Talk:Firefox/Archive 15

I would definitely consider trimming down the section by removing the minor updates. As for removing the entire section, I would oppose that. I would consider merging

History of Firefox. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ

18:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to remove the entire section but to trim it and then hide it as per the Google Chrome version history. EngineerFromVega^★ 19:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some value in documenting the EOL of pre-4.0 branches, since there's some historical interest in the timespan each release branch was active. x.0.1 releases post 4.0 aren't of particular encyclopedic interest, in my opinion. I think wholesale show/hide in the style of the Google Chrome article makes more sense than per-release show/hide. (WP:COI disclosure: I develop code for the Gecko engine of Firefox.) Hsivonen (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will definitely take this into consideration. I think there is a particular need to make the release notes more easy to read now that the entire history of Firefox has been relocated to

History of Firefox. I would agree that x.0.x for rapid releases is essentially useless considering they are all about Stability + Security updates. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ

03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems a rough consensus here to change the Release History section as per the corresponding section in Google Chrome. I've gone ahead and have made the changes now. Please feel free to improve it as necessary. [1] EngineerFromVega^★ 06:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – We have made the Release history section similar to the Google Chrome article

Thank you everyone for the discussion and changes. The 'release history' section now looks neat and tidy. EngineerFromVega^★ 03:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently it is hard to organize the article because we don't have any active WikiProjects helping us out. We could greatly improve the article if we have some people working on an area. Most of these areas only need one person working on it, although many people can work on fixing dead references & links.

If you have any questions, concerns, suggestions, or anything else not covered here, please post below in the discussion section. Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 20:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To-do discussion

Shouldn't Windows 2000 be listed as supported with the latest version as 10.0.5esr. MacOSX v10.4-10.5 (PPC) were listed as supported until 2012 when 3.6.x was dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.93.123 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about 10.0.5 being supported on Windows 2000, but there isn't really a viable solution to display that to users. If someone can come up with a solution to making the System Requirements table look decent and still show that 10.0.5 is supported on Windows 2000, please show it to us. Thanks, ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 04:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This article displays something labeled as the current Aurora logo but never otherwise (as far as ctrl-f indicates) mentions Aurora or explains what Aurora is. (And I don't know myself.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll make sure to make it clearer. Thanks for bringing this up :) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Firefox Editors, We have officially created WikiProject Mozilla, and we need your help. Please visit WP:WikiProject Mozilla! Thank you very much! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently, I imported the

{{Version |t |show=111111}} 

• The colour scheme is fine and since it's used in other locations it makes sense, I suppose we could suggest a different ones at the template. However, why are we discussing changing the scheme? I didn't look through the previous discussions so I don't know if someone suggested it. If it's a requirement or a request, then this is the way I'd personally go, but if it's a make-work project, then I'm on the no side. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not a Wikipedia policy. It's just a policy this user is pushing. Of course, if he is successful in making this a Wikipedia standard, then of course I will make changes. At this point it's just a make work project. I also chose to make it a discussion, as it should. Obviously I could change the color scheme on my own, but it's important everyone else gives their own input because I don't own this page. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No

I don't know if I like this color scheme to be perfectly honest, but I do agree with the idea of standardizing table colors on Wikipedia. Also this table is coded slightly different than most and changing everything would take many hours. My vote is No. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 04:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Aurora and Nightly channels should also be addded to the infobox in the preview release section. Currently Firefox 16a2 is on aurora channel and firefox 17a1 is on nighly channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePariahOne (talk • contribs) 09:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They are updated every night, so “17.0a1” is only a hint of a range of builds. --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the browser always shows the same version ie 16.0a2 and 17.0a1 because the updates might be just minor for eg, the current version of the nighltly build be might like 17.0.xxx.xxxx, a1 denotes that it's the first version of the alpha build and there might be more alpha builds added. Complete version information of Google chrome is shown in the infobox because it completely shows it's version in the "Help" option but Aurora and nighlty do not do so. Maybe we can just simply add them as Firefox 16 and Firefox 17 under the Nightly and Aurora channels. Thank you. ThePariahOne (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The user agent string doesn’t contain the build date because it was removed for privacy reasons. The About window still shows the build date, and BuildID is still available in about:support. --AVRS (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But I think Aurora and Nightly should be added since they're preview releases. If you're against it, no offence but I'll like to know the reason why it should not be added. ThePariahOne (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I had the firefox 15 updated pushed to me this morning, but I can't find any release notes (the "guessable" URL gives 404), and there's no mention here. Has this update been pushed silently?

Currently, the distinctions section seems to overlap with some info in the awards section, should these be merged?

The article mentions obsolete versions for HP-UX and RISC OS but does not mention still-maintained tier 3 ports, such as Solaris, ecomStation, OS X/PPC, FreeBSD and OpenBSD. In the light of

Feel free to add information about tier 3 supported systems, but I personally don't think it makes sense to remove the information about HP-UX and RISC OS. Hopefully others will way in on this :) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The IT-World doesn't ACCEPT such old data as 6 years back of this kind! Remove? *blush*

It concerns:

A 2006 Symantec study showed that, although Firefox had surpassed other browsers in the number of vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities that year through September, these vulnerabilities were patched far more quickly than those found in other browsers – Firefox's vulnerabilities were fixed on average one day after the exploit code was made available, as compared to nine days for Internet Explorer. Symantec later clarified their statement, saying that Firefox still had fewer security vulnerabilities than Internet Explorer, as counted by security researchers.

Cheers! --109.189.67.109 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Such data can be kept in the article as historical information. You just need to put newer data alongside. 201.13.115.181 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. It is of historical importance. Perhaps all the WW2 articles should be removed because they receive very little new information too. There is a reason why I added an out-dated tag to the section, it's to let you know it needs to be updated - I just don't have the time to do it. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone in the know update the 64-bit section? It is rather outdated at this point, for instance Flash has been 64-bit for some time now. I don't know what the hold-up is exactly, but plugins like that are not holding them back any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.165.36 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"due to incompatibilities, including with popular plugins, official 64-bit releases are not provided." - What popular plugins? Flash/Java/etc all support 64-bit and have for quite a while now. If someone is aware of a popular plugin holding them back that's fine, let's note it, but from following the win 64-bit thread it seems more like they just don't care much about prioritizing 64-bit, not that someone else is holding them back. This line should probably change to reflect the real reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.254.152 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Popular plug-ins are no longer a reason. Unpopular plug-ins are one reason, but there are other reasons, too. But yeah, it pretty much boils down to priorities and tradeoffs. See [7], [8] and [9]. Hsivonen (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a note about Waterfox. Zepppep (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be deleted, should be added again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.21.159 (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also cant find any 64 bit nightly builds for windows... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.43.60 (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Firefox 4, Linux x86_64 has been a tier one platform for Mozilla (see [10] ) and there have been official Linux x86_64 releases. The releases are available from releases.mozilla.org (see [11] ). However, they are not offered on www.mozilla.org which is a bug: [12]

Firefox 3.6 did not have a just-in-time JavaScript compiler for x86_64, so the distro-provided 64-bit builds of 3.6 were not "performance-optimized". If anything, they were "performance-pessimized".

64-bits nightly builds for Windows do still exist: [13] However, they were hidden from nightly.mozilla.org in order to discourage people from using them in order to make sure that the nightly tester population runs the kinds of builds that are released as official Firefox builds. (see [14] )

WP:COI disclosure: I get paid for developing code for Gecko. Disclaimer: I'm contributing to Wikipedia on my own initiative and my own time. Hsivonen (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, platform support in general is a bit of a mess. Instead of mentioning some platforms in the intro, talking about ancient RISC OS port in a special section, talking about system requirements separately, talking about 64-bit support separately, talking about old operating systems in one section, etc., it would probably be better to have a "Supported Platforms" sections that covers all presently supported platforms organized into Tier 1 per [15] and others. Platforms that are no longer supported would fit better into the separate history article, in my opinion.Hsivonen (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See [16] (ftp URL scheme is important here! The http side doesn't carry old releases.) for evidence of Mozilla releasing Linux x86_64 builds all the way back for Firefox 4.0. Hsivonen (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done So it looks like no one else is going to make the Linux part say the right thing, so I edited the article considering that what I said above had gone unchallanged. I hope people don't hold my WP:COI against me for editing the article. Hsivonen (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the screenshot to 17.0.1, with a smaller resolution and more legibility in thumbnails.

Not sure if the Knoppix version number should also remain in the caption (I fashioned it after the previous screenshot caption), since that distro version number is not very relevant to what version of Firefox is running in the screenshot.

The point is that Knoppix doesn't carry Firefox, so specifying the Knoppix version number seems pointless.

OTOH, adding a version number would make more sense if Ff 17.0.1 were part of an official distribution release. -Mardus (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So far, all that the screenshot shows is that Knoppix 6.0.1 can still run vanilla Firefox binaries fresh off the compilers. Hm... -Mardus (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Searching WP for the term, "Waterfox" redirects here, although there is no actual reference to the build in the Firefox article at all. I see in the conversation above that a reference to Waterfox was added, deleted and then added again, but I'm assuming since it is not there, it was deleted again, but this time without a mention on this page. I would very much like to add a section about it. Whether it is an official Mozilla build or not, the fact remains that Waterfox is a 64-bit browser based on the Firefox code, and it uses Firefox profile data. As such, it should be at very least mentioned as an unofficial version.

That said, are there any objections to my adding a mention of Waterfox so long as I mention it is not officially supported by Mozilla? I hesitate to add it myself because it has been removed so many times previously. Alternatively, maybe a separate article can be written about all of the unofficial 64-bit variants, since they've gotten so much press (good and bad) recently? In addition to the following How to Geek source, there are numerous other articles in the last two months about the builds, and going back a ways. Thoughts? ( "Alternative Browsers Based on Firefox". HowToGeek.com. Retrieved 2012-12-18., "About Waterfox". Waterfox.org. Retrieved 2012-12-18. ) JC.Torpey (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Whatever your case may be, this article is about Firefox - not other software/programs. Creating a wiki page for Waterfox would be the best option in this case. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than a Waterfox article, I think a "List of browsers based on Firefox" may be a better option. My reasoning for this is basically the lack of real detail that you could go into with Waterfox, and other Firefox-based browsers. However, for this to be a useful article, there'd need to be a good few variants mentioned with a paragraph or two about each. Does anyone feel up to that challenge? If not, then maybe a smaller section on the Firefox page entitled "Firefox variants" with a few paragraphs on the options may suffice. The latter suggestion is not ideal, as it splits out from the topic of the article a little. drewmunn (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Trewyy and drewmunn, thank you both for your responses. I believe together, we might have something here. Trewyy, you're right that this is a Firefox article, and drewmunn, I think together with Trewyy, this definitely needs a separate article altogether. While Waterfox might not have enough material to support an article of its own, although it might be good enough for a start class article, adding all of them together in a single article might be the best way to go about this, as drewmunn said. In answer to your question, drewmunn, I would be up to it, as I am quite familiar with many of its versions. I would be willing to get this article started as soon as we can all agree as to what might be included in it. To start, because there is already a |category page for browsers based on Firefox, I think any new article should probably include everything on that page, plus any 32-bit, 64-bit, and mobile versions that aren't on the page, as long as they meet WP requirements for inclusion in an article of course. Obviously Waterfox and NIghtly would be added to the current list of known variants. What are your thoughts? JC.Torpey (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to know quite a bit about the category, so I say go for it. Using the category as a base also sounds like a good plan. I'd say each one would need to list what platform it's for, who built it, and its variation from Firefox at least. That should provide a solid base for a fairly good list article to begin with. The fact that there's a category means it'd be a useful page, so I see nobody objecting to one if it's written well and contains valuable information. drewmunn (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK then, I will begin an article to include all the variants. I believe there is enough info on each so that it can be an actual article and not just a list, and for those where there isn't enough verifiable info, I will add them in a specific section (as long as they meet inclusion guidelines) so they at least get a mention. My thoughts on a title include the two listed above: "Firefox Variants," and List of browsers based on Firefox," but because this probably won't be a list article, I'm think just using "Browsers based on Firefox ode," or, "Unofficial variants of the Firefox browser," and, "Unofficial Firefox variants." I should have a draft up by tomorrow-ish (I'm EST by the way), unless someone else gets to it first. Thanks! JC.Torpey (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for "List of Firefox Variants" personally, just to validate the mention of large numbers of browsers in one article. It'd help negate any disambiguation arguments further down the line. For now, I'll go through the existing category and find some citations that might be useful, so I can insert them once you've started the article (saves a bit of work for you!). Thanks in advance for the effort. drewmunn (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Some users (e.g. Ohconfucius in May 2012, and Walter Görlitz in Jan 2013) have used a script to convert dates from “2013-01-04” and “4 January 2013” into “January 4, 2013”, citing guidelines (not policies) like

This has been reverted. Is there any consensus over this?

As far as I understand, Firefox originated in United States, so convention would follow that the dates be in the U.S. format (January 4, 2013), but month names should be preferred over numericals, so as to avoid ambiguities for international readers, who follow other

date formats. -Mardus (talk

) 12:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think “Firefox originated in United States” qualifies as “strong national ties” for the article. Numericals cause ambiguities only in the cases of numerical dmy and mdy, not YYYY-MM-DD. I don’t have a problem with month names, but I do with middle-endian mdy. --AVRS (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not

WP:DATERET and besides, STRONGNAT is defined by exactly what you stated. --Walter Görlitz (talk

) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, articles on

Ubuntu (operating system)

are in dmy format because Canonical, the company that oversees the work on the OS, is based in South Africa, and STRONGNAT indicates that this is the correct date format for that. More examples can be given.

If we're seriously discussing changing it, then the ISO 8601 short date format (yyyy-mm-dd) makes the most sense, not dmy, which is a ridiculous and equally confusing date format as mdy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I do prefer the ISO 8601 format, but the script you used does not have such a target. --AVRS (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the issue. The question is what should be done, not how it should be done. Currently DATERET and STRONGNAT v. consensus are the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is similar in vein to those about using British- or US English spelling. Typically, UK-related articles use British spelling and U.S.-related articles have U.S. English spelling. I imagine there's a similar convention with date formats.

I don't know whether the Firefox article should employ one date format over another, as Firefox is about software and not a country; the only requirement to me would in either case be using named months in order to avoid ambiguities. -Mardus (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It must be consistent. In the body all date formats must agree. In the references they must agree with the body date format or be ISO 8601. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can multiple screenshots be used? The thumbnail is almost only useful as a link to a bigger version anyway. --AVRS (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If only one image file can be included, what about making a single file containing multiple screenshots with captions? E.g. Cat shows multiple pictures in one file, although it is legible even as a thumbnail. However, the Russian species template Таксон accepts arbitrary data with “images set” (see ru:Кошка), and the English {{Automatic taxobox}} accepts two images. --AVRS (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider opinion time! OK, so I think it's entirely useless arguing which screenshot to use. As far as I see it, and as most articles work, the first upload of the latest edition of the software should be used. There are exceptions, such as if the screenshot is not up to standard, contains information it shouldn't, or isn't representative of the product, but these are just exceptions. Multiple screenshots would violate our setup, as it is an over-use of fair use images, thereby not adhering to the 'least possible to demonstrate' philosophy. There is no point arguing about which OS it should be shown on when it is a single product. The most common OS argument is also flawed, as the abundance of an OS doesn't mean it's the only OS people use, nor that it's the most popular OS used by people who use the software in question. For instance, much of the Adobe Creative Suite is demonstrated using screenshots from Mac computers, as the large percentage of users own it on a Mac. Replacing them all with Windows screenshots would be a waste of time. Similarly, iTunes and Safari are displayed running on Mac, because that's representative of the original product. The only time when the OS should be worried about is when the program looks significantly different on other OSs, such as if a screenshot of a Windows 8 app is shown when every other OS shows it in a desktop format. Anyway, this is all my personal opinion after looking through precedent. I will begin a conversation at the WP:Software screenshots page about having a guideline to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdrewdriver (talk • contribs) 10:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by “an over-use of fair use images”? Is a screenshot of Firefox on GNU/Linux “fair use”? Is that because it shows a mix of different copyleft licenses? If not, then it is having a Windows or a Mac screenshot that is “an over-use of fair use images”. --AVRS (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

By overuse of fair use images, I mean if you were to put a screenshot Firefox running on every OS where one would suffice. Adding every OS doesn't add anything extra to the illustration, and it adds a large number of images to the stock; think of every bit of software that will need to have extra screenshots to follow that plan. drewmunn (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Does your “fair use images” mean “not fully free images”? --AVRS (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I use fair use to mean that "excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder", so images of copyrighted software falls under that. A not-fully-free image would require a fair-use rationale to go alongside it, as covered by Wikipedia's

fair use policy. I don't comment on the existence of a single image being over-use of fair use, just when you have multiple illustrating the same point. drewmunn (talk

) 13:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s a pity that that page contrasts “copyrighted” and “free/libre” images. --AVRS (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(IANAL TINALA etc)

If the point illustrated is the same, then using a non-free image when a free one would suffice is a violation of that policy.

Then, if some images are free and some are not, the free image must be used.

If you wrote your original comment keeping in mind that it is about Firefox screenshots, then you are saying some of the screenshots are non-free. If that depends on the OS, choose the one that would make the screenshot free. Firefox itself is copyrighted, but released under free licenses.

If you mean that one of three screenshots would be non-free, just leave that non-free screenshot out. Then if you use multiple free screenshots, where is the fair use issue? “Fair use” is for uses which would have been a copyright violation if there was no “fair use”. To need to claim “fair use”, to be covered by that policy, you need some unfreeness or some license incompatibility.

--AVRS (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I want the screenshot to be free and show no preference of non-free works.

Some people want the screenshot to show the most popular something, and think the screenshot will be free.

A non-free screenshot must be deleted from Wikimedia Commons.

If there are non-free parts in a screenshot which are de minimis, then either:

• they will stay de minimis when multiple screenshots are used (they are not the reason multiple screenshots are used), the fair use policy doesn’t apply,
• or they are not de minimis, and are affected by the fair use policy — then if there are screenshots which do not have that problem, only those screenshots should be used.

If you mean multiple screenshots licensed by their creators under different licenses, then that’s not a big issue: just ask the creators to add a compatible license.

--AVRS (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(moved my questions for those who want a Windows screenshot to the original section about Knoppix vs Windows)

Following the above conversations, I have proposed a new section for the software screenshot guidelines. Basically, it's designed to clarify the standard for what OS should display what screenshot (without being too rigid). Please would you have a quick look at my

I must say the second (or additional, as it appeared as a first one) reference list was no intentionally added. I used the respective reflist tag to see what the final result is when editing references, but it sometimes happens that I forget to leave it in when saving. Sorry. -Mardus (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for your contributions :) ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Somebody rework the sidebar caption to indicate 'Firefox can run on several operating systems, including Knoppix, and OS X, and WIndows.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.100.79 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It already does anon from Winnipeg.

Operating system: Microsoft Windows, OS X, Linux, Android

The caption is just a caption. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

HTTPS should be used, it doesn't matter if Google points to HTTP. Why would Mozilla provide an encrypted version of their site if they didn't consider it useful? 85.245.88.18 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? Of course what Google does matters. A hacker with a sniffer could intercept the packets and...inject a completely different version of Firefox. They could do that by monitoring the insecure link provided by Google. If Mozilla wanted Google to use the link, Google would be using the link. It's more overhead for the Mozilla servers and the visiting reader's browser. It's also completely unnecessary. There's very little reason to use the secure link even if provided and is more likely to be blocked by proxy servers. Do you know of any other article in Wikipedia that uses the secure link? So in short, it shouldn't be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Encryption is and will be more necessary in the future for both privacy and security issues. Google doesn't dictate the Internet. If someone is intercepting your connection then you have bigger problems. Maybe Mozilla didn't bother asking Google to change the link. If it's more overhead then they shouldn't enable encryption in the first place. You are right about the visitor's browser but computers are powerful nowadays it doesn't make much difference. The link should be encrypted specially if you are using a proxy (back to traffic sniffing). Yes, I've seen other articles using HTTPS links even when the website provides HTTP link by default. 85.245.88.18 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

When it is and will be more necessary, we can change it. Until it is, we shouldn't.

I doubt that Mozilla wouldn't ask Google to set the default since they are likely the number one source of traffic.

While I have no reason to doubt you, still you haven't provided any links to articles so I don't know that any exist.

And one thing further, a forced redirect to the secure port would be a good reason to use it. Since Mozilla doesn't force the redirect, we shouldn't either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arch Linux and GitHub force HTTPS and WP articles were pointing to HTTP.

Yikes. There should be a bot that automatically fixes such links. Jruderman (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Let's leave Firefox link as it was. 85.245.88.18 (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Mozilla plans to force HTTPS in the future. It might be best to wait until we've fixed some silly IE warnings before changing the article links to HTTPS. Jruderman (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not insecure using http as you are not logging into the website. HTTP is just fine. --

Hello. JetBlast is completely right. Where there is no exchange of critical information (including but not solely personal information) security is not a relevant concern. Apart from that, the conflict between Firefox and IE team, as well as the their subjective assessment of their products, is none of Wikipedia's concern. We only report

what has due weight from a neutral point of view. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk

) 16:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about reporting the reason in the article? --AVRS (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You said. You are the first person to say "Who said anything about reporting the reason in the article?" and therefore you are the first person to say something about reporting the reason. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you want reliable sources to use https in order to prefer it… --AVRS (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Again, no. Perhaps I could help you better if you clarified your intentions of this strange line of inquiry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was no issue with IE, the article could just include the link with “//mozilla.org…”, like this, which would use the scheme the reader is using for the article. --AVRS (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Hi. My philosophy is "don't fix what is not broken" and that means "don't pretend to fix what is not broken with questionale hacks that may stop working at any time." Stick to standard protocol. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That we start with citing some valid (World-)worries (yes, that 7.1 Bn population, a bit more than your neighbourhood or your nose (only)),
with all the f*ck-rock democratic powers of the World, also

Size issue: How does Mozilla rates its size on the Firefox and other. The size is now rated to 20 MB. How big a part of this is fx. the HTTPS-protocol and how do they match with the legally responsible MS Internet Explorer and other? Can we get more details on how the pie of Mozilla Firefox splits up, thank you, also on grahpics? 109.189.228.145 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That "In July 2010, all IBM employees (about 400,000) were asked to use Firefox as their default browser.[145]" also entails a customised version only for IBM/USA-club? The company services? The customisation levels with the clients and so on? 109.189.228.145 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The security section of the article contains out-of-date information. Most recently, Mozilla Firefox has presented itself with two new key pieces of information. On January 28, 2013, it was announced that Mozilla was recognized as the most trusted internet company for 2012. Furthermore, Mozilla also stated that it will implement the blockage of all third-party cookies in its upcoming builds.

Award (January 28, 2013) https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/01/28/privacy-day-2013/ New Web Policy (February 22, 2013) http://webpolicy.org/2013/02/22/the-new-firefox-cookie-policy/

I plan on implementing both of the above ideas within the section. Please comment and provide suggestions. Sweettooth3343 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The current sidebar picture features Firefox 17 running on Knoppix Linux. By changing the picture to Firefox 17 running on Windows it will represent Firefox in a better way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.207.10 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the picture uses Linux so that there will be less copyright problems, since the rest of the interface will have a free license. Inkbug (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it a better way? It’s not Windows-centered Internet Explorer. --AVRS (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There would be no copyright issues (and the correct term is "fewer" not "less") in Windows unless someone shows something that is copyrighted. However, using Linux doesn't present Firefox in a worse way than presenting it in any other operating system. In fact, it makes it clear that it runs cross-platform. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

JFYI, my Xfce screenshot is also of 17.0.1; I just don’t think it changes anything. --AVRS (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It may show that the browser runs cross-platform, but it's also a distraction from the topic of the article, which is Firefox and not Knoppix. Most users of wikipedia will be unfamiliar with Knoppix (or Linux in general), whereas the majority of computer users in the world still use Windows. siafu (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Then the problem is the description which mentions the exact Knoppix version without even linking to “Knoppix”. People who are distracted by a different window titlebar will be distracted by many Windows screenshots as well. --AVRS (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia has readers, not users. Second, why should not knowing a specific Linux variant be an obstacle to understanding that it's Firefox? Third, to many non-Windows users, Windows itself is an obstacle. Further, I can understand why the version of Knoppix might be a distraction, but if it were displayed in the current version of Windows, and in metro mode, it would be even more distracting. I suppose that's a bridge to cross if we encounter it.

I see no compelling reason for not using the first-provided image. There have been images using Windows in the past and I have been just as opposed to changing them for a Linux or Mac variant when the change was made. In other words, keep the OS wars to the appropriate forum, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not about OS wars, but copyright: Authors of Linux and most apps for it have agreed from the outset that the programs can be used for any purpose, including screenshots (provided the proper licensing and attribution), compared to limitations of proprietary software. -Mardus (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots are generally considered

fair use, as I understand. I'm not really advocating for one or the other (I use FF on both Windows and Linux myself), but trying to get the discussion to focus on the actual issue here. Which image best represents the content? My only concern is that Knoppix is not a common OS, even among linux distros, and would look unfamiliar to the vast majority of wikipedia's users. If the consensus is that that's not a big deal, then so be it. siafu (talk

) 14:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, is the most recent version of the most common OS the most common version of it? --AVRS (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is to be a Windows screenshot (the Firefox differences are the location of the Firefox button, and the shape of the Back button), even presuming Windows users are less distracted by the colorful default Windows titlebar:

• it should use a theme without any potentially copyrightable distracting poorly-compressible decoration that some Windows Vista screenshots show; the freer a screenshot is, the better; proprietary software is a bad excuse for increasing non-freeness at Wikimedia Commons;
• it should not use a lot of distracting color combinations like File:Firefox Beta b18 on Windows 8 Build 9200.png does (For me it is about OS wars, I don’t like Windows screenshots, but in this case it’s the colors. Note that it’s different from what Ubuntu had, because of the contrast);
• it should, obviously, have no lots of extensions installed, or there goes your “most common” thing;
• it should not show any non-free logos (like Wikipedia ones) just to be able to be a Windows screenshot;
• it should not mention the OS version, unless that meaningfully affects the Firefox, or the general look for a reader who knows that not all screenshots show his GUI theme (say, I made my screenshots on Debian GNU/Linux 7.0 testing (with Xfce and particular themes), but they are probably not how Debian GNU/Linux 7.0 testing can look by any default, and the look is not specific to Debian GNU/Linux 7.0 testing).

--AVRS (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mid-way through my paragraph I said that displaying the OS Firefox has the highest user base on would be preferential, but as long as those statistics exist. I'm not saying that the most recent OS has the highest install base, if you read carefully I say the most recent version of the most common OS. Assuming that the most popular OS would have the highest install base isn't a stretch by any means, and the reason I believe that the latest version of the OS should be displayed is that it is the version the producer intends to be their best product. Providing readers with the a screenshot displayed on the most recognizable OS on what is intended to be the best version of that OS, is only beneficial to the readers of Wikipedia. I wasn't really asking you to point out what we already know, I was asking you if agree with this method of selecting what screenshot Firefox is displayed on. And if not, I ask that you provide me with either an alternative, or a modification as to how the screenshot is selected. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If considering the most common OS, it should be done the way browser reporting is done, by OS and version number. So while Windows may be the most common OS, Windows 8 is not the most common version of Windows. That honour belongs to Windows 7.

However, I don't think it should matter which OS is most common but rather the first image supplied should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This position won't benefit the article in any way. If someone uploads a poorly taken image, but it happens to be the first, your position would be that we keep it until the next version is released. Wikipedia guidelines on this subject are vague to say the least, and have been heavily edited/influenced by AVRS and Mardus. In fairness, I don't believe enforcing your own guidelines onto a global community is fair with your level of authorities. If not for all of Wikipedia, less vague guidelines for the Firefox infobox screenshot need to be implemented. Editors here seem to have a habit of re-iterating points I've already discussed, it would be of great benefit if editors re-read what I've written, in this discussion, to fully understand my position so that we may move the discussion forward. Policies I would recommend implementing, as I previously stated, include having a screenshot of Firefox where it likely has the greatest install base. I was unable to find free numbers that list install base by operating system, so unfortunately that is out of the question (unless someone can pull up a source for me!). Firefox likely has the greatest install base on Windows, I don't believe anyone will dispute this. I'd enjoy having a discussion about which version of the most popular OS Firefox is displayed on: the latest stable version, or the version with the greatest market share. I'm very open to other guidelines also. Editors, let us know what your thoughts are. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Choosing the latest version of the OS most used for Firefox, when it is not the OS version most used for Firefox or at all, is like choosing it because it is the latest or the most advertised version of the most used or advertised desktop OS, i.e. pointless. --AVRS (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Aesthetics aside, how do you decide that a screen shot is "poorly taken"? So far, the argument has been most common. That's a ridiculous argument as it assumes that the majority readers can tell what OS is presented by looking at the handful of controls present. The system close, minimize and maximize buttons are the only real ways to distinguish between the OS being used. The canvas and tabs are essentially the same.

If someone tries to use a screenshot taken with a camera, it's obviously not ideal and I will be the first to replace it. If it's a standard screen capture, uploaded as a PNG, then it's perfectly acceptable.

If there are any further hairs you wish to split, feel free to do so in your own space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider a screenshot can be poorly taken (other than with a camera faced at the screen), but it can be of poor quality. If it's too small, doesn't show the content correctly, or has the focus shared with other elements makes a screenshot lower quality. That's all common sense really, though, and I don't think many images exist in current circulation that are of poor quality. drewmunn (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

[re:AVRS] The potential trouble (in addition to copyright) with a file like Firefox Beta b18 on Windows 8 Build 9200.png is that the reddish title bar colour may confuse people into thinking that it may also be the result of Firefox code, just as the Firefox button is. -Mardus (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, don't focus on a bad image, but focus on the principle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The principle is that images should be completely free, so they can be used by everyone. -Mardus (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And how is an image of a screen in Windows not completely free? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Because

"Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works,^[1] so screenshots of Microsoft products" — and this includes Windows —

"goes against policy at Wikimedia Commons." — From commons:Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products

There's a lot more about what is and is not permissible regarding screenshots. -Mardus (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to quote them, quote them correctly.

You may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released. You may use other screen shots in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web sites, provided that, in addition to the requirements above.

Also, there is no shot of a Microsoft product. The product is Firefox. So once again, where's the copyright violation? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I did not quote Microsoft's guidelines about screenshots, but Wikimedia Commons policy. So I quoted correctly.

Apropos Microsoft's guidelines:

"4. Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content."

— and Firefox is exactly that. The guidelines are about Microsoft software only. You can't upload screenshots of Microsoft software to Wikimedia Commons, because these files would be speedily deleted.

wrt File:Firefox Beta b18 on Windows 8 Build 9200.png, the clearly non-free parts are the window titlebar, the Google, YouTube, amazon.com, The Verge and Wikipedia site icons; the Firefox logo and wordmark, and the Wikipedia logo are trademarks and thus non-free. -Mardus (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're making reference to Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot and what that is related to is a Microsoft product, such as Word, MS Paint or the like: products created and copyrighted by Microsoft. It does not apply to a product running in Windows. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not made any such reference to that template. The cited Microsoft guideline makes it specific not to mix third-party content (non-Microsoft, that is and includes software by Mozilla, e.g. Firefox) when making screenshots using Microsoft software. This applies to any non-Microsoft program running in Windows anyway, especially when surrounding visuals and elements of Windows are also there. -Mardus (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're completely confused and, more importantly, wrong about this. It does not apply to applications running in Windows only those created by Microsoft. If you think you're right, nominate the file in question for deletion based on your perceived copyright violation. Come back and discuss when it's deleted, but not before both of those two actions has finished. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really not confused at all. The policy/guideline at Wikimedia Commons is rather clear about this.

A screenshot of Firefox in Windows — as in File:Firefox Beta b18 on Windows 8 Build 9200.png — is not only a screenshot of Firefox, but also a screenshot of Microsoft software, because outstanding visuals and elements of it are still visible. Therefore, the said file is a screenshot containing Windows software (window decorations) and third-party content (Firefox and various non-free logos and trademarks), as defined in the above citation (Point 4 of Microsoft's guidelines).

The reason why I won't nominate File:Firefox Beta b18 on Windows 8 Build 9200.png for deletion, is because I believe I'm nice enough not to do it "just because." The other reason is that I or another editor can work it over one day. -Mardus (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, even if a logo is shown (such as the one used in Wikipedia) its is not a copyright infringement if it is small. That has been established on the commons and English Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

De minimis^Commons applies if the logo is really small and scaled down from the intended original and is not the object of the picture, like in File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg. -Mardus (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some small differences between the look of Firefox on GNU/Linux, Windows and Mac OS X. Here are some questions I want to ask those who think a Windows screenshot should be present:

• Are the differences important? Which differences seem important to you?
• Can the differences be separated from non-free parts of a screenshot? Does switching the Windows theme to an uncopyrightable one or replacing the window titlebar and buttons (like in File:Firefox 16.0.PNG or with a flat color) look acceptable to you?
• If not, would you rather have a non-free screenshot uploaded with a fair use rationale than have only a free non-Windows screenshot?

--AVRS (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that, should a non-free screenshot exist, it shouldn't have parts edited out to try and make it free. After all, we're showing the application to illustrate how it runs, and it never runs with white boxes covering copyrighted sections. If we're going to use a Windows/OS X screenshot, then use one, don't water it down. I'm of the opinion that removal of copyrighted elements is more confusing than an orange title bar (although that probably shouldn't exist, because it's not the default skin). I don't think we should care if it's a free or non-free image, we're showing an application as reference, so it's fair use if it's non-free anyway. drewmunn (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Every page on Wikipedia says it is a free encyclopedia. Freedom is important; “fair use” is an exception not only from copyright, but also from Wikipedia’s goal of being free; that’s why the policy is more strict than fair use laws. --AVRS (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Images that contain many visuals and elements of proprietary software run a greater risk of being deleted than images that do not contain the offending parts. The risk for an image to eventually be deleted sort of defeats the purpose of uploading it in the first place.

It is possible to edit images in such a way that it would preserve the look and feel of a free software program without having to show visuals and elements of proprietary software (mind you, even window and menu shadows and translucencies in Windows are the result of proprietary code). Uploading a screenshot that contains visuals and elements of Windows Vista means that said visuals and elements must be edited out by someone else, and this entails taking a certain amount of time and effort for other editors to do this kind of work. Using "white boxes" to cover copyrighted sections is crude, and a person who knows their way around GIMP can employ better tricks.

(By the way, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have different ways of showing PNG transparencies, such that a transparency is shown in plain white colour in Wikipedia, unless the cursor hovers over the image to show a checkered background to signify a transparency; while Wikimedia Commons shows the checkers by default: See commons:File:Firefox 16.0.PNG.) -Mardus (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I had only seen the checkered version, which looked wrong; although both are misleading as to the shape of the window (defeating the purpose of showing the Windows version of the Firefox button). --AVRS (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The checkers are a default background for transparent PNG's; I might even guess that this background is there for all images, just that it only shows with transparencies on the file page. I disagree about the shape of the window. The objective has always been to only show the Firefox interface and as little as possible of Windows. -Mardus (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous, to use a screenshot of Firefox in some marginal, thus, not known Operating System. This only causes Firefox to look different from the most popular/used OS, which is Windows. A good example of a screenshot that has been used earlier is commons:File:Firefox_(Windows).png, which can be used, because its interface has not changed between v16 and v18.

As already stated earlier, there is no reason to not use such images; Firefox is

talk

) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with Firefox_(Windows).png is that this file is prone to changes and reverts. For example, the current version of the file now shows the Russian Wikipedia, while readers of the English-language Wikipedia might expect to see a screenshot of Firefox showing the English Wikipedia. The original uploader might also revert to his preferred earlier version. Originally, that file only showed version 16 of the browser, but the latest version of the file now shows Firefox 18.0. Wikimedia Commons is not by any means perfect and reflects the amount of work that is left for editors there to do. Where do you have it, KDesk, that "Microsoft has no problem"? The Commons screenshots guideline says that "Microsoft's guidelines do not allow derivative works," and are thus against Commons policy. -Mardus (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the meaning of Derivative work. It means we are not allowed to show Windows OS in a manner that has been edited from its default state. Example 1: I cannot change the "close" button to the color blue, and then publish the picture claiming it is Windows. Example 2: I cannot use hacks to re-add the Windows Start Menu into Windows 8, and then publish the picture claiming it is Windows 8. Are you beginning to get the picture? Microsoft allows screenshots of its software, its only rule is that you don't alter Windows, or the screenshot. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 04:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Which OS should be used

This was the root of the question. My summary of the points above are, if it's of suitable quality and has no copyright issues, the first screenshot should be used. The OS used is inconsequential. This discussion is only to be about that topic and not the question about whether any particular OS does or does not carry inherent copyright over applications that run under it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your second point, but I will re-iterate, also, my stance on the Screenshot. Wikipedia intends to have its articles written clearly and concisely, so that even those that are the most technologically unaware can grasp what is being said. The Firefox article does an above average job at reaching that requirement, and I believe the same policy should apply to the screenshot. It needs to represent the most common form of the browser which will subsequently provide the greatest likely-hood that the screenshot can be interpreted by anyone. Knoppix is not only unknown to the general public, but many people who consider themselves on the cutting-edge also were unaware of this OS (I had never heard of it). This is not a stance I take because "I'm a Windows fan" (Disclaimer: I operate Windows 7), but a stance I take simply because I believe it is in the best interest of the readers because the most common OS is also the most recognizable.

While it is become more evident that I'm not swaying editors to my side of this discussion (ie. ignore the other points I put forth), I'll put forth some additional guidelines specific to Firefox. The screenshot should show Firefox in its default windowed state (ie. not edge to edge in the GUI) with the "Firefox" button in-line with two tabs (thus displaying the highlighted look of a tab, and the un-highlighted look of a tab). The bookmarks bar should be open with the default first-install bookmarks, and if on Windows, the screenshot should depict the default non-aero state of the browser on the

Main page of English Wikipedia. In addition, all task-bar items should remain visible (downloads, back/forward, refresh, etc.) in their default location with no visible Add-ons installed. By following these guidelines, we will be able to best demonstrate the user interface to the readers of the article. Firefox must be displayed on a desktop operating system that Mozilla has at Tier 1 importance

.

If you see changes or improvements that can be made, please respond. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 08:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it important that people know what Knoppix is? --AVRS (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Be careful about recommending “Main page”, it contains a non-free Wikipedia logo, and pictures under various licenses. --AVRS (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the bookmarks bar open by default on any OS? --AVRS (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

> The screenshot should show Firefox in its default windowed state (ie. not edge to edge in the GUI)

Hm, how does it choose the dimensions? I think the initial window size depends on the screen size, and for me, the result is not good for screenshots. We often reduce the window size to make the screenshot easier to view. --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

> with the "Firefox" button in-line with two tabs

That’s a reason to prefer Windows 8 over other Windows screenshots. --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with much you wrote except the first two and the last line. The last is even a non sequitur from the remainder of what you wrote. I can do all of what you wrote in Mac OS, Red Hat, Ubuntu or even Linux Mint. You don't really explain why Windows, and certainly not Windows 8, is preferred. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t say Windows is preferred! I say a Windows 8 screenshot can be preferred over other Windows screenshots, because at Windows 8 screenshots, the Firefox button is in-line with tabs, like on Linux (I think that’s the most notable UI difference). But I don’t want this to be interpreted as an argument to prefer a Windows or OS X screenshot (though the other difference is the shape of the Back button). --AVRS (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The main page may contain images that are otherwise copyrighted and so it is best to stay away from it. The logo is not, to my understanding, copyrighted in such a way as to prevent its use in a screenshot. So this article should be displayed, not the main page.

Trewyy's suggestion that it should be tier 1 is valid. That would prevent Windows/x86-64 and all Linux platforms other than running on two processors in Android, which means non-desktop. Perhaps we should decrease that requirement to tier 2, which is still actively maintained by the community. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you followed Trewyy’s link? Both Linux x86 and x86-64 are tier-1. --AVRS (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

By "non-aero", do you mean not in metro mode? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In Vista and 7, Aero was a graphic display option that could be disabled, resulting in windows appearing like this. Note the smaller buttons and lack of transparency. Aero is now discontinued, and is not a feature of Windows 8, so any screenshot taken in desktop mode of Windows 8 will be non-Aero. drewmunn (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed in the linked picture there is also the Windows Classic theme in Windows 7 and this should be preferred. -Mardus (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick question, why should classic be preferred? After all, it's not default, and does not (when I checked earlier) feature as part of Windows 8 as an option at all. drewmunn (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Because standard operating system widgets, as in the Windows Classic theme, are purely geometric, and might therefore not pass the threshold of originality, whereas any more complex themes (even Vista Basic) already contain sufficient artistic expression to be copyrightable. -Mardus (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already established that copyright issues are not to be discussed in here, but instead on Commons or the appropriate Wikipedia discussions. If you truly believe that somehow we infringe on the polices of either Wikipedia or Microsoft by have screenshots, you will be enforcing a policy that has never been enforced (assuming proper screenshot information provided in Commons). ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 04:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

With this edit some balance has been restored. It's FF 19 running under Windows, but not Windows 8 as was suggested. I'll fight just as hard to keep that image there as I did for Knopix with FF 18. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with Windows 8 showing the current "Firefox Start Page" design, because firstly, Windows 8 theme is purely geometric (much like Windows Classic, but even flatter; for those who are really that fussy about such issues), and the Firefox Start Page is a common "splash" page for the browser (and is built directly into it, meaning that its tri-licensed, unlike the Wikipedia home page) ViperSnake151  Talk  23:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Which operating system may be used for screenshots

This is not an issue for this talk page. As KDesk stated so well: "if the image is in Commons, it is valid to use in Wikipedia; and any legal issue should be managed in Commons, not in this Talk page." Anyone who wants to argue that Microsoft holds a copyright on all screenshots of applications running under Windows should carry on that discussion at the appropriate commons location and not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the infobox only mentions the MPL. There's discrepancy between the infobox and the licensing section, which documents a tri-licensing scheme, though also lacks explanatory links to many terms such as the GPL that may be intimidating for the unlearned reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.166.15.213 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-answering here. I feel like a fool for not reading until the end of the section where it is mentioned the move from tri-licensing to MPL 2.0. Thanks to AVRS for "linkifying" the subsection. --Isacdaavid (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The article states that Firefox is the 3rd most popular browser, but only three of the four provided sources support that assertion. The other says that Firefox has the no. 2 spot. Considering that the dissenting source is also the most up to date, even if by only a month, maybe this has shown a change in the ranking? 68.39.25.229 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

According to data taken from here, FF is currently the 3rd most popular. Chrome is the most, and IE the second. drewmunn talk 08:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't trust those numbers since IE has never been lower than 50% of market share. I suggest we continue to use the standard web stats. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Where's that data coming from? According to this, it's rarely above 50% nowadays. drewmunn talk 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I have to keep up-to-date. I look at other stats and I now stand corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a little inaccurate as it stands. Firefox is written in C, C++, Java, Javascript, IDL, Python (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Coding_Style) and assembler (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Yasm). Although CSS and Javascript are used for some features in Firefox, it provides a platform for these languages (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/learn) so suggest that they should not be listed as "written in". Also XUL (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XUL) and XBL (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/XBL) are file formats used in defining applications in Firefox but there is little sign of take-up outside of Mozilla. Support for remote XUL was dropped because of potential security issues (in ref) and although XBL was proposed as a w3c standard it is no longer in maintenance and XBL 2.0 is unlikely to be implented (http://www.w3.org/TR/xbl/), so would suggest these are removed from this section. Instead the references to these languages could be put in the detail of how add-ons,formatting and the user interface are rendered. (77.100.10.66 (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

"Mozilla codebase" doesn't say it's in the actual browser, I think the Developer Guide could refer to internal tools (Python) only, not sure,for Mozilla. Need to verify it in the source or somehow. And Java is currently listed in Firefox for Android where it is used I think it's in desktop Firefox. Firefox uses XPIDL? Anyway, not sure we should list Interface Description Languages (IDL), since not "programming languages" (that is [Turing complete]]), similar to not listing CSS and HTML. Don't know about assembly, probably used a tiny amount except for when the JIT (SpiderMonkey) generates x86 or ARMv6/7 instructions.Comp.arch (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

On the original Website, the date for the beta versions differ due to the here mentioned. Please use the original site and date for release dates: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ -- 80.245.147.81 (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The dates on FTP refer to when the files were created or uploaded, they often are earlier than the official release announcement or update. --AVRS (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As covered in https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2012/11/03/mozilla-foundation-irs-audit-now-closed/ (the blog of Mozilla Foundation Chairwoman Mitchell Baker), the IRS audit has been closed. Walter Görlitz feels he is the supreme owner of all knowledge and that is a poor source. I'm not sure what a better source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.126.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a better source is either. How about the Wall Street Journal, any newspaper or something that isn't a

primary source. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud. What don't you understand?

The chair of the foundation has a vested interest in this subject. If the case is actually closed, then the company can move forward. However, a secondary source should be used to confirm. If the issue were truly contentious, the entire phrase could be removed. Since it's not, it can be left in, but a better source should be found. Please stop removing the better source tag. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The source code is entirely free (FLOSS) and the binaries on free platforms, but not (somtimes?) on Windows at least. See: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/rationale.html http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing/binary-components/ http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html and by typing the "URL": about:license See (on Windows) above "Mozilla Public License 2.0", if I recall, two components.

How should the page be changed? I thought they would refer to

The H.264 support on Windows 7 and Android is actually taking it from the OS itself. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Still this applies to the other stuff (and what about Windows XP for H.264? Not sure it has it (yet?)). Comp.arch (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This section seems to deal mostly with start-up time and memory usage. Could some data about graphical performance be included as well? Landroo (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the release history need to go up to version 24 (still in pre-alpha), on a blue background (future release)? George8211 (talk | mail) 10:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Just run into this: http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-schedules-metro-firefox-for-december-release-7000019532/

Apparently, a metro-style version is coming. Question: Should be mentioned in this article or one of those specific articles? e.g.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

In the platform section, the screenshot of Firefox on windows is largely mismatched. The screenshot used there is that of a Mac in place of a windows one. The cause is that, it was linked to the page's default image which now has been changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitosh.swain (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been altered, thanks.  drewmunn  talk  08:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the decision was to keep the first screenshot posted but this editor seems to think that Windows is the only correct one. Should we resurrect the debate or point to the discussions in Talk:Firefox/Archive 15? Then again, I could be wrong about consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that discussion. Only copyright-related concerns. Again, it is the most common; this is a tricky decision, but still. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did take this further, if I remember correctly, to

software screenshots. However, no consensus was reached there either that definitively pointed to one thing or another.  drewmunn  talk

  06:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No. You're imposing your own opinion on this. I'm sorry that you don't agree with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

More opinion in your edit summary: "Firefox on Ubuntu is not what Firefox was designed to look like, and is not the most common version (i.e. what users would expect to see). Its funny that everyone is only feuding over this again NOW". How do you know what the designers planed the application to look like? Do you know that they all use Windows and not sat OS X? How do you know that Windows is the first platform that the GUI is built on and not Copix? How do you know anything? Please back your statements up with some references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Walter, could you please cut the personal attacks?

WP:MedCom. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk

) 13:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand NPA, but the root cause is ViperSnake151's personal opinions that are causing the edit war and not the underlying content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are still personal attacks. And I mean that as in, the most common form of Firefox has that menu button in the corner, even on Linux now (the

systematic bias towards Ubuntu on screenshots in general is another problem). Because of the Unity stuff, it presents a non-standard version of the interface, which does not comply with showing a "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic" and an image of "what our readers will expect to see.". And my comment about that was also referencing that the screenshot situation had actually been relatively stable since we started using Windows 8 with the Firefox Start page. ViperSnake151  Talk 

15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You still have not made your point that it must be Windows.

And actually, the screenshot stuff has been extremely stable unless you decide that it's a "non-standard" OS or UI and insert your preferred OS. The problem is not Linux, the problem is that you have the idea that the OS must be Windows. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So where is the consensus that it must be Ubuntu? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere. I didn't say it must be any specific operating system. The first image in place, if satisfactory for reasons of copyright, etc., should be kept in place to prevent edit warring.

To use a reductio ad absurdum argument, your could say that since American English is the most common language that any screenshot of Firefox not in Windows and not using the US English locale should be replaced with one (British English, German, Japanese, etc.). When would this stop? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Since this is English Wikipedia, you'd want to have an English screenshot as the main one, primarily because users reading an article on the English Wikipedia about software available in English wouldn't expect to see a screenshot in something other than English, right? Though, there's a section on localization; a screenshot of a foreign version of Firefox would be useful there. But basically, you're saying that the Ubuntu screenshot should be kept because I'm the only one complaining about it? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you still don't understand. Your point is that the current version of the most popular OS should always be used. My reductio ad absurdum argument is: where does "most popular" end? You didn't answer that. The argument that English requires an English language screen shot doesn't wash either, that is obvious from the use of this image by other locales. Also, it's not about you, it's about who came first and edit warring because your preferred OS (or language) is not displayed is not at all valid. If anyone had made this edit, I would have reverted and expected

I feel it necessary to inform everyone here that useless arguments like these are the reason I no longer have faith in Wikipedia. What are we accomplishing by arguing about something so pointless? My personal beliefs haven't changed since Archive 15, and I have no intention to re-iterate them and waste even more time. What we've been doing has been working somewhat, so lets just leave it at that. The time it took you to make all your arguments could have been spent fixing half of this article. So while I may not agree, I think the most productive thing to do is just let the first image uploaded stay as long as it doesn't look horrible. Please don't bring up Wikipedia guidelines about personal feelings or whatever, it honestly doesn't matter. We're all people, let's act like it. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 08:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And now I have discovered that there is already a consensus: [[:WP:Software screenshots#Choice of platform. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that up after the last war over the screenshot. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Google and Microsoft aren't affiliated with Firefox just like when you go to buy stocks you don't buy the iPhone shares, you buy Apple shares (silly analogy is silly). So will someone please move that section to another article, likely one of the several Mozilla articles. I won't do it because I don't have the time anymore to do this, but I do have the time to see what's wrong and hope to god someone will actually help for once and stop bickering like internet children. ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 08:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to Mozilla Corporation. —rybec 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The article takes more than 4 minutes to load on IE with 2.6GHz celeron. Is there a way to split the article in a way that saves time (esp. on IE) without throwing away any content?

I'm thinking of the references; is there a way to put them on a separate page, or any other way that loads the refs on demand rather than by default? That might come in handy for readers looking for the download link. IDK how to do it, and IF it can be done at all, but if it can, this could be a

Any suggestions? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why it's taking you so long to load; the file is 528KB, which means that you have an average download speed of 17.6Kbs^-1, 0.6% of the global average. I know that's not taking into account image loading, but there are not that many images, and the images that do exist aren't that large. If I do an archive of the entire page (including images), it comes out at 3.6MB, bringing your average download to 0.12Mbs^-1, which is still only 4% of the average speed. I've purged the page cache for you, and I'd suggest you try purging your local cache to see if that helps. On my MacBook (2.3/3.3GHz quad i7), the entire page (with all javascript) loads and executes in 4.48 seconds, so there is no reason it should be loading so much more slowly for you except if there is an issue at your end. Check your download speed, and if it's slow, that's your issue. If not, make sure your cache is cleared, and try a different browser (like Google Chrome) and ensure you've got no viruses or other malware.  drewmunn  talk  10:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Drew, what file is 528 KB? I first thought you mean the article but it is just 90.24 KB.

But yes, 4 minute is strangely long and bizarre, even for a catastrophic mixture like a dial-up connection and Internet Explorer 6. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire plain HTML, with all templates transcluded and the rest of the backend stuff that Wikipedia loads, comes to 528KB (according to my debug console, anyway), and with the images and other resources, it brings it up to 3.6MB (again, according to my debug console).  drewmunn  talk  14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Drew. Just out of curiosity: What debugger do you use? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I use the one packaged with the Safari Developer Tools, as it's one of the nicest I've come across for some time. It's a little glitchy occasionally, and sometimes I need to import pages into Dreamweaver for a better look at validation etc, but overall it seems sufficient.  drewmunn  talk  06:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

One.Ouch.Zero, how long does it take to load when you disable scripting (Javascript) in your Internet options? when you disable loading of images?

The article says "Because the SVG font tests were removed from the Acid3 test in September 2011, Firefox 4 and greater scored 100/100." File:Acid3_Mozilla_Firefox_test.png doesn't tell us anything beyond that.

Mozilla Corporation software rebranded by the Debian project

.

I'm not eager to split this, but the sections Trademark and logo, Branding and visual identity, and Promotion may be enough for a marketing of Firefox article.

The little section about the IRS audit could be moved to Mozilla Foundation: the IRS does not audit software. —rybec 18:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant it was "dangerously long" WRT formatting, not file size. I have a network usage average of ~0.6% so I guess I had a bugged revision when I opened the page, or something that caused IE to slow down because of a bug in IE. I'm running another test right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by One.Ouch.Zero (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Sinebot, you got me...

About five seconds in IE10 when I'm not logged it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Still 4 minutes plus. OTOH, the celeron has 100MHz bus, so once it runs into L2

Clearing the cache resulted in a peak (>1Mbps) followed by several minutes of processing, even without scripting.

It would be a non-standard interpretation of "simple" but would it be more appropriate to tune the Firefox page on simple.wikipedia.org than this one? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 08:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to fix your account or your browser. My clean install of IE10, when I'm not logged-in, loaded this article in five seconds. It's not a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I already "fixed" it, I'm usually here with Firefox, not any kind of IE. However, the one that comes with XP is that slow.

Where does my account get into this, and who would I contact if it's my account that's messed up? Everything else in WP works fine. WM Commons are a bit on the slow side, but I'm not complaining; that's what we get when handling large files. So I would not suspect the account at all.

BTW, what kind of PC did you use? Quad-core i7?

- ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming a bit of hyperbole on your part when you state "everything" since there are 4,350,250 articles on English Wikipedia and I don't think you bothered to hit every single page. May I suggest you time some other complicated pages such as 2010 FIFA World Cup. Also, "the one that comes with XP" was originally Internet Explorer 6, which is no longer supported even by Microsoft so you might want to upgrade to IE8. See http://www.ie6countdown.com/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on all this and reluctant to add material, but did read these to see if my firefox highly at risk and some of info probably belongs in security section:

• NSA and GCHQ target Tor network that protects anonymity of web users, The Guardian, 10/4/13: Top-secret NSA documents, disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, reveal that the agency's current successes against Tor rely on identifying users and then attacking vulnerable software on their computers. One technique developed by the agency targeted the Firefox web browser used with Tor, giving the agency full control over targets' computers, including access to files, all keystrokes and all online activity.
• Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity, The Guardian, 10/6/13: According to the training presentation provided by Snowden, EgotisticalGiraffe exploits a type confusion vulnerability in E4X, which is an XML extension for Javascript. This vulnerability exists in Firefox 11.0 – 16.0.2, as well as Firefox 10.0 ESR – the Firefox version used until recently in the Tor browser bundle. According to another document, the vulnerability exploited by EgotisticalGiraffe was inadvertently fixed when Mozilla removed the E4X library with the vulnerability, and when Tor added that Firefox version into the Tor browser bundle, but NSA were confident that they would be able to find a replacement Firefox exploit that worked against version 17.0 ESR.
• News search of Firefox national security agency brought up a number of more technical sites with more details but I'm not sure which would be most accurate and WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc 03:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Tor page than this one. The articles discuss the potential vulnerabilities in the Firefox version developed to run Tor, rather than the standard release as used by the majority of people with Firefox. While such vulnerabilities no doubt exist inside the standard release, they are not notable on their own.  drewmunn  talk

  06:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The attack is already mentioned in

Tor_(anonymity_network). —rybec

07:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Many people like me who just heard something about NSA cracking Firefox and do a search with word Firefox probably will see this article and many will come here. The article has been looked at 85,000 times in last 30 days and I'm sure a lot of those were people concerned about this issue and wondering if the article is out of date or incomplete.

I see they address NSA and security issues at https://blog.mozilla.org but couldn't find comment since the revelation about NSA searching their blog here.) Maybe it's illegal for them to complain? I mean there are a lot of Mozilla-related issues here to explore; but as usual someone's gotta do the work. I've done enough for my personal needs to tell me they will keep trying to frustrate NSA, if not succeeding. User:Carolmooredc 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Schneier article does say that "According to Snowden, FoxAcid is a general CNE [computer network exploitation] system, used for many types of attacks other than the Tor attacks described here." —rybec 20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Noticed Gopher template at the bottom [[46]] (was included in Firefox 3, not sure if later, still might be in an add-on, but should they have any relevance here?). Guess it sould be taken out. [I'm having a discussion at Internet Explorer talk page. The consensus there is to keep things such as PA-RISC processor support, that is all of the history in Infobox.] That Gopher was included should be in some history page and when discontinued but I say not mentiond it at all on this page. comp.arch (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

You are right. Historic things are not automatically deleted, but since this article does not even mention Gopher once, we should consider unlisting the item from the navbox.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

84.132.138.221 posted this comment on 25 October 2013 (view all feedback).

Criticism on Firefox. Especially about changes /design-decisions (no, not the Logo, but about old features removed or new features added)?

There doesn't really seem to be any prominent discussion of reviews/reception. Seems like a significant omission, but would need some good sources…

Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The usage share statistics are the closest thing to this that I see, probably, but do not really address specific points regarding the browser. Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on Waterfox, which I believe is or was a 64-bit Windows build of Firefox. On Wikipedia, Waterfox redirects to Firefox, which contains zero information on Waterfox. Can someone either create a page that tells people what Waterfox is or was, or put similar information on the Firefox page? Because I'd like to know a bit more about it. For now, I'll have to look elsewhere. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The used screenshot shows a customized version of Firefox. The most notable difference is that the search bar is removed and replaced by some omnibar add-on. I think the screenshot should be as "default" as possible, to show users what they can expect when they download Firefox. It should probably also show about:home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.224.22.80 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have replaced screenshot from File:Firefox_25_on_Windows_8.1.png to File:Firefox_Screenshot.PNG. File:Firefox_Screenshot.PNG is the screenshot of default UI and about:home of Firefox 23 on Win 8.1. It must be OK because there is no UI difference between Fx 23 and 25. New screenshot will be required for Fx 29, first release version of Australis UI.--Claw of Slime (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The screenshot was changed to one running on GNOME 3, which is not a standard interface, see WP:Software screenshots#Choice of platform. The screenshot has been changed back to File:Firefox_Screenshot.PNG. —Götz (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

108.50.168.140 posted this comment on 1 October 2013 (view all feedback).

I am tyrying to choose what web browser I wish to use on my new HP desktop, I would like to see in a simple chart what browsers offer what and how efficient each one is. A SIMPLE chart that we may use to compare. At the moment I like both Firefox and Chrome. I would like to make a choic. Thank you

If you click on the Web browser pointer in the introduction, then scroll down to its See also section, and there follow the link to List of web browsers in which you also scroll down to its See also section, you'll find yet another link : Comparison of web browsers where is to be found what you are seeking. — Jerome Potts (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)