Forums | MacLife

Not sure when, but it's reached RC3. Going Gold any day now, I expect.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-rc.html

Bat wrote:

Not sure when, but it's reached RC3. Going Gold any day now, I expect.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-rc.html

Looks like my copy states June 10th.

The Privacy button's been dropped from Final, tho. Too much work?

At least one security feature won't make it into the final release of Firefox 3 on June 17, Mozilla confirmed again Thursday.

The feature, Private Browsing, would have disabled all caching, cookie downloads, history records, and form data used during the current session. In essence, you could surf the Web and leave no fingerprints.

"It basically said to the browser: I would like what I'm about to do to not be logged anywhere," said Johnathan Nightingale, Mozilla's "human shield," aka its security user interface designer.
...

"We looked at ways to do this, but the problem is that it touches a lot of code," Nightingale said. "Because there are such rich interactions with Web sites and mashups and things like that, we didn't want to put in something that was half baked."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9967829-57.html

The problem is that while Firefox used to be a really nice alternative they seem to be having a hard time keeping pace and so we see lapses in different aspects such as user interface glitches and anomalies and basic rendering problems.

Take a look at their dropdown menus, strange use of gradients, overlapping elements on pages, etc. I mean the dropdown menus alone are butt ugly, especially when it adds a scroll bar even though there is plenty of room to display the entire contents in your window. Just go to amazon.com in Safari and Firefox and check out the dropdown. I especially love when you click the one at the bottom of the page and it opens up (because there is more room above it) and yet it still throws the scroll bar in there. What is the point of opening it up if you aren't going to use the extra space???

No attention to detail. Attention to detail is why I am a Mac user.

Frank

frankly wrote:

No attention to detail. Attention to detail is why I am a Mac user.

Frank

Apple has paid little enough attention to detail to Safari on Windows. It should not be used until a key issue is fixed.

Clicking on this link with Safari using default settings automatically downloads a booby-trapped file onto a Windows user's desktop with no prompting. The next time the user opens Internet Explorer, the force-fed file automatically causes the notepad.exe application to launch and open a non-existent file. Of course, miscreants could choose far more nefarious code.

When informed that its browser downloads files with no prompting, Apple said it may get around to changing this behavior at some point, but then again, maybe it wouldn't. In other words, this is no big deal from a security perspective, so let's all move on. This demo suggests otherwise.

It would appear that IE automatically carries out instructions buried in odd files dropped onto a user's desktop, so it's certainly to blame here. Microsoft said as much when it warned of the blended threat. We also wouldn't be surprised if the flaw is fixed tomorrow, when Microsoft releases its monthly installment of security patches.

Contrast Microsoft's response with that of Apple. The company that foisted Safari on the unwitting masses of Windows users can't be bothered to fix a flaw that clearly puts them at risk. Yeah, IE is at fault for running strange files stashed on a user's desktop, but it's interesting to note that Safari is the only major browser that automatically downloads the rogue payload. Gives a whole new meaning to Apple's "It just works" mantra. ®

My bold. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/10 … bing_demo/

Microsoft has indicated a fix is in the works for its role in this blended threat, but so far Apple has said it's OK with Safari's carpet bombing behavior. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/10 … y_patches/

Who cares if PCs get nuked? It just reinforces the Mac 'Windows' insecurity' mantra, maybe create more $witchers. Oh, and let's promote it with iTunes. They'll never connect the dots.

Irresponsible.

Mr. T wrote:

Firefox's UI does feel somewhat alien on the Mac.  I think what happened is they wrote their own UI specification to avoid platform-specific modifications every time they changed something.  It's better than FF2, though.

As much as I like Safari, I must still rely on FF for sites that don't work right in Safari.  Some other things I like better about FF are "find as you type," and the increased control over cookies and downloads.  But most of the time, I stick with Safari.

Actually, Firefox finally added the cookies option to not accept cookies from third party sites. Prior to this version their cookie options were the worst of the bunch.

frankly wrote:

Actually, Firefox finally added the cookies option to not accept cookies from third party sites. Prior to this version their cookie options were the worst of the bunch.

I didn't say it always had it.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-17 10:34 am)

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Actually, Firefox finally added the cookies option to not accept cookies from third party sites. Prior to this version their cookie options were the worst of the bunch.

I didn't say it always had it.

Sorry, I thought you were saying one of the reasons you used Firefox is because it handled cookies better than Safari.

Getting it now at a blazing.. mm.... 7.89k. First try at the page errored out. Good thing it's under 8MB.

The downloading of Firefox 3 via the web is being audited by the Guinness Book of World Records in an attempt to set an official record for the most number of downloads in a single day. Downloads made via FTP will not count towards the record setting attempt.

Mac users have complained that OS X versions of Firefox 3 don’t use Mac user interface and user elements. The first Firefox 3 release candidate came in May 2008 after Mozilla had released several beta versions of the browser.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12109

7.67k.

Oh well. 69%.

Got it, didn't get it. Must've disconnected at 6.33MB. Wonder if failed attempts count? That'd pump up the Guiness numbers.

I like it.  So far.

at 8:50 PM tonight, loading... loading... loading...
And the site won't come up. Must be overloaded.