Recent Posts
Not that it changes the fact that the information is still there.That's mainly what I was getting at, yes.-Lashiec (July 17, 2008, 08:57 AM)
I don't really have faith in the CAs... iirc there were some posting about just how easy it is to do a little social engineering and get certs you really shouldn't have.And I'm sure Microsoft, having been in the CA role for all of...what, two years?...are completely invulnerable to any such thing. It's all well and good to play Devil's Advocate, but i think you're clutching at straws here f0d man.-f0dder (July 12, 2008, 07:11 PM)
Random companies signing their stuff in random ways = no level of trust.It's called a certificate authority, and they've been doing what Microsoft took upon themselves and charged through the nose for, for quite some time. They also provided the infrastructure, already available in Windows as Microsoft so....generously....provide their users with Internet Explorer. As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft will never be the knight in shining armor in this case.
That you have to go through Microsoft to get code signing means not just everybody can do it, and gives the certs some degree of trust. After all, if anybody could self-sign their executables, what would stop me from making über-evil malware and making the cert look like it came from Macromedia?-f0dder (July 12, 2008, 06:57 PM)
You can hardly give them credit for the idea...authors were attempting to package signatures with their works for a very long time before Microsoft waddled along with their "code signing". It's a bit of a slap in the face to most developers IMO, especially when Microsoft already had SSL/MIME certs at their fingertips, and chose to completely ignore them in favor of charging developers exuberant amounts of money for something they're already capable of doing in a slightly-less-integrated manner.Microsoft's code signing is nothing short of a complete disgrace. I'll stick with the good ol' gpg sig with the release.It's a good idea, but probably not implemented/enforced in the best way possible... especially because it's not really attainable for hobbyist developers.-Ehtyar (July 12, 2008, 08:41 AM)-f0dder (July 12, 2008, 10:10 AM)
"We need to collect these information to improve our statistics". What's the ultimate outcome of this? In which way is Google using the information users are submitting to improve the service they're providing?That was the main issue I took to the provision of this service.-Lashiec (July 06, 2008, 10:30 AM)
"You don't have to contribute any info to the service if you do not want", but from what I understand, this is unavoidable if you encounter a "bad" site, as it's performed automatically whatever option you choose, well, I guess if you close the tab nothing is submitted then.Indeed.-Lashiec (July 06, 2008, 10:30 AM)
While it's the typical Google behavior, perhaps the Mozilla team should try to provide the technical details over how everything works, at least for the sake of information, which would be beneficial to clear a bit my perception that maybe Google ways are getting too much presence in the Firefox project.I have to say as much as I have developed a tawdry love affair with Mozilla, I'm rather disappointed they would allow themselves to be involved in something this invasion-of-privacy-y.-Lashiec (July 06, 2008, 10:30 AM)
why does it bother you that it updates?Just because it's so excessive really. I have about 20 feeds, and look at them once a week, yet they're being updated on average about every two hours (I've been testing with Live HTTP Headers). I've been making some progress on my own, however. The code shown above:-yotta (June 20, 2008, 10:21 AM)
I should point out that your average end user is not going to be installing opera or FF on top of a fresh install of XP either.I cannot see how you expect to administer a 'fair' test when you've modified each piece of software from its original configuration in different ways across the board, though i will concede that most users won't be using the software without modification on a clean OS install.
...
Yet, if some of them can perform in some areas and others can't, I think its an issue with the program, not my testing method.-icekin (June 19, 2008, 08:52 PM)
Did you try setting it up to "-1" or an obscenely high number?Hey lash man-Lashiec (June 19, 2008, 05:46 PM)
Unfortunately that won't stop the initial update when the browser is first started, and I've read on the mozilla forum (can't find the link for the life of me) that neither approach works; apparently setting the number to an invalid value (-1, 0 etc) or setting it too high (>6 hours if memory serves) causes Firefox to use the default value (15 minutes). Thanks for the suggestion though.
.For this test, I tried opening a variety of sites, including Java script heavy ones and those that have poorly written HTML. FF can still be made to 'hang' when trying to render a page. By 'hang', I mean that it stops responding to mouse clicks and I can't even CTRL + TAB to switch to another tab. This is a problem that Opera, and even K-Meleon do not suffer from.While i appreciate any independent testing on this website, it seems more and more people are posting their "results" with absolutely no details/supporting evidence whatsoever. For example, what sites were the browsers tested on? was the cache empty? were the browsers using pipelining? what addons/widgets were installed? was any 3rd party software present that may have interfered? etc etc.-icekin (June 19, 2008, 11:59 AM)
maybe we should post firefox 3 reviews we find:And all the FF 3-only addons. I've found LocationBar^2 and Sage-Too.
http://cybernetnews....es-firefox-3-review/ - they like it a lot-mouser (June 18, 2008, 09:28 AM)
Hi Ehtyar,ooooh, thank you!!I'm missing TabMixPlus something cruel, but other than that I'm OK.-Ehtyar (June 17, 2008, 06:26 PM)
You can find a version for FF3 here (its a Dev-Build, but works flawless for me): http://tmp.garyr.net...viewtopic.php?t=7031
Marc-mhb (June 18, 2008, 06:00 AM)
