Talk:Fasterfox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 benchmark 2 dynamic pages 3 Controversy 4 Changes made April 2007 5 Notability

[edit] benchmark

It's easy to benchmark Speedfox - any results published could be referenced here.Widefox 11:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dynamic pages

Also at least some qualification for dynamic pages, and how fasterfox can't discriminate (so wastes bandwidth). Widefox 11:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Is there an actual reference that shows this extension is controversial? Theshibboleth 02:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I added refs. It is hinted at in the Fasterfox FAQ, but spelled out in many blogs [1] sums up a lot of sentiment from webmasters. That controversy is spread around many blogs but I haven't seen a hard reference, probably due to it mainly affecting small site webmasters more. Widefox 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?articleId=9015599&command=viewArticleBasic
http://benmetcalfe.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/28/fasterfox-when-firefox-extensions-go-bad/

I think the criticism should be noted. I believe firetune is a better program. Sadman64 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made April 2007

I've just done a largish edit. Some notes:

• The changelog at http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/changelog.html stops in December 2005 (v1.0.1). Recent changes are listed in the installation page: http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/installation.html.
• The check of robots.txt was added in v1.0.1, according to both changelogs.
• The "Web spider" section needs some work.

Cheers, CWC 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I just reread the refs and this article does cite a few real-world sources. Can someone create a reception section to establish more notability? Because this reads like a big ol' FAQ for the extension. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)