If any of who haven't tried Firefox then you should. It is far better than IE because for one reason it resolves the security issues associated with IE and it will either replace IE as time goes on or force Microsoft to make dramatic improvements on their IE browser.
I have been using it for sometime now and I can say that I no longer suffer from the bad security leaks that I experienced while using IE. No more 'spyware', no more 'hidden' installments of unwanted software, no more annoying popup, etc, etc. Better links to search engines. And the improvements just go on and on.
Firefox browser also come with open source code. Now you can see what makes it tick. The source code is written in C++ but I'm sure alot of you will have no problem examining the source code and figuring out how it works. It's quite large. The downloadable zip file is 41.5KB and after it's been unzipped it's a whopping 210MB with 35,513 files and 5,501 folders. There is no way you will be able to link it all together unless you also download the build files (not included with the source code).
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Download the Firefox Browser (41.5KB)
http://www.mozilla.org/download-mozilla.html - Download the Source Code (4.8KB)
Firefox is good but don't be afraid to test out K-Melion from sourceforge, uses the mozilla/netscape gecho engine but is leaner and faster than both.
I like Firefox but I've noticed something odd with it lately. I'm not sure how or why, but the small icons that appear next to the bookmarks and on the tabs in the browser shuffle around. Not in the tabs actually, but just in the bookmark listing. For instance, I have an MS butterfly next to a message board's bookmark.
I've noticed this in XP Pro as well as Suse 9.1, so I'm fairly certain it's Firefox. I suppose it could have also been something I did to both systems, but I can't imagine what.
Tried to find K-Melion on www.sourceforge.com. No luck.
Please give an address.
Thanks,
jps :green2
I believe it is spelt K-Meleon. http://kmeleon.sf.net
:wink IE updates from microsoft, supports FTP pretty well, why use another browser? :snooty: I think we should use only IE since,
can't wait till longhorn xml.
Well, as for me, I get a little ticked-off after d/l'ing their updates and they either don't work or they introduce new problems. And still, the security leaks in my IE 6.0 are still there.
heh! there're many updates for security rather than the IE. If you have a router cfgs as a firewall, ports protected by the ISP.
I downloaded like 4 gbs of everything for MS, except the server applications old updates. You should really check there lots of updates for many things. Also, I don't think a firewall software it's wise, but after your pc is urn off; you should really turned on the firewall from sp2.
Well, it's like I said........alot of them dont work....they bomb out at the last minute after a long time trying to get it installed. And, besides, Firefox already solved the security problems I was having with IE so why keep IE when Firefox does the job.
I like Firefox but keep going back to IE because many of the sites I visit break under Firefox. My son said most of his game sites won't work either.
Hi,
I use both Opera and FireFox. I have the habit of saving a lot of webpages. I have a virtual encyclopedia on my HD becos of the saved pages. Opera I use for browsing, but I use FireFox for saving as opera puts all the images that come with the site in teh smae directory while FireFox like IE, puts it in folders called htmlname_files where htmlname is the name of my html file.
Thomas Antony :U
I don't know, I just like Opera a little bit better. Actually a friend of mine and me measured the time it took two computers (one with Opera and one with Firefox, both on the same lab) to load the same page, and Opera beat Firefox by 5 seconds.
What can I say, it's just that I'm really pro-Opera
<--- One K-Meleon convert :U
(It's a lean, mean, browsin' machine!)
K-Meleon, GREAT ain't it. I discovered it a while ago. Makes the rest look like snail bate.
I don't trust in all that browsers anymore, since it's corrupted my html script, before I look sites very different after using any of these. GUI from Opera is pretty but, I don't trust yet any.
Hi,
Does anyone know how K-Meleon saves files. Like are the image files all dumped in the same directory like Opera ::) or is it put in separate folders like IE or Mozilla FireFox?
Thomas Antony :U
Do any one here noticed that if you use Opera, you browse: More Fast, Secure, Friendly, and easier. Firefox and K-meleon Are GOOD, but the Objective now is dump IE; So let`s use any browser (exepting IE). Do anyone remembers when Netscape and ALL pages can be only seen with it? Now is happening the same so protest!! :U :clap: :dance: :naughty: :dance: :naughty: :dazzled:
Maybe things have changed but when I used to use Netscape I didn't like it because when you wanted to look at the source contents of a document it showed it in it's own dialog box and you couldn't make changes to it and then save it as you are able to do with IE because it displays the source in Notepad.
Here you can find some optimized versions of Firefox: http://www.moox.ws/tech/mozilla/ :clap:
The original is compiled in VC++ 6.0, and at least PEiD gives information that it is an debug build. ::)
I'm still uing IE... please don't hang me for stating this :green
A lot of people say they use firefox for security or something....I just use it because I can't live with the tabbed browsing :cheekygreen:
I am all for tabbed browsing :U
Thomas Antony
If the browser doesn't support tabbed browsing, then I refuse to work with it.
Don't like it? Sue me.
K-Meleon RULES!!! awesome ... I love it!! :green
Dislike IE mainly because of the (growing) use of active-x elements. :tdown Otherwise it is a good browser.
I've been using firefox, and quite like it. As for security, it is good for the client but not always so nice for the website's security.
Just downloaded K-meleon and in fact posting this using that browser. Pretty neat. Thanks for the link!
Interesting that the logo/name is a Chameleon, which is slow as. Perhaps the lightning speed tongue-strike is what inspired the name. :bg
One very practical reason to use mozilla based browsers is that they've much better support for new emerging standards.
I'm building my new site to use MathML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MathML) and CSS and am going to pains to try and ensure it'll work with IE which doesn't support MathML without a plugin, and has a buggy CSS implementation :'( .
Quotebuggy CSS implementation
And hardly any CSS2 implementation at all. Even in the upcoming IE7.
Quote from: HuMaX on May 28, 2005, 04:42:49 PM
Sorry, that i reply to old thread but i think they made mistake for making FF open source.
Because crackers/hackers can now just examine whole source, find some serious "bugs" there and a little bit later FF will be like IE.
Arguably that is one of the things that makes it stronger: the source can be inspected by anyone, security holes discovered, and then promptly fixed by the dev team.
In general, a browser is not insecure because it is made by MS, it is insecure because it receives data and has to trust it, this breaks one of the cardinal rules of secure computing which is "never trust user input". For those who are inclined to argue this, "input" (html) from a server counts as user input because that html could be coming from *anywhere*, the browser just has to trust it and render/execute it.
I agree that having source code available is more likely to lead to improved security. If the application is well liked interest will develop and people will be inclined to use it and do what they can to make it better and more secure.
K-Melion rules!
About the games not working, it has nothing to do with Firefox, K-Melion, Netscape or Opera. It is because Sun is refusing to allow obfuscated code any longer. This method was being used by developers to protect their sources and involved the use of some weaknesses in the java coding engine. Well, the weaknesses are fixed so now, since IE uses its own JRE it is the only browser that supports this type of code. An interesting test is to go to the Sun website and install the latest JRE. If you do this, all of a sudden IE wont run the games, either!
Paul
HuMaX,
Intensive testing is a luxury we can't always afford. I am sure I speak for many when I say that we are looking forward to your results! Please be sure to tell us.
Paul
I used to run spyware/adware checkers every few weeks, and they always found hundreds of problems. I installed Firefox, and then kind of forgot to run them for a couple of months. Just the other day, I tried it again. 3 objects found by Spybot S&D, 7 by Adaware, and none of them really dangerous, all just visitor tracking systems. So, yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say that Firefox is less prone to spyware/adware.
I fear Microsoft is under a lot of pressure to deliver what their corporate market wants. That's secure servers that have the ability to protect precious marketing data that they collect from vulnerable clients who 'trust' all of our modern technology a little more than they should. I was impressed, however, that MS recently acquired the Giant anti-spyware company and does seem to be doing their best to make the 'protection' available to Genuine Windows clients. I had played with their beta-release and was suprised to see that it found components of Ad-Ware that were labeled as problematic. To me, it seems like MS will continue to build bigger and more fault tolerant systems with more and more features and, yet, bigger holes. It makes sense: Bigger Holes need more Patching that translates into More Business! If they leave many of the Holes in the products they ship and add a new one or two with each release their big corporate clients will love them because to them it means more customer data is available. It's good for MS too because they now own one of the companies that Patches the Holes and they can certainly show that they are doing their best to address the issues! Unfortunately, sometimes your best just isn't quite good enough for the real world ... and that's one of the reasons why I really like to see a lot of movement toward the availability of source code that will be reviewed by experts, both the professionals and the merely curious.
Interconnectivity in computers is like promiscuity among people, the more you spread it around, the more you catch. No wowserism is intended here but the mechanism is much the same and the solution is much the same, if you don't want to catch everything that is going around, don't spread it around.
Now it the normal sense with computers, if you want to have the capacity to log onto a site that will format your hard disk for you, install an operating system, censure your rights on digital media, do automatic upgrades for you, report you to the FBI if you don't vote for a particular political party etc ... fine if you are silly enough but the cost is that someone else will find out how it works and with that access to your computer, they can make a mess of it.
The trade here is security for interconnectivity and the solution if security maters to you is to limit what can be done remotely and know what you are doing when you download something that is supposed to update your system. Most know from past experience that PCANYWHERE meant PCANYONE as the protocols can be learnt by others for that form of access. The old rule is trust NOTHING and be aware of what you ae doing with a computer.
Trusting an OS vendor or software company may put money in their pockets but if they can sell you something that leaks like a sieve, they will and you are the "suck" that is stuck with the problem after.
HuMaX, security through obscurity is bad practice :naughty:
Really Ghirai? Then what is the best method to increase security? Release a new version every few weeks? :bdg
p.s. did you know that in FireFox you can go back/forward with SHIFT-MOUSEWHEEL? :wink
Quote from: Mark Jones on May 30, 2005, 02:48:08 PM
p.s. did you know that in FireFox you can go back/forward with SHIFT-MOUSEWHEEL? :wink
:eek Wow, nice! :toothy
So install mouse gestures and go back and forth with right-left click and the reverse...
With K-Melion, you can go back/forward with ALT-MOUSEWHEEL. Couldn't resist, it is a neat feature.
Paul
Why don'y you just click on the Back/Forward buttons on the tool bar? How simple can you get?
uggghh...
too...
tired...
to..
reach...
all the way..
up...
there....
:bg
Quote from: Mark Jones on June 01, 2005, 03:56:32 AM
uggghh...
too...
tired...
to..
reach...
all the way..
up...
there....
:bg
Ummmmmm...........maybe you have tired blood.....need vitamins
Despite the illusion that Firefox is much safer than MSIE, it seems that this is simply not so; take a look, for example, at:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160900911
And despite the illusion that Firefox is more conformant to HTML and CSS standards than MSIE, I can say as the webmaster of a large site in Hebrew that Firefox and all standard versions of Mozilla do not properly support HTML 4 or CSS for the right-to-left languages used by about 1,000,000,000 people. Pretty pathetic. On the other hand, even the now ancient MSIE 5 did render all these pages perfectly and MSIE6 still does.
Thousands of my pages that are veriffied to meet HTML 4 standards of W3C are simply UNREADABLE in Firefile (not just ugly, but UNREADABLE!); the ones that are readable in Firefox are mostly ugly.
In other words, Firefox is 5 to 7 years behind MSIE in the supprot of right-to-left languages used by ONE BILLION people! So let us not fool ourselves.
There are several TABBED browser frontends for MSIE, and I use AM Browsers myself:
http://www.ambrowser.com/
It works fine for Hebrew, Arabic, Farsi, and other "backwards" languages and also for English and other left-to-right languages that most of you use.
I had to reinstall Windows XP the other day after a HDD crashed. (Previous system uptime was like two months.) How can you explain 2 trojan infections, 13 spyware cookies, 1 RAT tool, and 2 auto-download bots just from windows update and other driver updates?
As usual, after I cleaned all the trash out and installed FireFox, I have not had a SINGLE infection since. FireFox is EONS better than IE at security, hands-down. Anyone who disagrees is simply misinformed, biased, or jealous.
IE doesn't suck, it just has many more holes than FireFox does. I'm not sure about the "less common languages" you cite, but in my experience, FF (with windows' east-Asian language support installed) displays Japanese top-to-bottom perfectly and handles the codepage settings transparently as well. Not a small feat by any means.
Do you work for Microsoft?
Having more problems with IE does not necessarily indicate that that it has more holes, just that the ratio (as*holes hammering on it) / (holes in it) is higher. I think having a good firewall running whenever you are connected would stop most or all of these problems. I run IE exclusively, and the only problem like this I have ever had was when I connected so I could update a pre-SP1 Windows 2000 Pro, without first protecting it with a firewall. After I reinstalled and repeated the process with a firewall, I had no problems.
Even if it isn't that much more secure, IE will never beat it in terms of functionality and convenience. The wealth of themes and extensions available for Firefox is absolutely amazing.
Quotethe illusion that Firefox is more conformant to HTML and CSS standards than MSIE
It is not an illusion, it is fact. You can go to the W3C website and confirm this. It is well known by by web page creators and programmers using CSS/HTML/XHTML/XML that IE still does not properly support standards from the year 2000.
Rule 1) Design your page for FF and the standards then jump through the hoops to make it work in IE because IE gets it wrong or doesn't support it.
I don't know if FF doesn't support Hebrew, or reverse writing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't support the standards much better than IE does.
For example, do a search for the "box model hack", the very foundation of creating CSS web pages, and see the runaround designers must do just for IE. Every browser got this right the first time but not IE. IE does not support many of the CSS2 standards while FF and Opera did years ago. IE does not properly run XML1.0 while FF and Opera did long ago.
I'm a new website programmer for two companies. I never had any reason to start using FF until about six months ago when I couldn't understand why my pages weren't working the way the standards said they would and the way I coded them. Then I found they always worked in FF but never in IE. FF is now the only browser I use. I've learned to despise IE.
k-meleon is fast and everything, but ive already found a nasty bug in it. If you bookmark a page then edit it and clear out the url and its name then save it. when you simply click bookmark again it gives you a nice application error :\
While FireFox may support some new fancy parts of "CSS/HTML/XHTML/XML" better than MSIE, FireFox does not even support good old basic HTML4, which is what I use, and in CSS it does not even pay attention the font asked for, but substitutes ugly fonts of its own choice. I can do without the jazzy extensions in the new standards till the HTML4 basics are supplied, so I will stick with MSIE.
And note: While only a few million use Hebrew, about 1,000,000,000 people use Arabic script languages. That is a lot of people to ignore, but that is what FireFox does! MSIE presents the Bible and Quraan beautifully and FireFox butchers them both. Jews and Muslims agree on that at least! :bg :toothy :bdg
I like AM Browser, it has a very nice tabbed interface.
Paul
Webring, k-meleon's interface is similar to that of Firefox, no?
Vortex, yah firefox and k-meleon both have similar interfaces, probably because they both use mozillas rendering engine gecko. If you look at ie, firefox has the exact same forward,back,refresh,etc..type buttons, guess they did that to make the transistion from ie to firefox easy. I've always been a huge fan of opera, opera had mastered tab browsing years ago, and up until the recent version was without a doubt the fastest browser in the world. Opera is multi-platform like firefox, and is highly secure(even more so than firefox). But like I said recent version fell short of speed, while firefox has only grown in speed. As far as k-meleon goes, it isn't a bad browser,its definitely fast, its just has a ton of bugs and isn't yet ready to be used as a primary browser. Another bug i've found for k-meleon, is if you use msns web messenger with it, it'll keep opening windows for each sound thats played(?)... so minmum of like ten windows.
I can't see the difference between Firefox and IE. There are just as many pop-ups, self installing .exe's, and all the other things so common with IE. Firefox didn't improve on this one bit.
Oh, well, on to my off-the-topic question.
When I downloaded Firefox I also downloaded the source code. After I un-zipped it all I wind up with tons of directories loaded with 'C' source code files. After reading on how to build the Mozilla engine I finally got the following answer:
1) You must run the build from the command line (ie, cannot use VC++ 6.0 IDE)
2) From the command line do the following:
1) CD MOZILLA
2) nmake /f client.mak build_all
Well, there is no nmake in the root directory (there is, however, client.mak file) so when I enter the above command line I get a Bad filename error.
Has anyone here ever downloaded this source and successfully built the Mozilla engine and if so can explain what I am supposed to do?
Quote from: Robert Collins on July 01, 2005, 08:57:56 PM
I can't see the difference between Firefox and IE. There are just as many pop-ups, self installing .exe's, and all the other things so common with IE. Firefox didn't improve on this one bit.
A little biased are we? ::)
Quote from: Mark Jones on July 01, 2005, 09:21:48 PM
A little biased are we?
???????
I think you are using the wrong word.
Biased means leaning in favor of; prejudice. I have the same opinion of both IE and Firefox, one is no better than the other.
Let me make somthing clear, there is a HUGE difference between firefox and ie. First off ie is extremely insecure, i've recently read an article that ie was nominated for having the most security flaws found for any software ever in history. Ie is literally a playground for all these professional reverse engineers that so many companies are paying now adays to exploit ie and install their spyware. And spyware is a very serious thing, alot of times they're actually installing malicious programs on your computer to watch your every move,verus just some reg keys like spybot reports, its even more deadly than viruses because they're spying on your personal life rather than trying to delete a few files. That alone is more than enough to drop ie and go with firefox, unless you really want to just take your chances and rely on outdated programs like ad-aware/spybot to protect you,while you'll have a bunch of sites log your credit card,paypal,etc.. info and invade your privacy.:snooty: Second ie is very slow, and thats because it wasn't designed for speed. Microsoft designed Ie for easy software integration, so that programmers like yourself could use it in your own applications. Ie is simply a a gui that communicates with an .ocx. Firefox is a whole different case all together. It was designed for speed,security,easy of use, and reliability. It being cross-platform and opensource shows this. Firefox also has *alot of features ie doesn't. It has an effective popup blocker that *does work(recent versions of ie has this but its weak). Firefox has a nice complete skin system, with various themes/skins for download(ie can be only be partially skinned).Firefox supports tabbed browsing! (Ie opens a new windows for every new page opened...) Aswell as a great deal other features, for example, being that i'm majoring in computer forensics, i've tested many aspects of ie and firefox and found that firefox *securly deletes history/cookies/internet cach,etc.., and ie definitely does not. Really to sum up all i've said Firefox is by far a better internet browser, period.
All I have to say is: http://www.masmforum.com/simple/index.php?topic=490.msg15672#msg15672
:lol
Hey sba, I will only like to see your web page, for see myself the thing that you say.
Here is one of thousands of my pages Mozilla/FireFox cannot properly render:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0101.htm
It is Genesis 1 in the original Hebrew Bible. If you cannot read Hebrew, you might not be able to tell that something is wrong, but the signt is totally different from how the page looks in MSIE5 or later, which does exactly as instructed.
Similar problems at other Hebrew, Arabic, and other right-to-left sites, unless they are lacking in overstrike diacritical marks.
Hi there, thx for the answer...
The past days, I have been finding some Unicode Editors, because I like to copy some formulas at a site http://metamath.org/ in Unicode displayed by FF.
Only two passed the "test"
1) http://www.unipad.org/main/
and
2) http://www.jedit.org/
Here are some comparations....
To the editors, jedit and unipad, I have copied from ie, tought you will see that Unipad is more like FF display, and jedit is more like ie.
And yes, I cannot read hebrew, but I can compare, you have a scan of how you write it???
[attachment deleted by admin]
Is this wrong? (Sorry, I've never seen Hebrew before.)
Note, this page has 31 HTML warnings according to TIDY!
(http://heliosstudios.net/temp/firefox-hebrew.png)
I get it, With the help of the editor that display like Firefox, I have watched that what you call (watching the attached screenshoot)
Quoteunless they are lacking in overstrike diacritical marks.
Is what I call acent.
For example
México is writed like that, not
Mexico.
Also I understand now, that you see in this case, instead of
México, you see
Me´xico or if the acent is first writed
M´exico.
What I think the problem is....
Why
é á é í ó ú ä ë ï ö ü, why if this acents are displayed well, why the accents of Those type of languages isnt?
Because, like I see in this moment, for example, the acent in
á is part of the code and not a code itself that need be joined with the character code that follow/orIsBefore, where in the codification of your(?) language and the others related, the acents are not handled directly like another character but a extra character that can be aplied to normal characters.
Perhaps, without know your language, I see that your accents or diacritical marks, can be writed to any character in your language??
If you still dont understand what the problem is with acents/diacritical marks...
I for write
á, do this: press "´" and after "a" = "á" (rendered), but if you see in the source code "á"
is not separate like ´a, but have a specific atomic code.
In the case of your language, if Im not wrong, you do near the same..
(with the characters that I have)...
You for write
á, do this: press "´" and after "a" = "á" (rendered), but if you see in the source code "á"
is separate like ´a, is a composite of two atomic codes.
There is the solution, some one will try to code it??? :P.
A side note, k-meleon, also display the same thing, then the problem is not related much to FF or k-meleon, but to mozilla, I guess :).
[attachment deleted by admin]
rea,
It could be a mozilla problem as it shows the same way with all mozilla browsers that I have tested. It could also be a font issue because they don't use the same default font as IE, I think. At least it looks that way, the mozilla browsers seem to be using a default font that is carrying more 'weight' than the IE browser.
Paul
Not all websites will work for Firefox because alot of sites are IE specific. Many web sites use ActiveX technology and FF does not have that so those type of sites will only work for IE.
re: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/t0101.htm and FFs failure to meet accepted Web standards.
Yes, as I said above, "overstrike diacritical marks" is what breaks the FF: In Hebrew, one can write a consonant, then a consonant doubler/changer called a dagesh, then a sin-shin sign, then a vowel, and then one (or rarely more) cantillation marks. Not every letter will have all of these overstrikes, but they can come at any time.
I am frankly in awe of the job that MSIE does in this tricky alignment of overstrikes (and not because I work for MS or have MS stock!), but am deeply disappointed in Mozilla/FF for doing it all wrong. The same sort of use of rich overstrikes is found in Arabic, Farsi, and even some non-Semite Oriental languages of the Indo-European family (I think); this is over a billion Semite speakers in the World that FF does not support, not to mention the other rich-overstrike language speakers. I know from personal experience that FF fails with Hebrew and Arabic, and I assume that it does for the rest.
My page may have 31 "Tidy" errors, but it is perfect W3C-validated HTML 4.01 as declared at its top, and all of my pages are verified by "A Real Verifier", a highly recommended shareware. It is, in my mind, more important to conform to W3C standards than to Tidy's standards.
Well, yes, in Spanish, they are accents; but in our Middle-East langauges they are mostly not connected to accent, but distinguish between stops (p) and fricatives (f), or add a vowel, and the like. And the set of overstrikes and underlying letter combinations is so vast that having a separate letter as in Spanish is simply unthinkable.
Yes, the OVERLAYS are their own characters in the HTML code, and in the browser's rendering of them each must be placed in the right place for the UNDERLYING letter, which varies in height and width, with risers and hangers in odd places complicating matters. Some overstrikes are above the letter, some are below, and some must be precisely at the right place inside the letter (in the wrong place, they disappear!).
I agree that the whole Mozilla family has this problem, so far as I know. The the problems were reported in Bugzilla years ago, and largely ignored.
Another problem with FF/Mozilla is that it uses its own taste in fonts, and not the font specified in the CSS, which makes the Mozilla family not conform to Web standards for CSS in that regard as well as putting the overstrikes in the wrong place.
My pages do not use ActiveX and do not use MSIE tricks, but the plainest sort of vanilla HTML 4.01, with each page verified before upload.
Interesting, for what serve that cuantity of diacritital marks? and for what for each single character can have this marks?
Here we only put the diacritical marks for vocals á,é,í,ó,ú and we have another type for mark that the "u" is spelled ü after a "g", tought in the code, that symbol "¨" have code (unicode) for the diferent vocals (I guess other languages) ä, ë,ï,ö,ü.
We use acents for mark a more strong sound and separation of syllables, for mark surprise, and other things, we use symbols around the expression, like "¿Quién esta ahí?", "¡hola!"; "las cosas que no se comparten se pierden" and '2+2=4' for the diferent quotations (tought normally is used only double mark), puntuation and spaces for separate expresions, meanings, paragraphs, like in this message ",", ".", ":", ";", "...", "_" (continuation in the next line of separation of syllabus), "-" (in narration you will see this to much), "(", ")", "*" (for mark in the down will be a reference or annotation), in short that is for what use the symbols apart of the normal "a", "A", "b", "B",..., "z", "Z".
What other things you express with the diacritical marks?, they serve for entonation or for mark questions, surprise adn things like that?, is curiosity.
Rereading, you say they are used mainly for stops (I guess here puntuation symbols?) and fricatives (that is a completely new word for me ;)). But what I read, fricatives are change of the spelling????
QuoteAnd the set of overstrikes and underlying letter combinations is so vast that having a separate letter as in Spanish is simply unthinkable.
That is for what I argee that this symbols can be aplied to any "character" (you call them constants??? or you say constants for the mean that the character dosent change?).
QuoteThe the problems were reported in Bugzilla years ago, and largely ignored.
I dont see for what this should be complicated :), knowing the source of mozilla if the error is there, the fact is that already the characters are rendered (in this moment dosent matter the place), I guess is because the output is ploting all the characters without check :) if is a "rich overstrikes" language, the solution will be if is a "rich overstrikes" language, have a table/indication that mark what code is a aplicable like diacritical mark and start mergin the symbols.
Is there a "no no" combination of diacritical marks???, tough you can apply any mark to any "constant", there exist mark that is exclusive with other mark???
Quotethe OVERLAYS are their own characters in the HTML code
I guess is in Unicode :).
Well, I guess it's unanimous then, FireFox sucks! Don't use that piece of junk! You'll get more spyware with FF than IE. FF is junk because it is open-source and doesn't put money in someone's pocket. And IE uses less memory. And is the "real" browser. All others must suck. And more people use IE, so the bug patches occur faster...
Curious, how many people can only read Hebrew, as opposed to English? Maybe English should be demoted to a "tertiary language" in favor of Hebrew?
p.s. it is noted as an issue on the mozillazine forums, but not reported as a bug because it seems to affect only certain people: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=235061&highlight=hebrew
Chill, it's just a browser... :toothy
Semite languages are generally written with consonants only (originally without even spaces between words), and they depend on context and knowledge of typical phrasing to read them. But for any context when the writer wants to be sure the reader knows exactly what is intended, then the overstrikes do give vowels and distinguish between doubled consonants, and provide punctuation as well. For example:
s f r:
is it "sefer" book or "sofer" scribe or "safar" he counted or "sefar" border or "sappar" barber? (There are lots more s f r words!).
The cantllation mark also tells what syllable is accented, to distinguish between, for example, MO-lekh a pagan "god" (noun) and mo-LEKH rules (verb).
While some might think that languages spoken by a small minority of only one billion people are hardly important compared to the all-mighty English, we think that even such a small minority of humanity as one billion people deserves a good browser, and we have one in MSIE.
Those who imagine that FF is not dangerous should read:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160900911
Firefox is a good browser but not the panacea its most ardent fans think it is. While Microsoft's IE gets most of the attention for its security vulnerabilities, the reality is that Firefox (like other open-source products) has security flaws of its own of that readers need to be aware of, Fred Langa notes.
EVERY browser needs to be used carefully, FF included.
This is interesting, I got an email from Netscape a couple of hours ago asking me to download Netscape 8.0, it included some interesting information. It will now allow you to use the IE rendering engine to overcome incompatibilty issues posed by Firefox's rendering engine. I as surprised to see that in the email.
AOL and Netscape may me moving away from Mozilla
Paul
Quote from: Mark Jones on July 04, 2005, 08:54:07 PM
Well, I guess it's unanimous then, FireFox sucks! Don't use that piece of junk! You'll get more spyware with FF than IE. FF is junk because it is open-source and doesn't put money in someone's pocket. And IE uses less memory. And is the "real" browser. All others must suck. And more people use IE, so the bug patches occur faster...
Curious, how many people can only read Hebrew, as opposed to English? Maybe English should be demoted to a "tertiary language" in favor of Hebrew?
p.s. it is noted as an issue on the mozillazine forums, but not reported as a bug because it seems to affect only certain people: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=235061&highlight=hebrew
You couldn't be more wrong with almost everything you've just said, obviously you didn't read my post before. In any case sorry firefox isn't perfect, it still crushes ie and other browsers in so many ways, and this isn't an opinion, its a fact.
Quote from: Rifleman on July 06, 2005, 04:54:12 AM
This is interesting, I got an email from Netscape a couple of hours ago asking me to download Netscape 8.0, it included some interesting information. It will now allow you to use the IE rendering engine to overcome incompatibilty issues posed by Firefox's rendering engine. I as surprised to see that in the email.
AOL and Netscape may me moving away from Mozilla
Paul
Thats not a very smart move. Netscape is the company that created one of the worse scripting languages in existance(javascript) and the inronic part is netscape the browser doesn't even fully interpret javascript like other browsers do...go figure. Also netscape is extremely slow, especially new versions with their attempt at "skinning". They're alot of exploits out that effect netscape and if reverse engineers care enough and start focusing on netscape instead of ie, they're rip it apart. And this can be confirmed by looking at in a debugger for a couple seconds .
Sorry Webring, that was an entirely sarcastic post. I know FF doesn't suck... but people like to oppose people - it's coded into our genes. So, my reasoning was, if I bash FireFox, people would "see the light" and start saying nice things about it again. Some will never see the light, I guess. That's ok. The more browsers we have, the more options we have, and the more possibilities to 'please' everyone.
I have been firefox for awhile and have gotten irritated with IE when I have to go back to using it for a few sites.
Usually IE is slow when loading the forums, firefox has been faster.
But now I'm reading the forums in IE again because I am having login troubles *again*
The first time this happened in fx 106 I emptied the cookies and restarted fx and all was good.
Now when using fx 107 that doesn't work.
I can login fine but when I try to enter a forum it calls me guest again, so I log back in, end up at the first page, enter a forum and I am guest again.
It's been driving me nuts.
Tried emptying caches and cookies, restarted and reinstalled, still can't login right.
Did you install the new FF in a new directory? Sometimes installing FF into the same directory causes problems on some systems. Or you can just uninstall and then re-install the new one. I'm on FF and have had no problems.
I tried Fire Fox once but I guess it just isn't in my fate to have it work. I had nothing but one problem after another trying to get it working correctly but with no success. I even removed it completely off the system and downloaded it again but still had too many problems with it so I just gave up. I'm sure it's me because others say they have no problems but I'm not in the mood to fight it so I just dropped it and went back to IE.
Uninstalled fx 107, restart, reinstall fx 107, restart
now it works, I hope it stays this way.
I like fx over IE, my only complaint is that web designers use too much IE specific code or active x
However I only have run into a handful of sites where this is a problem.
And some plugins don't seem to work, not sure if flash/shockwave or some others are working right.
But like above I don't visit that many sites that use that sort of code.
It was irritating when I couldn't post to one of my favorite sites, :) , with fx