to be above the 1st (and dus become 1st). --79.143.104.251 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Trademark and The Charlton Company
Please open Firefox and check Help>>About Mozilla Firefox.

It is clearly mentioned that Some of trademarks used under license from The Charlton Company.

I also checked the website http://www.thecharltoncompany.com, where the following can be found. Firefox ® is a Registered Trade Mark of The Charlton Company.

I think these points should be included in the Trademark and logo section of this article. I have requested creation of new article The Charlton Company at Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts

Note: There is a slight mentioning about The Charlton Company in the article History_of_Mozilla_Firefox

WarFox ( talk  &#124;  contribs) 08:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any background info on this? Rehevkor ✉  19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming a product intended for worldwide distribution without trademark conflicts is a challenge (see Phoenix, Firebird). In trademarking Firefox, a previous UK trademark on the the name was found well into the US trademark application process, but they were obviously able to obtain a license (licensing terms not disclosed?). The Charlton Company had registered a class 42 UK trademark for the name FIREFOX in 1997, which included the field of design and development of computer software. If the Mozilla Foundation obtained a US trademark for the name, it may be a cross-license that both organizations can use the name in US and UK, as Carlisle is currently using the Firefox name for a web store software product

A nice history of the naming is found in the Wayback Machine archive of Ben Goodger's Feb 8 2004 blog entry.


 * As you've probably noticed, we've changed the name again. For more information regarding the change, see the press release and FAQ.


 * This entry isn't so much about the reasons for the name change as much as about the road that lead us to the new name. It was not an easy one. This was by far the most difficult problem we've yet tackled in the history of this project. It involved people across multiple timezones and even continents. The name we have chosen took nearly 2 months to lock down, and while that might seem like a short time in the world of trademark law, it was the primary reason for the six week delay in shipping our 0.8 release.


 * The process began in late November. Mozilla's Chief Architect Brendan Eich had made a commitment to resolve the dispute over Firebird's code name (which was being widely adopted as the browser's actual name) by the 0.8 milestone. Over the span of about 2 weeks a small group at The Mozilla Foundation including Catherine Corre, Bart Decrem, Brendan Eich, Chris Hofmann and myself pored over lists of over two hundred names, many gleaned from the Phoenix to Firebird transition. We reached a point where we had a handful that were the best of that lot, but none of us was entirely satisfied. Searches of the United States Patent and Trademark Office website showed that all of the options we had picked up were potential minefields from a trademark point of view. We refocused our energy on names beginning with "Fire-" in an attempt to preserve the link with the past, and so that we could retain some of our evocative flame imagery.


 * Ultimately it was Jason Kersey of MozillaZine that came up with the winner. I don't think he was serious with his suggestion, but the naming group liked it well enough. A scan of the USPTO database was positive. We filed for a trademark registration in the United States in December 2003.


 * At the same time our lawyers scanned uses elsewhere in the world and spotted a potential red flag in Europe. Initially it seemed like there would be no problem and we prepared for a release on December 23. Unfortunately the situation in Europe turned out to be a very real problem and the release had to be delayed.


 * After the Christmas/New Year break, the situation played out over the following six weeks, with our lawyers in the United States and Europe as well as Bart Decrem at The Mozilla Foundation working to resolve the issues. At times it seemed like there was no light at the end of the tunnel. We contemplated releasing under an interim name. I was optimistic however and held the release, and eventually we turned the corner and the issues were resolved.


 * I wanted to explain this in some detail in the hopes that it might impress upon people how non-trivial the process of picking a name for a high profile project is. Many companies end up buying their names from others. Mozilla as a small non-profit organization can't afford such luxuries. We needed to be smart and cost effective. While I'm sure many people will consider this a misstep or otherwise take issue with the decisions we've made, we think we've done the best we could, and I challenge anyone to reach a better outcome on the same resources.


 * This release is nothing without Bart Decrem, whose tireless efforts, 2 AM phonecalls to Europe, creativity and optimism saw the name change through to the end. I extend my thanks to him from myself and the Firefox community.

A good single sentence summary may be: From over 200 suggestions, the name Firefox (submitted by Jason Kersey of MozillaZine) was selected for version 0.8 onward, with a late-discovered UK trademark licensing issue causing a six-week delay in release. - Anonymous Coward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.195.93 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New release channels
Should we change the preview release template to show both the Beta and Aurora, the way Chrome's preview release template has both Beta and Dev? -- Chris Ssk talk 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.231.245.214, 22 April 2011
Reference #135 redirects to some odd spot that doesn't contain the quote given in that reference section. I think this is a proper replacement (I'm not sure about accessdate/archivedate, maybe one or both should become 2011-04-22, but the others should be correct):

81.231.245.214 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Ks0stm (T•C•G) 07:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Toddnoyes, 3 May 2011
Was trying to edit this page, but my acct was too new to edit this. The latest version of Firefox 3.6 needs to be changed from 3.6.16 to 3.6.17. Thank You.

Toddnoyes (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Major issues
Several users of Firefox have repeatedly experienced a supporting programme plugin-container.exe ruin almost everything on not only the browser, but the entire computer. In many cases an error report has been prepared and sent. It is an ongoing issue even on Firefox 4. Mozilla does not offer users to send them feedback and share their thoughts through emails. I am terribly sorry for using wikipedia as a forum for this, but I see this as my only chance of getting my message through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.216.178 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming history slightly misleading
The section on naming states
 * The Firefox project has undergone several name changes. Originally titled Phoenix, it was renamed because of trademark issues with Phoenix Technologies. The replacement name, Firebird, provoked an intense response from the Firebird free database software project. In response, the Mozilla Foundation stated that the browser should always bear the name Mozilla Firebird to avoid confusion with the database software. After further pressure from the database server's development community, on February 9, 2004, Mozilla Firebird became Mozilla Firefox,

That isn't quite right -- they had announced they were moving away from the name Firebird well before they chose Firefox, but of course it took time to find a name that wasn't trademarked. I'm not even sure Firebird was ever supposed to be a new permanent name. I'm too lazy to source this myself, but someone else should feel free to. :) --75.205.120.213 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Firefox 4.png Nominated for Deletion

 * The image was kept, this notification is out of date. --Topperfalkon (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 5, 6 and 7 articles
Just a look at the articles as mentioned above shows nothing except for a few tables regarding recent updates. It may be too insignificant to be part of the article. Hence, should we move the tables into the main Firefox page and redirect the stub articles here?  No News  !  03:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 0.10 (Firefox 1.0 Preview Release) missing from the release history
There was another milestone release between 0.9 and 1.0: |Firefox 0.10 "Greenlane", which was branded as "Firefox 1.0 Preview Release" or "Firefox Preview Release" (because most people couldn't understand that a version number is a series of integers separated by a dot, not a floating-point decimal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregknicholson (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 5 released
Firefox 5 released June 21st 2011 Firefox 6 and 7 also planned for 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.65.68 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Its really out now. See http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/fx/. DavidRF (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Out, and still no 64-bit releases. Ju  ze  15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The release is 64-bit for Mac and Linux. 64-bit Windows builds aren't part of the official release, though.Hsivonen (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please update the screenshot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.29.188 (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest Features
Quoting Lead Section:

"The latest Firefox features[13] include tabbed browsing, spell checking, incremental find, live bookmarking, a download manager, private browsing, location-aware browsing (also known as "geolocation") based exclusively on a Google service[14] and an integrated search system that uses Google by default in most localizations."

Reference 13 is about Firefox 3.5. Are the features in 3.5 really the "latest Features"? Wanderer57 (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that having tabbed browsing in the latest features is not accurate as tabbed browsing was added in Phoenix 0.3 and has been a feature of Firefox since it's initial release. It may be better to add a Principle Features subsection for Features section for features that have been available for several versions and for major features of the browser. 172.130.63.167 (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed "latest to principal". It's been awhile since 3.5 was the latest version anyhow. --illythr (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ntim380, 25 June 2011
I just want to add the picture: in 1.9 future versions

Ntim380 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: as the article in that section does not mention the addition of the permissions manager. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Default theme please!
Again, I think we should put the default theme for Firefox screenshot, not a custom theme which can bring some negative impression. tablo (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a custom theme, that the default "Tango" visual style that firefox uses on Ubuntu. If you mean why not use a Windows screenshot, Linux screenshots are used because they only contain visuals released under free licenses. A Windows screenshot contains copyrighted computer software and can be used only in the absence of a free alternative. -- Chris Ssk talk 10:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But a screenshot of Firefox under Ubuntu does not accurately depict what the majority of Firefox users would see. I would argue that there isn't a free alternative depicting Firefox in it's vastly most common environment and so a Windows screenshot should be used in this case.
 * Get over it, and sign your posts!--Alex at kms (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a Windows screenshot Firefox 4 Windows Screenshot.png if someone wants to change it (I don't want to, I agree with maintaining the Ubuntu sshot).--Felisbino —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Up to Firefox 3.6, the operating system draws the titlebar and the window control buttons, therefore these are parts of a copyrighted software and can't be used in Wikipedia (it fails fair use rationale). In Firefox 4.0, Firefox itself draws the titlebar and the window controls, so the entire screenshot is of free software and can be used. BTW there was some vandalism made to these comments so I changed them back -- Chris Ssk  talk 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd share my 2 cents and say, "It took big balls to change that Linux screenshot to a Windows one". I figured the Linux fanboys would have jumped all over the Windows fanboy nuts for changing that screenshot.  To my dismay, it appears that a rationale was given to justify changing the screenshot (Firefox now draws the titlebar and window controls therefore making the entire screenshot free).  This is the saddest, loosest excuse and it would be hilarious to see it hold up.  In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged yet.  Who cares if the Window controls are drawn by Firefox and not the OS?  It's simulating the Windows 7 theme almost pixel perfect.  Isn't that grounds for something?  There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles with screenshots of proprietary OS specific software elements when there are Linux versions available, and those don't get removed!  Point is, there isn't a single good reason why the Linux screenshot remained for as long as it did aside from some very self conscious Linux fanboys trying to remain significant in an imaginary OS war.  The Windows version of Firefox is the most popular (not to mention prettier), therefore it should be elected to portray Firefox in its true glory.  Embrace Firefox for what it *REALLY* is--A program designed for Windows. Linux and Mac have always been on the backburner in terms of its development.  Fact. --Neillithan (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

System requirements
Firefox refers to officially distributed binaries but not unofficial ports. There has been a port to RISC OS since 2005, hosted at riscos.info. Maybe there are also ports to other systems, which could be included in the article. I'd just add this now, but as there's currently no mention of unoffical ports I thought it best to discuss here first. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is now included. Are there any others? --Trevj (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead image not free because of Wikipedia logo
Since Firefox is free software, a screenshot of its browser is free. This screenshot is not free because it contains the Wikipedia logo. This is a clever bit of branding, but it also encumbers an otherwise free image with a copyrighted logo. Since we should "strive to find free alternatives to any media" on Wikipedia, I suggest we replace it. The difficult is finding a totally free site. The Creative Commons homepage seems to fit the bill, although the licensing for that is so complex that something more straightforward may be a good idea.--Chaser (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The image was nominated for deletion and kept, I see no reason to waste such a ruling by changing images.--Topperfalkon (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue of the Wikipedia logo was not brought up at that discussion. Rehevkor ✉  19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the DR is not germane.--Chaser (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue posed by the Windows Aero interface in the image is of far more legal/policy concern than the usage of the Wikipedia logo, the copyright of which is held by the parent organisation of this encyclopaedia. By all means file another DR, or find a better different image. I honestly don't really see the issue here. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone mass discussed all Wikipedia screenshots (TLDR) and they were all kept. Marcus   Qwertyus   09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That misses the point. The logo is still not free for re-use like the rest of our content. Commons hosts it as an exception to their usual requirements. That image is effectively fair use.--Chaser (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One comment: it really doesn't matter that the copyright is held by the parent organization of this encyclopedia, the purpose of having free content is to enable people to re-use it wherever they want, both issues: Aero and Wikipedia logo (unless the logo is available under CC or GFDL) make the image not free for other use. (by the way, the reason used in the DR "is fair use" is ridiculous, it's not only about Wikipedia content being legal, it's about having free content that everybody could use) man with one red shoe 12:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This change proves my point--the image with the Wikipedia logo is fair use. It requires a rationale under the Non-free content criteria. A valid rationale is impossible because it fails the first criterion, the availability of a free alternative. I have substituted a free alternative. Those that think this requires consensus or has anything to do with Commons policy are mistaken. Wikipedia's local policy forbids non-free images where free alternatives exist. The lack of a consensus is moot when policy dictates a particular result. Those that are not happy with this free alternative should produce a different free alternative.--Chaser (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a question. Are there any problems with your image, which contains the Google logo?  Regards, — Tommyjb  ( talk )  14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There was nothing up with the past image. It was nominated for deletion under copywrite grounds and was kept. Wikipedia can be used in web page screenshots. The new image is not anywhere near as good as the last one! Oddbodz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to Ubuntu screenshot. Why? Read this essay by Jimmy Wales especially this part: "A free encylopedia, or any other free knowledge, can be freely read, without getting permission from anyone. Free knowledge can be freely shared with others. Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others." I'm not sure a shot of Windows, even if covered by fair use in Wikipedia is free knowledge that can be freely shared and adapted. man with one red shoe 19:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After Firefox 6 has been released I created a new screenshot of FF on the current Ubuntu Desktop. IMHO, the screenshot has at least the following advantages over the one currently used in the article: I put my screenshot in Infobox but User:I need a name reverted to previous screenshot explaining that "the Windows screenshot is used specifically because it includes features which are exclusive to the Windows version of Firefox". I'd like to know why should the FF screenshot in Infobox show the features exclusive to Windows version? I don't see a need for that. --Rprpr (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It shows English version of Firefox which is more appropriate for the English Wikipedia.
 * It is really a free image as it does not contain Wikipedia logo (which was removed from the web page opened in FF using the Nuke Anything Enhanced add-on).

/* UI Changes */ Added Citations and made more neutral.
This is not original research, I have provided multiple citations and I made it more neutral by removing the butthurtedness-like statements near the end. If you still feel like it is original research, perform a Google search related to this section and you will find more than enough to go on. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neillithan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 6.0
Firefox 6.0 came out today, but I can't edit the page as it is semiprotected. 93.143.174.143 (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Taocp, 6 September 2011
I am a registered user, but nevertheless can not edit the page. What is wrong here?

taocp 19:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello taocp. The article is semi-protected, which doesn't just mean registered users can edit, but autoconfirmed users can. You will need to make a couple more edits to be able to edit this article.  Я ehevkor ✉  19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Firefox is not entirely free software
According to the links below, Mozilla Firefox name and logo are Trademarked. Shall we delete the mention of free software in the article?

Debian & the Mozilla Firefox Trademarks

Mozilla Licensing Policies

Mozilla Foundation Open Letter Orders Unofficial Mozilla Merchandise Sellers to Stop, Legal Action Hinted

Mehdus (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Trademarks are allowed. That doesn't stop it from being free software. It's more common than you think. Take a look at the list of trademarked open source software. Trademark issues can be avoided entirely by changing the name and logo, as Debian and the GNU Project have done. Reach Out to the Truth 15:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what "software" is, that's why you are confused about what is free software or not, the actual code is free, the right to call it Firefox is not because Mozilla has the trademark and they have the right to protect it (also a logo is not software either :) man with one red shoe 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Scrolling broken
IIRC, Firefox 4.0 didn't support any scrolling input, not even mouse wheels. 4.01 supported mouse wheels but no other scroll input device. Same goes for version 5. How did Mozilla manage to break compatibility with an ubiquitous input device protocol/API that all other apps use? It's a service provided by the operating system so program writers don't have to do it - yet Mozilla acts like they're writing a DOS program from the days when each program had to take care of its own peripheral support. I want my 4-way nav buttons, TrackPoints and edge dragging on touchpads working in Firefox like they do in *every other program*. Earth to programmers, STOP MAKING MORE WORK FOR YOURSELVES! Use the @#%@#% standard APIs and you'll have fewer bugs and smaller code. Bizzybody (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. While scrolling has worked in all the versions Ive used, it doesn't work well. The main problem is how Firefox requires to be the active window AND the pointer to be over the page for scrolling to work. My laptop touchpad has entirely software-defined scroll area (at the right edge), without any ridges or other indicators. Too often when I try to scroll I put my finger too far to the left, and the pointer just moves down instead. I try again, still too far left, pointer moves down. On the third try I get it right, but now the pointer is over the taskbar instead, and Firefox still refuses to scroll. This, combined with the utterly craptastic "single-click bookmarking" implementation (you can bookmark in a single click, but must dig deep down into a hidden "Unsorted Bookmarks" folder to actually find it back) makes me wonder if Firefox is about to jump the shark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.68.247 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Win95
Using this article for guidance, I've just selected Firefox 1.5.0.12 for a Win95 system. It failed to install, though that's not conclusive. (Installed fine on Win98.) Though the Mozilla release notes say at the outset that Win95 is supported, the system requirements for this particular version only mention Win98 and subsequent. So I doubt the assertion in the article that 1.5.0.12 was the last version "supported" on Win95. (Regarding "supported," it deserves mention that doing this exposes you to security flaws that will never be corrected for this version, as well as performance problems with Firefox and with add-ons, and no one at Mozilla will be motivated to help you fix or even troubleshoot them.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

11 September 2011 17:02 EDT: 71.234.217.82: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is the latest version I have gotten to run on Windows 95. Simply do a custom install, unselect the two options that appear, "DOM Inspector" and "Quality Feedback Agent".. Then search the Win95 system for and delete "nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js". Firefox 2 will then run fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.217.82 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved from archived FAR page
"On April 3, 2003, the Mozilla Organization ..." - how come? That is more than 3 months before it was exist - according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation "The Mozilla Foundation was founded by the Netscape-affiliated Mozilla Organization, and was officially launched on July 15, 2003. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.98.139 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What you quote is that the Organization founded the Foundation, so the Organization did exist before the Foundation. --AVRS (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Acid 3 Rendering
The article has been updated regarding the 100/100 score for Firefox 7 but the image needs to be updated.

Do we need a notation about the changes in the Acid 3 test?

Ryan Jones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Yeah, it all needs to be sourced - and that should be added before an image of the test can be added really.  Я ehevkor ✉  09:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Acid3 and Standards
In the article say: Mozilla had originally stated that they did not intend for Firefox to pass the Acid3 test fully because they believed that the SVG fonts part of the test had become outdated and irrelevant, due to WOFF being agreed upon as a standard by all major browser makers.

SVG font are a standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/fonts.html).

WOFF yet is not a standard, is RC (http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.136.144 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Which OS should be in the lead?
In my personal opinion, when it is legally possible, any browser should have the interface of a free and open source operating system such as Ubuntu or FreeBSD. While we won't be using a lead of Internet Explorer running in Ubuntu via WINE anytime soon, should Firefox and browsers in general use a photo of the browser running in a free and open source operating system?  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this was briefly touched on in Software screenshots, which was also about Firefox. Some further points:
 * IANAL, but: It is likely that Windows screenshots of open-sourced software windows still qualify as "free" anyway because the window decoration (the Microsoft Windows frame around the outside) may be considered de minimis under copyright law; that is, that the amount used is so small that it attracts no copyright at all, and so one doesn't even need to assert fair use. (Do note again that I'm talking about the incidental window decoration on software screenshots otherwise are already known to be freely licensed, e.g. Firefox showing a freely licensed web page.  A screenshot of the Windows desktop with the stock Microsoft background still selected would be difficult to argue as de minimis.)
 * If an existing screenshot already qualifies as free (see the previous paragraph), and it looks substantially like the layout of the current or best-known appearance of the software, it shouldn't be replaced, even if it's a different OS; that might be interpreted as just editing to edit, or non-NPOV views on copyright politics.
 * If, however, the existing screenshot qualifies for Wikipedia only under fair use (i.e. it uses enough of a copyrighted work that the non-free copyright actually might apply to the screenshot), it should be replaced because Non-free content #1 says that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created".
 * If a new screenshot needs to be used (because no screenshot exists, or the existing one is only "fair use" where a free version could substitute), one might prefer one with the window decoration totally "open-sourced" as well, as long as its layout is substantially what the most common appearance looks like. (That is, you don't use some weird skin's layout that 99% of users will never encounter.)
 * On the subject of always switching the image to free/open-sourced whenever legally possible instead of legally necessary: That may present WP:NPOV issues, particularly with desktop programs that are also popular in Windows, since, as open-sourced OS users are acutely aware, Usage share of operating systems approximately 80% of web browser requests are from Microsoft Windows, and Unix/Linux share of desktop GUI use remains very small. That being said: this might only be a NPOV issue for software that is very, very well known among non-open-sourced OS users, like Firefox specifically, or open-sourced software that is primarily targeted towards Windows, like Paint.Net or WinFF.  It's probably fair to say that most other open-sourced software is targeted at open-sourced OSes as much as or more than Windows or Mac; in that case, window layouts that are arranged approximately like one would expect in Gnome, KDE, or whatever would be the "usual" layout.
 * Also, it's worth noting that stock Windows, Mac, Gnome, and KDE installations in most OSes all put the window controls in approximately the same places these days.
 * --Closeapple (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I agree with Closeapple and Rich Farmbrough. Though I use Ubuntu myself, with copyright issues put aside, I think we should use the most common implementation in the lead. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer and i'ts not clear to me either if screenshots of programs running under Windows are free, so it depends on the response to this question. If they are not free then we should replace them ("fair use" is not enough, the image needs to be free, that's because Wikipedia mission is to provide free content that can be used in any other places, if the image is not free, and merely qualifies as "fair use" then it might not be used for other purposes and Wikipedia is failing in its mission. And by the way, this might seem like a minor issue and some people might discount it as "I wouldn't worry about it" but licensing and precedents are important and serious issues. man with one red shoe 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What OS runs the software doesn't change the status of the software. Opera will still be proprietary even when running on a FOSS OS, Firefox is still FOSS even when running on a proprietary OS. As I said above up to Firefox 3.6, Windows draws the titlebar and the window control buttons, therefore these are parts of a copyrighted software. In Firefox 4.0+, Firefox itself draws the titlebar and the window controls, so the entire screenshot is of free software. Chris Ssk  talk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about the status of the software, it's about the status of the image of Windows elements, please don't muddy the waters with straw men. man with one red shoe 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just answering your question. Screenshots of programs being free or not depends on the program, not the OS. If a program is under a free license like Firefox, any work that is a result of the program code is free. Chris Ssk  talk 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For what reason? provided the screenshot is free it makes sense for the most common version (in this case Windows) to be used, otherwise I think it may be a case of undue weight. Chris Ssk  talk 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the other editors above and would not worry about it. Although the argument could be made that a screenshot of a software program is not actually a screenshot of the program, but rather a screenshot of an OS's rendering of the software program, the way that different OS's render software is typically done universally enough that there shouldn't be copyrightable differences.AerobicFox (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be no worries about which OS the screen shot is on. Why can't a screen shot be taken of just the application and not including anything from the source O/S? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

SafeBrowsing isn't a proprietary protocol
The current article says:

Firefox also implements[86] a proprietary protocol[105] from Google called "safebrowsing" (used to exchange data related with "phishing and malware protection"), which is not an open standard.

And refers to: http://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/Protocolv2Spec saying: Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google.

However, calling this a "proprietary protocol that is not an open standard" is pure FUD. The link above does describe the entire protocol, so how is it not open? Google asks that you do not hammer *their* server without asking permission first, but there is obviously nothing stopping you from implementing your own and replacing the root update URL. There is GPLv2 implementation code in Firefox, contributed by Google, so there is no way the protocol classifies as proprietary and no way for Google to close the protocol itself down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.80.252 (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Google asks that you do not hammer *their* server without asking permission first ..." -- but that's not what the text on the site with the protocol description says. Your comment seems like an original research, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. The text is pretty clear: Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google. It says protocol, not server. Feel free to contact Google and ask them to change this text, then we can change the article. Now it is unclear whether or not implementing this protocol eg. on server-side is allowed. BartłomiejB (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and BTW - source code of Firefox is trilicensed (and not GPLv2+ only), and yes, GPLv2+ is one of the license, however there are many signs that this is not the most "favorite" license by Mozilla (to put it mildly...). See eg. here (GPL wouldn't allow distributing Firefox along with closed-source proprietary software) or some discussion about GPL starting from this comment in Bugzilla. BartłomiejB (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you think the license is 'favored' or not by Mozilla or Google, or whether it is the only license it's available under, the code *is* available under GPLv2+, and was licensed as such by Google. That gives you permission to use it and even grants you a patent license. That's not original research, it's literally what the license says. Google may claim in their textual description what they want, their code under GPL already gives you all the permissions you need to do your own version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.80.252 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Safebrowsing"-related code in Firefox contributed by Google only implements client-side part of the protocol. The server-side part (and the citation above comes from a description of the protocol of this part) is totally opaque - AFAIK Google doesn't release code of the server-side part of the thing. They also don't explain in detail how they are gathering the list of "bad" URLs to block.
 * In any case: the fact that some code is GPLed doesn't automatically mean that you can do whatever you want with it (well, as long as you are in compliance with the terms of GPL) - for example, the fact that one of the license of Firefox is GPL doesn't automatically mean that you can redistribute changed Firefox without also making additional changes -- namely, you must also change "branding", ie. name and logo, even if changes made by you are as minor as switching some pref from "true" to "false". The related laws are outside of scope of GPL, namely trademark related laws. I suspect that something similar could be argued by Google lawyers (at least under some jurisdictions) with regard to the usage of the protocol (and eg. related patents) itself (and the link given by you seems to confirm this suspicion). Perhaps you can use client-side part of the protocol (since it is implemented in GPL-licensed code by Google), however implementing server-side part is a completely different issue. Once again: just ask Google to change/clarify the text: This specification is not yet for general use. Do not use this protocol without explicit written permission from Google. For now it says what it says and I think it is pretty unambiguous. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Version Release Table
The "main changes" column in the Version Release Table had started to become a massive duplication of text in the "History" section above and the "History of Firefox" article, expanding well beyond "significant changes", and over-extending the length of the table by cramming a mass of information into a single column. I've fixed it for the moment by simply chopping out the column. Apologies to anybody that had been dutifully populating that column. In the next few days, I'll have a go at resurrecting any non-duplicated stuff from that column and putting it in the "History" section or the "History of Firefox" article.--Farry (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't list UX mockup/branch info in future release notes
"Version 10.0 (future release)" currently lists silent updates and a new user interface as features, both of which are still in development and not in 10.0 or 11.0 yet. Please don't include features that are only in UX mockups or even the UX development branch until they actually land in a Nightly.

Due to semi-protected status I can't update at the moment. Please fix and update for the 11.0 bump as well. 108.16.105.106 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Firefox's rendering engine, able to use multiple cores?
One thing I find missing from both Google Chrome's and Firefox's articles is that there is no mention of how or if they take advantage of 2 CPU or higher systems. Chrome can use one CPU to render each tab, whereas Firefox (as of version 8) has a rendering engine that cannot span more than 1 CPU no matter how many tabs are open or need to be rendered. Some Smartphone browsers can use more than 1 core per tab for rendering. I don't know about Opera, IE or Safari. Something to think about when revising articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Spellchecking out of the box?
From memory, spellchecking is only available after a user has added a dictionary. Is it proper to include a feature in the introduction that is actually available after modifying or adding to the base install? MrZoolook (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Firefox comes with a dictionary. E.g. if you download the American English version, it comes with the AE dictionary. GregorB (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now thats interesting. I know for a fact that I installed a dictionary for British-English specifically to ensure I had the correct dictionary installed, and on reading your comment regarding American-English, I decided to experiment by disabling my Br-En dictionary... I got no spell-checking whatsoever.
 * A google for spell-checking out of the box turmed up this page - http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/793092#answer-147577 - with a helpfull poster saying "You have the English-GB version, that one does not include a dictionary". A further quick redirect to the offiial Mozilla support forums - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using%20the%20spell%20checker - tells us that "Not all locales come with a dictionary installed due to licensing reasons".
 * With Mozilla themselves effectively saying its not a standard feature, should the intro be changed to reflect that? MrZoolook (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Question
Should this article be moved to "Mozilla Firefox"? That is what is in bold in the lead paragraph, and the logo, and other stuff. Mozilla-ly, yrtneg (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011
Firefox Version 9 was released December 20, 2011 The biggest new feature that Mozilla introduces in Firefox 9 is Type Inference which improves JavaScript performance.

Milpillas (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - - please provide a wikipedia reliable source WP:RS to support any edit requests - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What about the official firefox page. BTW, the lastest version is now 9.0.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.191.29 (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 12 Nightly
Firefox 12.0a1 is now available in the Nightly release channel. Can someone add it to the article? For some reason the edit button disappears when I'm on the article page. 74.217.37.5 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Alex
 * Hi - this article is semi protected so new users are unable to edit it. If you provide a reliable support WP:RS for your additions and request that edit here someone will action it  thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Browser market share
Just noticed an edit and revert, arguing that Firefox is either the 3rd or 2nd most popular browser globally. The reverting editor states that new stats require new sources. As of writing, one of the 3 sources cited (the 2nd one) DOES however show Chrome ahead of Firefox. MrZoolook (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See more recent discussion - --asqueella (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)



firefox no longer second most used
since december, chrome is now the second most used browser, and the sources that are there for firefox being second will confirm that, but when i edited it it was reverted (incorectly, it *should* have been "as of november firefox is second..." not "as of december") so can i please get a consensus (rather unneccesarily, it is fact, not OR) so that it will stop getting reverted? -ross616- (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've only just noticed Rprpr's (I think, possibly spelt wrong) comment in the revision history, i'll check the sources again in a week or so, so that the information is up to date for this year. -ross616- (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Since this comment, there was an attempt to change "second" to "third" again by User:70.123.128.142 with comment "I don't know how to add citation but the Statcounter thing on Google Chrome page says that as of January 2012, Chrome is second most used..." ...and a revert by User:Rehevkor with comment "There's an on going discussion on the subject (there's conflicting information afaik), but Google itself would be a primary source and not suitable)") --asqueella (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "statcounter thing" is not "Google itself", but a well-known source of browser usage share -- it's referenced from this very article.
 * I changed the text to "As of January 2012, Firefox has approximately 25% of worldwide usage share of web browsers, making it the second or the third most widely used browser, according to different estimates" - since the three current references agree on ~25% Fx market share, but disagree on the rank, it only seems fair to state that in the article text instead of claiming the 2nd place. (I'm a Firefox user myself, and it's sad to see it lose market share to google, but saying it's the second on a wikipedia page will not it more users.)

--asqueella (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)



ESR
Should we add the ESR version as a separate table, somewhat like this:

58.187.25.180 (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added this chart to the ESR section. I also added a "Expected Release Date" column. Thank you very much <3 :99.255.220.13 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)



Wikimedia server logs
I just want to remind everybody that graphics of the Wikimedia server logs, like the one here are not acceptable, details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Wikimedia_server_logs

--SF007 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not policy, and the linked RfC doesn't support the suggestion that this is a consensus view, either. siafu (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Versions 12 and 13?
Aren't the listed features for these versions vaporware much, given that the respective sections have it themselves that some feature objectives get pushed back (forward) to a later and later version yet again? -Mardus (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Firefox 11, 12 and 13 sections all have lists of features that have been delayed to later releases. I don't think there's really any need to list them this way; they should be listed for the whatever version they're curently planned for. As for declaring them vaporware, that would be original research. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I included this information is because when you visit https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/Firefox_13/Test_Plan it tells you what never made it in. These features were announced, so I thought it necessary to tell the public that it didn't make it. Trewyy (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've changed my opinion on including this information. I now agree that the information is not relevant to the actual Firefox version, which is why I will remove the information. :) Trewyy (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)



Is the Firefox logo free?
In reference to File:Firefox-newest-logo.png, currently on Commons. The old logo file contained the template Non-free Mozilla logo. This points towards Mozilla's specific policy on trademarks, among them is a clause stating that it can't be used commercially. This alone makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's own free content policies that states free content must be allowed to be used commercially.  Я ehevkor ✉  18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't really consider Wikipedia a commercial use. I see no advertisements anywhere, and we are not selling anything. I think Mozilla means that you cannot use the image when selling something. Trewyy (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Licensing. The whys are what fors are beyond this discussion, but martial uploaded for free must be allowed for commercial use. Wikipedia doesn't use it commercially, but it does allow anyone else to use the content commercially (with attribution).  Я ehevkor ✉  18:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Noncommercial/Educational use only." I think that this logo falls under that category. Secondly, the logo has been on this wikipedia page for years, I just re-uploaded one in higher resolution. I dont really see what we are arguing, especially when Firefox is NOT copyrighted. Show me where Firefox says the logo is copyrighted, and then I wont be able to argue with your intelligence. Trewyy (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The non commercial/educational is listed under "restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file". The original logo you are referring to, File:Firefox-newest-logo.png (linked wrong file) File:Firefox_3.5-4.0_logo.png, has been uploaded as a non-free image (as I said, it's not "free" by Wikipedia's standards). Per the non-free_content_criteria non-free images must be uploaded at minimal resolution. I'm not sure where it might say the logo is not copyrighted, but their own policy disallows commercial use, this simply makes it incompatible with Wikipedia's own policies. Considering this an argument is counter productive btw. It's just a discussion.  Я ehevkor  ✉  18:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I would have considered this an argument by my own standards. Remove the logo if you wish, just make sure you reupload one that is compatible with Wikipedia or Mozilla or whatever. Trewyy (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okeydokey..  Я ehevkor ✉  18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)



With regard to copyright, the Firefox logo is Free as it is under the GPL/LGPL/MPL tri-license. See. There are possible trademark restrictions, but Commons doesn't take that into account. "Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright, they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

60.51.58.186 needs to be banned from making edits
This IP has made many, many bad edits. The person reverted many good edits that were made, look at the History. ChiakiYoshino is also making bad edits, but I wouldn't call his edits malicious. 99.255.220.13 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be awesome if someone would consider banning this guy. He made more terrible changes today. He never checks anything he "cites" (Quotations because it's sarcasm). This means anything he cites always ends up in a "Page Not Found" error, because it doesn't exist. He undo's lots of work the Wikipedia community has done. He has, on multiple occasions, put versions of Firefox Betas and Auroras in the Future Releases category, even when they dont exist (the version of firefox). Please will someone stop this guy from making terrible edits! Trewyy (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why is this under the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc.? Firefox belongs to Mozilla. Peacock28 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also be interested in this information. Thanks 99.255.220.13 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia projects are not an extension of the development projects or companies reflected. You'd have to ask at the Apple project why they have an interest in this application. There doesn't appear to be a Mozilla project on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a proposed project for Mozilla. Hsivonen (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no Firefox 10.0.3
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/ offers Firefox 11.0, NOT 10.0.3

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

10.0.2 2/17/2012 7:15:00 AM 10.0.2esr 2/16/2012 5:21:00 PM 10.0.3esr 3/9/2012 10:36:00 PM

THERE IS NO 10.0.3 folder or release on the official Mozilla Firefox releases folder ftp.

Request a permanent ban on idiots like Trewyy and anyone else who keeps insisting there's a Firefox 10.0.3 when there is NONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.27.251 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha! Please. I asked you to check the citations, it clearly shows 10.0.3. It is on the website http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html. Look I dont want a shouting match, and you need to calm down. I doubt a permenant ban is in order for me, as I have added many good sections to the Firefox article.
 * In addition, all you have done is undo changes others have done, without leaving a comment as to why you have changed it. Calm your self, please. Also I will be reverting your changes, as 10.0.3 does exist and is supported, just as 3.6.28 is supported. Trewyy (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I installed 10.0.3 you'll have to tell my computer that it doesn't exist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You 2 are retarded and need to be permanently banned. THERE IS NO 10.0.3, ESR versions are not mainstream Firefox versions. How stupid are you retards? USE YOUR F BRAINS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.27.251 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 60.54.27.251 has a point, although s/he takes it too seriously. There is in fact "10.0.3esr", which is different from the regular consumer-oriented releases, as explained here: and . ESR versions have their own section of the page and should not, IMO, be listed in the main table or, alternatively, the ESR section should be removed and the ESR versions should be marked as such in the main table. --asqueella (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To Anon: Do comment on the content and not the editors. This document indicates 10.0.3 exists, although it's an ESR. I downloaded it. I installed it. Released March 13 and version 11.0 was released later the same day.
 * The real issue is that since 11.0 had issues with downloading, a great many users got 10.0.3 by accident. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And no, ECRs are planned. Now that 10.0.3 is available, it's a release and should be listed with the rest of the releases. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, this IP really needs to calm down. Seriously, we do this for the community, not to be right or wrong. Secondly, we should have a discussion instead.
 * Here is what it comes down to:
 * Option 1: Keeping 10.0.3 on the ESR table AND on the Development Table
 * Option 2: Keeping 10.0.3 ONLY on the ESR table
 * or Option 3: Keeping 10.0.3 ONLY on the Development Table, while removing the ESR table (not section itself)


 * I implemented the ESR table in the first place, and I WOULD be against removing the table itself, as long as the information remains. I am for Option 2.


 * P.S. To any mods who may actually consider banning me because this IP says so, I would really reccomend looking at the edits I have made. I am user Trewyy and also IP 99.255.220.13. My edits have been very good. I implemented the entire Version 11, 12, 13, and 14 sections. I uploaded many images (and learned how to properly upload them correctly in the process :D), as well as implement the ESR table (talk page idea, I simply migrated it and made changes). Trewyy (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since 3.6.x isn't on the ESR table, 10.0.x shouldn't be there either.
 * Seems that we remove 10.0.x from there and leave it as is in the release table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 3.6.x was on the table a while back when I put it in, but a user removed it, and at the time I wasnt in a situation where I could undo the changes made by the user. When I was in a situation to change it, I had forgotten to revert and add ESR 3.6.x. The only reason I can think of why we shouldnt add it again is that the ESR releases follow a different schedule than the 3.6.x releases. Trewyy (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * @Walter: 10.0.3 is definitely a release, but it's different from other releases, as the Release Notes page you point to indicates (it even says it's a "version of Firefox ESR", not just Firefox. Compare it to the 10.0.2 release notes page). Re: your latest comment, 3.6.x isn't ESR, because ESR is a recent thing. Note that unlike 3.6, the ESR releases are not marketed at the general audience.
 * @Trewyy: I assume you mean "Released versions" table, not "Development Table". All of your options are OK, and I'm leaning toward your option 2 as well ("keep 10.0.3 ONLY on the ESR table"). --asqueella (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option (Option 4) would be to list the 10.0.3 in the main table, but on its own row ("Firefox ESR 10"). --asqueella (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Trewyy (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Version history
I have noticed that the recent version history has started to take-up a great deal of space in the article. Do we need to know when each revision of 10.0.x is released here when there's an article dedicated to that? What should we include? What should be excluded? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, are you refering to the version release information for updates such as Firefox 11, 12, 13, and 14? Or the table that displays all the versions of browser? Thanks. Trewyy (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was making reference to the Released versions tables. For instance We list 3.6 and 3.6.28 but not all of the other 3.6.x releases. Yesterday, all of the 10.0 releases were present. Today it's the same so my question is old. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah someone changed it. I was concerned about that too. I'm glad about the change, because otherwise the list would soon be 10 pages long. :) Trewyy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC).



Update the awards section
The awards section has become outdated and irrelevant in its current state. I added a few Tom's Hardware awards a month ago, but no one has added anything else. I really believe that we should make a push to update the awards section, or eliminate it completely. What do you think? Trewyy (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We need the Firefox logo used from 0.8 - 0.9
Firefox used a different logo in version 0.8 - 0.9. Someone needs to upload a good version of the logo and make sure the copyrights aren't infringed. This should be added to the logos section. Im not to good with copyrights, so it would be great if you guys could do this. This firefox logo is deep blue in the middle. Trewyy (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for all the hard work (sarcasm) Trewyy (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

✅

Forcible update of all Firefox 3.6 installations?
The Firefox article indicates that version 3.6 is still supported, although the reference (footnote 118) contradictst that claim. Meanwhile, the Firefox 3.6 article states, "Mozilla has discontinued support for Firefox 3.6 on April 24, 2012."

I'm wondering if more needs to be said about this. I run Firefox 3.6, which regularly displays a pop-up message inviting me to upgrade to the latest version. Yesterday, however, the message was different: it referred to the fact that 3.6 support is being discontinued, and then stated, "You will be prompted once more before being automatically updated" (emphasis added). If I understand this correctly, in the very near future all Firefox 3.6 users will be forcibly updated to Firefox 11, and will not have the ability to say no. If this is correct, it definitely should be stated in this article! I have never before heard of a forcible update of a product like this, so it's certainly encyclopedic. Imagine, for example, if all users of Windows Vista were forcibly updated to Win7 without their consent! (okay, that's a bad example for many reasons....) &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 17:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for your input first of all. There is no doubt this article is in need of major repair.


 * In response to Firefox 3.6 being supported, it is still technically supported until the date you specified, April 24th. On that date, Mozilla will likely release 3.6.29, the final Firefox 3.6. If they don't release 3.6.29, support technically ended March 13th-ish, or whenever 3.6.28 came out. Come back to here on the 24th or 25th, and tell me if they forced you to update. I highly doubt you will be forcibly updated, although it is possible. As to being forced to Firefox 11, that is likely not correct, simply because Firefox 12 comes out on April 24th, and updating you to an older version would be counter productive. Believe me, Firefox has made huge improvements since Firefox 3.6. There should honestly be very little not to like about Firefox 12, except that you may not like the interface. In that case, I recommend the Firefox 3.6 theme for Firefox 12, it is available on the Add-on market from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-3-theme-for-firefox/?src=cb-dl-users Trewyy (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, support ending on April 24th meant that if 3.6.28 had had a zero-day between the release of 3.6.28 and April 24th, issuing 3.6.29 addressing the bug would have been an option. End of support on April 24th means than now the current security update for 3.6 is Firefox 12.0, which also happens to contain fixes that aren't mere security&stability fixes. The update service is now offering Firefox 12.0 as a security update for Firefox 3.6.28 users who have automatic updates enabled. Likewise, the current security&stability update for Firefox 11 is Firefox 12. For precedent in the 3.x series, it's worth noting that after Firefox 3.5 EOL, a Firefox 3.6 point release (3.6.18 I believe, but don't have a proper citation for) was issued as a security update for 3.5. (Disclosure: I get paid for developing code for the Gecko engine. Disclaimer: I don't work on Firefox release management.) Hsivonen (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New release table history
Hello Firefox editors. I think we should merge the release history with the release notes. This would be a pretty big project, which is why we should start with little steps. Here is the plan:
 * 1) Merge support status with version number, similar to the Firefox release history article ✅
 * 2) New color scheme ✅
 * 3) Re-organize table ✅
 * 4) Merge all sections together into one chart ✅
 * 5) Merge release dates from old table ✅
 * 6) Merge release notes with release table ✅
 * 7) Add references ✅
 * 8) Merge ✅

Completed later:
 * 1) Add wikilinks (ex. Firefox )

Please build and add to this list:

I want to get some input for the chart regarding its use. Should it replace the chart currently available on the Firefox or should we make changes to the chart to make it applicable to the main page? Thanks! Feedback appreciated.  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  01:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 12 screenshot poll
Hello Firefox Wikipedia editors

I would like everyone's opinion as to which Screenshot we should use for Firefox 12. Here are the images:

If you would like to vote for Image 1, please respond here with "Image 1", and if you like, write an explanation as to why. If you would like to vote for Image 2, please respond here with "Image 2", and if you like, write an explanation as to why.

Thanks!  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 5 votes for Image 2, and none for Image 1. I will rap up this vote by the end of today, and replace the image with Image 2, unless we see more votes come in and change the situation.  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  13:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed. There were no votes for Image 1. Image 2 has replaced Image 1 on the Firefox Wikipedia. Thanks for participating.  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  01:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Image 2. The About box is a seldom-used part of the browser, so Image 1 isn't a good representation of the browser. There's no need to include the version number in the screenshot. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Image 2. Mostly for the same reasons as Josh the Nerd. I don't see what the "About" box adds to the image. Rather, the second one is cleaner and a better representation. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)*
 * Image 2, since it's an actual representation of what a user might see. Everything in the about box is already in the article, so it adds nothing.  (comment made using Firefox, as always) siafu (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Image 2 as per previous comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit sad, that most of the Wikipedias are using Screenshot 2 und the English Wikipedia isn't able to use a better Screenshot...--Das Schäfchen (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not? siafu (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * a modified version of Image 2 - scroll down so that no Wikipedia logo is displayed. mabdul 05:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote. I'm interested in knowing why you believe that the Wikipedia article shouldn't be shown. Thanks!  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ   13:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The logo is copyrighted and has caused problems with the copyright group in the past. The text is too but it's under a different copyright. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Image 2. Obviously. Greglocock (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Beta / Aurora / Nightly
FF 13 Beta is here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/13.0b1/

--Ail Subway (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks :)  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ   00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Placeholder for future firefox releases
Recently a feature planned for Firefox 14 was delayed until Firefox 17. Obviously I removed this information, but I wanted to keep it somewhere, which is why I made this talk section (among other reasons). I hope users will use this section to insert information for future Firefox versions so that when it comes time to insert the information into the article, it is a simple copy and paste. Thanks!  ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Version 17 will implement "Silent Update not now prompt". This feature will not update a user to the latest version of Firefox for 10 days if the user is found to have an add-on that is not yet compatible with the newest version of Firefox. On the 10th day, the user will receive a notification asking if he/she would like to update to Firefox at the expense of losing an add-on. If the user tells Firefox to "Remind me later", the user will have an additional 10 days before being automatically updated to the most recent version of Firefox (Firefox ignores any incompatible add-ons on this day).

Merger proposal
I would like to know people's opinion on relocating the "History" section of this Firefox article. Option 1 is to have the History section relocated to the History of Firefox and the History of Firefox Rapid Release Wikipedia page. Option 2 is the same as option 1, except we merge both "History of Firefox" articles together into one article, and then merge the History section of this article there. The third option is merging those articles with this Firefox article. The fourth option is to merge the History of Firefox Rapid Release wiki with the History of Firefox article (leave the History section of this article where it is). The fifth option is to leave things the way they are. Please vote by responding with either...
 * Option 1: Merge the entire History section of this article with History of Firefox and the History of Firefox Rapid Release
 * Option 2: Same as option 1, except we merge both "History of Firefox" articles together into one article, & then merge the History section.
 * Option 3: Merge both History of Firefox articles with this Firefox article.
 * Option 4: Merge the History of Firefox Rapid Release wiki with the History of Firefox article.
 * Option 5: Leave things the way they are.

 ҭᴙᴇᴡ ӌӌ  01:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty clear from the RFC that we should merge all the history sections into one article called History of Firefox. Everyone who participated agrees that the History of Firefox Rapid Release should be merged with the History of Firefox article. Most people agree that the History section in this article should also be merged into the History of Firefox article. Most people said that a summary should remain on this Firefox article. Here is the conclusion:
 * Option 2
 * Merge History of Firefox with History of Firefox Rapid Release
 * Merge the History section of this article, Firefox, with History of Firefox
 * Summary of the history of Firefox will remain

History Merge Discussion

 * Option 2: I would prefer the single location of the history (which is now long enough) for better structuring and easier access. Still a minimalistic section should be left in Firefox article, which should contain a hatnote (pointing to the merged history article), a statement about Firefox forking from Mozilla and a statement about switching to rapid release cycle. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Keep the history articles separate with an overview of the history and a main link at the start of the section in this article. The merged article needs more than bullet points. It would be ideal if third-party discussion could be added in the appropriate locations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: per Dmitrij. (oh and then don't forget the summary in template for the talk page). mabdul 16:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: per Dmitrij. Include a very short history section in Firefox with a link to the merged history article. --PnakoticInquisitortalk 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: I concur with Dmitrij. (WP:COI disclosure: I get paid for developing code for Gecko. Disclaimer: I'm here on my own time.)  Hsivonen (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Dmitri. Leave a short intro to Fx history in the main Fx article, as per the article spin-off guidelines (I forget what they're called), that state, "leave an overview section with a link to the new main article". St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: per all above; a single history article would sort it better, but a history section with a short summary and main article link to the history article should be left here per WP:SUMMARY. -- lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Seems to be the clear favorite, just make sure a proper summary is left behind, as TopGun mentions. - Running On Brains (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)