Comments for Browsersphere http://browsersphere.com Tracking the continued evolution of web browsers. Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:50:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Opera Widget Keeps You Up-to-Date on Browser Security by Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/12/opera-widget-keeps-you-up-to-date-on-browser-security/#comment-632 Bernie Zimmermann Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:45:36 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=152#comment-632 Thanks for clarifying. Maybe we can just call it "opportune timing." ;) Thanks for clarifying. Maybe we can just call it “opportune timing.” ;)

]]> Comment on Opera Widget Keeps You Up-to-Date on Browser Security by loligoth http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/12/opera-widget-keeps-you-up-to-date-on-browser-security/#comment-631 loligoth Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:04:05 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=152#comment-631 > I say the article reads a bit like a release from the Opera marketing department, because assuming Opera views Firefox as a competitor, the widget screenshot shown in the article and statements like “the test showed that Firefox 3 was [the] most vulnerable one and Opera the least” seem a little biased. actually, that statement was not biased, at that time at least. Take notice that the "security level" shown at any time depends on the most severe vulnerability at that time, not the total number of vulnerabilities of a browser. So Firefox at that time had one highly critical vulnerability, the (in)famous one discovered at the Firefox 3 launch day, while IE had 10 less severe vulnerabilities, thus Firefox was rated the least secure at that time. Now with the release of Firefox 3.01 and 2.0.0.16, that single (in)famous vulnerability is finally patched, so Firefox is now at the same level of Opera as one of the two most secure browsers in the world, for now at least. > I say the article reads a bit like a release from the Opera marketing department, because assuming Opera views Firefox as a competitor, the widget screenshot shown in the article and statements like “the test showed that Firefox 3 was [the] most vulnerable one and Opera the least” seem a little biased.

actually, that statement was not biased, at that time at least. Take notice that the “security level” shown at any time depends on the most severe vulnerability at that time, not the total number of vulnerabilities of a browser. So Firefox at that time had one highly critical vulnerability, the (in)famous one discovered at the Firefox 3 launch day, while IE had 10 less severe vulnerabilities, thus Firefox was rated the least secure at that time.

Now with the release of Firefox 3.01 and 2.0.0.16, that single (in)famous vulnerability is finally patched, so Firefox is now at the same level of Opera as one of the two most secure browsers in the world, for now at least.

]]> Comment on nth-child Support in the Major Players by Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/12/nth-child-support-in-the-major-players/#comment-603 Bernie Zimmermann Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:48:00 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=154#comment-603 Thanks for the tip, Exec. I don't know if I'm ready to jump over to the Firefox 3.1 nightlies just yet, since the alpha isn't even out yet. But it's good to know the support will be there when a stabler version is released. Thanks for the tip, Exec. I don’t know if I’m ready to jump over to the Firefox 3.1 nightlies just yet, since the alpha isn’t even out yet. But it’s good to know the support will be there when a stabler version is released.

]]> Comment on nth-child Support in the Major Players by Exec http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/12/nth-child-support-in-the-major-players/#comment-602 Exec Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:17:26 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=154#comment-602 The nightlies have had full support for the CSS3 selectors since over a month ago http://www.css3.info/firefox-31-is-the-latest-to-pass-our-selectors-test/ The nightlies have had full support for the CSS3 selectors since over a month ago
http://www.css3.info/firefox-31-is-the-latest-to-pass-our-selectors-test/

]]> Comment on What’s Up With Avant? by Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #11 http://browsersphere.com/2008/02/19/whats-up-with-avant/#comment-594 Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #11 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:00:48 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/2008/02/19/whats-up-with-avant/#comment-594 [...] Browser, which has been covered here previously, appears to have resurfaced a week ago as a form of Avant utilizing Gecko 1.9 - the same rendering [...] [...] Browser, which has been covered here previously, appears to have resurfaced a week ago as a form of Avant utilizing Gecko 1.9 - the same rendering [...]

]]> Comment on Around the Browsersphere #10 by Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #11 http://browsersphere.com/2008/05/11/around-the-browsersphere-10/#comment-593 Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Around the Browsersphere #11 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:00:01 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=116#comment-593 [...] my last installment of Around the Browsersphere was posted back toward the beginning of May, there’s simply way too much going on to get all caught up without breaking things up a [...] [...] my last installment of Around the Browsersphere was posted back toward the beginning of May, there’s simply way too much going on to get all caught up without breaking things up a [...]

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by loligoth http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-591 loligoth Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:31:16 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-591 I do wonder if that (in)famous critical security vulnerability discovered during Firefox 3 launch day is fixed in 3.0.1? which bug would that be? I heard it's something to do with Javascript? I do wonder if that (in)famous critical security vulnerability discovered during Firefox 3 launch day is fixed in 3.0.1?

which bug would that be? I heard it’s something to do with Javascript?

]]> Comment on The Add-on Argument by Ian Clifton http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/09/the-add-on-argument/#comment-590 Ian Clifton Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:54:33 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=148#comment-590 >GreaseMonkey - Opera built-in userjs support That's very nice indeed and it looks like most Greasemonkey scripts can be run with little or no modification. >Firebug/Web Developer - Opera Dragonfly This looks like it has a lot of potential, though I hope they do more than create a Firebug clone. Competition is good for all of us end users. When Dragonfly is fully released, I expect it to be extremely useful for mobile testing. >HTML validator - there’s talk to add it to Dragonfly, for now I just use w3c validtor I sure hope they add it to Dragonfly; real-time validation is something I would hate to be without. W3C's tool is nice, but it's a lot less useful when doing a bunch of testing on non-cached pages in an admin area. >Opera also basicallty have chatzilla, thunderbird, stylish, and foxtorrent built-in It's funny because those are probably the features most people find very useful and will be a good pull to get Opera more usage, but they're the ones I care the least about. >On a related note, the add-on stuff is not exclusive to Firefox, IE actually has even more extensibility than Firefox, Well, you know what they say about polishing a turd ;) Thanks for the info, loligoth; it's been a while since I last gave Opera a try. Maybe I'll take another look at it in the near future. >GreaseMonkey - Opera built-in userjs support
That’s very nice indeed and it looks like most Greasemonkey scripts can be run with little or no modification.

>Firebug/Web Developer - Opera Dragonfly
This looks like it has a lot of potential, though I hope they do more than create a Firebug clone. Competition is good for all of us end users. When Dragonfly is fully released, I expect it to be extremely useful for mobile testing.

>HTML validator - there’s talk to add it to Dragonfly, for now I just use w3c validtor
I sure hope they add it to Dragonfly; real-time validation is something I would hate to be without. W3C’s tool is nice, but it’s a lot less useful when doing a bunch of testing on non-cached pages in an admin area.

>Opera also basicallty have chatzilla, thunderbird, stylish, and foxtorrent built-in
It’s funny because those are probably the features most people find very useful and will be a good pull to get Opera more usage, but they’re the ones I care the least about.

>On a related note, the add-on stuff is not exclusive to Firefox, IE actually has even more extensibility than Firefox,
Well, you know what they say about polishing a turd ;)

Thanks for the info, loligoth; it’s been a while since I last gave Opera a try. Maybe I’ll take another look at it in the near future.

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by Ian Clifton http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-589 Ian Clifton Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:35:44 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-589 I find it a bit annoying that the enrollment is automatic. It wouldn't be a big deal if you could easily opt out, but to do that you have to completely download Firefox again and reinstall it (a public release version), which is just irritating. Why can't I change an option in about:config and be done with it? I find it a bit annoying that the enrollment is automatic. It wouldn’t be a big deal if you could easily opt out, but to do that you have to completely download Firefox again and reinstall it (a public release version), which is just irritating. Why can’t I change an option in about:config and be done with it?

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-588 Bernie Zimmermann Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:47:19 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-588 I noticed that the other day, loligoth. Opera's always been a proponent of web standards, so it's nice to see them taking that to a new level by offering to educate as many people as possible about the related benefits. I noticed that the other day, loligoth. Opera’s always been a proponent of web standards, so it’s nice to see them taking that to a new level by offering to educate as many people as possible about the related benefits.

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by Bernie Zimmermann http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-587 Bernie Zimmermann Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:30:14 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-587 Thanks for the tip, Exec. Looks like about six critical bugs and one blocker bug were fixed, plus a slew of others. Thanks for the tip, Exec. Looks like about six critical bugs and one blocker bug were fixed, plus a slew of others.

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by loligoth http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-586 loligoth Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:33:20 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-586 Opera released a Web Standards Curriculum, what do you think of it? http://www.opera.com/wsc/ Opera released a Web Standards Curriculum, what do you think of it?

http://www.opera.com/wsc/

]]> Comment on The Add-on Argument by loligoth http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/09/the-add-on-argument/#comment-585 loligoth Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:30:56 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=148#comment-585 > Does Opera have the equivalent of Firebug, Greasemonkey, Flagfox, HTML validator, Web Developer, Live HTTP headers, etc. built in? For Opera : GreaseMonkey - Opera built-in userjs support Firebug/Web Developer - Opera Dragonfly Live HTTP headers - nope, but then I just use web-sniffer which is much more versatile HTML validator - there's talk to add it to Dragonfly, for now I just use w3c validtor Opera also basicallty have chatzilla, thunderbird, stylish, and foxtorrent built-in, and it has widgets too, and still has smaller memory footprint and installer size than vanilla Firefox. For me it's just like the micro vs. monolithic OS kernels debate, theoretically micro kernels are better, but still I find nothing wrong with monolithic kernels like Linux. On a related note, the add-on stuff is not exclusive to Firefox, IE actually has even more extensibility than Firefox, > Does Opera have the equivalent of Firebug, Greasemonkey, Flagfox, HTML validator, Web Developer, Live HTTP headers, etc. built in?

For Opera :
GreaseMonkey - Opera built-in userjs support
Firebug/Web Developer - Opera Dragonfly
Live HTTP headers - nope, but then I just use web-sniffer which is much more versatile
HTML validator - there’s talk to add it to Dragonfly, for now I just use w3c validtor

Opera also basicallty have chatzilla, thunderbird, stylish, and foxtorrent built-in, and it has widgets too, and still has smaller memory footprint and installer size than vanilla Firefox.

For me it’s just like the micro vs. monolithic OS kernels debate, theoretically micro kernels are better, but still I find nothing wrong with monolithic kernels like Linux.

On a related note, the add-on stuff is not exclusive to Firefox, IE actually has even more extensibility than Firefox,

]]> Comment on Firefox 3.0.1 Beta (Build 1) Released by Exec http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/10/firefox-301-beta-build-1-released/#comment-584 Exec Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:53:48 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=150#comment-584 According to the wiki, it should be these bugs: http://tinyurl.com/4pl394 According to the wiki, it should be these bugs:
http://tinyurl.com/4pl394

]]> Comment on The Add-on Argument by Shawn Wilsher http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/09/the-add-on-argument/#comment-583 Shawn Wilsher Thu, 10 Jul 2008 05:50:32 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=148#comment-583 I think the market share of browsers tends to speak for itself with this regard. As it is, most Firefox users don't install any add-ons (or so the stats say). I think the market share of browsers tends to speak for itself with this regard. As it is, most Firefox users don’t install any add-ons (or so the stats say).

]]> Comment on The Add-on Argument by Ian Clifton http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/09/the-add-on-argument/#comment-582 Ian Clifton Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:39:10 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=148#comment-582 I think the add-ons approach is much better, because you don't have an "out-of-the-box" risk of bloat. The only other reasonable alternative is to have a normal, lean Firefox, and then a developer one that includes things like Firebug within the primary code. Either way, add-ons are still a must. Does Opera have the equivalent of Firebug, Greasemonkey, Flagfox, HTML validator, Web Developer, Live HTTP headers, etc. built in? Somehow, I doubt it has all of those. Firefox isn't always the fastest, but there are significant advantages to open source projects with large communities. I think the add-ons approach is much better, because you don’t have an “out-of-the-box” risk of bloat. The only other reasonable alternative is to have a normal, lean Firefox, and then a developer one that includes things like Firebug within the primary code. Either way, add-ons are still a must. Does Opera have the equivalent of Firebug, Greasemonkey, Flagfox, HTML validator, Web Developer, Live HTTP headers, etc. built in? Somehow, I doubt it has all of those. Firefox isn’t always the fastest, but there are significant advantages to open source projects with large communities.

]]> Comment on The Add-on Argument by Exec http://browsersphere.com/2008/07/09/the-add-on-argument/#comment-581 Exec Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:31:49 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=148#comment-581 That's why Seamonkey exists. http://www.seamonkey-project.org/ That’s why Seamonkey exists.
http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

]]> Comment on Accepting the Opera Mini EULA on a Blackberry Curve by Joel Sherrouse http://browsersphere.com/2007/12/26/accepting-the-opera-mini-eula-on-a-blackberry-curve/#comment-572 Joel Sherrouse Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:59:26 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/2007/12/26/accepting-the-opera-mini-eula-on-a-blackberry-curve/#comment-572 Thank you - this was driving me nuts Thank you - this was driving me nuts

]]> Comment on Firefox Crash (Photo) by nick http://browsersphere.com/2008/06/30/firefox-crash-photo/#comment-569 nick Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:04:15 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/?p=139#comment-569 so is that a LOL Fox? nice. hey, i couldn't find a contact email for you and i wanted to ask whether you know of a mobile java browser that supports touchscreen-only phones? i have a samsung instinct and the built-in browser is awful. ucweb and opera mini do load, but there's no way to input text as i cannot call up the software keyboard via the browser. great site! so is that a LOL Fox? nice. hey, i couldn’t find a contact email for you and i wanted to ask whether you know of a mobile java browser that supports touchscreen-only phones? i have a samsung instinct and the built-in browser is awful. ucweb and opera mini do load, but there’s no way to input text as i cannot call up the software keyboard via the browser.

great site!

]]> Comment on Digg Watch #3 by Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Digg Watch #4 http://browsersphere.com/2008/04/20/digg-watch-3/#comment-542 Browsersphere » Blog Archive » Digg Watch #4 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:35:10 +0000 http://browsersphere.com/2008/04/20/digg-watch-3/#comment-542 [...] that time again.  Since the last update, major versions of both Opera and Firefox have been released.  Only one of the two has been [...] [...] that time again.  Since the last update, major versions of both Opera and Firefox have been released.  Only one of the two has been [...]

]]>