Little problem with FireFox
 

After installing some of the hacks on my freshly installed VB3.0.3, members using firefox are having problems.. when they click on a thread title, instead of seeing the thread and the posts, they get a pop up for quick reply... I don't recall having this problem with my other VB3 at www.eclubvw.com. can anybody help me out? I'd appreciate it...



p.s. I am posting this here, cause I doubt vBulletin.com would be willing to help out with a hacked version.

ah.. timeslips and article works when clicking the link thru vBadvanced index page.. but in the forums itself.. they ask to login again when it firefox. so i guess it's a vBulletin thing?

i would tell them to use IE and forget Firefox * theres so many things you can't do with it ... its a big mess if u ask me * i used to have it

I am with you on that one.. I had to use it at school in computer lab and never really cared for it.. I was just curious if there was a fix.. since some of them are biased about firefox.. thanks

Through all the hype, Firefox & Mozilla are still nothing more than geek tools. They are not for 98% of Internet users.

They are lacking in features, support and compatibility. Getting full featured, interactive sites to work well with multiple browsers is next to impossible, so developers shoot for the greatest common denominator. That used to be Netscape, but now it is MSIE.

Sure there are security holes in MSIE, but there are just as many (if not more) in Firefox, no matter who says otherwise. Again, there is the greatest common denominator, coming into play. A hacker will more likely exploit the MSIE holes, because there are more browsers to exploit. More bang for the hacking buck, if you will.

So, choose Firefox/Mozilla to avoid the hackers, but also be prepared to lose functionality. I can see a return to the 'Optimized for (Insert Browser Here)' buttons on sites. In my own usage, I've found far fewer site incompatibilities with MSIE than I did with Opera, and far fewer in Opera than in Firefox/Mozilla.

While I doubt it will happen, Firefox & Mozilla may someday be the premier browser and sites will be optimized for them. But that someday isn't today. Using the alternative browsers should come with the understanding that you will have problems rendering sites.

Whenever I have someone complain about a feature not working, be it on my vB sites or my IPB sites or my Infopop sites, the first question I get answered is "which browser?" If the answer is Firefox or Mozilla, then I tell them the site is not optimized for those browsers - to use the site fully, they must run MSIE. If they demand an alternate, Opera is better.

Although, to be honest, I have far fewer browser compatibility issues with the Infopop boards.

It's not rocket-science making cross-browser compatible sites. Firefox offers far more functionality than IE, both for making websites and visiting them. It just takes a good coder to do the coding :)

It isn't rocket science, but you will lose functionality. Internet Explorer is used by 95 percent of the world. Firefox's fan base adds up to 2% at most. So why bother?

Mozilla is nothing but a last ditch bit of desperation to save Netscape. With it, you lose ActiveX. You lose other functionalities and you gain a huge hole where Firefox's XPInstall system can be tricked into installing myriad bits of malware. All for what? A gain in tabbed browsing? That is an idea stolen from previous alternate browsers, Opera & Lynx to name two.

So why go through the effort to make something work for less than 2% of the users out there, if you're not a Firefox fan? You don't, especially if you want the features everyone has and everyone wants.

Microsoft wiped out Netscape in the Browser Wars of the late 1990s not only because the company's management pushed the bounds of business ethics, but also because its engineers built a better browser. When Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale approved the Mozilla project, an open-source browser based on Netscape's code in 1998, it seemed then like a futile act of desperation. Now, over six years later, it still does.

The Firefox/Mozilla bandwagon claiming that there is a better browser out there are is correct. The problem is, it hasn't been developed yet.

In the meantime, do we optimize for 95+% or do we shaft the 95% to appease the remainder? In this case, I stand by the developers of vB & IPB in going with the majority.

RIP Netscape. We really don't miss you.

Well ActiveX itself is a huge security hole that shouldn't be enabled by default in all browsers IMO. And you can't (by default), install any xpi file in firefox unless you specifically give the site permission to. It doesn't even give you a yes/no box which could confuse the user, it makes a little tab below the tabs bar saying this site was blocked from installing software.

Well for starters there are several benefits of web-standards:
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/benefits/

I was not an advocate of such standards for a while, but after a year of playing around I've realised that this is the future of the web (and even present: several large sites such as yahoo, msnbc, msn beta search etc have adopted the move to standards).

While not doing an annoying quote-by-quote rebuttal of some of the comments, I'll make a few points.

1. It is absolutely stupid and foolish to tell your users to use one browser, and moreso to force them to use one.
2. Write standards-compliant code without browser-specific code and your site will look perfect in browsers by Mozilla and usually good in IE.
3. Firefox strictly follows W3C standards, so if your page looks bad in Firefox, it's usually your own fault.

and xul is a huge security hole in itself, too bad Firefox is programed in it.

Woah, slow down mate. You better do a recheck on your facts before you speak up. :rolleyes:

And evidence from this comes from?

XUL is simply a means of using XML to describe a GUI. Saying XUL is a huge security whole is like saying Javascript is a huge security whole. It depends on the implementation.

TwinsX2Dad, you are sooo goddamn full of it.

Because we don't want anymore n00bs getting their comps destroyed by Spyware Explorer

With it, you lose the biggest security hole Ive ever heard of, and gain the option to block ads from any webpage, tweak network settings for faster browsing, and easier web developing, to mention some.
Oh noes, how can we ever submit to this!?!?!?!? I want the security holes back!!!!11one

You don't, because it's webmasters with the same way of thinking as you exhibit here that is the reason why a good lot of todays web pages do not follow anything remotely like standards, and hence is s**t coded.
You go through that effort to try to get M$ to make a better browser. You go through that effort because it makes you feel better as a webmaster. You go through that trouble if you even care about your site and forums.

Micro$oft wiped Netscape out because the old Navigator was a sucky browser, and because M$ forces users to use IE for many tasks, Windows Update to name one.
Since what you describe, the Mozilla Foundation has become an independant group.
Now, over 6 years later, people are starting to wake up and realise IE is the worst thing that ever happened to computing.

Hello, I am Mr. Ignorant, and I have seen it fit to erase all sense from the post quoted.

You optimise for the 8 million+ users downloading Firefox, because of the points I described above.

Thats true, seeing as we got its successor, Firefox, which is a much better browser.

Now please go away :p


//out

Please keep it polite Revan :)

oh wow.. lol.. just asked a question.. phew...

I only had two people coming to me with this problem... so i guess i'll wait to see if there is more issues..

the reason I asked was this... other VB sites work just fine with firefox.. this is my only VB site that is having this problem.. and i have the following hacks

timeslips
v3 articles
award medals
favorite links module for vBadvanced
trader rating
and added custom pages with VB style

which site is it PJ? i only run FF so i'd like to see if i can duplicate the problem.


and for all the firefox haters out there....get over it. If you don't care enough about your code to make it compliant, good for you. But there are designers/programmers out here who DO care, and who will follow the protocol because it makes SENSE. And if you don't care...go find another thread to crap on.

it's the new site John... www.nostreetracing.org... the board is off right now.. but i'll let you know as soon as I open the access to it... everything works fine with firefox, but the forum listing... the thread title opens the quick box..

Whoops! I blew it. I didn't use the Mozilla numbers from Mozilla/Firefox leaning sites. I was using the numbers gleaned from a few million unique visits per month, on over 50 sites.

So, I figured I'd better go look. According to the Firefox/Mozilla leaning sites, Firefox is running about 40% of the market, a figure heavily disputed by the largest local computer services company here. The MSIE sites show that MSIE is running at about (surprise) 95%. Looking at the neutral sites, like PC Mag, WebSideStory and others, I see MSIE between 91-92% and Firefox/Mozilla at 3-5%.

Yes, if you're running a standards compliant site, then the site will run just fine on MSIE, but at the expense of some features. If you're running an MSIE optimized site, you'll have more toys, but at the expense of Firefox compatibility. Already the big complaint lodged in FF support forums is sites people cannot view properly. How long do you think it will be before people either abandon FF/Mozilla or FF/Mozilla goes with rendering emulating MSIE?

It is already happening and it has happened before. When Opera first appeared, the main claim to stardom was the fact you could place the entire browser on a 1.44MB floppy, with room to spare. Then came Java support, which bloated it out to over 9MB. Then there were other additions.

Granted, you don't need to get all of the plugins, but most do - at least after they've surfed a bit.

I've been at this Internet thing since before many here were gleams in their daddy's eyes - 26 years and counting - I've seen technologies come and go. It always seems the technologies with the money and marketing behind them are those which triumph, regardless of the actual capabilities of the actual technology - witness Betamax vs. VHS, floppy vs. optical, IDE vs. SCSI.

Yes, people are trying Firefox, but most don't stay with it. The same reasons they don't stay are many of the reasons AOL continues to be the market gorilla - ease of use beats technology just about everytime.

We all want toys - look at the number of hacks created for vB. The original software is very complete and well done, in its original incarnation - and it works well with all browsers, just as do most forum packages. Start hacking and who knows what will happen to the code. We all jump in at the first offering of a mod, hack away, then wonder what went wrong. MSIE handles the miscues much better than any of the alternatives.

For my money, I run the full (paid) version of Opera. This site doesn't render properly on it, but vB.com does. Some of my modified vB sites work somewhat, while others are unbearable. My IPB sites work well on it, as do my Infopop sites. No big deal, since I also have a fully updated version of MSIE to rely upon.

Nearly everyone who has asked me about an alternate browser has tried Opera & Firefox, but has returned to MSIE - all because they don't want the hassles of using something else. You see, while Firefox, Mozilla & Opera need standardized code, MSIE does not.

So, I do have my facts straight. I just make certain they are facts before I run around defending my favorite browser.

He was very polite, compared to what I was tinking ;)And this is your argument for...? For using MSIE?

O ... M ... F ... G ...

What if those companies that designed baby seats for cars thought as you did with regards standards? Dead children... (over the top? nah not really...)

What do you think is the reason for web standards (or for any standards)? Is it just to piss you off? Or do you think (just maybe) that the reason for web standards is to ensure that people (all people, not just people who can't be stuffed bypassing Microsoft's hold on their browsing experience) can all view all websites... it's a really simple concept, but maybe it's just too complex for some to comprehend.

John, you can check it out at http://www.nostreetracing.org if you wanna see if you can figure out the problem

PJ i'm gonna register over there and we're going to work on those templates...they're a MESS.

anyone who seriously feels like contributing to this thread feel free. but if all you're going to do is battle over ie vs ff take it somewhere else. :mad:

A very childish reaction.


Now that is absurd, on top of a very childish reaction. You might wish to come up with a more intelligent exclamation than 'Oh My Fattening Grease', unless you're trying to illustrate what is between your ears.

If we were to use the same analogy for baby seats, Firefox would protect the baby, while MSIE protected the baby AND helped the driver avoid the accident.

MSIE can view standardized code AND the stuff that is a little out of whack. Firefox throws a fit if the code isn't standardized.

Yes, there is good reason for standards - but we have an Internet where millions don't care, don't know or simply just want to push the envelope.

Of course, there are also quite a few who insist the world should narrow their tools and their online experience, just to accomodate standards which really aren't standards outside of one group.

The only problem is, MSIE would probably have a leak in the gas tank causing the car to explode upon impact when it (inevitably) crashed.

(Just a quick side note: MSIE can't render all standardized code correctly, because of long-standing bugs which its' developers have acknowledged.) Have you ever bothered trying to write standardized code? It *really* isn't hard, it just takes a bit of adjustment from what you are used to. And if you do write standardized code, it should look nearly identical in MSIE, Firefox, and nearly every other browser you can throw at it.

I am sitting here in disbelief that your argument is "write crappy code, who cares cause MSIE can render it anyway". I can only hope to god that you have no web development clients.

Sorry to say but your view on web standards is in the minority, even amongst Microsoft's own IE developers, who openly acknowledge the problems with MSIE vs. standards.

You're advocating the whole world switch to and keep MSIE in one breath and in the next breath claim that Mozilla is trying to force everyone to conform to their own standard? Um, hello, Mr. Pot, I've got Kettle on the line. The standards are standards regardless of what Microsoft thinks...and the standards that "aren't standards outside of one group" are the standards that nearly every single browser except MSIE is developed to. Of course Mozilla & Firefox, but also Opera, Omniweb, Safari, and a number of lesser-known browsers, as well as browsers on alternative platforms like cell phones and PDAs. If you think that coding to standards for a PC web browser is annoying, try writing something for a cell phone or PDA that isn't to standard. I think you'll wake up rather quickly to the fact that the PC browser is unique (again thanks to MSIE) in not requiring standards-based code across the board.

And in regards to your marketshare claim, I have never seen any legitimate site claim Firefox has 40% of the browser market overall. Maybe, on a particular tech-leaning site 40% of that site's users use Firefox, but in general the estimate is somewhere between 3% and 10% depending on who you listen to. (WebSideStory, who is pretty much viewed by much of the industry as a standard marker, shows 4% using Firefox as of the end of October, with that gain coming directly off of MSIE. source Another stat tracker, OneStat.com, shows MSIE losing 5% between May and November 2004, again directly to Firefox.) No matter who you listen to, though, MSIE is losing marketshare. Not to mention that there were 10 million different people who downloaded it the first month after its' 1.0 release. Surely even you realize there aren't 10 million techs out there.

thank you

and

thank you

Thanks John for looking into it and fixing it.. it's fixed now and me and the guys appreciate it alot..

my problem was this <!---->.. dashes with no breaks! lol :hits himself in the forehead:

yep :)

IE's non-standard approach to code interpretation saw <!----------> as <!-- --> which is why IE could display the site but every page was broken for FF. :rolleyes: way to go IE-lovers.

IE handles flawed code much better than it should, but its a good and bad thing, bad code looks good, good code looks good. otherbrowsers have massive issues trying to display flawed code, alot of the time they crash and die hard.

which is why i use FF, i want to know if i'm programming bad code....to me bad code is indicitive of bad programmers.

yeah.. I learned that the hard way :nervous:

There's only one phrase that properly describes that comment:
Um no? You just posted something that shows you did not understand the analogy at all.
Firefox would protect all the babies that looks like regular humans, while M$IE would do a so-so job of protecting kids that looks like humans but also kids that looked like a martian on a bad day. M$IE's seatbelts would snap the second you tried to perform an advanced task, and the seatbelts would also dig into the children's skins causing poisoning (viruses/spyware in the browser world).

Yeah, because writing code that actually looks like code written by an intelligent person should be outlawed (probably because you find it quite beyond your capacity).

And it is stupid and lazy bastards like that thats the reason why M$ doesn't want to make a browser that works.

Of course, there are also quite a few who insist the world should be infected with viruses and trojans, causing them to rule the entire computer world. And they are thanking the heavens because of people like you, and IE. Without you two, the hackers would stand no chance.


//out

Because we all know that IE is the world's standards, while everyone else is just one group.

TwinsX2Dad, pick up any HTML learning book. Even my College HTML text books say that MSIE is not WC3 complient.