Firefox 1.5.0.4 now available

[davidh]

FYI,

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

Thanks, David. Good to know.

[sidney]

Also FYI, if you are running Firefox 1.5.0.3 and use the Help | Check for Updates menu, it should download just a relatively small update patch file, much faster than downloading the entire 1.5.0.4 install file. If you are running an older version or something goes wrong with the patch download, the update will work anyway, but it will download the entire 1.5.0.4 install file to do it.

-- sidney

[PeteHall]

Also FYI, if you are running Firefox 1.5.0.3 and use the Help | Check for Updates menu, it should download just a relatively small update patch file, much faster than downloading the entire 1.5.0.4 install file.
If you do absolutely nothing it should download the upgrade...

And Thunderbird upgrades itself to 1.5.0.4...

[ktinkel]

Also FYI, if you are running Firefox 1.5.0.3 and use the Help | Check for Updates menu, it should download just a relatively small update patch file, much faster than downloading the entire 1.5.0.4 install file. If you are running an older version or something goes wrong with the patch download, the update will work anyway, but it will download the entire 1.5.0.4 install file to do it.Actually, on a Mac, it downloads the patch without notice and when you look at Help, it asks if it can install it.

Goodness. I have a mother again! <g>

[sidney]

Actually, on a Mac, it downloads the patch without notice and when you look at Help, it asks if it can install it.

That's a setting in Firefox. You can set it to download and install silently, download silently and ask to install, ask to download, just set an icon when a download is available, or never check for updates.

To save demand on the servers, the update notifications are not enabled until a dy or two after the press announcements are sent out about the availability of a new version. That way everyone who is in a hurry gets the downloads manually in the first day or two, and only then do all the browsers that are set for automatic download kick in.

- sidney

[ktinkel]

That's a setting in Firefox. You can set it to download and install silently, download silently and ask to install, ask to download, just set an icon when a download is available, or never check for updates.And weirdly, it asked this time although my settings in Advanced tell it to install silently, only commenting if the update threatens any extensions.

Ah, well; it did install.

[BettyB]

And weirdly, it asked this time although my settings in Advanced tell it to install silently, only commenting if the update threatens any extensions.



PMFJI but could someone explain (in very basic terms) this extension business?

I've been looking at moving from Mozilla (on the old computer) to Firefox (on the new computer) but have been confused, befuddled, and intimidated by the comments re extensions.

[Judy G. Russell]

Extensions are simply little add-ons that people write to create types of functionality in the browser that isn't in the browser code itself. Say, for example, you don't want to see Flash images all the time. You can install the extension Flashblock (http://flashblock.mozdev.org/) and choose to see only the Flash images you want. Don't want to see all the ads? Try Adblock (http://adblock.mozdev.org/). There's a whole list of available extensions for Firefox here (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/extensions/).

[Peter Creasey]

FYI, Firefox 1.5.0.4 now available

David, SeaMonkey 1.0.2 has also been released. I've been using this new version for a week or two and it has been performing impeccably.

[BettyB]

Oh. I was thinking it had something to do with the three letter extensions following a file name as in ".doc or .htm". Silly me.

So the word extension as used in this case refers to what I think of as add-ons. Think I've got it.

Thanks
BB

[davidh]

Oh. I was thinking it had something to do with the three letter extensions following a file name as in ".doc or .htm". Silly me.

So the word extension as used in this case refers to what I think of as add-ons. Think I've got it.

Thanks
BB

I know it's confusing to me sometimes too.

You were probably thinking of "plug-ins"

such as apple quicktime movies MOV

real audio sound files RA

win media player audio WMA

etc.

If you are going to install a browser other than Internet Explorer, then you probably should do it right away (Mozilla, or Firefox, etc.) before you download and install plug-ins. That way, when you later install the plugins, usually the plug-ins will be enabled/installed both for IE *and* for the other browser too :)

So if you do download some media programs (plug-ins) you may want to keep the install files around on your hard drive for a while in case you need to reinstall them later for some other browser, if you don't install your other browser right away. If you have broadband, this is not so important. Firefox will also download plug-ins for you automatically most of the time, so not to worry.

Of course , Murhpy's law comes into play usually sooner than later ;)

David H.

[Judy G. Russell]

So the word extension as used in this case refers to what I think of as add-ons. Think I've got it.Yep, that's it exactly! (By jove, I think she's got it!)

[BettyB]

"plug-ins" That does sound more technical than add ons.

I kind of figured I'd wait until Firefox is installed before going after the plug-ins. Am not in any hurry, still working on what needs to be moved over from the old computer. Surprising how much stuff I've decided doesn't need to make the move. Talk about clutter. That's the problem with these large HDs, too much room to collect junk. (g)

Thanks for jumping in with helpful comments.

BB

[davidh]

"plug-ins" That does sound more technical than add ons.

I kind of figured I'd wait until Firefox is installed before going after the plug-ins. Am not in any hurry, still working on what needs to be moved over from the old computer. Surprising how much stuff I've decided doesn't need to make the move. Talk about clutter. That's the problem with these large HDs, too much room to collect junk. (g)

Thanks for jumping in with helpful comments.

BB
I don't really know enough to say which one is more technical, plug-ins or extensions. But probably a lot more people download plug-ins than extensions, because if a web page requires a plug-in, then you'll miss a lot of the content on that page if you don't download and install the required plug-in. Usually a given plug-in (required to view certain kinds of multimedia files or certain kinds of graphic or special formatted files) will work with most recently released browsers (IE, FF, Moz, Opera). Extensions (add-ons) are for a particular browser and will not usually work with a different browser.

Another point to consider in deciding whether to install an extension (add-on) is that it may break if and when there is a major update (version number jumps up) to the browser, esp. if the add-on is from a different mfg. than the browser.

DH

[BettyB]

Ahh, so there's a difference between a plug-in and an extension. An extension then is a small "program" that allows your particular browser to do some extra functions not included in the original - and is browser specific. A plug-in allows some of the more common features on websites to be visible and may work across different browsers.

Am I getting close?

[Judy G. Russell]

Am I getting close?In the children's game of "you're getting warmer," I'd say any warmer and you'd burn yourself!

[sidney]

Ahh, so there's a difference between a plug-in and an extension

Betty, the main difference between "plug-in" and "extension" in Mozilla apps (including Firefox) is that there are two facilities for a third-party to develop an add-on for Mozilla. The first one that Mozilla had is similar to the "plug-in" facility that already existed in Internet Explorer and Netscape browsers, used to install things such as the Flash plug-in, QuickTime, etc. They were naturally enough called "plug-ins". The name comes from the fact that someone can give you a small program that you can simply "plug in" to the browser by dropping the file in a special directory.

Then another add-on facility was developed that made it possible for third-party developers to add functionality to Mozilla in a much simpler way, much more like scripts for the browser, rather than little programs like the plug-ins have to be. Because it is so much simpler to write and install this new kind of add-on, many more people have written and distributed different ones, and the Mozilla organization maintains an archive of hundreds (or thousands?) of them at the web page that you get to in the Tools | Extensions dialog if you click on "Get More Extensions". Since these add-ons extend the functionality of Mozilla, they were called "extensions".

-- sidney

[davidh]

I don't know anything about how either extensions in Mozilla or "browser helper objects" in MS Internet Explorer work, but I wonder if the concepts are analogous and do both use some kind of scripting?

DH

[davidh]

I don't know anything about how either extensions in Mozilla or "browser helper objects" in MS Internet Explorer work, but I wonder if the concepts are analogous and do both use some kind of scripting?

DH BHO's are based on DLL's and registered in the registry.

For additional info:
http://www.definitivesolutions.com/bhodemon.htm

Note: FYI BHO Demon is an unsupported program, see above URL.

David

[ndebord]

They were naturally enough called "plug-ins". The name comes from the fact that someone can give you a small program that you can simply "plug in" to the browser by dropping the file in a special directory.

Then another add-on facility [extensions] was developed that made it possible for third-party developers to add functionality to Mozilla in a much simpler way, much more like scripts for the browser, rather than little programs like the plug-ins have to be.

-- sidney

Sidney,

In terms of extensions, there is one that I consider essential to FF. That one would be:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff_preinstall.html

Produced by McAfee, it uses their rules to decipher whether website are good or bad with a simple icon system.

(I loaded it up after the Paypal fiasco.)

[Jeff]

Paypal fiasco, Nick?

- Jeff

[ndebord]

Paypal fiasco, Nick?

- Jeff


Jeff,

Lots of news everywhere. This is just one.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2158625/paypal-cuts-phishing

[davidh]

... extensions, there is one that I consider essential to FF.

http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff_preinstall.html

Produced by McAfee, it uses their rules to decipher whether website are good or bad with a simple icon system.

(I loaded it up after the Paypal fiasco.) So, basically, you get an additional piece of information to confirm the site validity, beyond the mere URL in the browser address window, namely the (McAfee SiteAdvisor) button in the browser status bar is green for good, red for bad, or grey for unknown.

I forget whether FF has been enhanced to protect against spoofing that uses UNICODE characters that appear like regular ASCII characters on the display but actually are 16 bit instead of 8 bit characters in computer memory. The SiteAdvisor would be a help to detect such spoofing, which might not be detectable by "eyeballing".

Out of curiousity, I wonder whether it would be practical to make an extension to the browser that would warn the user when plugging data into a online form on a site that was not "green". I think that it might be non-trivial since forms could be implemented in HTML, or J-Script, or Java. Perhaps it would be wise to have such an extension query whether to run J-Script and/or Java, at all, on any site not "colored green for GO". Such an extension would be useful for users who are "quick on the draw" with their "trigger fingers" on the keyboard and mouse, and "rush in where angels fear to tread" to mix a couple metaphors ;)

DH

[ndebord]

So, basically, you get an additional piece of information to confirm the site validity, beyond the mere URL in the browser address window, namely the (McAfee SiteAdvisor) button in the browser status bar is green for good, red for bad, or grey for unknown.

I forget whether FF has been enhanced to protect against spoofing that uses UNICODE characters that appear like regular ASCII characters on the display but actually are 16 bit instead of 8 bit characters in computer memory. The SiteAdvisor would be a help to detect such spoofing, which might not be detectable by "eyeballing".

Out of curiousity, I wonder whether it would be practical to make an extension to the browser that would warn the user when plugging data into a online form on a site that was not "green". I think that it might be non-trivial since forms could be implemented in HTML, or J-Script, or Java. Perhaps it would be wise to have such an extension query whether to run J-Script and/or Java, at all, on any site not "colored green for GO". Such an extension would be useful for users who are "quick on the draw" with their "trigger fingers" on the keyboard and mouse, and "rush in where angels fear to tread" to mix a couple metaphors ;)

DH

David,

There already is such an extension, put out as part of a new google toolbar. It is for Win2000 or XP only, so I can't use it on my W98se laptop.

Don't have the URL offhand.