Talk:Firefox/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Wow So sorry

I loved the info box that is in this article and i was trying to test it on an article I am making and accidently changed the screenshot. I got my tabs mixed up. It was an honest mistake. Sorry. Charlie Da Tuna 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Performance section

  • Performance section should be rewrittent. It contains too many FF/IE/Opera comparaisons. You can always use Browser Comparaison and Browser Wars articles to compare these browsers. Cleanup-Rewrite tag added. --seifip 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The performance section contains only criticisms of Firefox. The criticisms are that some users report that Firefox uses more memory than other browsers, and Firefox takes longer to start than other browsers. How do you suggest we rewrite the section without making comparisons to other browsers? They are a key part of the criticisms discussed. -- Schapel 03:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • OK. You'r probably right :) I have removed the tag and added one [citation needed] --seifip 11:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a note that Acrobat Reader 6 plugin might cause firefox to use excess memory (with citation) to the note about misbehaving extensions causing trouble. For some reason my citation is getting #42 in the document but sharing #41 with another citation in the cite index. Whats up? Thadk 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Firefox section

To whom it may concern -the section and the page are being kept seperate due to size constraints. The Firefox article is already too large by Wikipedia's standards, and merging the two would be impractical. The idea is that the Criticisms fall under the Firefox article, but is an article on its own. Thanks, T. Moitie [talk] 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say, the extra criticism in the separate article is too large to be merged. In light of that, the lack of comments here, and that it is clearly linked in the correct section. I consider the merge banner a distraction at minimum, or FUD. I've checked the article for IE, and although it has a slightly larger criticisms section, it has no dedicated criticism page, so for balancing both articles, the banner will be removed. Widefox 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please also check the comments in the page Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla FirefoxWidefox 12:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms page and section no longer exist. --69.54.29.23 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did this section go anyways? Firefox is far from being perfect... iamthebob(talk|contribs) 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. No one is trying to say Firefox is perfect. The criticisms have been merged into the article instead of being placed in their own section. Many people claimed before that the article seemed to say that Firefox is perfect, except it's not. Now the article should provide a balanced point of view throughout. -- Schapel 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why does Internet Explorer have their own criticism page? Clearly the size of the criticism does not represent how it should be dealt with.207.81.184.128 01:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and simply working the criticisms into the article is almost like hiding them! Other browsers like IE and Opera have seperate criticism sections, this makes the criticisms easy to find. Working them in and not having a section for them not only seems sinister, but also makes it difficult for someone looking specificially for criticism to find what they are looking for. Aufs klo 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what makes me wonder. We should have consistency within Wikipedia. Having specific criticism sections in IE and Opera and not in the Firefox article does seem odd, yes maybe sinister. Either the criticism section should be restored to this article or removed from IE and Opera or some compromise needs to be reached which keeps things equal and neutral to every article. To apply one thing to Firefox and another to IE and Opera seems unfair to me, maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV. --tgheretford (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. When the criticisms were separate, it was sinister because they were hidden, and now that they're merged, it's sinister because they're hidden. Look — there was a discussion about merging the articles, and a consensus was reached. Did you not participate in the discussion? -- Schapel 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood my point, what I am trying to say is that there needs to be consistency within articles. If the criticisms have been merged within the article here but not in IE or Opera, that isn't totally fair and maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV (I am aware of the discussion that took place by the way). --tgheretford (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may have misunderstood my point. You should have brought up your consistency idea in the planning stages, instead of waiting until the merge was complete, and then claiming that something "sinister" occurred. The discussion of the merger occurred on the Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox page. If you want to bring back the section called "Criticisms of Firefox" we should probably reach a consensus on this talk page first before doing anything. -- Schapel 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say that any page which has seperate criticism sections or pages is wrong, not this page. Take a look at the archives and see why the pages were merged - there are very strong reasons to not have such a section. To the user above who said about working criticism into the page is like hiding them: why is it? Why should information be split between 'pro' and 'anti' points? It damages flow in the article and just allows people to persist with their own POV's when they come to the article - ignoring everything else.-Localzuk(talk) 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to find the Criticism page... it simply fowards to here... Im sure there are plenty of them (I know I gripe with the new look of Firefox 2.0; and yes I know there is a replacement theme) I just find it odd that other pages (Internet Explorer, Opera, etc...) have a section yet Firefox has nothing, what gives? 216.220.15.211 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The criticisms are spread throughout the article instead of in a separate section. -- Schapel 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And the point is, why aren't criticism spread throughout the articles of Internet Explorer and Opera? iamthebob(talk|contribs) 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Because many people complained about the criticisms being lumped together in one section, which made the rest of the article look like Firefox was perfect. No one has made similar complaints about the other articles you mention, as far as I know, so they have not been changed. Of course, now that the original complaints about this article have been addressed, new complaints are emerging. It just goes to show that you can't please everyone. -- Schapel 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Memory use

I reverted the discussion about heap fragmentation because it is not specific to Firefox and no sources at all were cited. There is some discussion about memory use criticisms in the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article; perhaps that's the best place to discuss the issue. -- Schapel 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been instances of memory leaks within Firefox, especially in with version 1.5. I've experienced it myself. Not sure if this has been rectified in version 2.0.
I've never gotten any memory leaks with firefox while it's running in Linux. I think it's not an application issue but a platform issue. Stormscape 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it (i.e. that memory leaks has been rectified). Antiphishing (new feature, so not tested as well as rest of the codebase) is enabled by default in new FF, so performance is degraded (because each URL that you visit must be compared with [huge] list of known "bad" URLs) and memory usage is possible bigger (because list is probably in memory all the time). Most of this functionality is implemented in JS, so it further degrades overall performance. You don't have to believe me, check source code of FF. Also, look for file "urlclassifier2.sqlite". Data in it is downloaded for each user using FF (separately), and it is quite huge (~6 MB at the moment, I think). If someone doesn't need antiphishing, this file(s) unnecessarily takes space on HDD. 193.219.28.146 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What we need is reliable sources to cite verifiable information on memory use. Speculation and analyzing source code won't cut in on Wikipedia. -- Schapel 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox and Word Web Pages

Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [http:elianostamatov.hit.bg]

On the contrary, it is Microsoft Word that does not create proper web pages. See [1]. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
True. Opera can't properly open MS Word pages too. --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Images

All screen shots of Mozilla software products should displsy the following License tags {{mozilla}} {{free screenshot}} {{GPL}}

All screenshots of Mozilla browsers displaying a web page should display the site en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page and display the additional License tag {{wikipedia-screenshot}}

Also, it would be greatly appreciated if all screenshots were taken while the OS was using one of the default themes (for example Luna (default blue/silver/green) or Classic on Windows XP), and that Firefox was using the default theme, unless the screenshot was taken to illustrate how themes work in Firefox.

Why?--Black-Velvet 13:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What for? I don't see any point in these rules. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Because these are the only tags needed and every tag necessary to have correct license labeling. -KingpinE7 02:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fx 3 and Acid2 Test

Firefox 3.0 passes the Acid2 Test! 70.111.224.252 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it that when I tried today's build of Firefox 3 it doesn't pass Acid2? -- Schapel 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[2] Scroll down to firefox and the respective Fx 3 picture. 70.111.224.252 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox merged

Previous discussion was here Talk:Criticisms_of_Mozilla_Firefox#Proposed_merging_into_Mozilla_Firefox

The material under the section heading "Criticisms" duplicates the material at Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. There has not been an objection to synchronizing this material, and nor a further objection based on file size, since the Mozilla Firefox article is currently shorter than it was when those objections were made. So the proposal isn't for a merge. That's already effectively happened. The proposal is for a redirect so that the section on criticisms in the main article and the sub-article on criticisms don't need to be maintained simultaneously. This is a proposal for a merge as much as it is a proposal for a redirect (or a proposal for deletion). Some editors hope to be able to move material that has been put in criticism sections into the less POV commentary parts of the main article. It is suggested moving material back to the main article may facilitate this process. Unfortunately, we're required to reach consensus to just get a redirect to both avoid duplication, and move the article forward. --72.92.129.247 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY AGREE! This should be merged. At least put a Main Article: Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox . I would even do it. -- User:Tyson Moore

I replaced the "Main Article" link with the merge tag. --71.169.132.247 00:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the article has stabalized a lot more since the merge of the criticisms section. Not to say that the article couldn't still use improvement, but at least the flame wars have ceased from disrupting the article. --75.68.201.202 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Industry vs institutional adoption

Do we want to merge/what is the a distinction between the industry adoption and the institutional adoption sections? To me, institutional adoption is when an organization deploys Firefox to its employees. The industry adoption section currently talks about many things: web app support, third party extensions/distributions, institutional adoption, and OEMs.--Nonpareility 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

TOC and Legal Issues

Hi! There's some talk on Template talk:Firefox TOC regarding the legal issues with inserting the TOC on distribution/forks that I think you'd be interested in participating in. Particularly its insertion in Swiftfox. talk. Feureau 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what...

"Client-side session and persistent storage" means, in layman's terms (in the "Version 2.0" section)? --zenohockey 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a WHATWG specification. As Mozilla puts it in their release notes, "Client-side session and persistent storage: New support for storing structured data on the client side, to enable better handling of online transactions and improved performance when dealing with large amounts of data, such as documents and mailboxes." --Kamasutra 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word or two missing here?

From the "Institutional support" section:

Some observers, such as Serdar Yegulalp of TechTarget and Jim Rapooza of eWEEK note that Firefox does not provide tools that make institutional deployment easier, such as a client customization kit (which Mozilla has since released), [______] Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages.

--zenohockey 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Preview Release

The page currently lists none for preview release, it should be changed to 3.0a1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superway25 (talk • contribs) .

3.0a1 hasn't been released yet; the article links to a nightly build. As a side note, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ doesn't carry alpha builds. --Kjoonlee 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. When you download Minefield, the first thing it says to you when it opens up is "THIS IS NOT A PRE OR FINAL RELEASE!" In big red letters.--168.254.226.35 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does carry alpha builds, but only under their code names. --Kamasutra 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 1.5 does not Update to 2.0

The built in "Check for Updates..." function in Firefox 1.5.0.7 reports that no new updates are available. Mozilla's official development Wiki seems to indicate that a 1.5.0.8 release of Firefox is in development. If anyone could clear up why updating the Firefox 1.5 branch makes any sense at this point, in addition as to why the 1.5 branch will not update to 2.0, it would be greatly appreciated. In addition, could this post and/or the revised information please be posted in Wikipedia's Firefox entry? User:Johnhutchenson

The automatic update to Firefox 2 is still weeks away. One main reason is that there are still problems running Firefox 2 on Vista. Previous branches are updated for about six months after the initial release off a new branch to give security updates to the users who are sticking with the older version. In the future, perhaps a better place to ask these questions would be MozillaZine. -- Schapel 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Another reason for this is because they're also waiting for extension authors to update their extensions to the Firefox 2.0 version before they get it onto the automatic updater. I have to reference to point you to, but that's what I've heard in Branch discussion over the past months.  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the roadmap to get a better idea of how a release is handled. --Kamasutra 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems off-topic. --71.169.132.97 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a relevant question regarding the browser and could have been implemented in the article as a issue in the news. 70.111.218.254 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Altered hotkey behaviours for Wikipedia

Just to let new Firefox 2 users know that the hotkeys used when editing Wikipedia have changed somewhat from Firefox 1.5:

Access key definitions provided by web pages can now be triggered using Alt+Shift+key on Windows, Ctrl+key on Mac OS X, and Ctrl+Shift+key on Unix.

e.g., previously it was 'Alt+P' to Show preview, etc., on Windows, it's now 'Alt+Shift+P', and so-on. Ian Dunster 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. Do you know of any way to switch it back to ALt+P standard? I got used to it... //Halibutt 13:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, no - I don't know if it can be changed back - I also got used to using 'Alt+P' - I could do a preview with one hand, now I need to use two! - LOL. Ian Dunster 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Section on Version 2.0 is unreadable

The section, "Current version", is unreadable. It needs to be written in summary form. --71.169.132.97 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for a "Current version" section. It contains history and a list of features, so put the information in History and in Features.--Nonpareility 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Then fix it yourself --Kingy 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is protected. Anons are people, too, you know. --69.54.29.23 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as people they can register for an account and would be able to edit the article in a few days. -- Schapel 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Firefox 2 Image

Someone keeps placing a new main image of firefox 2 up, because they believe that it should be in windows XP's default blue theme. I don't have a problem with this, but they keep putting it up without the correct tags. If you put up an image of Firefox please:

  • include the mozilla, free screenshot, GPL, and wikipedia-screenshot licensing tags
  • Have the browser on the Wikipedia homepage
  • use 800x600 screen resolution (this makes the browser stand out more than the wikipedia homepage when the image is shrunk)
  • and because Firefox is on all OS's, use the default themes from Windows (blue, silver, or Media Center's Royale theme), apple OS X, or the Linux OS you are using.

Can anyone else think of something to add to this list? --Phnx2ashes 01:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I say we run a screenshot of it on GNOME or KDE over a Windows install any day... but that's just me -- Tawker 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As an after thought: Our best bet is to put a windows image for the main screen shot, because most people use windows, but we could put in a gallery at the bottom of the page to show firefox on different systems. So if you could produce an image in Gnome we could put it there --Phnx2ashes 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you verify that the main image is actually version 2.0 final? The reason I ask is the icon in the top left is the one normally used for non-official builds. --Kamasutra 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the icon in Ubuntu, not non-official build. That's 2.0 --Emx 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Emx is correct, in Ubuntu the icon only shows the globe --Phnx2ashes 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The gallery is up. If someone is using Firefox in Mac OS X, please contribute an image of it. --Phnx2ashes 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this article, but I hope I can help. Maybe we can include some of the following bullets in the instructions?
  • There is no {{mozilla}} tag on Commons, as the Firefox trademark artwork is not acceptable there.
  • If the Firefox logo (icon) is visible then upload it to English wikipedia with all these tags: list of tags to copy and paste directly into upload form
  • If the blue globe icons are visible instead, such as on Debian and Ubuntu, then it can go on Commons, with all the tags except {{mozilla}} and {{logo}}. (Commons accepts the non-free {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag, but no other non-free content.) Paste this: list of commons tags to copy and paste directly into upload form
Instructions could point to an example of a good image on Commons, commons:Image:Firefox2.png, and one on English Wikipedia, Image:FFX2winmedia.PNG
Final question: although Commons accepts the Wikipedia logo, it is non-free; might it be more true to the five pillars to create free content that doesn't show that logo? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage

Be careful with the Firefox usage percent, as I know it's around 12 % and not more, these things should be truthful and relevant. --Emx 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of 2.0

Considering the reponse that I have seen I think it's important to add the criticism of Firefox 2.0. Where would be the best spot to place it? Mozilla Firefox#Current_version or a new section of it's own? Mikemill 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the 2.0 section I guess -- Tawker 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What criticism have you heard about? Gdo01 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Specifically the alt-s and alt-p changes along with an issue concerning the use of "Content-Type: application/octet-stream" and "Content-Disposition: attachment". I will also be looking for other criticisms to cite. Mikemill 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen this criticism from a reliable source? -- Schapel 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that enabling antiphishing by default is worth criticizing. Why? Because (on default settings) Firefox connects with Google's servers (to update blacklist of phishy pages) with only half hour intervals, sending also google cookie (linked with your searches). (Sources: source code of FF (after installing, listmanager.js lands, among ohters, in components/nsUrlClassifierListManager.js I think); analyzing of logs from locally ran ngrep: http://nomorepasting.com/paste.php?action=getpaste&pasteID=70619 ). And why this setting is in Security tab, not Privacy??? It connects after each 30mins. interval even if you don't use browser at all (I mean - FF is running, but you don't actively browse pages)! For me this is more related with my privacy, than security (I consider browser more insecure because of this, BTW, because I really don't care about antiphishing, 'cos I am able to recognize phishy page and don't click on all links in spam).
Another not-so-great thing about new FF is removing "allow sites to set cookies for the originating site only" setting in Privacy tab in GUI (compare with FF1.5).
Worth criticizing is also lack of option in GUI to disable prefetching (IMO controversial and AFAIK non-standard feature) and enabling it by default at the same time. (Bugs in Bugzilla related to these issues are closed with WONTFIX: look here and here).
One more thing, again related with antiphishing: switching to full antiphishing protection will send each URL that you visit to google. Why is that? Why doesn't browser send only MD5 or SHA1 hashes of URL to google to compare with their database of phishy sites? It can be done in this way, but it isn't. I think google wants to gather more URLs to index, but that's only my opinion of course... 193.219.28.146 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
"Have you seen this criticism from a reliable source?"--Nonpareility 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What will you consider 'reliable source' in this case? Few mentioned by me facts you can check by yourself in source code (but you have to know JavaScript, C++ and HTTP protocol).
If you expect criticism about FF from developers of FF, then, well, this is quite unreasonable expectation for obvious reasons ;-) 193.219.28.146 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
In this case, an article or review in an online magazine like PC World or eWeek is acceptable and likely to contain the source you're looking for. Looking in the source code is original research. If you find a good source, please don't create a criticisms section - try to fit the text in with an existing section. For example, if the source says the anti-phishing feature sucks, put that in the Security section of the Features article.--Nonpareility 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You must be kidding. I am not going to look for "reliable source" that will please you and fulfill your definition of "reliable source". "Reliable sources" mentioned by you are quite often not so reliable, but biased and unobjective. BTW, large "Criticism" sections are in articles like Pope John Paul II (even full article) or Mother Teresa.
There is total invasion of privacy in this release of Firefox. If you want to keep biased, unobjective article in Wikipedia (that doesn't mention very important facts) that's your (and readers' of Wikipedia) problem, not mine. I know what I saw, and this is sufficient for me. I don't trust developers of Mozilla anymore because of this issues (among others) and I've recently switched to Konqueror (after using FF from version 1.0.3 [or sth like that], and Phoenix before that). (BTW: Konq passes Acid2 test right now, not in some 'future versions' like FF.)
If you consider looking into source code as "original research", then what is the benefit of using Open Source software? Imagine the following hypothetical situation: there is backdoor in some new release of some popular OpenSource software. Some curious individual audited the source code and found it. Then I guess this person couldn't put this information in article about this software in Wikipedia to warn other users, is that right? 193.219.28.146 14:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If you do not cite a reliable source and instead add your own original research to the article, it will be removed. -- Schapel 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What is 'reliable source' for you in this case?
BTW - could [http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html this site] (I couldn't add hyperlink to this site, because it is censored...) be considered as 'reliable source' (perhaps not in this particular case, but in general)? 193.219.28.146 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A reliable source is a peer reviewed publication, a well known and respected website (such as arstechnica), a press release from the mozilla foundation etc...
Scroogle is a biased organisation and as such are not a reliable source. That page is poorly sourced and full of conjecture.-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Tech Digest has some reliable and correct information about privacy concerns in the anti-phishing feature. I was going to add a sentence about these concerns to the article, but I notice that the article needs to be updated for Firefox 2. Anti-phishing is a new feature, but is described only in a sentence under Future Development along with lots of other features. I think we need to fix the article before I can cleanly add the information. -- Schapel 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No, this is not correct source, AFAIK. Also, I really have no idea, how you can consider this as "reliable source", when author writes "(apparently, I haven't used it yet)". It is clear, that author of this text haven't done proper research. I still don't understand, why my research, described on talk page, is worse than some random page on Internet... 193.219.28.146 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree here, Tech Digest should not be considered a reliable source.-Localzuk(talk) 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer the anon users question - yes that is right. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or findings. If the information is important enough to include, someone will have published about it. If there are security flaws in the software, one of the well known and respected computer publishers out there will undoubtedly report on it. Once they have done that, it can be included here with a citation to back it up. Otherwise, it is simply original research as it requires 1) knowledge of how the software was written, 2) knowledge of secure programming practices and from them the ability to draw the conclusion made. Please see our policy on original research for more information about what it is exactly.-Localzuk(talk) 15:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"(...) yes that is right."
Ooooook, thank you for clarification. (Note to myself: don't rely on Wikipedia when it comes to software, especially new versions.)
"If the information is important enough to include, someone will have published about it. If there are security flaws in the software, one of the well known and respected computer publishers out there will undoubtedly report on it."
In general - wishfull thinking, really. But I know this is quite comfortable; after all, as someone in Matrix pointed out, "ignorance is bliss".
Here is my proposition to avoid misunderstandings such this one in the future -- please, add to articles about reliable source and/or original research some clear note, that source code IS NOT considered as "reliable source" and that findings based on source code are always considered as "original research". Thank you. 193.219.28.146 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the matter is quite well covered already by our policies and guidelines. In this case (source code), you have 2 conditions (the source code knowledge and the knowledge of secure programming) and to come to a conclusion that the software is not secure you have to use both of them. That is pretty much definition of original research. If you think it needs clarifying, please visit the policy page in question and post about it on the talk page there.-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Source code is a reliable source. If the source code contains the line flubtribble = 3;, feel free to say that the source code contains the line flubtribble = 3; as long as you cite the source. However, if you analyze source code and draw conclusions from it, that is your own original research. Isn't all this clear in Wikipedia's official policies? If not, what part do you believe should be clarified? -- Schapel 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as you probably know, this is not that simple. One line alone means completely nothing (or can mean everything), so without analyzing some larger part of source code (context of this line) citing one line is useless. 193.219.28.146 00:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand. However, the point still stands. Even though source code is a reliable source, you can't really claim anything except what the source code says, which as you point out, really doesn't tell the reader anything. You also can't post your own analysis of the source code, as that is original research. You need a reliable source to publish an analysis of the source code, and then you can put that analysis in the article. -- Schapel 00:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"(...) the source code says, which as you point out, really doesn't tell the reader anything."
Sorry, but I haven't said that. I pointed out, that one line alone is not sufficient to draw any conclusions. But context of this line and source code as a whole says all and everything about analyzed piece of software. 193.219.28.146 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You can post source code and its context, but it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. If you put in your own conclusions, that's original research. As the vast majority of readers do not read source code, again we come back to the point that posting lines of source code is pointless. Something like that would simply be removed as not being encyclopedia in tone. My point is that the problem is not that source code is not a reliable source, but that the source code alone really doesn't mean anything to the reader of the article. -- Schapel 01:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[3] heqs 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That source is incorrect. If you include anything like that in the article, it should also have the other side of the story for a neutral point of view. -- Schapel 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not here to vouch for the source. Here's a slashdot link. Just throwing it out there for now. heqs 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think "throw it out" is the correct term. A Slashdot article isn't considered a reliable source. -- Schapel 01:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, the article seems to use quite a few blogs as references. heqs 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The only blogs I see used as references are the blogs of Mozilla employees (Asa Dotzler, Blake Ross). Should Mozilla employees not be considered reliable sources of Firefox information? -- Schapel 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Our policy on sources allows for the use of information sourced from Mozilla and it's employees on this article as it is one of their products. External blogs are not acceptable though as no-one can vouch for their longevity, editorial abilities, bias, and quality of their information. -Localzuk(talk) 08:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It is obvious, that FF devs are not objective about their product. They are biased. 193.219.28.146 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but an article about a product can have information sourced to that products creators - it is obvious that it will be biased but that is policy. Also, the problems with other blogs is not just bias - it is that entire list of information. Have you read the policies and guideline like I have asked you to, please do if you haven't as it will help clear this up?

"Should Mozilla employees not be considered reliable sources of Firefox information?" It seems that the Mozilla response to criticism is simply ad hominem. It would be a shame if Firefox were held as beyond all criticism for the purposes of Wikipedia, especially when claiming that Slashdot is not a reliable source - yet a potty-mouthed developer blog with heavy bias is. 2c.

Could you give an example of an ad hominem attack to criticism from Mozilla or one of its employees? Perhaps you should read the linked article before you respond. -- Schapel 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:V. Essentially, if a developer said the next release of Firefox will be on a certain date, that's can be used as a source because it's not contentious. If a developer said Firefox is perfect, that wouldn't be acceptable. I also think it's irrelevant to this article whether Mozilla employees respond to criticism with ad hominem or not.--Nonpareility 04:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Schapel, reading this discussion, you alone appear to have decided that third-party media criticisms are not reliable sources, but Mozilla corp is both reliable and unbiased. Whether comments are ad hominem or not is indeed, irrelevant, but criticisms of Firefox development are not. Let's try and keep WP neutral where genuine controversy is raised, thanks. I'll write that myself, and see if WP can stomach a neutral POV on this issue. :)

That's utter nonsense. Not only have I never voiced that opinion, I myself have added criticism to the article that comes from a third party. I added Richard Stallman's criticisms of Firefox not being free back when the information was in the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article. -- Schapel 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed that is nonsense. I have seen nothing more than requests for people to use reliable sources, per policy, and to not engage in original research, per policy.-Localzuk(talk) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firefox/Archive_7&oldid=1136727414"