Totzkeeeeee's Blog

Just because I can...

  Home  |   Contact  |   Syndication    |   Login
  189 Posts | 4 Stories | 215 Comments | 341 Trackbacks

News


My blog is worth $14,678.04.
How much is your blog worth?

Article Categories

Archives

Post Categories

Image Galleries

Blog Roll

Cool Sites

< groan >

I'm not generally one to say “I told you so”.  Ok, so you probably saw right through that big fat lie.  I do it all the time and generally enjoy it.  :)

Here's my favourite quote from the article:

"Backward compatibility with any kind of application development is kind of the holy grail of software problems that haven't been solved by anyone yet," Hofmann said. "(But) you try to respond quickly when it does happen."

While a difficult problem to be sure, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the Holy Grail.  They broke a public Interface.  If you want something sacred, it's the contract that a public interface represents.  In that respect, many companies have done an extemely good job of maintaining backward compatibility. 

Microsoft comes to mind.  Say what you will about them, but the fact that I can load up a DOS based program on Windows XP or even on Win2K3 and have it just work is nothing short of astounding in my book.  You can even get it to print to a USB printer if you're clever enough.  The amount of testing Microsoft does to try and ensure compatibility is nothing short of staggering.

Sure, some things break.  Ninety-nine times out of a hundred the problem lies with the application, not Windows.  The use of undocumented APIs is one practice that catches folks all the time.  It's not a public Interface and therefore there's no contract and no expectation of compatibility.  Some applications rely on behaviours that are considered bugs in the OS.  Microsoft fixes the bug and the application breaks.  Who's fault is that?

Here's my next favourite bit:

The latest changes also appear to have delayed the development of foreign-language versions of FireFox and Thunderbird. Version 1.0.5, which fixed a number of security problems, is available only in English.

Development teams building foreign-language versions have complained of a lack of "clear information" from Mozilla on the latest problems. The foundation has asked developers to skip localized versions of 1.0.5 and to build them instead for the upcoming version.

I don't have any actual statistics, but the general sense I get is that FireFox is really, really big overseas.  Really.  Right now, all of these folks are stuck on 1.0.4 with security problems and no release of 1.0.5 to fix them because it's broken too.  Well, broken in the sense that the English version is broken and they're just going to go ahead and make everyone wait for 1.0.6 to fix all of the problems for everyone. 

As I mentioned last time, the fast release cycle scares me.  Wanna know what else scares me?  This:

Alpha 2 also includes a feature that caches previously visited pages in memory for faster display when clicking the back and forward navigation buttons. 

Dude.  Lay off the Red Bull.  Pages already get cached to disk.  How much faster does it have to be?  I know that it should be fine, but the fact that web page content will be resident in memory just gives me the willies.  I really think it's a Bad Idea (tm)

You heard it here first folks - somebody is going to figure out how to exploit that.

Dave
Just because I can...

posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:21 AM

Feedback

# re: Firefox 1.0.5 Breaks Some Add-Ins 7/22/2005 2:13 PM stuartd
Dave

Users are hardly "stuck with security problems" - the vulnerabilities are simply not being exploited (or if they are it's on such a small scale that nobody on bugtraq or /. has noticed, which is effectively the same thing) - unless you know differently?

Not like users stuck with IE on Windows 2000, of course, which is a big holey bag full of opportunities for drive-by downloads of activex): I would be much, much safer surfing with Phoenix 0.4 than vanilla IE6.

Each to their own, that's my motto. But be fair: FireFox has a very good record on not being exploited. Changing the API interface
was a total snafu, but everyone has one sometimes.

Your point on the release schedule is a little unfair, now I think about it: FireFox 1.0.6 is the same browser as 1.0, same featureset, same bugs - except the ones which merited a security release. Why do browsers issue a security release as soon as they fix a security bug? Because that's what the market leader does...

If you want to pick on FireFox 1.0.x then try it on a Mac - not very good, the next release will be a vast impovement, even the 1.5 alphas are much better, and remember while you're ragging on it - it's a 1.0 release. Maybe ask yourself why you're so bothered?

Cheers

# re: Firefox 1.0.5 Breaks Some Add-Ins 8/6/2005 4:39 PM Ivan Porto Carrero
FireFox holes haven't been exploited YET.
On top of it all it doesn't render javascript according to the w3.org DOM.
It renders images slower. I am a huge Microsoft IE fan.
Probably mister stuartd is one who is posing that linux outperforms a windows system and it is much safer...
The only reason why FireFox gives the illusion to be faster is because it caches a lot of stuff so after the first time you visit something it seems faster.
FireFox is in my opinion a browser that is still in his babyshoes and their team still has a long way to go before they can get such an aggressive marketing as they are doing now.

# re: Firefox 1.0.5 Breaks Some Add-Ins 8/11/2005 5:03 PM stuartd
> FireFox holes haven't been exploited YET.

Well, if and when they were, we could discuss it. Until then it's hypothetical, rather than the real and actual risks of using IE

> On top of it all it doesn't render javascript > according to the w3.org DOM.

Javascript is a scripting language. These tend to be "interpreted" rather than "rendered" which generally refers to images. Have you considered using ECMAScript BTW?

> It renders images slower. I am a huge
> Microsoft IE fan.

Eat less.

> Probably mister stuartd is one who is
> posing that linux outperforms a windows
> system and it is much safer...

Maybe it does, I don't have one, as long as Mac OS counts as Unix.

> The only reason why FireFox gives the
> illusion to be faster is because it caches a
> lot of stuff so after the first time you visit
> something it seems faster.

What's the difference between "seems faster" and "is faster"?

> FireFox is in my opinion a browser that is
> still in his babyshoes and their team still
> has a long way to go before they can get
> such an aggressive marketing as they are
> doing now.

Of course: it's a 1.0 release. You shouldn't treat it with the same exacting standards you could expect to apply that a product that was at version 5 or 6 of development.

stuartd

# re: Firefox 1.0.5 Breaks Some Add-Ins 8/18/2005 3:06 AM .
Ever since 1.0.5 was released, the browser has had nothing but errors and crashes. Quits in the middle of typing a simple email without any extension on the browser (learned early they can cause problems outside the browser it seems), it freezes, and now new windows won;t open. I click new window and even right-clic and open in new window, but nothing happens after the hour-glass. It does not appear they beta-test any of their updates. Still better than the cumbersome and intrusive explorer, but if it continues to crash, back to IE.

Post Feedback

Title:
Name:
Email: (never displayed)
Url:
Comments: 
Please add 1 and 5 and type the answer here: