Ironworks Gaming Forum - My Firefox is playing silly buggers with me...

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - My Firefox is playing silly buggers with me... (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96693)

...and I don't know why. Lately I've been having some problems with viewing pages via Firefox. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.7. Pages don't look like they do with IE 7. Here's an example (this is a page I accessed as part of my grad school research):

Using Firefox

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4...efoxwl2.th.jpg

And here is the same page using IE7

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5541/ie7ag1.th.jpg

The Firefox page looks all weird, while the IE page looks normal(ish).

Anyone know why this happens and how I can fix it? I'd be curious to know if any Firefox users have the same problem as me accessing this page (the URL is http://www.gradschool.sc.edu/ )

It's not Firefox's fault some websites are idiotic and hopelessly backward. My old high-school site was like this until me and a friend interveined. Don't give it another thought.

If the website is unable to support Firefox, then that will happen. I accessed a website today that says:

...This is a beta preview that supports Mac, Mozilla Firefox, and Internet Explorer (Including Version 7)...

In that example, it says that they know that their website is made to support different browsers. If a website has not taken the time to make sure that their page is multi-browser friendly, then you're stuck. (I assume).

My bank's website only supports Netscape and Explorer, and they say that.

[ 10-01-2006, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

So it's not just my Firefox then?

803-777-7000
This number appears to be for site information. How about it if I call them in the morning and actually ask them if there are known issues with other browsers, or if they indeed support Firefox...why or why not...

I will post my findings after I talk to them.

Geez mate, you don't have to go to that trouble. I'd hate to put you out.

I checked the link, using Firefox 1.5.0.7 for Mac. I got the same thing you did.

It's probably a case of someone trying to do fancy things with their site, without the common sense to check the results in multiple browsers.

My uni has a lot of pages that are 'best viewed using Mozilla' I think just comes down to who is designing the page.

What trouble? I am interested in it as well, and certainly am pleased to have the chance to help. Hey...if I sleep in late in the morning and do not have the time to call before I run off to school, then I'll not worry about it. Otherwise, I should have time to make one simple call.

I just saw this report on some security flaw in Firefox that some hackers reported on. Check these two snapperheads out, they look like they love themselves, eh. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Hackers claim zero-day flaw in Firefox
By Joris Evers
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 30, 2006, 10:57 PM PDT
.
SAN DIEGO--The open-source Firefox Web browser is critically flawed in the way it handles JavaScript, two hackers said Saturday afternoon.
.
An attacker could commandeer a computer running the browser simply by crafting a Web page that contains some malicious JavaScript code, Mischa Spiegelmock and Andrew Wbeelsoi said in a presentation at the ToorCon hacker conference here. The flaw affects Firefox on Windows, Apple Computer's Mac OS X and Linux, they said.
.
http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/1.CIMG1795_550x574.jpg

"Internet Explorer, everybody knows, is not very secure. But Firefox is also fairly insecure," said Spiegelmock, who in everyday life works at blog company SixApart. He detailed the flaw, showing a slide that displayed key parts of the attack code needed to exploit it.
.
The flaw is specific to Firefox's implementation of JavaScript, a 10-year-old scripting language widely used on the Web. In particular, various programming tricks can cause a stack overflow error, Spiegelmock said. The implementation is a "complete mess," he said. "It is impossible to patch."
.
The JavaScript issue appears to be a real vulnerability, Window Snyder, Mozilla's security chief, said after watching a video of the presentation Saturday night. "What they are describing might be a variation on an old attack," she said. "We're going to do some investigating."
.
Snyder said she isn't happy with the disclosure and release of an apparent exploit during the presentation. "It looks like they had enough information in their slide for an attacker to reproduce it," she said. "I think it is unfortunate because it puts users at risk, but that seems to be their goal."
.
At the same time, the presentation probably gives Mozilla enough data to fix the apparent flaw, Snyder said. However, because the possible flaw appears to be in the part of the browser that deals with JavaScript, addressing it might be tougher than the average patch, she added. "If it is in the JavaScript Virtual Machine, it is not going to be a quick fix," Snyder said.
.
The hackers claim they know of about 30 unpatched Firefox flaws. They don't plan to disclose them, instead holding onto the bugs.
.
Jesse Ruderman, a Mozilla security staffer, attended the presentation and was called up on the stage with the two hackers. He attempted to persuade the presenters to responsibly disclose flaws via Mozilla's bug bounty program instead of using them for malicious purposes such as creating networks of hijacked PCs, called botnets.
.
"I do hope you guys change your minds and decide to report the holes to us and take away $500 per vulnerability instead of using them for botnets," Ruderman said.
.
The two hackers laughed off the comment. "It is a double-edged sword, but what we're doing is really for the greater good of the Internet. We're setting up communication networks for black hats," Wbeelsoi said.
.
Source: Click here

I just got off the phone with the help desk at USC. Sorry I could not do it yesterday. The guy told me that they recommend Internet Explorer, and that they are using version 6. He said that the reason that Firefox is not working right for you is because of its design to disable all the codes and features that a website has that Firefox thinks might be dangerous, and that it does not understand the difference in safe sites such as their university page. He said that Explorer can be programmed to only accept sites that you know are safe and that it would therefore run even better than Firefox would, and give you the same security as Firefox does, since it would be blocking all unproven sites from running their unproven features.

It just proved to me after this phone call (and your previous post) that Firefox is not worth my time.

Those two seem like complete idiots. Note however that we have no proof of their bugs since they won't disclose.

Larry, if you only need IE for one site then you can just get an 'open IE for this page' button to easily launch it?

The link you posted displays perfectly in Opera 9 by the way, so perhaps it is a Firefox gimmick.

And of course, if you're worried about security then it's a better choice anyway:

IE - 106 security advisories, 19 remain unpatched, highest unpatched severity is "extremely critical" (5/5).

Firefox - 36 security advisories, 3 unpatched, highest unpatched severity is "less critical" (2/5).

Opera 9 - 1 security advisory, none are unpatched.

And just because Opera 9 hasn't been out that long:

Opera 8 - 15 security advisories, none unpatched.

It is a mystery why people use anything else.

[ 10-03-2006, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Quote:

Originally posted by shamrock_uk:

It is a mystery why people use anything else.

I hated the interface - especially the tabs. I used opera only for a few days a year ago at a friend's comp when my PC was off. Everytime I opened a new page it would open a new tab, rather than new window, which for me was annoying and put me off opera. I suppose it is possible to change this in settings, but I just didn't bother and downloaded Firefox. Never had security issues with firefox either.

I'll be getting something else now since firefox is starting to annoy me too. Too slow and getting "server not found" too often. I've checked the opera 9 screenshots and the interface seems better, so if there is a way to disable multi-tabs altogether I might go for it. But I've been hearing good things about IE7 from everyone who's used it so I might go for that...

Quote:

Originally posted by Larry_OHF:
I just got off the phone with the help desk at USC. Sorry I could not do it yesterday. The guy told me that they recommend Internet Explorer, and that they are using version 6. He said that the reason that Firefox is not working right for you is because of its design to disable all the codes and features that a website has that Firefox thinks might be dangerous, and that it does not understand the difference in safe sites such as their university page. He said that Explorer can be programmed to only accept sites that you know are safe and that it would therefore run even better than Firefox would, and give you the same security as Firefox does, since it would be blocking all unproven sites from running their unproven features.

It just proved to me after this phone call (and your previous post) that Firefox is not worth my time.

Without having heard the conversation, Larry, it sounds like you got the "I don't know it so don't use it" speech. Firefox does allow you to open up permissions on specific sites, so it's a question of knowledge (or lack thereof).

Besides, didn't they say they supported FF on the site? Or am I just dis-remembering?

ZFR, you are the first person I know of who is actually annoyed by the tabs. I find them the best intarweb invention ever, most handy they be.
Plus, Firefox will not allow itself to be opened more than once, which means, you can have 51234252 Firefox windows, and they'll all use the memory of just one. The same cannot be said for IE.
So seriously, FF>IE.
And I've never seen FF be any slower, or open less pages than IE. Sure, some morons still design websites with just IE in mind, but for every that kind of moron, you have one kind of idiot who designs pages strictly for Firefox, so it evens out. And as opposed to IE, you can actually train Firefox to open IE-only pages through liberal use of about:config.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bungleau:
[QB]
didn't they say they supported FF on the site? Or am I just dis-remembering?

No, I was referring to another site to show how some sites that know they do, will say so.

Quote:

Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
Those two seem like complete idiots. Note however that we have no proof of their bugs since they won't disclose.

Larry, if you only need IE for one site then you can just get an 'open IE for this page' button to easily launch it?

The link you posted displays perfectly in Opera 9 by the way, so perhaps it is a Firefox gimmick.

And of course, if you're worried about security then it's a better choice anyway:

IE - 106 security advisories, 19 remain unpatched, highest unpatched severity is "extremely critical" (5/5).

Firefox - 36 security advisories, 3 unpatched, highest unpatched severity is "less critical" (2/5).

Opera 9 - 1 security advisory, none are unpatched.

And just because Opera 9 hasn't been out that long:

Opera 8 - 15 security advisories, none unpatched.

It is a mystery why people use anything else.

Shamrock, I heard that Opera is really slow. Is this true?

I'm using Firefox, and not only has my general surfing experience been great, I've only ever ran into one problem, 7-8 updates ago, so personally I'm satisfied.

I may give Opera a try, but I moved from IE to Fireox so I'm not really interested in such a major change again yet.

In response to Memnoch's linked article,

Backpedal

Cheers.

With regards to Firefox, I do admit that it is far from perfect( by my wants at least), but it has satisfied me thus far.

Most of the features I wish it had, are relatively minor, and not patience-breaking.

Re the security bug, it looks like those two idiots have back-tracked.

Quote:

After reviewing the flaw, Mozilla published a posting on its developer blog downplaying the seriousness of the bug, initially reported by El Reg and other news outlets as creating a means for hackers to execute hostile code on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux PCs. The posting contains an agreed statement by Spiegelmock in which the security researcher backtracks on claims made during the talk that Firefox was riddled with security bugs.

Quote:

"As part of our talk we mentioned that there was a previously knownFirefox vulnerability that could result in a stack overflow ending up in remote code execution. However, I have not succeeded in making this code do anything more than cause a crash and eat up system resources, and I certainly haven’t used it to take over anyone else’s computer and execute arbitrary code," the statement reads.

Quote:

Originally posted by Memnoch:
Shamrock, I heard that Opera is really slow. Is this true?

In my experience, it flies. The browser speed comparisons site seems to offer a fairly thorough comparison.

[ 10-04-2006, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Quote:

Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
browser speed comparisons site seems to offer a fairly thorough comparison.

He say it take him 17 seconds for a cold start of Firefox, it take me 3-6 max, he also say it take him 24 seconds for netscape 8, and he's got a bunch of other ridicullous times. I stoped reading right there.

Edit: I remember why I haven't tried Opera yet. Last time I checked I didn't see a way to transfer my Firefox bookmarks to Opera.

[ 10-04-2006, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]