For Fx downloads I recommend getting the "Download statusbar" - it gives an extra statusbar with a progress meter per file, which you can right-click on the files to select "open containing folder" (among other things).
Printable View
For Fx downloads I recommend getting the "Download statusbar" - it gives an extra statusbar with a progress meter per file, which you can right-click on the files to select "open containing folder" (among other things).
Here are the extensions that were introduced in the biggest Finnish computer magazine:
- PDF Download: allows to choose what you want to do when you click a PDF link: open in new window, open in a tab, download, open as HTML or forget. You also get to know the size of the document.
- NoScript: you can choose which sites can use JavaScript, thus increasing security a great deal (and this might also disable ads!)
- Adblock Filterset: filter updater for Adblock
- IE Tab and IE View: Tab opens a new tab, View opens IE browser
- User Agent Switcher: allows you to change the user agen to spoof the sites that have unnecessary browser detection
- Tabbrowser Preferences and Tab Mix Plus: both greatly increase the power of tabbed browsing (can be incompatible with other extensions, can't install both)
- Mouse Gestures
- StumbleUpon: addictive "suggested links" collection, you can also rank sites, see how you friends have ranked sites and so on. Just click Stumble! and you find a new interesting site
- Forecastfox: Weather
- SessionSaver: remembers your tabs
- FoxyTunes: allows you to control your music player via a small but handy controls in the bottom of the browser
- Answers: find the terms and their meaning, select a word or sentence and then you can look for what it means
- FireFTP: good FTP features for Firefox
- FlashGot!: works together with download accelerators, allows easily to download a full directory of files in one go for example
Hope some of these are worthwhile!
sevenhalo: you can't get these extensions to IE :)
Oh, and I like this style of a thread more than the war threads there are... I always prefer reasoned opinions :)
I saw mentioned earlier that FF had more frequent updates...
I appreciate the speed that MS uses to supply updates. Bug fixes/security holes are usually hot-fixed quickly...
New versions - IE7 for instance - wait until they have been beta'd and will have a much bigger "effective" amount of changes then the frequent changes you get with FF...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/default.mspx
That's just the way a large corporation like MS has to work.
Actually IE's updates are still slower in general if compared to Firefox, and Mozilla has timed updates these days as well (once a month, can't really remember the interval). But if something serious comes up, it is fixed quicker than Microsoft does. I remember the last time there was a serious issue with IE, which actually was so bad they needed to make a wholly new category due to its seriousness, it took about two weeks to get it fixed after finding out the real seriousness of it (if I remember right). Also note this issue was a lot more serious than any of Firefox's security issues this far, as it was the worst ranked security issue ever recorded: Secunia.
Hmm, seems they reported just today some Firefox security issues, although these were fixed with the update I got (automatically). There are more security issues reported in Firefox, but a lot of this is thanks to huge interest into finding out these issues. Mozilla pays to anyone who can find a big security issue and reports it to Mozilla instead of spreading the information.
Firefox 3 will have bigger changes; they have some plans for it. Next coming up is Firefox 2, it'll use the same Gecko as is currently in use, probably with some bugfixes. I haven't taken a peek into what actual changes there will be. A wholly revamped Gecko will be in Firefox 3. It'll be interesting to see where it goes. Thus big changes aren't Microsoft proprietary :)
Merri, :eek:
How about FireFox.merri.net. i mean you know more than the FF developers.
Anyone tried the Acid2 Test?
View this page in Firefox and IE... see the difference... you can see that the FireFox image, although not being perfect, is much closer than what IE displays it as...
The Acid2 Test
http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html
The Explanation of the Test
http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/guide.html
Excerpt from explanation:
"Acid2 is a test page for web browsers published by The Web Standards Project (WaSP). It has been written to help browser vendors make sure their products correctly support features that web designers would like to use. These features are part of existing standards but haven't been interoperably supported by major browsers. Acid2 tries to change this by challenging browsers to render Acid2 correctly before shipping."
Nive link Gig. Too bad IE didnt display the smilie correctly but it says that it test features that developers would "like" to have but that doesnt mean its a standard.
Read it again "These features are part of existing standards". They would like to have them implemented because they are exisiting standards...
Sorry. Couldn't resist. You forgot to use Spellchecker™. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
It didn't display correctly in FX. The eyes ended up all the way to the right, and the mouth was a notch to the right of the face.
Yup, forgot as I am multi-tasking again. :)
I got a red screen and smilie all screwed up.
I dont think anyones browser wil display it correctly as its more of a wish list of compatibility. :)
Thats why I said "although not being perfect" :) .... Just look at what it looks like in IE, and you will be apalled... it is horrendousQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Mac OS X Safari and Linux Konqueror gets it right. Gecko will get it right likely by Firefox 3, they don't have Acid 2 as their main goal as they need to fix a lot of general internal behavior of Gecko to make it work better.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I already work with mozilla.fi :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Harsh Gupta
The reason why it looks funny is this...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%3Fp%3D2339653
look, VBForums.com is hacked to pieces so IE users can use it...it contains nearly 300 errors just for this page, so you can look at it...IE is holding back the web...;)
Øyvind @ CERN - where the web was born...;)
if I remember correctly Acid2 is set as blocking mozilla 1.9 so Firefox should pass it in 2.0.
To me it looks like Fx 1.0.7 already passed it on Linux..::D:D:D:D:D:D::D
http://www.noteme.com/images/ss/webstandard.gif
- ØØ -
This a little over month old article questions this: http://www.squarefree.com/2005/12/24/acid2-in-gecko/Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
And as far as I can remember, Firefox 2 will use Gecko 1.8 branch which Firefox 1.5 is using. After making a search, this is also true in the branch plans: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Global:1.9_T....8_Branch_Plan
Firefox 2 will not pass Acid 2.
When I clicked on your link (using IE), I only got 311 errors. Thats not so bad. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by NoteMe
Not at all..:) But the thing is that this is errors according to the standard. But IE loves it..:) Thats why it is so frustrating to make web pages these days, and why there is so many threads about it, since IE is holding back the web because so many is using it. So when you make a web page you have to hack it a bit to get it to work in all browsers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
- ØØ -
Ohhh, and that was just the HTML, then you can try to check the CSS and JS too..:)
- ØØ -
Well, you folks are making a believer out of me.
Oddly enough, in many of the places that I've worked, the company restricted what was permissible to use for a browser. Both the company I work for and the company at which I'm doing onsite work restrict browser use to IE. You aren't even permitted to use NetScape, much less something like FireFox.
I curious as to what you think makes large corporations impose such restrictions. Is it just that they are eating a lot of Microsoft cornbread?
It is a usual company issue. They have to be on top of every app used at the company, if not they will get big problems if something should happen with one of the apps they are recomending. It shows in the latest xitimonitor statestics (that i blogged about) that companies are much slower to make the switch to new browsers like Fx or Opera. But they are comming. NASA and other big companies have announced lately that they are making the switch, and when they say they will switch, it means that only Fx is allowed and not IE. Thats company rules. They want to stay on top of what happens, and take as few risks as possible. Exactly why companies are more affraid of moving away from IE to for example Fx might be because Open Software Solutions is not that trusted upon as it probaly should be. There is two ways of hiding bugs in the world. The open software method, where bugs are found, and corrected fast, and the other one is to hide the code, so the bugs won't be found, but when they are, they are making the market very vulnerable for it. I guess most administrators these days believe in the hide the error approach.
- ØØ -
I would guess half stubornness and half cost to change (intranet re-evaluations, staff to do the install, making sure everyone is trained and upgrades at the same time). I don't have anything against FireFox, it's a good browser (I did some more reading and learned alot here as well). I just don't think that management would see it as something they absolutely want to change in their company.
Our intranet is built based on IE's specs. No idea how it would look on FF because it doesn't matter. 50% (logical guess) of ALL browser use is occupational. Upgrading to a browser where people can surf the web at work more comfortably isn't something we want to spend our budget on. :)
Because of that, since IE is preinstalled on our OS and takes no extra configuration cost/time; we just use what we get.
My 0.02
Very good points sevenhalo. If you are working in a company that doesn't allow you to surf on the internet anyway, just on the intranet, then I can't see any benefits of it. And many things on the intranet might have been made so it works only with IE. ActiveX stuff and vbScript all over the place. Wouldn't work well in other browsers.
- ØØ -
by the way ...
Has any body tried to click on a link that makes a popup window many times ?
Try it ...
after you click it 3 times it WILL popup ..
Preferences->Downloads->Download Folder->"Ask me where to save every file"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Was always there - the only thing that changed was the default.
Another trouble with the Fox in companies is that large companies like to have the exact same hardware and software setup on all their machines. It makes reinstallations and problem hunting a lot easier. This means that changing any piece of software means changing it everywhere - and that can mean a lot of trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CornedBee
Or simply right click the link, and chose save link as....
- ØØ -
Although there are Firefox installation packages out there that are in the MSI format, which allows easy remote installation to multiple computers. Unofficial though, so no support from Mozilla on that part. Yet this leads to this fact: Mozilla provides paid support for their software which is an important thing for companies.
Didn't IBM switch to Firefox?
Yes they did
Well that is interesting about IBM. I didn't know that. I think I will show this link to my boss! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Merri
Just to say that maybe the main reason of the amount of updates for FF is that it's becoming so popular lately that many vulnerabilities had been discovered, nothing new, it's normal when a browser becomes so popular, more people uses it, more hackers will be searching for vulnerabilities, and they keep appearing.
Some links to recent vulnerabilities already patched in FF:
http://www.threatfocus.com/vuln_deta...cript_id=20427
http://www.threatfocus.com/vuln_deta...cript_id=20425
http://www.threatfocus.com/vuln_deta...cript_id=20420
http://cybercoyote.org/security/vul-firefox.shtml
In the past year, Firefox has had eight security updates: 1.0.1 to 1.0.7 and 1.5.0.1. I don't think that is all that much, although some of the updates came out in a row; once thanks to a wiseguy who thought Mozilla wasn't fixing a security issue he had reported and he told about this in public... thus forcing an unnecessarily quick update. Before 1.5 updating was a bit bothersome as there was no automatic update feature, only way to update was to download the whole package and reinstall.
To be very very specific, it's because of support. Now, while FF may be a wonderful browser and makes you feel good about yourself, it's still got an open-source background, and what many companies do is play safe... which is what Microsoft exists for. Microsoft provides support for its products, paid support, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack
The bandwagon thinking is that if it's an application from Microsoft, it'll work best with Windows. If it doesn't work, we can call them, and they will take responsibility and fix it for us. This is a good return on investment. (Note: I am still in favor of FF)
The fact that your company restricts it also makes me wonder how you develop, whether you have admin rights locally on your machine, and whether they're out of their frakking (battlestar galactica anyone? ;)) minds. :afrog:
It's almost a standard for developers everywhere now... I introduced Firefox to my previous company, and soon it became the standard and we were all asked to switch to Firefox. But we continued to develop for IE. :lol:
I actually think Mozilla provides better support than Microsoft, or the least it is much easier to access. If you take a look at it, Mozilla provides community support via support forums, third-party paid support (but paid support nonetheless), plus newsgroups and IRC. Some localization groups also provide their own support sites. Not to forget the FAQs etc. - all easier to find than IE's support pages. You're welcome to compare the two:
To tell the truth, I have hard time understanding Microsoft's support pages. Anyways, where Mozilla lacks behind is the international support. For example, Microsoft has a support phone located in Finland, Mozilla doesn't; our support and actually everything is fully based on community... although I admit I've got a few phone calls and my e-mail tends to have atleast one question each week (I have neither visible); maybe I should get another phone and start a business :D
Is there some level of support which I'm missing here that Microsoft provides for IE?
Of course it's better. But that's not the point. There is a factor of ownership and responsibility as well.
It's like saying that VB.NET is a great language because www.vbforums.com has some oddball memebers who support it in their free time. In real life, there may be hundreds of man hours being dedicated to this and it may be great at answering questions and resolving problems, but the current, generalized corporate 'view' of an open source product would be something similar to that.
Back to a reality moment from my customers...
It's a "single silo" mentality - a single source - that's what the "budget" constraints of a large IT operation require.
My bigger customers buy all one type of hardware - one does only HP - they have an HP rep that caters to them - over 1000 PC's - that's smart of them.
Software? We have regular meetings to decide what the "group" will move forward with. Do we allow the 1000 teachers to each use a different gradebook product? No - we dictate a single source.
Support from a forum? Never in a million years would a customer do that - we all do - that's how we build our expertise - by sharing. Customers are actually scared of that - they want large-scale corporate built help desks - even if they never, ever use it.
btw - I find MSDN and the KB's spectacular. They have bailed me out of dozens of strange experiences that I have had... I google for a problem - the MSDN links are safe - experts-exchange wants to charge me $$'s to see the resolution :D
[edit] - thanks NoteMe for pointing out my error ;)
They put the button before the answers. Just scroll down near the bottom of the page to see the answers.Quote:
expertsexchange wants to charge me $$'s to see the resolution
Then that is even worse - scams are no way to build customer relations...Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
Sometimes there is no answer at all. Just the question, the button and the HUGE ad table !@#Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
In that case, to see the answer use Google cache. ;)
And for that, get the gcache Firefox extension, which offers an easy way to access the Google cache for a page from the context menu ;)
though this is drifting OT - Thre is occasionally some good stuff on EE.. if you scroll all the way down on the right, there is a 'sign up as expert' thing that can make an account with, and view everything.. I think you have to succesfully answer posts before you can post for free though..
Bill
I am a member there - you trade points to get points to answer questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by conipto
I rather be here ;)
Even though I am a member - when I google a question and click a link at EE it doesn't log me in and give me the answer - and I don't care to figure out why...