Ha! I was subscribed to this bug for most of those 25 years. Note that Firefox didn't exist at the time, this was filed against Netscape Navigator.<p>Don't remember why I was subscribed to the bug, must have commented on it or something. Got the occasional email notification about it over the years, always got a chuckle out of it. Then a couple of days ago, lo and behold, it was fixed!
Off topic but I really dislike the trend of using “human readable durations” like “a month ago”, just tell me the bloody date, I can figure out for myself.<p>Outlook (Mac version at least) is the worst offender. For emails prior to the current day it will say for example just “yesterday” and it will only show you the time if you click on the email. I get dozens of mails per day, having just “yesterday” for 50 messages in a row is useless.
Firefox's Bugzilla is certainly one of the oldest running bug trackers. I'm impressed at how much of the original feel of the bug tracker is still around after all these revisions. It was a pretty hairy, monstrous codebase back in the day.<p>At one point in 2000 (?) I stood up an instance in our Windows dev shop to replace a home-grown bugtracker built on Microsoft Access/Outlook. It was complex but pretty much one of the best-of-breed bugtrackers for some time. I think that FogBugz was just getting started around then, and those guys were one of the first teams to really consider user experience.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see this kind of thing. Happened to me recently with a 24 year old firefox bug: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62151" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62151</a>
The one long term open bug that irks me the most is that you cannot properly date-format the x-axis of scatter plots in LibreOffice:<p><a href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54132" rel="nofollow">https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54132</a><p>12 years old. According to the comments, fixing it is discouraged as the code is so "horribly complicated", it would likely cause regressions.
Hoping they do XDG next. Also been waiting for 20 years [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259356" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259356</a>
Related from last August:<p><i>Happy 25th Birthday to Bugzilla</i><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37279543">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37279543</a>
BugBot was on to something: <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33654#c190" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33654#c190</a><p>"The severity field for this bug is relatively low, S3. However, the bug has 27 duplicates, 103 votes and 91 CCs.
:emilio, could you consider increasing the bug severity?<p>For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation."
On a related note, starting today, I noticed that x.com (fka Twitter.com) is no longer working in Firefox.<p>I get the following error:<p>> Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.<p>> Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com
Why so many posts about Firefox bugs getting fixed after N years?
<a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?q=firefox+bug+years" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?q=firefox+bug+years</a>
With such old bugs I often wonder whether it's not best to simply close them. Few people will browse them and many will be "accidentally" closed by reworking of different subsystems. But if they are still relevant somebody will file it, again. If not reopened it's probably not a problem anymore.