Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Firebird 0.7.1 Released For Mac OS X
An anonymous reader writes "MozillaZine is reporting that Mozilla Firebird 0.7.1 has been released for Mac OS X only. The release - coming just over a week since the last one - fixes a number of bugs that made 0.7 frankly unusable on Macs. There's more info in the release notes. All MacBeards should upgrade immediately."
Is there any reason to use FireBird over Safari?
Choice is a good thing, of course, but what are the advantages/disadvantages?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
I use Safari in Mac OS X, as a rule, but I haven't used anything but Firebird for Linux or Windows since I first downloaded it. It's an impressive program, and I love the fact that there's no installer to deal with. Everything's in one folder. It works well for the "Power User" type, but I've been passing the word among even my less tech-savvy friends.
Now it can be my browser of choice on all of the machines I use.
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
Hope this helps anyone else who gets the same problem.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Odd -- the files for 0.7.1 appear to be missing from the download site. Are they afraid of being slashdotted? :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
I Just tried 0.7.1 and it is definitely faster for the sites I go to. It's especially faster for SSL sites (that's a big Safari complaint I have - SSL is s...l...o...w; Ive whined about it before on /.).
I use Firebird/Mozilla on WinXP/2K/2K3, Linux, BSD and Solaris and would love to see Camino base itself off of the Firebird fork and make it more Mac-like, but, until Safari get's an SLL clue, I'll take the fast rendering, good SSL performance and standards' compliance that seem to be there with 0.7.1.
One other thing it has over Safari is the ability to *not* wait for the whole stupid page to load before continuing. It's not a problem on all sites, but it happens more oft than not, again, especially on SSL sites.
Lastly, the best thing about it is that it doesn't use the brushed metal theme (it was nice for a while, but it really grates on ya over time).
I still don't know why Apple threw the KHTML folks the bone when they should have supported Mozilla.
Mind the gap...
I used to use Camino as my primary browser until shortly after Safari 1.0 came out, but I have also been keeping my eye on Firebird simply for its cross-platform capabilities.
/. here, I'm probably preaching to the choir now...)
In my experience, there is very little difference in any of the browsers out there for Mac OS X, aside from various UI and preferences differences. But specifically for Firebird versus Camino, I think the only thing that Camino has over Firebird is the snazzier Aqua UI. Firebird is still butt-ugly -- not that that's a bad thing in the grand scheme of things, because I'm just a vain Mac user. (I do of course pity those who don't realize that you CAN choose "pretty" -- or to put it nicely, "aesthetically pleasing" -- appearances for my apps. But since I'm on the Apple part of
I like camino, is there any reason to use firebird? What features does it have, not have. My basic usage is: safari, unless safari dont work right, then I use camino. last resort IE for those evil webpages.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Actually, the Pinstripe theme has achieved this for some time for Mozilla, and evidently will be standard from the next release on in Firebird. I care for native controls too, and we have 'em in Firebird.
KHTML was chosen over Mozilla because it was smaller, which means it was easier for them to learn, extend, and test. Look back at the press releases and articles from back in January 2003, when the Safari beta was released; they go into their reasoning for choosing one KHTML over Mozilla.
-Ster
The question was directed at performance. I realize Mac folks (I am one, but I don't use one exclusively) tend to value other things besides performance, but I would think that having decent SSL speed would have been a big motivating factor.
I have a dual-G4 tower (867MHz) with 1.5GB RAM and just cannot believe Apple didn't bother to get that part done better.
Mind the gap...
OS X apps can use Aqua or brushed metal (or their own nonstandard GUI, of course). This is a choice made by the developer, but apps can be tweaked by users with either a third-party app called Metallifizer, or with the developer tools. I personally can't stand the brushed metal, but some people seem to like it.
:(
Oh, and just a note, a lot of Apple's apps are nonstandard brushed metal (iTunes, the Finder in 10.3). This means that you need a lot of workarounds to change them to Aqua.
Problem is that Mozilla DOES NOT use standard API calls, at least in the Mac version though I believe this is correct for all platforms. Mozilla uses it's own XUL language and widgets to do windowing renders... instead of the native UI widgets, etc. again at least on Mac.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
From the pinstripe webpage:
"The Pinstripe theme uses an API provided by Mozilla called nsTheme to draw the widgets. This API allows Pinstripe to draw the widgets and some backgrounds using the Mac's Appearance Manager. So the operating system draws most of the theme."
So, its somewhat native in drawing, even if not precisely like Camino (fully native widgets). The page says that Windows and Linux are not supported because of this.
- Camino: no way through the GUI to disable image animation; relatively little information about cookies if you ask for cookie prompts.
- IE: bloody ancient. No tabs. Poor cookie control. No way to disable image animation.
- Safari: no way to disable image animation. Poor cookie control. Metal interface (although that's fairly easy to fix).
- Mozilla/Firebird: Proxies aren't linked to the Mac OS network preferences. (You'd be amazed at how annoying that is when you're shuffling a laptop between work and home...) Non-native widgets (minor irk from my point of view).
If somebody could change Firebird to link proxies to the network preferences, it'd be ideal -- I'd live with the non-native widgets quite happily. Or a cookie manager for Safari...One other thing it has over Safari is the ability to *not* wait for the whole stupid page to load before continuing.
I was testing out some progress-bar code and I've discovered that Safari has a 16k buffer. It will wait until the buffer is full, then draw, then fill the buffer again.
So in order to make my progress bar update on safari, I'd have to send 16k worth of spaces every time the bar moves.
In comparison, IE and Mozilla will draw the page as soon as it receives a closing body tag.