Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Firefox 1.5 RC1 Released

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Nov 02, 2005 08:12 AM
from the get-your-download-on dept.
jgaynor writes "The Firefox team took another step towards version 1.5 this morning as it made public release candidate 1 of it's popular browser. Users running 1.5 beta should have already received notice via an automated update dialogue box. New features include improved Pop-up blocking, enhanced automated update, better OS X support and faster back and forward page navigation buttons. A full list of features can be found in the release notes as well as the downloaded page." My copy is 24 seconds away from downloaded ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • 1.5 Beta 2? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aussie_a (778472) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:14AM (#13931256)
    (Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
    I got the Beta 2. Can I upgrade via it's upgrade function? If so, how? I see a button for "Upgrade History" but none for "Check Now".
  • If you're gonna download it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stevyn (691306) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:15AM (#13931258)
    Help them out and file bug reports since it's a release candidate. If everyone just downloaded and said nothing bad about it since it's firefox, the final version may still have some nasty bugs in it.
    • Changelog (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zouden (232738) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:38AM (#13931403)
      If anyone's curious, here's the changelog [squarefree.com] from 1.5 Beta 2:

      New browser features
      * 313529 - Support importing home pages from (some) other browsers and multiple versions of Firefox Start.
      * 220590 - [Mac] Delete (backspace) key should go back on Mac, too.

      New web developer features
      * 302188 - Support :-moz-read-only and :-moz-read-write pseudoclasses.
      * 230909 - Make the dom.max_script_run_time pref work. (This pref controls the "this script is running slowly" dialog.)

      New extension developer features
      Nothing new since Firefox 1.5 Beta 2.

      Notable bug fixes
      * 313300 - Change default for browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction from 0 to 2. (Make "Force links that open new windows to open in... new tabs" not apply to window.open with specified width, height, or other features.)
      * 312527 - Need to reduce padding for bookmark menu items.
      * 245418 - Menus and contextual menus open on wrong screen when using dual screens.
      * 312227 - Not able to type in textbox of the main window after download completes.
      * 309027 - Saving image does not open the save location window sometimes.
      * Many reliability fixes for software update.
      * 284474 - Converting to UTF-8 a url with an unescaped non-ASCII chars in the query part leads to an incompaitbilty with most server-side programs. (Fixed by backing out the change for 261929, Send urls in UTF-8 by default (images/links with non-ASCII chacters not displayed).)
      * 245392 - Installer options for shortcuts don't work (update/install adds unwanted icons to desktop/quick launch, creates empty folder in start menu).
      * 282750 - Extremely slow scrolling of ESPN.com.
      * 310825 - window.focus() in a background tab can steal focus from foreground tab.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:If you're gonna download it by LiquidCoooled (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:28AM
    • Re:If you're gonna download it by Xugumad (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:53AM
    • I was disappointed - will it be better? by Elixon (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:57AM
  • Java plugin (Score:4, Informative)

    by geophile (16995) <jao @ g e o p h i l e .com> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:16AM (#13931267)
    (http://geophile.com/)
    I hope the new release makes it easier to get the java plugin working in RH9 or FC[34]. I've tried a number of different documented procedures with 1.0.6 and have never been able to get it working.
  • But does it run (Score:2, Funny)

    by zegebbers (751020) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:19AM (#13931290)
    (http://www.boozepoint.com/)
    on emacs?
  • Kudos To The Firefox Team (Score:4, Informative)

    by sysrpl (740738) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:22AM (#13931309)
    Kudos to the Firefox team. My web browser notified me of this update and it was automatically applied without a hitch.
  • ctrl+tab on Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1110110001 (569602) <alpha&rrs,at> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:24AM (#13931315)
    (http://alpha.edtinger.at/)
    With bug 275519 "[Mac] Support Command+Option+Arrows for tab switching (like Camino)" they decided to drop support for ctrl+tab under Mac OS X. As it's now a RC let me give you a how-to to reenable ctrl+tab. I hope it's easier in the final release (copied from my comment in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27551 9 [mozilla.org]).

    1) Quit Firefox
    2) Go to Firefox.app, Choose Show Package Contents (my Finder show the german
    text so I can only guess what's the wording in english) and go to
    Contents/MacOS/chrome/
    3) Backup toolkit.jar and rename it to toolkit.zip
    4) unpack toolkit.zip and go to content/global/bindings/
    5) open tabbrowser.xml
    6) Replace (in line 1977 in my file)
              this.mTabBox.handleCtrlTab = !/Mac/.test(navigator.platform);
          with
              this.mTabBox.handleCtrlTab = true;
    7) Create an archive of the content folder
    8) Rename it to toolkit.jar
    9) You can now use ctrl+tab again

    b4n
  • IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CDPatten (907182) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:25AM (#13931324)
    (http://www.pattensoap.com/)
    IE 7 (beta) still has some pretty sweet features that this version of Firefox doesn't. One of the coolest is the feature that lets you quickly see an image of all open tabs. For the common end user, another is the phishing filter, which is pretty good.

    I wish Firefox added more cutting edge stuff. MS will win the war if this is what is going to compete against IE 7.

    Maybe in the final release we will see some better features added.
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by ScootyPuffJr (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:31AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by Anonymous Coward (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:32AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Stevyn (691306) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:32AM (#13931363)
      I prefer to use my short term memory to remember what the pages roughly look like since my memory is free and I don't have to upgrade it. And a phishing filter is only good for the user if it blocks every phishing scheme that will ever be created. Otherwise, they'll let their guard down over time and then get bit in the ass. A better solution may be to make the user that they are aware they're on a secure server and that the server address better match with the address in the address bar. That would be a good feature for firefox to...wait...
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by n0-0p (325773) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:43AM (#13931422)
      The tab thing sounds interesting, so I'll give it a try and see what I think. I wouldn't use the IE anti-phishing system because it sends every URL to MS' servers for validation. I don't consider myself paranoid, but I'm not comfortable with handing over my entire browsing history to a third party.

      In terms of cutting edge stuff I'd really like to see IE support SVG, XForms, more complete CSS, and other Web 2.0 features. I guess we just have different views and priorities on that one.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by tezbobobo (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:44AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:45AM (#13931427)
      IE 7 has still pretty cool features, like adressbar spoofing, statusbar spoofing, domain spoofing, titlebar spoofing, SSL spoofing, keystroke sniffing, clipboard sniffing, Cross-Site-Scripting and, of course, remote code execution. No phishing filter will help you with that. In consequence, IE can only be safely used on a trusted intranet.

      In contrary, Firefox can be used on the internet - which I consider as a standard feature that IE clearly lacks of.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Scoria (264473) <slashmail@@@initialized...org> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:46AM (#13931434)
      (http://www.initialized.org/)
      IE 7 (beta) still has some pretty sweet features that this version of Firefox doesn't. One of the coolest is the feature that lets you quickly see an image of all open tabs.

      Firefox is ultimately a lightweight browser that can be easily expanded to suit an end-user's individual preferences. There are freely available extensions that will convert Firefox into the most feature-rich browser imaginable.

      For the common end user, another is the phishing filter, which is pretty good.

      It's funny that you would mention it. The current development builds of Mozilla Thunderbird actually have a "scam detection" filter, even though I feel that such technology does often add a false sense of security to the equation. Maybe it will be shared with an upcoming Firefox build.

      I wish Firefox added more cutting edge stuff.

      This subject has been beaten to death here at Slashdot, but I'm afraid that the Trident rendering engine is still many miles behind the competition. Gecko is definitely cutting edge by comparison, even though I understand that the Microsoft team is striving to improve their engine.

      MS will win the war if this is what is going to compete against IE 7.

      If there is indeed a browser war happening, Microsoft certainly has the advantage. For most people, after all, the preinstalled Internet Explorer is synonymous with "the Internet." However, I don't believe that Firefox 1.5 will be up against Internet Explorer 7.0. Instead, it's likely that Firefox 2.0 ("The Ocho") will be released [mozilla.org] alongside Vista, and that they will directly compete for the market.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by Quozt (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:46AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Informative)

      by DarkEdgeX (212110) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:04AM (#13931547)
      (Last Journal: Tuesday July 27 2004, @01:15AM)
      IE7 won't be released until Windows Vista is released (late next year). Firefox 1.5 is coming out this year, and Firefox 2.0 is supposed to come out sometime next year (followed by a 3.0 even I think [???]). I know Ben Goodger has posted and/or linked to roadmaps in the past.. ahha, here it is--

      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/roadmap.ht ml [mozilla.org]

      So yeah, I think the Firefox crew has some time to add in these new IE7 features (at least the ones that make sense) without having to worry too much.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by Myen (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:05AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Youssef Adnan (669546) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:11AM (#13931604)
      (http://www.compumania.com/)
      You can get the tab preview feature in Firefox through the following extension: (compatible with FFox 1.5RC1)
      http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/tabpreview/ index.html [mielczarek.org]

      As for phishing, check out these extensions:
      https://addons.mozilla.org/quicksearch.php?q=phish &section=A [mozilla.org]

      IE has not innovated in a very long time while other have been trying hard to innovate to just get through the market leader-ship barrier that IE has put. It's going to be very challenging for the IE team to introduce any feature that would be outside the "catch-up" with other browser features. I'm glad to see that IE is going to introduce nifty features from all over the place, nonetheless.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:4, Funny)

      by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@nexu s u k .org> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:13AM (#13931628)
      (http://www.nexusuk.org/)
      I wish Firefox added more cutting edge stuff. MS will win the war if this is what is going to compete against IE 7.

      Will IE7 feature Clippy too? "It looks like you're downloading a virus, would you like help installing it?" :)

      Being serious, IE7 is still not standards complient and still doesn't support XHTML.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by octaene (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:13AM
      • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by giorgiofr (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:20AM
      • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:05AM (#13932096)
        "Dude, what plant are you smoking? I'm pretty sure it was Firefox who came up with tabbed browsing, extensibility for custom applications, integrated pop-up blocking, and many other 'cutting edge' features. "

        They were not the first for any of those 3 items you mentioned. Firefox was just playing catchup to other programs out there. It's just that they implemented them properly and all in one application.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by artifex2004 (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:22AM
    • Firefox 1.5 has one of the coolest features you can imagine: SVG.

      Everything is well integrated with XUL/Javascript.

      This opens the door to many applications that were not possible before without resorting to Java/Flash/ActiveX/...

      Think of a Gantt chart editor in your browser.
      Think of a graphical editor in your browser.
      Think of a CAD in your browser.

      SVG has the potential to move the kind of operations you can perform in a browser to the next level.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by CDPatten (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:30AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by Xugumad (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:01AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by drew (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:47AM
    • There has to be freedom talk too. by jbn-o (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:17AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by The Lynxpro (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @05:03PM
    • Is it the Tab feature from Omniweb? by grandmofftarkin (Score:2) Thursday November 03 2005, @04:19AM
    • Netcraft Toolbar anti-phishing by kandresen (Score:1) Friday November 04 2005, @03:27AM
    • Re:IE 7 vs. Firefox 1.5 by bobbyjack (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @03:35PM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Extensions Again (Score:5, Informative)

    by Blahbooboo3 (874492) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:27AM (#13931334)
    Watch your extensions, some seem to not work with latest release. For me, Forecastfox and IE View.... Yes, you can modify the extension to make it work, but it's a bit of a pain and later on seemed to give me problems...
  • AutoUpdate Issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:29AM (#13931342)
    (http://www.frogsporn.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 26 2006, @05:30PM)

    I've been running 1.5 beta 2 since it was released, and for some reason the autoupdate to 1.5RC1 got stuck in a loop where beta 2 would just keep downloading and applying the upgrader, without actually having any effect. AutoUpdate is one of the key new features in 1.5 to keep users browsers up to date (and hence, patching holes rapidly, keeping FireFox's security edge over IE).

    Hopefully this is just the result of issues in beta 2 and older profiles, rather than an indicator of problems in the AutoUpdate code.

  • Well, that was ... (Score:1)

    by gus goose (306978) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:30AM (#13931345)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday September 24 2002, @12:01PM)
    ... very easy.

    I'm now on 1.5RC1

    Thanks

    gus
  • Posting this from RC1 and ACID2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Chanc_Gorkon (94133) <gorkon@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:31AM (#13931355)
    Dies not pass acid 2, however, they ain't the only ones. That company in Redmond has issues too.
  • Kind of makes E4X useless for extension writing goodness.

    Here's the URL (no link since they block /. referrers)
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27055 3 [mozilla.org]
  • Pop-up blocking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rinnt (917105) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:33AM (#13931370)
    improved Pop-up blocking

    I am *really* looking forward to pop-up blocking improvements. It seems that when I first started using firefox (back in the early days) it caught the vast majority of pop-ups. That situation seems to have gotten worse lately. For example, I visit a certain guitar tab web site. Let's say I want to view 10 different tabs at once... using Firefox's tabs, I just click away. Unfortunately, this also means I'm greated with 10 new pop ups. This happens every time and has really brought back the days before firefox (and no pop-up blocker).
    • Re:Pop-up blocking (Score:4, Informative)

      by lpangelrob (714473) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:41AM (#13931411)
      By and large, this is because the website uses at Flash plugin to generate new windows of a specific URL and size. Some websites seem to hook Javascript onto links so that when you click on a "Next Page" or equivalent, a popup appears, but this hasn't happened to me in ages.

      If 1.5RC1 doesn't solve this issue, I highly recommend installing Flashblock [mozdev.org], which ensures no Flash executes unless you specifically click on it. For these "hidden" Flash animations, you can never click on them, so no more popups for you.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Pop-up blocking by wazootoo (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:42AM
    • Re:Pop-up blocking by Professor_UNIX (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:43AM
    • Re:Pop-up blocking by sabit666 (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:18AM
    • Re:Pop-up blocking by anethema (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @07:51PM
    • Re:Pop-up blocking by xgamer04 (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:04PM
  • Installer stinks (Score:2)

    by skyshock21 (764958) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:33AM (#13931371)
    (http://www.myspace.com/lykachamp)
    From Beta 1 to RC1 I couldn't do Help > Check for updates. An error was kicked back. So I grabbed the installer manually. Now it's hung on the screen where it's trying to check for compatibility updates to my Extensions. Maybe it's just because people are putting a massive strain on their servers right now. But that still doesn't change the fact that it's not working right now.
  • by puppetluva (46903) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:35AM (#13931384)
    It was impressive to see that Safari can now pass the acid2 test. . . Now it is the most standards compliant browser:
    http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/ [webstandards.org]

    I'm rooting for firefox to catch up -- it is usually the heavyweight in this area but it has been passed up.
  • Not any more... (Score:2, Funny)

    by cakesy (886563) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:36AM (#13931389)
    My copy is 24 seconds away from downloaded ;)

    Tempting fate, hey?
  • Sick bastard (Score:4, Funny)

    by Iriel (810009) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:46AM (#13931433)
    (http://www.stevenvansickle.com/)
    My copy is 24 seconds away from downloaded ;)

    Sure, brag about it because you got to post the story. Now that I'm reading about it, mine's 24,000 seconds.
    <griping>Curse you slashdot effect</griping>
    • Re:Sick bastard by EnronHaliburton2004 (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @01:02PM
  • Download (Score:1)

    by odin1415 (927167) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:46AM (#13931435)
    And after posting the news on Slashdot it willl take a lot longer...
  • 24 seconds? (Score:3, Funny)

    by dancallaghan (890674) <djc@djc.id.au> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:49AM (#13931457)
    (http://www.djc.id.au/)
    Holy sh*t, Taco's still on dialup? It's only 6MB!
    • Re:24 seconds? by Nimloth (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @12:33PM
    • Re:24 seconds? by TurboStar (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @03:49PM
      • Re:24 seconds? by dancallaghan (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @05:54PM
  • Killer feature (Score:1)

    by Begemot (38841) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:50AM (#13931465)
    Praise the Lord - ...Answers.com added to the search engine list...

    I wouldn't be bitching but it comes placed up high in the changelog before Improvements to product usability and Better accessibility...

  • Autoupdate sucks! (Score:1)

    by sheepoo (814409) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:53AM (#13931476)
    Users running 1.5 beta should have already received notice via an automated update dialogue box
    No notifications for me :(
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • problems w/ first 1.5 beta (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AgentPhunk (571249) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:54AM (#13931478)
    My experience with the first release of 1.5 was good overall, with the exception of one bug that forced me to roll back to the stable 1.0.7. For some reason, some hyperlinks would 'crash' a tab and the page on that tab would be all grey, nothing else. I couldn't close out the tab and it just stayed there until I finally closed out the entire browser window. I could continue to open other tabs and work, but I usually keep Firefox going for a week+ with all of the websites I've been visiting in tabbed windows, and having 'dead' tabs got really frustrating. (not to mention that, if I really wanted to get to that website, I had to open up *shudder* IE.) anyone else have this problem (and/or do you know if it was addressed in RC1? I didn't see anything specific in the release notes.
  • General comments... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lpangelrob (714473) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:56AM (#13931491)
    I generally do not test software until the release candidate stage, so this is my first experience with 1.5. Here are my thoughts:

    1. Nicer looking menus. A nice little visual bonus.
    2. Half my extensions are busted. TargetAlert, Flashblock, SessionSaver... those are the three most important disabled ones right now. Fortunately, it appears I no longer need SlashFix or Tab Mix (try dragging the tabs around).
    3. Finally, I can update more than one extension at a time.
    4. What's with the OS X-like preferences panel? It seems as though in the last year, more Windows applications have been going in that direction.
    5. Haven't tested out the memory leak issue yet. Leave Gmail open for a night, you'll see what I mean.
  • Spoke too soon (Score:3, Informative)

    by jgaynor (205453) <jon&gaynor,org> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:02AM (#13931521)
    (http://jon.gaynor.org/)
    Worked on all of my home machines well - choked to death on my work machine. Here's a nice screen:

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jgaynor/images/ff.bmp [rutgers.edu]

    Google shows others (if only a few) have had this issue [google.com] with older moz builds.
  • 1.5 release? (Score:1)

    by u2boy_nl (927513) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:08AM (#13931590)
    (http://www.u2boy.nl/)
    When can we expect the final release? I'm tired of constantly updating, i'll just wait for the final if it won't take too long...
  • Firefox & OpenDocument (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:12AM (#13931615)
    Will Firefox 1.5 (or later) be able to read the OpenDocument files?

    Such ability would make much easier the introduction of OpenDocuument-ready apps (i.e. OpenOffice 2.0).

    Is there any technical problem to create such feature/extension?

  • Here's a small problem... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WWWWolf (2428) <wwwwolf@iki.fi> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:14AM (#13931640)
    (http://www.iki.fi/wwwwolf/)

    This is kind of off-topic but also very much on topic, because it does involve firefox update.

    Does anyone know how to make SVG files, you know, scalable?

    If I put images to web pages with <img> tag, and specify width and height, the image gets scaled.

    But if I do what is recommended for SVG - that is, I create a PNG rendering of the image for backwards compatibility, then use <object data="foo.svg" ...><image src="foo.png" .../></object>, with width and height specified on both img and object tags, I get a properly scaled PNG image in Firefox 1.0 (which can't interpret the object type in question, so it falls back to the <img> tag, it as it should), and an improperly scaled SVG image in Firefox 1.5 and all other SVG browsers. Some SVG-enabled browsers (MSIE with AdobeSVG, FF1.0 with Inkscape plugin) show original-size SVG images, FF1.5 seems to be really nice and shows scrollbars on the image.

    I tried making a small SVG file which uses <foreignObject> to scale the picture, but it didn't seem to work at all with SVG images in FF1.5, plus, it was an awful hack!

    So what's supposed to be the web-standards-compliant trick of placing and arbitrary-sized SVG image on a web site, then having the browser scale the frigging scalable vector graphic file to the specified width and height?

    I've looked around everywhere, nobody seems to know - anybody here know?

    • Re:Here's a small problem... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeff_schiller (877821) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:54AM (#13931977)
      (http://blog.codedread.com/)

      It's possible I misunderstood you, but I think the problem may be that the SVG image itself is specifying the size. Look at the element and see if the width/height are being specified. Ideally, the <svg> element should state width="100%" and height="100%". Then this should allow the user agent to properly scale the SVG image inside an <object> tag by specifying the <object>'s width/height. However if the <svg> element specifies width="400px", then maybe you're stuck because the author of the SVG has stated the width is 400 pixels, end of story.

      I can't remember what the behavior of the SVG or HTML spec say with respect to this when conflicts occur... Specs like CDF [w3.org] will help to clarify some of these issues.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Here's a small problem... by Bogtha (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @02:06PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Grammar Nazi (Score:2)

    by dentar (6540) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:20AM (#13931692)
    (http://www.dentar.com | Last Journal: Tuesday February 11 2003, @11:00PM)
    Of IT IS popular browser?? Is that what you meant?
    • Re:Grammar Nazi by panic_smooth (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:06AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • First Impressions (Score:1)

    by tito13kfm (921987) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:23AM (#13931721)
    Failed to update automatically. Everytime the update would download and be applied, firefox would restart and do it all over again. Updated manually by downloading directly from http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ [mozilla.org]

    One feature I wish they would include that was present in 1.0.7 was opening a new tab when I click with my scroll button on the tab toolbar. Does anybody know a good work-around or solution to this?

    Popup blocker with Adblocker extension and a good list of stuff to block has transformed the internet in to a productive time waster again :).

    -----
    11100001000110000011

  • You called it. (Score:1)

    by VxJasonxV (792809) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:27AM (#13931759)
    "Users running 1.5 beta should have already received notice via an automated update dialogue box."

    And I did, and it was good.
    And updated!
  • by varmittang (849469) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:28AM (#13931772)
    (http://www.ducktapeandglue.com/)
    Windows 2000 and Beta 2. Did the Help > Update, and it downloaded 600Kb file, did the install, FF restarted and then it prompted me to download another update, which was 6Mb, and that got installed. Then FF restarted again and is asking to check for an update again, and while its looking it is just scrolling and not getting or finding anything to download.
  • All I want is... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by frankcow (925500) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:29AM (#13931787)
    (http://justin-cook.com/wp)
    1. Plug that stupid memory leak that has FireFox occupying 175MB of RAM after a few hours, and pushing me towards Opera
    2. Hurry up and release Minimo 1.0!!!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Download (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frankie70 (803801) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:42AM (#13931875)
    My copy is 24 seconds away from downloaded

    So you will be reading Zonk's dupe of this story on your
    newly downloaded & installed shiny Firefox.
  • CLIWWW (Score:2)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:53AM (#13931970)
    (http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
    I switched back to Mozilla solely because Mozilla uses a single text input field for both URLs and search (eg. Google). That field is like a commandline - not only can I type (and edit) URLs, but I can Google searches on those URLs (with site:), do math, unit conversions, definitions, etc. All of which produce linked webpages in the pane below. I want more CLIWWW action, like the idled XMLterm [sourceforge.net] project, not less. Firefox splits the URL/search field in two, even making the search field only a few characters wide. That crimps most of my most productive webbing. Now, a "reunification" patch to Firefox would get me to switch back...
    • Re:CLIWWW by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:18AM
      • Re:CLIWWW by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:33AM
    • Re:CLIWWW by Misch (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:21AM
      • Re:CLIWWW by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:44AM
        • Re:CLIWWW by Misch (Score:2) Thursday November 03 2005, @10:43AM
    • Re:CLIWWW by WuphonsReach (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:22AM
      • Re:CLIWWW by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:38AM
        • Re:CLIWWW by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @12:45PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CLIWWW by Bob of Dole (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:23AM
      • Re:CLIWWW by Doc Ruby (Score:2) Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:50AM
  • No QT version? (Score:1)

    by zlogic (892404) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:26AM (#13932276)
    (http://zlogic.da.ru/)
    Around a year ago they promised a QT version of Firefox, and it was in beta. Now all progress on it has been stopped for around half a year.
    If only they had a QT version of Firefox, I'd get rid of Konqueror this instant.
    It doesn't seem too difficult to port it to QT because not just plugins but also Firefox's core is built upon XUL. Port XUL to QT and I think that's all you need.
    And it's not an ideological issue(Trolltech makes $$$ etc.) either because the Windows version of Fx relies on Microsoft's widget set.
    And Gnome apps look bad in KDE and don't connect well with other kde apps. For some app I launch twice a week that's ok, but for a browser that's unacceptable. It's probably the most often-launched app on loads of PCs.
  • And coming soon... (Score:1)

    by GroeFaZ (850443) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:34AM (#13932357)
    Coming soon: a /. story about how the next Firefox download milestone of x millions has been passed, with a distinctive spike...today. SURPRISE!
    Note: I-for-one-have-downloaded-Firefox-3-bazillion-time s-so-this-number-is-without-(+5 Insightful)-posts not included, but inevitable.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by penginkun (585807) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:40AM (#13932411)
    I stopped using 1.5b2 because it seemed like the tab focus issue was getting WORSE as time progressed. I'd be working and suddenly the current tab wouldn't respond to keypresses or clicks. Then I'd switch to another tab and see that IT had been getting the input.

    I was assured this had been fixed in b2, but it clearly had not. I'm not about to trust RC1 until someone can tell me for SURE this problem has been fixed, once and for all.
  • by VoiceOfRaisin (554019) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:54AM (#13932539)
    what i got today was all of my extensions disapeared. i didnt even know there was a new version out. my extensions list was blank. while fiddling around i tried to update and it then told me there was a new version and so i installed that, but my extensions are still all gone. im in the process of redownloading them all again now. nice bug..
  • Portable Firefox 1.5 RC1 (Score:3, Informative)

    by CritterNYC (190163) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:07AM (#13932681)
    (http://johnhaller.com/)
    I've also released a test version of Portable Firefox based on the new release for anyone that would like it portable... or anyone that wants to try it out without messing with their local profile or Profile Manager.

    Portable Firefox: Deer Park 1.5 RC1:
    http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portable_firefox/ deer_park/ [johnhaller.com]

    For the unfamiliar, Portable Firefox allows you to carry your whole web browser along with all your bookmarks and extensions with you on an iPod, USB thumbdrive, portable hard drive or any other portable media. You can plug it right into any Windows computer and use it just like you would on your own. It is a repackaged version of the popular Mozilla Firefox browser designed with portability in mind, so it has all the same great features of Firefox, but there's nothing to install.
  • by mysterious_w (905180) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:13AM (#13932747)
    Anway, was talking in #firefox yesterday asking if RC1 was delayed, when some TrooperBob guy asks me what the heck an RC is, then quotes me a news post from Oct 27th 2004 about 1.0RC1, saying it was out days ago.
  • Google Toolbar (Score:1)

    by Drew2d2 (912933) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:55AM (#13933152)
    I'm so dependant on the search features in the Google toolbar that I'm reluctant to update FF until they make GT compadible with this new FF. I hope they get on it soon.
  • faster buttons? (Score:1)

    by Jouser (243992) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:57AM (#13933171)
    (http://quest.dfxwebs.com/)
    "... and faster back and forward page navigation buttons."

    How exactly do you make the buttons faster? The shadowing toggle time of the buttons has decreased or what? This makes absolutely no sense.
  • Pathetic (Score:2)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @01:12PM (#13933851)
    "My copy is 24 seconds away from downloaded ;)"

    Pathetic. My copy downloaded in 2.92 seconds at 1701KB/s.
    • Re:Pathetic by An Onerous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:29PM
  • by skadus (821655) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @01:52PM (#13934260)
    (Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @11:52AM)
    Did anybody else have to get the full 6 MB version? I seem to have this problem with every computer I run XP Pro on.

    XP Pro, SP2, NTFS drive, I can't update or reinstall any program that's been run in that Windows session. Gaim, Winamp, Firefox, and several other programs (hell, it was one of the reasons I quit WoW - in WoW's case I had to boot into safe mode to update the program). I have to reboot or rename the main executable file (the one being overwritten) to get the install to work.

    Luckily, for some reason FF didn't do that this time, but for all the 1.0.x updates I had to do this, and for all the beta releases the small patch always failed, defaulting to the larger patch.

    It's frustrating as hell, and when I mention it to tech-savvy friends or on message boards, nobody has any idea, and it looks like it's a problem only I have - even though it's a problem I can replicate on my desktop, my laptop, and my work computer.

    Does anybody else ever have this problem? Is it Windows File Protection, or what?
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by sleepcountry (765609) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @03:17PM (#13935031)
    Try clicking and holding left-click on a webpage. Zoom, 99.60% CPU usage.
  • by Lexic0n (107205) * <jeff,herron&gmail,com> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @05:34PM (#13936238)
    (http://darah.com/)
    The built-in updater prompted me to upgrade from 1.5 Beta 2 to 1.5 RC1. However, after asking me to relaunch my browser twice, and telling me it had upgraded to RC1, nothing had actually been upgraded. I had to download the installer directly from the web site in order to get it to update.

    Anyone else experience that?
  • SPAM (Score:2)

    by Zouden (232738) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:31AM (#13931351)
    What?
    I hope this isn't the warning signs of imminent slashdot spamming...
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:PLEASE (Score:1)

    by Tetsugaku-San (717792) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:33AM (#13931367)
    (http://www.deadenddesign.com/)
    it's actually 'their', as the subject was the team who released it .. .
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:PLEASE by Reality Master 201 (Score:1) Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:13AM
      • Re:PLEASE by Reality Master 201 (Score:1) Thursday November 03 2005, @11:56PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:My experience (Score:2)

    by jurt1235 (834677) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:35AM (#13931379)
    (http://www.hipersonik.com/)
    Same experience, except that it claimed it would upgrade to version 1.4.1
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Adblock? (Score:1)

    by [Galaxie] (40909) <mike@@@locals...ca> on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:42AM (#13931414)
    (http://www.locals.ca/)
    seems to be working fine with RC1, unless my install came with extra special compatibility sauce for some reason...
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:My experience (Score:2)

    by nmg196 (184961) * on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:57AM (#13931494)
    Same here on two machines. It seems that the automatic update feature doesn't work. After it claimed it had updated, I still seemed to be on Beta 2. I had to download the full installer and install again to actually get it to update properly to RC1.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:My experience (Score:1)

    by pintomp3 (882811) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:06AM (#13931559)
    ah, i thought i was the only one. i thought maybe i had some weird combination of extensions. anyway, we should file a bug report about it.
    [ Parent ]
  • by dylan_- (1661) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @10:02AM (#13932068)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    I've been watching daily for an update and there still isn't one. Firefox sells itself on security.
    This isn't a security hole, it's code that crashes the browser. There is no exploit here. On the other hand, you shouldn't have been modded down there, since it's that security page you linked to hyping themselves that lead to this kind of confusion...
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Adblock? (Score:3, Informative)

    Until Adblock can work with RC1...

    I'm using both Adblock 0.5.2.039 and the Adblock Filterset.G Updater 0.2.6, both with no problems or issues (that I can tell.)

    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Adblock? by SilentTristero (Score:3) Wednesday November 02 2005, @11:08AM
  • Man am I getting pissed at the little fucker popping up every time I visit a site with Flash on it.
    Don't the devs get it ? There's no way am on earth I'm installing Flash coz I don't want no Flashvertising.


    Couldn't you just Adblock [mozilla.org] the swf files or install Flashblock [mozilla.org]?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:My copy... (Score:1)

    by jack_csk (644290) on Wednesday November 02 2005, @01:31PM (#13934052)
    FYI, you should prove by hash function like using both md5sum and sha1 or even sha256.
    [ Parent ]
  • 17 replies beneath your current threshold.