What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
101 Comments
- pooper, on 10/11/2007, -13/+86Sounds pretty dirty to me, Google...
- SuperMoses, on 10/11/2007, -2/+67As long as the feature is allowed to be disabled I don't mine. I'll be ecstatic if the just fix all of the ***** bugs in 2.0.
- ivanisavich, on 10/11/2007, -18/+62And Firefox 4.0 will block all websites.
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -8/+39Wow, Google's getting the blame for something Mozilla is choosing to do with their software.
Way cool you guys. All Google's doing is tagging sites as being possible malsites. Any interaction taken from the software on the other side is outside of Google's control. - zhulien, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28I've been waiting for a browser that blocks everything but pr0n for a while now...
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27Nobody should be "at blame". This is like anti-phishing filters and a whole bunch of other security precautions. It's aimed at people who *need* their hand slapped when they touch something hot. If you're not one of those people turn it off and forget it exists.
- SlewDigger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21If it was an extension, no one would use it except people smart enough not to visit the malicious sites in the first place.
- funkytaco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22This a very good thing. Firefox already WARNS about phishing sites - it doesn't actually block them. I work in a datacenter so I see malicious sites all the time in Firefox, and it works very well. This will be very good for your grandma.
- AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -10/+30Um, you do realise IE7 on Vista uses more RAM than FF2 - with only CNN open IE7 has at 50meg, FF2 at 30ish. Besides, I cant run IE on Linux.
- jdc760, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21@ SuperMoses: If they don't allow it to be disabled, I'm sure you can find a mine to hire you.
- cogitocogito, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16This security option (I assume it'll be an option) seems like feature bloat. Why not just an extension?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Choices:
1) Don't use FireFox
2) Use it but turn off this feature
3) Use it and enjoy the feature as free protection from all the junk that's out there, brought to you by your free market economy.
4) Whine about it - caddoo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15it should just be an option in preferences and be enabled by default.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Hence we don't need gecko engine.
And memory usage will stay low, Don't have to fix bugs in css rendering, javascript headaches, xhtml compliance...,
Will probably have a google search box. - Murdats, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8right, and lets leave all security disabled by default. after all it may be annoying to those who know what they are doing.
lets leave it disabled so that people who need it dont know how to turn it on. (or that it exists) - celcho, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8i'm sure it would say that the site was being blocked due to google tagging it as malicious, and click here to continue if you're sure this is where you want to go.
- fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10The Google/Mozilla relationship is a monetary one. Google pays Firefox a huge sum of money, basically bankrolling the entire corporation, to be the default search engine so for the 4 minutes before firefox users install adblock they can view ads on Google and support the company and browser they claim to love.
- killerofkiller, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8who uses the @googlemail part.. @gmail i so much cooler and easier to type
- Topher06, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8FF2 is doing that pretty effectively already, what with it crashing 16 times a day.
@AlexFerny the difference is that I can actually browse the CNN website with IE7 instead of FF2 crashing, but have you looked at FF2 memory usaged after about, say 2 hours of use. IE7 might still be at 50, FF2 is at 500mb. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Anyone in Europe.
- Ancestor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Too much hand-holding? For you and probably everyone else here on Digg, probably. But not for the mythical "average user". It never ceases to amaze me how clueless and naive users are. Having just read that 96% of users fall for simple phishing scams (http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2007/06/password.html) it sounds like good idea to me.
Anyway, I am sure that you will be able to turn it off, so there's no problem. - dodgyd55, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4but then how am i gonna search for serial codes on serials.ws :( and im not gonna use I.E
- judsond, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This is probably a naive interpretation of the google/firefox relationship. Not that I think this is a bad feature though, obviously you will be able to turn it off, it's just an extension of the "suspected forgery" feature now, which also uses google and also is optional.
- BigFloppy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Grow up.
- Yeeeaaaahhhhh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Fireblox 3.0?
- AlexFerny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Not IE7, and I dont need IE, I'm happy with Firefox - which loads much MUCH faster for me under Linux than it did under Windows (I guess all the MS bloat weighs it down).
- matdevdug, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Overall I don't like the idea of anyone watching my computer usage on the internet, especially Google who is directly interested in which sites I go to and which sites I don't.
As for this I think it would be really easy to make this an option you select or deselect on installation. I actually have supported the development of two different options for Firefox for quite some time. One mode would be a safe mode that would automatically block out these kinds of things and give you a warning when it did. Another mode would be a professional or free mode where sites wouldn't be blocked no matter what and there wouldn't be any annoying warning messages. - Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I really doubt you won't be able to disable it.
- Ukonu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Didn't crash when I went to .....wait..... is this an advertisment? Clever......
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Wow, look at the double standard of comments in a news article about two companies that everyone loves.
Clearly Mozilla can do no wrong. - adz999, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2waiting for the "I run a mac blah blah baaaaaaah"
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I just want a leaner, meaner and memory efficient Firefox. Is that too much to ask?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I can't say I'm a great fan of this idea. There have been about 10 times when Firefox has warned me not to visit a site because it will harm my computer - and I have disagreed with it.
Using the Mac at home, I can visit more sites than a Windows user using Firefox too.
If they display a warning, with a "go back" and a "yes, I'm really really sure" button, then I am ok with that. Or I'll just compile my own Firefox and name it IceWeasel or something. - jacekpoplawski, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I fully agree. This is very dangerous. First they will block "bad sites", they they will block "illegal sites", then they will block sites without adverts.
- speaker219, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4@AlexFerny
IE can be run on linux:
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page - TheG2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4PJBonoVox
Oh dear god finally someone else comments on this. Trying to download an EXE. "Do you want to save this file?" WTF NO! Just run it, don't download every little file to my desktop...seriously, its so stupid that you can't turn that off. - Ancestor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2In which I'm sure Mozilla would drop this cooperation. No need to worry in advance.
- ilgaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Search partnership has been always around even in Netscape 2.x. It is nothing like "send url of current site to third party by default". You know who else partners with Google for default search engine? Safari. Yes, part of $140 operating system.
- zhulien, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2perhaps the new firefox won't crash every time I visit here http://laserdiscarchive.co.uk/ (it really p*sses me off)
- wedderburn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1this is a good idea, there is a vast amount of stupid/naive internet users out there who are on unprotected windows box's just makes getting a infection a bit more hard, for power users this doesn't really apply and properly can be disabled.
- BaByB0y, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think It won't happen.
Google have many great addons for firefox. OF course, Firefox and Google is always great with everyone, so they'll try their best to make it not happen
My bad in English lolz
nXqd - DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1These website ratings components always end up with profiling legitimate sites as "malicious" because of ONE idiot's complaint. SiteMinder did this, and I promptly deleted the extension. Let's hope we can disable this or someone can build a version with this garbage ripped out.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Theg2
I got dugg down for my efforts, so maybe it's just you and me that HATE that 'feature'. - FatHed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1How about the browser doing what I tell it to do? If I want to go to a site, I don't really care if google thinks it's "bad" or not, I want to go there. How about doing that also because it's my computer, my resources, and using some without telling me really annoys me.
- MaverickAlex, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1yes you can
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Umm can't have have a more stable, and faster firefox instead?? *will pass on the feature* i don't mind if they add it, as long as its optional.
- closetosomet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1for all the people whining about firefox 3 being bloated, give the beta a try. i find its much faster than 2.0, if not more responsive.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5COOL! www.microsoft.com, your days are numbered! :)
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I can visit just as many sites as you on Windows.
It's really more of a "don't be stupid and download things" thing than an operating system thing. - jacekpoplawski, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3No more Tiananmen in Firefox for you.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is