Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:04, 4 November 2006

Redirect to:

Mozilla Firefox

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{mergeto|Mozilla Firefox|Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox}}
+#REDIRECT [[Mozilla Firefox]]
-{{Firefox TOC}}
-'''Criticisms of [[Mozilla Firefox]]''' are made by users of other Web software, but are also made and contested by the Mozilla community and its own developers. Criticisms include complaints about speed, the features included by default, and how it renders web pages.
-== Functional criticisms ==
-=== Missing features ===
-Features that the Firefox developers believed would be used by a small number of its users have not been included in Firefox and left to be implemented as extensions.<ref>Reasons to switch to the Mozilla Firefox browser [http://web.archive.org/web/20040210101506/http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/why/#simple-ui]</ref> PC World notes the difficulty a casual user would have in finding and installing extensions.<ref name="pcworld">{{cite web | url = http://www.pcworld.com/article/114843-1/article.html | title = First Look at Mozilla.org's Firefox | work = PC World | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref> Furthermore, as most extensions are not supported by Mozilla, there is a possibility of vulnerable<ref>Register Article on Greasemonkey Possible Malicious Attack[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/20/firefox_greasemonkey/]</ref> or malicious<ref>{{cite web | url = http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060726-7360.html | title = Malicious toolbars and extensions try to hijack browsers | work = ars technica | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref> third party code.
-=== Compatibility ===
-Firefox complies with Internet standards more strictly than Internet Explorer<ref>Web Browser Standard Support[http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php]</ref>. While Firefox, like other browsers, has a [[quirks mode]] for compatibility with legacy IE versions, this mode isn't completely compatible.<ref>Mozilla's Bugzilla list of quirks mode bugs [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=%5Bquirks%5D&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&resolution=---&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=]</ref> Because of the differing rendering, PC World notes that a minority of pages do not work in Firefox.<ref name="pcworld"/>
-c|Net notes that Firefox does not support [[Object Linking and Embedding|ActiveX]] controls by default, which can also cause webpages to be missing features or to not work at all in Firefox.<ref>c|Net Reviews - Mozilla Firefox [http://reviews.cnet.com/Mozilla_Firefox/4505-9241_7-31117280-4.html?tag=toc]</ref> Mozilla made the decision to not support ActiveX due to potential security vulnerabilities, its proprietary nature and its lack of cross-platform compatibility.<ref>Mozilla.org Security Announcement [http://www.mozilla.org/security/security-announcement.html]</ref><ref>Netscape Gecko Plugin Overview[http://devedge-temp.mozilla.org/viewsource/2002/gecko-plugins/index_en.html#ActiveX]</ref> There are methods of using ActiveX in Firefox such as via third party plugins but they do not work in all versions of Firefox or on all platforms.<ref>Plug-in For Hosting ActiveX Controls [http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm]</ref>
-===Corporate deployment===
-eWEEK states that Firefox is missing features such as deployment and customization tools that are useful for corporate deployment.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1722434,00.asp | title = eWEEK Labs Review: Firefox 1.0 | work = eWEEK | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref> Mozilla responded to this criticism by releasing a client customization kit<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mozilla.org/projects/cck/firefox/ | title = Firefox 1.5 CCK (Client Customization Kit) Wizard | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref> and is planning to provide official Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062 | title = Mozilla Bug 231062 - Provide Firefox MSI package | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref>
-== Political criticisms ==
-The [[Free Software Foundation]] (FSF) considers the official Firefox binaries released by Mozilla to not be free software because they include the proprietary crash reporter [[Crash reporter#Talkback|Talkback]], have trademark restrictions, and force the user to accept a [[clickwrap agreement]] (the latter only applies to the Windows version).<ref>[[Free Software Directory]]: Firefox [http://directory.fsf.org/firefox.html]</ref> Google and Mozilla developers are working on [[Crash reporter#Airbag|Airbag]], an open-source replacement for Talkback, that will allow official Firefox builds to be entirely free of proprietary software.<ref>[http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006-09-12/deploying-the-airbag/ Deploying the Airbag]. ''BSBlog'' (Mozilla developer Benjamin Smedberg's weblog).</ref>
-In the past, Firefox was licensed solely under the [[Mozilla Public License]] (MPL). <ref name="mozrelicensing">Mozilla Foundation MPL Relicensing FAQ [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html]</ref> The FSF criticizes the MPL for being weak [[copyleft]]; the license permits, in limited ways, [[proprietary software|proprietary]], [[derivative works]]. Code under the MPL also cannot be legally linked with code under the [[GNU General Public License]] (GPL) or the [[GNU Lesser General Public License]] (LGPL).<ref>Richard Stallman.  ''On the Netscape Public License''.  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.html</ref><ref>GNU comments on MPL [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL]</ref> To address these concerns, Mozilla [[tri-license|tri-licensed]] Firefox under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL, which permits developers to use whichever license they wish in creating derivative works. The effect of the tri-licensing is that developers can legally link Firefox code with GPL or LGPL code, but still allows them to create proprietary, derivative works (though not both at once). <ref name="mozrelicensing">Mozilla Foundation MPL Relicensing FAQ [http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html]</ref>
-In September 2006, a controversy erupted relating to the proprietary licensing of portions of Firefox, and the [[Mozilla Corporation]]'s requirement that   they give their approval to all [[Patch (computing)|patches]] applied to Firefox prior to it being compiled and distributed as a binary package in free software distributions (specifically [[Debian]]), or the distribution is not refer to the package by the [[trademarked]] name "Firefox".<ref>Debian bug report log #354622: "[packages 'firefox' and 'thunderbird'] use Mozilla Firefox trademark without permission" [http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=354622;msg=74]</ref>
-This controversy led to the creation of the free software alternative [[Iceweasel]], officially sponsored by GNU's [[Gnuzilla]] project.  Iceweasel removes the proprietary plugins and artwork, and is more lenient with regards to its name being applied to derivative works. This makes the software package acceptable to exclusively free software distributions.
-== Performance criticisms ==
-=== Memory use ===
-Internet Week ran an article in which many readers reported anecdotes of high memory usage in Firefox 1.5.<ref name="memoryleak">[http://internetweek.cmp.com/handson/174907404 Firefox 1.5: Not Ready For Prime Time?] ''InternetWeek''.</ref> Mozilla developers claim the higher memory use of Firefox 1.5 is sometimes at least partially an effect of the new fast backwards and forwards (FastBack) feature.<ref name="fastback">[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319262 Bug 319262 - Significant memory leak]. ''Mozilla.org Bugzilla''.</ref> Other known causes of memory problems are misbehaving extensions, such as [[Google Toolbar]] and [[Adblock]].<ref name="problematicextensions">[http://kb.mozillazine.org/Problematic_extensions Problematic Extensions]. ''MozillaZine Knowledge Base''.</ref> However, when PC Magazine compared memory usage of Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer, they found that Firefox seemed to use only about as much memory as the other browsers.<ref name="memorycomparison">[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1992747,00.asp Which New Browser Is Best: Firefox 2, Internet Explorer 7, or Opera 9?]. ''PC Magazine''.</ref>
-=== Launch speed ===
-Softpedia notes that Firefox takes longer to start up than other browsers<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/Mozilla-Firefox-Review-13677.shtml | title = Mozilla Firefox Review | work = Softpedia | accessdate = 2006-09-22}}</ref> and browser speed tests confirm this to be the case.<ref>HowtoCreate.co.uk Browser Speed Comparisons [http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html]</ref>
-== References ==
-<div class="references-small">
-<references/>
-</div>
-== External links ==
-* [http://www.computergripes.com/firefox.html Firefox Gripes]
-* [http://www.computergripes.com/firefoxsites.html Web Sites That Don't Work Well With Firefox]
-[[Category:Criticisms|Mozilla Firefox]]
-[[Category:Mozilla Firefox]]