Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3 Released 250
Mini-Geek writes "Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3 has been released. As with previous 1.5.0.x patches, 1.5.0.3 can be downloaded as a small, incremental download. From the article: 'This update fixes a publicly disclosed denial of service weakness. All users are encouraged to upgrade to this version.
The bugfixes previously planned for Firefox 1.5.0.3 were shifted to 1.5.0.4, and a quick update was released shortly after the recent to address the publicly reported issue.'"
Ooooo... (Score:4, Funny)
The readings are always so inspiring and applicable to our modern lives.
Heybiff
Re:Ooooo... (Score:2)
Re:Ooooo... (Score:5, Informative)
Netscape:
Mozilla:
Firefox:
Re:Ooooo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ooooo... (Score:2)
Re:Ooooo... (Score:2)
from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15
Straight from 1.5.0.3
Re:Ooooo... (Score:2)
luv incremental updates (Score:3, Insightful)
auto-updates make security easier (Score:4, Insightful)
The only other Windows program I have that seems to work as well is Azureus which is also opensource.
Nothing to luv here (Score:2)
I ran "Check for updates" in 1.5.0.1/win and it has chosen to download 6.1MB (even if .1->.3 is not available, FF could have downloaded incremental .2 version first...)
Re:luv incremental updates (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:luv incremental updates (Score:2)
I hate the fact that the default Firefox update settings FORCE me to install the update once it's been downloaded. I may want to purposely test code on an older version of FF, or I may know that it breaks an extension and not want to install it. Whatsmore, there's actually no setting that lets you actually tell FF to check for updates, but not force you to install them once downloaded. Which is retarded.
And they're even planning on making this happen invisibly, wi
uh, yeah (Score:2)
I thought that was just called a "crash."
Re:uh, yeah (Score:2)
Re:Terminology matters (Score:2, Insightful)
Incremental patch? (Score:4, Interesting)
One would wonder how can this be accomplished with binary distributions (like DEB and RPM.) DLLs?
For the sources it means that the original complete source code is already available!
Maybe it is just a download manager a-la Acrobat Reader (for Windows).
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
The system has just booted. No firefox process has been started. The first thing to come up is the update dialog. THIS is the only thing that can have an open handle on firefox and therefore the updating mechanism must be locking itself. It would help if it lasted for more than half a second or left a log
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Try without any extensions, maybe one of them is causing trouble.
I have four extensions and the auto update worked fine:
Adblock Plus 0.7
NoScript 1.1.4
FasterFox 1.0.3
Slashdotter 1.5
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:5, Informative)
See http://wiki.mozilla.org/Software_Update:MAR [mozilla.org] and http://www.daemonology.net/bsdiff/ [daemonology.net] for more.
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Under opensource environment this is really hard to do because of the large number of choices users have to build their own binaries.
How is the binary patcher supposed to identify the correct place in my binary to insert the patch?
Or is The MF willing to provide their own binary distribution?
I fear that the "incremental download" feature is doomed to die soon!
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
With Linux, it depends entirely on whether you're using the Mozilla binary or your Linux distro's binary. If you want to run beta versions of Firefox, or if you want to keep current beyond what your d
Re:Incremental patch? (Score:2)
But as others in this subthread have also said, binary patching is practically useless for Linux. Even if most non-Gentoo users don't compile their own packages, the binaries are usually built by the distribution, not simply accepted from Mozilla.
So as a f'rinstance,
Encouragement! (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't we just take this for granted by now? You never really see a vendor come out with a new version of something that some users are discouraged from upgrading to.
"Here everyone, have some bug fixes and optimizations... but not that one guy, or you people over there, or that lady with the sideburns.."
Re:Encouragement! (Score:2)
Re:Encouragement! (Score:3, Informative)
Can someone fix the damn javascript console (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can someone fix the damn javascript console (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Can someone fix the damn javascript console (Score:2)
I wish they'd put it in a different window, and call it CSS console, but I care anyway!
Re:Can someone fix the damn javascript console (Score:2)
Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone else have the problem that occurs sometimes when everything you type into the browser, every single character goes into the form, but it also pops up the "search" functionality and puts the character in there. It also loses focus, so you have to reclick back into the form field, and type the next character.
I have no idea what causes it, but I have to close my browser, and restart it.
If you don't know what I'm talking about you don't have it.
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
Tom
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
I have no idea, I haven't filed a bug report because frankly I don't really care (that and bugzilla bothers me).
Tom
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
Even with this option turned on, it shouldn't do this when a text field on the page has the focus. And normally it doesn't, but from time to time Firefox start behaving this way. The only option at that point is restarting the browser. That's the bug the GP was talking about.
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:4, Informative)
But yes, I've had the problems too.
harryk
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:2)
I get it all the time. I have been using "Find as you type" since pre-1.0 and it's only started happening with 1.5.0.2. I brought it up at mozillaZine [mozillazine.org] and nobody seemed to care.
Has anyone sumbitted and official bug report on it?
Re:Weird Firefox behaviour when typing (Score:3, Informative)
Portable Firefox 1.5.0.3 Released (Score:5, Informative)
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/po
Also added in a few new features in the recent releases:
One question about firefox (Score:2)
Has it happened to anyone of you guys?
Re:One question about firefox (Score:2)
Mostly On Topic: Updating Multiple Win2k/XP Boxes (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I work, I've been pushing hard to get the company to use Firefox instead of IE. I've got most people using it every day. However these are normal office workers, they don't click on the update icon (They don't even wonder about it), and I find that they're running an older version. Does anyone know of a way to add the update to a login script, so it is silently installed when they login? I've googled around, and maybe I'm not using the right search phrases, but I'm not finding anything useful. I'm even willing to download a whole new
Re:Mostly On Topic: Updating Multiple Win2k/XP Box (Score:2)
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/rele ases/1.5.0.3/update/win32/en-US/ [mozilla.org]
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Software_Update:Manually_I nstalling_a_MAR_file [mozilla.org]
Re:Mostly On Topic: Updating Multiple Win2k/XP Box (Score:2)
http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/index.htm [frontmotion.com]
Denial of Service my ass (Score:4, Insightful)
If we're calling anything that locks your browser a DOS now, then how come this bug [nyud.net], which is over 3 years old and seems dead simple to fix, is not? I can make a browser DOS on any web page I want:
<script>
while(true) alert('Boom!');
</script>
Such a piece of code does not trigger the "script is taking a long time" message because it fires alerts. And the alerts are content-modal so you can't do *anything* to close the browser or tab causing the alerts. You have to kill it off.
No different from the "denial of service" bug mentioned in this posting.
Oddness (Score:2)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2, Funny)
Now, about that stupid ass update message, every other program manages to check for updates when starting up and doesn't bug me halfway through working so why can't firefox?
I want to keep uptodate, but I'm very tempted to disable it totally and not bother checking.
(apart from antivirus, but then again thats a background process anyway)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2)
That was common in the comp.os.linux.* newsgroups a few years back. I don't know if it is any better now.
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2)
Far be it from me to rain on anyone's parade, but it's a valid point. It's nice to be able to auto-update software, but that process should remain as unobtrusive as possible. Let Firefox download the fix, keep it ready, and do an install next time I run the browser from scratch. Where's the harm in it?
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2)
Re:Yet again I was interrupted while I work (Score:2)
I think the worst must be the Norton dialogs that pop up even when you have a full-screen game running, stealing focus and dropping you back to the desktop so that it can tell you that it just updated its virus definitions.
I *think* I've disabled all the notifications for things that it's going to do automatically anyway, but we'll see...
Re:It still leaks! (Score:2)
Re:It still leaks! (Score:2)
There are hundreds of memory leaks in Firefox. You can't fix them by "changing a setting".
Besides, what most people are reporting as "memory leaks" in Firefox are generally due to normal memory usage (which is about what other browsers, such as IE and Opera, use), caching, memory fragmentation, memory leaks in extensions and plugins, and blaming any random problems on memory leaks. Yes, Firef
Re:It still leaks! (Score:2)
Re:It still leaks! (Score:2)
Re:It still leaks! (Score:2)
Install the Quality Feedback Agent and turn it on when Firefox crashes. That will give Firefox developers the information they need to fix the crashes. Try Firefox 1.5.0.4 when it comes out. It should be far more stable than earlier 1.5 versions.
Re:Nice.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice.... (Score:2)
Re:Nice.... (Score:2)
1) Loss of necessary function in existing program (intentional or not)
2) Conflicts involving said program and others on your system
3) The (though currently unlikely) introduction of a vulnerability whereby a virus can spoof the auto-update routine.
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2, Insightful)
in that case, why not waste a couple of hours everyday on moz
Not That Minor of a Revision - CAUTION (Score:2)
I'm not too terribly happy at the moment, but life isn't pefect.
I would urge caution to possibly NOT update to this release as the extention scrubbing fix will probably be released within a few days.
Re:Not That Minor of a Revision - CAUTION (Score:2)
It's entirely possible that you are correct. I updated it via the "Automatic Update" on 5 machines in our network before stopping the process. All of the machines have lost all of the extensions except for some reason ... "DOM Inspector".
I didn't do any tweaking whatsoever except press
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
Beta, yes; a good reason. but "relies a lot on ie6 code?" how do you know this exactly? are you one of the IE devs?
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source is actually a pretty good reason. It lets people contribute and find these problems, helps them guide the development of the product, and lets them build all sorts of neat add-ons. The whole Opera thing just comes across as snobby and pretentious, just like your post.
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:3, Informative)
People like you who have never really understood what a security nightmare IE still is probably never will - so I won't waste your time on that. But you (probably intentionally) totally ignored proper rendering and standards support. IE7 fixes a
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
If you're using vanilla Firefox, might as well dump it and go with Opera, but if you've ever tried stuff like adblock, slashdotter, tabmixplus, flashgot, videodownloader, or any of the other awesome extentions, you won't be able to go back to any other browser.
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, irrespective of number of flaws, while the number of people using IE stays so high, my chances of browsing a page with a security exploit for my browser is dramatically higher when using IE (I should add h
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
I have been working on a webpage lately, and have been having some issues along these lines. I have a lot of experience with the old-style HTML, but very little XHTML/CSS so I've been trying to drag myself into the modern world by revamping the website to use DIVs instead of tables and such.
One of the things I did was go steal a CSS navbar. Even the example code didn't work right under IE6! Yet, and this is the amusing part, it works in IE7.
After much mangling, I got it to the point where it almost w
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
Oh, yeah! Of course, the issue is twofold*: There are parts of the specs that IE6 implements incorrectly, and there are parts of the specs that IE6 doesn't implement at all. They've fixed some of the bugs, and they've added support for some of the missing chunks. There's still a lot of stuff that hasn't made it into IE7, but I personally can't wait until I can ignore IE6 and just code for IE7/Gecko/Opera/KHTML ins
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
Re:Just a minor revision (Score:2)
Many of the unpatched vulnerabilities aren't too serious as they are minor components that could be used in phishing attacks. That's not to say they shouldn't be fixed, but they're a far cry from execution of arbitrary code. Don't forget about the unfound or unreported vulnerabilities out there. Firefox is a relative newcomer to security and blackhat researchers. Fresh meat so to speak. If I were a company or government, I'd avoid it l
Re:Glad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's their freakin' logo? (Score:2)
Re:Flaw Found In Firefox 1.5.0.3 (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither of those statements are true, assuming that by "people" you mean a significant proportion of the people aware of Firefox and what it offers. Unless something drastic has happened while my back was turned I am pretty sure that almost no-one who uses firefox would consider it less secure than Internet Explorer.
As for being "riddled" with bugs, even if it were determined that Firefox had as many or more identified bugs of a comparable or worse severity than Internet Explorer, that still wouldn't change that fact that safe browsing is a lot more reliant on sensible behaviour than browser stability. The lack of ActiveX in Firefox is the real saviour as far as drive-by spyware installations are concerned. And for the slightly savvier user, Javascript whitelisting via the NoScript extension eliminates cross-site scripting exploits, without crippling necessary or useful functionality on trusted sites.
Blimey (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Blimey (Score:4, Funny)
C'mon, this is Slashdot... Isn't it obvious?! Your parent is modded as troll because some of the moderators can't seem to differentiate between the ORIGINAL posting which was a troll, and your response which wasn't.
Just another day in da /. hood
Re:Flaw Found In Firefox 1.5.0.3 (Score:2)
Also interesting in light of the amount (none) of vitriol and inflammatory language in your post.
Re:Long Live Seamonkey (Score:2, Insightful)
O. Wyss
Re:Extensions (Score:2)
If all that's available is a .jar file for the extension, I've read that it can be decompressed with unzip, edited, and recompressed; and then it will work.
Re:Extensions (Score:2)
Re:1.5.0.x crashing (Score:2)
On what webpages? What does one have to do to reproduce the crash?
Re:unicode symbols fail to display FF1.5.0.3 for M (Score:2, Informative)
People accustomed to PC-world mediocrity may find Firefox satisfactory for their tastes, but Firefox pales in comparison to the legions of Cocoa-native Mac browsers. Even Jon Hicks, the talented graphic designer who designed Firefox's logo and icon, switched to Safari a while back after getting fed up with Firefox's sluggish performance, not to mention its wretched user interface and terrible rendering.
Re:unicode symbols fail to display FF1.5.0.3 for M (Score:2)
Re:Can not upgrade from Firefox v0.7 (Score:2)
That's a system-level preference for all GTK2 apps. Change your GTK2 preferences accordingly if you want Emacs keybindings.