Grey's dashboard

Syd: Actually, I WOULD say this to you in person. I'm a very up front person in real life and online.

Second, I was replying primarily to marc, not you, so I apologize for getting the two of you confused as the same person.

Third, no, I am NOT speaking on behalf of Mozilla right now, I'm speaking for myself. I was speaking as someone tired of people constantly yelling about lawyers and conspiracies about Google. Even people who work or volunteer for organizations still have independent thoughts.

Lastly, I can understand how bad it could look to customers, and I am sorry it happened to you. However, some of my statements still stand. If your business is that valuable, you should find a better host, probably dedicated servers which are inexpensive these days. That's just a good business decision, so that you're not affected by other people's mistakes as much.

Mozilla is well aware of the role it's playing, and sites don't go on the list willy nilly, without evidence. The protection of hundreds of millions of users trumps the business effect on sites hit and infiltrated by attackers. You need to look at this as the price of lax security, not the fault of Mozilla. I CAN tell you that the appeal process is usually faster than it seems, and sites are rescanned and remove automatically. I'm sorry you were hit at all. It's never fun being attacked.

First, site owners CAN choose what browser they make their site available to. It happened in the early web with MS bribing many sites to go IE only. Today many poorly coded sites work only in IE. However, I don't think they should, and if they do, whatever problems befall them they deserve. Sorry, that's not a hole in my argument. I never postulated that site owners ever had the RIGHT to determine what browser users choose.

Second, Google owns their index, and can choose what sites to make available in their index. If you don't like it, go use another search engine.

Third, Google DOESN'T choose what sites to make available on the web. They use their index to help them create a list of sites that are hazardous to users, and makes that list available to browser makers. Don't like that? Turn it off.

If I CHOOSE a browser that will help protect me from bad sites, don't blame be because you don't take the time to secure your site from attackers. Do your job, don't blame Google or Firefox or Apple or anyone else because you can't handle the responsibility of running a site.

Lastly, yes, in the short term, you're at the mercy of Google and the browser vendors and users who choose to proactively protect themselves. When Creative shipped Zen mp3 players with a virus on it, they didn't whine that AV programs rightfully caught the virus.

Don't whine because we choose to be safe. Fix your site, appeal the label, and learn that if your business is taking THAT big a hit from being blacklisted for a while, maybe you should pay for a better host. You DID do something wrong, YOU picked a flawed host,

You left your business not in the hands of Google, you left it in the hands of your webhost. You got labeled as malware because your webhost was hacked, not because Google is the new Internet Gestapo and Firefox is the loyal sycophant. I see no reason why Google, Mozilla, nor anyone else should apologize for protecting users.

First, I am not speaking on behalf of Mozilla in any way shape or form. While I have a label here, it is only because I help provide support for products here. The following statements are mine alone, and I'm not making them on behalf of anyone, nor should I be taken as speaking for anyone.

First, you're completely misinterpreting what's going on here. These are all voluntary programs that you have the complete ability to opt out of. No one is forcing you do to anything.

Second, even if there was no way to opt out of this feature in Firefox, that is any corporations' right, to dictate how their product will work, and it's your right to "vote with your feet" and choose another product. If a browser vendor blocks all sites that contain the letter F in the domain name, you have no legal recourse other than to chose another product. In no way, shape, or form is there anything illegal going on here.

Mozilla, Opera, Apple, Microsoft, and others have every right to state how their products will be used, and you are free to use other products. Right now Apple refuses to allow many applications on their iPhones and iPods based upon completely arbitrary reason of their own creation, and frequently refuse apps placement retroactively, removing them from the store after approval. There is no breach of law here in any manner.

Thirdly, no one is acting as a police officer or any other form of law enforcement. No authorization is needed for one citizen or incorporated entity to state "this is a shady place you should avoid." Your statements seem to indicate you believe we live in a police state wherein all actions must be sanctioned by the government. This is not true, and further, neither Google, nor Firefox or other browser vendor (all of whom have malware protection in their browsers now) are acting in any improper manner.

Precedent has even been set showing your statement of illegality is completely off the mark. Antivirus applications do the exact same thing for programs, and there have been threats of lawsuits made about marking some apps as malware when their providers disagree. The only recourse those companies had were civil suits. If the badware list really causes some site financial harm, then they can take it up in civil court.

Fourthly, no one is making law. That is an absurd statement on it's face. Based on good evidence, many sites have been marked as dangerous after having been witnessed as distributing malware, phishing for user data, etc. Once these sites are fixed, they're taken off the badware list. And of course you can opt out of the program altogether. You can't op out of abiding the law.

Lastly, I think you're looking solely to stir up trouble and scare people with puffery. If you don't like the idea of a browser that tries to help you stay safe, turn off the feature, or use IE.

Mailing list software such as MailMan might also be what you're looking for Many web hosting providers have it preinstalled, or you can take a look here: http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/i...

That wasn't necessarily rude. He was stating that Bugzilla is a better place to complain about long standing bugs, complain not being a pejorative word, but a rightfully used choice to show that he's legitimately unhappy. You read Tom's line as being mean when in reality it wasn't meant with any malice. That's the problem with text only, there are no vocal inflections, and sometimes it's easy to read into a statement things that aren't there. As someone sitting in the same office as Tom when he wrote that, I can assure you there was no nastiness intended there.

Brett, I'm sorry that you haven't found a solution to the issue at hand, but I have to say I think Tom's been anything but rude. He pointed out exactly what the current situation is, and what you can do to work within the current boundaries. I really don't see where he was rude, and I think you're being unfair, especially on an issue that had been untouched in half a year.

Tom's a volunteer, as are most of the people who help here and elsewhere in the Community. We need to thank our volunteers for helping, rather than attacking them out of left field.

There is no way to do so without using the no-remote option listed here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Command_lin...
This has never worked in Firefox nor the suite without such switches, and in the first several years this didn't even work on the Suite on non-Linux platforms.
That link will give you the list of command line switches you want.

I'm sorry to say that without either JS manipulating the source and DOM tree, you can't do that. No browser has ever supported the user modifying the contents of SELECT drop downs without relying on user-side JS (such as a Greasemonkey script or bookmarklet) or AJAX like functions created by the page author.

There really isn't any context menu items appropriate for a drop down. Marking this WONTFIX. If an extension can't implement the feature itself without XUL changes, file a bug to enhance the toolkit.

That is incorrect. There is no memory scanning software that comes with Windows XP, period. You are using a third party tool that was installed later. – Grey, on September 25, 2008 03:28

Frank: If I may, "the customer is always right" is an oft repeated and rarely understood concept. It doesn't actually mean the customer is ALWAYS right, because then if a customer says they want a product for free, then you have to give i to them, etc. There are plenty of areas where the customer is wrong. Of course, Firefox IS free.

However, the bit about Fx being "do it yourself" is unfair. Mozilla can't be held responsible for things you install into the browser that break it any more than a car manufacturer can be responsible if you take your car to an electronics store and they cause $12,000 in damage when trying to install a stereo. If an extension breaks functionality, that's bad, but not entirely avoidable either. The free support options provided by Mozilla are rather good, and more than many other paid product providers give. Worst case scenario, if you don't want to mess with it yourself, you can hire a local service rep to fix it for you. See: http://consumerist.com/373753/circuit...

There are limits to what Mozilla can do for you across the internet, and limits to what responsibility Mozilla can take when it comes to third party extensions. We're sorry you're having these issues, and sorry we're not able to make it easier to fix them. Many steps are being taken constantly to make the experience better, but some things are out of our control.

Not to offend, but while you are a unique snowflake, you are not a large enough group for this option to weigh heavily on the list of future enhancements. The vast majority of people don't use multiple profiles or multiple users. We actually moved extensions FROM being global into the profile directory on purpose a while ago. I doubt this will be undone, and I doubt even a pref will be introduced for this. I can off the top of my head think of several valid development arguments why this would be undesirable and a headache to maintain.(checking if other profiles have the xt first, privacy issues, managing extensions across profiles if one user doesn't want it anymore, etc). Sorry.

Where did you say that? "The Ajax popup login is baked not only into the technology of the site, more importantly it is baked into most of the design." Right there.

I totally agree that if safari and 1pw can do it, Firefox should be able to as well. That is a 100% legit line of argument. But I already conceded that. You know that frequently we as web devs need to make up for browsers' shortfalls.

I get schedules, too. But I'd rather have you say, "We'd love to address this issue, but right now we have an already full schedule, and I don't know when we'll squeeze this issue in right now," than pass the buck. That was my key point.

I never said you couldn't fix it. I said you were trying to handwave away the issue.

Lastly, I didn't insult you at all, I just stated that saying "we don't have this as a priority right now due to other larger issues we're working on" is better than puffery. My comment about safari was also a joke. I would offer a chill pill to you too but that was my last one, and the bottle is in my other parachute pants.

Your answer of it being "baked in" is somewhat of a cop out. The login is not "baked into" anything. There's no way you're going to convince any competent person that you can't fix that issue. I grok that your design philosophy likes the dynamism afforded by AJAX, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. But there's nothing preventing you from including it in the page and hiding it with CSS and only showing it when needed, as opposed to calling it later as you do now. Login boxes that work for your customers is more important than a design philosophy.

I COULD say this is a browser bug, indeed. However, I can, and do, also say this is a site bug, as your design is not working with a feature that even BANKS manage to get right. If a bank can do it, you folks sure as hell can too. To sluff this off as a browser bug is really lame. How many years did we bend out code into pretzels to work with IE's broken parsing?

Checking the remember me box doesn't work all the time as I don't come here daily.

The point here isn't who is to blame, the point is it doesn't work, and you have the power to fix it. As a web dev, I know first hand how much it may suck to do that, but it's for the good of your users. It won't look any different to anyone, but you'll know that the login isn't dynamic like everything else, and that'll be a burr under your saddle, but that's the life of a web dev. So please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Trying to bluff with lame reasons just makes you look bad when you wind up bluffing a knowledgeable person.

Lastly, tell Eric that advising someone to use Safari is like telling them to cutoff their toe because they lost their toenail clipper. That's even more lame than the "baked in" line.

1Password is an extension that I don't use, and I see this issue too. The issue is how Fx3 now looks for un/pw combos, it's a different mechanism than in the past that now will catch ones that it didn't used to. However, the Ajaxiness of the login stuff when I click Post Reply here means Fx didn't see the form on load. That's the problem, not some other extension.

Nightlies as of Sept 8 or 9 should be more stable, enough for daily use. However, it still may crash, and nightlies are only advisable if you're willing to live with that. If youw ant to run them, that's great, just let Breakpad submit a ticket for every crash you have, and try to be detailed in your description.

this would be a neat app for the 8x0 platform.