Little problem with FireFox

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by Dean C

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).

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

[Dean C]

Originally Posted by Zachery

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

And evidence from this comes from?

[filburt1]

Originally Posted by Zachery

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

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.

[Revan]

TwinsX2Dad, you are sooo goddamn full of it.

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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?

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

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

RIP Netscape. We really don't miss you.

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

Now please go away


//out

[Dean C]

Please keep it polite Revan

[pgp2003]

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

[bondjetta]

Originally Posted by pgp2003

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.

[pgp2003]

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..

[TwinsX2Dad]

Originally Posted by M1th

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

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.

[Natch]

Originally Posted by Dean C

Please keep it polite Revan

He was very polite, compared to what I was tinking

Originally Posted by TwinsX2Dad

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.

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.