Talk:Firefox/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Weasel words (regarding <a ping>)

The weasel words are back. LWN reports that "by some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware." That statement contains weasel words. I'm sure that there are some people who say that. The problem is, who? If we cannot attribute the statement "this feature will turn Firefox into spyware" to any reliable source, we should replace the unattributable opinion with a concrete fact. You can read WP:AWW for more information. -- Schapel 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, they then note that this is not true in the next sentence. John Nevard (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the sentence I used? "On the other hand, the feature causes discomfort for some privacy advocates, because unlike supporting general-purpose features that can be used for click-tracking, supporting the ping attribute explicitly sacrifices users' privacy for the benefit of web developers and especially advertisers." Jruderman (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it has the same problem as the original wording. Opinions should be attributable to a specific person or group, and if they cannot be, concrete facts should be used in their place. -- Schapel (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Usually the usage of weasel words means the statement is one that would need a source or caveat, or in fact an indicator that the statement is unsubstantiated. It would seem that one of these is the case here. By what account would be it spyware? Who has actually said so, or is it simply that it would fall under currently defined definitions of spyware from <insert reputable party here>? If the latter, is this a notable concern without anyone of authority actually stating it, or is it simply extrapolation a la WP:OR based on expectations?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Users (anonymous users, specifically) seem to keep adding the unattributed opinions without discussing it on the talk page or even giving any reason in the edit comment. Perhaps it's time to protect the article again? -- Schapel (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the IPs made a sleeper account (Iofur Raknison (talk · contribs)) and he's now engaged in an edit war with me. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Don't this page or this one and their comments (I can find more if you want) clearly show people's concerns about privacy and informed consent (see the definition of spyware) regarding the ping attribute ? These are the "some acounts". --Fenring (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or eg. this (and if you want to tell me that Slashdot is not reliable source, then remove references to slashdot from the article, please). Iofur Raknison (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the thread in the slashdot link is "Useful or Spyware?" There are subsequent user-posted comments that mention spyware. However, the Slashdot link in the article shows an interview with the VP of Mozilla Labs. There's a clear difference between user commentary and actual statements made by an authority of the subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that you can find "some accounts" of people calling Firefox spyware. You can also find "some accounts" of people saying Firefox crashes every five minutes. Should we add those opinions to the article? Or how about "some accounts" of people stating that Firefox has no bugs? No, we need to draw the line somewhere so that this encyclopedia article contains relevant and useful information, not just any old things that some small group of users says. Surely if there were legitimate privacy concerns over the ping attribute, a privacy advocacy group or notable privacy activist would make a public statement? The LWN article is about the most notable source anyone can find, and even they say that the ping attribute has advantages over other means of tracking users and is arguably better. Therefore, that's what we should say in the article. Got it now? -- Schapel (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to use the word "Spyware" either. But it's important to explain the ping advantages (speed) and disadvantages (it adds another privacy concern, just like cookies, javascript or http referer). Anyway, I'm in favor to move all these arguments to the HTML5 article. It's related to the spec, not to Firefox's implementation. --Fenring (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, IMO it is important to explain difference between site that is using some form of link tracking (user pays with privacy and bandwidth etc.) and site that is NOT using any form of link tracking (privacy, speed, etc.).

I think it is important to mention this attribute in this article, because Firefox is (AFAIK) the first popular browser that is going to implement this feature (despite opposition from its users, BTW). One of the biggest potential beneficiary from support for this attribute is Google and there is relationship between Mozilla Corp. and Google Inc.

BTW -- cookies and JS are very useful features from user's point of view, but "ping" attribute gives completely nothing for end-user (and it can take away sth from him - privacy, security etc., especially that most users will be completely unaware of this thing). Iofur Raknison (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Iofur, it's not really the place to debate about this feature. But, compared to a redirection, I'm well aware of ping's drawback for the end-user : lack of privacy and trancparency if the ping urls are not clearly shown. I'm also aware of the benefits : urls easier to read, it will be faster (the ping is sent in a non-blocking way), the user can turn it off. This last one is of course a benefit for the advertisers too. But it will not benefit Google or any other ads publishers. Because if your browser doesn't support ping or if you turn it off, they won't know you've clicked on the link, and thus won't ask money to the advertiser. Publishers can just hope the implementation of this feature will attract more user and advertisers on their site, I think. But as I said, it's not the point. I think we should just explain that the feature is controversial because, despite its advantages, it introduces another way to compromise privacy. --Fenring (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"the user can turn it off. This last one is of course a benefit for the advertisers too." - are you kidding? This is definitely not a benefit from the advertisers point of view. That's the reason why they're not going to completely switch from older methods (especially redirects) to this attritbute - but "ping" will be very good as an additional method.

"Because if your browser doesn't support ping or if you turn it off, they won't know you've clicked on the link, and thus won't ask money to the advertiser." -- there is big IF - if they use method with ping instead of redirects/JS hacks/whatever they use now. IMO it will be just another, additional way of tracking users, and I am pretty sure that Google is going to use it on pages with search results. Most users will not disable this, because they will be completely unaware of the thing -- and you help achieving this if you remove all material about this attribute from article about Firefox. Moreover, sites that want to track clicking on links can detect if user's browser supports this attribute -- and if not they can just use old methods (more "expensive" in terms of bandwidth, but at least working).

Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm too tired. Feel free to add whatever sales pitch you read in "reliable sources" like Mozilla devs/Google/webmasters employed by advertisers/security experts employed by Google, etc. I don't really care about content of WP at this point anymore, and I have better things to do than editing it. Bye. Iofur Raknison (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the <a> 'ping' has been removed in FF 3 now. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415168 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.55 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Labs

I have added links to the Weave, Personas and Prism announcements on the Mozilla Labs page. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 OS themes

I feel it is advisable to not distinguish XP and Vista for now, since according to the Firefox 3 Product Requirement List (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Product_Requirements_Document#OS_platform_integration), the feature that would distinguish between XP and Vista installations is currently "At Risk". Vista currently applies the same theme as XP, so the two should share the same box for now, until changes occur. Thanks. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. It'll most likely be fixed by the end of today. By the way, when taking the screenshots, please take a picture of the wikipedia homepage, not this article. --Titan602 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And without the Wikipedia logo, please, so the screenshot is a little more free. --AVRS (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe the Wikipedia logo should be shown in a screenshot, as it helps identify the page as part of Wikipedia (see the Internet Explorer screenshot). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to WP:ASR? - Sikon (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the logo, the page part is GNU FDL (unless a non-free image is included, which must not happen), but with the logo, it is less easy to extract the part to reuse as a different screenshot if such a need arises. --AVRS (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Scollable references

This edit puts the references in a scrollable 200px high window, but for at least Firefox on a Mac in classic skin introduces a horizontal scroll bar (in addition to the intended vertical scroll bar). Given that the browser window is already vertically scrollable I'm not sure I see the advantage of another vertically scrollable component. Anyone have a good reason this should be here? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the scollbars. They should not be there; it looks bad and makes it difficult to get at the references. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third most used browser?

What's with these edits trying to claim that Firefox is the third most used browser by counting IE 6 and IE 7 as two completely different browsers? -- Schapel (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a claim, but a fact that when (and only when) counting IE versions it is number three. One of the advantages is that it shows how it compares to old IE versions in market share. Digita (talk)

If you'd like to make that comparison then please show percentages, don't just say that Firefox is in third. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The point I wanted to make initially was that Firefox had surpassed IE5 (it may soon pass IE6 as well), at which point it made sense preface it with a comparison based on major (not minor versions). I don't care about saying its third, the point was to compare it to the major IE versions. That said, adding the percentages is excellent idea. Digita (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand the point. Why compare all versions of one browser against separate versions of another browser? I understand that it is a fact. What's the point of stating that fact? -- Schapel (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading what's been added to the article, it looks like an unreadble mess. How about the simple statements "Firefox is the second most used browser after Internet Explorer. Comparing major versions of browsers, Firefox 2 is the third most used browser version after Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7?" That is at least readable, but I still don't understand what the point is. Why would a reader care about this fact? Let's leave out all the stuff about when which version of what browser surpassed what other version of whichever whatever version browser back five years ago. -- Schapel (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the redone section with RTD and your input, it is more clear major versions are being compared (e.g. IE7 to FF2). There are multiple points really, such as to show that the latest releases quickly become dominant, that Firefox versions have overtaken IE versions, and to giver perspective on the current market share war. For instance, given the market share shift it seems former IE6 users are going to Firefox and Safari when they migrate. Finally, I did not mean question your understanding of facts;I was just trying to be emphatic. Digita (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am flexible on the wording but I stand by the utility of version to version comparison. (Had a E.C., this is for the second Schapel note) Digita (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. You're attempting to convince the reader that IE6 users are going to Firefox or Safari? First, you shouldn't try to make such a point unless a reliable source has already done so. Second, I don't see how the data you provide advances that position. Who cares if Firefox versions have overtaken IE versions? If you want to make a point, find a reliable source that makes the point and cite it while clearly stating the point. Don't overload the reader with a mass of data in unreadable form and expect them to infer the conclusion you're trying to get them to reach. -- Schapel (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked me for some reasons, those were some ideas for our discussion here not the article. What the reader draws from the information is up to them, and I am not trying to make a more complicated point. In terms of the article, I think there should be a comparison of the version and the exact wording is not critical (nothing more nothing less). Surely you must see some value in comparison. Digita (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The only value I can see in comparing the usage of different versions of different browsers is in determining which browser versions a web developer should test with. If IE 6 and IE 7 are used more than Firefox 2, perhaps it would be wise to test in IE 6 and IE 7 first. Why would it matter to anyone but web developers, who I'm sure already know which versions of which browsers are most used? -- Schapel (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, if anything, it is Firefox 2 that is a minor version of Firefox 1.5, and not Firefox 1.5 of 1.0. Also, 1.0 is Gecko 1.7, 1.5 is 1.8, and 2.0 is 1.8.1. --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing FF's market share to IE5 strikes me as a fairly silly comparison. Microsoft has basically forced anyone running IE5 to upgrade to IE6 and will, no doubt, eventually force anyone running IE6 to upgrade to IE7. Once a new version is out, comparisons of "market share" of older versions really have no particular meaning, particularly when the users of the old version are more or less compelled to upgrade to the new version. Usage of the old version declines while usage of the new version increases. Any current version of another browser will eventually have more market share than an old enough version of IE (just out - usage of Lynx surpasses usage of IE4!). I think I agree with Schapel here - unless there's something published somewhere that makes a big point of this, why should we? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That argument doesn't apply to the comparison between FF2 and IE7, as those would both be current. In addition, I disagree about the historical comparison, so long as they relevant then. For instance, Firefox overtaking IE5 was significant at the time, because they had the same market share. Where I would agree is if we said FF2 overtook, say the market share of IE3 in 1 day, because its not significant now OR in the past. All that said, I don't really care about the exact nature of this version comparison, so as long there is one. Digita (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was significant at the time, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source making that observation. Summarize that observation in the article, and cite that source as verification. It's as simple as that. Don't put your own observation in Wikipedia. WP is not for original material, just for summarizing what secondary sources say. -- Schapel (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add, the resistance here against comparing versions mystifies me. Most modern trackers track major versions independently, and most of the community focus I see is on major versions (such as FF2, FF3, etc.) not on some generic concept! So, once again, I stand by having some sort of version comparison in the article regardless of its me, Schapel, or whoever writing it. Digita (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's your own personal analysis of the situation. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original material. Publish your analysis elsewhere. -- Schapel (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The version market share is not original research, its a single referenced fact in the context of the article. It would only be research, if there was an additional statement about what it meant. Digita (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the simple statement "Firefox 2 is the third most used browser version after Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7" is not original research. That's why I suggested that wording. But it is not important. It's a trivial piece of information. Go ahead and add that statement to the daughter article. It's too detailed and unimportant for the main article. If you want to add it to the main article, I would ask for a reliable source that includes someone pointing out that fact in an English sentence, not just a reference to a computer-generated report, and mentioning that it has some significance. If no human being bothers to point out the fact, how can it be important? -- Schapel (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think part of our problem is that I re-wrote the version comparison with RTDs input "If you'd like to make that comparison then please show percentages, don't just say that Firefox is in third. ". So I added that data, but you seem to dislike this second version greatly. I will make a third version that will perhaps address some of your concerns. Digita (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out an example of version comparison, here is a quote from an Ars Technica article that uses both combined version and separate version comparison. [3] With Statments such as "Curiously, the release of Internet Explorer 7 last summer didn't provide any additional momentum for Microsoft. IE7's browser share soared from 3.18 percent in October 2006 to 25.01 percent last month, but all of that gain came at the expense of older versions of the browser, especially IE6, which dipped from 77.17 percent to 54.04 percent, according to Net Applications.". Here is another article titled Internet Explorer 7 vs. Firefox 2 at CNET [4].

Neither of the sources you gives compares the usage share of one version of one browser and the usage share of another version of another browser. One compares the usage share of different versions of the same browser, and the other compares features of the two browsers, not usage share. The problem with the version re-written with percentages is that you not only added percentages, but also expanded the statement to an entire paragraph which was unreadable. If you want to compare usage share of different versions of different browsers in the main article, I again ask you to cite a reliable source that makes exactly that same comparison (not a completely different comparison) and why that comparison is important. -- Schapel (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are just nitpicking at this point, but I think we have reached a compromise regardless. The only additional change, is to leave just a comparison of market share in the main article and the rest can be in the daughter article as you suggest. Digita (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not nitpicking. No reliable source makes the comparison you are trying to make because it is a trivial piece of information with no importance. It has no place in the main article. I already added a sentence to the daughter article with percentages. -- Schapel (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is already used in the article to describe market share. Digita (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, comparing versions is already done in the article, for instance in the next section it says "After the release of Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, PC World reviewed both and declared that Firefox was the better browser"; so to say it has no importance is contradictory to whats already in the article. Digita (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another thought Sc., perhaps this information about version market share would be better in a table, given our debate the wording?Digita (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have both wasted too much time discussing this. Just leave something about the version comparison in both articles. The daughter article is ok with me, if its ok with you. Digita (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please show an actual human being pointing out that comparison as having some importance and meaning. Otherwise, it does not warrant inclusion in the main article. It's a piece of trivia scraped off a computer-generated report. For all I can tell, those reports are not even intended for comparing the share of different versions of different browsers, but just a way of reporting the usage of different versions so that the usage of different versions of the same browser can be compared (e.g. comparing the use of IE 6 and IE 7, or comparing Firefox 1 and Firefox 2). It's not a notable fact and you are giving it undue weight by including it in the main article. -- Schapel (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already compares versions, and there are numerous reviews that compare Firefox 2 and IE7. Just because you have become obsessed with the fact that its possible to compare FF1 to FF2 when you list the market share FF2, IE7, IE6, Safari 3, and FF1 doesn't mean thats the reason for including it. Digita (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, here is yet another article E6 vs. IE7 vs. Firefox 2.0 vs. Firefox 1.5 vs. Safari 3.0 vs. Opera 9 - In browser market share by Marius Oiaga, Technology News Editor. It contains such gems as "Firefox 2.0 has been also expanding its share constantly in spite of IE7. From just 0.69% in October 2006, Firefox 2.0 is now accounting for 11.07% of the market. Mozilla has even sacrificed version 1.5 of its open source browser for Firefox 2.0. "

Except for the sentence in which you contradicted yourself, this is a far, far higher quality edit than the others I have seen contributed by you recently. I want to say that I acknowledge and appreciate your effort. Thank you. -- Schapel (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad we worked this out also. Thanks and good luck. Digita (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Digita, I don't know if you're trying to play stupid or what, but you still do not have any reference that compares the usage share of a version of one browser and a version of another browser, as you seem to claim. In the Softpedia reference you provide, each paragraph compares the usage share of different versions of the same browser. -- Schapel (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just becuase two versions of different browsers are only compared in the same article, not the same paragraph, does not validate your argument (even if it were reason to revert in the first place) Nevertheless, here is yet another source with a comparison of market share of a version of one browser, to a version of another browser, [5]. Such quotes as During the week of July 2 to 8, 2007, the average visit share in a European country is in fact 23.1% for Firefox 2 and 22.6% for Internet Explorer 7 (of the totality of visits, all browsers taken together). Digita (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add, the article IE6 vs. IE7 vs. Firefox 2.0 vs. Firefox 1.5 vs. Safari 3.0 vs. Opera 9 - In browser market share deathmatch is also referenced there too. Digita (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Might want to check out IE7 and Firefox 2.0 Are Slaughtering Internet Explorer 6 also.[6] Digita (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we're finally getting somewhere. Thank for you finally providing sources that actually compare usage share of versions of different browsers. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now, can you put all these details in the daughter article and summarize the most important points in the main article? That's what the daughter article is for. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already covered in the daughter article. Digita (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hideous screenshot

Why are we using a Kubuntu screenshot for firefox? It's made for GTK, which KDE is not. :D\=< (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I wanted it to be in OS X so it would look nicest, but somehow that wasn't free enough. The Kubuntu one replaced an older Ubuntu one, which looks pretty much identical except it doesn't have the ugly, distracting orange. Althepal (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is some editors' childish obsessions with appearance over following the rules. Apparently wikipedia is now some kind of magazine that needs a style editor.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview release

There is Firefox 3.0 beta 4 pre, can we reedit "preview release"? --Ilhanli (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just a nightly build, not a preview release. It's a pre-preview release. Althepal (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now the beta 4 will be released very shortly. Althepal (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 Beta 3 includes Colour Management

For those of us who work with digital images the news that Firefox 3 Beta 3 now includes colour management may be interesting. There's some info about it here: http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/08/color-management-support-added-to-firefox-3/

To enable it - it's disabled by default at this Beta stage - type (without the quotes) 'about:config' in the address bar and set 'gfx.color_management.enabled' to 'true' and restart Firefox.

There's a test page here: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter in which the larger image seems OK in Firefox with Colour Management enabled, but Internet Explorer 7 just shows the differing quadrants. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Free Software in screenshots

Why was the Firefox running under Ubuntu screenshot replaced with a Mac OS X screenshot (with OS menus included). This makes it feel more like a vanity shot than an informative screenshot. If anything we should be using free software (like GNU/Linux) in screenshots. Ubuntu is easily identifiable by its "Human" theme. Opinions? 202.81.18.30 (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) av 27/12/2007

I've restored the Ubuntu screenshot. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The screenshot it was replaced with wasn't using the default Firefox theme. However, I do not agree that the OS has any impact of how "Free" the screenshot is, because the screenshot is of the program itself. IMHO, the screenshot in Ubuntu is a little ugly (I mean, an ORANGE titlebar?!) and I think a Mac one would look nicer. Althepal (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Its an issue of overall image policy, not aesthetics. Like it or not, everything in the screenshot is relevant to its copyright status. If I take a picture of my hand, and there is copyrighted material in the background, it may still violate the ability to use that image under the GFDL and so on. It makes the image not a free image whether you say so or not. And by the way if you're thinking this is a bias thing, I don't even like linux. I find ubuntu to be a pain.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The title bar is pretty insignificant, but since GNOME is definitely free-as-in-freedom, it's preferred to a non-free Windows or Mac screenshot. Orange is the default color in Ubuntu, and really, it's not that bad. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the ubuntu screenshot due to the new image being in windows, which does not satisfy the non-free image critea of no-free equivalent--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For some more discussion of this, see the Commons policy on screenshots. The claim there is that the creation of a screenshot involves zero creative work, and so it is controlled by the copyright of the depicted program. I happen to disagree with that claim, but I don't have adequate sources to dispute it in more detail: it seems to me that screenshots are analogous to photographs, and that there is indeed creative work in setting up and composing the screenshot.

In any event, there are plenty of cases where screenshots would obviously be protected by fair use, and where there is no non-free substitute available. For instance, any program that only runs on Windows (and uses Windows GUI widgets, which are copyrighted by Microsoft) would be an example. But Firefox is free itself and runs on free platforms, so we don't have that justification here. The issue is not one of copyright but of Wikipedia policy, which favors free content over fair-use content. --FOo (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, any shot of any program running in Windows is copyrighted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

The title bar and such is copyrighted, but is de minimis (insignificant). Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But in cases where a piece of software is available for both Windows and Linux, the Linux screenshot would be better because it definitely uses less non-free material. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is specifically a rule in the criteria of fair use that discusses this. If a free image (be it public domain, GFDL, etc) of equivalent value can can be produced (either because it exists or can be made), the image in question fails the criteria for fair use (it is not irreplaceable) and the free alternative is to be used instead. If no one bothers to make the free image, well, that just sucks, but it still violates the rule. As most people seem to interpret it exceptions can be made if making the free image would be exceptionally difficult, but that doesn't really apply here. ADD: Also, please note, not all builds using the linux kernel are free. Granted anyone aware of this rule is probably informed enough to make that distinction.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the shot we are using right now is depicting Ubuntu, which is free. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but might as well mention it to save anyone the effort. I know more than once I've seen people use Red Hat and simmilar nonfree builds for screenshots, not realizing that its really no better an alternative than windows or MacOS.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that Red Hat is a "non-free build"? Free software is about freedom, not about price; Red Hat are in the business of packaging, selling, and supporting free software. --FOo (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up a oldish conversation, but why is Wikipedia used for the screenshot content (or more specifically a part of the WP page showing the logo)? As the image description page states, this means that "This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation... Notwithstanding any other statements in this or any page, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL." Surely this limits the usefulness of the screenshot if the article was to be used in an eBook/on another website etc. under the GFDL as strictly speaking the image would have to be cleared with the foundation. Wouldn't it be an idea to have a totally GFDL-licenced page to be used as the screenshot? AlexJ (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is more discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Self-references_to_avoid#Screenshots. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That conversation is several months old, and sadly no consensus came out of it. As I see it, I can't find any reason why it's done other than because other pages do it. It is surely a breach of the FU guideline where "No free equivalent." must be available. AlexJ (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Althepal has once again placed a Mac OS X picture in. IMHO, it fails the fair use rationale that he described it with. Namely, replaceability. I can't see any advantage of this shot over the previous one, but I'll wait for an explanation before reverting. 99.248.223.241 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And once again I have reverted it. It does fail the fair use rationale per replaceability with free version. People need to grow up and drop the OS fanboy routine. Either go through the effort of creating the easily creatable free screenshot, or don't bother.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute. The screenshot I replaced it with is more free than the Ubuntu one. That's the one with the copyright Wikimedia content... And the screenshot should show the default view of the browser, i.e. with its home page not Wikipedia. Anyhow, the purpose of a screenshot in an article is to illustrate the program, which (OS fanboy support aside) is better done in OS X than Ubuntu due to the distracting colors. About Ubuntu in a screenshot being more free than other OSes? That is only the case where content of the OS (such as dock) is included. In the screenshot I uploaded, it only shows Firefox and not copyright OS X software. (Titlebar is negligible, esp since identical-looking ones exist which I know are free.) Now, my screenshot is of a newer version than shown in the Ubuntu one. But, if you revert me, I'll stay out of it. However, before doing so, think what's in the best interest of the article (not thinking about the OS). And before throwing out claims that any software written for a non-Linux OS is not free, back it up. Althepal (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you do show me a source about simply the base OS effecting the copyright status, I will be able to replace it with a new one from Ubuntu (but it will be a little more difficult to produce), though I would still think that it makes for a less-usable screenshot in the article. Either way, even if it could better be replaceable by a Linux screenshot, the existing one from Ubuntu is not one to replace it with, since it doesn't accurately enough illustrate the software in question (older version and not default-when-open web page). Althepal (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The default homepage is no more free than Wikipedia's; you're just replacing the Wikipedia logo with the Google one. I have no idea what the ideal website would be, perhaps example.com, though it's not very aesthetically pleasing.

As for copyright status, Apple has claimed that their "look and feel" is copyrighted in the past, and has gone to court against Microsoft over alleged violations. The issue was settled out of court, so there hasn't been any official ruling. However, Apple has apparently made legal threats to others who have made GUI's resembling their own, such as StarDock. Disclaimer: this information came from the articles look and feel and Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, which are both rather unsourced. 209.82.43.120 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Althepal|Althepal], you seem to have difficulty actually wrapping your mind around the concept of a free image vs. a fair use image. A free image contains no copyrighted information or content that has not been released for open public use. The image you included is running on an Apple OS, which has non free copyright status. Regardless of cropping out the OS background, bars, etc, the image is still restricted as containing that copyrighted content in the form of style, which YES apple has sued over in the past. Please actually take the effort to read over our image use policies instead of just making blind assertions over what is free and what is not. Also, I encourage you to illustrate the convention of using the default homepage. Wait, there isn't one. Every other browser page uses a screenshot with WIKIPEDIA in the window. Grow up and stop making unilateral changes. Oh, and please knock off the obvious sockpuppetry.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, nobody seems to assume good faith. Hmmm... I accidentally forgot to log in... so what? I wasn't trying to act as another user (if I was, I would have made a different account). And I was just trying to help the article... If that's not wanted, fine. If you also don't want it to be the default page when opening it, fine, let me know. But at least be nice about it. And by the way, Apple would never sue Wikimedia for using Mac OS in screenshots. Althepal (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope everything's okay now. I replaced the screenshot with one which is exactly as free as the previous one, yet my main concern (poor appearance in the article) is pretty much taken care of now that its done in Kubuntu. Althepal (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to replace the screenshot with one that has no titlebar. This will be an unedited photo. Also, if anyone objects, please post it here. Acid 1 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 4

"Action Monkey" (Firefox 4) is now on the ftp.mozilla.org site. I'm sure this could be rolled into the article somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegsrguy (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick search suggests that ActionMonkey is nothing of the sort, but a new JavaScript Engine which will probably see production use in Firefox 4. I'm guessing what you saw is this FTP directory, containing a build which I presume is for testing integration of said JS engine in the context of a Firefox build. - IMSoP (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its many problems.

It has many obsessive fanboys, and theres plenty of proof its not very good, eg www.firefoxmyths.com Please incoperate the truth into the article. 86.144.105.249 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is a featured article, so has been judged to be well balanced and well written. Please provide reliable sources if you wish for information to be included. The firefoxmyths site has been discounted as biased and unsuitable as a source on multiple occasions. Also, there are a good number of problems discussed in the article and its sub-articles.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While the reliability of the firefoxmyths site may be in question, some of the statistics it provide could still be utilized in the article. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if they are sourced elsewhere, and not the firefoxmyths site itself. Also, we have to make sure we don't over-analyse on this page. We should stick to summaries here and add the main discussion of the faults to the sub-pages.

Note, I'm not against negative info being included. I just don't want a repeat of the old criticisms article to occur.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage Share Image

Firefox usage share. Sources: NetApplications^[1] (red), TheCounter.com^[2] (blue)

I have created an SVG image which more accurately shows the usage share of Firefox. I believe this is a better representation than the current image for several reasons:

• The "fill" effect used on the current image could be misleading
• The current image shows data from one source only
• The data on this image has a shorter interval (more accurate)

Please suggest any improvements you think could be made to this image, and/or additional sources for usage data. Thanks - ARC Gritt^TALK 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The heading picture for this article should show Firefox running on a Leopard of Vista as these are more common systems than Ubuntu. --76.94.71.192 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu is currently used because it is open-source and free, unlike OS X or Windows. Free images are generally preferred in Wikipedia. However, changes might have to be made when Firefox 3 comes out (since it has different themes for different OSs). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

umm, a key? unless im being really stupid and missing one? Alastairthegreat (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Critisisms?

I don't see any criticisms here. Please add a criticisms section. It is criticized for its slow startup speed according to the article written in Swiftfox. Why don't you add a 'constructive criticism' here. Anyway, like all its competetors, Firefox is not a perfect product and has its own flaws.Triadwarfare (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article: Softpedia notes that Firefox takes longer to start up than other browsers. -- Schapel (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to group it in its own category where everyone can see it. 125.212.118.238 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should not be grouped by good/bad, if it can be grouped by subject. Otherwise some people will only read the good part and others only the bad part, and not the reasons for those. --AVRS (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What's with the new screenshot???

The screenshot uploaded by WikiLeon doesn't really show what Firefox looks like or what Wikipedia looks like. You can't use a worse screenshot which is less accurate just because that way it doesn't have any icons! Non-default bookmark bar, lack of icon where there would be one, CC icon in search bar where Google or Wikipedia is needed, fake logo on Wikipedia... come on, this is a screenshot! Don't go to extremes removing "non-free" content like that. Althepal (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree, there is a limit to how far we need to push to make an image free content. In order of the image to be encyclopedic we need to at least be able to show what Mozilla Firefox looks like without modification and what it renders a webpage in reality. I would say we need to restore the original screenshot or capture a new one that doesn't feature modifications and shows the browser in it's true form. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of policy does it say that we are supposed to use the absolute defaults for the main screenshot? See Image talk:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png for further discussion. --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your screenshot is misleading and not needed. Althepal (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, and have brought this up to The Wikipedia media copyright questions noticeboard. Please discuss there. --w^{L<speak·check>} 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright fine. I'll let the experts take it from here and stay out of it. You already stated both sides of the argument there. Althepal (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Copyright noticeboard gave a win-win situation by suggesting us to use both screenshots in the same article. One that shows Firefox in a configuration that displays an image that is as free as possible, as well as one that is shown with only the defaults. As there is no free way to show the browser's defaults, the second screenshot is a valid fair use rationale (you can actually display the default firefox search page, instead of the Wikipedia main page). The "free as possible image" can also be used on foreign Wikipedias which do not allow fair use whatsoever. As far as the Wikipedia logo is concerned, User:Remember the dot suggested we scroll the page down so the logo won't show (as the Internet Explorer page shows). I'll take both their advice, but since the first image (the infobox image) is meant to show Firefox, a fair use image won't work over a free use. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting information to add

I found this article used in the italian wikipedia. It's definately worth mentioning. It's about the percentage of Firefox users in most countries in the EU, and each continent. I'm sorry that I don't have time to add this myself. --Titan602 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be added to the daughter article Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox. -- Schapel (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

V838 Monocerotis expansion on 2/8/04

Does this image of the V838 Monocerotis expansion look familiar? Wired thinks so. Too bad this is too trivial to put on the article page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks for bringing it up. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent table-ification: 2x3 or 3x2?

Another user table-ified the popularity chart in Mozilla Firefox#Market adoption. Another editor reverted it for technical reasons. I redid the table using WikiCode. I tried a 2-row version but it didn't look good in one browser. The 3-row version looks awkward in at least one browser but at least you can read the whole thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Large deletions

What's up with the recent deletion of lots of material from the article? It was even done in such as way that it's not easy to tell what was removed and what was changed. Additionally, an explanation that "even IE7 is secure these days" is given as justification, with no sources cited. I'm going to revert the deletions. Please discuss on the talk page before deleting whole paragraphs outright, and makes changes a little at a time so we can see what's changing. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FF3 Linux screenshot removed?

Apparently the Linux screenshot of the Firefox beta was removed because it was non-free, of all things. Now there's just a big hole in the table. Why was this image removed? What part of it was non-free? Can it be replaced? Arrenlex (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Various faults in the article

The main image shows Firefox 2 running on Linux, but is described as FF 3 running on Vista. Also, the screenshot section is full of screenshots of FF 3 that hasn't been released yet. One screenshot should be good for a product that is still beta, instead put up some screenshots of earlier versions of FF and screenshots of the current version on different systems. The article was good for some days ago, rollback? --Kopmis (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Notable versions of Firefox?

Shouldn't there be a list of notable forks of the Firefox project? As in, alternate versions made by users like Ghostfox? Bit101 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Firefox open source?

Whether Firefox is open source is open to debate. According to the very strictest definition of open source, Firefox is not, as it contains copyrighted artwork and has a trademarked name. This means that you may not make arbitrary modifications to the software and distribute your altered software as Firefox. On the other hand, the article already states that Firefox is not considered free by the FSF, so stating that it is otherwise 100% open source seems to represent all points of view on the subject. Claiming that it is not open source seems to represent only one point of view, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Schapel (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Firefox code is open source. Some of the artwork is not, and as with Linux or Wikipedia, the name itself is a registered trademark. --FOo (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would says that Firefox itself isn't Open Source. The EULA is strictly proprietary. But of course it seems that the majority of the code is open source, but that's not Firefox. From my point of view, the fact that Firefox is a trademark doesn't have any effect on how it is Open Source or not. There are many Open Source software out there that have a trademark registered and provide their software with an Open Source licence, unlike Firefox. 82.233.96.31 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see someone keeps adding that Firefox is a free web browser. This can be misleading, as there are multiple meanings of the word free. Firefox is free in the sense that it costs no money. On the other hand, the Free Software Foundation states that Firefox binaries are not free (as in freedom) software. I think we should refrain from calling Firefox "free" to avoid any misunderstandings or controversy. -- Schapel (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear to anyone that the free is referring to the fact that is costs nothing. Rehevkor ✉ 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t agree that it’s clear, but it probably doesn’t do much harm at this point, in that place, since

1. there is a build switch to build without the branding.
2. the so-called “free” versions from Mozilla, GNU, and Debian still contain non-free icons, thus being only a little more free.

Yes, I consider GPL time-limited software with unobfuscated source code free when that’s easy to fix. Firefox binary is not free, but the branding does not perform (browser-)useful things for the user, and can be disabled or enabled at will, as well as (I hope) the other non-free icons.

--AVRS (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Firefox is open source, but the biggest mistake I´ve seen in the article is to call it free software (like software :::libre), Firefox is open source because you can donwload the code from mozilla´s web site, but it´s not free software because every :::modification have to be accepted by Mozilla, and there are pieces of code not GPL.

--62.212.122.189 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the opinion of the Free Software Foundation. I think you may have a misconception that if a program is free software that modifications must be accepted. This is obviously incorrect, because no free software project would willingly accept a patch that introduces a security vulnerability. -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact there is always problems between Mozilla and FSF, because the trademarks and the pieces of code not free source. And Debian has made another web browser based in firefox cause principally of politics of mozilla upgrading their program, if you can show an interview where FSF sais FIREFOX IS "software libre" i´ll agree, if not, this parts of article have to be removed

--62.212.122.189 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah I agree with you. The FSF says Firefox binaries are not free software, but not because they do not accept every modification. Please read what I say carefully. You can also read the article carefully, as it clearly also says that Firefox is not libre software. -- Schapel (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Firefox's source code is free software, released under a tri-license GPL/LGPL/MPL.[5]" Perhaps I have to learn to read, but I Have found this sentence problematic. And the thing about upgrading is about the problem with debian, clearly, for me it isn´t the politic of an free software project. And it´s for all that I have the question I´ve made.--82.245.19.104 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the Licensing section. The source code is free software, but the binary builds are not. -- Schapel (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabbed Browsing

Mozilla_Firefox#Response_from_Microsoft

The second paragraph states that IE implemened tabbed browsing, which was only previously available in firefox. I believe this to be incorrect. I thought Opera had tabbed browsing before firefox and I think tabbed browsing was available before even that--91.84.84.234 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to consider the context of the statement. It's in a section detailing Microsoft's response to Firefox. Previously, Microsoft said there was no demand for features in Firefox that were not in Internet Explorer, such as tabbed browsing. Then they apparently changed their minds and added tabbed browsing, exactly one of the features from Firefox that they said IE users didn't want. Yes, other browsers had tabbed browsing before Firefox, but that's not really relevant within the context as the only browsers being discussed are IE or Firefox. Either way to describe the situation seems fine to me, although I can see that before it may have been confusing because it appears incorrect out of context and now it doesn't emphasize Microsoft's response to Firefox specifically. -- Schapel (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"In October 2006, as congratulations for a successful ship of Firefox 2, the Internet Explorer 7 development team sent a cake to Mozilla. As a nod to the browser wars, some readers joked about the cake being poisoned, while others jokingly suggested that Mozilla send a cake back along with the recipe, in reference to the free software movement." hahaha that paragraph make me LOL... Microsoft collaborating with open source / free software?? This is the dawn of a new era :) --MakE (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 preRC1

Should I add Firefox 3 preRC1 to the table? --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the official release of RC1. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Outdated Windows Vista Screenshot

Under the "Themes" section of "Version 3.0," the screenshot of the Windows Vista theme is outdated: the screenshot is from just after the release of version 3.0 beta 4 and does not reflect the changes in theme made in beta 5 (i.e. the return of the "Home" button to the "Navigation" toolbar}. Could someone please update the Windows Vista screenshot to one of version 3.0 beta 5? Thanks. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Downgrading

Anybody know if the pre RC1 installer is available anywhere? Upon upgrading, I lost all my extensions, and would rather wait for them to be updated before upgrading to RC1. -D14BL0 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Vista VS XP

I noticed I have the "XP" theme, while I actually have Vista installed. I figure the only reason why this might happen would be that I have my aero theme disabled, and that the theme so far as XP vs Vista goes, is determined not by what operating system you have but what skin you are using (I am using classic), or, more likely, whether or not you are using aero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.51.144 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use bugzilla.mozilla.org for bug reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.3.184 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mozilla Firefox 3.0 pledges by region" Picture

This picture needs explaining in the main text or it should be removed. Cheers. - ARC Gritt^TALK 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you or someone else is welcome to do that. I am not willing to do it. For now I am only willing to update the map.

The image is very relevant to Fire Fox 3.0 and should not be removed. There are many other images such as screenshots of themes that are not at the moment accompanied by adequate amount of text.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Until it has been explained it simply has no place within the article. As far as I can see no explanation has been given in the text whatsoever. The image should be removed until you or someone else writes something to accompany it. If you are not willing to write it, then don't disrupt the article by re-adding an image that has zero context within the article as it is written. Rehevkor (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is in the Advertising section. If you re-add the picture, put in the right place. Please don't make a poor edit and expect others to fix it for you. -- Schapel (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that this was en.wikipedia, sorry I asked. -- Cat ^chi? 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Table Colours?

I noticed that the colour-coding of the "Release History" table has been removed, which is fine. However, further below, in the "Firefox market share by version" table, the colour-coding of the old table remains, despite the lack of a key for what the colours represent. Should a key be added, or should the colours be removed from this second table? 64.26.98.90 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3.0

Someone should update the page firefox 3.0 stable is out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.116.166 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When Firefox 3.0 is really and truly released, it will be on the mozilla.com site. Let's not say it's out until it's really out. Every "point-oh" release, people "jump the gun" and Mozilla has to tell everyone it hasn't been released yet. It's important to wait, because users trying to download can get the wrong bits if there's any sort of problem, or can overwhelm Mozilla's servers before the release hits the mirrors. Please wait until the release is uploaded, mirrored, and verified. That's all part of the release process. -- Schapel (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Didn't notice the words RC3 on the release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.117.221 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You can get updates on the progress on http://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/Firefox_3.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.32.190 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla website seems to have gone down at 1:00pm EST

I can't access the site either.  Xeysz  ☼  17:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to access it off and on, but it still has Version 2. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It does work, but not always. Mozilla seems to have server issues.

Because people thought by now, Firefox 3 would have been put up (It's currently 50+ mins past 10 AM PDT, and still no sign of the release even though MozillaZine/spreadfirefox said it would be up by now.) In other news, spreadfirefox.com is ALSO down for me. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here, both pages seem overloaded. 212.183.240.205 (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the Spread Firefox page is working, but when it's still the old one. And when you click that download link the page says "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable". :( ~Milnivri~ 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Firefox has been put up on the net, but downloading it now won't count towards the record. ftp://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0/ There you go. Check out the index EDIT: The index is gone, prepare for launch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.32.190 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But mozilla.com says Http/1.1 Service Unavailable still =/ 68.190.115.253 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Refresh, it will work.

But it still doesn't have ver3. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon ftp://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%203.0.exe

I meant the mozilla.com site, not a silly FTP. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's there. Try this direct link. I just replaced the version number, and it worked. Jonnyapple (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun, *downloads* But that FTP gave me an "unavailible" error. 68.190.115.253 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That download won't count towards the record, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.32.190 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It will count. It's from mozilla.org. Jonnyapple (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's here.

Any idea what "<<<<<<< .mine ======= >>>>>>> .r15918 " at the top of Mozilla.com is? Plus it looks like a lot is still messed up However, there's still no link to Firefox 3. Dang. --192.188.106.240 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, the link is here. Jonnyapple (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

But the front page is back to Firefox 2. :S

For the last time, that's not what we're worried about. We all want to make sure our downloads count, so we're waiting until the actual direct link goes up on the Mozilla.com page.

And now it is here, for Norway at least. I'm off to pay with FF3.0 now. byebye.

It seems that the fornt page is for 3.0 but the download link links still to 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.240.205 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There! finally fixed for US Trivial0921 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (CMT)

I looked at www.spreadfirefox.com around two hours after official launch and saw the number of downloads closer to 500 million. I don't know what's the official number please enlighten us all Ej159 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

valid sources

is referencing "Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 Vs Opera 9.50 Beta Vs Safari 3.1 Beta: Multiple Sites Opening Test" ~ 94 as valid test a joke? i hope for some discussion and doubt of other similar links as well ca1 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal status

An anonymous editor added the following in a new section titled "Legal status in the United States":

The legal status of Firefox in the United States of America is unclear, since it incorporates features protected by software patents, one of them is the progress bar, protected by a patent filled by IBM [7], another one is the double-click, protected by a patent filled by Microsoft [8].

I think without a reference claiming that Firefox's legal status is unclear this section is original research and should not be included. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd encourage people to use Patent Lens www.patentlens.org in preference to "patent storm", to avoid the ads and registration. Incidentally, neither patent looks like it is quite what is described above (one is for decorated progress bars, the other for long button clicks), but they each illustrate the need for a reform of the patent system to prevent the patenting of obvious ideas for methods of operation. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Download day": time in UTC

Why is the official 3.0 release time ("Download day") is specified in PDT? Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. I don't live in PDT+1000 timezone, I live in GMT+0300 (DST). --grawity 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PDT is GMT-7, I believe. You could just look it up on wikipedia :)

It was Mozilla's decision to declare it on this date and time. IMO, they should just have said June 17 wherever you are. It would have prevented the epic fiasco that is going on right now. People are trying to get FF3 but failing because they're not on the right date, or the older cached version is loaded, or just plain unbearable load on Mozilla's servers. It's a PR stunt that blew in their faces. Instead of competency they exhibit blunder. Instead of excitement they caused frustration. /rant 85.250.230.56 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that PDT == GMT-0700 (looked up before posting the question), and I know that 10:00 PDT == 17:00 GMT. I just wonder why in Wikipedia articles the time isn't in GMT. I think there's a guideline for dates to be in "July 4, 1992" format, to make it easier for worldwide users (besides consistency). The same should be for times, as timezones are often specified as GMT±HHMM (i.e. GMT+0200), but never as PST+XXXX or EST+XXXX. If the time is in GMT, then it's also easier for people who are not in US. /nonsense --grawity 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Skip the frustration and the home page and just download it from their download server here. Could someone put this on the page? It's protected, but it would save a lot of grief. Is there an admin out there who is sick of the complaining yet? Jonnyapple (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I really don't care when it's released - today or tomorrow. This was just a question about time formats. --grawity 18:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 Has Been Released

I am not very sure why the Mozilla Firefox page has been locked. Firefox 3 stable release is available for download, i am not sure why there are disputes. If you check the Download Day 2008 page, it is busy because of the many people downloading the software. The lock on the page is misleading people. The statement below all pages states " Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" the fact that Mozilla Firefox is not ready for download is not true and doesn't follow the trend of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is to be accurate, i may be making a big deal of this issue, but i am bringing up a point. Editors should be able to add verifiable content. (Shawnnicholsonca (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Except it's not. The various Mozilla websites are being slowly updated to reflect the release of version 3, but it's not actually available for download yet. -- I need a name (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, for the real final time you can get here and it does count toward the record. Jonnyapple (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has been released now. The protection can now be lifted. -- Schapel (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"The outpouring of interest and enthusiasm around Firefox 3 has been overwhelming (literally!). Our servers are currently feeling the burn and should be back to normal shortly. Download day will officially commence once the site goes live. The 24 hours period will be clocked from that moment. Thanks for your continued support." http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2008/06/17/firefox-3-coming-soon/ --87.127.117.246 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure, Jonnyapple? The default folder for that installation was something to the effect of "Mozilla Firefox 3 Beta 5"; why wouldn't it just go to "Mozilla Firefox" or "Mozilla Firefox 3"? (I haven't completed the installation to check the version, by the way; I don't want to install it until I'm sure I'm installing it). -- tariqabjotu 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was worried about that, too, Tariqabjotu. But I installed anyway and the about box says version 3.0 not version 3.0rc3 or anything about it being a beta release. Did anyone else have problems? 155.101.9.88 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a screenshot of Firefox 3 for OS X Leopard if that can be of any help for the article. Centrisian (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the release notes http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/releasenotes/ so it's official. Centrisian, it must be sized at 600x800 pixels, no modifications to the program, and Wikipedia's main page scrolled down to hide the Wikipedia logo. Althepal (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Firefox.3.os.x.png Let me know if that is good enough for you guys.Centrisian (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think it probably was better if you could make a screenshot like the other ones at the gallery, you know, just to keep them all similar, take a screenshot with the website www.google.com/firefox, besides, it probably is also better without a wikipedia page per Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, you can replace this image here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Firefox_3_Mac_OS_X.png, to keep a "standard" file name, and it is also better for link updating... good luck ;) SF007 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

After Installation Firefox 3.0

It still stated that it is beta (testing) release when the first page opened, though when you checked the help->about, it's final release (nothing being said about beta release. SHould it be mentioned? w_tanoto (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reliable source... -- Schapel (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why FireFox 3 is Garbage: 1. They ruined the theme and windows. Now it runs slower than before. Example: click on Bookmarks (wait for the delay for the bookmarks to display). Previously there was no delay when clicking on Bookmarks menu.

2. The playskool theme is ridiculous.

3. Try moving the window around the desktop. Why is it lagging? Another 'new' bloated updated.

Ah well. Serves em right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit it's slower, and can't load hotmail properly. I am keeping Firefox 2 and also use Firefox 3 in my other laptop. w_tanoto (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The theme is fine and when i move the window around it doesn't lag and there is no delay for me when clicking bookmarks. It's obviously your PC/Laptop specs because it's working perfect for me (3GHz Pentium 4, 1256MB RAM, Windows XP MCE 2005 Service Pack 3) and so have release candidates. 89.100.107.167 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Bar

I just wanted to inform you guys that according to an interview on G4's Attack of the Show (June 17th, 2008) with one of the heads of the Firefox 3 development team that the Navgation Bar's official name is the "Awesome Bar". --Takeru27 (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Graph of the Usage share of alternative web browsers

The title of the graph implies that only data from alternative web browsers has been used to compile it. This is clearly not the case. Otherwise firefox would be nearer to 80%, not 20%. Either the title should be changed to "Usage share of web browsers (IE not shown)" with IE added to the legend, or the graph should be replotted without using the Internet Explorer data. This is also the case with the 2 other wiki pages that use this graph; Browser Wars and Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox. DemonCleanerUK (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New screenshot

Another user uploaded a screenshot: Image:Firefox3 windows vista.jpg. They could not add it to the article at the time, as it was locked, and I think they are offline for day or two, during which time it will probably be deleted as an orphan. If it is useful to you, please add it to the article at the appropriate place, or it will be gone! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is really necessary, but thank you. We already have a picture on the page with it, and the top image is always on a freely liscenced OS whenever possible.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Easter eggs

Should we include a section on Easter eggs into this article? For example, typing " about:robots " into the URL bar in Firefox3 results in a page titled ' Gort! Klaatu barada nikto! ' - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

" About:mozilla " results in a red Biblical type of page. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See The Book of Mozilla and about URI scheme. - IMSoP (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What happens if you click "please do not press button again!" in about:robots ? Firefox is the best (talk)

WARNING:Vista users and Firefox 3

I am warning Vista users not to use FF 3 until a serious bug has been resolved. On Vista FF 3 is crashed by Data Execution Prevention. With most users it is unuseable, but in my case it is only when I download something. There is also a bug when using Gmail. Please see this site for details - Random Firefox 3 Crashes- Vista Data Execution Prevention . mozillaZine Forums Kathleen.wright5 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Firefox uses the free Gecko layout engine, which implements some current web standards plus a few features which are intended to anticipate likely additions to the standards."

I wonder why this candy flossing of the fact that FFx is not 100% standards compliant. The thing is that FFx is not able to clear Acid tests and it is laden with unwanted tags plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.36.58 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. No browser is 100% standards compliant. The latest stable version of Firefox passes Acid2, just like Safari and Opera. The latest stable version of Firefox does not pass Acid3, just like Safari and Opera. Anyway, the purpose of the Acid tests is not to compare browsers to see which is best. I'm not sure what you mean about "unwanted tags". Which tags are you referring to, and who doesn't want them? If you want to add something to the article, just do so and make sure it follows Wikipedia's guidelines, such as citing reliable sources, being written from a neutral point of view, and avoiding weasel words. -- Schapel (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is good article content, and I think its alreayd in there with a cite, but posting it on the talk page as a "warning" isn't really the appropriate course of action. In the future I recommend if you have something you wish to inform people, check to make sure it can be cited and is encyclopedic, and then introduce it with neutral point of view and tone into the appropriate section of the article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, which post in this section are you replying to? Both? --AVRS (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Acid tests are designed to be failed by some of the major browsers, and passed by some other ones. The fact that some browsers are ahead of others in implementing the stuff they failed when the test was released is, among the other reasons, because of how some of the last of the tests were chosen. --AVRS (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox 3 Split Proposal

Section for discussion of splitting off Firefox 3 content into a standalone, dedicated page.

I would like to kick off discussion for splitting off content on Mozilla Firefox, and from History of Mozilla Firefox into a Mozilla Firefox 3 page. There are a wide variety reasons to support such transition, both in the near and long term maintenance of Firefox content. Digita (talk)

Possible benefits:

• Allow a more concise Firefox page
• Allow greater depth on Firefox 3 related content
• Keep Firefox and Firefox history pages from being disproportionately focused on the latest release.
• Less need to update and change the Firefox page
• Central location for FF3 content, rather then near 50/50 or 60/40 split between Firefox 3 and History pages.
• In the long term, easier comparison with contemporary software such as OS and other browsers.
• Central, more rational location for detail development information (such as FF3 beta releases) and growth versions (e.g 3.1)
• Reduces the need to constantly adjust the ratio of old version, to new version information on the main page.
• When future versions come out, Firefox 3 content is efficiently maintained on it own page- less need for splitting.

Any single reason has its pros and cons, but I think the overall weight of the many benefits to creating a Firefox 3 page warrants a discussion. In fact, in the long term I believe it is inevitable such a break will occur, or at least some new type of break due to the amount of content that accrues. Thank you in advance to those considering this proposal. Digita (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The only way I can see Firefox 3 being its own article is if that version of the browser is a significant change from previous versions (ie Internet Explorer 7). Is it possible to have enough individual articles for Fx 2.x or 4.x when it comes out? --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is a significant enough change to support that. At a minimum, FF3 has been significant for much to be written about it in the current pages and in main stream press coverage. As for the second question, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible (provided there is enough content). Digita (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is sufficient content to slit out a new article. As the article currently stands the FF3 section is an overly large part of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many positive opinions for this. We should do it. --Titan602 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 is the current version of Firefox, we shouldn't have a separate page about it, we should talk about it in this page. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK that Firefox 3.0.1 has just been released on 17 July 2008 (UTC) and is on the end user homepage. Kathleen.wright5 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 7 is also the current version of IE, yet it does have it's own article. If we have enough content for a seperate article, we should go for it, for the sake of those readers who only want to know the basics and don't have to read through massively long articles. So#Why 08:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I approve of making a separate Firefox 3 page. It would slim down the main Firefox page, and allow for greater detail of the differences between 3.0 and 2.0. Shadic (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --144.122.250.207 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, just like it was done with ie7. --MakE ^shout! 06:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just do it already! Paper Luigi 05:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Main image.

What does everyone think of this screenshot that I took. More people are going to see Firefox in Windows than on Ubuntu and it shows the newer button style that seems to only appear on the Windows and Mac versions of Firefox 3.0 Illinois2011 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change it, also the differences can be seen under the "Themes" section. Further, from the source code:

Do not change this image to a non-free version (this includes Windows Vista screenshots). It will be deleted or reverted.

I'd guess the same goes for Mac and such? --Execvator (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for free images, but what is not free in an image taken from Windows, the widgets? It sounds a bit silly to me... so if I take a screenshot from my computer (and if I were using Windows) that's not a free image because it includes Windows widgets? I'm asking only to clarify myself... if the picture is not free, then use the Linux one, but if that's not the case, let's not invoke wrong arguments. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think that the current image is an accurate representation of what most people will think of as Firefox 3.0. It doesn't look anything like Firefox on Windows or Mac (which is the way most people will experience it). By the way, why is the screenshot from Windows not free? It doesn't show any Windows or Microsoft logos. And since my image has been removed from here, here is a link to it. Mozilla Firefox 3.0 running in Windows Vista. Illinois2011 (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You will have to ask someone else (the one who added the note would be a good choice) about why it's not "free". I simply quoted it to bring it to your attention. I wonder if such a screenshot would be ok if you used a Vista or Mac OS theme under Linux... Anyway, how about we just don't use a screenshot? It's not like you can show what Firefox looks like, especially given the intricate integration on Linux and the "fact" that most people install themes and extensions and both can make major changes to the interface.. --Execvator (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say change the image and then people who want to revert it should argue why the image is not free. The burden of proof is on them I would think. It also might be some policy somewhere in Wikipedia, it would be trivial to point us to that... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vista decorations are certainly much less free than Ubuntu or Windows Classic ones — I don’t think they just have spilt something on the table and used the result in their titlebars. And do you remember Windows and Mac users going nuts about the “Back” button change, even those who knew it could be disabled? --AVRS (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A previous discussion has been held and was stored at Talk:Mozilla Firefox/Archive 13#Using Free Software in screenshots. In addition to the points raised here please take a look at that if you still do not understand why we op for free OS screenshots when given the choice. I think people need to find something better to do than repeatedly argue on behalf of windows and mac fanboyism aginst longstanding image policy. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you be a little bit more polite and don't accuse people of fanboism, I've been using Linux for years, I never used Apple, I just asked if there's a policy and if a picture taken from Windows is automatically not free. I will follow the link provided to educate myself but I can do without the accusations or insinuations. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to start such a big argument over what is considered free and what is not. But the fact remains that the screenshot in use looks much more like Firefox 2 than Firefox 3. On Windows and Mac, the whole upper toolbar is different. If someone who is not familiar with Linux or Wikipedia policies just strolls on in to this article, they are going to get a very different representation of Firefox 3 than they should. Firefox 3 won't look like the image in place to 90% of the world. Illinois2011 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to accuse anyone specifically of that, and sorry if it came off that way. The issue though is this topic has come up several times before, pretty much every time the page gets archived it comes up again, and gets discussed again, with different people on both sides, to the same conclusion. Its in archive 13, 12, and twice in 11, just going back that far. Nevermind the fact that you urged editors to simply barrel ahead and change it, without regard to previously reached consensus as opposed to forming a new one first (which is what should clearly be done when a consensus has already been established).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Hi, this may sound out of the blue, but that screenshot has the Firefox logo . The logo is non-free as per Wikimedia's Definition of Free Cultural Works, so shouldn't a rationale be provided? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's two separate different images... --Execvator (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the previously reached consensus, so I am sorry if it appeared that I was ignoring it. I'm just concerned about images being accurate depictions of articles. And I don't think anyone has explained to me yet why a Windows or Mac image is not free. I've seen advertisements in magazines for years that appear to use Mac screenshots without any type of disclaimer. If the Windows logo or Apple logo is not present, it should be free right? I don't know. That just seems like the way it should be. If the consensus is the Ubuntu pic then we should leave it, but it sure is a shame that we cannot give readers an accurate picture of what Firefox looks like to the majority of users. Illinois2011 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the operating system determines the appearance of the titlebar and other parts of the screenshot, those parts of the screenshot are considered to be copyrighted by the operating system's copyright holder. However, there is such a thing as fair use, which allows those magazines to use the screenshots. Regardless, it is Wikipedia policy to use free images when possible (i.e. when we have a free image, or can produce one). - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we just didn't have a screenshot at the top of the article? I do not wish to make this into such a big issue, but I sincerely feel that the present screenshot is misleading. There are sample images later in the article that could suffice as representations of Firefox. Or is there a way we could have a gallery later in the article of screenshots of Firefox running in various operating systems? Illinois2011 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)