35 replies to this topic

[BillD]

Firefox 7.0 has been released, and unless you are visiting a secure site, the http:// part of the address is no visible.  However, if you are at a secure site, the https:// appears.Interestingly, I typed several different URL's in the address bar without any http://, pressed "enter" and it proceeded to that address.Guess this is the successor to the somewhat grayed out URL portions of the previous version 6 (you still see the grayed out portions; just not the http:// )Bill

Edited by V.T. Eric Layton, 28 September 2011 - 12:15 PM.
Edited to correct spelling error in title. ~Eric

[securitybreach]

Thanks for the heads up Bill, just got the update:

╔═ comhack@Cerberus 09:59 PM ╚═══ ~-> pacman -Qi firefox | grep VersionVersion		: 7.0-1

[zlim]

Bill,Go into about:configfilter browser.urlbarand scroll to browser.urlbar.trimURLschange the value from true to false if you want to see http://I didn't catch the grayed out portion of the url. I fixed that too.about:configbrowser.urlbar.formatting.enabledchange the value from true to false

Edited by zlim, 28 September 2011 - 09:06 AM.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Yeah... I added Firefox, Thunderbird, Seamonkey, and Xulrunner to my pacman.conf in Arch tonight. I have to give the Slack current repos a chance to catch up. I don't run current in Slack, but I usually snatch the newest Moz stuff from there... or else it's a long wait (not as long as Debian ) for it to show in the stable repos.

[crp]

I backed up my 3.6 directory just in case. but mozilla did seem to update my beta version of 5 to 7 without causing havoc on the 3.62 things that I still don't see how to change:how to align the icons to the right on the Add-On bar instead of the lefthow to get the "balloon" that pops up when hovering over links out of the lower left of the page display

[securitybreach]

So Eric, why are you holding back those packages in pacman.conf?

[BillD]

Quote

Go into about:configfilter browser.urlbarand scroll to browser.urlbar.trimURLschange the value from true to falseif you want to see http://I didn't catch the grayed out portion of the url. I fixed that too.about:configbrowser.urlbar.formatting.enabledchange the value from true to false

Thank you.The grayed out part of the URL was a new "feature" of Firefox 6, but now in 7, they eliminated the http part also. Wish they would stop this full number update stuff, just patch what needs to be patched, and issue a 4.x.x update.  This fixation with whole new numbers is a bit much   Bill

Edited by BillD, 28 September 2011 - 11:37 AM.

[zlim]

Just post what bugs you about the "new and improved version" and I've probably seen a hack and done it already. :hysterical:I'm trying to keep mine looking like version 3! I'm getting too old to keep relearning things every 6 or 7 weeks. Plus, I am tech support for my hubby and if something is different, he will think something is wrong with his computers. So I'm saving myself some headaches there.

[striker]

It makes you almost go bananas those constant updates/upgrades, don't they?You might as well try chromium for a change, it gets several updates daily... mind you, if I ever wanted to go insane this would be the chance ! That's nothing for us ol' pals 'n gals, we need some time to get over it. don't we? I know I do.

[sunrat]

BillD, on Sep 29 2011, 01:36 AM, said:

Wish they would stop this full number update stuff, just patch what needs to be patched, and issue a 4.x.x update.  This fixation with whole new numbers is a bit much  

+1

[V.T. Eric Layton]

securitybreach, on Sep 28 2011, 09:32 AM, said:

So Eric, why are you holding back those packages in pacman.conf?

Because I keep my Slack and Arch as synchronized as possible on my systems. Arch is my backup OS, remember, so it's easier to do that if the versions of the Moz products are the same (I share profile between them all on all my systems). Slack stable hasn't even gone to T-bird 6 yet and I think they just went to FF 6 the other day. I usually d-load the Moz packages from the Slack current repo because they're more up-to-date. I can keep Slack and Arch closer that way. Once 7.x shows in Slack's current, I'll d-load and install. I'll stop excluding in pacman.conf in Arch then also.Clear as tree bark, huh?

[securitybreach]

V.T. Eric Layton, on Sep 29 2011, 04:38 PM, said:

Because I keep my Slack and Arch as synchronized as possible on my systems. Arch is my backup OS, remember, so it's easier to do that if the versions of the Moz products are the same (I share profile between them all on all my systems). Slack stable hasn't even gone to T-bird 6 yet and I think they just went to FF 6 the other day. I usually d-load the Moz packages from the Slack current repo because they're more up-to-date. I can keep Slack and Arch closer that way. Once 7.x shows in Slack's current, I'll d-load and install. I'll stop excluding in pacman.conf in Arch then also.Clear as tree bark, huh?

Yup, sounds like a plan and yes it is crystal clear. I understand completely  

[V.T. Eric Layton]

This is what's in Slack current right now. I'll check again in a few days.

Quote

File:mozilla-firefox-6.0.2-x86_64-1.txz 13489 KB 09/05/2011 07:35:00 PMFile:mozilla-thunderbird-6.0.1-x86_64-1.txz 15470 KB 09/02/2011 07:05:00 PMFile:seamonkey-2.3.3-x86_64-1.txz 21860 KB 09/05/2011 08:07:00 PM

I'm running the above in my Slack right now. I'm running FF 6.0.2 and TB 6.0.2 in Arch.

[BillD]

Well, they have already brought out FF 7.0.1 which is only about 3 days since they did 7.0 . . . Bill

[zlim]

I guess I'll be updating 6 firefox installs today. <sigh>

[réjean]

Wow! I am now running the FF 8.0 beta. At this speed we will be running FF 36 by 2012 if not earlier.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

Firefox... to INFINITY and BEYOND!!!

[réjean]

The funny thing is that I don't really see improvements  worth mentioning. I mean fixing some security leaks and what not is great and welcomed but in the old days of netscape ( for example ) when we went from 3.0 to 4.0 that was an awesome jump, then 4.6 came along and wow. We don't get the same anymore or am I the only one thinking this was?

[zlim]

You aren't alone, réjean. FF version numbers are now meaningless.

[BillD]

Quote

We don't get the same anymore or am I the only one thinking this was?

No you are not.Bill

Edited by BillD, 01 October 2011 - 02:36 PM.

[crp]

I've been trying out FF7 and , well , it is giving me nothing FF3.6 did not give me and it's UI is a pain.I am using IE8 more and more, the only thing keeping me in FF is the add-ons that do not have an equivalent in IE8Who'd have thunk it?   but FF is insisting on self-immolation.

[striker]

Well Seamonkey is on the same boat nowadays, I started with 2.0.14, a couple weeks later the race there also started with an update to 3, then a couple of other ones, to be at this moment at 4.0.1. I think the time gets nearer to start our own browser.

[securitybreach]

striker, on Oct 3 2011, 11:25 AM, said:

I think the time gets nearer to start our own browser.

Right  

[crp]

striker, on Oct 3 2011, 09:25 AM, said:

Well Seamonkey is on the same boat nowadays, I started with 2.0.14, a couple weeks later the race there also started with an update to 3, then a couple of other ones, to be at this moment at 4.0.1. I think the time gets nearer to start our own browser.

My SeaMonkey at work is 2.0.14, at home it is 2.2.4 or 2.4.2 , either way not at 4.xxAre you on the beta cycle?As long as webmasters don't start blocking FF3.6.xx , I am going to stick with that as my FF browser.

Edited by crp, 03 October 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[striker]

Aha, you caught me... a typo on my part... It's 2.4.1 I'm using, started with 2.0.14 and then upwards.I think I mixed up the FF release numbers with those of SeaMonkey. I also use chromium, another release race, two or three or even more daily updates but that's one I'm monitoring and testing, although at this moment I don't have it on the machine I'm using now.