From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

could the 2nd paragraph of #themes be moved to the history article? -- Quiddity 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) reply

yep

Security

I don't know if all of the security section belongs in here. It seems to drift away from talking about the features of Firefox.-- Nonpareility 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The overall state of this article

A few things I think need to happen

  • Make it less marketing-y. Talk about (notable!) criticisms made about certain features. For example, I added a cited criticism that extensions are harder to use than if the functionality was there by default.
  • We need to figure out which features are notable enough to mention, which are notable enough to have their own section, etc.
  • Include references in all claims.
  • Update the article. The "new" features in 1.5 aren't so new anymore.

-- Nonpareility 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree, particularly with the first point. The whole article just looks like a plug for Firefox. And as for notable features, this definitely needs to be worked on, as most of the features listed here are in other browsers anyway and weren't even invented by Firefox. In my opinion, this article is completely useless (few unique features here, without the features copied by Fx and copied from Fx, there's not enough noteworthy to make a seperate article), but there's no sense deleting it if people are willing to work on it.-- 195.112.40.80 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Vulnerability history

Why does this section keep getting removed? It's incredibly important in determining how good Firefox's security is. It belongs right in the security section, not in the history article. (Perhaps it's poorly named, though. "Vulnerability statistics" might be better).-- Nonpareility 02:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Mozilla vs. Seamonkey

I just corrected the article to state that Firefox borrowed the tabbed browsing concept from the Multizilla extension for Mozilla. The article stated previously that tabbed browsing had come from the Multizilla extension for Seamonkey. This cannot have happened because the original Mozilla suite supported tabbed browsing before either Firefox or Seamonkey branched from it. Quanticle 21:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

UserChrome.css

Firefox customization via UserChrome.css is a feature which could be added to this article :) VTNC 04:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It's there under Customization.-- Nonpareility 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Tabbed browsing

Someone thought it would improve this article to completely remove any mention of the matter that would most interest Firefox users reading this section: That version 2 breaks the tab functioning that millions of 1.5x users expect. And that there is an easy, hidden, way to restore the expected functioning. Please, let's not contaminate our great encyclopedia by making it actually useful. 69.87.193.126 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a how to.-- Nonpareility 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Screenshot in tabbed browsing

An image with Firefox with a random skin showing a random webpage isn't an appropriate demonstration of tabbed browsing. A zoom-in of Firefox with the default skin showing the default homepage and some other major page would be better.-- Nonpareility 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair Enough Kc4 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Done. Kc4 18:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I forgot to include a couple words in what I wanted: "A zoom-in of tabs in Firefox". The Firefox window is big, so it's currently hard to even see the tabs.-- Nonpareility 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Now why didn't I think of that... consider it done Kc4 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC) reply

POV

Well many parts of this artical is just advertising of how FireFox features are better than IE, it needs a balance of where it also says problems of the features, not just how they are perfect Af648 00:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't get your argument. Internet explorer is the market leader in the internet browser world, and as such is the most valid item to compare against. As Firefox was released to directly compete against it, comparisons drawn are valid. Also, there are very few actual comparisons drawn between IE and FF in the article - I think the intro mentions IE, as does tabbed browsing and the security section. But all of these are valid.
Can you expand your complaint? We can only include problems with features if they are properly sourced, and not just the views of one guy on a blog somewhere (as seems to be the case with some of the inclusions at the moment). I am going to remove the dispute banner for now, until a better explanation can be given.- Localzuk (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that this whole article reads like marketing blurb to me. In response to Localzuk, here's some specific examples of "invalid" comparisons:

1.) The opening line reads: "These are some of the features of Mozilla Firefox that distinguish it from other web browsers such as Internet Explorer". The features then listed on this page include Support for HTML, CSS, Javascript, Tabbed Browsing, Pop-up blocking, spellchecking, bookmarks.... in what way do these features distinguish Firefox from IE (or every other browser that implements them?)
2.) "Firefox 3 includes a "Smart Location Bar". While most other browsers, such as Internet Explorer, will search through history for matching web sites as the user types a URL into the location bar, the Smart Location Bar Will also search through bookmarks for a page with a matching URL" - IE does this too (certainly my IE version 9 does), so not only is it a specific comparison to IE, but it's wrong.
3.) "Firefox's standards support and growing popularity have been credited as one reason Internet Explorer 7 was to be released with improved standards support" which cites, as it's source, http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-yielding-to-IE-standards-pressure/2100-1032_3-5620988.html. When you read this article, the line from which this conclusion has been reached appears to be "Let's remember that the reason for IE 7 is security," said Chris Hofmann, *Mozilla's director of engineering*. "That's what's driving people away from IE and focusing them on other browser solutions like Firefox". So that's hardly an independent source!
4.) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox, Firefox was created to combat bloat in the Mozilla suite - not to compete against IE, so why so many comparisons to it? If it's because IE is the market leader, this should be mentioned in the article. Tanoshimi ( talk) 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Firefox Download Manager.png

Image:Firefox Download Manager.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:FireFox 2 Tabbed Browsing.png

Image:FireFox 2 Tabbed Browsing.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Mozilla Update.png

Image:Mozilla Update.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Firefox Extensions.png

Image:Firefox Extensions.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

minor stuff

Regarding these edits, which were disputed here: I removed the anecdote about the Qute theme changeover simply because it has no relevance to the scope of this article. Before editing that portion out, I did do a double-take, not because I was torn on whether it should be included in this article, but because I thought it might have been called into question; I also remember the dispute as it happened, and felt it is a notable event in the development of Firefox, but, again, that's not within the scope of this article.

As for removing the following:

It should be noted that many of the aforementioned features are not unique to Firefox.

This statement is unnecessary. Nowhere in the article is it asserted than any of the features described are unique to Firefox, and it is not likely, nor logical, that anyone default to assuming that would be the case, in the absence of this statement. CSS support is not unique to Firefox. The integrated searchbar is not unique to Firefox. Really? Indeed, this is nothing short of astonishing. This statement was removed because it is unnecessary and stuck out poorly.

Given these explanations, I'll reincorporate my edits. If you feel they aren't adequate reasoning, well, you can just re-revert and we can talk it out. --  68.94.223.158 ( talk) 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. I largely wanted to make sure that it was a reasoned edit.
I think the Qute stuff removal is debatable, but I'm too tired right now to do it.  :)
WalterGR ( talk | contributions) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mozilla Firefox 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RM bot 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Features of Firefox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Studies / SHIELD

I wonder whether this system would merit a mention. [1] and [2] -- Palosirkka ( talk) 13:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I think so. It’s useful feature from Firefox and I’m interested in them (as a user). This looks like some kind of feature toggle. -- Franklin Yu ( talk) 08:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Firefox for Enterprise

Today I learned that Firefox for Enterprise is a thing. According to Mozilla documentation, it seems the same as a regular Firefox binary, plus additional policies deployed by site administrators. References:

Would like to know whether it’s worth to the article. -- Franklin Yu ( talk) 07:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Features_of_Firefox&oldid=1207194361"