Talk:Firefox/Archive 4

1.5 release section
In the last paragraph of "Release history", the different Deer Park related events are not written in sequential order. Is there any particular reason?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * not to my knowlage --21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Zr2d2

Criticisms
I have just had a look at this article and I have to say that the Criticisms section is awful. Most of the information is unsourced and is pure speculation as it stands. I am going to be bold soon and remove all the unsourced criticisms from the section - I will also have a look at the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article too. If people disagree with anything I remove, please say why. Remember, we need to cite references for all things. To claim things like This difference of opinion was one of the motivating factors behind the development of the Flock browser, which is not a Firefox fork. without a citation is POV and a bad thing for the article.

Also, with the shear amount of POV, unreferenced information in the section, I do not think that leaving 'unsourced' tags will do the trick. I think a stricter rule of 'unsourced == no entry' would be advisable.-Localzuk (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at cleaning it up and I think it is all well referenced now. If people want to re-add some of the other criticisms please do so only with reliable sources. Remember, Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiability.-Localzuk (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that Localzuk. If I had to criticize Firefox, I'd sooner source Webdevout than Mastertech, but that's just my own blatant POV on the matter.  ;)  Orethrius 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The standalone Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox is in a similar state and I have suggested it be distilled and merged with this article. See the Talk page there and the one at the associated Opera page for more information. IMHO these standalone articles do not befit the NPOV of an encyclopedia of any kind, and especially not WP. GreyWyvern 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the criticisms article should be merged with the main article on Moilla Firefox, but am waiting to hear from more contributors before performing the merge as I've encountered some resistance over at the Criticisms talk page. G. C. Hood 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The problem that I forsee, is that if the article was merged, it will take the Mozilla Firefox article well and above the 50Kb recommended maximium article size as stated in Article size. If the criticism is to be added, something else will have to come out and have its own article. --tgheretford (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FireFox 3.0
On this page, it seems that the first alpha of FireFox 3.0 is available - is this correct? I don't want to add it until it is confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0L1 (talk • contribs)
 * No, those are just nightly builds. An actual release of Firefox will be obvious and unambiguous. -- Schapel 01:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The application name is:


 * firefox-3.0a1.en-US.win32.installer.exe


 * I might be wrong but doesn't the a1 mean that it's the first alpha build (although obviously not final)? 0L1 20:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0L1 (talk • contribs)


 * It's clearly a nightly. The trunk builds have been using that naming scheme for several weeks now. I think the software would still be considered to be in the pre-alpha stage, and I wouldn't say otherwise until Mozilla says it unambiguously. --Kamasutra 02:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Should I mention this in the article (that a nightly build for FF3.0 is available)? 0L1 15:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That wont be necessary --SkyWalker 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...because it might confuse the general public? It might be a significant benefit to the tech-savvy (or wannabes of that walk), but if Joe Averageuser can't understand the significance then it's probably best left unsaid. Orethrius 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bon Echo
There is no mention of version change for Bon Echo (1.6 to 2.0). Since I am not the most knowledgeble about this, I am not commiting it myself. Please some one add this information too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs)


 * Could you please be more specific? There is mention of 1.6 (Deer Park not Bon Echo) and plenty of information on 2.0 (Bon Echo). Deer Park is no longer being actively developed. --Kamasutra 10:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont know, but what is the code base of Bon Echo? I thought it is was basically Deer Park, which got its version and code name changed to Bon Echo, and thus new development tree. Or is it like, Bon Echo and Deer Park were being developed simultaneously, but Deer Park's development was abandoned in favor of Bon Echo? --Anupam Srivastava 07:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bon Echo is based on Deer Park code since it is an incremental update using the same core. They are just codenames for different development versions and hence represent different goals and feature implementations. I still don't see where you're going with this though. If you want to add something relevant to the article then do so -- Be Bold. --Kamasutra 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite bold but I dont find a place where I should add this information due to rigid structure of the article. What I want to add is this:

"Initial development of Firefox was leading to release of version 1.6, which was code named Deer Park, but due to unknown reasons, the version was renamed to 2.0, a new branch was created for this new version, and the code name was changed to Bon Echo. The probable reason was the pressure to do a major version change because of pressure of new IE7."--Anupam Srivastava 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all what I want to add, and before adding it I am trying to confirm it. If this is right, I will add it. Please confirm it and I will be bold :)--Anupam Srivastava 14:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feature
"IE also launches slightly faster than Firefox on Microsoft Windows since many of its components are built into Windows and are loaded at startup.[9]"

Why doesnt firefox have this feature? I think a kindergartener could program that in.

Hansschmucker 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC): Doesn't really belong here, but basically when a user closes Firefox, he most likely won't use it in the next minute, otherwise he would just minimize it, so there is no point wasting any more memory, especially since Firefox in it's basic form (without extensions) starts up in 1 to 3 seconds. But if you really want it, you can just use FFPreloader: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=129464

Federal requirements
"Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also the first browser to meet US federal government requirements that software be easily accessible to users with physical impairments."

If Firefox is the only browser that meets the requirements, then why do many government offices still use IE?

Also, am I correct in assuming that the the proper way to refer to the requirements is "36 CFR Part 1194, under authority of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (codified at 29 U.S.C. §794d)"? --Wulf 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also the first browser to meet US federal government requirements that software be easily accessible to users with physical impairments."


 * It's hardly the only browser to address accessibility issues. It's also not fair to dismiss the vendor lock-in cycle for its part in propogating IE usage even where it's clearly detrimental - after all, why use a separate browser that doesn't load as fast when you can use a browser that's integrated for speed? Orethrius 22:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What does meeting US federal government requirements have to do with what browser is actually used by US Federal government offices? Many admins have enough concerns with supporting one browser.  More software means more points of vulnerability, no matter how you look at it.  Unless a directive comes down mandating the use of it, most will probably not even allow it (and are likely to have existing directives from above disallowing it without explicit justification and approval) unless some user needs to do something (job-related) which it can do and IE cannot.  Note that the US Federal government is only required to make REASONABLE accomodations for disabilities of their employees.  I don't know what the features in question are, but I suspect that the features supported by FF and not IE are features which would be desired by people who are unlikely to be hired as computer clerks in the first place (much less looking for such a position).  --Scott McNay 23:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0 Project name
Hi, the article states, that the dev-name of FF 3.0 is "Gran Paradiso". However, the nightly-builds of it are delivered and known as "Minefield". Does anybody know, whether Minefield is only for pre-alpha stage or if it will be kept like Bon Echo or Deer Park? --Mbimmler 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Minefield is just the name of the trunk builds. It probably won't take on the "Gran Paradiso" codename until the first alpha is released. --Kamasutra 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the Gran Paradiso name in action: . Hope this clears it all up. I'll cite it into the article just in case anyone else thinks the same. Think of it this way:
 * 1.8.0 (1.8.1) branch: Bon echo
 * (eventual) 1.9 branch: Gran Paradiso
 * Trunk: Minefield.
 * Obviously when Firefox 3 breaks away from the trunk and branches on it's own, it will adopt the Gran Paradiso name. --T. Moitie 11:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Download count
In the Download count section, I removed the second reference link (20 million) in the 1.5.x table because the link is broken. Unless somebody can find another link for the 20 million mark, doesn't it make sense to remove the 1.5.x table? It seems rather confusing to me to have it as well, because of course the 1.5.x downloads are included in the 1.x download counts. Any thoughts? --Paul1337 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur --Zr2d2 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Launch speed
IE also launches slightly faster than Firefox on Microsoft Windows since many of its components are built into Windows and are loaded at startup.

I don't like this statement. It seems to me that the article linked to as a reference doesn't even state this. Even if it did, I'd like to drop this because until and unless someone has a pre-loading Firefox or completely unbundled Internet Explorer it is nothing more than (perhaps well-informed) speculation. -- Steven Fisher 22:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Preloading Firefox is addressed here, whereas MSIE can be pulled with XPLite or some such similar software. I'm not sure that IE could be made to standalone, however, since removing some of the libraries it uses to exclusive usage would likely cripple the average Windows system. Orethrius 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 2.0 Dates
Under Version 2.0 the dates do not seem accurate:

The first alpha version (2.0a1) was released on March 21, 2006, the second alpha version (2.0a2) was released on May 12, 2006,[15] and the third alpha version (2.0a3) was released on May 27, 2006.[16] The first beta version (2.0b1) was released on July 12, 2006.[17]

How can the second alpha be dated before the first. I believe these dates are backwards at least.


 * May 12 seems after March 21 to me. Maybe you have a broken calendar? -- Schapel 03:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Security
Firefox does not probably support P3P (cookie acceptance based on cookie privacy policy). That is - it is not in UI, it is only in about:config url. This is a very serious threat to users privacy. Still not much is written on the web about it, as (anyone wants to support Firefox at any price???). This privacy hole deserves at least a warning box in the article. Of course more research and maybe contacting authors is needed before adding this warning box.

One strange thing is it is available in Mozilla browser, so why not in Firefox?

Please do not make claims about which browser has a "better security record" based solely on numbers of vulnerabilties reported by a security company. That's an interpretation of data expressly forbidden by Wikipedia's policy of no original research:
 * Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." (emphasis mine)

Besides, what does Opera's or Safari's "security track record" have to do with Mozilla Firefox anyway? Does Mozilla make a claim that Firefox is as secure as Opera, for example? If Mozilla does, and a reliable security expert makes the statement that Opera "has a better security record," that might be something to point out. -- Schapel 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, WP:NOR has been the hardest rule to follow on Wikipedia. I understand that the way I wrote it may have slight POV issues, though. However, Opera's and Safari's security record should go into the article as they are also notable browsers competing with Firefox, and many people choose Firefox for its perceived security, overlooking other, possibly more secure, browsers. I am going to add the Secunia information to the Opera article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could cite sources that say that users choose Firefox over Opera because they percieve Firefox to be more secure, and that Opera is as secure as or more secure than Firefox, I could see that being a relevant point. Otherwise, mentioning Opera in an article on Firefox seems like advocacy. -- Schapel 12:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Payola
I added this section on the Firefox page to give rise to concerns over the seemingly divergence of the development of firefox.. It seems that there is no convergence on "needed" features, but on whatever pays the bills and thrills. IF firefox is a commercial entity, there should be a mention of it.. If it is no longer an Open Source development, say so.. 2.0's major feature is Google integrated "autocompletion" and supposed security fixes and speedups.. Such features are not unlike the "excuses" that motivate commercial software development from the likes of McAfee and Norton. Also in Version 1.07 there was support for multi-site bookmarking, a feature that was removed from 1.5, a major feature that was removed, but sort of went unnoticed.. Also for each release of Firefox it seems the plugin API's change, so as to make previous plugins incompatible with present versions.. This stinks of poor Object Oriented design as method interfaces can be designed to make API's backward and forward compatible just by the use of interface extensions.. When API's get deprecated, that's a sign of sabotage.. Example given the Java API's.. By intent Java was supposed to be backward compatible, but to encourage people to buy Sun's hardware, they intentionally deprecated previous API's to avoid branches that would not work to Sun's best interest. Just check me on this.. How would you add features to an exising Object Oriented API without removing features? Does it even make since to "clean up" the API? Since you can always overload/extend it?? No.. This mother is selling out..
 * One major criticism is that you need to cite sources for this information. -- Schapel 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates
Isn't the new Updates section simply a copy of some of the release notes? It seems more sensible to me to simply provide an external link to the release notes instead of copy them into this article. -- Schapel 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it has no place in the Wikipedia, the Updates section's not really encyclopedic. It's also ugly as sin. Remove it and put in the release notes link. --T. Moitie [ talk ] 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

ok done --Madcow 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2
Halo 2 was released on the same day as firefox v1.0 and it sold almost twice as many copies as firefox was downloaded, ($125 million on the first day). Seeing as Halo 2 is a Microsoft Product maybe it could be referenced? It's not entirely relevant but it might be interesting in the Download Count section.--James086 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly against that addition. It's completely irrelevant and contributes nothing to the article. --Kamasutra 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No way its like putting a refrance to cloks in a tolet artcal cause there both useful. --Madcow 06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates to "Branding and visual identity"
Just added a slight clarification about distribution of Firefox builds – I think it's OK to distribute binary versions based on the unmodified source code that display the official branding (I went and asked permission from Mozilla.org anyway, and they said it was fine; not sure if you need their permission, not a bad idea to ask...) Anyway, hope you don't mind I linked the reference to another talk page, the original "source" is an e-mail message which I can't hyperlink to, and I'd already posted an exact letter-for-letter copy on the talk page, so figured it would be the easiest way. Hope this doesn't count as original research or anything :-)

multima 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)