Your favorite browser is now v1.5

[time]

Fushigi, that's an amazing interpretation of copyright, and one that will win you no favours with webmasters.

 

[Mercutio]

Here's a simple quiz.

I pay $7 a month for a subscription to cyber.playboy.com so I can...
A) Look at the pictures they post every day
b) Download and store the pictures that I've paid to look at.

 

[Fushigi]

Fushigi, that's an amazing interpretation of copyright, and one that will win you no favours with webmasters.

Any security personal will say that obscurity is often worse than useless. And copyright is not the issue; there's nothing about serving the content to authorized users (be they public or subscribers/members) that changes based on whether or not the content is delivered in the context of the site's design.

I would also state that if content becomes available outside of the context the site desires, then it is solely the fault of the site (designers, admins, or others who post content inappropriately).

Now, as to the content:

For non-protected content, it is only reasonable to assume that any non-protected content will be discovered and viewed. Not just users via browsers but web crawlers will try random links. Also, the more nefarious types may try to find all unprotected content. But since the content is not protected, it exists for public consumption. That it may be consumed out of the context of the publishing site design is immaterial. It's published. Copyright still applies to the content.

For protected content, the subscriber has met the protections demanded by the site. Once that test is passed, the same rules apply as for public content.

 

[Will Rickards]

Here's a simple quiz.

I pay $7 a month for a subscription to cyber.playboy.com so I can...
A) Look at the pictures they post every day
b) Download and store the pictures that I've paid to look at.

This is like the commercial where the waiter asks the patron
Brunettes or Redheads?
And he says Both.

 

[LiamC]

I don't know why, in this day and age, you would need something like Noscript - unless, of course, your browser has a history of security problems. Oh wait, Firefox had more security problems in the past year than all other browsers combined - bummer.

Are you sure about that? Microsoft, by "bundling their security fixes into monthly roll-ups for user convenience", is also able to hide the number of vulnerabilities that have been exposed. 1 security patch != 1 "hole".

 

[sechs]

http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/

 

[ddrueding]

http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/

Been using this for about half an hour, like it quite a bit.

 

[Mercutio]

I've tried it in the past. For some sites, it is very helpful.
For others, particularly those that depend on a database (SF, for instance), it seems to make page access slower.

 

[e_dawg]

Tried Firefox 1.2 and liked it but did find it very basic and unconfigurable out of the box (yes, I realize I didn't have all those plugins now). I used Moz 1.1 for a little while in parallel with Opera while I tried to wean myself off IE. Preferred Opera 7 and 8 at the time.

But eventually CrazyBrowser and kept coming back to it despite newer versions of Moz, FF, and Opera. After CrazyBrowser, then came MyIE2, and MyIE2's replacement, Maxthon -- all deluxe browsers based on IE's browsing engine but with all kinds of popup/ad blocking and tabbed browsing features.

Maxthon just feels right. Firefox, Moz, and Opera not as much.

Having said that, plain IE is just a POS. I can't even surf through more than 2-3 webpages these days without getting a popup. When you're forced to use IE (like I am at work -- I had Firefox 1.0 installed but IT called me up and said 'remove this illegal software immediately'), that is when you realize how far browser technology has come and what you're missing.

 

[CougTek]

Tried Firefox 1.2 and liked it...

Version 1.2 of Firefox. Really?

 

[Fushigi]

Are you sure about that? Microsoft, by "bundling their security fixes into monthly roll-ups for user convenience", is also able to hide the number of vulnerabilities that have been exposed. 1 security patch != 1 "hole".

Here's one that's not hidden. Not patched, either, and an exploit already exists.

 

[Santilli]

1.5 Seems MUCH faster then what ever version of Firefox I had on this machine.

1.4 ghz Athlon.

gs

 

[e_dawg]

Tried Firefox 1.2 and liked it...

Version 1.2 of Firefox. Really?

Actually, it may have been 1.0. Anyways, I didn't hate it, and it gave me tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and decent W3C HTML compatibility all in one that I was able to use as an IE replacement for a while at work.

 

[sechs]

I've tried it in the past. For some sites, it is very helpful.
For others, particularly those that depend on a database (SF, for instance), it seems to make page access slower.

I haven't noticed any sites going slower. There are definitely ones for which it doesn't help, but none are going slower.

According to the information on the FasterFox site, dynamic content shouldn't be marked for prefetch and, therefore, cannot be made faster or slower by it.

 

[CityK]

For me,

1.5 on Windows is faster then 1.0.7

1.5 on Linux is slower then 1.0.7

I do note that the former problem has been resolved ... i.e. flashblock v1.5 works

 

[CougTek]

Where is the grammar police?

 

[i]

CityK, that post actually hurt me.

 

[Groltz]

V1.5 sure does take its sweet damned time in loading the gmail page compared to IE6. I wasn't expecting that.

:sqnt:

 

[The Grammar Police]

Where is the grammar police?

Did I miss something?

 

[Tannin]

OK, I downloaded it, I installed it, I started it, nothing is different, except the options box is a different shape and is still comprehensively crippled by comparison with Opera or Mozilla. Same old sliced white bread browser it was last time.

 

[CougTek]

Where is the grammar police?

Did I miss something?

What? You don't see it? Than maybe it's time for you to retire.

Clearer?

 

[Adcadet]

V1.5 sure does take its sweet damned time in loading the gmail page compared to IE6. I wasn't expecting that.

:sqnt:

huh, IE does seem to load Gmail faster, even with FasterFox. Strange.

 

[The Grammar Police]

What? You don't see it? Than maybe it's time for you to retire. Clearer?

Nope. Nothing out of the ordinary. Working backwards from your post, what do we have?

-1: CityK didn't bother with full stops. Not a hanging offence.
-2: Sechs uses "slower" where he might be better advised to use "more slowly", but then his final sentence would be awkward. On balance, I think "slower" is OK.
-3: E_dawg says "anyways" when he means "anyway" and mangles the second half of his sentence mildly. Not a hanging offence on his side of the water.
-4: Santilli says "what ever" when he means "whatever". NAHO.
-5: Fushigi doesn't say anything I can complain about.
-6: Coug: ditto.
-7: E_dawg's "unconfigurable" might be considered a non-word by some, but I think it says what he is trying to say, which is what words are for. He leaves some words out in his hurry (s1, para 2) and twice uses that horrible and ugly double minus sign when he needs a proper em dash (make these on this board with "& # 8 2 1 2 ;", no spaces). His "like I am", of course, should be "as I am". No hanging offences there either, though I believe 5 lashes is the standard penalty for butchering an em dash so wantonly.
-8: Mercutio: as blameless as ever.
-9: DaveD: ditto.
-10: LiamC mixes up his singulars and plurals when speaking of Microsoft. Note that it is acceptable to use either the singular or the plural when speaking of a company (as it is a single organisation but a collection of individuals), but not to do both in the same passage. Still NAHO. I'll let him off with a warning.

Ten posts back from yours, Coug, and not a single hanging offence! I got bored and stopped looking after that. This place is getting terribly correct these days. Whatever happened to the good old virtues of incoherence and illiteracy? Don't people go to school any more? Indeed, the only serious offence I could pin on anyone was E_dawg's horrid-looking pair of double minus signs — and these are, in point of fact, an offence against typography and the beauty of the written form, and thus not strictly within my perview.

Is there a then/than typo somewhere that these tired and jaded old eyes missed?

 

[Tannin]

You are slowing up, old chap. I spotted it straight away.

 

[Tea]

Liar!

 

[CougTek]

Is there a then/than typo somewhere that these tired and jaded old eyes missed?

!!!

 

[Mercutio]

The Grammar Police need only visit SR for a few brief moments to see his true calling.

And then his head will asplode.

 

[LOST6200]

Wghat so yaou about my writing, ehh?

 

[LiamC]

-10: LiamC mixes up his singulars and plurals when speaking of Microsoft. Note that it is acceptable to use either the singular or the plural when speaking of a company (as it is a single organisation but a collection of individuals), but not to do both in the same passage. Still NAHO. I'll let him off with a warning.

Most kind Kommandeur. Warning noted. Could you explain where I mixed the singular/plural? I spoke of Microsoft in the singular, but talked of the multiple bugs and fixes in its products.

 

[paugie]

I like FireFox, whatever version, i.e. from the start.

I hated IE, from the start.

I like Opera, too.

My dial-up was too slow for me to discern differences in load up speeds so I can't start to understand what many of you are saying.

And I can't start to understand many of the subtleties being pointed out here. If I just, maybe, try to think then I probably be able to... understand. But I think it's too much work.

Anyway, I like tabbed browsing. That's about it. Give me a tabbed browser and I can stay in front of the PC all day. (Oops, the wife is lurking behind my chair)

 

[sechs]

Good news. Graymodern was updated for 1.5 *and* OpenType fonts with Postscript outlines now work.

Font substitution on Windows is still shot to hell, but IE and Opera can't get it right either....

 

[Explorer]

A private security outfit has released a proof-of-concept exploit for a security flaw in Firefox 1.5, warning that the code can be modified to launch code execution attacks.


http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1898253,00.asp?kc=ewnws120905dtx1k0000599

 

[sechs]

Is this really an exploit? It sounds to me it's just a really nasty bug -- like all the other really nasty bugs involving having a large history file.

 

[Fushigi]

Now you can run FireFox in a VMWare session. For free. It's a 250MB download, but for those who want an even safer browsing experience, there you go.

Oh, and VMWare now offers a free 'player' to run VMs created on machines with VMWare (any version) on machines w/out VMWare.

 

[mubs]

What's with 1.5? I installed it over 1.0.7, and nothing happened when I tried to launch it. Then uninstalled both 1.0.7 and 1.5 and reinstalled 1.5, again nothing happened. Uninstalled 1.5 and reinstalled 1.0.7, and am using that now. Grrrrrrrr.

Anybody have a clue?

 

[Will Rickards]

Firefox not starting is usually due to an extension or such that is incompatible. A new profile will usually fix the problem. You can also try starting it with the safe mode shortcut in the start menu.

But yeah I see your point that you should just be able to install over the old one. But I always uninstall and then install (just about any upgrade not just firefox).

 

[mubs]

Thanks, Will. After much research and reboots, it transpires that it wasn't the profiles at all. Uninstalling still left a ton of stuff in the Program Files\Mozilla folder. Deleting this folder (leaving my profile intact) and reinstalling 1.5 solved the problem. I'm a happy camper now. I'm getting too old for all this shit.

 

[Groltz]

Right now v1.5 is using 73M of memory with only 1window/1tab open after 30 minutes use.

That seems a little heavy, don't you think?

 

[ddrueding]

Right now v1.5 is using 73M of memory with only 1window/1tab open after 30 minutes use.

That seems a little heavy, don't you think?

I'd say that depends on how many extnsions you have installed and how it sales to many tabs/windows.

If that's a "clean" install, it's a bit heavy but not bad. It 47 tabs in 7 windows take 1GB of RAM, that'd be a bit much.

 

[mubs]

Scott Finnie says this is a common problem in FF 1.5 and recommends not installing it.