Yep, that's his personal blog (in fact, explicitly not listed in Planet Mozilla by his choice).

The background is trees - he recently bought a nice wooden house somewhere; there's blog posts about that too.

Odd, your updates should end up in the sandbox (and due to AMO being silly, used to also mean your whole extension ends up on the sandbox, instead of having a last-reviewed version public).

This is of course assuming you haven't been marked as trusted; people who were on AMOv1 were grandfathered in, though I understand that's been mass-removed recently. Other "trusted" authors include google and various mozilla employees, AIUI (but unconfirmed).

They actually appear to embed the ad code directly into the page (you can see which campaigns the ads are for; the one that hit me was for Vonyage, near the bottom of the page). In my case, it wrote a weakly obfuscated script that redirected the whole page to sex-and-the-city.cn (... err, yeah) which redirected to protection-check07.

Poor NYT, they now have a special rule in my ad filters.

Umm, sounds like MS is complying with the BSD license to me! They're keeping the copyright statement in, and presumably anybody who gets a copy of whatever BSD licensed source in ftp.exe would still get the original BSD bits under BSD. For the second clause (copyright notice for the binary), see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/306819 maybe? (Yes, the Windows XP release notes.)

They're quite free to add non-BSD licensed bits to it, of course, and still be compliant. They're also quite free to ship binaries under a different license. All that doesn't change the license of the original source code.

What's not okay is removing the original copyright / license. (There was an attempt to do so in one of the patches to the Linux kernel a while back; uproar ensued, the change never went in.)

Please don't use ftp.mozilla.org! That's the server used for things like nightly builds and other testing machinery.

Instead, please use the mirror network, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/namoroka/alpha1/

Besides... linking to latest-trunk/ and pretending it's a release is always bad.

IE4 was also, IMHO, superior to NS4. Heck, I think IE3 was about on par. (I started with whichever Netscape had the throbbing giant blue N, in Windows 3.1 using Trumpet WinSock.) In fact, I believe we had specifically gotten a copy of IE4 on CD (separate from Windows 95) from some magazine or other to upgrade.

Seriously, causing the whole page to reload when you resize the window? WTF, Netscape?

And then the crapware installers would drop things into Firefox's main directory, instead of being an addon. Oops, now you can't even disable them!

Yes, some other piece-of-crap already tried that; removing it involved manually finding the .jar and the .manifest and killing them in the Firefox install.

http://code.google.com/p/parchment/ does that, yes. Well, not quite - it's a Z-machine interpreter.

In that case the correct solution is probably something along the lines of "learn how to install VMWare so you can host a Windows VM".

Huh, I find that tutorial-as-documentation to be horrid (I don't want to do it in those steps, and it's a giant pain in the ass to look up any syntax). The standard library, though, does have excellent documentation in the same place. But that's not the syntax.