Thunderbird 2.0 Alpha 1, Firefox 1.5.0.5 Available 164
nuyorker and hdm wrote to mention the new releases for Thunderbird and Firefox. hdm writes "This release of Firefox fixes 12 security holes, many of which can be used to execute malicious code. The Browser Fun project has provided an online demonstration of one of these flaws. This demonstration is capable of executing code on Windows, Linux, and both architectures of the Mac OS X platform; you're going to want to upgrade today!"
Available? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Available? (Score:1)
Re:Available? (Score:5, Informative)
Preferences > Advanced > Update tab.
Yeah, that kind of annoyed me the first time, but in retrospect it is good for the general public to have automatic be on by default.
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Re:Available? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Actually, you want to enable disabling auto-updates. Disabling auto-update is disabled by default.
It doesn't bug me much. At least it asks if you want to restart firefox. It could easily be worse, especially with me having 15 tabs open and no autorestore extension installed (yet!)
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Re:Available? (Score:2)
Firefox 1.5.0.5 vs. 2.0xx vs. Mozilla Suite? (Score:2)
It's getting to be time to update my Mozilla Suite anyway - is 2.0xx cooked enough to use, or is it better to go to 1.5.0.5 and wait for 2.0 final to update again?
Memory features (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Memory features (Score:2)
Honestly not sure if this is better or not as this is the first time I have ever looked. Guess that's the advantage of having 2gigs of memory.
Re:Memory features (Score:1)
How many and what kind of sites (heavy graphic?) have you visited since you let the fox out of his cage?
Seriously, keep middle-clicking next to a tab and see where your memory went.
Re:Memory features (Score:3, Informative)
Closed out of all tabs and was still at 60MB. Opened a new tab and closed the
Time to go searching for those FF tweaking options again...
Re:Memory features (Score:2)
Currently using 61 megs of memory, with 6 tabs, and scrolling through about 60 pictures in an online photo gallery to try to drive up the memory usage. Installed extensions include Reload Every, Video Downloader, DOM Inspector, Web Developer, and Talkback. Seems to me like there are no memory problems with Firefox.
Re:Memory features (Score:2)
Maybe you should do a little research on how cached memory works first. Firefox will mark a page as unused.. and if the OS needs it, it will take it. However, if Firefox needs that page again (like, say, you hit your backbutton), it can pull it up without having to connect to the server.
The memory is indeed freed.. the OS just hasn't bothered reclaiming it yet.
Re:Memory features (Score:2)
Second from last is RSIZE. Sucks.
about:config (Score:3, Informative)
And for those less on the bleeding edge... (Score:2)
Re:And for those less on the bleeding edge... (Score:3, Informative)
Hardened seems to block it (Score:1)
Re:Hardened seems to block it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hardened seems to block it (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
(All of my mailing lists are in their own folders, with sub-folders where I move the previous year's messages to to make the main folders smaller. Still I have around 4GB of e-mail in my Thunderbird profile folder.)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
right click your inbox and select 'compact this folder'.
more details, and instructions for automatic compaction:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Compacting_folders [mozillazine.org]
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Thunderbird 1.5's UI is still slow at selecting messages. Click on a message in the message list and it takes half a second for TB to highlight the message. Then there's the issue that rules are not always moving messages to the proper folders.
It's all CPU-bound utilization.
iCard? (Score:2)
Exploit this? (Score:1)
Re:Exploit this? (Score:2)
thank goodness (Score:1, Funny)
my Sinclair ZX81 isn't exploitable
take that! YUO L00ZER HAX0RZ
Re:thank goodness (Score:2)
On a more serious note along those lines, FF and Thunderbird are finally getting enough marketshare to grab the attention of spammers and virus writers. We should rejoice on it's success and how quickly it was patched instead of "oh noes there actually are security flaws in FF!" If you want more security, switch to a more obscure browser (just make sure it isn't just an IE wrapper). Sure, you will lose a lot of functio
Re:thank goodness (Score:2, Funny)
The only difference for security... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Non-portable exploit code (Score:2)
Doesn't work (Score:1)
Bon Echo (Score:1)
"Help" - "Update Firefox" - "Click". Done. (Score:1)
No advanced computer knowledge neccessary.
Browser restart is required, operating system restart is not.
(this is in the case of a Windows user).
Turnaround time from the reporting of http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2006/mfsa 2006-45.html [mozilla.org] to a fix deployed : 1 day.
I'll leave the comparisons up to others.
It was NOT 1 day! (Score:3, Insightful)
a problem with firefox installs (Score:5, Interesting)
Try to imagine writing a shell script that would cheerfully do a cd /usr/bin; rm *. Can you? Now look at this bug report:
bug 234479 [mozilla.org]
One of the programmers (Andrew Schultz) can't imagine any way of dealing with version skew problems outside of completely erasing the installation directory in order to start from scratch.
Re:a problem with firefox installs (Score:2)
Re:a problem with firefox installs (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem isn't "it deletes files when you install it into
Re:a problem with firefox installs (Score:4, Informative)
So you get the old version installed and kept as well.
Then I get into
cd
ln -s
Sometimes I keep the old version as a softlink as well
ln -s
Re:a problem with firefox installs (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, I just use the tarball. I unpack it, then "mv firefox firefox-1.5.0.5" and "ln -s firefox-1.5.0.5 firefox" so that I retain the old installation (just in case) and automatically point users to the new location. Before I update I just have to delete the sym-link before unpacking the tarball.
Still not fixed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still not fixed. (Score:2)
No calculator was executed, but my Firefox footprint shot through the roof.
Firefox Portable 1.5.0.5 & 2.0 b1: Works on US (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Firefox Portable 1.5.0.5 & 2.0 b1: Works on (Score:2)
Portable Edition? I thought Firefox was already portable - it runs on Windows, various UN*X+X11 combinations, and OS X, right?
Re:Firefox Portable 1.5.0.5 & 2.0 b1: Works on (Score:2)
It's also optimised to require very little read/write cycles to your USB drive seeing as they do have a limit. It's also a smaller install.
Subject Cut Off, Ends with "Works on USB & CD" (Score:2)
Firefox Portable 1.5.0.5 & 2.0 b1: Works on USB & CD
I was going to post earlier... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I was going to post earlier... (Score:2)
Every firefox version beyond 1.0 crashes randomly on me. That's why I haven't updated and propably won't, either.
And of course I'd have to get new versions of all the extensions I'm using...
Re:I was going to post earlier... (Score:2)
Re:I was going to post earlier... (Score:2)
I use Linux and hibernation and typically have about a hundred or so Web pages open at once. Firefox 1.0 crashes once every few months. Any newer version I've tried crashes every few hours. Since no other program has a problem, not even the same programs earlier version, I find it hard to believe that the problem is in my computer and not in Firefox.
Sorry, but "rarely" is not good enough for my use - it must be "almost never". I'd say "never", but Fir
Watch out when updating (Score:2)
However, at work the update went file, so i dont know what exactly triggers it.
It feels faster... (Score:2)
Re:It feels faster... (Score:2)
(My biggest complaint about the 1.5 firefox code is the constant waits while a background / non-active tab talks to the DNS and web servers. The whole reason taht I loaded the tab in the background was that I knew it would take a minute to load and render...)
Firefox 1.5.0.6 quick release to fix streaming bug (Score:2, Insightful)
Firefox ? How about Seamonkey? (Score:3, Interesting)
ALways wonder why if both use Gecko, FF supports horizontal scrolls while SM doesn't. Plus touchpad zoom 'just works' in FF and even IE, and 'just doesn't' in SM.
Very Deja Microsoft experience (Score:3, Interesting)
tbird - LDAP still lacking MAJOR feature (Score:2, Interesting)
This is frustrating because in my experience, Outlook is such an irrational piece of software when it comes to IMAP/LDAP and Thunderbird (to me anyway) only provides a superior IMAP portion. Still does wonders for me but ho
C - Cyclone (Score:3, Interesting)
Why aren't more people using such language? Why not use Cycling, or even higher level languages where they can reduce lines of code and keep things more maintainable in less performance critical sections? I can only attribute it to laziness and blubism:
"As long as our hypothetical Blub programmer is looking down the power continuum, he knows he's looking down. Languages less powerful than Blub are obviously less powerful, because they're missing some feature he's used to. But when our hypothetical Blub programmer looks in the other direction, up the power continuum, he doesn't realize he's looking up. What he sees are merely weird languages. He probably considers them about equivalent in power to Blub, but with all this other hairy stuff thrown in as well. Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub." - Paul Graham
Re:C - Cyclone (Score:2)
If not, STFU and let the real programmers do their job.
Re:C - Cyclone (Score:2)
Firefox/Mozilla/Gecko has other problems... (Score:2)
Maybe it's better now, I don't know, I don't really care. Because on top of that the whole design of Firefox has gone down the same path as Internet Explorer (though, hopefu
Local maildir? (Score:2)
What about Camino? (Score:2)
Is Camino vulnerable to an exploit or just a DOS?
Where is Camino 1.0.3?
Re:What about Camino? (Score:2)
Re:Only 12, huh? (Score:2)
Re:Only 12, huh? (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for security... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course one has to wonder what will happen as it becomes more popular. Plenty of people installed it before it started auto updating. Not too long ago I came across a grad student's laptop that was still running a pre 1.0 version. They figured they were safe and there was no reason to update since what they had worked.
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:1, Insightful)
Must be a rosy freaking world you live in where ALL the bugs in software can be fixed. Do I give MS more shit than Mozilla? Considering they make a couple million dallars profit a DAY I'd expect a bit more from them. Besides which much of the problems with IE are based off of their Active X technology which people have said would be a huge security disaster from the very beginning.
A
Re:So much for security... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh... no. People give MS shit for finding and not fixing security holes. Since we're talking about browsers, I give you IE6, which hasn't received a serious overhaul in over half a decade and has proved to be an extremely insecure application.
Microsoft has a history of leaving known (as in having exploits in the wild) security flaws unpatched. Some argue they do this because hackers can then reverse-engineer patches and create exp
Re:So much for security... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox finds bug, fixes bug, no news here.
I really have no qualms about Firefox fixing a bug, it shows that their on it. Nobody claims that OSS is bug free, or security risk free, since this is impossible, from closed or open software. Code is a complex beast, like the hydra, you chop off one bug/security hole, and you probably open up more. That is intrinsic in coding, and design. The difference is the flexability of OSS, where bugs are easily seen, and easily remedied.
When the market share hits critical mass, things should get fun, though. But the openess of OSS still will keep it from reaching IE proportions. And shame on those who think that Firefox = security, the internet is still a bad place, no matter what you run. Good software is no substitute for intelligence, ever.
But they don't (Score:2)
For that matter there are still non-security related bugs that persist such as the cliboard bug. Someitmes Firefox will just refuse to copy text. Best as I can figure out it's no
Re:But they don't (Score:2)
I could list a ten pages of major beefs I have with Firefox (the memory "feature" is number one, followed by the fact that it still just sucks on a Mac), but it does seem that, as far as fixing goes, it is the best out there. Perhaps Opera is better, but who knows what goes through their heads.
Part of the problem, come to think of it
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
But that's what people give MS shit for, finding and fixing security holes.
No, people give MS shit because it can take them in excess of 6 months [rucus.net] to release a patch after someone else finds the holes for them.... though if you look at the graph for 2005, it would appear that they are getting better at patching faster.... but your average linux program gets patched within days of a published vulnerability.
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
I did the same thing (with my old laptop; the new one has a new version) because IIRC we were told we had to completely uninstall Fire$ANIMAL before we even thought of installing a new one. Who wants to uninstall and reinstall a browser every few weeks?
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
You need XKeymacs [hi-ho.ne.jp].
Re:So much for security... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So much for security... (Score:1)
Ignoring bug reports for 5+ years is a serious issue. Especially when it's something like "Mozilla and Firefox store your credit card numbers in plaintext by default"
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:1)
Simply not storing form autocomplete on SSL forms would fix it.
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:1)
Re:So much for security... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
Re:So much for security... (Score:2)
I'll make sure to point that out to HD and try to prod him to find an exploitable one.
Re:You know it's true. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, whoever rated you insightful should never be allowed to moderate again. Sheesh. You're trolling, pure and simple.
Second, Microsoft makes one billion dollars in profit every month. In my opinion, they should be held to a higher standard.
Third, you're grossly misrepresenting most Firefox users, who don't expect Firefox to be perfect.
Fourth, Firefox is a safer browser to browse the web with, whether you like it or not.
Re:You know it's true. (Score:2)
Meaning that OSS should be held to a lower standard? Why is that, and what does that say about OSS exactly?
Re:1.5.0.5 is already in the Ubuntu repository. (Score:2)
Re:1.5.0.5 is already in the Ubuntu repository. (Score:2)
Well, luckily it's well [artguru.info] suited [artguru.info] for that role [artguru.info] ;).
I guess some people really love their browser, and not in the platonic sense...
Bad architecture (Score:2)