The firefox browser doomed?

Talk about internet security, computer security, personal security, your social security number...
User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:41 am

Davezilla wrote:Ermmm...I was really trying to describe Frank's theme & the way it looks, I believe my actual words were 'it gives Firefox some real class & is exquisite to look at'.


I know what you meant, it was a play on words to make a point. Sorry if you were offended, not my intention.

OK, I tend to prefer SeaMonkey myself but hasn't Firefox had a billion downloads? I like SRWare Iron as well. ;)


Yes, I have heard alot of good things about it from therube, but for me I don't have need for calendar, mail or anything, so never had much use to go for SeaMonkey, just needed a good browser, which seems to be no more.

dhouwn wrote:You mean more indoor devs and less open source? Well, it's not as if the Mozilla folks would just let any patch into their repository…


Yes that's what I mean and you'd be surprised the crap they let in and how little they give a damn.

Where is the connection between Google Chrome and Google's behaviour elsewhere?


Well for one, the reason we have no infrastructure for real NoScript implementation, it would block their good ol GoogleSyndication, YouTube and tracking codes that is the bread and butter (nearly 100% of their source of income)

Interesting, mind sharing more information with us?


Actually no, unlike Giorgio's faith in the world to not rip off his hard work and fork it, I don't have that idealistic belief. Not anymore, died the day Open Source became no better than the people they were supposedly rebelling against. I built a browser almost 13 years ago based on the IE engine and core at the time and shared it and it was ripped off and turned into NeoPlanet and then butchered so badly it didn't even survive despite their efforts to jack it and call it their own. I was submitting VB code to the public to replicate just about any control and function that is now in the .NET framework by default and watched how people took it, remove the credit portion and called it their own, some even repackaged and sold it (without even changing the names, removing my comments in the code, simply took it, changed the data making themselves the author and compiled it). So I decided to just make my programs FreeWare but close the source, but still my own brethren I guess managed to unpack and decompile enough of it to be able to fork it and turn it into their own products. So then, I twice bitten, I chose to keep my good, bad and uglies to myself.

Oh, so you where talking about extensions before?


No, not just them, just look up bugzilla and you get the picture.

http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
Also, I there's another Chrome fork called "Chrome Plus" (wonder how long it will take Google to enforce their trademark)


Wow, you just made papa proud. You made my point for me so well. So much for open source huh? Well, that's all folks (imagine WB piggy)!
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by dhouwn » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:05 am

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Yes that's what I mean and you'd be surprised the crap they let in and how little they give a damn.
Really? I have seen the opposite happening, patches not being reviewed for a long time until they didn't 'fit' anymore.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Well for one, the reason we have no infrastructure for real NoScript implementation, it would block their good ol GoogleSyndication, YouTube and tracking codes that is the bread and butter (nearly 100% of their source of income)
You are just making assumptions…

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Actually no, unlike Giorgio's faith in the world to not rip off his hard work and fork it […]
NoScript wouldn't be so great without Giorgio and you can't fork him, can you? ;)
When little companies are bought by big ones it's most often not because the products, but because of the people that make them.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:No, not just them, just look up bugzilla and you get the picture.
I am quite active on Bugzilla and like I told you before I have rather seen the opposite.

So much for open source huh?
So what? Not different from what Mozilla does. And IMHO, the functioning/functionality is what counts. I couldn't care less about a name and a logo.
Also, Firefox is open source in my eyes because there are design documents, the source is documented, it has a public bug DB (with some exceptions), the repositories are publicly visible, etc.
On the other hand, I have a hard time calling software "open-source" when although the source is public and under an "open" license, some of previously mentioned points are not fulfilled and therefore open development seems to be not really encouraged. NoScript is such a case.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100425 Firefox/3.7

Davezilla
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by Davezilla » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:49 am

dhouwn wrote:
Davezilla wrote:I like SRWare Iron as well. ;)
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
Also, I there's another Chrome fork called "Chrome Plus" (wonder how long it will take Google to enforce their trademark)


Don't forget the Comodo Dragon. I thought that they were all originally based on Chromium anyway.
Last edited by Davezilla on Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SeaMonkey/2.0.4

Davezilla
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by Davezilla » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:08 pm

GµårÐïåñ wrote:
Davezilla wrote:Ermmm...I was really trying to describe Frank's theme & the way it looks, I believe my actual words were 'it gives Firefox some real class & is exquisite to look at'.


I know what you meant, it was a play on words to make a point. Sorry if you were offended, not my intention.


It's OK, I wasn't offended, more puzzled. You're obviously more knowledgeable about computers & the state of Mozilla these days than I am. I was under the impression that Firefox was thriving. A lot of people use it.

GµårÐïåñ wrote:Yes, I have heard alot of good things about it from therube, but for me I don't have need for calendar, mail or anything, so never had much use to go for SeaMonkey, just needed a good browser, which seems to be no more.


I'm not that sure why I tend to prefer SeaMonkey to Firefox, maybe it reminds me a bit of Fx #2 I think (I'm not sure why though). It just seems a bit more responsive on my laptop, possibly has more preference options customisability & I like the fact that I can click the menu bar off easily (without an extension) to save screen space. It has its limitations I suppose but there isn't much I can't do in SM that I can in Fx.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SeaMonkey/2.0.4

User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:32 pm

dhouwn wrote:Really? I have seen the opposite happening, patches not being reviewed for a long time until they didn't 'fit' anymore.


Yes, really. And even though it is seen that code fixes are not done until they are obsolete, proving my point, I am still wrong? I mean what you just said shows they don't care about the quality or function of their code, or they would jump on implementing fixes, so why do they sit there until they don't fit anymore? Do you know, or are you contradicting me just for the sake of doing it?

You are just making assumptions…


Really? Do you have anything to the contrary? if not then whose making the assumptions. You want to have a false sense of security, knock yourself out but don't contradict someone and libel them by calling it an assumption unless you have something to back it. I have a very long and heated thread that has multiplied on Chromes development page to back up what I am saying. Also, I trust Giorgio and the fact that they asked him, he told them, but they never got back to him or did anything about it. If you have a different motivation, would love to hear it, otherwise refrain from simply dismissing what someone who has been around the block for 20 years says without something to back it.

NoScript wouldn't be so great without Giorgio and you can't fork him, can you? ;)


If I had to, yes, but I have no interest when there is a developer like Giorgio who is capable and can do it in his sleep and has been doing it since the beginning and therefore has seen the ins and outs of everything along the way. Especially that as busy as he is, he has the time to work on it, I don't, between dying and a million other things on my plate, I don't have time to develop and now only do it for the government or large corporations who can afford to pay for it. Which brings me to your next statement.

When little companies are bought by big ones it's most often not because the products, but because of the people that make them.


Not always and in most situations its not the person they want, its the product, although in many cases one man shops and small operations, the product and their developers are one in the same. But yes, there are many who sell their companies for millions, never touch the code or do anything else with it, while someone else takes it over and closes it to the public.

I am quite active on Bugzilla and like I told you before I have rather seen the opposite.


Good, then you should be more in tune with what I am saying than if you weren't. Perhaps we wear different color glasses and yours is rosier than mine. :) I just hope they are not blinders you got on and indoctrinated by the company line and kidding yourself. That would be an insanely rude awakening :o

So what? Not different from what Mozilla does. And IMHO, the functioning/functionality is what counts. I couldn't care less about a name and a logo.


Do you realize you are contradicting your own arguments and making my points for me while thinking you are expressing the opposite position? I have never cared about the logo, just functionality and that's what is missing and is failing in Fx, whatever logo and name you want to attach to it, won't change the facts of it.

Also, Firefox is open source in my eyes because there are design documents, the source is documented, it has a public bug DB (with some exceptions), the repositories are publicly visible, etc.


Sure it is, I have a piece of property on mars I am dying to unload, you interested? Half the documentation states up front that its out of date. The other half are incomplete and often as useless as M$ documentation. Alot of words to say very little.

On the other hand, I have a hard time calling software "open-source" when although the source is public and under an "open" license, some of previously mentioned points are not fulfilled and therefore open development seems to be not really encouraged. NoScript is such a case.


Can't say I blame the guy, why would he make it open to the point that he can be pushed out simply with a change in name and hijack of his code? Unfortunately though, much of the NS code is available to be viewed and ripped, just not in a pretty little repository which would be like Giorgio just hanging up the code with a sign that says, free to hijack, go for it. Why work so hard to make it easier for others to jack his work? But even if ONE morsel of code is not open, then its not really open source, no matter what type of licensing we try to wrap it in. Personally, I am one of the biggest proponents of Giorgio closing the code, stop providing it for free, or limit its free functionality, and start charging for it. Its worth every dime and he won't have to rely on ungrateful community of freeloaders taking and taking, demanding and demanding without the slightest bit of reimbursement, donations or even thanks. Need we revisit the whole ABP debacle?

Davezilla wrote:It's OK, I wasn't offended, more puzzled. You're obviously more knowledgeable about computers & the state of Mozilla these days than I am. I was under the impression that Firefox was thriving. A lot of people use it.


Good, it wasn't my intention and this damn medium is without the human factor and can come across worse than is intended. More than half of the misunderstandings come from such media. It was thriving and many people used it because it was the better browser (not so much now), the browser without a flaw like IE that can't be hacked or maliciously used (we know that's not true, need we go over the security problems riddled in 3.x?) and it had potential for sure but like anything else they let it go to their head and as the result, the quality suffered and now we are headed down a steep hill just waiting for the air brakes to fail and for the flying fox to crash permanently or at least go into obscurity and fade, like the good Netscape who lost the battle and ended up being a footnote in internet history, right next to AOL, Compuserve, Juno, Lotus 123, Wordperfect, etc, etc.

I'm not that sure why I tend to prefer SeaMonkey to Firefox, maybe it reminds me a bit of Fx #2 I think (I'm not sure why though). It just seems a bit more responsive on my laptop, possibly has more preference options customisability & I like the fact that I can click the menu bar off easily (without an extension) to save screen space. It has its limitations I suppose but there isn't much I can't do in SM that I can in Fx.


Yeah the last good Fx released was 2.x and since then *imagine the whistling sound of a bomb dropping" and boom. We just have to wait and see how far it has to fall before the boom. My feel about SM has been that it has lower CPU and memory requirements/usage, although therube has often reported spikes and major memory leaks but I think they were always extension related, except maybe once or twice, it was SM itself, IIRC. Hey if it works for you, by all means use it and I am happy to hear it. Tom T. one of our moderators still uses 2.x and has refused to upgrade because that was the last stable good version that he felt comfortable with. Can't say I blame him. No there isn't much that you can't do with SM, in fact I believe you can do EVERYTHING that Fx can, and then some.

Anyway folks, good talk, I am done with this topic as I don't want to incite a pointless argument and end up having feelings hurt.I rather concede for the sake of the peace and let it come to light on its own time than to push it on anyone, not my style, you can take or you can leave it, up to you entirely and I won't hold it against you either way, that presumes I care about Mozilla or Fx like a fanboy and I don't, so I am ok either way. To each their own, these words have never been truer. Ciao.
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by dhouwn » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:29 pm

GµårÐïåñ wrote:I mean what you just said shows they don't care about the quality or function of their code, or they would jump on implementing fixes, so why do they sit there until they don't fit anymore?
I was talking about patches that add new features or improvements (like performance improvements) rather than fixes. My point was that they don't just add it because there are certain rules, they kind of peer-review the code, there are coding standards and for the fixes they want unit/regression/integration tests written. I like the way they handle things, it's certainly more professional than what some smaller software companies do (I am speaking out of experience).

Do you have anything to the contrary? if not then whose making the assumptions.
No, I don't have any evidence to back up the contrary, but I am also not making assumption about it, am I?

but don't contradict someone and libel them by calling it an assumption unless you have something to back it.
Okay, then I correct myself: "It looks to me like you are just making assumptions, since you didn't present any evidence to back up your hypothesis that the Google devs are being reluctant to implement an interface for something like NoScript and that this is because Google is also an ad company."

I have a very long and heated thread that has multiplied on Chromes development page to back up what I am saying.
Are you speaking of the 2-3 Chromium bug tracker entries concerning this? I believe I have read them mostly (and I have star[r]ed them too BTW). But I can't remember reading any statement from the Google devs that asserts your claims. If you have any direct links/quotations for this (maybe from the newsgroup or the IRC?) feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, I trust Giorgio and the fact that they asked him, he told them, but they never got back to him or did anything about it.
Okay, that may be an indication that it's not very high on their priority list, still it's not backing up the claims that this is because Google generates profit from advertising. Talk about libel…

Not always and in most situations its not the person they want, its the product
It's one person's claim against another's. Maybe you are right, maybe not.
Anyways, I just happened to stumble upon the Wikipedia page of this brilliant guy whose small company I suspect was bought mostly because of him and he is now doing much of the kernel work at Microsoft and e.g. – I believe – is responsible for bringing technologies like Address Space Layout Randomization to the Windows world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich

Perhaps we wear different color glasses and yours is rosier than mine.
Perhaps. Or perhaps I am just trying to pose a counterbalance to your – as how I perceive it – one-sided rants. Maybe I am an harmony-loving person, always fighting for the equilibrium… Okay, enough of the nonsense!

Personally, I am one of the biggest proponents of Giorgio closing the code, stop providing it for free, or limit its free functionality, and start charging for it.
AFAIK, he has accepted some patches from outside so he could not just do it overnight. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for it and I would mind even less it not being 'open source' anymore, since – like I said before – IMHO it's neither fish nor fowl concerning its 'openness' according to my definition right now.

Need we revisit the whole ABP debacle?
Speaking of which, wasn't the anniversary a not-so-long while ago?

I am done with this topic
Too bad. I should have read this before starting to write a reply. :(
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100425 Firefox/3.7

User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:21 am

dhouwn wrote:I was talking about patches that add new features or improvements (like performance improvements) rather than fixes. My point was that they don't just add it because there are certain rules, they kind of peer-review the code, there are coding standards and for the fixes they want unit/regression/integration tests written. I like the way they handle things, it's certainly more professional than what some smaller software companies do (I am speaking out of experience).


No matter what the reason they hold off, its a hold off. I hate use this as an example and I apologize to Giorgio in advance as I had promised not to bring it up but you leave me no choice. If they had a peer review system in place we wouldn't have that whole ABP/NS issue, that's all I am going to say and you are entitled to believe what you want based on whatever justifies it for you, I won't challenge your personal beliefs on the subject.

No, I don't have any evidence to back up the contrary, but I am also not making assumption about it, am I?


Yes you did, let me clear that when you call someone's statement as nothing more than assumption with emphatic belief, you are claiming you know something other than what I said, that's an assumption when there is no proof, since you can't show that I did make an assumption, for all you know, I have my sources and reason but you don't know that. So before challenging someone's statement, come prepared. Words are cheap, actions speak louder. Since I am not prepared to present any proof on the subject because I don't have to justify my statements, while you can claim it as what you want, but it has as much merit as your statement, if not more, because if I had to and the forum was appropriate, I can back up what I say but I don't see that need here. The only reason I am even replying to you is out of respect because you have chosen to comment on my statements and therefore I am etiquette bound to respond.

Okay, then I correct myself: "It looks to me like you are just making assumptions, since you didn't present any evidence to back up your hypothesis that the Google devs are being reluctant to implement an interface for something like NoScript and that this is because Google is also an ad company."


You can reword it all you want, I refer you to my previous response and you are entitled to say the sun rotates around the earth and we rotate around the moon, that's your right, but doesn't make it right because you are entitled to say it. Again I refer you to my previous response, since I don't need to justify myself here, we are discussing opinions and just because mine is based on fact, doesn't mean I have to justify it to you or anyone else, you can take for what its worth and in any way you wish.

Are you speaking of the 2-3 Chromium bug tracker entries concerning this? I believe I have read them mostly (and I have star[r]ed them too BTW). But I can't remember reading any statement from the Google devs that asserts your claims. If you have any direct links/quotations for this (maybe from the newsgroup or the IRC?) feel free to prove me wrong.


Indeed, among others. Same here, starred and waiting to see google's response on it which has been nonexistent and in many cases just belligerent when they do say something, like how dare we question the mighty giant who is living in the same bubble Yahoo did before it burst, that's why they are so desperate to make phones, OS, browser, and just about any tool on the planet designed to accumulate and hold all your information on THEIR system, you think you have privacy, you are sorely mistaken. If you are waiting for them to admit it, then you will be waiting a long time and I assure you it will be long after my bones are dust. So if that's your defense, not the most deductive way to go. Although I hear inductive reasoning is catching on when there is no other way to save face.

Okay, that may be an indication that it's not very high on their priority list, still it's not backing up the claims that this is because Google generates profit from advertising. Talk about libel…


Oh lord mighty, did we finally concede a little, hallelujah, I was beginning to think that I was talking to a google fanboy or some under cover developer that is wearing sheep's clothing ;) Not libel, the best defense against libel is the truth, you are talking to a state bar certified law man, so I know what I say and I mean every word, if I am libelous, bring on the lawsuits. Anyone? didn't think so. And unless you have a butt load of google stock, not sure why you care but good to see they got people who will be left disappointed when the truth is inevitably exposed, in the meantime, i guess everyone deserves a zealous defense.

It's one person's claim against another's. Maybe you are right, maybe not.


People die and after developing professionally for almost 20 years starting with Cobol, Fortran and Pascal, I have seen alot of <fill in the blank> come and go. Not dismissing what you say, after all M$ hired the ex-somebody to run their media division when the last guy was alleged to have lost them the market share by allowing apple itunes to get big and why not have the zune sooner. well better late than never I say. At least the zune hasn't been sued for poor production quality like iPod was (just google nano settlement if you need proof), see they are useful for some things, no denying that if you want an overload of results and information, google is the clear choice.

Anyways, I just happened to stumble upon the Wikipedia page of this brilliant guy whose small company I suspect was bought mostly because of him and he is now doing much of the kernel work at Microsoft and e.g. – I believe – is responsible for bringing technologies like Address Space Layout Randomization to the Windows world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich


See here is the problem, you assume that because I said not always, I must not believe that people are ever considered an asset, I didn't say that, it was your conclusion. Afterall my friend who broke the 40-bit ssl encryption when at UCLA got a job at Netscape rather than go to jail for hacking, so there is always that it factor that they choose to exploit rather than lose. Of course, no one denied that, did I? You really need to take it less personal and listen to what is being said, not whose saying it and if they are different from what you believe, judge on the merits, don't automatically snip back at something because an alternative to your thinking was proposed. if this can't be an intelligent exchange, then its just a waste of both of our time and i will just have to walk away and be rude in not responding anymore if you can't take differing views with grace and the benefit of a doubt that you could be wrong, regardless of how certain you feel.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I am just trying to pose a counterbalance to your – as how I perceive it – one-sided rants. Maybe I am an harmony-loving person, always fighting for the equilibrium… Okay, enough of the nonsense!


And I gave you credit for it, what's your problem, if you are going to get belligerent then your point of view lends no credibility and as stated earlier is a waste of time. If you consider it nonesense, then stop spewing it. You get a response to what you say, nothing more, nothing less, you are making it personal and that's your downfall and often those who do, their point is not taken seriously because it lacks confidence, patience and consideration that your point of view may very well be wrong. At least I left the possibility for me being wrong, you leave no room and absolutes like that make you un-debatable as it is just a waste of time, so try to change your tactics from insults to actual intelligible responses, there is nothing wrong with not saying anything than to open up and remove all credibility. ok?

AFAIK, he has accepted some patches from outside so he could not just do it overnight. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for it and I would mind even less it not being 'open source' anymore, since – like I said before – IMHO it's neither fish nor fowl concerning its 'openness' according to my definition right now.


Not without thorough testing, debugging and knowing exactly what is in it and cleaning it up to be efficient and "good" before he puts it in, but when you have volunteers with no knowledge trying to vet code, then its just asinine, as they don't have nearly enough if at all, anybody who is qualified enough as Giorgio to vet the code. Comparing Giorgio to the likes of AMO is an insult in itself. He is not a copycat, mimic, or even a faker who just coasts through things hoping that before the crap hits the fan someone catches it. I won't restate the writing on the wall again, I think by now we know, just not ready to accept it and that's fine. to each their own, I am ok with you thinking whatever you want it doesn't affect me, it only affects you what you think. One of AMO's rules for auto accepting and releasing updates or code for extensions is how many people voted for it, can you see the problem with that? no?

Speaking of which, wasn't the anniversary a not-so-long while ago?


Not long ago at all, and yet you vehemently defend the quality and authority of AMO, need I say more or you get where that's going? I mean for god sake they had the gaul to mark his code as malware, how dumb do you have to be do that? I mean common sense anyone? But google putting a framework for their own product promotion while not giving the API for NoScript is perfectly acceptable and non-fishy to you? I am speechless, which is saying something no?

Too bad. I should have read this before starting to write a reply. :(


Not really, as much as I enjoy a good debate, when your other half resorts to insults, loaded banter that is intended to only be flip, then it has no value. Discussion is worthwhile if ALL sides are considered and you don't come in with a preconceived notion of what is right and wrong. If you can't entertain the possibility that google is evil, then there no foundation for a productive and fruitful debate, because you will be biased to anything said in that regard, see what I mean? now, before you decide to throw my own words back at me and try to deflect or someone else for that matter, let me say that I have firm opinions of this and that, but I don't close my mind to a good argument, I simply close off and dismiss anything that starts to resemble a game of words and hair splitting and smoke and mirrors. Not productive. Its ok, you are welcome to write me in private if you like, you can continue to debate it in the open and have google crawl and save it for us for when one of us is proven right, we can look back and add a memo: told you so, signed (either you or me), now relax and don't take it so personally, in the grand scheme of things, none of this matters because I can't take any of it to the grave in which I will inevitably lie, so why bother clouding the soul in the process :D

please enjoy your week and feel free to drop me a line any time. As long as you promise to leave the baggage and any beef you have at the door, I always welcome a good discussion, it helps keep the mind sharp. :? now where did I leave that gold medal, oh yeah it was just a dream ;) or was it? jokes aside, we are going senile, just at different rates, so I am in no rush to get to the front of the line, take care of yourself. have a beer on me :mrgreen:
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

Davezilla
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by Davezilla » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:28 am

GµårÐïåñ wrote: No there isn't much that you can't do with SM, in fact I believe you can do EVERYTHING that Fx can, and then some.


I think SM has some nice themes as well. Orbit 3+1 & KaiRo's Early Blue are very nice. The LCARStrek (also by KaiRo) is clever but a bit of a strain on the eyes in my opinion though. I'd have never made it in Starfleet with those GUIs. LOL! :lol:

GµårÐïåñ wrote:To each their own, these words have never been truer. Ciao.


Yep...
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SeaMonkey/2.0.4

dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by dhouwn » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:18 pm

GµårÐïåñ wrote:If they had a peer review system in place we wouldn't have that whole ABP/NS issue
Okay, now I am con­fused. Were we talk­ing about ex­ten­sions or about the Fire­fox de­vel­op­ment? IMHO, these are two dif­fer­ent pair of shoes.

Yes you did, let me clear that when you call someone's statement as nothing more than assumption with emphatic belief, you are claiming you know something other than what I said
When I wrote that I didn’t made as­sump­tion about the con­trary of what you said, I meant that I didn’t claim that Google is not re­luct­ant to im­ple­ment NoScript and that it is not be­cause it is an ad com­pany. I made an as­sump­tion though that you were just mak­ing as­sump­tions that’s why I re­ph­rased my­self.

Since I am not prepared to present any proof on the subject because I don't have to justify my statements, […], I can back up what I say but I don't see that need here.
I would have ap­pre­ci­ated it if you had presen­ted the proof.

you are entitled to say the sun rotates around the earth and we rotate around the moon, that's your right, but doesn't make it right because you are entitled to say it
True, this goes for all of us, in­clud­ing you.

waiting to see google's response on it which has been nonexistent and in many cases just belligerent when they do say something, like how dare we question the mighty giant who is living in the same bubble Yahoo did before it burst
I don’t like the way of yours in por­tray­ing a com­pany as one mono­lith­ic, single-minded block, that’s also why I am gen­er­ally against this sort of – in my eyes un­foun­ded – claims of like that Google is against a NoScript func­tion­al­ity be­cause they sell ads, Google bund­ling Flash with their browser be­cause of their con­flict with Apple, Microsoft not port­ing IE9 to XP so they can sell more Win7 cop­ies, etc.

that's why [it seems to me] they are so desperate to make phones, OS, browser, and just about any tool on the planet designed to accumulate and hold all your information on THEIR system, [if] you think you have privacy, [then I believe] you are sorely mistaken.
(in­ser­tions by me)

So if that's your defense, not the most deductive way to go.
The de­fence is that I see no real evid­ence, just spec­u­la­tions.

Not libel
You were the one first men­tion­ing ‘li­bel’, just say­ing.
I was mak­ing a ref­er­ence to:
but don't contradict someone and libel them by calling it an assumption


the best defense against libel is the truth
True, but you don’t un­foun­dedly claim to hold it, do you?

you assume that because I said not always, I must not believe that people are ever considered an asset, I didn't say that, it was your conclusion
You seem to as­sume that I as­sume… But I didn’t; I just brought this ex­ample be­cause the story of this in­ter­est­ing guy sprung in­to my mind. Speak­ing of con­clu­sions…

You really need to take it less personal
Where do you get the idea from that I took it per­son­al(ly)?

an alternative to your thinking was proposed
An al­tern­at­ive to my… think­ing? In the sense of opin­ion or in the sense of way of think­ing/mind-set? Sorry, I don’t want to go too much off top­ic any­more but we clearly have a lan­guage bar­ri­er here. As you may have no­ticed, Eng­lish is not my nat­ive tongue, I have a hard time fol­low­ing you some­times.

if this can't be an intelligent exchange, then its just a waste of both of our time and i will just have to walk away and be rude in not responding anymore if you can't take differing views with grace and the benefit of a doubt that you could be wrong, regardless of how certain you feel.
I am sorry to hear that you seem to get the idea that is not an ‘in­tel­li­gent ex­change’ and that I ‘can’t take dif­fer­ing views with grace and the be­ne­fit of a doubt that [I] could be wrong’.

if you are going to get belligerent then your point of view lends no credibility
I fail to see the con­nec­tion. Be­ing bel­li­ger­ent or not, that’s not what counts.

you are making it personal and that's your downfall and often those who do
Am I? You mean be­cause I said I per­ceived what some of the things you said as ‘one-sided rants’?

that's your downfall and often those who do, their point is not taken seriously because it lacks confidence, patience and consideration that your point of view may very well be wrong.
So my points lacks “con­fid­ence, pa­tience and con­sid­er­a­tion”? I have really a hard time try­ing to un­der­stand how you come to such con­clu­sions.

At least I left the possibility for me being wrong
That’s good.

you leave no room and absolutes like that make you un-debatable as it is just a waste of time
For good­ness’ sake, how comes you have such a pic­ture of me? I would be glad – I really would – if you poin­ted me to where I was mak­ing state­ments lead­ing you to the no­tion of me leav­ing no pos­sib­il­it­ies for be­ing wrong (apart from where I re­ph­rased my­self).

so try to change your tactics from insults to actual intelligible responses
Did I in­sult you by telling you of how I per­ceive some of your state­ments in this thread (as be­ing one-sided rants)? May I then cat­egor­ise your claims of me be­ing ig­nor­ant (in the sense of not ac­cept­ing be­ing wrong) as in­sults too?

there is nothing wrong with not saying anything than to open up and remove all credibility.
So I re­moved all cred­ib­il­ity from my­self in your eyes? Sorry to hear that.

One of AMO's rules for auto accepting and releasing updates or code for extensions is how many people voted for it, can you see the problem with that?
I can. IMHO, it’s not the best solu­tion, but neither the worst.

But google putting a framework for their own product promotion while not giving the API for NoScript is perfectly acceptable and non-fishy to you?
TBH, I guess more people, most of them not be­ing tech-savvy and not be­ing able to un­der­stand the be­ne­fits of NoScript, be­ne­fit from the former than from the lat­ter.

when your other half resorts to insults, loaded banter that is intended to only be flip
Again, sorry to hear that.

Discussion is worthwhile if ALL sides are considered and you don't come in with a preconceived notion of what is right and wrong.
I fully agree.

If you can't entertain the possibility that google is evil
I cer­tainly can en­ter­tain the pos­sib­il­ity and I am happy if you can con­sider that Google is not evil after all, that it’s not a mono­lith­ic block, not a garden of pure ideo­logy just crav­ing for users’ data in ac­cord­ance with the plan to take over the world and en­slave all hu­man­ity – or something like that.

because you will be biased to anything said in that regard
My opin­ions are biased, every­one’s are. I am not deny­ing this.


PS: Please don’t make me feel bad and don’t reply if you feel re­spond­ing would be just
a waste of both of our time
a waste of time
a waste of time
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100427 Firefox/3.7

User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:38 pm

Davezilla wrote:I think SM has some nice themes as well. Orbit 3+1 & KaiRo's Early Blue are very nice. The LCARStrek (also by KaiRo) is clever but a bit of a strain on the eyes in my opinion though. I'd have never made it in Starfleet with those GUIs. LOL! :lol:


I can't say I know first hand, but I know Orbit themes have been around since Netscape 6.x (gecko one) that was release and pretty much sealed Netscape's faith while battling M$, so I am familiar with the look and yes they are very nicely done. I love the LCARS interface, but you are right, the color scheme is generally too much for daily and constant use. I go very minimalistic because I go for function over look, that's the curse of being a programmer. Although when comes to designing the GUI we try to go all out and do what we know people like, even if we don't use it ourselves ;)

dhouwn wrote:Okay, now I am con­fused. Were we talk­ing about ex­ten­sions or about the Fire­fox de­vel­op­ment? IMHO, these are two dif­fer­ent pair of shoes.


Seems to be alot of that, so I won't say anything more because despite the fact that you feel bad and it wasn't my intention to make you feel bad, it is a waste of time. If you can't see the difference and keep up, then I am unfortunately not the type to keep going in circles and hold your hand until you do, I am the kind who will try and if you don't get it, I will tell you to go and find out on your own, the way life operates and we learned it. The fact that you see them as mutually exclusive is part of the problem with you and where this whole discussion has gone. I mean if I was getting paid by the word, I would stick around and battle you but I am losing life at the speed of this, so not worth it, especially that what you believe has no bearing on anything in my life or anyone else's so why should I keep trying?

When I wrote that I didn’t made as­sump­tion about the con­trary of what you said, I meant that I didn’t claim that Google is not re­luct­ant to im­ple­ment NoScript and that it is not be­cause it is an ad com­pany. I made an as­sump­tion though that you were just mak­ing as­sump­tions that’s why I re­ph­rased my­self.


*SIGH* really? You gonna make me spell it out for you? Let me try a different approach: What do you suggest is their reason for being reluctant to provide a security infrastructure when the WHOLE FREAKING world is centered around security? So as I said before, a waste of time going in circles here, unless you can offer something tangible, I will take my assumptions and stick with them and you can do the same.

I would have ap­pre­ci­ated it if you had presen­ted the proof.


If I had a dollar for each time someone would appreciate me doing the legwork for them, I would be a billionaire, so I won't and if that is your basis for saying I am wrong, then so be it. I am wrong (for your benefit) and I am done (for my benefit).

True, this goes for all of us, in­clud­ing you.


Absolutely, but unlike you, I knew that and didn't state mine as required for all to accept, you were the ONLY one reading this who took it that way, suggesting maybe you need to work on comprehension a bit and less on trying to out type someone else. If your strategy is to make yourself appear right by just simply burying a person in repeated bluh bluh, then you win. I shouldn't have to tell you that I am entitled to my opinion such as you, it should be something you should know by common sense. :roll:

I don’t like the way of yours in por­tray­ing a com­pany as one mono­lith­ic, single-minded block, that’s also why I am gen­er­ally against this sort of – in my eyes un­foun­ded – claims of like that Google is against a NoScript func­tion­al­ity be­cause they sell ads, Google bund­ling Flash with their browser be­cause of their con­flict with Apple, Microsoft not port­ing IE9 to XP so they can sell more Win7 cop­ies, etc.


I am going to forgo my manners and say I don't care what you like and just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong. I don't like that half my Marine unit died in ambushes over 2 weeks in a war somewhere that had nothing to do with us, but guess what, its not my decision, its not my duty to question it, and its irrelevant how I feel about it. You can be against it all you want, but unless you have something to counter it, I don't care.

They ARE a monolithic giant and half of what they are trying to do is AGAINST the law and is in the courts but you wouldn't know that because you don't spend your life reading court briefs, you wait until it hits Gizmodo or Wired or a forum you happen to hang out in. Information is acquired, not simply given, go do your research and if you still feel that way, come back and tell me I am wrong, but until then, you are nothing and so is what you have to say about the subject to me. I can and will dismiss you as another person who waits to get their information off the news. I go get what I need to know, I don't wait to be handed that info, hence why I am not going to share with you how I know, that's your own responsibility. For example, I don't like that you are not the owner, or founder, or stockholder or even a janitor at Google but you seem to feel the need to blindly not like what I have to say, instead of going and trying to find out if its right or not.

I will extend you one last courtesy and pose a question to you and see what you have to say. 1) why are they trying to have every book on the planet scanned into THEIR databases, when they exist on several already, why not just learn a way to use them and legally access them? 2) why are they wanting you to enter all your medical, health information and records into THEIR system, can't you just access that through your insurance company, doctor's office and even a private software on your own machine? 3) why are they providing you with infinite space to hold ALL YOUR mail whether you like it or not, when anyone worth their soul can just pop it, and save it locally and privately for as long as they want? 4) why do they offer a service FIRST and then months into people using it in release, STOP because its not something they like? examples you say? I tell you if you don't know then you should find out, but I will give you a small copy of it "we find that our service cannot compete with other products out there and after all the point of a business is to make money and we are going to leave it to those who can do it better or already are", shouldn't have this been discussed BEFORE production and release to the public, or is it that they find that it won't make them any money, they can't save it on their servers to access without your permission as stated in their TOS, we may use your information and usage in aggregate so we can better deliver targeted advertisements to you while enjoying our service. Are you blind or like many just click accept and move on without reading anything? I think JUST these alone, will scare the shit out of you enough to stop arguing with me, if not, good luck being pwnt.

The de­fence is that I see no real evid­ence, just spec­u­la­tions.


Yeah I didn't see yours either, but you are still talking and self righteous as when we started, no? I suggest before you continue making a COMPLETE ass of yourself do some research and I suggest you do it on Google and THEN do it on another search engine who is not biased in filtering it and willing to show it to you if for nothing else than their own gain and let me know what you find. A company that has been submissive to China since it started suddenly NOW that they find out under Chinese law they can't make a dime on advertising, communist nation and all, they pulled it and moved it to Hong Kong because it supports freedom of speech and human right? Really? So up until now, they didn't care about those things?

You were the one first men­tion­ing ‘li­bel’, just say­ing.


Wow, the sheer energy to wade through your crap is amazingly high. Libel and slander are both a form of defamation, which you brought up IIRC, but one is written and the other is spoken, but both published just the same. The only defense being, truth, so if you are just going to parrot me, then you lose credibility and despite how it makes you feel, it IS indeed a waste of time. Mind if I ask how old you are? Because I feel like I am talking to my 14 old nephew, which is insulting to him because at least he's in the top 100 hackers in the world and actually listened and learned, starting to hack because I did it when I was 15 and he wanted to beat uncle Mike. So now he's officially the youngest hacker in our family line, I couldn't be more proud, but when it comes to life, he's just as scattered as you.

I thought I could get through all your crap one more time before I called it quits, but I was wrong, there you heard it again, and I can't waste my life on this, good luck to you and I hope that at least you will do something thinking on this for the future. Just don't forget when you find out to say sorry. I know I will.
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by Tom T. » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:47 am

First, sorry that the Real World has prevented me from devoting time to the Forum. The upside is that my business, which pays the bills, is finally picking up a little, and I might not starve after all. ;)

I tend to agree with some of the positives stated by Alan Baxter and computerfreaker, but Guardian spoke my opinion well, which is what brought me here this time.
GµårÐïåñ wrote:Yeah the last good Fx released was 2.x and since then *imagine the whistling sound of a bomb dropping" and boom. <snip> Tom T. one of our moderators still uses 2.x and has refused to upgrade because that was the last stable good version that he felt comfortable with. Can't say I blame him. <snip>

... And I took quite a bit of flak for it at the time. :mrgreen: Thanks for the support, Guardian. :)

I had made a lengthy post at MZ about what I didn't like about the new 3+ series shortly after it was released, and the reply from a Mod was basically, well, we've made up our minds and that's what we're going to do. Then they ended up having to drop the 3.0 branch and go to 3.5. Nobody likes an I-told-you-so, but...

IMHO, Fx, after years of forcing IE to play copy-cat and catch-up (tabbed browsing, e. g.), is now trying to copy-cat IE with the jazzy, snazzy graphics instead of focusing on function and simplicity. This is the wrong way to go.

Google will *never* produce a safe and private browser or add-on, because of their inherent conflict of interest. As I posted at Hackademix in December of 2009,
Tom T. wrote:There is a universal problem when any person or organization has an inherent conflict of interest: You cannot expect people (or organizations of people) to act against their own best interest.

Google is in the business of selling advertising and ad-related services. NoScript can block these. So there is a conflict of interest in Google enabling the blocking of its revenue base.

Given that the above is Google’s revenue core, what I wonder is why *anyone* would trust a browser made by an advertising company. If DoubleClick introduced a browser, who would use it? How many people know that in 2008, Google bought DoubleClick, formerly the largest Internet ad agency in the world, and the subject of multiple complaints of invasion of privacy? Google owns DoubleClick. I cannot imagine why *anyone* would use a Google browser (or "Desktop", or toolbar, etc.)

The conflicts between Mozilla and Google are already of concern to this writer. Fortunately, NoScript plus browser tweaks (eliminating the search bar, the vetting of URLs by Google, etc.) can overcome them. Giorgio Maone is very kind to donate his time to port NoScript to Google in the interest of providing whatever protection is possible for those who will use Google Chrome browser for whatever reason.

Please note that the above is my own personal opinion, and not that of NoScript, Giorgio Maone, the NoScript Support Forum, nor any other person or entity but myself.

IE will never be remotely secure overall, nor specifically against XSS, as Giorgio has pointed out repeatedly at Hackademix, nor will it ever have the fine-grained control over scripting and other executable content that NS provides.

IE's biggest problem is that it is *not* an application running on top of an operating system, as Fx is, but that it is an integral part of the operating system itself. Proof: I long ago deleted the IE executable, and as many of its support files (dll's, etc.) as possible. Interesting: The "emergency" update (not wait for April Patch Tuesday) on March 30 involved, IIRC, replacing 13 different dll's. I had only four of them on this machine, and the one that was the zero-day exploit (already in the wild and being actively exploited), iepeers.dll, had been long gone from my machine, probably for a year or two.

BUT.... After killing off as much of IE as I could, I started deleting its Registry entries, only the ones having to do with Internet settings. Strange result: I could not open a standard Windows .zip file at all. I didn't connect this to the browser -- why would you need an Internet appliance to open a locally-created and -stored file -- so I went to Device Manager to see if there was a hardware issue. It wouldn't open, with this message:
"You must have Internet Explorer 5.5 or greater installed to open Device Manager".

WTF???? :o

I need a *Web browser* to open a tool that does nothing but give info on locally-installed hardware? What has the one got to do with the other? The Internet is one thing; the local machine is another, and the more separation, the better. (I had to restore the Reg entries to get back my Device Manager and .zip files, and who knows what else -- those were just the first two that caught my attention.)

I can uninstall Fx any time I want, and it won't have such ridiculous effects. This is why IE can never be made safe -- you're taking an integral part of the OS and using it for a Web-facing application.

I too am sorry about the direction that MZ has taken with Fx. I use minimal extensions, and only those for safety and privacy: On 2.0, NoScript, RefControl, SafeCache, SafeHistory, JSView, AdBlock original, and recently started trying Certificate Patrol after the SSL flap -- not sure I like it yet. Plus one for convenience, Copy Plain Text. That's it. When I see people here with, like, 100 extensions, -- "complexity is the enemy of security". And Fx 3+ is more complex, with SQLite databases replacing human-readable files that I could see and vet for myself. With this minimalist approach, Fx 2 is light and fast. I run it inside Sandboxie, as I always have, but even more so now that MZ doesn't support it. Sixteen months of no support, and no one's pwned me. Guess they're all salivating over the new vulns introduced in each new version of F3+.

I do have a portable copy of Fx 3.6+, kept updated, and also with minimal extensions: NS, Request Policy, and computerfreaker's F3-compatible version of AdBlock Original. It took me weeks of tweaking to get rid of as much of the crap as I could (I haven't needed a gold star, on my forehead or my address bar, since I was four years old), but there's still much I don't like about it. Guardian is right: They need to quit playing graphics copy-cat, get back to simplicity, have some sort of peer-review process for extensions before offering them through AMO (obviously, anyone can write and offer an extension on their own site), and focus on being the security leader.

I now agree fully with Giorgio Maone's decision to keep some aspects of NS code not so public. Google, MS, and a thousand wanna-be "developers" would be ripping it off, screwing it up, and ruining its reputation and his. Given that people don't seem to appreciate that which they receive for free (the US bank account, which I set up to make it easier for Americans to donate without using the dubious PayPal, gets very few donations), I think a paid, proprietary model is worth considering. What is Internet safety worth? You'll never get it from the other browsers.

</soapbox> Back to the Real World, and I've missed you all.

Edit: @ Giorgio: Pleeeeze keep NS F2-friendly for as long as possible. There are other die-hards who feel as I do. Grazie, grazie. 8-)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20

User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:56 am

Tom T. wrote:... And I took quite a bit of flak for it at the time. :mrgreen: Thanks for the support, Guardian. :)


Well ignorant people have a way of giving people crap for not sharing their views or having the courage to stand up for their views against even the largest of public opposition. Its those who stay true to themselves who are vindicated in the long run and even if not, at least they valued themselves to stay true to themselves. You don't have to thank me my friend, its just the right thing to do and give credit and acknowledgment where its due.

I would have been there with you if I could or knew what I know now (hindsight right), but I had to use the new ones not by choice but by necessity, although initially I did go to the 3.x because I thought it could live up to the promise, I was wrong and you my friend stayed your ground. I know we had our discussion on whether new was really better or not and so on, but I always respected your steadfastness and you returned the favor. We disagreed then and still do on things, but still best of friends because of the mutual respect.

Guardian is right: They need to quit playing graphics copy-cat, get back to simplicity, have some sort of peer-review process for extensions before offering them through AMO (obviously, anyone can write and offer an extension on their own site), and focus on being the security leader.


Amen.

... and I've missed you all.


And we have missed you too. I have been gone a while myself too, the real world had me ;) ...and it still does... :lol:
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

Davezilla
Junior Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by Davezilla » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:45 pm

GµårÐïåñ wrote: I can't say I know first hand, but I know Orbit themes have been around since Netscape 6.x (gecko one) that was release and pretty much sealed Netscape's faith while battling M$, so I am familiar with the look and yes they are very nicely done. I love the LCARS interface, but you are right, the color scheme is generally too much for daily and constant use. I go very minimalistic because I go for function over look, that's the curse of being a programmer. Although when comes to designing the GUI we try to go all out and do what we know people like, even if we don't use it ourselves ;)


I think that SM really works the best with Early Blue & particularly with the menu bar hidden. It has some similarity to the LCARS but is very easy on the eye & has a Zen-like simplicity (the blue colour is very tranquil as well). The small font size is a problem for some but I have pretty good reading glasses LOL! I think KaiRo dropped onto something here, it may supposed to be a bit retro, but it looks surprisingly modern to me. A variation on this theme would make a great default scheme if they ever decide to alter it. Somehow I don't think that the SM die-hards would like that too much though. Many already don't like its increasing homogeneity with Firefox. It doesn't really bother me though & I don't see what's wrong with taking the best things from Fx & adding them to SM. Auto manufacturers have been doing something similar for decades, Austin/Morris, Vauxhall/Opel & Chevrolet/Pontiac etc. As long as they don't bloat the monkey like the fatty-fox I'll be happy! :lol:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SeaMonkey/2.0.4

User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3339
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by GµårÐïåñ » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:57 pm

Davezilla wrote:I think that SM really works the best with Early Blue & particularly with the menu bar hidden. It has some similarity to the LCARS but is very easy on the eye & has a Zen-like simplicity (the blue colour is very tranquil as well). The small font size is a problem for some but I have pretty good reading glasses LOL! I think KaiRo dropped onto something here, it may supposed to be a bit retro, but it looks surprisingly modern to me. A variation on this theme would make a great default scheme if they ever decide to alter it. Somehow I don't think that the SM die-hards would like that too much though. Many already don't like its increasing homogeneity with Firefox. It doesn't really bother me though & I don't see what's wrong with taking the best things from Fx & adding them to SM. Auto manufacturers have been doing something similar for decades, Austin/Morris, Vauxhall/Opel & Chevrolet/Pontiac etc. As long as they don't bloat the monkey like the fatty-fox I'll be happy! :lol:


Yes, I am sure it does as I have the word of you and many other trusted friends (mods on this site) that it performs exceptionally for the most part and if it wasn't for all the added bells and whistles that I don't use, I would have seriously considered using it and I did consider it very much but never actually pulled the trigger for reasons stated. I am certainly keeping it in mind if I ever decide to go that way and I am glad to have first hand user feedback on it to make a better decision, thank you. Personally, I run my interfaces at VERY high resolution which many claim is too small for them if they ever have a chance to use my machine, but god blessed me with perfect eyesight and I am milking it until I have to wear glasses :lol: so I am with you there all the way, I like small and efficient, because it gives you more usable realestate when it comes to screen space, that's why I do it at least, but also the higher resolution tends to provide crisper colors and readability, at least in my humble opinion.

There are so many good themes out there and I wish I had the time and the ability to use them all, even thought about making an extension that would cycle through all installed ones so you get a random one each time, but never had the time to see that through, so if I ever do that finally, I will certainly be installing a bunch of them. :) In the mean time, have you considered the NASA Night Launch which is an INCREDIBLY smooth and well done dark theme that goes beyond the minimums of expectation. I use that all the time, but for some the dark theme is hard to handle, but for me, it provides a relief on the eye since there is less brightness and it also gives me a very intense quality contrast. You should try it, its awesome like you wouldn't believe, unless you don't like dark themes. Even then, I think if you tried it, you would really like it, I know many who don't like dark themes but find this one so classy and nice, that they fall in love with it. It also has the ability to load sub-themes and although not through a GUI, it can be done easily to give you more options.

I'm with you on that, for me its function that matters, the look is secondary. However, I guess some people don't want it to seem like a copycat and that's why they might be resistant to incorporating something from Fx that might make it feel like they are losing their own identity. I think regardless, they are their own software and have their own fan base and it should not matter. I mean after all, a good interface, no matter who came up with it, helps the users and that's always a good thing. On the other hand, they figure probably, why mess with a good thing and why try to "fix" something that isn't broke, so I can respect that position too. Now they might also feel that since the look can be modified using extensions, themes and personal tweaking, they don't need to change the interface and can leave it to the users to modify as needed or inspired. So there are many perspectives on it and I think each has its merit. So as long as YOU are happy with it and can live with it, in the end that's all that matters - the end user experience, right? And you made a good point that at some point adding more and more will just bloat it, slow it down, make it inefficient or even introduce problems that were not there before, but you are also right that simply changing something doesn't necessarily make it bad because it looks like something else, as long it works properly and no functionality is lost during the attempt to make similar, copycat, or borrow the idea, or whatever else. There is a delicate balance to maintain and sometimes if taken too far, it could end up disappointing everyone.
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3

dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: The firefox browser doomed?

Post by dhouwn » Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:40 am

GµårÐïåñ wrote:What do you suggest is their reason for being reluctant to provide a security infrastructure when the WHOLE FREAKING world is centered around security?
As much as I value NoScript I don’t think it’s something av­er­age people would ac­cept, and even a black­list­ing solu­tion would be prob­ably used only by a small per­cent­age of the users.
I per­son­ally would think twice be­fore im­ple­ment­ing a fea­ture that needs a lot of ef­fort but hardly any users will use (I am not talk­ing about com­mis­sion work).
Also, maybe your ‘WHOLE FREAK­ING world is centred around se­cur­ity’, the one of John Doe simply isn’t. He doesn’t think much about se­cur­ity but nev­er­the­less be­lieves it that se­cur­ity is im­port­ant buuuut only as long as it’s not in his way, he only ac­cepts se­cur­ity meas­ures if they are un­ob­trus­ive and not too much of a hassle. That’s why he al­ways uses the same pass­word (the name of his dog, Buddy) and has UAC, the Security Center and Windows Update de­ac­tiv­ated.

They ARE a monolithic giant
I meant mono­lith­ic in the sense that all the em­ploy­ees are like in a block party, be­ing forced to face one dir­ec­tion. Sub­or­din­ates, not mak­ing de­cisions without ap­prov­al.

why are they trying to have every book on the planet scanned into THEIR databases, when they exist on several already, why not just learn a way to use them and legally access them?
There were large, search­able DBs of scanned books when star­ted they star­ted work­ing on the Google Books project in 2004? Also, they have the stor­age space, they want to own the scans (no, not in the copy­right sense, I know this is a com­plic­ated area) build­ing in­ter­faces to oth­er ser­vices liekely wasn’t worth the hassle.

why are they wanting you to enter all your medical, health information and records into THEIR system, can't you just access that through your insurance company, doctor's office and even a private software on your own machine?
They want you to use their ser­vices so they can make money through ad­vert­ise­ments, selling stat­ist­ics and oth­er leg­al ways, are you sug­gest­ing they might be do­ing il­leg­al stuff like selling your med­ic­al data to private in­sur­ance com­pan­ies or your em­ploy­er?

why are they providing you with infinite space to hold ALL YOUR mail whether you like it or not, when anyone worth their soul can just pop it, and save it locally and privately for as long as they want
I prefer IMAP. ;) I ac­cess my emails from dif­fer­ent loc­a­tions and I am not alone. You could rather ask why they al­low POP3/IMAP/SMTP al­though the people won't see the ads (which match the email texts) this way.

why do they offer a service FIRST and then months into people using it in release, STOP because its not something they like
Uh, there’s a load of pos­sible reas­ons. Ser­vices open and sud­denly close, it hap­pens all the time, also with ser­vices from their com­pet­it­ors.

shouldn't have this been discussed BEFORE production and release to the public
You mean they should have dis­cussed it with the crys­tal ball? Oh boy, I could use one of those for time and cost es­tim­a­tion.
They openened a ser­vice, it was not very suc­cess­ful, they closed it. Ser­i­ously, what’s pos­sibly wrong about this?

they can't save it on their servers to access without your permission as stated in their TOS
You mean like with Google Wave for which they plan to re­lease the source code, so that oth­er ser­vice pro­vider will of­fer this ser­vice?

Yeah I didn't see yours either
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

do it on another search engine who is not biased in filtering it and willing to show it to you
Google is fil­ter­ing res­ults ac­cord­ing to loc­al laws and agree­ments. It seems they are do­ing it quite trans­par­ently, dis­play­ing a no­tice when a site is blocked. I be­lieve they did this even on their main­land China site.
Also, are you sug­gest­ing Google is fil­ter­ing search res­ults that may point to its evil­ness? Oh, how de­vi­ous of Google…

So up until now, they didn't care about those things?
Sergey Brin cited a num­ber of reas­ons in an in­ter­view, like in­creas­ingly ‘strange’ laws (IIRC, can’t re­mem­ber the ex­act word­ing).

Wow, the sheer energy to wade through your crap is amazingly high.
Thank you.

Libel and slander are both a form of defamation, which you brought up IIRC
Nope.

so if you are just going to parrot me, then you lose credibility
Is this some sort of self-critis­ism?

Mind if I ask how old you are?
No, not at all. Still, I prob­ably would be re­luct­ant in giv­ing you an an­swer to that ques­tion.

because at least he's in the top 100 hackers
Wow, there is a rat­ing sys­tem for this? I hope he is a good cit­izen and a white hat just like uncle Mike and not do­ing any bad stuff like selling DNS re­cords to the So­vi­ets (OT: ever heard of the story? An in­ter­est­ing read, there are quite some books this). Oh, and hope­fully he is fiercely bat­tling the evils of Google.

I know I will.
When would that be?
Once Google ceases to ex­ist?
When once-for-all the ul­ti­mat­ive proof for Google’s non-evil­ness is found? (I daresay it’s im­possible)


Tom T. wrote:Google will *never* produce a safe and private browser or add-on, because of their inherent conflict of interest.
There's no con­flict of in­terest for their de­velopers (at least not dir­ectly), I be­lieve the have some de­gree of free­dom in what to im­ple­ment.

BTW: To what ex­tend does Mozilla care about Google be­ing its main source of in­come?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100428 Firefox/3.7

Post Reply