Talk:Mozilla Firefox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a talk page for discussing the Wikipedia article Mozilla Firefox, and is not a help desk. Any technical questions should be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. Please refrain from discussing matters not related to the article and its content.

Mozilla Firefox is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004.

	Article milestones

Date

Process

Result

November 25, 2004

Featured article candidate

Promoted

February 10, 2007

Featured article review

Kept

Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-Class)

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Additional information:
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
High	This article has been rated as High-Importance on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Free Software (Rated FA-Class)

Free software Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.

rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale

High

rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

WikiProject Internet (Rated FA-Class)

Internet Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.

This article has been rated as FA-class on the class scale.

High

This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Mozilla Firefox:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Address problems identified in the featured article review: includes many technical details which are unnecessary Possible copyright issue with Minefield screenshot Clean up Licensing section as now there are some facts repeated three times (e.g. Firefox is trademarked).
Priority 1 (top)

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

[edit] Various faults in the article

The main image shows Firefox 2 running on Linux, but is described as FF 3 running on Vista. Also, the screenshot section is full of screenshots of FF 3 that hasn't been released yet. One screenshot should be good for a product that is still beta, instead put up some screenshots of earlier versions of FF and screenshots of the current version on different systems. The article was good for some days ago, rollback? --Kopmis (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Notable versions of Firefox?

Shouldn't there be a list of notable forks of the Firefox project? As in, alternate versions made by users like Ghostfox? Bit101 (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Free Software in screenshots

Why was the Firefox running under Ubuntu screenshot replaced with a Mac OS X screenshot (with OS menus included). This makes it feel more like a vanity shot than an informative screenshot. If anything we should be using free software (like GNU/Linux) in screenshots. Ubuntu is easily identifiable by its "Human" theme. Opinions? 202.81.18.30 (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) av 27/12/2007

I've restored the Ubuntu screenshot. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The screenshot it was replaced with wasn't using the default Firefox theme. However, I do not agree that the OS has any impact of how "Free" the screenshot is, because the screenshot is of the program itself. IMHO, the screenshot in Ubuntu is a little ugly (I mean, an ORANGE titlebar?!) and I think a Mac one would look nicer. Althepal (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Its an issue of overall image policy, not aesthetics. Like it or not, everything in the screenshot is relevant to its copyright status. If I take a picture of my hand, and there is copyrighted material in the background, it may still violate the ability to use that image under the GFDL and so on. It makes the image not a free image whether you say so or not. And by the way if you're thinking this is a bias thing, I don't even like linux. I find ubuntu to be a pain.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The title bar is pretty insignificant, but since GNOME is definitely free-as-in-freedom, it's preferred to a non-free Windows or Mac screenshot. Orange is the default color in Ubuntu, and really, it's not that bad. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the ubuntu screenshot due to the new image being in windows, which does not satisfy the non-free image critea of no-free equivalent--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For some more discussion of this, see the Commons policy on screenshots. The claim there is that the creation of a screenshot involves zero creative work, and so it is controlled by the copyright of the depicted program. I happen to disagree with that claim, but I don't have adequate sources to dispute it in more detail: it seems to me that screenshots are analogous to photographs, and that there is indeed creative work in setting up and composing the screenshot.

In any event, there are plenty of cases where screenshots would obviously be protected by fair use, and where there is no non-free substitute available. For instance, any program that only runs on Windows (and uses Windows GUI widgets, which are copyrighted by Microsoft) would be an example. But Firefox is free itself and runs on free platforms, so we don't have that justification here. The issue is not one of copyright but of Wikipedia policy, which favors free content over fair-use content. --FOo (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, any shot of any program running in Windows is copyrighted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

The title bar and such is copyrighted, but is de minimis (insignificant). Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But in cases where a piece of software is available for both Windows and Linux, the Linux screenshot would be better because it definitely uses less non-free material. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is specifically a rule in the criteria of fair use that discusses this. If a free image (be it public domain, GFDL, etc) of equivalent value can can be produced (either because it exists or can be made), the image in question fails the criteria for fair use (it is not irreplaceable) and the free alternative is to be used instead. If no one bothers to make the free image, well, that just sucks, but it still violates the rule. As most people seem to interpret it exceptions can be made if making the free image would be exceptionally difficult, but that doesn't really apply here. ADD: Also, please note, not all builds using the linux kernel are free. Granted anyone aware of this rule is probably informed enough to make that distinction.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the shot we are using right now is depicting Ubuntu, which is free. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but might as well mention it to save anyone the effort. I know more than once I've seen people use Red Hat and simmilar nonfree builds for screenshots, not realizing that its really no better an alternative than windows or MacOS.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that Red Hat is a "non-free build"? Free software is about freedom, not about price; Red Hat are in the business of packaging, selling, and supporting free software. --FOo (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up a oldish conversation, but why is Wikipedia used for the screenshot content (or more specifically a part of the WP page showing the logo)? As the image description page states, this means that "This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation... Notwithstanding any other statements in this or any page, this image has not been licensed under the GFDL." Surely this limits the usefulness of the screenshot if the article was to be used in an eBook/on another website etc. under the GFDL as strictly speaking the image would have to be cleared with the foundation. Wouldn't it be an idea to have a totally GFDL-licenced page to be used as the screenshot? AlexJ (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is more discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Self-references_to_avoid#Screenshots. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That conversation is several months old, and sadly no consensus came out of it. As I see it, I can't find any reason why it's done other than because other pages do it. It is surely a breach of the FU guideline where "No free equivalent." must be available. AlexJ (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Althepal has once again placed a Mac OS X picture in. IMHO, it fails the fair use rationale that he described it with. Namely, replaceability. I can't see any advantage of this shot over the previous one, but I'll wait for an explanation before reverting. 99.248.223.241 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And once again I have reverted it. It does fail the fair use rationale per replaceability with free version. People need to grow up and drop the OS fanboy routine. Either go through the effort of creating the easily creatable free screenshot, or don't bother.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now wait just a minute. The screenshot I replaced it with is more free than the Ubuntu one. That's the one with the copyright Wikimedia content... And the screenshot should show the default view of the browser, i.e. with its home page not Wikipedia. Anyhow, the purpose of a screenshot in an article is to illustrate the program, which (OS fanboy support aside) is better done in OS X than Ubuntu due to the distracting colors. About Ubuntu in a screenshot being more free than other OSes? That is only the case where content of the OS (such as dock) is included. In the screenshot I uploaded, it only shows Firefox and not copyright OS X software. (Titlebar is negligible, esp since identical-looking ones exist which I know are free.) Now, my screenshot is of a newer version than shown in the Ubuntu one. But, if you revert me, I'll stay out of it. However, before doing so, think what's in the best interest of the article (not thinking about the OS). And before throwing out claims that any software written for a non-Linux OS is not free, back it up. Althepal (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, if you do show me a source about simply the base OS effecting the copyright status, I will be able to replace it with a new one from Ubuntu (but it will be a little more difficult to produce), though I would still think that it makes for a less-usable screenshot in the article. Either way, even if it could better be replaceable by a Linux screenshot, the existing one from Ubuntu is not one to replace it with, since it doesn't accurately enough illustrate the software in question (older version and not default-when-open web page). Althepal (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The default homepage is no more free than Wikipedia's; you're just replacing the Wikipedia logo with the Google one. I have no idea what the ideal website would be, perhaps example.com, though it's not very aesthetically pleasing.

As for copyright status, Apple has claimed that their "look and feel" is copyrighted in the past, and has gone to court against Microsoft over alleged violations. The issue was settled out of court, so there hasn't been any official ruling. However, Apple has apparently made legal threats to others who have made GUI's resembling their own, such as StarDock. Disclaimer: this information came from the articles look and feel and Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, which are both rather unsourced. 209.82.43.120 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Althepal|Althepal], you seem to have difficulty actually wrapping your mind around the concept of a free image vs. a fair use image. A free image contains no copyrighted information or content that has not been released for open public use. The image you included is running on an Apple OS, which has non free copyright status. Regardless of cropping out the OS background, bars, etc, the image is still restricted as containing that copyrighted content in the form of style, which YES apple has sued over in the past. Please actually take the effort to read over our image use policies instead of just making blind assertions over what is free and what is not. Also, I encourage you to illustrate the convention of using the default homepage. Wait, there isn't one. Every other browser page uses a screenshot with WIKIPEDIA in the window. Grow up and stop making unilateral changes. Oh, and please knock off the obvious sockpuppetry.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, nobody seems to assume good faith. Hmmm... I accidentally forgot to log in... so what? I wasn't trying to act as another user (if I was, I would have made a different account). And I was just trying to help the article... If that's not wanted, fine. If you also don't want it to be the default page when opening it, fine, let me know. But at least be nice about it. And by the way, Apple would never sue Wikimedia for using Mac OS in screenshots. Althepal (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope everything's okay now. I replaced the screenshot with one which is exactly as free as the previous one, yet my main concern (poor appearance in the article) is pretty much taken care of now that its done in Kubuntu. Althepal (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to replace the screenshot with one that has no titlebar. This will be an unedited photo. Also, if anyone objects, please post it here. Acid 1 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox 4

"Action Monkey" (Firefox 4) is now on the ftp.mozilla.org site. I'm sure this could be rolled into the article somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegsrguy (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick search suggests that ActionMonkey is nothing of the sort, but a new JavaScript Engine which will probably see production use in Firefox 4. I'm guessing what you saw is this FTP directory, containing a build which I presume is for testing integration of said JS engine in the context of a Firefox build. - IMSoP (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Its many problems.

It has many obsessive fanboys, and theres plenty of proof its not very good, eg www.firefoxmyths.com Please incoperate the truth into the article. 86.144.105.249 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is a featured article, so has been judged to be well balanced and well written. Please provide reliable sources if you wish for information to be included. The firefoxmyths site has been discounted as biased and unsuitable as a source on multiple occasions. Also, there are a good number of problems discussed in the article and its sub-articles.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While the reliability of the firefoxmyths site may be in question, some of the statistics it provide could still be utilized in the article. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if they are sourced elsewhere, and not the firefoxmyths site itself. Also, we have to make sure we don't over-analyse on this page. We should stick to summaries here and add the main discussion of the faults to the sub-pages.

Note, I'm not against negative info being included. I just don't want a repeat of the old criticisms article to occur.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage Share Image

Firefox usage share. Sources: NetApplications^[1] (red), TheCounter.com^[2] (blue)

I have created an SVG image which more accurately shows the usage share of Firefox. I believe this is a better representation than the current image for several reasons:

The "fill" effect used on the current image could be misleading
The current image shows data from one source only
The data on this image has a shorter interval (more accurate)

Please suggest any improvements you think could be made to this image, and/or additional sources for usage data. Thanks - ARC Gritt^TALK 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The heading picture for this article should show Firefox running on a Leopard of Vista as these are more common systems than Ubuntu. --76.94.71.192 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu is currently used because it is open-source and free, unlike OS X or Windows. Free images are generally preferred in Wikipedia. However, changes might have to be made when Firefox 3 comes out (since it has different themes for different OSs). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

umm, a key? unless im being really stupid and missing one? Alastairthegreat (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critisisms?

I don't see any criticisms here. Please add a criticisms section. It is criticized for its slow startup speed according to the article written in Swiftfox. Why don't you add a 'constructive criticism' here. Anyway, like all its competetors, Firefox is not a perfect product and has its own flaws.Triadwarfare (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article: Softpedia notes that Firefox takes longer to start up than other browsers. -- Schapel (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to group it in its own category where everyone can see it. 125.212.118.238 (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It should not be grouped by good/bad, if it can be grouped by subject. Otherwise some people will only read the good part and others only the bad part, and not the reasons for those. --AVRS (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the new screenshot???

The screenshot uploaded by WikiLeon doesn't really show what Firefox looks like or what Wikipedia looks like. You can't use a worse screenshot which is less accurate just because that way it doesn't have any icons! Non-default bookmark bar, lack of icon where there would be one, CC icon in search bar where Google or Wikipedia is needed, fake logo on Wikipedia... come on, this is a screenshot! Don't go to extremes removing "non-free" content like that. Althepal (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I must agree, there is a limit to how far we need to push to make an image free content. In order of the image to be encyclopedic we need to at least be able to show what Mozilla Firefox looks like without modification and what it renders a webpage in reality. I would say we need to restore the original screenshot or capture a new one that doesn't feature modifications and shows the browser in it's true form. Xtreme racer (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of policy does it say that we are supposed to use the absolute defaults for the main screenshot? See Image talk:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png for further discussion. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your screenshot is misleading and not needed. Althepal (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, and have brought this up to The Wikipedia media copyright questions noticeboard. Please discuss there. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright fine. I'll let the experts take it from here and stay out of it. You already stated both sides of the argument there. Althepal (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Copyright noticeboard gave a win-win situation by suggesting us to use both screenshots in the same article. One that shows Firefox in a configuration that displays an image that is as free as possible, as well as one that is shown with only the defaults. As there is no free way to show the browser's defaults, the second screenshot is a valid fair use rationale (you can actually display the default firefox search page, instead of the Wikipedia main page). The "free as possible image" can also be used on foreign Wikipedias which do not allow fair use whatsoever. As far as the Wikipedia logo is concerned, User:Remember the dot suggested we scroll the page down so the logo won't show (as the Internet Explorer page shows). I'll take both their advice, but since the first image (the infobox image) is meant to show Firefox, a fair use image won't work over a free use. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 02:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Firefox open source?

Whether Firefox is open source is open to debate. According to the very strictest definition of open source, Firefox is not, as it contains copyrighted artwork and has a trademarked name. This means that you may not make arbitrary modifications to the software and distribute your altered software as Firefox. On the other hand, the article already states that Firefox is not considered free by the FSF, so stating that it is otherwise 100% open source seems to represent all points of view on the subject. Claiming that it is not open source seems to represent only one point of view, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. -- Schapel (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Firefox code is open source. Some of the artwork is not, and as with Linux or Wikipedia, the name itself is a registered trademark. --FOo (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would says that Firefox itself isn't Open Source. The EULA is strictly proprietary. But of course it seems that the majority of the code is open source, but that's not Firefox. From my point of view, the fact that Firefox is a trademark doesn't have any effect on how it is Open Source or not. There are many Open Source software out there that have a trademark registered and provide their software with an Open Source licence, unlike Firefox. 82.233.96.31 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting information to add

I found this article used in the italian wikipedia. It's definately worth mentioning. It's about the percentage of Firefox users in most countries in the EU, and each continent. I'm sorry that I don't have time to add this myself. --Titan602 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be added to the daughter article Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox. -- Schapel (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] V838 Monocerotis expansion on 2/8/04

Does this image of the V838 Monocerotis expansion look familiar? Wired thinks so. Too bad this is too trivial to put on the article page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... Thanks for bringing it up. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent table-ification: 2x3 or 3x2?

Another user table-ified the popularity chart in Mozilla Firefox#Market adoption. Another editor reverted it for technical reasons. I redid the table using WikiCode. I tried a 2-row version but it didn't look good in one browser. The 3-row version looks awkward in at least one browser but at least you can read the whole thing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large deletions

What's up with the recent deletion of lots of material from the article? It was even done in such as way that it's not easy to tell what was removed and what was changed. Additionally, an explanation that "even IE7 is secure these days" is given as justification, with no sources cited. I'm going to revert the deletions. Please discuss on the talk page before deleting whole paragraphs outright, and makes changes a little at a time so we can see what's changing. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tabbed Browsing

Mozilla_Firefox#Response_from_Microsoft

The second paragraph states that IE implemened tabbed browsing, which was only previously available in firefox. I believe this to be incorrect. I thought Opera had tabbed browsing before firefox and I think tabbed browsing was available before even that--91.84.84.234 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to consider the context of the statement. It's in a section detailing Microsoft's response to Firefox. Previously, Microsoft said there was no demand for features in Firefox that were not in Internet Explorer, such as tabbed browsing. Then they apparently changed their minds and added tabbed browsing, exactly one of the features from Firefox that they said IE users didn't want. Yes, other browsers had tabbed browsing before Firefox, but that's not really relevant within the context as the only browsers being discussed are IE or Firefox. Either way to describe the situation seems fine to me, although I can see that before it may have been confusing because it appears incorrect out of context and now it doesn't emphasize Microsoft's response to Firefox specifically. -- Schapel (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"In October 2006, as congratulations for a successful ship of Firefox 2, the Internet Explorer 7 development team sent a cake to Mozilla. As a nod to the browser wars, some readers joked about the cake being poisoned, while others jokingly suggested that Mozilla send a cake back along with the recipe, in reference to the free software movement." hahaha that paragraph make me LOL... Microsoft collaborating with open source / free software?? This is the dawn of a new era :) --MakE (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FF3 Linux screenshot removed?

Apparently the Linux screenshot of the Firefox beta was removed because it was non-free, of all things. Now there's just a big hole in the table. Why was this image removed? What part of it was non-free? Can it be replaced? Arrenlex (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox 3 preRC1

Should I add Firefox 3 preRC1 to the table? --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait for the official release of RC1. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 09:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated Windows Vista Screenshot

Under the "Themes" section of "Version 3.0," the screenshot of the Windows Vista theme is outdated: the screenshot is from just after the release of version 3.0 beta 4 and does not reflect the changes in theme made in beta 5 (i.e. the return of the "Home" button to the "Navigation" toolbar}. Could someone please update the Windows Vista screenshot to one of version 3.0 beta 5? Thanks. 64.26.98.90 (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Downgrading

Anybody know if the pre RC1 installer is available anywhere? Upon upgrading, I lost all my extensions, and would rather wait for them to be updated before upgrading to RC1. -D14BL0 (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vista VS XP

I noticed I have the "XP" theme, while I actually have Vista installed. I figure the only reason why this might happen would be that I have my aero theme disabled, and that the theme so far as XP vs Vista goes, is determined not by what operating system you have but what skin you are using (I am using classic), or, more likely, whether or not you are using aero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.51.144 (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mozilla Firefox 3.0 pledges by region" Picture

This picture needs explaining in the main text or it should be removed. Cheers. - ARC Gritt^TALK 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you or someone else is welcome to do that. I am not willing to do it. For now I am only willing to update the map.

The image is very relevant to Fire Fox 3.0 and should not be removed. There are many other images such as screenshots of themes that are not at the moment accompanied by adequate amount of text.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Until it has been explained it simply has no place within the article. As far as I can see no explanation has been given in the text whatsoever. The image should be removed until you or someone else writes something to accompany it. If you are not willing to write it, then don't disrupt the article by re-adding an image that has zero context within the article as it is written. Rehevkor (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is in the Advertising section. If you re-add the picture, put in the right place. Please don't make a poor edit and expect others to fix it for you. -- Schapel (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that this was en.wikipedia, sorry I asked. -- Cat ^chi? 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table Colours?

I noticed that the colour-coding of the "Release History" table has been removed, which is fine. However, further below, in the "Firefox market share by version" table, the colour-coding of the old table remains, despite the lack of a key for what the colours represent. Should a key be added, or should the colours be removed from this second table? 64.26.98.90 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox 3.0

Someone should update the page firefox 3.0 stable is out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.116.166 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

When Firefox 3.0 is really and truly released, it will be on the mozilla.com site. Let's not say it's out until it's really out. Every "point-oh" release, people "jump the gun" and Mozilla has to tell everyone it hasn't been released yet. It's important to wait, because users trying to download can get the wrong bits if there's any sort of problem, or can overwhelm Mozilla's servers before the release hits the mirrors. Please wait until the release is uploaded, mirrored, and verified. That's all part of the release process. -- Schapel (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] valid sources

is referencing "Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 Vs Opera 9.50 Beta Vs Safari 3.1 Beta: Multiple Sites Opening Test" ~ 94 as valid test a joke? i hope for some discussion and doubt of other similar links as well ca1 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal status

An anonymous editor added the following in a new section titled "Legal status in the United States":

The legal status of Firefox in the United States of America is unclear, since it incorporates features protected by software patents, one of them is the progress bar, protected by a patent filled by IBM [3], another one is the double-click, protected by a patent filled by Microsoft [4].

I think without a reference claiming that Firefox's legal status is unclear this section is original research and should not be included. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.