MozillaZine

Mozilla Firebird 0.6 Released

Friday May 16th, 2003

At last, Mozilla Firebird 0.6 has been released! A lot of changes have been made since the last version of the browser — then known as Phoenix — came out in December. The most noticeable of these is a new default theme, based on Qute by Arvid Axelsson. The Preferences dialogue has been replaced with a redesigned Options dialogue and you can now clear your history, cookies, cache etc. with a single click. Many improvements have been made to the bookmarks system, including an IE-style context menu for items in the Bookmarks menu. In addition, this release includes Quality Feedback Agent (Talkback), allowing crash data to be sent directly back to the developers. Mozilla Firebird 0.6 also features many of the enhancements that have been made to the Mozilla Application Suite, including automatic resizing of large images to fit in the browser window and smooth scrolling.

Read the Mozilla Firebird 0.6 Release Notes for more information and grab a download from ftp.mozilla.org. Builds are available for Windows, Linux and now Mac OS X. As explained in the new Mozilla Development Roadmap, Firebird and its mail/news client sister Mozilla Thunderbird will become the focus of future development after Mozilla 1.4 is released.


#1 Best browser around.

by robdogg

Friday May 16th, 2003 10:42 PM

Reply to this message

First post. Nice.

#2 Mac build version number wrong

by gregk

Friday May 16th, 2003 11:48 PM

Reply to this message

The Mac build has a version of 1.4a rather than 0.6.

#3 its 0.6 for me

by ryanrafferty <ryan.rafferty@gmail.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:00 AM

Reply to this message

It works fine for me... and thankfully everything in the menu is where it should be.

#5 Are you sure?

by gregk

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:17 AM

Reply to this message

Are you sure? The build from <<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…laFirebird-0.6-mac.dmg.gz>>? I still see it as 1.4a.

#6 weird

by ryanrafferty <ryan.rafferty@gmail.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

This build has been flakey, really flakey. Here is a screenshot. <http://homepage.mac.com/ryanrafferty/fire.jp2>

I'm not sure what the flakey problems are being caused by- but perhaps I need to pruge all the setting files and start fresh? and that may be your problem as well...?

Hope that helps,

Ry

#8 Re: weird

by DJGM2002

Saturday May 17th, 2003 2:59 AM

Reply to this message

What screenshot? All I see is the lines and lines of gibberish and gobbledygook from an incompatible *.jp2 file!

#21 Re: Re: weird

by boily

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe that's not a cross-platform format...

#27 Re: Re: weird

by ryanrafferty <ryan.rafferty@gmail.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

It's Jpeg 2000, it is cross platform... just still pretty new- BUT if you are a mac os x user you should be able to select it, download it to your desktop and open it with preview. JPEG 2K kept the file small, but quality high.

#32 Re: Re: weird

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 10:09 AM

Reply to this message

"What screenshot? All I see is the lines and lines of gibberish and gobbledygook from an incompatible *.jp2 file!"

That's because the MIME type is text/plain so your browser will treat it as plain text (file extensions are pretty meaningless on the Web). If it had the correct MIME type (image/jpeg2000, I believe) then your browser would either display itself if it could or offer it to a plug-in or helper application if it could not.

Alex

#78 ibrowser comments

by smkatz

Sunday May 18th, 2003 9:02 AM

Reply to this message

very nice app. did the job.

took over word-based HTML files (I was in a hurry.. so I used the save as HTML command in Microsoft Word..)

has in-house ads. shame on me for trusting mozillazine readers and not reading the EULA.

Anyway, I haven't downloaded 0.6 Final yet, but is that titlebar thing an extension. (where it shows the progress bar?) Are you complaining about the version in the dialog? I have trouble reading those things.. It does say 0.6 on the end. The windows looked not transparent but perfectly OK.

Can you describe your problem in more detail? The buttons looked a little small.. but you can fix that. Sam

#84 Phoenix issues

by ryanrafferty <ryan.rafferty@gmail.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 12:22 PM

Reply to this message

I wasn't having version problems, another mac guy was... so I was just showing him that it worked for me. I had additional issues. Switching between themes caused problems- but a test on Windows 2000 showed the same thing so im not worried about that. The really messy problem I had was strange. The Apple menu would sort-of switch back to the old layout...like when it boots up I see the old layout which quickly switches to the new (proper) layout. The problem is sometimes it would switch back to the old layout for whatever reason but totally kill the browser and need to be rebooted... has not been very stable for me so far. the rest is fine, small buttons, all that stuff... it just is acting up and I don't know if clearing the pref files would help- I thought it may have something to do with the original version problem with the other guy

#85 correction

by ryanrafferty <ryan.rafferty@gmail.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 12:24 PM

Reply to this message

rebooted=re-launched

#92 To view jp2

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:27 PM

Reply to this message

Obviously his server was not configured correctly and interpreted the file as text. If the server was properly configured your Quicktime plugin could have displayed the jpeg 2000 file.

To view this file save what you call "gibberish" to your hard disk. Double click the saved file and Quicktime will display it for you.

Often when a download displays as gibberish it means that the server has not been properly configures for this type of file. The remedy is to save the file to your hard disk and open the saved file.

#60 Re: weird

by MozSaidAloha

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:04 PM

Reply to this message

iBrowser supports JPEG2000. You can get it here:

<http://ibrowser.fcodersoft.com/index.htm>

That should help to be able to view the screencap.

#61 Re: weird

by MozSaidAloha

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:06 PM

Reply to this message

iBrowser supports JPEG2000. You can get it here:

<http://ibrowser.fcodersoft.com/index.htm>

That should help to be able to view the screencap.

#90 Re: 0.6 / 1.4b

by cdn

Sunday May 18th, 2003 4:06 PM

Reply to this message

1.4b is the Gecko version, hence its appearance in the UA string

0.6 is in there where is should be, since the Mozilla Firebird code is mostly XUL frontend, not C/C++ Gecko backend

#4 Does anyone else find this funny?

by fishbert

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:03 AM

Reply to this message

From the Mozilla Firebird 0.6 release notes (<http://www.mozilla.org/pr…release-notes.html#issues>) under 'known issues':

"Form auto-complete is still an unstable feature and may lead to crashes." "Disabling of form auto-completion is not working."

#12 Re: Does anyone else find this funny?

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:12 AM

Reply to this message

never Crashed for me..

#33 Re: Re: Does anyone else find this funny?

by fishbert

Saturday May 17th, 2003 10:12 AM

Reply to this message

Oh yeah, me neither. I just found those two lines humorous.

#81 Re: Does anyone else find this funny?

by tseelee

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, I do find it funny! I AIMed my bro about it. Hehe...glad you did, too.

#7 XXXBen

by trashcan

Saturday May 17th, 2003 2:20 AM

Reply to this message

The XXXBen message is still there. Shouldn't that be a comment in the source code?

#10 Re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Saturday May 17th, 2003 3:33 AM

Reply to this message

This has been answered before.... Besides, this is the very definition of a petty thing that should not block a pre-1.0 point release. If people seriously believe this to be such a huge problem, then I say the developers are doing a heck of a job with Mozilla Firebird!

#26 re: XXXBen

by DPJ <davidpjames@yahoo.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:11 AM

Reply to this message

Well what you may not know is that a patch to fix this was produced about a week ago and would have been no trouble to checkin. It just looks bad and makes the browser less presentable than it otherwise would have been.

#34 re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Saturday May 17th, 2003 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

Ah, but I did know that. What you may not know is that the devolopers do not want to "fix" this. Ever think that maybe there's a reason it's there? No, didn't think so.

#62 Re: XXXBen

by DPJ <davidpjames@yahoo.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:34 PM

Reply to this message

Nice of you to tell me what I was thinking. Not having to think for oneself sure takes the load off.

I'm all ears as to the possible reason for leaving a comment in the UI. A separate bug has already been filed on the issue raised in the comment, so that really can't be it. If the devs didn't want it "fixed" then the bug should have been marked WONTFIX; instead the milestone was just pushed back from 0.6 to 0.7.

#63 Re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:46 PM

Reply to this message

So... don't use Mozilla Firebird? Then you won't have to stare at such a horrible abomination of a UI.

#35 Wake up

by leet

Saturday May 17th, 2003 11:02 AM

Reply to this message

This kind of comment is, unfortunately, pretty dumb. It's the kind of "geek" mentality that has troubled many an open-source project from gaining mainstream acceptability. When regular users see these kind of gaffes, they think sub-standard quality. And rightly so. If developers aren't serious about their image, they shouldn't have a good one. And if you try this kind of excuses in the real world, your job won't be very safe. Try it out. Slip something like this in your next presentation.

#36 Re: Wake up

by bzbarsky

Saturday May 17th, 2003 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

What are "regular users" doing using a pre-alpha for-testing-only piece of software?

#39 Because Mozilla is promoting it.

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

If this isn't for "regular user" purposes, why did Asa D. announce this on slashdot?

Also, what about <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/why/> -- "Why You Should Switch to the Mozilla Firebird browser" -- The YOU obviously being an end-user and not a developer.

#41 Re: Because Mozilla is promoting it.

by pch <p_ch@verizon.net>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 1:31 PM

Reply to this message

If you think M/F targets slashdot nerds, you're way wrong.

#42 Re: Because Mozilla is promoting it.

by bzbarsky

Saturday May 17th, 2003 1:53 PM

Reply to this message

> If this isn't for "regular user" purposes, why did Asa D. announce this on > slashdot?

Because the assumption is that enough non-regular-user types read slashdot that it's worth advertising there.

#40 Re: Wake up

by pch <p_ch@verizon.net>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 1:21 PM

Reply to this message

the Mozilla Firebird Inc. is deeply saddened by the inconvenience you reported and apologizes for the troubles that may have resulted. Our QA and engineering task forces are already on the hook to solve this issue. The Mozilla Firebird Inc. is grateful for the interest you are showing in our product. We are committed to provide the best internet experience to our customers and we look forwards to make your browsing activity more efficient.

pch Mozilla Firebird Inc. Customer Service Dept.

#64 Re: Re: Wake up

by MozSaidAloha

Saturday May 17th, 2003 10:26 PM

Reply to this message

Funny, Very Funny!!!!!!

#130 Re: Wake up

by rtepp

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 2:07 AM

Reply to this message

It might be a piece worth reading for You: <http://www.joelonsoftware…ticles/fog0000000356.html>

Basically what it says - if it isn't finished - dont't make it look as one...

#51 Re: Re: XXXBen

by trashcan

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:23 PM

Reply to this message

Who said anything about blocking releases, or being a huge problem? I just said I thought it should be a comment.

#66 Re: Re: Re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Sunday May 18th, 2003 1:13 AM

Reply to this message

You were complaining that the line was still present in the UI of MF-0.6. Thusly, I inferred that you believed it should not be present in MF-0.6. The only logical conclusion I could see was that you believed that MF-0.6 should not be released until the line was removed (otherwise, why complain about it here? why not complain about it on Bugzilla?). And I believe that would mean that you felt this issue should block MF-0.6 from being released.

Finally, I've heard entirely too much about this meaningless line. Hence, it must be a huge problem for some people, otherwise they wouldn't talk about it so much. If it wasn't a huge problem to some people, then they would've pulled the stick out of their bum and gotten on with their lives by now.

#67 Re: Re: Re: Re: XXXBen

by trashcan

Sunday May 18th, 2003 1:23 AM

Reply to this message

Well that's your fault that you assumed (ass out of you and me?). I'll restate my question- Shouldn't comments be in the source code? Hope that clears it up for you. I asked it in the comments section of the release, beacuse I downloaded it after seeing this news article, and was commenting on something related to Mozilla Firebird 0.6.

And with all due respect ( ;-) ), I think you are the one with the stick up your bum.

#89 you guys are boring

by leynat

Sunday May 18th, 2003 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

dont you anything better to do?

#95 Re: you guys are boring

by trashcan

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:43 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for clearing that up. For my next act, I'll be running around naked, so as to entertain you.

#101 um.... no thanks...

by leynat

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:46 PM

Reply to this message

i'm pretty sure that will just scare the hell out of me... ;)

#77 Re: XXXBen

by DPJ <davidpjames@yahoo.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:51 AM

Reply to this message

Bugzilla is not the place to complain about something after a bug has been filed.

I feel sorry for you in a way fishbert. Trying to justify and rationalise something that should never have been done in the first place (adding comments to the UI) and then without any great insight into leaving it so.

If Firebird 0.6 is only for testers, then this isn't the biggest deal in the world. But if we're supposed to be "spreading the word" about FB and encouraging our universities/colleges to adopt it, then I would have to maintain that 0.6 should not have been released with this.

#87 Re: Re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Sunday May 18th, 2003 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not trying to justify or rationalize something here. I'm also not qualified to give insight into leaving it so. However, someone who is qualified, Asa, already gave the reasoning behind this XXXBen comment, and also explained why it would not be taken out any time soon. <http://www.mozillazine.or…torder=asc&highlight=>

All I'm trying to do is explain to the XXXBen complainers that they are just pissing into the wind.

#96 Re: Re: Re: XXXBen

by trashcan

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:46 PM

Reply to this message

Gotcha. Thanks, I had not seen that link before. It would have been helpful if you had pointed that out earlier. And I was not complaining, just questioning. Perhaps your venting could have been better directed elsewhere.

#103 Re: Re: Re: Re: XXXBen

by fishbert

Sunday May 18th, 2003 11:09 PM

Reply to this message

Haha, that's been exactly my point! Oh, irony. =) Anyway, sorry about that, I thought the Asa thing had been pretty widely known -- yeah, I should've probably mentioned that explicitly at the beginning.

#9 Xft build?

by rgpublic

Saturday May 17th, 2003 3:23 AM

Reply to this message

Isn't there an Xft build? No way I go back to these ugly unreadable fonts.

#14 Re: Xft build?

by sttroopers

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:28 AM

Reply to this message

What did you say? I can't make out the words...

#11 startup is super-fast!

by briank

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:12 AM

Reply to this message

N/A

#13 Re: startup is super-fast!

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:17 AM

Reply to this message

Really - the split gives all aps way better startup performance, and Mozilla Firebird how starts faster as you can see here, if it was running before!

#25 no idding

by flacco

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:03 AM

Reply to this message

under 2 secs on my linux box.

#44 Re: startup is super-fast!

by Jazza

Saturday May 17th, 2003 3:45 PM

Reply to this message

I don't notice much of a difference - both Mozilla 1.4b (without a splashscreen) and FireBird starts up within 2.5 seconds. Mozilla Firebird does seem a little slower though.

#45 Re: Re: startup is super-fast!

by buckminster

Saturday May 17th, 2003 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

Try turning off Mozilla's quicklaunch and see which takes less time... Which quicklaunch enabled, Mozilla is already running when you launch the browser window, so of course it will be quicker.

#65 Re: Re: Re: startup is super-fast!

by Jazza

Saturday May 17th, 2003 11:33 PM

Reply to this message

That was with quicklaunch disabled - I haven't used it since pre-1.0 I will admit I had 10 extensions loaded in Firebird though, just to try them out.

#15 Where are the settings on Linux?

by Galik

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:42 AM

Reply to this message

Well just got it up and running after having to hack the launch script which seemed to want to launch a default instillation of Mozilla-1.4b. I must say I am quite impressed so far. Does anyone know where Firebird stores it's settings on Linux though? I did backup my ~/.mozilla directory just in case but it doesn't seem to be using that - at least Mozilla-1.4b still works fime using a different theme. What am I missing?

#16 Re: Where are the settings on Linux?

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:44 AM

Reply to this message

THAT is still ~/.phoenix

#18 Re: Re: Where are the settings on Linux?

by Galik

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:58 AM

Reply to this message

Doh! Why didn't I think of that? I tried all the other possibilities!

#17 Any nice icons out there?

by Galik

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:57 AM

Reply to this message

The only icons I could find in this release are the really old Mozilla star shaped ones with the dinosaur. Are there any really nice ones out there?

#24 Re: Any nice icons out there?

by tve

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:58 AM

Reply to this message

<http://www.phoenity.com/bird/> is what I use.

and search the forums for more. :)

#29 Re: Re: Any nice icons out there?

by Z_God

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:35 AM

Reply to this message

These are in the old ico format. They should provide normal png icons.

#70 Re: Re: Re: Any nice icons out there?

by lsces

Sunday May 18th, 2003 5:10 AM

Reply to this message

Also the site does not follow Mozilla's branding rules. Is there any mention of Mozilla?

#73 Re: Re: Re: Re: Any nice icons out there?

by cgonyea

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:20 AM

Reply to this message

Quote from web site: "Firebird (formerly known as Phoenix) is a free, open-source web browser for Windows and Linux. It is small, fast and easy to use, and offers many advantages over other web browsers, such as the tabbed browsing and the ability to block pop-up windows."

If you can't figure out that the Firebird they mention is a web browser, then you have a serious problem.

Also several links point to Mozilla Firebird related sites that do state Mozilla Firebird.

#71 Re: Re: Re: Any nice icons out there?

by sconest

Sunday May 18th, 2003 5:20 AM

Reply to this message

The png's at at the top of the page are perfect for that purpose.

#19 Any nice icons out there?

by Galik

Saturday May 17th, 2003 5:59 AM

Reply to this message

The only icons I could find in this release are the really old Mozilla star shaped ones with the dinosaur. Are there any really nice ones out there?

#20 Any nice icons out there?

by Galik

Saturday May 17th, 2003 6:01 AM

Reply to this message

The only icons I could find in this release are the really old Mozilla star shaped ones with the dinosaur. Are there any really nice ones out there?

#43 Re: Any nice icons out there?

by rgpublic

Saturday May 17th, 2003 3:42 PM

Reply to this message

I like the one from the Noia Icon set. You can find it on kde-look.org. Or you might find ones on xicons.com. Dont know which platfrom you use but you might convert them.

#22 How to disable smooth scrolling?

by Z_God

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

When I scroll with my scrollwheel, I now need to wait for Mozilla to catch up. Is it possible to disable this? Thanks in advance. Other than that, this release is great!

#23 Re: How to disable smooth scrolling?

by tve

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

<http://texturizer.net/fir…ips.html#beh_smoothscroll> is also explained in the release notes..

#28 Re: How to disable smooth scrolling?

by Z_God

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:34 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks, that fixed the problem. They should really make a GUI option for this.

#31 Re: How to disable smooth scrolling?

by leeal

Saturday May 17th, 2003 10:06 AM

Reply to this message

I agree. There are open bugs for this: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198964> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203098>

Personally I find smooth scrolling very annoying after a few minutes of use.

#91 Soory not the way Firebird works.

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:12 PM

Reply to this message

Haven't you heard that only a minimal preferences set will be included. This is a Firebird design feature and not a bug. :/( For many useful preferences the user is sol if they do not know how to use "about:config", that the preference actually exists, and the name of the preference. One size does not necessarily fit all although there are some who are niave to believe it does.:\( Oh well some believe this is progress. Just wait until the forums and newsgroups are bombarded with "about:config" questions and how hard it is to accomplish something which should be so simple.

#138 Smoothscroll is almost unusable on my laptop

by GAThrawn

Wednesday May 21st, 2003 1:40 AM

Reply to this message

There should definitely be a GUI for this, or at least have it disabled by default.

My laptop is a 1.2GHz model, hardly a slouch compared to what I've run Mozilla on in the past, and Firebird (and Mozilla) are practically unusable on it with smoothscroll switched on. I've never known such slow, jerky, uncontrollable scrolling in a browser ever (and I regularly run Moz 1.1 on a 200MHz Pentium MMX with only 64Mb RAM).

It looks and feels like a serious performance regression. I regularly read here and other Moz sites, and always read the release notes so I knew what the problem was and how to cure it, but I can imagine how some people would take one look at Firebird performing like that and dump it instantly.

Having said that on my desktop PCs I haven't even noticed whether smoothscroll is switched on or off without checking about:config, so why does it need to be switched on by default?

If most people will never notice and it will a minority a serious problem then surely this is a feature taht should be switched off by default?

#30 To say I'm hooked...

by cmk

Saturday May 17th, 2003 9:46 AM

Reply to this message

...would be an understatement. I have offically made the switch after 3 years with the mozilla suite. With the exception of a quick start feature, this has exaclty what I want/need and nothing more. As someone who has never programmed a line of code in his life, thanks to all the people working hard to give the world a great browser!

#52 quick start feature

by miken32

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:41 PM

Reply to this message

Firebird does indeed have a quick start feature. It involves making a web browser, not a web browser/html editor/mail client/news reader/kitchen sink! :)

#94 Quick start feature

by cmk

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:12 PM

Reply to this message

Since I have an old slow computer, it takes much longer to load than Communicator with turbo or whatever it is called activated. But, I'm not griping. Also, I forgot to mention how much I enjoy to new UI.

#37 MonBidoux

by offmdan

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:35 PM

Reply to this message

Impressive! :)

#38 MonBidoux

by offmdan

Saturday May 17th, 2003 12:50 PM

Reply to this message

Think I'll have to adjust that last observation...

IT IS TRULY IMPRESSIVE! EVEN BROWSING ON ZE WEB seems to be quicker! (maybe too many are watching the hockey game or somethin') but so far it's driving just as fast as Opera's

#46 Mouse Gestures with Mozilla Firebird

by bmacfarland

Saturday May 17th, 2003 6:47 PM

Reply to this message

I'm a huge fan of Mouse Gestures and have integrated them firmly in my brain. However, I also like to select text and drag the highlight box almost like people who use read using their index finger as a place-holder. Yeah, I know I'm strange, but I know where I left off if I have to run off somewhere in the middle of an article. In Mozilla, I could set mouse gestures to run off the right button, but in Firebird I'm not seeing this option. Anyway, the left button doesn't work if it's used both for selecting text and mouse gestures (maybe it does, but not for me). Thus, I'm in a bit of quandry, I like 98% of Firebird and recognize it as the cutting edge, but can't use it for basic browsing tasks. Also, if anyone knows how to customize the size of Search box (it stores about 33 characters in Little Moz theme which is about 4 times the size of the average query) I'd appreciate it. While I'm greedily asking for help if anyone knows how to put the new tab icon in the tab menu that would be of great use as well, I don't really see where else I could put this icon in the navigation tool bar. It makes sense to me in tab toolbar (at least once you have two tabs).

#47 Reply to myself

by bmacfarland

Saturday May 17th, 2003 6:52 PM

Reply to this message

I know the mouse gestures is the domain of the people that make that extension, not the people that make Mozilla Firebird. I don't want to hold it against the Firebird developers, it's clearly not something they control. At the same time, it is going to be a barrier to me using Firebird over Mozilla 1.4.

#53 mouse gestures

by miken32

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:44 PM

Reply to this message

type about:config into the url box, and head down to the mozgest.* prefs. Change mozgest.mousebutton to 2 for the right button.

My biggest complaint about Firebird is that none of the extension authors have seen fit to allow you to change settings from within the browser's interface. I use 5 or 6 regularly, and on every one of them, the "Settings" button is greyed out!

#54 Use the All-in-one gestures

by codeman

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:47 PM

Reply to this message

If you use the All-In-One Gestures ... <http://texturizer.net/fir…tml#All-in-One%20Gestures> ... which are much better anyway, they will give a nice graphical interface via this Settings button and are very easy to customize.

#144 HowTo report bugs with extensions?

by Alec_Burgess

Saturday June 7th, 2003 2:57 AM

Reply to this message

How do I report a bug in an extension in use with Mozilla-Firebird 0.6. Specifically with All-in-one gestures. I've sent an email to the name linked on the extensions page but figured it should go in Bugzilla somewhere.

TIA - Alec

#58 Thank You!

by bmacfarland

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:42 PM

Reply to this message

This is great! Thanks you so much. I'm a little bit upset that I didn't think of it myself, but I normally don't use about-config, because I naively think that all the options I want will be available through menus and such.

#75 New Mouse Gestures version

by jensb

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

In fact Mozilla Firebird's new extensions panel was introduced a few weeks ago, and extension authors had to figure out how to support it. (And to be fair, it's complex, so many authors just didn't do it yet).

There has been no full release of Mouse Gestures since then, but I've decided to put up a nightly build which already supports Mozilla Firebird. Visit <http://optimoz.mozdev.org…estures/installation.html> to install it.

#108 MozGest vs. All-In-One Gestures?

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Monday May 19th, 2003 1:56 AM

Reply to this message

How does MozGest compare to the All-In-One Gestures (feature and usability wise)?

What if they are installed together (crashes)?

#109 MozGest vs. All-In-One Gestures?

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Monday May 19th, 2003 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

How does MozGest compare to the All-In-One Gestures (feature and usability wise)?

What if they are installed together (crashes)?

#147 Firebird or 1.4

by Blisterz

Monday August 4th, 2003 8:59 PM

Reply to this message

I am new to Mozilla. Should I use firebird or 1.4?

#148 Firebird or 1.4

by Blisterz

Monday August 4th, 2003 9:01 PM

Reply to this message

I am new to Mozilla. Should I use firebird or 1.4?

#149 Firebird or 1.4

by Blisterz

Monday August 4th, 2003 9:01 PM

Reply to this message

I am new to Mozilla. Should I use firebird or 1.4?

#150 Firebird or 1.4

by Blisterz

Monday August 4th, 2003 9:01 PM

Reply to this message

I am new to Mozilla. Should I use firebird or 1.4?

#55 search box

by miken32

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:48 PM

Reply to this message

in your profile directory, create a file called userChrome.css and put this in it:

@namespace url("<http://www.mozilla.org/ke…ekeeper/there.is.only.xul>"); #search-bar, #urlbar {width: 100px !important;}

You can change most aspects of the browser interface with this file. I'm in the midst of making up a reference for all the customizable elements.

#56 hmmm...

by miken32

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:26 PM

Reply to this message

put this on one line: @namespace url(" htt p://www.mozilla .org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");

and this on the second line: #search-bar, #urlbar {width: 100px !important;}

#57 never mind

by miken32

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:27 PM

Reply to this message

ahh, forget it. it's the standard import line for the xul format, you should be able to find it somewhere.

#59 Thanks again

by bmacfarland

Saturday May 17th, 2003 8:46 PM

Reply to this message

I think I can figure it if it's configurable with xul, I have editted things before with Xul, so this shouldn't be big problem for me. Perhaps as constructive criticism I can recommend that they shrink this a bit and perhaps add the print and downloads icon as well.

#76 Adding Buttons

by jensb

Sunday May 18th, 2003 7:08 AM

Reply to this message

you can add the buttons yourself. right-click the bar and choose "customize", then drag the buttons you want where you want them.

#80 Re: Adding Buttons

by bmacfarland

Sunday May 18th, 2003 9:30 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, did that already, I just thought it odd that it didn't have a print button by default. Come to think of it, my stop button was oddly placed too. Maybe I have some weird initial settings or something

#134 Search Box - why?

by ant_roy

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 6:54 AM

Reply to this message

I can't really see the point of the search box. I find switching on Keywords and just typing in the url bar much easier - only one place to type! Mozilla's alternative to keywords was the search button, which again takes up less space than the search bar.

Of course in Firebird you have to reset the keyword url to the search engine of choice, as it is set to I'm Feeling Lucky at google (which I personally find a bit annoying).

#48 Can you run it side by side with Mozilla 1.4

by egoots

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:01 PM

Reply to this message

I am interested in trying Firebird and am a long time Mozilla user. Is there any problem with installing Firebird side by side with Mozilla 1.4b? Do they use completely separate install directories and profiles? In other words, ss there any thing to watch out for or is it completely fine to do so?

#49 Re: Can you run it side by side with Mozilla 1.4

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:19 PM

Reply to this message

"Do they use completely separate install directories and profiles?"

Yes.

Alex

#50 Re: Can you run it side by side with Mozilla 1.4

by WillyWonka

Saturday May 17th, 2003 7:21 PM

Reply to this message

I believe it puts it's profile in a \phoenix directory as opposed to the \mozilla directory so you should be fine.

#69 MonBidoux

by offmdan

Sunday May 18th, 2003 3:55 AM

Reply to this message

I've been using 1.4b along with Thunderbird and they both run just perfect.

#68 Whatever

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 1:52 AM

Reply to this message

They should stop calling it Firebird.

#74 Re: Whatever

by cgonyea

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

That will happen when Mozilla 1.5 is released.

#79 They don't.

by Millennium

Sunday May 18th, 2003 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

They call it "Mozilla Firebird", so that certain people who seem to have a problem telling the difference between a browser and a database won't get them mixed up.

This is rather like the situation that arose when the Mac OS reached its 9.0 version. The company which makes OS/9, which isn't used on personal computers, tried to sue because of the ludicrous proposal that people might confuse a desktop OS with a big iron OS. Luckily, the judge threw this out, and also noted that Apple was very careful to always refer to the system as "Mac OS 9" rather than "OS 9" which removed the ambiguity anyway.

I will admit, I was pushing for them to call the browser Suzaku -a phoenix out of traditional Chinese mythology- for the same reasons they wanted to use Firebird: namely, it was similar enough to Phoenix that users wouldn't be terribly confused, and they could keep the old logos. But this works, because believe it or not, a reasonable person of average intelligence isn't going to mix up Firebird-the-browser and Firebird-the-database. Are you saying that you were confused by this?

#93 Re: They don't.

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:36 PM

Reply to this message

"Are you saying that you were confused by this?"

No. I am saying they should not call it Firebird. Their means of avoiding the issue by placing "Mozilla" in front of the name are no better than the Microsoft plan to integrate Internet Explorer with its operating system in order to avoid an antitrust violation. Mozilla is like the pigs in Animal Farm. They have become just like the groups they criticize. Maybe they always were.

#98 No.

by smkatz

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:04 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is the antipathy of Internet Explorer integrated.

No OLE.. Ever.

No VB.. Ever.

No ActiveX..Ever* *unless developers use a plugin while they are porting their work.

Have you read the Branding Requirements? Please do so. The name will disappear from usage by Mozilla.org after 1.4.

Please--let's ignore threads like this. Sam

#105 Re: No.

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Monday May 19th, 2003 12:11 AM

Reply to this message

"Have you read the Branding Requirements?"

Yes. This has more to do with practices than branding requirements.

"Please--let's ignore threads like this."

Do you think begging people to ignore me will make Mozilla good? My presence is not the reason Mozilla fails. Ignoring problems and criticism are two critical reasons for Mozilla's failures. I could refrain from ever posting a message again and Mozilla would still be the way it is.

#118 oh please, oh please!!

by leynat

Monday May 19th, 2003 10:39 AM

Reply to this message

"I could refrain from ever posting a message again"

will you??? please?

#111 Re: No.

by Jazza

Monday May 19th, 2003 2:01 AM

Reply to this message

Open Bug 41274 - "Add VBScript engine for Mozilla". Sure, it may not be getting a lot of attention, but the bug still exists.

I also think I remember hearing somewhere that the ActiveX plugin may be merged into mozilla at some time? There seems to be a fair bit of work with COM Connect anyway.

I'm also pretty sure that Firebird will continue to exist, but only as a codename (in the way that SeaMonkey exists now).

#116 Um, I hate to say this, but...

by Millennium

Monday May 19th, 2003 8:40 AM

Reply to this message

Although there's no plan to develop a VBScript interpreter for Moz, there are plans to integrate ActiveX. That will mean OLE support as well, ActiveX being little more than a marketing name for OLE.

#99 No.

by smkatz

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:04 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is the antipathy of Internet Explorer integrated.

No OLE.. Ever.

No VB.. Ever.

No ActiveX..Ever* *unless developers use a plugin while they are porting their work.

Have you read the Branding Requirements? Please do so. The name will disappear from usage by Mozilla.org after 1.4.

Please--let's ignore threads like this. Sam

#115 Oh, this should be good...

by Millennium

Monday May 19th, 2003 8:38 AM

Reply to this message

'Their means of avoiding the issue by placing "Mozilla" in front of the name are no better than the Microsoft plan to integrate Internet Explorer with its operating system in order to avoid an antitrust violation.'

Why exactly is this? Honest question. And to continue on my own argument by analogy, since you seem to love amalogies so much, what should Apple have called the ninth version of their OS?

And for that matter, how was Microsoft's plan of integrating IE with the system *avoiding* an antitrust violation? Quite the contrary, it has been cited one of the worst antitrust violations that they have committed.

#119 exactly.

by leynat

Monday May 19th, 2003 10:40 AM

Reply to this message

this shows the astounding depth of tanyels lack of ability to think, in fact "the Microsoft plan to integrate Internet Explorer with its operating system" is what they got convicted for, not what they did to avoid conviction.

#140 Re: Oh, this should be good...

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday May 23rd, 2003 12:55 AM

Reply to this message

"Why exactly is this?"

Both groups attempted to justify an obviously immoral act with an otherwise pointless claim.

"what should Apple have called the ninth version of their OS?"

Mozilla 9.

"how was Microsoft's plan of integrating IE with the system *avoiding* an antitrust violation?"

I did not say they avoided an antitrust violation. I said that was their plan. They attempted to justify an immoral act with a pointless claim (Internet Explorer cannot be separated from Windows). I compared them to Mozilla because Mozilla also attempted to justify an immoral act with a pointless claim (Firebird is just a codename).

#102 revetahW

by leynat

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:49 PM

Reply to this message

you should get a new topic, this ones all used up and boring, much like yourself.

#104 Re: revetahW

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 11:49 PM

Reply to this message

Even after you insulted me, I am still right. Did you notice that?

#117 no.

by leynat

Monday May 19th, 2003 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

what an original sentiment! i love you tanyel, you really sound like a gibbering 9 year old who knows a couple words but hasn't learned how to think.

#122 Walk away quickly; don't make eye contact...

by Millennium

Monday May 19th, 2003 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

How can we notice whether or not you're right when you haven't effectively argued a single point, have a strange penchant for glaringly obvious factual errors (such as this bit about Microsoft integrating IE with Windows to avoid an antirtust suit), and throw up more logical fallacies than Pat Buchannan on speed?

I mean, seriously; your profile lists you as what, a 30-something woman? Given that your writing ability appears to be on the level of a 14-year-old boy, particularly in the "interests" section of your profile, I somehow doubt that profile is anything close to the truth.

#141 Re: Walk away quickly; don't make eye contact...

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Friday May 23rd, 2003 1:05 AM

Reply to this message

"How can we notice whether or not you're right when you haven't effectively argued a single point..."

You would have to understand English reasonably well to understand the points.

"have a strange penchant for glaringly obvious factual errors (such as this bit about Microsoft integrating IE with Windows to avoid an antirtust suit)"

There was no factual error. <http://www.mozillazine.or…=3180&message=140#140> You tend to misrepresent me, and your misrepresentations of me contain factual errors.

"your profile lists you as what, a 30-something woman?"

No. You are misrepresenting me again.

"your writing ability appears to be on the level of a 14-year-old boy"

When I was a fourteen-year-old girl, I had more aptitude than you appear to have now.

"I somehow doubt that profile is anything close to the truth."

I have not viewed my MozillaZine profile in years. I do not believe you know what the truth is because you obviously are unable to accurately read what I type. Show me this profile that says I am "thirty-something."

#72 Random question about themes

by tomgilder

Sunday May 18th, 2003 6:05 AM

Reply to this message

Under XP, Firebird uses native widgets when the Luna theme is in use. Is there a reason as to why doesn't it also use native widgets when using the classic windows theme, beyond "it hasn't been coded"?

#86 XP Theme support

by Quark

Sunday May 18th, 2003 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

They still haven't finished following the XP theme natively in Firebird. Hopefully when they finish this off classic will also use the native widgets.

#82 I'm a believer

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 11:17 AM

Reply to this message

After years of using Galeon on linux, and plain vanilla Mozilla on Windoze, I decided it was time to try Pheonix/Firebird/Mozilla Browser/NameOfTheWeek.

Well, I'm hooked. This is truely a great browser. It does everything I need, nothing I don't, and does it all very well.

#83 Wrong source tarball?

by hensema <erik@hensema.net>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

Because I wanted Xft support, I downloaded the source, however now I've got a nice anti-aliassed mozilla 1.4b ;-)

Am I missing something? Is firebird using the same sourcetree as mozilla, but do I need to enable some magic options to build firebird instead? Or did someone simply upload the wrong tarball to the ftp server?

#88 Re: Wrong source tarball?

by hensema <erik@hensema.net>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 2:51 PM

Reply to this message

Never mind, my mistake ;-)

#145 Re: Wrong source tarball?

by wyo_pbs

Thursday June 19th, 2003 12:45 PM

Reply to this message

If you made a mistake, you're not alone. I had the same problem! Can you tell me what you fixed so I can fix the same thing?

#97 caret browsing - core vs extension

by ronoclapy <ronoc@playsophy.com>

Sunday May 18th, 2003 9:28 PM

Reply to this message

Firebird's great - the idea of a core with easy to add extensions is absolutely the right approach ... There's always a tension though as to what is core and what is an extension. Will caret browsing be core? (I hit F7 in Firebird and unlike Mozilla, nothing happens - I don't get prompted to turn it on). Mozile (mozile.mozdev.org) - inline editing in moz - works in firebird too but it lacks something without the caret.

#106 Re: caret browsing - core vs extension

by minh

Monday May 19th, 2003 12:42 AM

Reply to this message

Caret browsing is so annoying. I turned on caret browsing by accident and took one fustrating week trying to find out how to turn that damn thing off.

#107 Re: caret browsing - works on WinXP

by WalterK

Monday May 19th, 2003 12:53 AM

Reply to this message

Just like the title says. F7 brings up prompt with Yes/Cancel buttons and a check box.

#124 works on Win98SE too n/t

by STED

Monday May 19th, 2003 4:25 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#146 caret browsing

by aproan

Thursday July 17th, 2003 4:46 PM

Reply to this message

u c i dun not get the caret browsing's function what is it all about? i have windows xp and i dun find a difference either by turning on or off the caret browsing

#100 firebird

by james

Sunday May 18th, 2003 10:30 PM

Reply to this message

We haven't had anyone come here and complain that they couldn't access their databases after upgrading to firebird-0.6. I guess users aren't as easily confused as we have been led to believe.

#110 Does not work at all

by ramacage

Monday May 19th, 2003 1:58 AM

Reply to this message

Hi everyone, Firebird launch but freezes at startup, eating 100% CPU... :-(

Any idea ?

#126 Re: Does not work at all

by oliversl

Monday May 19th, 2003 6:09 PM

Reply to this message

Create a new profile with: MozillaFirebird.exe -p

#135 Re: Does not work at all

by rothkj1022

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 8:00 AM

Reply to this message

I am having the same problem. I tried creating a new profile -- did not help. Any other ideas?

I'm using Windows 2000 Pro.

Kevin

#112 SplashScreen?

by ant_roy

Monday May 19th, 2003 3:15 AM

Reply to this message

Is it possible to enable the splashscreen in Moz Firebird?

I know it sounds a bizarre request when the browser is designed for quick start, but I like to fool myself into thinking it starts even faster by having a splashscreen.

Nice browser BTW. Probably won't start using it seriously until the Venkman, DOM and Java & Javascript consoles are available as extensions. If they already are, someone let me know where!

#113 Eh, well...

by leafdigital

Monday May 19th, 2003 6:09 AM

Reply to this message

Ok, so it did work, but in a somewhat 0.6-y way (I noticed odd visual problems with resizing to begin with that then went away). Then it crashed :)

Other problems I noticed:

+ Theme defaults to small icons, why punish people for sticking with defaults? Power users can change to small if they really want to make themselves slower.

+ Theme not bad but still kind of ugly, will there be a version of Modern done? I like Modern... (GrayModern even better...)

+ Needs integrated interface for obtaining themes and extensions, not 'launch separate browser window on random site', and that interface needs to automatically show only themes/extensions that work with current browser version.

+ I found it hard to access the toolbar configuration - this should be on one of the menus (Configure toolbars...), not just on the right-click. I got it eventually but I don't think it should have taken eventually.

+ I don't really think the search toolbar is that great an idea but hey, you can turn it off.

I liked the pop-up blocking info window (first time it blocks a popup), nice. And the interface is mostly pretty clean, though Mozilla's not bad in that area either.

Basically, looks pretty decent, but definitely still needs a lot of UI/polish stuff as you'd expect for a 0.6 release of a new interface. Good work, not yet ready for real main-browser use. (I'd use it if there was no Mozilla, but while Moz exists I don't really need to live on the bleeding edge without good reason.)

--quen

#120 Re: Eh, well...

by hoodedone0 <hoodedone@gmail.com>

Monday May 19th, 2003 10:50 AM

Reply to this message

If you like the Modern theme, try Phoenity Modern. <http://texturizer.net/fir…es.html#Phoenity%20Modern>

I'm pretty sure they'll be sticking with Qute as the default though. At the very least, if they change it, it'd be to another theme that makes use of mostly native widgets.

Oh, and View -> Toolbars -> Customize is there.

The interface for extensions is also being discussed. <http://www.mozillazine.or…ums/viewtopic.php?t=10555>

#125 re ehh well

by STED

Monday May 19th, 2003 4:42 PM

Reply to this message

>+ Theme defaults to small icons, why punish people for sticking with defaults?

Ehh? If you have a resolution on your screen that is so small that it makes the default UI hard to handle, you should probably change to another resolution, becuse the menus stay the same size even if you change the buttonsize.

> + Theme not bad but still kind of ugly, will there be a version of Modern done?

If you don't like the default theme, then download anotherone... There is like 50 other themes to choose from here <http://texturizer.net/firebird/themes.html>

> that interface needs to automatically show only themes/extensions that work with current browser version.

And exactly HOW would a theme/extension writer know in advance if his creation will work with the NEXT, not yet made, version of MF? If you have a crystalball to predict the future with, I suggest you get in contact with these people and clue them in well in advance. Or are you suggesting that when a new reales is out there will be 0 themes/utils available to it until people upgrade a "compatable with versionnumber" in them? That is hardly a realistic suggestion.

> + I found it hard to access the toolbar configuration - this should be on one of the menus

View > Toolbars > Customize (However personally I would prefer it to be placed in eg Tools > Configure toolbars, as it would be easier to find it there next to the Options)

#129 Re: re ehh well

by bzbarsky

Monday May 19th, 2003 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

> becuse the menus stay the same size

Not if your fonts and dpi settings are set up even remotely correctly... last I checked, those menu fonts were set in points, which means that their size should be nearly resolution-independent.

> And exactly HOW would a theme/extension writer know in advance if his creation > will work with the NEXT, not yet made, version of MF?

By only using frozen APIs. That's why APIs get frozen. ;)

#133 API freeze

by STED

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 3:36 AM

Reply to this message

>> And exactly HOW would a theme/extension writer know in advance if his creation > will work with the NEXT, not yet made, version of MF?

>By only using frozen APIs. That's why APIs get frozen. ;)

Yeah, but API freeze ain't likely to happen with MF this year is it(?) :) At least I would have assumed that 1.4 app suite will be the "stable/frozen" version for the next 6-12 months while the new divied apps develope and mature to take Moz AppSuite's place.

#137 Re: API freeze

by jgraham

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 9:19 AM

Reply to this message

But the requested feature is even easier to implement than that. All that would be needed is a (remote) list of themes that can be read by the browser, where each theme includes a theme version number (like all themes that work with 0.6 contain the number 0.6). The browser internally has a list of theme versions that will work with the browser (try installing a Moz 1.4 theme into a 1.0 release - you'll get an error message) which could be compared with the list of themes and only the themes that share the theme version number will be loaded into a list from which the user can select. That can't be too hard to implement.

#127 Re: Eh, well...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday May 19th, 2003 7:12 PM

Reply to this message

"Theme defaults to small icons, why punish people for sticking with defaults? Power users can change to small if they really want to make themselves slower."

The Mozilla Firebird "small" icons aren't tiny. They're normal sized and the large icons are "large". In IE the large icons are normal sized and the small icons are almost too tiny to see.

I think IE's icons are too small (both their small icons and their large icons). Mozilla Firebird's icons are larger than IE's. The small Firebird icons are the exact same height as the "classic" icons from Netscape Communicator and only 3 pixels shorter than IE.

The large Firebird icons are 32px tall. The large IE icons are 23px tall. The small Firebird icons are 20px tall. The small IE icons are 16px tall.

But the great thing about Firebird is that if you don't like the sizes of the large or the small, you can go get a different theme with differently sized icons. You probably want this one :-) <http://texturizer.net/fir…tml#Qute%20Phat%20Edition> which is pretty much the same theme but with 48px small and 64px large icons.

--Asa

#114 Mozilla firebird Crashed on Launch (Clean install)

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Monday May 19th, 2003 8:38 AM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded Mozilla Firebird 0.6 (and later also the latest nightly - 2003-05-18) and unzipped it into an empty directory. I also deleted an older pheonix profile directory. I'm using winNT sp6.

When I launched the program, a partially rendered window appeard, it attempted to access the internet, my hard drive thrashed for about 4+ minutes, then the program *crashed*. All other programs work fine, including Mozilla and Thunderbird.

Anyone know why this is happening?

#131 Mozilla firebird Crashed on Launch (Clean install)

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 2:48 AM

Reply to this message

Some kind soul in the NG gave me the explanation and solution:

Aparently, Mozilla Firebird is not able to create the "imported IE favotites" (on new profile creation) if the favs contain links to local drives. Frankly, this sux. It almost caused me to give up on MFB. It will definetely turn off many users if this is not fixed. But, alas, MFB is only at 0.6, so there is time.

Oh, the solution is to move the favorites folder's contents elsewhere while creating the MFB profile. Then you can move it back. ;-)

#136 Thanks

by rothkj1022

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 8:46 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for posting. I was having this same problem, and your post fixed it.

#121 Mo' bugs

by robdogg

Monday May 19th, 2003 11:58 AM

Reply to this message

A bug exists in the following scenario.

1. You have a set of tabs defined as the Home page 2. You connect via an Automatic Proxy Configuration URL

When you start the browser, it attempts to connect to the websites in the home page before downloading and understanding Automatic Proxy Configuration URL. As a result, I can't connect to any of the web sites on the home page.

The workaround is to click on the Home Page button. By this time, the browser has already downloaded the Automatic Proxy Configuration URL.

#123 Re: Mo' bugs

by robdogg

Monday May 19th, 2003 2:11 PM

Reply to this message

Never mind. That was the nightly.

#128 Horrible menus

by Malc

Monday May 19th, 2003 9:33 PM

Reply to this message

Ugh! What's up with the horrible menus under Win2K? They don't look like menus. And the context menus are a menace. If I right-click on the document, the menu doesn't go away, even if I click on an ordinary menu or switch to another app. In fact, if I switch to another app, the context menu stays visible above my chosen app, and places the mouse over it makes the browser pop back to the top. Dreadful. How can such an obvious and annoying bug still be present?

#132 probably your comp only

by STED

Tuesday May 20th, 2003 3:29 AM

Reply to this message

> How can such an obvious and annoying bug still be present?

Becuse it's only happeing on your computer?

At least to me it sounds like you have an OS / Graphics driver related problem, which only happens to show itself with MF. MF on it's own doesn't "stay on top". Of cource you could always check if it's reported in bugzilla.

#139 No, it's not just my system

by Malc

Thursday May 22nd, 2003 8:39 AM

Reply to this message

An OS bug? Ha! If the browser is misbehaving on one platform, you can't blame the OS for that. Seeing as I reproduced it using Win2K under VMWare it's neither of the far-fetched suggestions that you made.

I found a similar bug in Bugzilla, and added my instructions to reproduce it: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197112>

That still doesn't explain why the menus are so ugly and look out of place, even though a big effort has obviously been made to make the rest of the app fit in.

#142 Is Anyone Else having this problem??

by WMike

Saturday May 24th, 2003 4:49 PM

Reply to this message

Regardless of if I'm using the Installer or the zipped build, once I install the Flash button, the UI of Firebird reverts to looking the same as that of regular Mozilla, which isn't even installed on my system. What am I doing wrong?

#143 Is Anyone Else having this problem??

by WMike

Saturday May 24th, 2003 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

I meant Flash Plugin