| |
Firefox 2 approaches
The Mozilla folks are casting out the final few bugs that will be addressed in the initial release of Firefox version 2. The beta version has been available for a long time, but I've become increasingly reluctant to try early beta versions of applications. I thought about installing beta 1 and quickly rejected the idea. It took a little longer to decide not to install beta 2. When release candidate 1 came along, I decided to give it a try. By the time organizations get to "release candidates", an application is usually more or less stable and you can be certain that there won't be any big changes before the final version. What I've seen so far suggests that Firefox users will be happy with this version and that Internet Explorer users should give it a try. Before I finished writing this section, Mozilla posted RC2 and then RC3.
In describing RC1, I said that developers are dealing with "the final few bugs that will be addressed" and I used those words carefully. Almost every application is released with "known bugs" that are targeted for resolution in a later version. No matter how careful a developer is, no application is ever entirely without bugs.
I also said that there won't be any big changes. Between now and the time Mozilla makes the actual release code available, they may fix a bug or two and they may disable a feature, but they won't add anything new. Disabling a feature happens only when a serious bug becomes evident late in the development cycle, there's insufficient time to fix it, and it is sufficiently serious that the application will better serve users if the buggy feature is missing. That's unusual and I don't expect it to happen here.
Installing Firefox 2
 |
|
As always, Firefox offers standard and custom installation options. Most people should choose the standard option. I choose the custom option to be certain that two items I want will be installed.
Click any of the images for a larger view. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Those two items are the document object model inspector and the quality feedback agent. I consider the DOM inspector essential and I install the quality feedback agent so that any crashes will be reported to Mozilla. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Unless you have a very good reason for changing it, let the installer put the program where it thinks it should put it. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
I detest program icons on the desktop, so I always clear the checkbox for that option. The Quick Launch bar is the place where I have browsers and some common utilities. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Why does the installer even ask this question? Does anyone choose to place Firefox in the Corel Photo Album 6 folder? |
| |
|
|
 |
|
The program is installed and we're ready to see if it works. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
This is version 2 software and the extensions have all been written for version 1 software. Most of them will work, but Firefox disables them by default.
You should check to see if any updates are available. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
There is an update for Forecast Fox, so I installed it. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
After each new installation, Firefox changes the home page temporarily to a page that confirms the update. As you can see, the page isn't yet ready.
The next time Firefox opens, you'll get your regular home page. (Mine is blank.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Extensions are now called Add-Ons. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Many of my extensions have been disabled (see the exclamation mark on the red circle). |
| |
|
|
 |
|
So I visited Nightly Tester Tools and installed an Add On that will mark all installed Add Ons as compatible with Firefox version 2. (See the warning I'll add a few panels south of here.) |
| |
|
|
 |
|
This installs the Nightly Tester Tool, which is designed mainly for software developers who download each day's new build of Firefox for testing.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
Once I have installed the Nightly Tester Tool and restarted Firefox, I can select the tool and make all Add Ons compatible.
One of two things will happen to each Add On: Either it will work as expected or it will fail. The most common result is that the Add On will work. If it fails, you're no worse off because it had already been disabled. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
The tool issues a fair warning. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
And then complies with your request. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
In my case, all of the Add Ons appear to work as expected.
The Nightly Tester Tool also works with Themes, but interface changes will probably make most themes somewhat problematic. For example, the new Close icon that appears on the active tab will not appear with old-style themes even though they have been made "compatible". |
| |
|
|
New Firefox features
Firefox now includes an anti-phishing tool that is turned on by default. It checks sites that you browse to against a list of known phishing sites. Although this list is regularly updated, phishing attacks are launched so quickly that the feature offers the option to check sites against an online service such as Google for more up-to-date protection.
By default, Firefox opens links in new tabs instead of new windows. The History menu keeps a list of recently closed tabs, and a shortcut lets users quickly re-open an accidentally closed tab.
The Session Restore feature restores windows, tabs, text typed in forms, and in-progress downloads from the last user session. It is activated automatically when the browser must be restarted (following an application update or installation of an add on). It is also activated if the browser crashes. Users will be asked if they want to resume their previous session. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
If you visit a suspected phishing site, you'll get a warning. The wise choice ("Get me out of here!) redirects to Firefox Start. If you choose "Ignore this warning," Firefox will allow you to continue to the suspected phishing site.
Anti-phishing is turned on by default. To change it, go to Tools > Options ... > Security (Windows) or Preferences > Options ... > Security (Mac). |
| |
|
|
 |
|
The is the Mozilla test page for the anti-phishing tool.
http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/its-a-trap.html |
| |
|
|
 |
|
This isn't a new feature, but it's a Firefox option that I particularly like. I can share bookmarks between the home computer, the office computer, and a notebook (Windows and Mac). With just a couple of clicks, I can open 15 tabs. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
If you do that regularly, you'll want to turn off this warning. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
In version 1.x, all 15 of my tabs were visible at the same time. In version 2, I'll have to scroll. There's also a drop-down list at the right. The "close this tab" icon is now part of the tab, which makes it more visible than in the past. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Right-clicking the tab bar allows the user to reload the current tab or all tabs, to close all but the selected tab, and to bookmark the current tab or all tabs.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
The number of options and settings continues to increase, which makes the application even more flexible and customizable than it was in the past. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
I have mixed feelings about this option. Most applications just use the file associations that are maintained by the operating system, but Firefox allows users to specify which application should answer when Firefox needs to open a particular file. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
This is about two thirds of the list of file types. |
Release Candidate 2 became available in early October
Release Candidate 3 is available now
You can read the release notes here.
Overall: Internet Explorer keeps improving, but Firefox is still my first choice. (4 cats)
Updates are much more robust now for both the browser and any add-ons you install. One problem that coders are still working on is a serious memory leak. If you're using Firefox and your computer starts running slow, you may find that Firefox is hogging virtually all of the memory. You can obtain Firefox release candidate 3 (unless it's been replaced by another RC version by the time you read this) here.
The Google in your mirror is not as smart as it appears
There's no question that Google is run by smart people who hire other smart people, but even smart people sometimes do incredibly dumb things. One aspect of Google Mail clearly illustrates this point. Although Google Mail is unquestionably the best Web mail application available, the programmers made one colossal blunder -- and it appears that it was an intentional choice.
I first heard about the problem when I received a message that said the writer routinely received mail sent to "her.name@gmail.com" even though her address was "hername@gmail.com". Clearly, those are two different addresses. My first thought was that the messages were spams that carried the writer's real address in the BCC field -- a common spammer trick. But these were real messages, my writer said.
Then I tried to blame the other person's correspondents for using "hername" instead of "her.name" when they wrote messages. That's easy to do, of course, but the more I investigated, the more reports I found. There was something beyond typing errors at work here.
The culprit is Google
Google won't allow users to create addresses with hyphens or underscores, but it will allow users to create addresses with embedded periods. Disallowing hyphens and underscores is unusual; most e-mail systems allow both and certain other characters, including the period, to be embedded. And most e-mail systems would consider "john.doe" and "johndoe" to be totally different addresses. Not Google.
In discussing the matter with Google's media representatives, I learned "Gmail doesn't recognize dots (.) as characters within a username, so you can add and remove them for desired address variations. For example, messages sent to your.username@gmail.com and y.o.u.r.u.s.e.r.n.a.m.e@gmail.com are delivered to the same inbox, since the characters in the username are the same. Gmail allows only one registration for any given username, so dot variations of any username aren't allowed. If you believe that a message was accidentally sent to you, we suggest contacting the sender to inform him or her of an incorrect address."
This is an astonishingly dumb idea. It's not what users expect. It violates the RFCs that describe how the Internet should work. It reminds me of the way AOL set up its e-mail services with total disregard for the procedures that had been developed and tested over decades. It's the kind of thing that would cause an IT student to flunk a freshman project and it boggles my mind. Or Googles it. E-mail is the Internet's oldest service and is not something that should be tampered with for trivial "improvements" that aren't improvements.
Even if the idea was a good one, Google appears to have implemented it badly. Despite the claim that only one variant of the name can subscribe, apparently a bug exists that will allow 2 users to subscribe with what Google considers to be the same name -- "her.name" and "hername".
Sheesh!
Nerdly News
Blasted Spammers
Friday morning, I was just minding my own business when -- in the space of less than 30 minutes -- I received more than 200 bounce messages. One of my addresses was being used by a spammer. Fortunately, the spammer had picked an address that I used rarely in the past and use not at all today. It wasn't a "real" address (one with a POP3 mailbox) but just a forwarding account. I killed the account and the bounce messages stopped immediately. Everything should be this easy.
That isn't always the case, though. What if the spammer creep had managed to use an address I depend on? I've seen this happen. People I know have had their addresses used by spammers and some of them have received THOUSANDS of bounces per hour. Thousands! For days!
What if you have just one address and a spammer starts using it? Would that be painful? There are known ways to eliminate spam. All that's needed is for organizations such as Microsoft, AOL, and others to get off their collective asses and to decide that they should work for the common good instead of trying to find some commercial advantage. Yeah, that's about as likely as bi-partisan cooperation at the federal level.
We're hoping for some assistance from the government. No, not your city's police department. No, not the county sheriff. No, not the state. Because most spam still comes from the US, maybe the US federal government could help. Maybe that's the best possible solution today. But what's going to be needed long term is some sort of multi-national anti-spam force. A United Nations of spam fighters.
We don't need any new laws. Right now, today, we have laws against fraud and it appears to me that at least 90% of spam is fraudulent. This week, for example, I've killed at least 500 messages that deal with a pump-and-dump stock scheme.
Examples
"Significant Message. You should to read"
The increase is up to 70% recently.
(MXXR) is the worthwhile deal and those who knows it is making money.
The drilling results of this highly capable oil partnership exceeded all its expectations.
The same message arrived with numerous other subject lines:
- Significant message. You need to read.
- Grand message. You require to read.
- Momentous Message. You should to read.
- And on and on and on ...
Criminals (and the Mafia has been shown to be involved) buy stock in small companies through over-the-counter exchanges. The companies are little known. They then use a variety of means to promote the stock. Spam is one of the ways they promote (pump) the stock. Unwitting investors buy the stock and the price rises. The fraudsters immediately sell their shares and stop spamming.
The price drops and the fools who bought high are left to sell low, if at all, stock that has returned to its true (small) value.
I said "fools" and I think that's a valid description for anyone who would purchase stocks based on the recommendation of a spammer.
ZillaBar update
After several weeks of trying to get in touch with Jess Kalish at IS3, we finally made contact this week. I had rated the ZillaBar as broken and wondered at the time if I misunderstood what it was supposed to do or if perhaps it didn't support Internet Explorer 7, which I've been running in beta form for the past few months.
ZillaBar doesn't work with IE7, but will by the end of November. At that time, I'll re-visit the program and let you know how well it works.
Internet Explorer 7 is out
If you have Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, Windows Update will eventually install the latest browser version on your computer. If you're still running Windows 2000 or something earlier, Microsoft wants you to know that you are now officially orphaned. IE7 is certified only for Windows XP Service Pack 2,
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and
Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1. There will be no Mac version because IE development for the Mac ended with version 5.2.
 |
|
The installation shows the Office 7/Windows Vista face.
Click any of the images for a larger view. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
The Malicious Software Removal Tool is automatically installed with most (all?) of Microsoft's monthly patches. It will also be installed when you install IE7. The tool is added to the "run once" section of the Registry so that it will run the next time you start the computer.
You will restart the computer to complete the IE7 installation. |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Here's one of Microsoft's better ideas that isn't.
In the past, Microsoft guessed how long an installation would require and displayed an estimate. There was also a progress bar that gave you an idea how far along the process was. If it was showing less than 10% completion and it had been running for 10 minutes, you'd know that you could go out to lunch.
The progress bar has been replaced by a whirly-gig that provides absolutely no information about how much longer you'll be waiting. In a word: Dumb. |
| |
|
|
I'll have more details about the new version on a later program. For now, if you want to download it, it's here.
|
|
