Like to promote FireFox? Take it to the next level

garthv

http://www.mozillastore.com/products/clothing/firefoxtee/?mozstore=9c1dcb89dd275597f3cd6152a7ecc5cb

RE*AC*TOR

already have one (well actually its a mozilla one [with the dinosaur / star])

pickarooney

Dear oh dear.

uberwolf

have one :$

SirLemonhead

Scary .

WhiteWashMan

im not convinced by firefox.
sorry.

pickarooney

WhiteWashMan wrote:

im not convinced by firefox.
sorry.

But you will be once you see London's finest parading around clad in Firefox t-shirts, mark my words.*




*No indelible ink, please.

seamus

/me considers

Zombienosh

anyone for IE t-shirts? :rolleyes:

garthv

AlcoholicA wrote:

anyone for IE t-shirts? :rolleyes:

Yeh i need a few for my fire

NotMe

AlcoholicA wrote:

anyone for IE t-shirts? :rolleyes:

Yeah I already have one.

garthv

NotMe wrote:

Yeah I already have one.

BUUUUURRRRRRNNNNN ITTTT!
child of satan i tells thee

bush

Saddest t shirts ever

dahamsta

Duh wrote:

Like to promote FireFox?

No.

Duh wrote:

Take it to the next level

No.

ixoy

Almost as cool as Doctor Who Dalek t-shirt. Almost.

Talliesin

I'd like Firefox a lot more if there weren't this crowd looking upon it like Heaven's Gate cultists looked upone the Hale Bop comet.

Sometimes when IE does things differently to Firefox, IE is the one following the spec correctly.

dahamsta

I see very little commentary from all these Firefox evangelists (I want to say "twats") about the recent, horrendous, non-IE exploit. With the preponderance of phishing attacks happen at the moment, this is probably one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in recent history.

I'm clicking Check Now in Software Update, nothing's happening. Where's the super-fast patching everyone's been telling me about?

adam /who's willing to bet that they don't even know what he's talking about

aidan_walsh

dahamsta wrote:

I see very little commentary from all these Firefox evangelists (I want to say "twats") about the recent, horrendous, non-IE exploit. With the preponderance of phishing attacks happen at the moment, this is probably one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in recent history.

You mean the one that doesn't effect copies of IE by default becuase of its lack or standards compliance? Yeah, we have a thread about it in computers. And there are fixes in FF that don't exist in any other browser yet, since they don't see it as being a "major risk" as yet...

rainbow kirby

They're not as bad as the t-shirts which came with NoE's Nintendo DS pack... 'Touch Me' written across the chest of a size XL t-shirt.

Stark

I love Firefox, but I really couldn't be arsed promoting it (it's popular enough already) and I wouldn't sabotage my social standing with one of those tshirts.

aidan_walsh

Stark wrote:

I love Firefox, but I really couldn't be arsed promoting it (it's popular enough already) and I wouldn't sabotage my social standing with one of those tshirts.

I wouldn't consider that a problem since most of the Irish population wouldn't have a clue as to what it is anyway... You can just tell them what you like...

Stark

"A Firefox? Well it's a fire breathing fox, yes kind of like a dragon, that wraps itself around the Earth and eats the sun every night".

dahamsta

The point I'm making is not that IE is better than Firefox, but that the evangelism is annoying, and the evangelists often skip over key issues. Like this. You seem to have missed this completely.

doodle_sketch wrote:

You mean the one that doesn't effect copies of IE by default becuase of its lack or standards compliance?

Which is worse, a standard that isn't implemented at all, or one that's implemented badly? Ever think that Microsoft didn't implement IDN's because of precisely this issue?

And there are fixes in FF that don't exist in any other browser yet

Fixes, not patches. The Firefox community would be up in arms if Microsoft failed to release a patch for this immediately, and instead told users to open a file on their hard drive and delete such-and-such a line. (Since disabling IDN support via about:config in FF doesn't actually work beyond a restart.)

since they don't see it as being a "major risk" as yet...

Then they're fools, and if you point me to where a major Firefox developer said that, I'll say it to them personally. If exploits for this aren't being rolled out to zombies around the world as we speak, I'll eat my hat.

(For those not in the know, this exploit lets anyone spoof any URL with an IDN (Internationalised Domain Name). That means when one of those spoof PayPal emails comes into your mailbox, and you click on the link, the Location bar will say https://www.paypal.com/, and all that advice you've gotten about checking the URL goes out the windows. That's not a major risk?)

adam

CuLT

dahamsta wrote:

Which is worse, a standard that isn't implemented at all, or one that's implemented badly?

Indeed, such as PNG support.

Anyhoo, I wouldn't be seen dead or alive wearing a tshirt promoting geekiness. This of course includes any sort of nerd-tshirt, not just Firefox.

"My other package is a tarball!" LOLOLOL!

**** off.

dahamsta

CuLT wrote:

Indeed, such as PNG support.

Very true. Unfortunately, I was being ironic.

dahamsta wrote:

The point I'm making is not that IE is better than Firefox...

CuLT

The point I'm making is not that IE is better than Firefox...

I know, but I had to reply
PNG support is a subject close to my heart

aidan_walsh

CuLT wrote:

Indeed, such as PNG support.

Anyhoo, I wouldn't be seen dead or alive wearing a tshirt promoting geekiness. This of course includes any sort of nerd-tshirt, not just Firefox.

"My other package is a tarball!" LOLOLOL!

**** off.

Well, personally, I don't see it as anything worse that wearing a tshirt promoting your favourite band... Just a different type of geekiness...

For a start, I am by no means a FF evangalist. Evangalism is annoying. Personally, anyone who acts as an evangalist had better have a pretty intimate knowledge of the software, otherwise they're just looking pretty stupid...

dahamsta wrote:

Which is worse, a standard that isn't implemented at all, or one that's implemented badly?

I'm not sure, but as CuLT pointed out, MS like to sit on both sides of the fence on that one...

dahamsta wrote:

Fixes, not patches.

Well, fixes isn't exactly the right word either... You can switch off the setting that allows support, just like you can with any other setting in Firefox... Which is one of the nice things that IE doesn't afford.

dahamsta wrote:

The Firefox community would be up in arms if Microsoft failed to release a patch for this immediately, and instead told users to open a file on their hard drive and delete such-and-such a line.

Why should they have to code a patch when three simple steps on the website as to how to disable it manually will do? Besides, how is this any different than having to change registry values to get certain things working properly, as sometimes needs to be done?

dahamsta wrote:

(Since disabling IDN support via about:config in FF doesn't actually work beyond a restart.)

This has been repaired in the nightly build. See what I mean about looking stupid?

dahamsta wrote:

Then they're fools, and if you point me to where a major Firefox developer said that, I'll say it to them personally.

I never said it was a Firefox developer, in fact it was an Opera one. They are reluctant to release a patch for Opera that would disable it because they want the governing commitees to stipulate rules about how and when IDN domains should be allowed to be registered. I don't have a like source, but I do have the text.

Yngve Pettersen - Senior Developer for Opera wrote:

What we are dealing with here is a problem inherent in the Unicode and IDNA standards, not a bug in an application.

The real problem is that there is no good way to fix this clientside (or at least I haven't seen any yet), either the fixes leaks like sieves, catches too much and irritates users (and I am not talking aboy Western Europeans here, I am talking about Asians and Russians, for example), or the warnings are too obscure to trigger any concern (unless you know what to look for).

As I've said before, during the previous discussions on this topic a couple of weeks ago: I believe this is best solved at the registrar level by implementing rules about which characters can be mixed (which a number of registrars already have), with an optional second tier system that permits customers with permissible names to register. (If you are asking "What is a permissible name?" just consider a russian or greek word followed by "-rocks" or similar combinations).

Longterm, a recommendation and any selections of permissible (or non-permissible) character combinations should be published by the IETF. Otherwise what might be permitted in one browser would not be permitted in another.

Talliesin

doodle_sketch wrote:

You mean the one that doesn't effect copies of IE by default becuase of its lack or standards compliance?

Yeah, the one that the possibility of it (or rather, of sploits along those lines) happening and the necessity to take measures against are in the standards in question.

WhiteWashMan

Oh My God!

Stfu!

Geeks!

commuterised

My Dad has just given me one of those tshirts, navy one.
haven't worn it yet, hope I wont be sabotaging my social standing !!

aidan_walsh

WhiteWashMan wrote:

Oh My God!

Stfu!

Geeks!

You're just jealous because we rule the earth and you know it

dahamsta

I won't quote you this time doodle_sketch, because I just want to make a general comment: The Promote Firefox campaign would seem to suggest that the developers want it to become mainstream, the norm. Editing files directly and/or downloading nightly builds to correct a problem like this is not the norm, not how ordinary users fix their software. They might click the Update button, but even that's unlikely. Frankly, suggesting otherwise is insulting both your intelligence and mine.

Oh, and if Yngve Pettersen knows anything about DNS, she'll know that relying on ICANN and the registries to resolve this in any sort of reasonable timeframe is, in a word, futile. I can understand her position, but some sort of offical stopgap release should be rolled out via a prompt asap.

adam

aidan_walsh

dahamsta wrote:

The Promote Firefox campaign would seem to suggest that the developers want it to become mainstream, the norm. Editing files directly and/or downloading nightly builds to correct a problem like this is not the norm, not how ordinary users fix their software. They might click the Update button, but even that's unlikely.

I'm afraid I have to agree for the most part with that on both counts. (Although if the rate at which "regular users" updated their FF installations during the prerelease stages is anything to go by, perhaps the solution lies in simply making the thing high profile enough, which seems to be the current aim of the Mozilla Foundation.) The thing is, I'm still torn between whether the solution is to take it out of the regular users hands and use automatic, scheduled updates, or whether its worth taking the effort to try to educate them...

NotMe

Use EditPlus. Spread the word. It's much better then Notepad. Where can I get my EditPlus t-shirt?

dahamsta

(I edited what you quoted there, so it should be a bit clearer now.)

I don't agree with automatic updates at all anyway, no matter what the OS or software, unless they're explicitly requested by the user. However these things can be rolled out intelligently and relatively unobtrusively, as my edited post suggests. Firefox may already have these hooks in fact, I'm not sure. If it does, they should be leveraged; if not they should be built in asap.

adam

WhiteWashMan

NotMe wrote:

Use EditPlus. Spread the word. It's much better then Notepad. Where can I get my EditPlus t-shirt?

now that, is funny

aidan_walsh

dahamsta wrote:

(I edited what you quoted there, so it should be a bit clearer now.)

I don't agree with automatic updates at all anyway, no matter what the OS or software, unless they're explicitly requested by the user. However these things can be rolled out intelligently and relatively unobtrusively, as my edited post suggests. Firefox may already have these hooks in fact, I'm not sure. If it does, they should be leveraged; if not they should be built in asap.

adam

Firefox has mechanisms for detecting updates in both itself and third party extensions (which appear as a bubble in the menu bar when available, for the user to highlight and choose which to update if they wish), but it doesn't have any facility (that I have seen) for this type of issue.

Perhaps you're suggesting a functionality that would allow Mozilla to flag an alert on an issue, and use a popup to allow the user to decide if they want the values changed for them, after explaining what the issue is and why it is dangerous? If so, then thats a good idea, if not, them I'm really not sure what you mean?

EDIT: GaRtH_V, I'm sorry, you can have your thread back soon

Bubba

Why would u bother