MozillaZine

Mozilla Firebird Renamed Firefox, Version 0.8 Released

Monday February 9th, 2004

The standalone Mozilla Firebird browser has been renamed to Firefox and received an upgrade to version 0.8. This latest release features a new download manager, bookmarks enhancements, better support for extensions and several thousand other improvements. Windows users can benefit from a new installer, while Mac OS X users will enjoy the new Aqua-style theme, Kevin Gerich and Stephen Horlander's Pinstripe.

Firefox is the browser's third name. The last name, Firebird, drew strong objections from the Firebird database community when it was announced in April. The database community's supporters and commercial backers waged a high-profile campaign against mozilla.org and affiliated parties until mozilla.org announced that Firebird would only be used as a codename. The new Firefox moniker is intended to be used as a permanent product name and a strong brand identity will be built around it. The new name was chosen after extensive international trademark searches and consultations with lawyers. The process of registering Firefox as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office began in December last year.

Firefox 0.8 can be downloaded from the Firefox product page or direct from the Firefox 0.8 directory on ftp.mozilla.org. Check out the Firefox 0.8 Release Notes for more information.


#1 404 Not Found

by thegoldenear

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:13 AM

Reply to this message

the 'Firefox product page' and 'Firefox 0.8 Release Notes' links given above currently come up 404

#4 Re: 404 Not Found

by tniem

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:29 AM

Reply to this message

Try again. I had problems and now it is working.

#2 firefox links not working

by bstoppel

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:14 AM

Reply to this message

the firefox links are not working.

#3 Hang on

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

Links are being put up now...

#5 No wonder

by Gnu

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:31 AM

Reply to this message

So [i]this[/i] was the non-code issue that was holding up release?

#6 Re: No wonder

by Gnu

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:32 AM

Reply to this message

ACH! This isn't a forum, Gnu. Pardon the errant italics code.

#7 Oh well

by jgraham

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:34 AM

Reply to this message

As thumper the rabbit said ...

#8 Front Page Update

by tniem

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:35 AM

Reply to this message

It will take me some time to get used to the name but I like how they have redesigned the product page. It is a good idea to have the larger picture of the browser up top for someone to look at that is looking at Firefox for the first time. I think that is classy. Unfortunately, the biggest webpage problem, too much information on the page has not been taken care of. I still think that the five features of Firefox should be linked too, with more information on another page. There is too much thrown at the first time visitor. Other than that, I like the changes that have been made and the logo of the Firefox is very sweet.

#9 Re: Front Page Update

by Ben_Goodger

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:46 AM

Reply to this message

The front page is still in flux... it will be much much better before 1.0

#69 2c (US)

by Kommet

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:00 PM

Reply to this message

My first thought was "Still an issue with the IBPhoenix folks?", my second thought was "Well fuck them anyways, whiners. Go get a good arguement and then come talk to me."

On a knee-jerk level I like the name Firefox as much as Firebird, so I went and looked at the new site thinking I would give it a chance to roll around my head for a while. With the names on even terms, I would personally choose to stick with an established name over a change.

I still say "Fuck those whiney babies." because I think their arguements were specious and their aproach was deplorable, but now that I have seen site and the new Firefox icon I am so sold on the new name.

#70 2c (US)

by Kommet

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:00 PM

Reply to this message

My first thought was "Still an issue with the IBPhoenix folks?", my second thought was "Well fuck them anyways, whiners. Go get a good arguement and then come talk to me."

On a knee-jerk level I like the name Firefox as much as Firebird, so I went and looked at the new site thinking I would give it a chance to roll around my head for a while. With the names on even terms, I would personally choose to stick with an established name over a change.

I still say "Fuck those whiney babies." because I think their arguements were specious and their aproach was deplorable, but now that I have seen site and the new Firefox icon I am so sold on the new name.

#10 So It's Not A Bird Now...

by ISagalaev

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:49 AM

Reply to this message

"... for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them... "

from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15

So It's Time For A New Page In The Book Of Mozilla? :-)

#37 Re: So It's Not A Bird Now...

by jgraham

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:55 AM

Reply to this message

No, the browser is like a daemon. When it's young, it can still change form. Once it gets older, it'll tire of switching from one animal to another and will settle down in a single form.

#55 Re: Re: So It's Not A Bird Now...

by broken

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:27 AM

Reply to this message

It's interesting that you say this, because in Japan foxes are seen as mischievous and untrustworthy animals because of their ability to change shape, according to folklore. I wonder if Japanese users will like this change. Are there any who are reading this?

<http://www.inari-art.com/kit_info.htm>

#75 Re: Re: Re: So It's Not A Bird Now...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

Firefox is actually a name for the "lesser panda", sometimes also called a red panda.

--Asa

#38 Re: So It's Not A Bird Now...

by wwwwolf <wwwwolf@iki.fi>

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:56 AM

Reply to this message

"The great bird circled to the ground, landing amidst the rude burning huts of the unbelievers, and assumed the shape of a fox. The fox spoke clearly and luringly, giving the unbelievers a present in shape of their unholy containers. The unbelievers heeded the cunning beast, carrying the present to their places of worship, only to note the box contained an even more luring present." - The Book of Mozilla, 2:9

#72 Re: So It's Not A Bird Now...

by skord

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:11 PM

Reply to this message

Okay, just for fun, this is how I'd write it...

"The followers of Mammon breathed with relief as the great Bird of Fire disappeared, but did not see until the smoke cleared that in its place stood a Fox prepared to vanquish Mammon with its own fire and claws and teeth. With the Bird of Thunder watching from above, it went forward to the halls of Mammon."

#11 Birds

by deviltje

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:58 AM

Reply to this message

Will thunderbird and sunbird also become a foxes now or is mozilla.org going to investigate for the best names for each product seperately ??

#14 Re: birds

by masi

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:18 AM

Reply to this message

Don't change Thunderbird, but make it the Sun Machine. Don't think of the company, but of a free festival.

#30 Re: Birds

by tniem

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:59 AM

Reply to this message

I also confused about this. I know there was talk that they would each be called Mozilla Browser, Mail, Calendar, etc. I thought this was going to happen around version 1.0. But it appears from what Ben wrote that Mozilla Firefox is the name for the forseeable time. I kind of think this is a mistake - there should be naming consistency. Then again, I am not privy to the inside information, so maybe this is just the codename for a while or there is a larger goal, idea at work.

#86 Re: Re: Birds

by thelem

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:01 PM

Reply to this message

Firefox is now the final name that would go on the box if there was one. My guess is that it has changed from Mozilla Browser because either:

1) The Mozilla Browser/Mail names were always been intended to be temporary names to make everyone think that a name had been decided on, without actually giving it a new name. (I read that they have been considering the Firefox name for some time).

or

2) With the decision to maintain the application suite and therefore distributing 2 web browsers, calling one of them Mozilla Browser would have been confusing (and even more so for Mail, you would have "Mozilla Mail" and "Mozilla Application Suite Mail[ and News]"

#92 Re: Re: Birds

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

"I know there was talk that they would each be called Mozilla Browser, Mail, Calendar, etc. I thought this was going to happen around version 1.0."

That was the old plan. They decided months ago to have more unique names. They wanted to use Firebird for the browser and asked the database people how they would feel about that. Needless to say, the response was not favourable. So the search began for a new name, with lots of lawyers and trademark searches involved to avoid any more conflicts. The database people were told that Firebird would be renamed in September <119/bjnm1p+adgf@eGroups.com>" rel="nofollow"><news://news.atkin.com:<119/bjnm1p+adgf@eGroups.com>> (yes, they decided to tell the Firebird database community before the Mozilla community - go figure).

"But it appears from what Ben wrote that Mozilla Firefox is the name for the forseeable time. I kind of think this is a mistake - there should be naming consistency. Then again, I am not privy to the inside information, so maybe this is just the codename for a while or there is a larger goal, idea at work."

It's a permanent name. A lot of people were dissatisfied with Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail. So it'll be Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird etc.

Alex

#105 Re: Re: Re: Birds

by jgraham

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 1:32 AM

Reply to this message

> A lot of people were dissatisfied with Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail

Who are those people, and why were they dissatisfied? Everyone who I ever saw express an opinion on the name wanted a name that would suggest, to a casual surfer, the *function* of the product. Seeing the name Firefox; a user has no idea what the product actually does; it's just as likely to be a new TV show as it is a web browser. On the other hand, there is plenty of very successful software that has a name that suggests the function of the product (Windows, MS Word, Winzip, Windows Media Player, Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, iPhoto, Internet Explorer and so on).

#107 Re: Re: Re: Re: Birds

by Jugalator

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 2:25 AM

Reply to this message

I agree about this, too. If they had only posted a poll here at MozillaZine after researching what options were available. I'm pretty sure Mozilla Browser is better from a marketing perspective.

#108 Naming

by jgraham

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 3:23 AM

Reply to this message

There was some public consulation early on:

<http://mail.mozilla.org/p…2003-November/000897.html>

#109 ... and also ...

by antroy

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 3:43 AM

Reply to this message

... Outlook Express, Opera, Pegasus, The Bat!, Dreamweaver, Quicken, Acrobat ...

There are plenty of examples of successful software with names that bear no relation to their function.

IMHO people are more likely to get excited about a product with a catchy name such as FireFox than a dull mundane but descriptive name such as Mozilla Browser. People are superficial like that. Besides, nobody would notice that Mozilla's browser and Mozilla Browser were different beasts (and the same goes of course for mail). Much too confusing, especially with the decision to keep on the Suite.

#110 Re: ... and also ...

by jgraham

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 3:56 AM

Reply to this message

Right so, sucessful software:

Outlook Express: Yes. Bundled with windows, so not a great example.

Opera: No. Probaly has a smaller userbase than Mozilla Firebird 0.7

Pegasus: No. Not used by home users much. Winged horse could be related to transport hence email.

The Bat!: No. Used by techies only.

Dreamweaver: Yes. Not an end user product, used by professionals who know it's the best in the field.

Quicken: Yesish. Slightly descriptive (makes bookkeeping faster). Most users are probably businesses.

Acrobat: Yes. Industry standard because it is written by the people who wrote the PDF specifcation.

Remember Mozilla doesn't have the advantage of either a) being in a market that only clued up users are in (Dreamweaver, Quicken) or b) having some dominace over the market (Acrobat, Outlook Express). In fact, we're in the position where most users don't know our product even exists are are already happily using a different product. Giving it a non-descriptive name doesn't help adoption at all.

#118 Dreamweaver

by abraham <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 5:21 AM

Reply to this message

The name Dreamweaver is somewhat descriptive for a web authoring tool.

#119 Re: Dreamweaver

by wwwwolf <wwwwolf@iki.fi>

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 10:20 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I always thought Dreamweaver was one of the best named programs out there. Sounds like turn-ideas-to-reality kind of thing, which suggests it's above all a creative tool, and "weaving" programs probably are more likely to be related to web authoring than knitting. One of the very few big-name programs that I could figure out easily.... XEmacs has far, FAR more boring and misleading name, but that's what I tend to use. =)

#12 Extra reading

by Smigit

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:59 AM

Reply to this message

Some nice info in Bens Blog regarding the naming process <http://www.bengoodger.com…rchives/cat_mozblog.shtml>

#13 Web Buttons

by messenjer

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:16 AM

Reply to this message

I like the new name and the new logo.

I think we can already work on the translation of the web button into other language (like spanish, french, ...)

#15 Not best choice :(

by eGandalf

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

I know that complaining is the easies thing in the world, but I really cannot understand Your's decision. FireFox - what does it mean? What does it relate to? I don't know any myth or legend related to Fire Fox... What it is? Something fast? light? I cannot find many positive connection with fox - especially burning.

I can understand that probably many, many names were already taken, but something like FireBrowser, FastBird, hell! even Mozilla Browser would be better. I know - It's only a matter of time to habituate with this, but as for now I'm really disappointed by new name. Please, ask avarege man on a street about words describing "FireFox". He'll be confused but he won't say anything positive i'm afraid :( And Logo? Ok - it's very cute but it's only because it doesn't show this "red fox". I cannot imagine "red fox" with fox's face smiling to me - how it could be connected with what we wan't to say about browser? :((((((((((((

#27 Reply

by napolj2

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:09 AM

Reply to this message

>FireFox - what does it mean?

The name change FAQ, <http://www.mozilla.org/pr…fox/firefox-name-faq.html>, say that FireFox is another name for the red panda, <http://www.binderparkzoo.…20Gallery-Red%20Panda.htm> . The red panda is cute and furry, so it must be a good mascot :)

#31 Re: Reply

by eGandalf

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:07 AM

Reply to this message

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright! And that's perfectly what we wan't to advice in FireFox browser, isn't it? We have cute and furry browser which wan't to compete with Internet Explorer. We wan't users all over the world to scream "FireFox is the best"! We wan't to promote this browser as cute and furry?!?!?

I'm planning a promotion in my country (Poland) of Mozilla Firefox around 1.0. I strongly feel now it won't be easy. Firebird was "strong", "fast", "powerfull", "brave". FireFox is... cute and furry?!? - don't get me wrong. I like it! I can use it. But it's not a good name for an IE competitor.

#32 Re: Re: Reply

by Jugalator

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:39 AM

Reply to this message

Heey... Microsoft stuff is competed best with cute things. :-)

I mean, MSN uses a rainbow colored butterfly? That's a sugar sweet it gets. And tons of people use it!

Cute & Furry is the future, I tell you! ;)

#36 Reply

by napolj2

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:50 AM

Reply to this message

heh, I was just joking around with that. But you did get me thinking of what some really bad mascots would be, and I think I found one for IE: the dodo bird!

"The sailors... found much amusement in watching the clumsy dodo's behavior. There is a story one told of watching a dodo attempt to escape in a hurry. When it tried to run away, (wobble may be a more accurate term), its belly would drag on the ground and slow him down. But for the most part, the dodo is described as a lazy, rather dumb animal. It had virtually no defenses against predators..." <http://animaldiversity.um…on/Raphus_cucullatus.html>

If you replace sailors with computer geeks and predators with viruses and hackers, I think that fits IE pretty well, don't you?

#51 FireFox vs FireDuck

by chinf

Monday February 9th, 2004 10:51 AM

Reply to this message

Firebird also had a *really* bad icon - looking childish, amateurish and depicting a duck of questionable sexual orientation. I couldn't promote the browser with that duck...

The new FireFox branding beats that hands down - well done to the team for making the change!

Can't wait for ThunderDuck to be culled...

#67 Re: FireFox vs FireDuck

by eGandalf

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:56 PM

Reply to this message

You of course know that those "new icons" are based on awsome Firebird&Thunderbird icons: <http://www2.wincustomize.…ibrary=29&SkinID=1604> <http://www2.wincustomize.…ibrary=29&SkinID=1671> ??? I was using them as icons for long time so - nothing new. I still think that those icons for FB are better than those for FF.

#16 Aqua theme

by diag

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder, if the aqua theme for firefox means, that camino will be discontinued?

#25 Re: Aqua theme

by brokenvoice

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:51 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think it will be dropped. There is a ton of work going on for Camino by people who are obviously into it. With Camino being Mac OS X only, though, there just aren't as many people to work on it I guess.

For me, however, with the amazing work that Kevin and Stephen have done on the pinstripe theme (which looks more aqua than Camino), plus its support for XPI extensions (I'm a web designer and need a JavaScript debugger, DOM Inspector and the various web dev toolbars) I think that Firefox will be my default Gecko browser on OS X from now on.

I prefer the way forms look in Firefox too. Can never get used to Aqua form elements...very inflexible.

#17 Application Data Folder

by erik <erik@eae.net>

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:39 AM

Reply to this message

The application data folder is still called Phoenix. Would it not make sense to change this at some point?

#33 Re: Application Data Folder

by Jugalator

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:40 AM

Reply to this message

I like that it stays the same so I don't have to bother with moving my old user preferences.

#39 Re: Application Data Folder

by MvD

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:20 AM

Reply to this message

How people (using windows) really care what their app data folder is called? Hell, how many people even know that such a thing exists? I agree that we should chang it sometime, but it would be more suiteable to do when FF (almost wrote FB) hits final.

#40 Re: Application Data Folder

by mqwtm

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:24 AM

Reply to this message

I was going to say the same thing. As long as there's a big notice saying "rename Phoenix to Firefox now!" (with extra explanation for those who need it), I'd not mind.

When Sunbird got its own profile folder, apparently the change was a simple one, and now would've been a good time to do it with Firefox.

#18 Firefox in .zip file build?

by hem

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:39 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder if it would be still possible to get a build of FireFox as a zip file build? Appreciate it. Regards, Hem Ramachandran

#23 Re: Firefox in .zip file build?

by Ben_Goodger

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:28 AM

Reply to this message

I will get a zip build in the directory this week. It won't be linked to from the website but it will be available.

#47 Re: Re: Firefox in .zip file build?

by joeblakesley

Monday February 9th, 2004 8:23 AM

Reply to this message

Also, it would be really handy for me (and probably some other peeps) if the Firefox binaries for MSWindows were available in a GZipped tarball somewhere (for those of us who have problems downloading or decompressing PKZip archives).

#60 Re: Firefox in .zip file build?

by beastie

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:50 AM

Reply to this message

I can't see that happening. ZIP is pretty much the de facto archive standard on Windows.

#34 Re: Firefox in .zip file build?

by mlefevre

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:47 AM

Reply to this message

There's are zip builds available - there's one at MozillaNews <http://mozillanews.org/?a…_date=2004-02-09+01-56-09> and there are also some in the Firebird build forums - <http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=23> (although the forums seem to be having problems with the load)

Not quite sure how Ben still doesn't believe people want zip builds - it's only been out a few hours and every page I look at has someone asking for a zip build.

#35 Re: Re: Firefox in .zip file build?

by mlefevre

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

actually that's the fireFOX build forum now, of course...

any bets on what this browser is going to be called in 6 months time? :)

#19 Aqua theme

by diag

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:53 AM

Reply to this message

I wonder, if the aqua theme for firefox means, that camino will be discontinued?

#20 Aqua theme

by diag

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

Uhhps. Sorry for sending this message twice. This was a blindfold hit on the reload button.

#21 Bahh!

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:02 AM

Reply to this message

Enough stupid names pleeease! Noone can keep track of all the firebirds, thunderlizards, lighteningdogs and whatever, and what each program does.

Call it mozilla browser and be done with it. Mozilla is a good name - use it.

#22 Does it work with Adblock?

by ed_welch

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:09 AM

Reply to this message

Anybody know? thanks, Ed

#41 Re: Does it work with Adblock?

by mqwtm

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

I'm running Adblock v0.5 d2 nightly build 35 (i.e. one of the dev. builds) and that worked with Firebird branch and trunk nightlies, and works with Firefox. Given that it worked with the old nightlies, I guess the latest non-dev. Adblock will play nicely with Firefox, too.

In short, yes.

#24 FireFox????

by jmc777

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:30 AM

Reply to this message

What happens if Clint Eastwood complains about the name? What then? ;)

#29 Re: FireFox????

by Gnu

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:58 AM

Reply to this message

I can't believe this occurred to someone else.

Actually, we're probably the only two people on earth who remembers that film. (In fact, I also remember the arcade game based on it ... my God, I need to get a life.) God knows Eastwood would probably prefer to forget it.

#61 Re: FireFox????

by beastie

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:51 AM

Reply to this message

Unless Clint was a programmer making a browser in it, I think we're OK. :)

#123 Re: FireFox????

by zoxed

Thursday February 12th, 2004 12:23 AM

Reply to this message

> Actually, we're probably the only two people on earth who remembers that film.

Make that 3 - the film is the first thing I thought of when 0.8 came out with the new name attached. I have watched the film many times on video (from the TV) over the years and a few months ago I bought the DVD.

I am suprised that in all the articles I have read in the last few days reviewing the new Firefox release no reporter has mentioned it !!

Regards, Simon

#26 *BSD binaries ever?

by Ashato

Monday February 9th, 2004 3:16 AM

Reply to this message

That's great news! 'Firefox' sounds a bit weird now but the new mascot is kinda cute and I'm sure we'll soon get so used to it we won't remember there was another name before (does anyone here still talk about Phoenix, huh?).

But once again I'll have to wait to enjoy Firefox's new version (now that's no reproach, only regrets). Is there some kind of project to ever release *BSD binaries? Linux is not the only open source OS around...

#28 Firefox

by alpertti

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:24 AM

Reply to this message

What's in a name, old chaps! Please take notice of the Lappish word "riebantolla" (Foxfire) , a word for the Aurora borealis, Northern Lights or Polar Light. May that inspire the creative ones amongst us.

#120 Re: Firefox

by wwwwolf <wwwwolf@iki.fi>

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 10:25 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, good that Northern Light doesn't appear to run a public web search engine anymore, Firefox would have to use that if they still did... or something...

#42 Just when I thought it couldn't get more stupid...

by kepardue

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

FireFox? Come on... Firebird was bad enough. One of the worst thigns that happened was calling the two programs Firebird and Thunderbird. I can't tell you how many people got confused over it: well, which is which? Hmmm, do I browse with thunderbird or firebird, which does which? (heck, I had trouble with it myself at first.) The names just tell absolutely nothing about what they do, and because of that it's going to take regular non-geek Joes a much longer continued use to associate the name with the product. Something as basic as a browser should properly reflect what the thing does: browse. Not to be negative, but this just sounds like people pretending to be marketing gurus... and failing. Microsoft did in fact get one thing right in naming their browser. It may be a lousy, outdated product, but look at its name: Internet Explorer. Now THAT's, unfortunately, a good marketing name. Mozilla itself is a very unattractive name, but it's better than FireFox. Heck, even Gecko would be a much better name than that.

Gecko Browser. Gecko Mail. Gecko Calendar. Gecko etc.

Not that any of this matters to the powers-that-be, but I feel better for saying it.

#88 Re: Just when I thought it couldn't get more stupi

by thelem

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

"The names just tell absolutely nothing about what they do, and because of that it's going to take regular non-geek Joes a much longer continued use to associate the name with the product. Something as basic as a browser should properly reflect what the thing does: browse."

This isn't exactly the first product to have a name which doesn't state what it does. A unique name can actually help brand recognition once the brand is established. For example, can you tell me what any of the following do: * Mosaic * Mozilla * Hoover * Bluetooth * Shazam (this may be UK only, but I deliberatly chose it as one that hasn't had as much marketing) * Dreamweaver All are successful products which people know by a meaningless name.

#43 FF

by whippywhappy

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:44 AM

Reply to this message

sorry, FireFox just doesnt do it for me, much prefer FireBird. I however eagerly await the next release of ThunderAardvark and SunDuckBilledPlatypus !!?!

#44 Hahahha, take a look at the logo

by kepardue

Monday February 9th, 2004 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

Look at that, somebody done strown some roadkill all over my icon!

All it's missing is little "x's" over the eyes.

#45 Hmm. A FireFox Kinda Looks Like...

by CritterNYC

Monday February 9th, 2004 8:10 AM

Reply to this message

Is it just me? Or does a FireFox:

<http://www.binderparkzoo.…20Gallery-Red%20Panda.htm>

Kinda look like a badger:

<http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/>

#48 Re: Hmm. A FireFox Kinda Looks Like...

by joeblakesley

Monday February 9th, 2004 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

>>Is it just me?<< <pun type="shamelessly bad">It's you - you look like a badger. Everyone knows that firefoxes look like Goodgers. The *bad*gers are at M$.</pun>

#46 tabbed browsing doesn't work?

by schectex <schectex@math.vanderbilt.edu>

Monday February 9th, 2004 8:21 AM

Reply to this message

I downloaded Firefox. Its tabbed browsing doesn't seem to be working. Did I do something wrong?

#64 Re: tabbed browsing doesn't work?

by mqwtm

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

If File > New Tab opens a new tab, then it's working. New windows don't automatically open in tabs (yet).

#74 Re: Re: tabbed browsing doesn't work?

by neilparks1

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:22 PM

Reply to this message

#49 cheeseball name

by stylo

Monday February 9th, 2004 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

Doesn't anyone test these names?

If it has to be fire, then Firebrowser? (And Firemail?) And least that gives a clue about the program.

Is it really too late?

I for one predict that the name will be changed yet again!

#50 cheeseball name

by stylo

Monday February 9th, 2004 9:30 AM

Reply to this message

Doesn't anyone test these names?

If it has to be fire, then Firebrowser? (And Firemail?) And least that gives a clue about the program.

Is it really too late?

I for one predict that the name will be changed yet again!

#52 Oh god

by volkris

Monday February 9th, 2004 10:56 AM

Reply to this message

Oh god... it just keeps getting worse...

Look: let's just go back to Phoenix and make the icon a giant middle finger. Screw the rest of the world, just make a damn browser with a decent name!

Firefox is about as bad as you could have hoped to get.

#53 Reply

by Racer

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:07 AM

Reply to this message

Just for the fun of it, the next MozillaZine poll should be something like "Do you think choosing the name FireFox was a good idea?" Then do the same poll again after the 1.0 release and see if people like it better/worse.

#54 like it

by morg

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

I like it. It is good.

#56 My review of Mozilla Firefox 0.8

by NXprime

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

It's a long one so sit back and grab some popcorn. :)

<http://slashdot.org/comme…sid=96079&cid=8227945>

Bottom line, aside from quite a few annoyances, it's a pretty decent browser. Not awesome due to so many minor issues though to be honest.

#66 Re: My review of Mozilla Firefox 0.8

by NXprime

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:49 PM

Reply to this message

Nobody likes my review? :(

#80 Re: Re: My review of Mozilla Firefox 0.8

by polidobj

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:55 PM

Reply to this message

As I said in slashdot:

>4. Unneeded warning messages

In about:config look up

browser.xul.error_pages.enabled

Set it to true and you'll get error pages instead of error message boxes. That was annoying to me too.

I always hated that when a page failed, the reload button didn't try and reload the failed page. But with the error pages there is a link to retry the webpage.

#97 Re: My review of Mozilla Firefox 0.8

by LenW

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:56 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for a very thoughtful review. Just curious: did you do all of that testing and writing in one day, or is this an accumulation from recent testing of nightlies?

#99 Re: Re: My review of Mozilla Firefox 0.8

by NXprime

Monday February 9th, 2004 6:52 PM

Reply to this message

It was an accumulation from recent testing of nightlies.

I was totally shocked that I had to re-edit my document when they changed the name to FireFox. Still, all problems are there as far as I can tell. Check out my slashdot post again for replies to my review. They got some great answers to some of my problems.

This review was to get people to switch to Firefox but do it honestly and show both the good and the bad. I've seen so many 'reviews' where they praise it but don't critisize it enough. Pissed me off so I wanted to show some stuff never mentioned in any other review before. I didn't want to sound all negative by just posting what I disliked so I had to write what I liked and was useful to me on a daily basis. I think it's a beautiful review but needs some updating in light of some new discoveries I found out. That was the true bonus to writing that review. *grin* :)

#57 Wow

by CarLBanks <carlbanks@gmail.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Cool

#58 Sorry was testing my mozillazine membership.

by CarLBanks <carlbanks@gmail.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:37 AM

Reply to this message

I think Firefox is much better except the windows media player 9 control panel still doesn't work!

#59 Sorry was testing my mozillazine membership.

by CarLBanks <carlbanks@gmail.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:47 AM

Reply to this message

I think Firefox is much better except the windows media player 9 control panel still doesn't work!

#62 FireFox? Bad Joke, Right?

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:57 AM

Reply to this message

OMG, was there a competitiopn to come up with the most stupid name?

The icon looks like a burning embryo Foxes are considered cunning and untrustworthy! Are we now identifying ourselves with military equipment and shallow action movies? :(

Please tel us you mistakingly thought it was 1. April and were trying to be funny.

#63 Mirror Sites

by w_j_s

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:24 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe I am blind, but it would be very nice, if Mozilla.Org could directly link to mirror sites from its download page. It is possible to find this site via search in mozilla.org: <http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html> But due to the fact, that the official Mozilla download site is incredible slow (and sometimes even slashdotted like this morning) it would be nice, to have a link to download mirrors on Mozilla.Org's download site.

#77 Re: Mirror Sites

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:33 PM

Reply to this message

w_j_s, the "official Mozilla download site" _is_ those mirrors. There is not Mozilla server, you're getting handed to one of the mirrors listed on that page.

#102 Re: Re: Mirror Sites

by w_j_s

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 12:12 AM

Reply to this message

And where is a link from <http://www.mozilla.org/download.html> to <http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html> ?

Okay, as I can see, there are now (- maybe because Mozilla.Org being slashdotted yesterday? -) links to Firefox mirrors sites. But it would be nice, to have some links to mirrors for the suite, too. (Downloads from mozilla.org became very slow).

#65 Reply

by Racer

Monday February 9th, 2004 12:44 PM

Reply to this message

Does Firefox Ltd have anything to do with the delay? Its an educational software development company that started in 2002: <http://www.firefox.co.uk/structure/theteam.htm>

There are other companies (and of course movies), but those are very difficult to confuse with a browser.

#68 bitching about the new name

by GURT

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:00 PM

Reply to this message

stop! foxes are sexy you nerds :)

#71 Dead link in Release Notes

by WalterK

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:01 PM

Reply to this message

FAQ #8 Press Release link is dead.

#115 Re: Dead link in Release Notes

by WalterK

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 11:12 PM

Reply to this message

The dead link is still there. It's under #8 in the FAQ section. Link's text is Press Release, and URL's <http://www.mozilla.org/pr…s/mozilla-2003-12-23.html>.

#121 Re: Re: Dead link in Release Notes

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 11:40 AM

Reply to this message

The 'Press Release' link now points to the right place.

Alex

#122 Re: Re: Re: Dead link in Release Notes

by WalterK

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

Nope. It's still broken.

Walter

#73 Extension installation problems?

by Netaku <dante@nc.rr.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:12 PM

Reply to this message

Anyone else getting problems installing extensions? Like, dialogs repeating, and the extension package being stuck in the "starting..." status and never finishing, although the installation is done?

#76 Reply

by Racer

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

Firebird (er i mean FireFox) has an as-yet unresolved bug which presents itself when you install more than one extension from the same session. A workaround for this problem is to install a plugin, restart firefox, install another extension, etc.

#78 Re: Reply

by Netaku <dante@nc.rr.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

Well, that's not too bad, except when doing a completely fresh install or something where you'd be installing a lot of extensions.

#90 Re: Extension installation problems?

by jedbro

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:37 PM

Reply to this message

Yes. Personally I think it is a HUGE regresion. Heck, extensions are what make Firebird so powerful, and what every reviewer OO´s and Ahhh´s about.

Unfortunatly I think this will turn off many new comers.

#100 Re: Re: Extension installation problems?

by mesostinky

Monday February 9th, 2004 7:29 PM

Reply to this message

Well what can you say about those who fail to read the Release Notes anyway? It clearly states you need to restart the browser after every extension install. Not only that but extenstions themselves many times prompt you to restart you browser. Any reviewer who doesn't understand this isn't worth reading in the first place. If people STILL don't get it then they have more problems then FireFox can help them with. I agree its a bug that should be fixed, but there is no point in overstating the bug.

#79 full list of mirrors with Firefox

by dbaron <dbaron@dbaron.org>

Monday February 9th, 2004 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

The mirrors that currently have Firefox 0.8 builds are:

North America: <http://mozilla.isc.org/pu…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://mozilla.isc.org/pub…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://trillian.cc.gatech…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://trillian.cc.gatech.…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://mozilla.ussg.india…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://mozilla.ussg.indian…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://mozilla.oregonstat…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://mozilla.oregonstate…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://mozilla.gnusoft.net/firefox/releases/0.8/> Europe: <http://sunsite.rediris.es…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://sunsite.rediris.es/…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://sunsite.cnlab-switc…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://ftp.cvut.cz/mozilla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://www.artfiles.org/m…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://ftp.rediris.es/mirr…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://ftp.rediris.es/mir…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://ftp.task.gda.pl/pub…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://ftp.task.gda.pl/pu…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> (Windows only) <http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> (Windows only) <ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/si…org/firefox/releases/0.8/> Asia: <ftp://ftp.lab.kdd.co.jp/M…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://ftp.kaist.ac.kr/pu…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://ftp.kaist.ac.kr/pub…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://ftp.nctu.edu.tw/WWW…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <ftp://mozilla.mirror.paci…lla/firefox/releases/0.8/> <http://mozilla.mirror.pac….au/firefox/releases/0.8/>

#81 Isn't it a little perverse...

by coldacid <coldacid@gmail.com>

Monday February 9th, 2004 3:29 PM

Reply to this message

That while Texturizer is down from the Slashdot effect caused by 0.8's release, it's mirror has not the extensions list? That, coupled with the problems involved with older extensions in 0.8, is pretty scary and perverse.

Just had to mention it. I'm sure that by tomorrow it'll all be back to normal. As normal as it can get! :D

#82 still no bookmarks sort?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

by kwanbis

Monday February 9th, 2004 3:44 PM

Reply to this message

incredible :(

#95 Re: still no bookmarks sort?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

by neilparks1

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:19 PM

Reply to this message

Bummer, especially since Moz 1.6 does it so beautifully.

#83 XBL binding error

by flalvare

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

I have problems running FireFox, XBL binding error. I suppose as nobody here is complaining about it, it's just me and my computer. Can somebody explain me how to solve this problem??

Flavio

#93 Re: XBL binding error

by polidobj

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:04 PM

Reply to this message

I had that on my work computer too. I had a go with a fresh profile to fix it. My home computer did not have the problem. But the profile at home wasn't as old as the one at work. So it may have to do with either profile age or extensions. I had more extensions at work too.

#104 Re: Re: XBL binding error

by jgraham

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 1:19 AM

Reply to this message

It's an extensions issue that should have been relnoted. I've opened a bug to get the release notes updated: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233649>

#106 Release notes

by jgraham

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 2:17 AM

Reply to this message

This is actually in the release notes, but not in the "Known issues" section (it's in troubleshooting and installation instead). I think it's in the wrong place (since people think they know how to install something, and by the time they get to "troubleshooting", their browser is broken). However I can't be bothered to argue about it, because I'm pretty sure I'd loose.

#124 Re: XBL binding error

by larry0000

Wednesday March 31st, 2004 4:26 PM

Reply to this message

I had this problem too. it is probably due to an old theme being installed. create a new user profile in profile manager to get firefox to start.

#84 Firefox Video Game?

by xerxes

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:33 PM

Reply to this message

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember a video game that was called Firefox. Anyway, I think all this name switching is kind of stupid. Makes it kind of hard to build up brand loyalty when the name keeps changing every couple of months. However, it does reflect the Mozilla community quite well. Dazed and confused.

#85 Firefox Video Game?

by xerxes

Monday February 9th, 2004 4:56 PM

Reply to this message

Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember a video game that was called Firefox. Anyway, I think all this name switching is kind of stupid. Makes it kind of hard to build up brand loyalty when the name keeps changing every couple of months. However, it does reflect the Mozilla community quite well. Dazed and confused.

#87 Re: Firefox Video Game?

by WillyWonka

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:18 PM

Reply to this message

That was/is Star Fox on the SNES and the GameCube.

#89 Re: Re: Firefox Video Game?

by xerxes

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:30 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, you are right I remember now. Anyway, tried to install the Java plugin 4 times with Firefox without success. Forced to go back to Firebird.

#91 Firefox and iht.com

by jhatax <manoj_r_mehta@yahoo.co.uk>

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:43 PM

Reply to this message

Firefox is having trouble rendering the frontpage of the international herald tribune: <http://www.iht.com/frontpage.html>

This seems to render fine in IE - I can't post this to the forums because of a MySQL error on the forums page. Can someone help me investigate this.

Thanks!

- Manoj

#101 Re: Firefox and iht.com

by eiseli

Monday February 9th, 2004 11:09 PM

Reply to this message

It's not a Firefox (or Mozilla problem), it's an iht and IE problem. They say the image with class="photoImage" should have a left padding of 20px. Gecko, the rendering engine of Firefox honours this.

Then they have some tag soup with tables, divs, width of cells defined per html, per css, fixed values, percentages, width set on a colspan cell etc...etc... . If you want to calculate the width one cell should have, then you have several ways to do that, and you will end up with different results. For example, the cell containing the image should be, according to my calculations:

Width of table: undefined

Width of first column (World map): 179 Pixel (given in HTML) / or should it be 203 Pixel given in CSS?

Width of the remaining of the table (colspan=2): 630 Pixel (given in HTML)

Now I can get the width of the table: 179+630 (assuming inline html width has more weight than a more general class) = 809

Cell with the photo (class photoImage): 15% (given in HTML). Percent values are in reference of the table width, thus 809/100*15=121 Pixel

The cell to the right of the photo is: 235 Pixel (given in CSS)

Width of the table: 179+121+235=535 (note that it's almost 300 pixel less large than computed before, so we keep the previous value)

So back to the photo. Its cell is 121 pixel large, the photo itself is 190 pixel large and we also have a left padding of 20 pixel. Which reduces the available size of the cell to 121-20=101 Pixel. Now how on earth do you place a 190 pixel large image into a space which is 90 pixel smaller than that?

That's my understanding. I know I'm not exactly aware how Mozilla computes this mess. But the reason why it's working in IE is because it _happened_ to work because IE understood this mess differently.

#94 Lose the upside down salamander!

by neilparks1

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:09 PM

Reply to this message

I suppose after awhile I'll get used to the name. But that doggoned upside down salamander logo has got to go!

If the flaming red icon that has graced the trunk builds till now isn't good enough, what's wrong with the good old Mozilla lizard?

#96 Mac version braindamage

by RiotNrrrd

Monday February 9th, 2004 5:33 PM

Reply to this message

1. Still can't set the Prefs to open an app for a MIME file type properly - the File Browser window comes up, but you can't select any apps! They're all greyed-out ... (e.g. - tried to tell it to open an app for RA/RAM Real Player files - navigate to Applications and RealPlayer is greyed-out and unselectable)

2. New brain-damage - cut n' paste doesn't work, cut/copy a URL from another app/window and try to paste it into the Mac FireFox 0.8 URL bar, and it won't paste!

#117 Re: Mac version braindamage

by ryanbroken

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 3:57 AM

Reply to this message

I also noticed in the Mac version that a blank sidebar seems to open up everytime with browser. Is it a bug, or is something I can get rid of?

#98 Image Animation

by PC1

Monday February 9th, 2004 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

1) I have been Mozilla and Opera for a long time.

It is very annoying and disappointing to find that there is no option to allow image animation to occur only once or not at all. Suddenly all the pages seem so ugly.

I wonder why did they leave this out from the "Options". Common people will not edit the pref.js file manually.

2) The PubMed tool bar <http://pubmed.mozdev.org/> does not work with FireFox. Although it depends on the "extension" and not on the browser, I am running out of options; I installed the script for PubMed at Mycroft <http://mycroft.mozdev.org/>

3) I guess we have to accept what ever name is given to a great software, but I cannot help being nauseated from the name resemblance to the Fox network TV!!

Thanks

#103 Re: Image Animation

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 12:14 AM

Reply to this message

"I cannot help being nauseated from the name resemblance to the Fox network TV!!"

I wished you hadn't put that repulsive connection in my head. :(

#111 Re: Image Animation

by jsebrech

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 4:10 AM

Reply to this message

With regards to your animation problem. Type about:config, go to image.animation_mode, set the value to "once" or "none". I think it's a good thing this is not in the prefs. Very, very few people want this (certainly not common people), and those that do can always type about:config. There is no need, ever, to edit the prefs.js file, about:config can do it all.

And about your naming comment: Fire Fox. How could you possibly disagree with that? ;)

#112 stop "re-branding"

by wvh <wouter-mozzine@fort-knox.rave.org>

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 8:30 AM

Reply to this message

"Lockdown"? "Trademark"? "USPTO"? "Branding"? "Marketing"? What is this commercialist stench? I understand we want to see Mozilla get the credit it deserves, being spread over at least half this world's desktops... But do we have to degrade opensource software to cheap commercialism?

I guess I'm just very much on guard to keep the "opensource" in "Mozilla the OpenSource project", and I think with all this corporate mumbo-jumbo we should be aware not to loose the grassroots opensource spirit and give it all up to ugly corporate whoring; and we should be careful with influences, companies and people that don't have the software's quality as main priority or interest.

Besides, that "re-branding" is a pile of crap. It's the same damn software. People don't run software because of the name. People simply don't care. They want to surf the 'net. Stop changing the name; you are confusing people. It should never have become more complicated than just "Mozilla". I am tired of explaining to people (collegues, friends, relatives and whoever I convinced to run Mozilla) what on earth the reason for yet another change in name is. Shut up about fire-, thunder-, whatever, until it's time to replace Mozilla the "Application Suite" with Mozilla "The Splitted Applications". People are not interested, and even I can't keep track of what is essentially the same software... Should have kept it with just "Mozilla browser/email/addressbook/calendar/...", it's easier to switch the software behind a name than it is to switch people's minds.

Just a few caveats. Move on now, nothing to see.

#113 Download Manager

by AscFuCuboo

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 2:52 PM

Reply to this message

I was disappointed that the download manager is now the default in .8. I prefer having each download with its own window. I see from the forums that te code for having one window per download has been removed, so I won't be able to enjoy FireFox with the rest of you. Hopefully, the code will make it back in, or else I'll be stuck on .7 forever.

#116 Re: Download Manage

by ed_welch

Wednesday February 11th, 2004 1:19 AM

Reply to this message

Also, there seems to be no way to pause a download in FireFox!

#114 Look almost like hedge in Playstation Game "Sonic"

by zookqvalem

Tuesday February 10th, 2004 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

Hey, the FireFox is looking more like a Hedge in the Playstation Game, "Sonic".. :-)