<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Add-On Incompatibility After Browser Upgrade</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/</link>
	<description>from The Wall Street Journal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:01:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: tom rusch</title>
		<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/comment-page-1/#comment-316</link>
		<dc:creator>tom rusch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/#comment-316</guid>
		<description>i go back and forth hourly between Firefox and Safari (as a Mac user).

one of the things i&#039;d love to see/find out how to do is a &#039;print preview&#039; on Firefox like i have on Safari.

that way i can print only the pages of an article i want and save some paper.

is there a Firefox Preference or add-on that would do this?

thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i go back and forth hourly between Firefox and Safari (as a Mac user).</p>
<p>one of the things i&#8217;d love to see/find out how to do is a &#8216;print preview&#8217; on Firefox like i have on Safari.</p>
<p>that way i can print only the pages of an article i want and save some paper.</p>
<p>is there a Firefox Preference or add-on that would do this?</p>
<p>thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Prozzo</title>
		<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/comment-page-1/#comment-314</link>
		<dc:creator>David Prozzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/#comment-314</guid>
		<description>Damian

Remember that malware and spyware aren&#039;t the same as viruses.

A quality anti-virus program shouldn&#039;t slow your computer down much, unless perhaps when it is doing a total scan of your computer - which can be scheduled when you aren&#039;t using the computer.  I have read though, that Norton and Macafee have become so complex and get their hooks in some many areas of the OS that some users have had problems.  I wouldn&#039;t know because I don&#039;t use either.  There are other choices.

That said, it certainly is true that safe surfing and caution about opening email attachments are critical.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Damian</p>
<p>Remember that malware and spyware aren&#8217;t the same as viruses.</p>
<p>A quality anti-virus program shouldn&#8217;t slow your computer down much, unless perhaps when it is doing a total scan of your computer &#8211; which can be scheduled when you aren&#8217;t using the computer.  I have read though, that Norton and Macafee have become so complex and get their hooks in some many areas of the OS that some users have had problems.  I wouldn&#8217;t know because I don&#8217;t use either.  There are other choices.</p>
<p>That said, it certainly is true that safe surfing and caution about opening email attachments are critical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damian Shaw</title>
		<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/comment-page-1/#comment-312</link>
		<dc:creator>Damian Shaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/#comment-312</guid>
		<description>David: I run Windows XP with no ant-virus at all, I run the occasional spyware check just to be sure. I&#039;ve kept up this behavior now for 3 years and have never had a problem because I regularly update all my software, make sure to use a secure browser and have good behavior and practice over what links I click on and what I download, I have never had a problem. As someone who fixes computers in their spare time, I know the effectiveness of anti-virus software is dubious at best and the slow down and problems they cause on a computer can be quite prevalent. 

Teaching users good behavior is a 100x more effective than a real-time anti-virus scanner.


Richard: The analogy between extension writers and dedicated hardware vendors is a bit of a stretch to be fair. A lot of extension writers do it in their spare time and just enjoy making them. Mozilla has, for the last 3 months, been pushing extensions to get compatible, it&#039;s only been doing it so recently because Firefox could of potentially gone through changes which would of made extensions writers need to keep rewriting.

Mozilla has worked heavily on encouraging to get the most popular add-ons compatible. So the transition between Fx2 and Fx3 has been much much easier than the transition between Fx1.5 and Fx2. In fact I distinctly remember most people holding off for a month or 2 before jumping on to Fx2. The attitude seems to be quite different with Fx3.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David: I run Windows XP with no ant-virus at all, I run the occasional spyware check just to be sure. I&#8217;ve kept up this behavior now for 3 years and have never had a problem because I regularly update all my software, make sure to use a secure browser and have good behavior and practice over what links I click on and what I download, I have never had a problem. As someone who fixes computers in their spare time, I know the effectiveness of anti-virus software is dubious at best and the slow down and problems they cause on a computer can be quite prevalent. </p>
<p>Teaching users good behavior is a 100x more effective than a real-time anti-virus scanner.</p>
<p>Richard: The analogy between extension writers and dedicated hardware vendors is a bit of a stretch to be fair. A lot of extension writers do it in their spare time and just enjoy making them. Mozilla has, for the last 3 months, been pushing extensions to get compatible, it&#8217;s only been doing it so recently because Firefox could of potentially gone through changes which would of made extensions writers need to keep rewriting.</p>
<p>Mozilla has worked heavily on encouraging to get the most popular add-ons compatible. So the transition between Fx2 and Fx3 has been much much easier than the transition between Fx1.5 and Fx2. In fact I distinctly remember most people holding off for a month or 2 before jumping on to Fx2. The attitude seems to be quite different with Fx3.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Mitnick</title>
		<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/comment-page-1/#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Mitnick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/#comment-311</guid>
		<description>On FF3, it seems as if the Fox may be subject to the same problems as Vista, in that the extension writers, equivalent to 3rd party app writers for Vista, have had months and months to get ready, and yet, many extensions on which we dearly depend, will not be ready.

So. Is FF3 going to suffer the same fate as Vista? Becoming a whipping boy? Or will this darling of the digerati class be given a pass and we should all be patient?

I for one, a totally happy FF2 user, am readying IE7 by bringing my bookmarks-opps, Favorites- and my user ids and passwords via Roboform up to speed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On FF3, it seems as if the Fox may be subject to the same problems as Vista, in that the extension writers, equivalent to 3rd party app writers for Vista, have had months and months to get ready, and yet, many extensions on which we dearly depend, will not be ready.</p>
<p>So. Is FF3 going to suffer the same fate as Vista? Becoming a whipping boy? Or will this darling of the digerati class be given a pass and we should all be patient?</p>
<p>I for one, a totally happy FF2 user, am readying IE7 by bringing my bookmarks-opps, Favorites- and my user ids and passwords via Roboform up to speed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Prozzo</title>
		<link>http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/comment-page-1/#comment-310</link>
		<dc:creator>David Prozzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mailbox.allthingsd.com/20080612/add-on-incompatibility-after-browser-upgrade/#comment-310</guid>
		<description>To the second questioner:

What do you mean you don&#039;t want it running &quot;constantly&quot;?  On a Windows machine, at least, you SHOULD have an anti-virus program running in the background - one that will say &quot;whoa&quot; if you visit a malicious website or if you attempt to open a malicious email attachment.  Free:  AVG, Avast.  BitDefender is an inexpensive highly rated anti-virus program.  Allow it to update its files automatically and to run every few days at a time when you don&#039;t use the computer.

Also, perhaps you don&#039;t realize that once a virus has been executed on your computer, the DAMAGE done can be extensive and hard to reverse, sometimes requiring arcane, manual multi-step procedures that takes you to areas of your computer that you&#039;ve never visited before.

Anti-virus programs don&#039;t repair the damage done by virus once it has been executed.  Get it?

Some say that once a virus has been run on your computer you can never trust it again...until you have formatted and reinstalled the OS and software.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To the second questioner:</p>
<p>What do you mean you don&#8217;t want it running &#8220;constantly&#8221;?  On a Windows machine, at least, you SHOULD have an anti-virus program running in the background &#8211; one that will say &#8220;whoa&#8221; if you visit a malicious website or if you attempt to open a malicious email attachment.  Free:  AVG, Avast.  BitDefender is an inexpensive highly rated anti-virus program.  Allow it to update its files automatically and to run every few days at a time when you don&#8217;t use the computer.</p>
<p>Also, perhaps you don&#8217;t realize that once a virus has been executed on your computer, the DAMAGE done can be extensive and hard to reverse, sometimes requiring arcane, manual multi-step procedures that takes you to areas of your computer that you&#8217;ve never visited before.</p>
<p>Anti-virus programs don&#8217;t repair the damage done by virus once it has been executed.  Get it?</p>
<p>Some say that once a virus has been run on your computer you can never trust it again&#8230;until you have formatted and reinstalled the OS and software.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>