Talk:Firefox/Archive 9

message: Just to clear some things up; I don't want to misinform any users.
Some users added (thank you) section "Google relationship" to the article. It includes sentence: "The default security feature of builds by the Mozilla Foundation activate an anti-phishing feature to provide live protection and send user data to Google[85]". Well, actually, it is not fully correct.
There are two modes of antiphishing protection in FF2.0. One ("basic") is enabled by default, and it is based on list of "phishy" pages. This list is on user's computer and is updated at regular (0.5h) intervals. Nice (and, I believe, fully correct) explanation was given by user "Myk Melez" in comment on this site.
This log was created when browser was in this (default) mode. It basically shows that browser connects each half hour with Google's server and fetches (or not) some update. That's all. (Unfortunately, there is also Cookie: header, but from cookie alone Google can't harvest any personal info. [But if user never clears cookie - then Google is able to relate (with help of cookie) all requests to Google's servers to one person... Well, my English sucks, so I guess I've failed with this part of explanation... Read article about HTTP cookie if you are interested...]).
The second mode ("advanced", "live protection") is _not_ enabled by default. User must explicitly opt-in for it. Then, all URLs he/she visits are sent to Google. (Also, there is some indication in source code that in this mode cookie is _not_ sent, but I have to do further research.)
So, I've changed some things in aforemetioned (on the beginning) section. 193.219.28.146 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small explanation about antiphishing in FF2.0 

message: ...is depicted on the Firefox logo? - Sikon 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Nonpareility 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  heres what I read, It is no real planet, but it's sort of earth, with an extra unknown (intentionally) unreal continent displayed, so as not to promote on country of users over another, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oxinabox1 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What planet... 

message: While this Firefox release schedule shows the release date being May 2007, it was last updated Sept. 23 2006; this release roadmap shows the release date as November 2007, and was last updated Nov. 8 2006.  Also. this PC World article from Dec. 8 2006 says the release of Firefox 3 is still a year away. Kat, Queen of Typos 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox 3 release pushed back? 

message: There is too little info about versions 1 and 2.  It is fine to have the separate History-of article full of dense tech stuff, but there should be a good summary of user-relevant matters here. 69.87.193.234 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too little history

message: Firefox nightly folder contains two new interesting entries holding release candidates for 1.5.0.9 and 2.0.0.1. It looks they will be released in the very near future. --Denniss 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're released now, I run 2.0.0.1, when I'm experimenting with SVG and such advanced things - but some other browser otherwise. (The intention of this smalltalk bla was to comment that it has occurred) Rursus 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bugfix versions in preparation 

message: I corrected the license link in the summary box to point to the Mozilla EULA and it was reverted in under 2 minutes by someone pointing me to the Licensing section in-page.  There are two problems with this: (1) the Licensing section doesn't mention the EULA at all, and (2) the claim that Firefox is distributed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license is factually incorrect.  Firefox is *based* on a mountain of source code which is under the tri-license, but Firefox itself is distributed under the Mozilla EULA. MarkPilgrim 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I think I can see where the confusion comes frome. The tri-license refers to the source code, the EULA refers to the binary download available from the Mozilla site. We are in fact both correct...-Localzuk(talk) 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  The tri-license refers to the source code (well, most of it anyway).  But "Firefox" refers to an end-user product, the result of compiling that source code with a certain flag (specifically, by putting "ac_add_options --enable-official-branding" into your .mozconfig file), which creates a product that includes the graphic files stored in other-licenses/branding/firefox/ (which are strictly copyrighted).  Compiling without that .mozconfig flag creates a different product (variously named Deer Park, Bon Echo, Minefield, or Gran Paradiso) with graphic files from browser/base/branding/ (which are tri-licensed).  The statement "Gran Paradiso is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is correct.  The statement "Firefox is based in part on code which is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is correct but perhaps a bit misleading without a link to to the actual EULA.  The statement "Firefox is tri-licensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL" is simply incorrect. MarkPilgrim 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-did the change, now with explanation of why exactly this is in the Licensing section. Hope this satisfies everyone? Grauw 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  License link 

message: Normally I use to browse over neutrality discussions as fast as possible!! (Grr!) The reason is that I use to filter data to remove subjectivities myself. The few POV i object against is if humans or living species are falsely slandered, or if data is missing or misrepresented because the author applied his own filter when writing. Now, consider: every browser deserves some blame (Mozilla too), every browser deserves some praise (MSIE too), (if you're an MSIE affiniado, turn the stmts) - are the topics for blame/praise irrelevant for the readers of the article? What's most important:
:A. every fact available and correctly represented for reader? or,
:B. no reader whatsoever never annoyed because he/she never perceives the article representing a faulty opinion?
PLEASE!! Be sensitive - I want to know, not to be served politically correct mashed baby-food. Rursus 11:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutralitas in absurdum

message: Is this really the best we can do? Could it not be of a typical set-up - standard Windows XP theme, 1024x768? Seegoon 21:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with using a photo from the Linux version of the program? -Localzuk(talk) 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why Windows always? Mozilla Firefox also runs on other operating systems, Ubuntu looks good. --Emx 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because people using Luna Blue at 1024x768 are probably less likely to use FF. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 22:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem with the linux setup or colour scheme - but it would be nice if it illustrated the FF2.0 tabs, tabbed browsing being a key feature of the browser. 82.15.249.72 22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why it is a problem: because the vast majority of users are running Windows. Even better idea: change to Vista screenshot because it is the latest version of Windows. -Kingy 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it even matter, since interface is the same across all platforms? I think not. -- TheDarkArchon 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main screenshot 

message: From "protected" to "protected from vandalism". -Kingy 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "protected from vandalism" mean in practice? That non-registered users are unable to edit article (as opposed to registered)? 193.219.28.146 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but it will prevent me from editing article... How about fully unprotecting the article? I didn't see any vandalism from IPs before protection. 193.219.28.146 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like your suggestion was tried, and immediately anonymous editors started vandalizing the article. At least with semi-protection we can get the page into good shape. If you see any problems you'd like to see addressed, discuss them. I've already addressed one of your concerns by citing a reference. -- Schapel 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have objections to this reference, see above for details. I also have objection to this edit. There is no mention about EULA in this section, it should be included; also, this sentence clarifies situation with tri-licensing; please revert this change. BTW -- could someone inform me how long will this situation (i.e. semiprotection) last? I am not able to edit article... 193.219.28.146 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Status Change 

message: "Firefox 2. This version includes improvements to the tabbed browsing environment"
This statement is not NPOV.  It is marketing hype. V2 breaks the 1.5x tabbed browsing functioning that millions of 1.5x users expect.  The NPOV statement would be "includes changes to the tabbed browsing" or even "includes significant changes to the tabbed browsing"...  (By the way, apparently there are easy ways to change some hidden settings to restore the traditional functions.  I can't be sure, I've been too afraid to risk "upgrading".) 69.87.193.126 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is already listed above.  Why did you have to go and start a new section about it?  By the way, you are correct, the old options are restorable, seeing as almost every feature in Firefox is tweakable.  In fact, it is not the only feature you can revert.  However, I am curious, what are you afraid of upgrading for? -Kingy 05:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabbed browsing

message: Some people keep vandalizing the page? I fixed it, but should this be protected? ThreeDee912 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals... 

message: I found an SVG version of the Firefox logo online and uploaded it as :Image:Firefox-logo.svg. 
When I try to add it to the Firefox article the image becomes invisible. Can anyone help?
--SpongeBrain 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is visible to me (using Firefox 2.0.0.1). -Mardus 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is visible to me too, but when I add it to the Firefox article it isn't visible. Maybe, I'll try it again. --SpongeBrain 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fixed. It turns out that the image just doesn't work at 92 pixels. The image looks a little rough so hopefully, people will help fix it up. --SpongeBrain 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help me out? 

message: After protection has been lifted I saw only three vandalizing edits, from the same IP (actually, another IP even corrected vandalism, see recent history of the article). So, according to Semi-protection policy it should not be semi-protected in this case. This situation could be considered "as response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others". 193.219.28.146 19:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article semiprotected? 

message: The word positively is positively not a weasel word. Using weasel words refers to words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Please read the explanations of weasel words and NPOV before erroneously complaining that the article uses weasel words and is not NPOV. -- Schapel 21:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words