Safari for Windows!

[Trond]

In Linux, it draws "native" menus, but lacks 1 pixel at the bottom so it looks totally crazy with some themes.

No.

Yes.

Context menus are sometimes resized after they are created.

No.

Still in Windows, which you said above you haven't tested, so don't say no so surely.

Middle click on a page displays the "no image" icon before the actual scroll icon appears.

No.

Yes.

Clicking in the address bar for Windows didn't select the text in Firefox 1.x. In 2.x they "solved" it, but the text is selected on mouse release instead of mouse down.

Clicking in the address bar shows a cursor in it here. A double click works fine to select the address.

But that is simply wrong on Windows.

In Firefox 1.x they couldn't even position the file dropdown menu correctly, it was about 5 pixels to right. This went through several releases.

But it's solved now.

In early Firefox 1.x versions for Linux, Firefox segfaulted if you right-clicked in the downloads window.

But it's solved now.

Of course, but the "if you want it to work you need to upgrade" mentality of open source is just stupid. Those versions were upgraded to the latest version.

Group boxes (Frame-3d-like) are used incorrectly and inconsistently in the preferences (they are called group boxes because they should group items, Firefox "groups" one item all the time). And they couldn't even make smooth rounded corners.

The round-corner-issue is a problem of the toolkit - and actually not a serious one.

Exactly - so they should fix the toolkit or use a different one. But the main problem is that they are used where they shouldn't be used at all.

All checkboxes: they weren't even able to draw dotted selections lines correctly. In the corners there are sometimes double dots. And the dotted selection line is drawn clashed into the bottom of the letters j and g while there is plenty of space at the top.

No.

Yes.

Click and hold on a deactivated menu item. Now you can't move to other menus without releasing the mouse button. This is a bug.

No. it works all fine here.

It doesn't here. I could give a video but it wouldn't show that I was still holding the mouse button down.

The context menu isn't always displayed at the point of click. In fact it's NEVER displayed where you right click. Wow, impressive.

In fact, it's always displayed where I right click.

Nice, but I don't want mine to popup where you rightclick. It want it to show where I right-click, and it doesn't:

Move your cursor quickly from the page and to the title bar over the menu. The menu title remains highlighted.

No.

YES. Do you want a video?

Dialog default buttons are drawn as not default if another button is depressed. Any depressed button is drawn as the dialog default. Simply wrong.

Errr...what?

Yes.

[Brice Manuel]

Firefox is a „known trojan“?

When a sentence is followed by a sentence that begins with "Seriously, " It indicates the preceeding sentence was a joke.

However, you have still not answered how having a browser be open source makes it more secure than any other browser, especially when anybody who wants to compromise that browser has all the source code necessary to do so. Please explain how the "bad guys" having the source for the browser you use helps security?

You just need to take a look at the appropriate statistics provided by security companys.

I am not aware of AOL ever being a company recognized for its achievements in the field by any security company.

If anything, AOL is know for its problems whether it be bloat, bugs, incompatibilities, ad-ware, spy-ware, etc. FireFox, Netscape, ICQ, WinAmp are just a few of the programs AOL has utterly destroyed once they became involved. As I said before, I am biased. I have hated AOL ever since it went from being a BBS to being an ISP. I have enjoyed watching it fail miserably and dissolve into nothing more than a content provider.

I am increasingly anti-Windows and anti-MS. I love Linux and Open-Source. But people need to recognize the whole open source movement for the sham that it has become and people outside of the USA need to recognize non-profit organizations for the sham that they are.

The original intentions behind the open source movement was great, but now it has become just as filled with corporate greed as regular software. Instead of making the money on the front-end by selling software, they make the money on the back-end by selling tech support. Part of the increasing the revenue from tech-support has led to multiple flavors of Linux that are starting to get incompatible with each other. The good-side of this has been the drive for more "user friendly" versions of Linux in an effort to bring it to the average home computer user.

Here in the USA, a non-profit organization is nothing more than a tax shelter used by businesses, religious and social organizations and medical institutions. The board and all employees make decent and competitive salaries. Simplified, the "trick" is to keep the operating expenses inflated to the point where you are not making a profit and therefore maintaining your "non-profit" status so your organization doesn't have to pay taxes.

Just because a product is open source and produced by a non-profit organization, doesn't make it magical or inherently better than normal commercial software that doesn't feel the need to disguise their greedy desires.

[WishMaster]

Could you please explain us the connection between AOL and Mozilla Firefox?

[Brice Manuel]

Could you please explain us the connection between AOL and Mozilla Firefox?

Please tell me you are not serious?

Don't you know who is behind the product you are praising and so passionate about? Don't you know that Mozilla was originally intended to be the new rendering engine for the struggling Netscape who could no longer compete with IE and that AOL bought Netscape so they could integrate Mozilla into their browser instead of their then IE based browser?

Been around 10 years, so my memory is shady on all the specifics, so I am quoting directly from Mozilla's site, and other sources so it is 100% factual and not my interpretation:

mozilla.org is a strange thing. Mozilla is an open source project that sprung fully formed from the belly of the beast. Today, we're hearing the grunting and shuffling of the mating dance, as that lumbering beast joins with another. And many people are worried whether our little lizard is going to get trampled underneath.

mozilla.org is actually a very small number of people. We are three full time staff, and a handful of volunteers. And we mostly do not code. There are hundreds of people doing coding work on Mozilla: but those people do not work for mozilla.org. Most of those people work for Netscape,

Netscape is paying more than a hundred people full-time salaries to work on the Mozilla code base

In addition, Netscape is funding mozilla.org, those of us providing management and infrastructure and tools to this large, distributed software project.

So, with Netscape being acquired, what does that mean to mozilla.org? Hopefully, it will mean nothing: hopefully, AOL didn't buy Netscape with the intention of turning Netscape into something that it is not; it's hard to imagine that they would spend $4 billion dollars on Netscape just to throw away the client.

If AOL hated open source, or didn't want to build their own browser, what they could do is fail to contribute to Mozilla in the future. They could stop paying those hundred-plus full-time salaries, and they could stop funding those of us who are mozilla.org's full-time employees.

One month after AOL bought Netscape/Mozilla...

AOL, Mozilla lose key evangelist -- As Mozilla.org celebrates its first anniversary at an elaborate celebration tonight, it will do so under the pall of losing one of its most influential founding members.

Longtime Netscape client engineer and Mozilla.org pioneer and evangelist Jamie Zawinski handed in his resignation today, CNET News.com has learned. The surprise move comes as a blow to Netscape's new owner, America Online, which has so far warded off any high-profile defections from the vital engineering and development divisions of Netscape, which AOL acquired last month.

And the site:

my employer can blow me.

With such quotes as:

Meanwhile, the bloatware at Netscape keeps ballooning.

What is most amazing about this is not the event itself, but rather, what it indicates: Netscape has gone from ``hot young world-changing startup'' to Apple levels of unadulterated uselessness in fewer than four years, and with fewer than 3,000 employees.

But I guess Netscape has always done everything faster and bigger. Including burning out.

Fast forward a few years... And our now our confirmation of the original reason for purchasing Netscape/Mozilla years ago:

AOL embraces Linux and Mozilla, plans to drop MS Explorer. Good-bye Explorer, hello Mozilla... The Gecko rendering engine at the heart of the Mozilla Web browser is scheduled to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer as AOL's default browser

Quoted from pages:
http://www.mozilla.org/fear.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-223837.html
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/blowme.html
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid ... ode=thread


People only focus on Microsoft as the "evil" monopoly, even though AOL has continued to grow over the years into all venues of the industry. IMHO, AOL has always been worse than MS. AOL owned off the top of my head: Time Inc., AOL, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Time Warner Cable, CNN, HBO, TBS, Turner Broadcasting System and The CW Television Network, ICQ, WinAmp, Netscape (including Mozilla), and last month bought Adtech. (I know I am leaving out dozens of other major properties.)

Actually this was a nice trip down memory lane, and a reminder of how AOL has managed to destroy every thing they touch, own or acquire.

What is ironic, is even though I am anti-AOL and increasingly anti-MS, I really like Bill Gates and Steve Case.

WishMaster: you have still not answered how having a browser be open source makes it more secure than any other browser? Please explain how the "bad guys" having the source for the browser you use helps security?

I would really like to know. So many people rave about it, but nobody can ever explain it?

[thefool]

you have still not answered how having a browser be open source makes it more secure than any other browser? ?

The basic explanation is that more people work on it. There are more eyes to spot the bugs. The security trouble is usually not spotted in the source code but rather on occations and people directly trying to exploit the compiled versions.

Also there is a tendency of less "security aware" people using I.E which might make it easier to snuggle in because they say yes to the wrong things sometimes.

And well, even though AOL has so much into it i guess they would have problems injecting what they want.


As you can see i don't have much ideas about what AOL does, nor am i an open source enthusiast, i just enjoy using nice products as OpenOffice and firefox

I do enjoy security exploits though

[WishMaster]

WishMaster: you have still not answered how having a browser be open source makes it more secure than any other browser? Please explain how the "bad guys" having the source for the browser you use helps security?

I already gave the answer here ( http://purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.p ... 729#199729 ) but I can quote myself:

Being „open source“ doesn't automatically mean being secure. But especially in a project like Firefox there are very many coders which kind of proofread its code.

And by the way: There is no more connection between AOL and Mozilla anymore.

[ts-soft]

security is a dream.

the "bad boys" a more interesting to broke the security on the most used
OS or Software.

Other OS than Windows is more secure.
Other Browser than IE is more secure

without better code

[Brice Manuel]

Being „open source“ doesn't automatically mean being secure. But especially in a project like Firefox there are very many coders which kind of proofread its code.

Huh? Many coders work on all browsers. FireFox being open source doesn't change that.

Sure the community of users have access to the source, but official releases and updates are only released by FireFox not individual users.

And by the way: There is no more connection between AOL and Mozilla anymore.

A quick look at their site shows that thanks to their involvement with Mozilla, their current v. 9 browser now runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux and can run any FireFox 2 extension.

The AOL & Mozilla situation isn't unique though. Everybody owns a piece of everybody these days and everything evolved out of something else. AOL itself goes back to AppleLink and Quantum Link in the 80s

Heck, Mac lovers still blast Microsoft even though Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple and Apple adopted PC hardware.

With as much as AOL has slaughtered over the years, I still think the worst victim was CompuServe. In its day, CServe was always a better product that AOL.

[Nik]

If Apple wasn't in the PC buisness, Microsoft would have a huge problem telling EU committees why exactly there market positioned can't be called an absolute monopoly therefor they simply have to make sure Apple stays alive.

[Trond]

Why does it display arrows on the context menu when all items fits? And why is the lower one enabled while the top one is grey while both does nothing? Because Firefox sucks.

[Joakim Christiansen]

lol, seriously... don't talk about religion or web browsers in here

[Trond]

Oups, the world's best browser can't even draw it's own main menu properly?
Gimp left and right, Firefox right and wrong.

[GeoTrail]

What do you mean Trond?

[Flype]

he means (i think) that the firefox shortcut labels like 'Ctrl+Shift+Del' are left-aligned and it should be right-aligned. but it's just details.
PB IDE use right-align menu-shortcuts and jaPBe use left-aligned ones but should we give up the one for the other just because of such cosmetics ?

ie7 is good, firefox is good, opera is good, safari will be... just a good competition.

[Trond]

What do you mean Trond?

What I said before:

In Linux, it draws "native" menus, but lacks 1 pixel at the bottom so it looks totally crazy with some themes.

No

Yes

-------

Context menus are sometimes resized after they are created.

No.

Still in Windows, which you said above you haven't tested, so don't say no so surely.

In Linux this even applies to the MAIN MENU. (It happens the first time a menu is opened after Firefox is started.)