Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

156 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923426)

I really need a girlfriend or something

NIGGERDICKS PENETRATING YOUR EAR (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923996)

zomg niggerdicks!@

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923430)

Have it off by default. Done.

Sometimes it doesn't take a genius to figure these things out.

so use encryption. (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923432)

anyone can get over the privacy issues, Mozilla just needs to encrypt the user's settings with a strong key and store the encrypted data to the server. Only the user can decrypt it (assuming he remembers his passphrase) and you're done.

If you make this a non-optional feature then it can be touted as a big privacy win and people will surely be happier wit it. If you allow the passphrase to be stored locally then ease of use is solved too (obviously you'd still need to enter it if you used a browser not on your home PC, but that's ok).

Re:so use encryption. (5, Informative)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923514)

Actually, that's what they do now. From the article:

  • We currently encrypt on the client all data that gets placed on the server, with an encryption passphrase that only the user knows.
  • We kept the server intentionally dumb and standards-based, so that anyone can set up a server for themselves and/or their friends or company.

Re:so use encryption. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923594)

This is slashdot, don't expect anyone to RTFA.

Re:so use encryption. (3, Interesting)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923750)

I've always hoped that Google would make this an option with gmail. Encrypt all data stored on their servers, add encryption on sending, and they'd have a wonder application. Not that Google (owner of Doubleclick) makes any money from user privacy, of course.

Re:so use encryption. (2, Informative)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925412)

It wouldn't matter. At some point, email is transmitted in the clear. Either you trust Google or you don't. If you don't trust Google, they're receiving all your mail in the clear, so they're already capable of violating your "privacy". If you do trust them and still want your data encrypted, you're not getting much benefit -- the data still goes to recipients in the clear, and they can still receive copies.

You're probably better off with thunderbird or evolution or something and gmail IMAP, where you can store private keys safely for decryption without Google having access.

Re:so use encryption. (1)

JackMeyhoff (1070484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923968)

So THEY say, but how do we really know?

Re:so use encryption. (4, Insightful)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924122)

You're right. If only we could force them to release the source code or something, then we could just look.

Re:so use encryption. (4, Interesting)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924256)

look and see the actual source code running, or look at what they say is the source code?

Re:so use encryption. (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924428)

There's a way! I just sent out the patent, I'm calling it "compiling". See you "compile" the "source code" then you can check to see using a program that I will write called "diff"(like difference) to see if the files differ. If they do then its not the same! Wow I'm gonna be rich!

Re:so use encryption. (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924728)

Thats great if they machines are identical with the exact same libraries and headers. Almost every machine will have a different version of something, your binary will be slightly different.

Re:so use encryption. (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925568)

There's a way! I just sent out the patent, I'm calling it "compiling". See you "compile" the "source code" then you can check to see using a program that I will write called "diff"(like difference) to see if the files differ. If they do then its not the same! Wow I'm gonna be rich!
And somehow you're gonna access google's servers and diff with their binaries?

Re:so use encryption. (2, Insightful)

caferace (442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925080)

Build it yourself from source, and run it on your own server. Gosh.

Re:so use encryption. (1)

ketilwaa (1095727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925546)

Paranoiaville, here we come!

Re:so use encryption. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21925788)

Paranoiaville, here we come!
Who told you we were going there? How did they know? You told them, didn't you?!?!?

as long as no admin backdoor for the police (1)

Bored MPA (1202335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924308)

any sort of server side vulnerability means your passwords and destinations can be acquired by law enforcement with a court order (you cannot otherwise be compelled to give them). However, the fact that they are saying _all_ client data gets encrypted is important, because it means they cant issue subpoenas to other sites based on link information stored on the server.

not that i'm paranoid, but that information request could become a trivial law enforcement action in the near future...and we already have enough ways to easily add on to charges and intimidate people into plea-bargaing or pleaing guilty.

And no i'm not paranoid, I just know that it is already perfectly legal and regular practice for law enforcement to lie to suspects to get them to confess (even innocent ones)--so a widely-known, secure system is essential for peace of mind _and_ sound legal advice from techno-averse public defenders. Lying about evidence works great with small time crooks and emotionally traumatized people, but it would also work great with folks browsing the interwebs.

anyway, undercover work is fine but as long as dishonesty is a sanctioned component of the legal process, no one should regularly think the police have a better memory of your daily events than you do. and yeah, martin tankleff (the kid jailed for 17 years for killing his parents) is an extreme example, but power available is power abused.

Re:so use encryption. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924480)

Most likely the encryption is done in a weak way, where any system cracker who gets machine access can easily trap the passphrase.

I wished they did all encryption/decryption only on the client, the server only storing/accessing encrypted records.

Re:so use encryption. (1)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924396)

Firstly, this looks basically like Opera's Link [opera.com] (although I don't think that supports passwords etc yet).

Security-wise, although I can see that many people would like any stored data encrypted so the service provider can't make use of it, that'd mean the user's computer would need to encrypt/decrypt it client-side. If you want to be able to access information from a bog-standard HTML interface (which I believe Opera Link allows), the service provider needs to be able to decrypt your information server-side.

I don't think they are (4, Funny)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923448)

After all, this is a magnificent opportunity to build the greatest list of porn links the world has ever seen!

Re:I don't think they are (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923790)

no way, I'm not sharing and I'm responsible for over 30% of internet masturbation!

online, online, and online again (2, Interesting)

Paolo DF (849424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923454)

I understand that all this online frenzy hit all major players in the IT field, but I still think that the Internet as it is now is not ready for this, and, in parallel, a lot of people don't feel ready for this.
By the way, good luck to Mozilla; it is always good to have more than one player.

Re:online, online, and online again (2, Insightful)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923946)

I think anything that can make a computer workstation as generic as a television is a good idea; the challenge lies in handling the user data/settings. If everything was online and online again, you would not need X-on-a-stick but only to log in to your online profile from any workstation.

Hm, imagine that. Having a workstation that from the ground up is equipped to handle roaming users, even across the internet. There would be issues with compatibility and installed software, but assuming the basics (OS login, browser bookmarks, yadda yadda) it would be a fair step towards ubiquitous computing. Ah, the future ... are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...

Re:online, online, and online again (2, Funny)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924182)

Well, you can pry my self-contained, customised ultraportable laptop from my dead, cold hands. And only then. I have yet to see a web-based application that is as fast and convenient to use as a native program and doesn't get in the way due to being a slightly overpowered web page. And I have yet to see two (let alone any more) separate web applications that have a consistent look&feel, which is a critical feature of any *work*station, that is, a computer used for doing some kind of *work*, not wasting time on MySpace. I see a very, very long way for this whole "web-based" hype to produce something serious enough...

Re:online, online, and online again (2, Insightful)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924226)

True, that. The eye candy is always the first thing to go in, and the productivity last (if at all).

Re:online, online, and online again (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924376)

Unix was there for the local network 15 years ago. You would walk up to any terminal and could log in with all your settings, preferences intact.

It worked over the Internet too, but the general internet had way to much lag for X applications to run that way. It would be possible now if it weren't for MSFT and thier silly dog Apple. MSFT has done one good thing though, they brought down the cost of the hardware so everyone can afford some. Now if only they would bring down the cost of their OS so people can afford that.$400 for hardware, and $400 for the OS, or $600 and buy a Mac with all the features of the $400 computer, and $400 OS. Hopefully Linux with just the $400 computer cost can lower MSFt pricing a bit.

Re:online, online, and online again (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925432)

Unix was there for the local network 15 years ago. You would walk up to any terminal and could log in with all your settings, preferences intact [...] but the general internet had way to much lag for X applications to run that way.
I'm not talking about running apps remotely, which is basically a thin client with or without X-the-windowing-system; when I said X-on-a-stick I meant X as in whatever-app-you-would-be-running ("the X that is seen is not the true X", and all that). Hmm, imprecise wording on my part.

What I am talking about is remote storage between sessions. While logged in your apps would run on the local workstation, only reading your profile from your remote store when logging in, and writing changes back when logging out.

MSFT has done one good thing though, they brought down the cost of the hardware so everyone can afford some.
Sorry, but you got that wrong, mate. Columbia Data Products did that, when they clean-room cloned the IBM PC. MS just got the benefit of a wildly expanding market... I see your point, though.

Re:online, online, and online again (1)

esper (11644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925842)

I'm not talking about running apps remotely... What I am talking about is remote storage between sessions. While logged in your apps would run on the local workstation, only reading your profile from your remote store when logging in, and writing changes back when logging out.

Yes. As the GP said, unix was doing that 15 years ago, in the form of NFS-mounted home directories. (15 years is actually a rather conservative estimate, but that's beside the point.) Works great for applications running on the local workstation, whether command-line or X-based, but it's not really a secure enough solution to run across today's internet. (I know there are more secure remote filesystem technologies out there these days, but I don't have direct experience with doing this over any of them.)

Personally, while I think that kind of portable data/settings arrangement is great, I have no interest in the internet-based versions embraced by the current trend for the simple reason that I'm not interested in entrusting my data (much less my secrets) to $RANDOM_CORPORATION, no matter how convenient that may make things. Get a well-developed standard along these lines, allow me to set up my own server to store it all, and I may well do so, but I see no benefit in entrusting such things to a third-party repository which are not more than offset by the inevitability that, at some point, the repository's interests may differ from my own.

Re:online, online, and online again (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925762)

Where the FUCK are you buying Windows, that it costs $400?

Re:online, online, and online again (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924432)

Hm, imagine that. Having a workstation that from the ground up is equipped to handle roaming users, even across the internet. There would be issues with compatibility and installed software, but assuming the basics (OS login, browser bookmarks, yadda yadda) it would be a fair step towards ubiquitous computing. Ah, the future ... are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
Well, I've run across two [gopc.net] services [zonbu.com] like that recently.
GOPC, while closer to 'save once, read anywhere' is ridiculously limited,in that you can't install applications and that the cost per gigabyte of storage is through the roof. (It actually makes me think of Geocities/Angelfire's hosting plans on some level.)
Zonbu, while being more expensive (hardware costs), includes a small, moddable thin client, a more programs, 4-60GB of local storage and 50GB of online storage.

It may not be much, but a few cool toys trickle down every now and then.

Re:online, online, and online again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21925110)

Depending who came out on top in such a scenario, you might not WANT to be there yet.

Fear these words: Software-as-a-Service and Data-Storage-as-a-Service.

Well, maybe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923456)

if you could set up your own server.. Which, you can:

We kept the server intentionally dumb and standards-based, so that anyone can set up a server for themselves and/or their friends or company.

Google browser sync? (1)

A Pancake (1147663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923458)

Browser sync already does this. I've often felt the implementation was a bit cumbersome though. It's good to see competition in the field.

grieve, get upset, so we'll have some say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923482)

or, if the notion of having something to say about yOUR future does not suit you, consider just continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn. whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

I dislike (1, Funny)

honeybuttertoast (1158569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923500)

I dislike the sexist nature of this article.

MOD PARENT FUNNY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923560)

lol.

Re:I dislike (2, Informative)

ParaShoot (992496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923724)

Why? What would you rather see - "she" written throughout the article? How would that be any better? "It"? "He/she" or "s/he" everywhere? Cumbersome and ugly. "They"? Grammatically incorrect, despite being used everywhere. "One" just sounds weird and formal (and the article isn't written in German).

An arbitrary choice was made. Pick "he" sometimes and "she" at other times, if it bothers you that much. More importantly, stop making big issues out of nonexistent ones - you understood the article, didn't you? Language is about communication; people being arsey about things like this are missing the point entirely.

/rant

Re:I dislike (2, Interesting)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923810)

Why? What would you rather see

Yo. [metro.co.uk]

Re:I dislike (0, Troll)

honeybuttertoast (1158569) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923874)

you understood the article, didn't you?
No. Like I said, I just couldn't get past the terrible sexism and I still haven't. This article could be about the mouse that frequents my local bus stop for all I know. I know I should be able to look past it, but I just can't bring myself to think about anything else right now.

"They"? Grammatically incorrect
Now who's being arsey? I suppose whatever word is used, someone will get hurt.

Re:I dislike (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924016)

You need to learn Finnish, which has only one word for "(s)he". The finns I know all speak weird English as a consequence, but that's another matter:
Finn: She's looking for you.
Me: Who is?
Finn: Klinger is.
Me: O_o I thought Klinger was a ... nevermind.

Also, in Sweden, if you ask somebody the time, (s)he'll say "She's 11:37."

Re:I dislike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924596)

I dislike the sexist nature of Finnish.

Re:I dislike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21925166)

Frankly, I'd say if the use of 'he' as opposed to your word of choice in an article in which gender is entirely irrelevant troubles you that much for a full half an hour and you aren't just being deliberately annoying, you have far greater issues than any 'implied sexism' that the author of the article might have.

Re:I dislike (1)

mecenday (1080691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924020)

"They"? Grammatically incorrect, despite being used everywhere.
The singular "They" [wikipedia.org] dates back to at least Shakespeare (1594). I think your grammar teacher lied to you.

Re:I dislike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924018)

holy cow, sensitive much?

Sexism how? because they used a male example user?

they had a 50/50 chance of either offending you or the masculinists out there. and the only difference between you and the masculinists are that most "masculinists" I've met are actually just fed up with the whole pc group making our language cumbersome to use and not allowing us to generically refer to everyone by using a male example.

I have one word, not everything is sexist. I had to read the article 3 times to even notice the apparent sexism and I'm always very careful about what I write so as to not offend your type. I'm posting this anonymously because in an article you're offended because of TWO f'ing words in it. TWO WORDS IN A PAGE LONG ARTICLE!!!
TWO WORDS!!! if it was constantly "He this" and "He that" I could see your point but the fact is they used it in one example and used the word TWICE!

GET OVER YOUR SELF IMPOSED OPPRESSION!!!

Re:I dislike (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924104)

I had to read the article 3 times to even notice the apparent sexism and I'm always very careful about what I write so as to not offend your type.

I always read everything carefully, but I don't bother trying to avoid offending someone with a hypersensitivity to non-issues. Political-correctness is a waste of time and energy that provides little practical benefit.

Re:I dislike (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924320)

I dislike you being a woman. Go enjoy a dildo infested with AIDS you fat God worshipping, bloated asshole.You probably even support Bush. Go die quietly, in a corner.

Useful enough? (3, Informative)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923504)

I think it depends on personal preference. If it was opt-in and encrypted on your end before it was stored on Mozilla servers then they send you the (encrypted) data on local load of Firefox then you enter your secret password/phrase (or have it come out of the wallet or equivalent) to decrypt it, again, locally then there wouldn't be *any* privacy issues. And if you chose to use it it would definately come in handy for those instances where the OS unexpectedly borks itself on you and you have to reinstall. Then install firefox, enter your access code and at least that part it back to pre-bork settings.

Sorry Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923536)

What they're planning to do will probably be done by google in a few more days. They already save bookmarks.

I think Opera 9.5 is supposed to do this (1)

Anonimouse (934959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923538)

And it makes a hell of a lot more sense for Opera too since they are involved with the mobile/console market. But for firefox there are already plugins that do this, so i don't see any urgent dedicate brand new to this functionality.

user is male (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923552)

let's make computers more gender biased by using some masculine pronouns! his browser... wherever he is... i mean come on.

Re:user is male (1, Insightful)

jcaldwel (935913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923784)

This makes me cringe, too, but technically, according to Webster, "he" can be used in the "generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified". [merriam-webster.com]

I can't call the language non-biased, but the bias exists in the English language itself.

That being said, the author should have followed basic writing etiquette and replaced the pronouns with him/her, he/she, etc... or, get rid of the gender-biased pronouns altogether and restructured the sentences to use words like "oneself".

Re:user is male (1)

Nanidin (729400) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924466)

PC police, coming in! In Spanish, every word has a masculine and feminine form. When there is a mix of males and females, the masculine form is used. When it's ambiguous, the masculine form is used. Replacing pronouns with he/she, him/her, etc is simply redundant. You're not accomplishing anything with it other than pacifying some overzealous feminazis.

Re:user is male (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924648)

"he/she, him/her, males and females, masculine and feminine"? Not she/he, her/him, females and males, feminine and masculine? So you're saying men should always come first are you?

Why don't you just get off /. and get back to beating your wife?

Re:user is male (1)

Nanidin (729400) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924744)

No point in beating a dead horse.

I wouldn't use this (2, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923562)

I wouldn't use this. After all, the bookmarks I have at home are different from the ones I have at work. :)
I can't envisage a time when I'd need this. Plus it's very easy to SCP my bookmarks.html from my PC at home if I need them - or a simple SSH and grep to find the precise one I want. A solution in search of a problem?

Re:I wouldn't use this (1)

cavtroop (859432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923602)

No, just a solution that doesn't fit what you are looking for. Me? I use Foxmarks to keep my bookmarks synced between my multiple machines. Having sessions/passwords etc sync would be great, once I could get over the privacy issues.

Re:I wouldn't use this (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923662)

Oh, my comment wasn't that it'd be no good for everyone, just that it wasn't much use for me.

Only for Firefox 3.0.* ? (1)

Wolve (155734) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923622)

Tried to install it on FF 2.0.11 and it told me it only works on FF 3.0B2pre and 3.0.*? How far is FF 3.0 off? A few months or so?

If you haven't looked at Firefox 3... (5, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923630)

If you haven't looked at Firefox 3 beta, there are some crazy new bookmark features, including "smart" bookmarks generated from frequently-visited sites and such. There's also bookmark tagging. This must fit in very nicely with the "weave" strategy.

I'd be worried if I were del.icio.us. Not panicked, just worried. :)

They need to focus on maintenence, too. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923800)

There are a lot of new features in Firefox 3. But there has also been a serious neglect of the maintenance aspect of software development.

I know maintenance is not as glorious as adding new features, but it's still very important with each new release to fix the problems that were found with previous versions (or at least verify that such problems no longer exist).

While some small number of people might like these new bookmarking capabilities, I think they should have spent more time on fixing some of the issues plaguing the core of their browser: excessive memory usage, memory fragmentation, excessive CPU utilization, and segfaults. Fixing those would help every user.

Re:They need to focus on maintenence, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924082)

Amen! I've been using the Firefox 3 betas for a while now, and I'm still having a lot of the problems that you've mentioned. The memory usage is the main one I've encountered. After a 20 minute browsing session, after visiting perhaps 8 to 12 sites, my Firefox 3 process will be using 1200 MB of RAM! I've got 4 GB, so it's not really a major problem, but it still shouldn't be using that much RAM. It seems to me like it has a serious memory leak. Oh and I don't have any extensions installed, so they're not to blame. This is an inherent problem with Firefox.

I already use del.icio.us for my bookmarks online, so I don't see why I'd want to use Mozilla's version. I too would rather that they just spend some time making Firefox as fast and light as Opera. I keep wanting to use Firefox since its open source unlike Opera, but Opera just works so much better that I think I might have to swallow my objections and just use Opera instead.

Re:They need to focus on maintenence, too. (1)

idealego (32141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924468)

If you haven't already, try Firefox with a fresh profile.

Re:They need to focus on maintenence, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924788)

So now he's going to lose all of his customizations, bookmarks, settings, etc., just because the Mozilla developers can't seem to get around to fixing the memory leaks in their software? Seems pretty stupid, if you ask me. That's the sort of crap that'll drive someone to Opera permanently.

Re:They need to focus on maintenence, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21925238)

That's quite a remarkable statement. Without spending as little as five seconds actually looking into Firefox 3, the effort put in it, the things that have changed and the focus they had during maintainance you make some sort of blanket statement and instead of being called troll you get 'insightful'. Fascinating.

If you *would* have taken the effort of looking into Firefox 3 before you trolled you could have known that apart from a couple of new features about 90% of development has gone towards rewriting existing code to make it faster, use less memory, use less CPU and have improved security.
 
Now, I know that talking about stuff that you actually know something about is not really glamorous but I would advise you to try it sometime.

Re:They need to focus on maintenence, too. (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925548)

They have been spending lots of time fixing those issues. Are there any specific bug reports you think should be addressed? Any particular site or feature you're having a problem with?

If you cannot or will not track down the problems you're complaining about, and they persist even after creating a new profile and trying other fixes in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base [mozillazine.org] and asking for help in the MozillaZine Forums [mozillazine.org] , you should simply switch to another browser. Why put up with serious problems when there are so many other browsers to choose from?

Re:If you haven't looked at Firefox 3... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924438)

Is Yahoo! making any money with del.icio.us, or should they be worried that somebody is doing something that is 'more neater'?

Ooohhh... that's like so 1996.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923636)

Anyone remember those vanity websites hosted at the university that included a few paragraphs of eclectic ego tripping and a link to someone's Netscape bookmarks?

Id like to see (1)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923656)

a way to save bookmarks, etc on *MY* server. (By "My server", I mean my personally owned and operated FreeBSD box I have colo'ed', not what the average moron might mean where they confuse 'server' with 'service provider' and use 'my server' to refer to their ISP)

So privacy and security concerns go away (or at least, would be under my control rather than someone else's), but all the same functionality is there.

Re:Id like to see (2, Interesting)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923822)

[I'd like to see] a way to save bookmarks, etc on *MY* server. (By "My server", I mean my personally owned and operated FreeBSD box I have colo'ed', not what the average moron might mean where they confuse 'server' with 'service provider' and use 'my server' to refer to their ISP)

From TFA:

We kept the server intentionally dumb and standards-based, so that anyone can set up a server for themselves and/or their friends or company.

Re:Id like to see (2, Informative)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923910)

I hate to want to reply to own post, but just in case you think TFA is just some goof with a Blogspot blog, the original quote is from Mozilla Labs [mozilla.com] , specifically from Dan Mills [sandmill.org] , a FireFox dev and former Novell engineer - definately not the average moron [sandmill.org] .

Re:Id like to see (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923904)

Aren't you the big man on campus, what with your FreeBSD server and all. I mean, only a genius could possibly set up a colocated FreeBSD server like that. My god, you probably have a huge cock, too. I'm thinking at least 15", maybe even 18" or 19".

Re:Id like to see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924270)

Yeah? Suck my beefmeat, Jewboy.

Re:Id like to see (1)

timcrews (763629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925734)

Take a look at sitebar at http://sitebar.org/ [sitebar.org] . It is open-source, and easy to install on your own server. There is a Firefox plugin that allows you to use it as a sidebar. I've been using it for several months.

Basement browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21923690)

A geek browser trying to be social? Will the irony never cease?

I thought it can be be withn plugins/extensions... (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923742)

and someone should already have done it already?

Re:I thought it can be be withn plugins/extensions (1)

l1m3house (1128815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923816)

IIRC this is called social bookmarking and we've already got plenty of implementations, thanks very much. seems to me like a lame-ish pitch for some Web2.0 pie. if someone wanted to write an extension that said "auto-save my bookmarks to del.ico.us" then fine. but do we need moz to do that?

Plugins (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924984)

It has been done with plugins. Mine stores 2GB and I keep it on my keychain.

Privacy issues? What privacy issues? (2, Insightful)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923770)

If you don't want to use it, don't download the extension. To use it, you have to:

  - Go to a site
  - Create an account
  - Download an extension (on every single computer you use)
  - Put in your username and password (again)
  - Put in a private encryption passphrase
  - Manually click the 'Sync' button.

Only then will it start automatically updating your bookmarks. If you have privacy issues about uploading your bookmarks to Mozilla's servers, then you can quite easily back out at any of these points, or not bother at all. If the fear is that they will share your bookmarks, then simply don't give them any to share. This is not a feature that is on by default, and the blog linked to even specifies that, if you're that paranoid about giving them your data, there will be a way to set up your own Weave server, so no-one but you will be able to know you visit PissMidgets.com

Slightly sensationalist article methinks.

host it yourself? (4, Informative)

evilmoo (1213394) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923828)

From the debugging logs, it seems like the information is just stored on a server via HTTPS+WebDAV. So if you control a web site (and you trust it more than you trust Mozilla), just change the Server Location (in Advanced Settings) from "https://services.mozilla.com/" to your own server. You will have to create a directory underneath that is the sha1sum of your account name, and it is up to you to set the permissions on the directory properly so that no one else can access it. Of course, this is all just an educated guess, but... "The rest is left as an exercise to the reader." :)

Great to have another vendor (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923866)

Great to have another choice of vendor to store my browser profile at. I've been asking Mozilla for a roaming feature for years. I've seen the plugins that do this, but they host my data either at a company that's unknown to me, or that I don't trust.

I have suggested the option of entering login info for an FTP server that you own (or have access to), so you don't have to rely on someone else, but it's no surprise that it's not going to happen unless Mozilla themselves go after it (or I write it myself, except my C fu is weak).

If Mozilla finally brings this into the main trunk, then it should be a small(er) step to enable user-provided hosting, too.

Google Browser Sync (3, Informative)

eht (8912) | more than 6 years ago | (#21923868)

Google Browser Sync [google.com]

And it's about as secure as your Google account already is. Whatever that means.

Re:Google Browser Sync (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924374)

I use this thing both at home and at work, and everything's encrypted with a passphrase (separate from the Google Account Password) that's not transmitted to Google, so they aren't able to decrypt the data without using brute force.
I once had a funny experience with this thing - one weekend my boss logged in from my (google-synchronized) computer to check his email - well, his Gmail cookie synchronized to my home PC and I was able to read his mail. He hacked his own mailbox and I didn't even need to do anything, just open Gmail from my home account!

Re:Google Browser Sync (1)

draziw (7737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925424)

I use the software just syncing bookmarks (with encrypted checked). It works great - but it doesn't work with Firefox 3 beta yet. :( I may try Weave as a workaround.

--
+1 for karma, +2 for low user id, -2 for mention of user id.

Sure ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924046)

But can Mozilla labs get over the privacy issues?

Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt ... and then hope that nobody sues them anyway.

Sounds familiar... (1)

sgunhouse (1050564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924152)

Why does this remind me of Opera Sync?

Opera? (2, Informative)

JLennox (942693) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924188)

I'm suprised at the lack of mention that Opera has had this feature since September.

Re:Opera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924876)

You're surprised that, on Slashdot, pimping open source products is more common than pointing out that they're not the head of the pack?

Publish the protocol please! (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924224)

Please, Mozilla people ... document and publish the protocol! We would like to be able to save our bookmarks/passwords/sessions on our own servers, not yours (or Google's). We would like to have our browsers talking to back end systems that can do something useful with that data. Please make this useful!

Re:Publish the protocol please! (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925046)

well, I read through the comments, would suggest you do the same

Meh, got my hopes up for nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21924280)

I was hoping the feature was part of the Mozilla browser suite, not the derivative Firefox project. The only indication that it's a Firefox feature comes from the diagram in the article. A real shame, since Firefox has been missing a lot of the more advanced history/favorites/contacts features present in the original Mozilla suite since day one.

"kissramgoodby?" (1)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924388)

Why has this been tagged "kissramgoodby"? Presumably regardless of which model for storing favorites/passwords/sessions, when the browser is actually opened it goes in the RAM anyway? I don't see the meaning of that...

Another solution (1)

Broken Toys (1198853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924390)

Put portable Firefox on a USB stick. It can be used anywhere and the user is always in control of the bookmarks, passwords, etc.

I installeed portable Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice on a USB stick and use it whenever I'm travelling. I can take my working environment anywhere.

The downside is that if I lose the USB stick in my travels I'm screwed.

I should sue them (5, Funny)

weave (48069) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924692)

I should sue them for profiting from my good name, damaging my reputation and causing confusion among the masses.

Re:I should sue them (1)

staticsage (889437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925314)

Slipped while modding. Replying to get rid of overrated mod.

Excellent idea (1)

horza (87255) | more than 6 years ago | (#21924706)

This is really useful. At the moment there is the Foxmarks plugin for bookmarks, which is excellent, but it would be nice to have a sync for Firefox / Thunderbird / Sunbird with all my preferences. I could reformat a machine and be mostly operational within seconds (especially if I took the time to create my own custom Ubuntu [aperantis.com] ). Then I would just need to import my Pidgin preferences.

Other than passwords, there aren't any privacy issues for me. If someone hacks my account and discovers my bookmarks or which cookies I reject it's not a problem. With passwords there are some I would like stored, others stored encrypted, and others not at all. Highly confidential passwords should not leave my machine. Generally passwords should be stored encrypted with a key to import. For other lightweight personal email accounts the inconvenience of a hacker obtaining the password are outweighed by not being able to access that account from a remote location through losing or not having the key. So the three options would be good.

Phillip.

a few options (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925106)

They could let you store it on their server, but allow you to encrypt the data with your own PGP key. You would have both the public and private keys for your data and only you would be able to access them.

Or they could let you choose which server you want to store the data on, maybe you would have your own server setup and you want to use that instead of theirs.

FoxMarks already does it (1)

Polski Radon (787846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21925312)

You can get a Firefox >1.5 addon http://www.foxmarks.com/ [foxmarks.com] that saves your bookmarks and preferences on Foxmark servers already.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...