Slashdot Mirror


A New Look For Firefox

ben writes "Regular users of Mozilla Firefox may be interested to know a new default theme is planned for 0.9 in preparation for the road to 1.0. 0.9 will also feature new improved theme and extension management, which will make it easy to make Firefox look the way you want it to."

416 comments

  1. How about... by G-funk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...They leave everything as it is, and fix the resource leak in windows? It's hard to try and convince people to switch to my browser when I have to "end process tree" the thing once a day.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      eh? i use FF loads and don't have to do that, ever. could it be one of your extensions or sommat?

    2. Re:How about... by linuxci · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well remember the people who design themes aren't the same sort of people who can fix resource leaks!

      Also have you got a bug number for this? I've not had any major problems with Mozilla or Firefox for ages.

    3. Re:How about... by hattig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Definitely. It looks fine at the moment, but that resource leak is the biggest annoyance. Especially when everything stops responding because Firefox running as the only application starts paging on a 512MB machine.

    4. Re:How about... by asdren · · Score: 1

      Is this the same issue that causes it to choke on pages with many images?
      Otherwise, I love Firefox for my browsing experience.

      BTW, if Opera was able to get $12 million from Microsoft why can't the Mozilla folks send in some complaints to get MSNBC's This Week in Pictures to work with Firefox.

    5. Re:How about... by Raven42rac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, it is a free browser, they have no obligation to fix anything. Buy a shirt, then whine. Second, if they are having legal issues with their art, then to ensure the continued existence of their browser, or else they will have no chance to fix the bugs. On another note, I have never had any problems with the browser from Phoenix to Firefox. Are you using the nightly builds or the official release. If you are using the nightly release, be careful what you wish for.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    6. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when everything stops responding because Firefox running as the only application starts paging on a 512MB machine.

      Ah, you must be running XP.

    7. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not have these problems anymore. And yay to getting rid of the current default theme.

    8. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just tried MSNBC This Week in Pictures under Firefox 0.8 on OS X - works fine.

    9. Re:How about... by sgarrity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, a reader pointed out only this morning that the MSNBC This Week in Pictures feature now does work in Firefox.

    10. Re:How about... by popular · · Score: 1

      Apparently that is a different bug they allegedly have fixed for the 0.9 release later this month. See http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/bigger-pictu re.html

      and check out "205893 - Loading lots of images makes Firefox stop repainting."

    11. Re:How about... by Space_Soldier · · Score: 1

      Also, add more threading. After you open a 3-5 tabs, Firefox slows down so much that it is unusable for a few seconds. That is one of my second reasons i use Opera 7.51.

    12. Re:How about... by fygment · · Score: 1

      " First of all, it is a free browser, they have no obligation to fix anything."

      Ergo no sense of responsibility to the end user. Ergo the end user has to put up, shut up, or fix it him/herself. Wow, that is sure different from Microsoft's approach.

      --
      "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    13. Re:How about... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      Ergo, they will fix the issues, but don't whine about them, it is not endearing, and you run the risk of pissing them off and making them say "forget this". I assume the issue described deals with compatibility rather than Firefox itself. There is no way for every programmer to know how every other program or environmental variable will interact with their code. They are not psychics, if they were, I doubt they would use their powers to write code, they would probably use them to pick the winning Lotto numbers.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    14. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is different than what Microsoft does. You PAY Microsoft to fix bugs. That's part of the cost you pay for a license. If you insist Mozilla fix the bugs you wish them to fix then pay them to do so.

      If you don't wish to pay them, then you have the options of either putting up with the bugs until they're fixed or using different software.

    15. Re:How about... by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      You PAY Microsoft to fix bugs. That's part of the cost you pay for a license.

      Where in my Windows XP license can I find the clause that says my payment to Microsoft obligates them to fix bugs I encounter? Regardless of payment, no one's obligated to fix anything. Bugfixing is simply a voluntary activitity that happens to be necessary to keep the userbase, both for the Mozilla Foundation and Microsoft.

    16. Re:How about... by Piobaire · · Score: 1

      Not just windows. I have to shutdown Firefox and Thunderbird daily to keep my machine running. They both steadily eat memory.

    17. Re:How about... by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1

      Just use Mozilla instead.

    18. Re:How about... by xandroid · · Score: 4, Informative

      A thread I stumbled upon at MozillaZine mentioned that these resource issues won't be fixed in 0.9, or even 1.0.

      (Not sure if this is gospel truth, but I sure hope not... kill -9 firefox is getting old...)

      --
      $ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
    19. Re:How about... by thakadu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am sorry that you are experiencing these leaks as I am fortunate enough not to have had them yet. I also am running a 512MB machine (WinXP) and I have almost always got at least 3 FireFox tabs open and I very seldom reboot. The one thing I don't have is the Flash plugin. Could it be this causing the leaks you are experiencing? The only instability problems I currently have are:
      1) Bookmark icons on the bookmarks toolbar seam to come and go as they please. (Also happens in IE)
      2) Text entered in a form field before the page is fully loaded often gets blanked out once the page has completed loading. (Not in IE)
      Otherwise I have found 0.8 to be at least as stable as IE and certainly much snappier.
      Good luck.

    20. Re:How about... by bonkeroo+buzzeye · · Score: 1

      First of all, it is a free browser, they have no obligation to fix anything. Buy a shirt, then whine. Um, no - maybe they can pay *me* for my consulting services? But I graciously donate that. Either way, I certainly do *not* have to pay in order to voice my opinions. And I certainly have no obligation to test the thing and find things for them to fix. So the lack of obligation works both ways. If I won't test and they won't fix, then I'm thinking the software's going to suck. So why don't we both volunteer to do our parts and stop pretending like it's some honor to be *allowed* to crashtest beta browsers and voice ideas for improving them? That said, I use mozilla - I could care less about a piece hacked out of mozilla to try to emulate IE - except that it's slated to replace the browser I choose to use. It's just the attitude that I should purchase my right to speak that gets under my skin. And the attitude that disgreement and criticism is not a useful, even necessary, activity but should be dismissed as 'whining'.

    21. Re:How about... by bonkeroo+buzzeye · · Score: 1
      First of all, it is a free browser, they have no obligation to fix anything. Buy a shirt, then whine.

      Um, no - maybe they can pay *me* for my consulting services? But I graciously donate that. Either way, I certainly do *not* have to pay in order to voice my opinions.

      And I certainly have no obligation to test the thing and find things for them to fix. So the lack of obligation works both ways. If I won't test and they won't fix, then I'm thinking the software's going to suck. So why don't we both volunteer to do our parts and stop pretending like it's some honor to be *allowed* to crashtest beta browsers and voice ideas for improving them?

      That said, I use mozilla - I could care less about a piece hacked out of mozilla to try to emulate IE - except that it's slated to replace the browser I choose to use. It's just the attitude that I should purchase my right to speak that gets under my skin. And the attitude that disgreement and criticism is not a useful, even necessary, activity but should be dismissed as 'whining'.

      -- Sorry. What, me preview?

    22. Re:How about... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      So the lack of obligation works both ways. Exactly. I was not denouncing the attempted improvement of browsers, but whining that helps no one. I use Firefox on Windows machine, I like it, the only problem I have ever had was with the nightly build, so I go back to the last known good nightly build. I mostly use Safari on OS X, but the occasional website requires the use of Firefox. I just hate the spoilsports that come out when a positive article comes out. These are the same nitpickers who would complain about the jewels encrusting the Holy Grail, were they to stumble upon it.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    23. Re:How about... by poisoneleven · · Score: 1

      I wish they'd fix their stupid cookie problems. I like the browser, but it blocks cookies from sites I've explicitely allowed at least twice a week. Also, with the new release, what are they going to rename it to?

    24. Re:How about... by asqueella · · Score: 1

      > Not sure if this is gospel truth

      AFAIK, it is truth.
      But: I'm using Firefox very intensively, and it never started paging on my PC with only 256MB ram. Never had to kill Firefox neither under Windows nor on Linux.

      BTW: You slashdotters are bad, bad, very bad. You ./ed my favourite forums!

    25. Re:How about... by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      "They are not psychics, if they were, I doubt they would use their powers to write code, they would probably use them to pick the winning Lotto numbers."

      Being psychic has a lot more to do with human interaction than predicting 'random' numbers. I'd say someone with a good enough math background would pick the lotto numbers before a psycic. Now, psycics on the other hand have more important things to do -- Get chicks.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    26. Re:How about... by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      That's seriously a good thing.

      Most programmers can't design an interface worth anything to anyone other than programmers.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    27. Re:How about... by fingusernames · · Score: 1

      That said, I use mozilla - I could care less about a piece hacked out of mozilla to try to emulate IE

      How much less? Could you care, that is.

      Larry

    28. Re:How about... by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 1

      3-5 tabs? Perhaps your machine needs more memory, but I regularly open an entire day of fark.com articles, till the tabs only big enough to show the page icon, and Firefox handles it fine.

      Perhaps the disparity is dynamic vs. static virtual memory. All my machines have their virtual memory locked in at 3gig. This may help Firefox, among other programs, from biting off more than they can chew.

    29. Re:How about... by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have only ever experienced this with Tabbrowser Extensions installed. Once I disabled it, Firefox was VERY stable again. Could this be the same with your issue?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    30. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >
      hat said, I use mozilla - I could care less about a piece hacked out of mozilla to try to emulate IE - except that it's slated to replace the browser I choose to use. It's just the attitude that I should purchase my right to speak that gets under my skin. And the attitude that disgreement and criticism is not a useful,
      >
      >
      Slated by who? I haven't a contract or even seen talk of Microsoft signing a contract with the Mozilla/Firefox developers granting Mircosoft the right to include/use FireFox/Mozilla in Windows.

      Has anyone else?

    31. Re:How about... by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I have had some problems with the Tab Browser Extensions plugin but I havn't seen this problem with the browser itself.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    32. Re:How about... by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's different because you can fix it yourself: you have free access to the source code and the same compilers, debuggers and profilers used by the developers.

    33. Re:How about... by esoteric_z · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... never had such a problem. I rarely have to force firefox to crash. If I do, it is usually because of some uncommon plugin. In fact, now that i use Firefox and Thunderbird exclusively, IE has decied to crash or end up in a infinite loop every time a piece of software has used it by default. I can barely run Windows Update any more.. :/ As long as I stay away from programs that use IE as a "built-in-browser" i can avoid infinite loops in Windows XP. Granted, this is my experience only. Your kilometreage may vary.

    34. Re:How about... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Interesting. One of the reasons I'm using firefox is I got sick of IE randomly deciding to run amok and shoot processor use to 100%. It only did this when read /. though. Haven't been running it long though, but sofar no problems, and no pop-ups or crappy flash ads eigther.
      Pretty sad when a 0.8 versioned browser runs better and works better than one built into the o.s. itself that's on version 6.0.
      Of course I suppose you could argue that ms is versions are only 1/10 as significant as Firefoxes. But I don't see as that helps ms look any better.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    35. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess IE's bad performance with Slashdot is because of Gzip compression. Gzip can be processor intensive if it's not utilized correctly.

    36. Re:How about... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Pretty sad when a 0.8 versioned browser runs better and works better than one built into the o.s. itself that's on version 6.0.

      Of course I suppose you could argue that ms is versions are only 1/10 as significant as Firefoxes. But I don't see as that helps ms look any better.


      You could also argue that version numbers are insignificant, arbitrarily selected strings and everyone knows they can't, in any way be used to compare either programs age or it's stability across different projects.

      If you want to draw conclusions, compare age or number of releases. Even those won't work on Firefox, since it started on already stable and mature Seamonkey codebase.

  2. ow, new design :D by Elior · · Score: 0

    hehe, cool...when will 0.9 will be released ?

    1. Re:ow, new design :D by Ruediger · · Score: 2, Informative

      according to the firefox roadmap it should be out this month.

      --
      "...personality goes a long way."
  3. I liked the old look by linuxci · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I did prefer the old look, but then again the new one hasn't been finalised yet and is still under active development (it's been checked in but not enabled yet).

    Whatever the case, 0.9 will be an excellent release and well worth trying. However, please remember this release will have some major new features (better extension/theme management, migration of prefs from other browsers such as IE, Netscape and Opera) and then focus will be on polish and stability up to a successful 1.0 release.

    1. Re:I liked the old look by Conor+Turton · · Score: 5, Informative
      The preferences importing from Opera works extremely well. In fact I wasn't aware it was there, installed FF 0.9 and fired it up for the first time to set it up just to find it loading up my homepage and my Opera bookmarks were all there.

      A welcome suprise and it means I can get shut of my 3rd party bookmark convertor.

      --
      Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
    2. Re:I liked the old look by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Does it load all the other preferences, such as tab bar always on and the same mouse gestures? Firefox is great, but i still use opera, if someone could put together an extention that made firefox behave exactly like operas defaults, that'd be perfect.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  4. The new theme by ptlis · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here is the thread containing screenshots of the new theme.

    --
    There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    1. Re:The new theme by linuxci · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not informative. That's not the new theme. The article at the top points to the thread with the discussion about the new theme.

      This is a port of the Mac Pinstripe theme, although the new theme based on Pinstripe but called Winstripe (the GNOME version is called GNOMEstripe - not Linstripe!) I assume these names won't be used in the finished product though.

      Anyway back on track, although Winstripe will be similar to Pinstripe the icons will look more Windows like and therefore not a total Mac lookalike.

    2. Re:The new theme by ptlis · · Score: 1

      Oops, my bad, sorry.

      --
      There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    3. Re:The new theme by linuxci · · Score: 1

      I have to admit a lot of people are going to make that mistake, perhaps calling it 'winstripe' in the checkins makes people think it'll be more Mac like than it really is going to be

    4. Re:The new theme by Stinking+Pig · · Score: 1

      eh. Doesn't look much better/worse to me, tempest in a teapot. First thing I do with a Firefox install is install Mostly Crystal (http://www.tom-cat.com/mozilla/) and Firesomething (http://www.cosmicat.com/software/firesomething/) anyway, so I hardly care about the default theme.

      As far as evangelizing new users go, screw 'em.

      --
      "Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
    5. Re:The new theme by CeleronXL · · Score: 2, Informative

      And here is a complete screenshot of the new theme. I think this is a huge step backwards.

    6. Re:The new theme by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And here is a complete screenshot of the new theme. I think this is a huge step backwards.

      Remember that to gain market share, you have to design the product for the average idiot. Yes, you know the one; the guy that thought his CDROM was a cup holder.

      To win the average idiot, you need simple layout, bright colors, and hand-holding wizards.

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    7. Re:The new theme by mebob · · Score: 1

      yep, looks pretty bad to me!

      --
      =1000101
    8. Re:The new theme by isthisthingon · · Score: 1

      What's with everyone moving to "clown mode" with their UIs? I *adore* the current Firefox look. Love it.

      I know the old adage of "you can't please all the people all the time, but this general movement in the industry towards "clown mode" stinks.

      Gimme a lean-n-mean, no frills, no DAMNED animated windows opening and closing interface.

      On a somewhat unrelated note, why, why, why, why, why does Microsoft INSIST on animating everything? It slows the whole human-computer-human feedback cycle immensely, and just gets in the way, particularly on "slower" (read: anything built over 6 months ago) machines.

      Oh yeah, thanks for posting the screenshots. :-)

      --
      And then one day you find, ten years have gone behind you....
    9. Re:The new theme by -kertrats- · · Score: 1

      You're complaining about Microsoft animating things? If you havent noticed, Mac OS X is much worse; things flying around and being generally retarded all over the place.

      --
      The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
    10. Re:The new theme by linicks · · Score: 1

      Can't say I'm a fan of the new Winstripe... Long live Qute! I downloaded a nightly executable of Firefox a few days ago and I loved the updated version of Qute. Ben, please don't change the default theme!

      --

      I got nothing...
    11. Re:The new theme by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      This is why Linux will never gain significant market share on the desktop--it's being dumbed down in all the wrong ways, due to arrogant notions like these from smug Slashdotters who insist on looking down on average users. You know the kind. Average users like the doctor who performed a coronary bypass on you last year. Average users like the Pulitzer-winning journalist who wonders why she has to endure a ten-step wizard just to save a document. Is it because she's stupid? Or is it because some acne-faced programmer thought she would be stupid?

    12. Re:The new theme by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Difference is, the Mac manages to look professional about it--and the animations and fades are all purposeful. If you'd used the Mac for more than five minutes at a time, you'd know I'm not kidding.

    13. Re:The new theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anybody is looking down upon people, it's you. I don't see any geeks looking down on users. Yet you refer to doctors, Pulitzer-winning journalists, and rail against "smug Slashdotters" and "acne-faced" programmers. Maybe you need to realize who is *really* elitist and smug.

    14. Re:The new theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow ratsnap are you the silly retard here or what???? i pray to God you aren't a programmer or -gasp- a UI designer. ok perhaps we can all go around proclaiming the greatness of the command line and the flexibility of the 'vi' editor.

      Go ask your doctors and journalists which they would prefer: composing documents with 'vi', or with microsoft's 'clippy' character, on-line help, and new document wizards.

      I'll bet my own arse they prefer clippy.

    15. Re:The new theme by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those aren't the only two alternatives, are they? I only meant to point out that wizards and the like aren't the be-all and end-all of UI design. I know you've heard this a million times, but contrast Windows and Mac OS X... where Windows has wizards everywhere and giant bulbous UI elements, the Mac has intuitive configuration panels and tasteful widgets that make sense. Which is easier and more pleasant to use?

      The person to whom I was replying seemed to have the attitude that non-geeks are stupid and therefore need giant oversize buttons in bright colors, like children. Which is the same attitude Windows XP seems to take, by the way.

  5. Thunderbird? by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One reason given is for consistency across platform. I agree with this, but part of the 'platform' is the other software you're likely to use with it. In my case and I suspect in many others, that means Thunderbird.

    Will Thunderbird be following suite and changing default theme too?

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Thunderbird? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, and probably a NEW name change, just to tick people off.

      --
      Sig it.
    2. Re:Thunderbird? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thunderfox?... to keep the same animal as the browser

    3. Re:Thunderbird? by E_elven · · Score: 1

      And, ahaha, get this, ahaha, the Linux version will be called Fondertux! Haha!

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
  6. Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Xshare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Qute was a great Default theme. It looked great as a default theme, and really made switchers from IE feel comfortable. This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.

    1. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Jedbro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed. One of the issues was the license for the grafics, the author has stated he would be willing to change it for mozilla.org.

      While the new theme isn't *bad*, it is not nearly as profesional as QUTE is, and a terrible first impression for new users who are coming off of IE.

      Sad, sad, sad. Wish this could have been discussed first like in the old days (pheonix).

    2. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by theefer · · Score: 1

      This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.

      I disagree. I have been using the windows version of the theme for weeks, and it's really fine. Check this screenshot for an example.

      If you really want it to look windowsish, you'd have to use those big, kitch, flashy buttons that are used in IE. No thanks, the general window interface (flashy window frames) is already ugly enough !

      --
      theefer
    3. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by igrp · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I agree. Most people I introduced to Mozilla were impressed by two features: the pop-up blocker and its feeling. Many remarked that it just felt "right". That's one of the biggest compliments you can pay to a UI designer: if the user doesn't feel that there's a transition period and can get started right away then you've done something right.

      Personally, I'm more of an "I don't care how it looks as long as it works" guy but I agree that the Qute theme looks great and I always felt comfortable using it. I guess variety is a good thing but I'd much rather see them sort out their differences and stick with Qute.

    4. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      IE has 2 sets of buttons.. Large (default) and Small (that I've always used).

      The current Qute buttons look a lot like IE's Small buttons.

      IMHO, The theme in the screenshot you give is _terrible_. I hate those "apple" style buttons.. this is a web browser I'm running under Windows here, not an iPod.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    5. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Xshare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First off: That's not the new skin: This is. Second:Exactly. You have been using this skin. You know how to change a skin. Hell, you know what a skin is. You are also a reader of slashdot. That already means that you most likely are an advanced computer user, prolly use linux at times, and etc. Most people aren't. The people who we want to convert from MSIE don't like change. They don't want to go into the skinning thing and get a new skin. It's too complicated. First impressions are also crucial, and most "new users" would see this new skin as alien to them, and they won't want to go through the trouble of changing it, and will just slump back to IE. Just my take on things.

    6. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by theefer · · Score: 1

      In this case, I guess the best choice is to release Firefox with an IE theme and let power-users change themes if they feel like it ?

      IE is just so horrible that both Qute and the new firefox theme are way ahead esthetically. However, if people don't want a new interface at all, would you push an IE looking default theme ?

      --
      theefer
    7. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Xshare · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not. I'm pushing Qute. Qute looks perfect. It's natural to both users of IE and those who aren't. Thats what we need. Not something thats only natural to those who aren't. Hell, not something that's downright ugly and noone likes.

    8. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by theefer · · Score: 1

      I don't find Qute exceptional. It's good, but it could be better. I don't know if the new theme they're developping will be better, but I don't want to speculate before they've finalized it. We'll see.

      --
      theefer
    9. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1
      ...and a terrible first impression for new users who are coming off of IE.

      Somewhere along the South Jersey Shore...

      We are preparing for the inevitable; the day when OS X dominates the desktop!
      Only 97% to go!
      BWAHAHAHAHA!

      (tig)
      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
    10. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by jokell82 · · Score: 1

      I hate those "apple" style buttons

      Everyone keeps saying this, but I don't get it. I run OS X, and nothing on my machine looks like those buttons. I'd say they were "apple style" if they were aqua, but those are an original style that just became the default on Firebird for Mac.

      --
      I dunno who it is
      but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
    11. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      OS X does not use what I would call "apple" style buttons.

      An "Apple" button is a white box, with a rounded thin black border, and some dark-grey-but-not-quite-black colored shape in it.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    12. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope this is a cruel joke! If the Firefox developers are going to release .9 with this Windows 9x looking piece of crap, I am sure many would-be IE-converts will walk away without even giving the browser a closer look. This is a HUGE step backwards, compared to Qute!

    13. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · · Score: 0

      Yuck... That theme screams XP!

      Why not go with a nice one, something more Mozillaish... Or Pinstripe maybe? Thats definately a winner.

    14. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Qute was a great Default theme.

      In your opinion. Personally I can't stand it, and it's the first thing I change when I install a new version of any Mozilla program. I prefer Noia and Mostly Crystal for Firefox and Thunderbird, and Pinball for Sunbird. They make much better use of toolbar space than Qute.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    15. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by j7953 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Qute was a great Default theme. It looked great as a default theme, and really made switchers from IE feel comfortable.

      I agree. Replacing this comfortable feeling with a uniform cross-platform look is a stupid idea. Who benefits from a uniform cross-platform look, anyway? Most computer users use only a single platform. They probably don't care at all how the browser looks on some other platform (hell, many don't even know that there are other platforms), but they do care if it looks like it was designed for the platform they use.

      People who use multiple platforms are likely to be experienced computer users anyway, so if they want a uniform look, they'll probably be able to install whatever theme they prefer on all the platforms they use.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    16. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do you call them "apple" style if they aren't used on apple's OS? you just decided it would be fun to call them that?

    17. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Strange, that doesn't stop them from using skins for applications like winamp. I almost never see anyone using the old ugly default skin; almsot everyone has found some new ugly skin to use instead.

      I think you really are underestimating the computer skills of the average computer user.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    18. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tested Mozilla with one of my clients... And everyone complained about the UI. The result is after two months I switched everyone back to IE.

      I'm anti-Microsoft and I use Firefox. But there's no way I will tell to my client to use Mozilla.

    19. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by jinushaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah,I could never get used to Mozilla's default theme. Qute was a big reason why I stuck with FireFox after switching from IE. Like you said, it's just felt "right." It felt like a native Windows program.

    20. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      "....you most likely are an advanced computer user, prolly use linux at times, and etc. Most people aren't. The people who we want to convert from MSIE don't like change.

      You fall prey to the same perspective you feel blinds advanced users about change. Not a newbie I've recommended try Firefox has been anything but thrilled by the change, and to my genuine surprise continue to use it long afterwards. People aren't as stupid as we make them out to be.

    21. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

      First off: That's not the new skin: This is. Second:Exactly. You have been using this skin. You know how to change a skin. Hell, you know what a skin is. You are also a reader of slashdot. That already means that you most likely are an advanced computer user, prolly use linux at times, and etc. Most people aren't. The people who we want to convert from MSIE don't like change. They don't want to go into the skinning thing and get a new skin. It's too complicated. First impressions are also crucial, and most "new users" would see this new skin as alien to them, and they won't want to go through the trouble of changing it, and will just slump back to IE. Just my take on things.

      Aye, you need people of intelligence on this mission. quest. thing.

      But seriously, if you want market share, it's true, you have to design the product for the lowest common denominator: the standard run-of-the-mill idiot.

      When you're trying to CAPTURE market share, you have to convince people to switch. The Average Idiot(tm) wants something that works immediately and is easy to use - they don't want to have to fiddle with it. AFTER we have 80% market share, then bring out the "complicated" options and the flexibility.

      Just my two cents.

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    22. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Random832 · · Score: 1

      Haven't you used safari? you know, the browser built into "Apple's OS"

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    23. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qute was a great Default theme.

      WTF? Did they really call the old default theme "qute"? The theme was fine but I can't even imagine how you'd pronounce that. Cw't?

    24. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by richardtallent · · Score: 1

      If this post is correct, I'm definitely pissed. These look like total crap, like some sort of third-rate antivirus software. These were obviously designed by someone who has no clue about the standards for Windows XP. A clue for the artists: it doesn't matter what you personally think about the Microsoft standards on palette and perspective. What matters is making a beautiful theme so Firefox can succeed in the Windows market. Qute is the closest I've seen, and this is several steps backwards.

    25. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by stewby18 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Since some people prefer Qute, thus this was categorically a bad move.

      Do people really think that a Slashdot or MozillaZine thread--where the people who are most likely to post are those who disagree with the decision, and where the user base is not even remotely representative, and where most of the posts are snap judgements based on one screenshot--is even remotely valid as an unbiased evaluation of this decision?

    26. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "Cute"?

    27. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Arngautr · · Score: 1

      sadly XP, while also cartoony (has growen on me despite using a differeny XP theme for a while there), looks far better than this.

    28. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're serious then that's worse than anything even KDE have managed. At least "kute" would reasonably be pronounced the same as "cute". "Qute" is an abomination. "qu" is pronounced like "kw", not like "cue".

    29. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you used safari? you know, the browser built into "Apple's OS"

      I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the vast vast majority of people have never used Safari. That being the case, try not to sound so shocked when you encounter one of us.

    30. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      ack!, too many gradients....making my head hurt

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    31. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

      Uniformity across platforms isn't primarily a help to users, it's a help to the media and from there, companies. If it looks and works the same on all computers, it has a much better chance of getting noticed. Different UIs on the same app, like different flavours of Unix do nothing but confuse the people who dictate what gets adopted in the real world. One UI, one name, one function - that's what gets software into the systems of the masses.

      All that said, from what I can tell, Qute, or a subtler version of it would have been a better choice than the new theme. From the screenshot in the parent post, the new theme is too 1995. I like the contrast and iconic simplicity of it, but the colours and shapes are too rudimentary.

    32. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the self-reply. I meant Linux, not Unix.

    33. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by fwitness · · Score: 1

      Winamp users are now pretty much only 'power users'. I don't know any average joe's who use winamp anymore. Windows Media player plays their illegal mp3s for the moment, and that's good enough for them.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
    34. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Barto · · Score: 1

      What part of "in development" don't you understand? The "in" or "development"?

    35. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like that in Windows or Linux. Go here for Windows screenshots.

      --
      :wq
    36. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I know plenty of average users who use winamp.

      And even those who have switched to Windows Media Player used to use it, and likely used skins. Thus they are competent enough to use skins.

      Besides, real power users would rather use xmms or rhythmbox.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    37. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by Random832 · · Score: 1

      well, explore the OS a bit before claiming that "Apple's OS" has _no_ buttons resembling those. if you haven't _used_ the OS, you can't be making claims about what button styles it has or doesn't have [there are other examples of such buttons too, even on some non-metal applications]

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    38. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by juhaz · · Score: 1

      You're not supposed to pronounce that. You're supposed to look at it.

      And no, as a default theme it's called "Default". As a stand alone theme the same was called qute by it's author.

    39. Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs by juhaz · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      Even if the new theme would be as good as Qute - and it's not even NEAR, nor do I think it's any more "consistent across the platforms" - there is still the whole point of branding.

      Now that they've finally stuck with a name, and the new, admittedly damn nice, icons they start juggling around yet ANOTHER part of brand identity, the looks. Have they gone totally bonkers? Or are they just trying to drive away everyone for the hell of it?

      If the current license of Qute is not acceptable, negotiate with Arvid, he already stated on thread linked from the story that he's perfectly okay with changing it to something more open.

  7. If you want to take market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in the browser market, you'd be looking to take it from Internet Explorer (duh). That's Internet Explorer on Windows ... not the Mac. I think that it is important to have a default theme that makes it easy for the mums and dads to identify with (because they are not likely to change it). I think the current default theme does this and the proposed change is a mistake. But what do I know?

    1. Re:If you want to take market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important not to jump the gun, though. Remember how much we all hated the name change to Firefox? And how we hated the name change to Firebird before that?

      Let's wait and see what this 'modified pinstripe' looks like before slamming it, 'kay?

    2. Re:If you want to take market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's wait and see what this 'modified pinstripe' looks like before slamming it, 'kay?

      Nobody is slamming anything. I think it's safe to say that the new theme will look less like the IE theme than the current default (which is very close to IE's). That is entirely the point, 'kay?

    3. Re:If you want to take market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My balls on your chin, 'kay?

    4. Re:If you want to take market share by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I think most of the people you are talking about are more likely to change their theme than they are to change their browser.

      Instead of talking about converting those who know little or nothing about computers (my mom still thinks she is double clicking on "the Internet" when she opens IE and once got confused when the default home page was changed from msn (she complained there was no way for her to access her hotmail account)), maybe we should take it one step at a time. Convert the intermediate to advanced level users first. Firefox is not going to replace IE as the browser used by 95% of the world overnight.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    5. Re:If you want to take market share by irokitt · · Score: 1

      I think the default theme now could perhaps be tweaked in a few areas, but putting a Macintosh theme on a Windows application could prove to be a fatal mistake. It doesn't look like it belongs.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  8. Why bother? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The important things like fixing the preferences, the weird, fatal bugs can wait! We want fun eye candy!!!

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Why bother? by KrisCowboy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

    2. Re:Why bother? by platypussrex · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I just clicked both links (using Safari) and they work just fine. AFAIK I have nothing set to hide referrer, unless Safari does that by default as I don't even see it as an option.

    3. Re:Why bother? by linuxci · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've just had a look at the bugs mentioned and they're both being worked on. Therefore it's unlikely you'll see them when 1.0 comes out. However, like I said previously, the type of person who can design a good theme is unlikely to be able to help with the other bugs

    4. Re:Why bother? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

      You have referrer turned off. ;)

      --
      Yeah, right.
    5. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drag the link out of the window and back in. That will clear the referrer so they don't know where it's coming from. Still, the point is to avoid /.ing their server, so it might be just as well if you don't.

    6. Re:Why bother? by Grant_Watson · · Score: 1

      "Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled."

      And if you were using FireFox, it would have omitted the "referer", so there would have been no problem. <grin>

    7. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I am using firefox, and it does not omit the 'referer'.

    8. Re:Why bother? by irokitt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, in my experience, they key to getting software to be accepted in the wild world out there is the way it looks, not the performance or reliability. After all, look at IE. When a friend of mine switched his families browser to Firefox, the biggest beef was "it looks hokey" (he hadn't installed any of the pretty themes). So perhaps the dev team has realized that the development path should include parallel development on the eye candy, instead waiting until everything else is done to work on the interface.

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    9. Re:Why bother? by Eil · · Score: 1


      Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

    10. Re:Why bother? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > The important things like fixing the preferences, the weird, fatal bugs can wait! We want fun eye candy!!!

      MS found out decades ago that that is the way to success indeed...

    11. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the type of person who can design a good theme is unlikely to be able to help with the other bugs

      ...a good theme you say? Sure this is decent but good?? Also often people who use computers alot have both graphical and programming skills.

    12. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn Right. All I got in the new tab was "Ook!" Most amusing.

    13. Re:Why bother? by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      the type of person who can design a good theme is unlikely to be able to help with the other bugs

      ...so that these two parts of bug-fixing and feature-polishing Firefox can be done in parallel by two different people. That's a great thing, not to be taken lightly.

      [It always sucks when development slows because There Can Be Only One developer that knows how to fix the problem, add the feature, etc.]

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    14. Re:Why bother? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Would not have, and should not have.

      Omitting the referer would break http spec, it's understandable why an user would want to (at least temporarily) toggle such a setting, but it would not make be a good default - which is why it isn't one.

  9. mozilla optimizer by ehmdjii · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you guys should check this out:

    http://www.computerbase.de/downloads/software/br ow ser/mozilla_optimizer/
    (website in german, sorry)

    it's an optimizer for mozilla browsers using HTTP pipelining. pages load twice as fast!

  10. They know us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you click on the urls posted by parent, you get:

    Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled. :D

  11. opera vs firefox? by zlel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just tried firefox this afternoon - but switched back to Opera. Am I trying the wrong thing, or does firefox not expose as may options as opera? I wanna be able to do stuff like set my default encoding, browser id, source viewer n stuff like that... without recompling of course...

    1. Re:opera vs firefox? by pmjordan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people prefer FireFox, some prefer Opera. It's really a matter of opinion. I'm tempted to say that for your average end-user, FireFox is the better choice, and for many power users, installing lots of plugins is the way to go.

      Personally, I agree with you, I've been a happy Opera user for years. That doesn't mean that FireFox should be more like Opera, it's just a different approach.

    2. Re:opera vs firefox? by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      May I suggest you fire up Firefox again, and type

      about:config
      into the address bar and hit enter.

      More options than you could shake a very large stick at

      Also, Character Encoding is in the view menu.

      Regards
      elFarto
    3. Re:opera vs firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need to get extensions to do such things. it was decided by the firefox developers that most prefs should be hidden so we don't scare away new users. i personally disagree with this decision but that's how it is.

    4. Re:opera vs firefox? by yusufg · · Score: 1

      type about:config in the location bar if you want access to all the options. remember that firefox is designed for users not to get lost in the maze of options.

    5. Re:opera vs firefox? by Pahalial · · Score: 2, Informative

      Extensions, my friend. For example, there's a user agent switcher that you can customize. there's also a lot more on that page of course, and for the other stuff there's the about:config mentioned in another reply.

      --
      Stuff.
    6. Re:opera vs firefox? by lpret · · Score: 1
      Wow, it's good that they explain _any_ of it...

      Seriously, opera allows the same "do whatever the hell you want with this software" attitude of open source, yet they keep the usability of a company that actually wants to make money. Give it a whirl and you'll be surprised.

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    7. Re:opera vs firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right in one single point:

      One can change the JAVA path in Opera on-the-fly.
      That's nice if your're working with older applications as well.

    8. Re:opera vs firefox? by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I did try opera once before, a couple of years ago, All I remember is that the interface was soo horrible, and so cluttered, with a big honking ad. right in the middle of it, that it actually made IE's interface look good.

      So no thanks, I'll keep Firefox

      Regards
      elFarto
    9. Re:opera vs firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you were having acid flashbacks at the time or something. Try again, and notice how smoothly tabbed browsing works, unlike the abomination you get with firedonkey. And the ads go away when you register it, hint, hint.

    10. Re:opera vs firefox? by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      they do smaller text-only ads now.

      if you buy opera, it goes away, forever/

      also, you can read RSS feeds on a pane (i use it for slashdot and the register). there's integrated mail and the tabz system is great.

      i couldn't live without opera anymore.

    11. Re:opera vs firefox? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I did try opera once before, a couple of years ago

      They've fixed most clutter problems with the GUI since then, particularly in Opera 7.5.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    12. Re:opera vs firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy opera

      Why would anyone want to buy a browser? mozilla and IE are free.

    13. Re:opera vs firefox? by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      why would anybody want to post anti-popular-software (amongst /. readers) to slashdot, when slashdot accounts are free.

      you should buy it because its good (definately worth it). if you dont want to - live with the small text ads at the top.

      so you dont donate to open source projects then, and you only use free software because its free(loader), not because its free(dom)?

    14. Re:opera vs firefox? by Technonotice_Dom · · Score: 1

      No way would I use IE.

      Mozilla, I feel is slow and bloated. Tried Firefox, just didn't feel right, Opera feels much more usable to me - as has already been mentioned - the tabs rock.

      Really well coded gestures - you don't have to be exact at all to get it to recognise what you want to do. Nicely placed keyboard shortcuts also.

      M2, the mail client integrates brilliantly and the idea of "views" instead of filtering into different folders I find brilliant. You can then have a mail in two seperate folders - you can also "label" e-mails too.

      It's also standards compliant and the default skin on v7.50 is beautiful.

      I'm going to give Firefox a whirl again, but Opera rocks.

    15. Re:opera vs firefox? by zlel · · Score: 1

      ah clever. but i kindof got frightened away by the apparant lack of options...

  12. And to celebrate by m00nun1t · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are changing the name!

    It's now known as ThunderFox.

    1. Re:And to celebrate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...You mean iFox?

    2. Re:And to celebrate by sporty · · Score: 1

      You should install the plugin, "firesomething" then. It changes the name, even in the referer (not the entire referer) of the browser.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    3. Re:And to celebrate by BigFire · · Score: 1

      Yet another part of my daily entertainment is to see what combination firesomething will throw up. I'm currently typing this from Gundam Webyak...

    4. Re:And to celebrate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Initially they wanted ThunderLizard but Eek the Cat threatened legal action.

    5. Re:And to celebrate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know WHY thunderbird hasnt been rebranded Thunderfox. Its a better, more memorable name that falls in alignment with Firefox.

    6. Re:And to celebrate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, iFox is made by Apple, it's called Safari.

  13. Yay by W2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why I like open source software development. Just look at that forum thread. Inside a company like IBM or Microsoft, a debate like this would be kept covered up out of PR fears. Open source developers more often than not do not give a shit about PR (which is a good thing), they just want to make the best possible program. They also don't have to be afraid of losing their jobs, getting their salaries lowered, or whatnot. So we get to see the nitty gritty details of intra-project disputes and arguments from the front row, even silly things like what theme ships with Firefox as the default.

    Gotta love it.

    --
    Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    1. Re:Yay by geeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This forum thread was started by taking a private email and posting to a public forum without the author's permission. This is not the sort of behavior that should be celebrated, whether it is done inside a private company or in an open source community. It is a serious violation of ettiquite.

    2. Re:Yay by W2k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, please. There's no such thing as private e-mail, unless by private you mean encrypted. Sending an e-mail is like sending a postcard in terms of security. If you use it for anything you need to keep secret, you make a mistake. Besides, I think it's good that things like this incident are brought out into the open. People (the Mozilla organization) shouldn't get away with being assholes in their dealings with those to whom they owe every bit of thanks, even if that means posting their "private" e-mail.

      --
      Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    3. Re:Yay by geeber · · Score: 1

      Well I for one consider an email that I send to an individual as a very different thing compared to a posting in a public forum.

      I am not talking about security. I am well aware it is easy to snoop through un-encrypted email. The same could be said for snail mail in an addressed envelope. However, I expect the recipient of a personal communication to treat that communication with respect.

      I am not trying to let the Mozilla guys off the hook; they behaved badly as well. But if someone were to post in a public forum a personal email that I sent to them, that would end any further communication.

    4. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. There's no such thing as private e-mail, unless by private you mean encrypted.

      He didn't say SECURE email, he said private.

      If I send you something written to you, addressed to you, I have an expectation that it will be kept private. This is why in many states it is against the law to record a private conversation without both parties consenting.

    5. Re:Yay by eyeye · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox devs make their decisions (e.g name changes!) behind closed doors and the first you know about it is when they have already made the change.

      I am glad he released this info.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    6. Re:Yay by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      This forum thread was started by taking a private email and posting to a public forum without the author's permission.

      I think you're wrong. This is not a private email by any standard, it's an official email saying 'we won't be using your theme as a default anymore'. For a project of Firefox's weight this kind of stuff is not private, as it affects too many people. One would even have expected some sort of public debate for this theme change. Think of it as posting the content of the pink slip you just received from your employer - or you consider that a private communication too/ (especially if it comes without any kind of prior notice or explanation)

      I would very much like to have the decision-making process out in the open, thank you very much. If the 'consulting' of the current default's author only amounted to this email, this is quite a big issue about the openness of the project. Users have a right to know, otherwise we're back to the closed development model. Public decision making in large projects is an important part of F/OSS. Otherwise all the 'open' mantra is just smoke and mirrors.

      I for one would hate to see Mozilla evolve into some kind of XFree86 bureaucracy.

    7. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I for one would hate to see Mozilla evolve into some kind of XFree86 bureaucracy.

      ..and say branch into two pieces where the old decays away or morphs into something else, and the new starts to pull away and gain a userbase, largely at the expense of the old...

    8. Re:Yay by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant, this isn't a personal email about his wife's sexual practices or that growth on his pecker or his performance problems at the workplace, it's official notice that the Mozilla project is ditching his theme as their official theme. It absolutely is appropriate to share this with the community. Some communications come with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and some do not. This decision impacts every user and advocate of the Firefox browser, so it's certainly appropriate for us to hear as accurately as possible what the decision-making process behind it was.

  14. Fuck the Mozilla devs by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sorry to sound like a prick, but some of the lead Mozilla developers have turned into incredibly unresponsive pricks that don't know how to delegate and assign authority properly. I respect their hard work immensely, but their attitude and arrogance on certain issues continues to mystify me. Look at this new theme at the top of this thread. This is beyond atrocious. This is because the Mozilla devs don't know how to resolve differences with other people, and they REPEATEDLY have shown a complete indifference to aesthetic issues in the browser and an unwillingness to make use of the talents of the many artists out there who would be very willing to help create good splashscreens, icons and so on, a rather critical part of a mass market desktop application that we want people to adopt (in the interests of a more secure, standards-compliant web).


    Yes, Arvid Axelsson, the author of the current default theme (Qute), may have a bit of an ego himself, and may have been reluctant to freely license his artwork under the same MPL terms as the Mozilla codebase. But he's a reasonable person, and he's indicated he's willing to compromise and do a Free license that works for the Mozilla team, because he wants to make sure that Firefox succeeds, and has the best, most aesthetically pleasing look and feel possible.


    For God's FUCKING sake you egomaniacs (and anybody who has followed some of these discussions over the last few years knows this is true - see the splashscreen debacle in Bugzilla, the many UI layout discussions, and the naming debacles for examples), we are relying on you and the excellent browser you have created and maintained. We respect immensely all the hard work the Mozilla and Firefox core developers have done, but their lackadaisical attitude towards branding of their product (Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox?), the terrible aesthetics of the splashscreens and icon sets they keep putting back in are just unacceptable. Qute was the best thing that ever happened to Firefox and the Mozilla project - compare to the awful looking old versions of the Mozilla browser - ugh.


    You are the developers and project leaders of a critical mass-market product. If there is truly an unresolvable licensing issue with the current icons and their author is unwilling to compromise, come out and tell us, and assign a group of artists or other aesthetically inclined technology professionals to consider submissions for a new default. Realize that your contributions, while critical, do not need to include drawing shitty icons or making terrible off-the-cuff aesthetic decisions that have a negative impact on the adoption of a critical product for the entire Internet's wellbeing.

    1. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by linuxci · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem is when you debate every little detail to death you get a browser like the Mozilla suite which progressed relatively slowly because everything was a committee decision.

      Yes I do think this could have been handled a *lot* better because Arvid but a lot of work into this excellent theme and now is word will be getting a lot less attention as it'll now just be a downloadable theme on update.mozilla.org

      Also as you can see from the forum thread mentioned in the original article you can see the information process wasn't the best.

      However, ultimately difficult decisions have to be made and they can't satisfy everyone all of the time.

      If you look at the original charter for m/b, Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox you'll see that they intended from the very beginning to have only a small group of people making the decisions.

      To quote:
      The size of the team working on the trunk is one of the many reasons that development on the trunk is so slow. We feel that fewer dependencies (no marketing constraints), faster innovation (no UI committees), and more freedom to experiment (no backwards compatibility requirements) will lead to a better end product.

    2. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Those difficult decisions should not be made by Ben Goodger. I'm sure he's a great, stand-up guy. I've worked with engineers like him before - their code may be fabulous, but their sense of aesthetics is fundamentally broken. I support the idea of a small group *of artists and UI designers* making UI decisions, and a group with some marketing experience to make branding decisions.


      I've managed plenty of software development teams before, and you just don't assign any random engineer to make important UI decisions. Some people have the talent for this and some don't. It's part aesthetics, part usability, part style. Very important stuff, and not something you learn getting a computer science degree, hacking Unix, writing HTML rendering engines and so on.

    3. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by bogie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just indicitive of the way the entire Phoenix/Firefox project has been handled from day one on issues that actual users are interested in. They devs simple are not interested in taking in and responding to feedback from users on issues that users really care about like aesthetics. Look at the bugzilla voting system for an example. No matter how many votes a bug gets the devs could care less. Yes at some point someone needs to step in and say "This is how its going to be", but jeez at least try to make it look like you value the opinion of the people who have been bug testing and promoting *zilla for years and years now.

      I still use Firefox but I don't particpate anymore. I don't file bugs and I don't post in the forums. If the developers are going to continue to not pay attention to the users then they are losing IMHO their greatest strength outside the actual merit of the products themselves.

      Call me a drama queen. Explain how I'm wrong. But don't discount the fact that many people right or wrong feel the same way as I do.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    4. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the new theme (winstripe) was made by a small group of artists and UI designers.

    5. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by colinramsay · · Score: 1

      Ben Goodger is not simply a software engineer. Look at his CV on his website and you will see that he has a great deal of UI experience.

    6. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since AOL spun off Mozilla it's been the fastest developing major scale Open Source project in the world, and immensely popular. It's a ridiculous argument to make that because 'bogie' didn't get personalized service their development model is a failure. If you think I'm wrong, please try the same thing with Microsoft, Apple, or Sun and report back on your success. Damn, where do these people get off thinking the open source development model has some equivalency to ordering re-fills on ice tea at the local diner?

    7. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Malc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right, and it's been going on for years. Just look at the duplicating/cloning new window bug. People have been begging for it for years because they like the way IE does it. The devs didn't like that feature and acted like pricks about it. I lost interest in even considering getting involved. These days you can get the functionality via the excellent Tabbrowser extension... I just wish it were implemented in the core code base with an option to enable or disable it. Oh well, and you wonder why Apple really chose KHTML... I wouldn't want to have to deal with the Mozilla team.

    8. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Pionar · · Score: 1

      The problem is, not many UI people and artists are interested in open-source projects. Many open-source GUI-based projects face the same shortage.

    9. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Is that why it's so ugly?

    10. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been popular because there's money behind it. As soon as that project forks away from the shitheads that have been running it since I got involved in 1997, I'll start participating again. I used to spend upwards of 20 hours a week researching bugs, filing bugs, etc. The developers have shown such a "fuck you" attitude that I stopped. And over 200 non-duped bugs is nothing to sneeze at. There are exceptions like Dave Beinvenue. That guy is great, but the pricks can go to hell with their damned crappy feature set.

    11. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the reason 99% of OSS interfaces suck.

      If you tell them what you just posted to Slashdot, they'll basically tell you to go to hell because you should be oh-so-grateful for their volunteer effort. It's the bad attitudes permeating OSS that keep it from progressing. I don't even want to get into the hellhole GUIs that are GNOME and KDE, which will never ever trump Windows or OS X in their current mindsets.

      There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift if any of this OSS is going to actually go mainstream. Right now, it's not gonna happen, no matter how many bash-Windows articles Slashdot posts. Preaching to the choir doesn't convert anyone, and neither does making software by nerds for nerds. Software needs to be made for everyone, and the nerds can hack on their little special needs after.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    12. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you followed Mozilla and Firefox development? Ben Goodger was one of the people who started Phoenix over a year ago. I don't think you have a right to complain about the aesthetic quality of his work when you are implicitly complimenting the fundamental design choices he and a few others have made so far.

      To bring you up to speed on Firefox's history, he and a couple other developers saw that, aesthetically, there's a bigger win in creating a slimmed-down modular browser than sticking with the Suite-approach. Thank the core designers (of which he is one) for making that decision even when momentum in the organization was pushing Suite and realize that branding is already being done by the Mozilla Visual Identity Team, a top-notch group of visual designers.

      Firefox has made it this far because the Mozilla Foundation has let people like Ben Goodger and Scott MacGregor make decisions about their app front-ends based on the Mozilla Platform.

    13. Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      OK, well if he's responsible for that heinous looking theme, then he's got a terrible aesthetic eye and has no business doing graphical UI work. He may have a decent sense of user experience - that doesn't really require much in the way of graphical or aesthetic skill per se, just an understanding of how people use an application. Firefox is a perfectly usable application (with the exception of the lack of easy access to advanced configuration options - a few things are buried in about:config that shouldn't require going there).


      But in general, the UI *design* for the original Mozilla suite (the Modern theme) was fairly ugly, and this proposed thing is substantially worse. If those were my UI design credits (and I haven't looked at his CV), then I wouldn't be bragging about them.

  15. More pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Some more pics of the new theme, from the author's website.

    1. Re:More pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's not the new theme, that's the old theme.

    2. Re:More pics by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

      " that's not the new theme, that's the old theme."

      Except that it lists the changes for 0.9 which IS the upcoming version number. Not that I am sure at this point given that it's the first I've heard of a complete theme change, AND that mozillazine has been slashdotted thanks to this article (I'm active on the forum BTW).

      I hate the new theme that someone linked to above, and think it's 10 steps backward in terms of quick visual recognition of icon function. I'm quietly hoping it's someone trying to promote their own upcoming theme, and that Firefox developers are wise enough not to completely change the look at 0.9 when it is only just beginning to achieve critical mass with new users.

      I provide it to ALL my clients and they all think it is by far the best browser they've used. The theme linked as being the upcoming official looks miles less professional, and will hurt Firefox tremendously, regardless of its technical merit.

    3. Re:More pics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      here are more pics from the actual author's site.

    4. Re:More pics by mldl · · Score: 1

      That was Qute for 0.9. Arvid was still working on improving his theme and including icons for some of the new functions such as Mail.

      Winstripe is indeed the new theme. We've been debating the decision in the IRC channel and Steven Garrity believes the theme will survive the backlash and be good for Firefox in the future. I hope he's right.

      Arvid's Qute theme will still be available for download so let's hope the Theme manager has been totally bug-freed by next week.

  16. Shame on you Firefox Developers by MackTK · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I just want to register my disgust at the behaviour and unprofesionalism of the people overseeing this project. The way they have treated the artist who contributed so much of his time is appaling.

    This is almost enough to push me to another browser.

    SHAME ON YOU!

    1. Re:Shame on you Firefox Developers by aldoman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Who modded the parent flamebait? It's true.

      FireFox is a good product, yes, but not so good that they can just throw people around like trash.

    2. Re:Shame on you Firefox Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about all the other theme developers who contribute just as much time and also don't get their theme to be the default? arvid had his chance but he refused to relicense the theme, so they made a new one. i see nothing at all wrong with this.

    3. Re:Shame on you Firefox Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arvid Axelsson hasn't contributed jack shit; a contributor to a Mozilla project releases his work under the MPL/LGPL/GPL triple license.

  17. Re:Nope by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative
    This issue is fixed here, as well as mentioned on the home page for firefox.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  18. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a known issue and is prominently displayed on their site, along with the solution.

    And remember, this is version .8/.9 . There will be bugs.

    ~X~

  19. Already slashdotted... by Momo_CCCP · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...poor forum server is screaming...
    Consistency across platforms or within platforms is quite a non-issue to us KDE users : the Plastik and Keramik themes for Mozilla and Firefox are beautifully integrated in the KDE desktop, so whatever the default themes becomes, we'll still be happy.
    As long as skinning is avaible, everybody should be happy.

  20. Re:Nope by linuxci · · Score: 1

    Well it is a pre-release, they're working hard to make sure that this is fixed before 1.0 - I think it'll be fixed in 0.9 too once all the theme changes have landed.

  21. Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can I configure Firefox back to the sane Ok/Cancel button order?

    No or Yes?

    1. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by linuxci · · Score: 3, Informative

      That order is only in Mac/Linux builds.

      The reason for it in Mac is because all apps should be that way due to the UI guidelines.

      As for Linux apparently it's in the GNOME UI guidelines. However, I rarely use any other GNOME apps in Linux, most things I do are either in browser or in a terminal window - therefore the button ordering is frustrating for me when I'm in Linux because I switch between Windows and Linux more than Linux and Mac.

      But technically they're doing the right thing - although ideally it'd only display in that order if you're actually using GNOME.

    2. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by marq00z · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's not a bug, it's a feature. The Cancel|OK order appears only in Linux and Mac OS X and it's done this way to be compliant with Gnome and Apple Human Interface Guidelines. If you want to have the Windows-like OK|Cancel order, just add these lines to your userChrome.css in your .firefox//xxxxxx.slt/chrome directory:
      .dialog-button-box {
      -moz-box-direction: reverse;
      -moz-box-pack: center;
      }

      .dialog-button-box spacer {
      display: none !important;
      }
    3. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok/Cancel or Cancel/OK buttons are fundamentally flawed, and outdated. Both GNOME and KDE use action verbs, just like MacOS X. So instead ok Cancel/OK you can Discard/Save or something.

    4. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Jameth · · Score: 1

      "As for Linux apparently it's in the GNOME UI guidelines."

      And the exact reverse is in the KDE UI guidelines, and KDE has larger marketshare, and KDE has been using that standard longer, and apps made before KDE or GNOME use that standard, and earlier versions of GNOME use that standard.

      So, basically, the decision is because they didn't think about it.

    5. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. GNOME made a really bad decision on that one.

    6. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      KDE has been using that standard longer

      Calendar priority examples are bad examples. Mac OS has used (Cancel)(OK) since January 1984.

    7. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      So, basically, the decision is because they didn't think about it.

      No, they made the decision because they're smarter than you. There is a well known tenet of UI design that says the default choice should be the least destructive one available. That almost always means the Cancel button. Putting it to the left of the Ok button makes it fall naturally in the default spot in the tab order, and also puts it where people expect the default to be.

      Considering what a disaster the OS has always been, it amazes me how many people consider something to be the "right way" because that's how Windows does it.

    8. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's your source on marketshare? Web polls on themes.org / kdelook.org don't count, mind.

    9. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by damiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, the decision is because they did think about it. Cancel/OK makes more sense and is fundamentally easier to use than OK/Cancel. That's why Apple uses it.

      It'd be nice if Firefox could detect KDE and switch its button order. However, as Firefox is written in GTK and KDE already has its own non-Gecko browser, probably most of the Firefox developers aren't KDE users and don't care. If you do care, go ahead and code it.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    10. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cancel/OK makes more sense and is fundamentally easier to use than OK/Cancel. That's why Apple uses it.

      Uh... what?

      Would you like to provide some argument as to why it makes more sense? To me it seems quite the reverse: we say "Yes or no?", so we should say "OK or cancel?".

      Would you like to cite some studies showing that it's fundamentally easier to use? I see nothing to suggest that: practically everyone who uses a computer, uses a computer with the "OK/Cancel" order, and I've never heard any of them say it confuses them or slows them down. Not even the most clueless.

      In fact, it looks to me like you just assume that because Apple does it it must be right. I have news for you - Apple are not gods, and we are not obliged to accept their conventions without questioning them.

      So, I repeat: would you care to support your assertions in some way?

    11. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering what a disaster the OS has always been, it amazes me how many people consider something to be the "right way" because that's how Windows does it.

      Considering how the OS has completely failed to increase its market share significantly despite allegedly being so vastly superior in every way, it amazes me how many people consider something to be the "right way" because that's how MacOS does it.

    12. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Apple did some UI research back when, which resulted in the finding that the places people look first are upper-left and lower-right corners of a given screen/window/whatever.

      Thus they decided on two things: action-based buttons (OK and Cancel are not acceptable - Save, Don't Save are) and placing the most used button at the lower right.

      That's why Apple does it. Now, it's possible that their research would come out differently on a modern audience; it might behoove them to redo it (I wish they'd redo their one-button mouse research) but there is a reason behind it.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    13. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Jameth · · Score: 1

      Their research is correct, their decision is iffy.

      The lower left is the primary target, and they put the destructive option there. Save/Cancel puts cancel, the action which results in non-action, in the target area. If you hit cancel, you can open the dialog again and hit save.

      Also, that assumes that the location is the only influence. They also ignored reading order, which in standard English is usually Yes/No, or affirmative and then negative.

      Their decision was flawed, but only a little. GNOME's decision, however, was flat-out stupid. GNOME was choosing to make their applications inconsistent with every other application available on UNIX, as KDE and all the older UNIX applications and anything from the older versions of GNOME all used the other button order.

      Consistency is essential, and they blew it. It was a stupid decision, period.

    14. Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      I would argue that reading order is actually preserved, as I think (this is based on my memories of a "How to organize a presentation slide" class, which touched on some of the same subjects) that dialog reading proceeds from lower-right target area to the left; i.e. if we divide the box into 9 sections, organized in the same way as a touchtone phone (123 on the top row), reading of a bottom row set of options proceeds 9-8-7, not 7-8-9.

      That said, consistency is *why* Apple's interface works so well, and why GNOME made a damn stupid decision, I couldn't agree with you more. I was just providing the reasoning behind Apple's use of the reversed order, to point out that it was not just "Apple did it".

      Stupid one button mouse. Stupid, stupid, one button mouse. (I have to throw that in on any discussion of Apple's UI decisions).

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
  22. This is why 'Open Source' projects are hamstrung.. by FatSean · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Nobody wants to do the grunt work. Everybody wants to diddle themselves over how they added some interface feature that's super cool and customizable. Sure there are those who do the hard stuff but they seem to be a minority.

    --
    Blar.
  23. Re:At last! by kunudo · · Score: 1

    Dude, you can skin it.

  24. You need a bigger "but" next time by Dano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "..We respect immensely all the hard work the Mozilla and Firefox core developers have done, but.."

    Read your own subject line and then tell me during which part of your response you were respectful of them and their work.

    1. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Informative
      I've spent a lot of time on the Mozillazine forums and so have many others who've contributed code, artwork, testing and hundreds upon hundreds of hours of their time. I am talking here about the core developers from Mozilla.org who have actively displayed their arrogance repeatedly to the rest of the community. In particular, I think Ben Goodger has stood out as a tremendous prick. In fact, my original post said "Fuck Ben Goodger" in the title, but I decided it was too much of an ad hominem, when many of the others have stood up far too strongly for Goodger.


      Ben Goodger is the strongest anti-advocate for Mozilla I have ever seen. There are hundreds of other developers who have contributed lots of code to the original Mozilla project and the Firefox codebase. Many of these are great people who have quietly contributed tens of thousands of hours of their work over the years to the community. And those people I respect immensely. The ones who insist on repeatedly driving rifts through and disrespecting the fabulous community of Mozilla supporters that have evangelized their product and fought for a better, more standards-compliant internet everywhere else have been done a tremendous disservice to the rest of the Internet, and I have simply lost my respect for them.

    2. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by STrinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the most telling thing about Goodger is that he absolutely hates TBE, probably the most popular extension out there, because it makes drastic alterations to the code, but he's made no effort to change Firefox so that TBE would be unnecessary.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    3. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. TBE's context menus are stupidly huge.

    4. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by stewby18 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are clearly talking about a larger issue, which I can't really speak to, but I can definitely say that the thread you linked to does *not* support your case.

      I read it through, and here's what I saw:
      1) A professional email from Ben Gooder saying that Firefox was taking a new direction due to a combination of licencing and UI considerations
      2) A less-than-polite response from the Qute designer, with both the original and the reply posted to a public forum in violation of basic decency
      3) A lot of ignorant flaming of the decision and back-seat driving from people who were not privy to the details of the decision and ignored what they were told about it by Ben Gooder's follow-up post. Interestingly, the people doing said flaming all seemed coincidentally to prefer the Qute theme.
      4) Many people who either didn't like Qute or were reserving judgement one way or the other until they had time to make an informed decision based on the complete theme and actual use.
      5) The Qute fanatics almost exclusively ignoring the people in 4) and claiming that everyone likes Qute better, and that ignoring "the preferences of the end users" was completely against what Firefox should be about (I'll leave the hypocricy in that as an excercise for the reader).

      I certainly did see a lot of disrespect in that thread, but it was all *toward* Ben Gooder, and not *by* him. After reading that thread, what I'm left with is a lack of respect for people who lash out ignorantly and disrespectfully against someone who spends a whole lot of time working on a browser that they all use and enjoy.

    5. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. TBE's context menus are stupidly huge.

      My TBE context menus contain precisely six items. Is that "stupidly huge"?

      TBE is for people who like customising things. And guess what? It lets you customise the context menus completely!

    6. Re:You need a bigger "but" next time by STrinity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, come on. TBE's context menus are stupidly huge.

      And 100% customizable. Tab->Edit Context Menu

      Personally I wish Firefox had a similar option so I could get rid of useless options like "Send Link" and "Copy Link Location" without having to edit userChrome.css.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  25. BIG ICONS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why, ohh why, do so many oss gui apps have massive icons. Firefox is one of the noticable exceptions.

    The new "pinstripe" looks like its got very big icons too (arrgghhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

    I switched from mozzy to firefox cos of the icons. Thunderbird is nice, but again very big icons?

    Why not spend the time getting the calender module finished. Now that WOULD be useful.

    Al

    1. Re:BIG ICONS.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      winstripe's icons look smaller than qute's to me.

    2. Re:BIG ICONS.... by nostriluu · · Score: 1

      They're not very big if you have a 1400x1050 12.1" screen. This whole "bitmap" thing is for the 90s, I just hope the free sofware projects have their icons in vector format or we're going to have to repeat this whole disaster in a year or two.

  26. great by cratermoon · · Score: 1

    But when do we get custom sidebar tabs in PheoBirdFox? Or is that part of the "bloat" that led to the split with the core Mozilla team?

    1. Re:great by linuxci · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can do so in Firefox but they're implemented differently in Firefox than the suite.

      If you click on a link to add a sidebar panel then it'll ask you where you want to file a bookmark, then to open the sidebar you can look in the appropriate place in bookmarks.

      This bookmark approach also means you can turn any bits of HTML into a sidebar panel. Just bookmark a page, go to properties and check "Open this bookmark in the sidebar"

    2. Re:great by cratermoon · · Score: 1

      oooooo..... Thank you! That's going to give me a big push towards making FireFox my default browser.

  27. Theme choice... by Epistax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now I know you can just download themes to your heart's content. I'm using a tiny theme because that's the way I like it. However there's no reason not to have several default themes to choose from at install time. I would suggest the themes be "Default", "Internet Explorer", "Netscape", "Opera" and perhaps a Macish theme. As long as it is explained that this is simply the look and feel and has no real functionality differences (explained in a calm and simple manner), things should be less scary. Previous posters are absolutely right-- the more different it looks, the more scared the user will be, even if everything is in exactly the same place.

    1. Re:Theme choice... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      "Opera"? Maybe you havent ever upgraded your Opera, but from what I see, Opera completely changes its look every single release.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:Theme choice... by Hrunting · · Score: 0

      As long as it is explained that this is simply the look and feel and has no real functionality differences (explained in a calm and simple manner), things should be less scary.

      This seems like a silly thing to say. Have you ever had something like an installation configuration option explained to you in wholly wild language?

      WARNING! IF YOU SELECT THE NETSCAPE THEME, YOUR BROWSER WILL STILL NOT BE NETSCAPE! IN FACT, THE NETSCAPE THEME WILL PROBABLY FUNCTION MORE LIKE INTERNET EXPLORER, EXCEPT WORSE BECAUSE WE SPENT THREE WEEKS WORKING ON THE TEXT OF THIS WARNING INSTEAD OF FIXING THE VARIOUS RESOURCE USAGE BUGS THAT CAUSE FIREFOX TO USE 500MB OF MEMORY! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! ALSO, NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED BY THIS WARNING! HAVE A NICE DAY!

    3. Re:Theme choice... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Um, why not have the user select from a few dozen themes at install? Why is this a story or an issue at all, there are a good dozen solid themes for Firefox right now as of this writing.

  28. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by linuxci · · Score: 4, Informative

    Firefox was *supposed* to be a *fast* lean-and-mean browser. One reason was given that bundling IE with OS works because people are too lazy to download another browser. That gap WIDENS as the download size increases. Already Firefox is 10+ MB!!!!


    Don't be such a troll. The download size for Firefox hasn't been anywhere near 10 meg (except perhaps before they stripped out all the app suite stuff).


    If you look at the latest branch builds you'll see that the current download is below 5 meg on Windows.

  29. HCI anyone?? by the_true_cirrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why oh why do they want cross platform uniformity??

    One of the most basic principles of human-computer interaction is consistency. Windows users expect to see Windows-like apps, Mac OS X ppl expect native OS X looking apps and likewise for GNOME, KDE and whatever else.

    Anything that breaks that (for example an OS X app that looks and/or behaves like a Windows app goes against the user's expections. And ultimately that makes the app harder for them to use and hence less appealing.

    Granted there is a lot of similarity between the various desktop environments but they do each also have their own quirks. For example OS X apps have the toolbar along the top of the screen (not part of the app window) and have that little window-resizing thing in the bottom-right corner of a window (not part of the window's border). GNOME and KDE generally have different standard back, forward, reload etc icons for buttons that all apps should use rather than their own.

    If you make Firefox look the same on every platform you will be breaking such little quirks and conventions on some (possibly all) platforms and the users will suffer.

    I say make a different, native looking (and feeling) theme for each major platform and ship it as the default for that platform!

    As for branding - you've got the name, you've got the firefox icon - they stay the same on every platform - surely that's all that's needed.

    Personally I think that's a good thing too. I for one perceive it as really annoying and intrusive when I install an app that insists on planting it's icons all over my desktop, installing a pointless system tray icon and making itself the default player/browser/whatever (eg RealPlayer or QuickTime on Windows) - it feels like I get the branding forced down my throat and that does NOT make me a happy user! Apps that don't feel the need to do that are a breath of fresh air and it would be a real shame for Firefox to go down the road of excessive branding.

    1. Re:HCI anyone?? by linuxci · · Score: 1
      Personally I think that's a good thing too. I for one perceive it as really annoying and intrusive when I install an app that insists on planting it's icons all over my desktop


      Good news is they've checked into the installer options where you'd like to place your icons on the Windows desktop so you've now got full control over this (I think you might have to do a custom install which I do anyways)

    2. Re:HCI anyone?? by andy9701 · · Score: 1

      That's a very good point. I know that the first time that I started iTunes for Windows it just didn't feel right, because Apple ported not only iTunes iteslf, but an exact replica of its UI as well.

      Hopefully, since the dev team is working on all three platforms, hopefully they'll make sure that it works well on all three platforms before releasing it.

    3. Re:HCI anyone?? by per11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I wanted Firefox to look the same on all platforms, I would just use Mozilla.

    4. Re:HCI anyone?? by Malc · · Score: 1

      It's funny, the most popular Apple app contradicts everything Apple stands for when it comes to user interfaces. Of course I'm talking about the QuickTime player. It's one of the worst apps I have installed on my system... I loathe it and try to avoid QuickTime movies where I can so that I don't have to experience the app. Unfortunately my digital camera creates .movs :(

    5. Re:HCI anyone?? by douthat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see other popular media players using the standard windows UI. Do you?

      The above is a moot point, anyway. Keeping the UI of an application consistent with the UI of all the other apps on a particular OS is very important if you want to increase the rate of adoption. Media players are an exception because just about every media player fux up the UI to a confusing level.

      Take the look and feel of another popular open source media player as an example. When my mac buddies look for a video player capable of playing mpeg-2 (or whatever file-type it is they're having problems with that day) if I point them to VLC, they love it! It looks and feels exactly like any other mac application they use, from the metal UI, to the menu at the top of the screen, to the double-clickable .app bundle and high-res icon. They end up accepting it alot more easily than an application that didn't fit the Mac look and feel. Similarly, when you run VLC in Windows, it LOOKS and FEELS like a windows app, and on linux, it LOOKS and FEELS like a linux app. Hell, on BeOS, it looks and feels like a beos app.

      I think it would be a step backwards for FireFox to consolidate on a single theme across all platforms.

      --
      She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF ...
    6. Re:HCI anyone?? by fulldecent · · Score: 1
      No. Using linux, I expect everything to look different. Try right clicking on a QT, GTK and XUL app on my dekstop.

      But it is a delight when two apps look remotely alike.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    7. Re:HCI anyone?? by pebs · · Score: 1

      Get Quicktime Alternative. You'll never have to use Apple's piece of shit player ever again.

      There is also a Real Alternative..

      --
      #!/
  30. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks to me like they have it down to under 5MB for the Windows install:
    ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fi refox/nigh tly/latest-0.9/

  31. To: Mozilla Devs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please don't end up like the XFree86 developers, and completely ruin your project. Listen to the users, just give it a try. Now that wasn't that hard now was it?

    I love Firefox, without doubt the best browser yet, and it isn't even 1.0. Keep it fast and light, bloat is what made regular Mozilla suck, face it.

  32. From my reading of it by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Mozilla devs did the right thing and asked about having Qute freely licenced 6 months ago. They were apparently told no and have therefore taken the only reasonable course left to them, sourcing another theme.

    The new theme might not be brilliant but it is a work in progress and rather importantly is freely licenced so other people will be able to tweak it over time.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:From my reading of it by Chreo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The Mozilla devs did the right thing and asked about having Qute freely licenced 6 months ago.
      From my reading of Ben's post in response he wrote that Arvid "INDICATED" (according to Ben) that he was not ok about having others create derivative works using stuff from the Qute theme.

      Now, to me, an important product as Mozilla require a "final answer" from Arvid on such an issue i.e. "The license on Qute have to be changed or we need to replace Qute with another theme. Will you change the license?". A final "no" then, would entitle the Moz devs to change default theme. It seems unfair both to Arvid and the creators of the new theme to not having cleared this issue before.
      --

      Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
  33. Microsoft is laughing at you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    marketing/branding IS EVERYTHING, and i totally agree with the parent, engineers are possibly the WORST people to be making UI choices

    shame as there is a MASSIVE graphic design community (deviantart/skinz.org/k10k) you know they same guys and girls that design shit for coke,sky,mtv etc etc, and once again ego's seem to be getting in the way ALL THE TIME with open source and of course all the time this pathetic bickering continues the more Micorosft laugh as OSS looks more unprofessional each day

    we have a word in uk for ego obsessed people

    WANKERS

  34. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by aldoman · · Score: 1

    FireFox 0.9 will be at max a 5MB download, and probably closer to 4MB depending on how much stuff they manage to thin out.

    I do however think Opera is a very good peice of work for gettin g all that in 3.5MB, put I prefer FireFox for some reason for browsing, and I have all my mail on my iBook using Apple's mail.app (I think it's great... I don't understand why it gets such a slamming).

  35. Re:GTK 2 by stuaxp · · Score: 1

    Nah, the flash plugin has always been rubbish... QT would be fine, but what about those of us who don't want to install a whole nother set of wigets (I know that works in reverse too though) but then I'm sure lots of you KDE people have gtk2 for the gimp... if not then do a QT firefox too....

  36. Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative


    do not install 0.9 until (if) the extensions have been updated as it will break

    once again backwards compatibility has been sacrificed (and we are not even at 1.0 yet) we had now 200+ extensions have to be updated and some have been abandoned as they worked, now they will be broken and useless

    i hope all this aggro was worth it, or you might find a lot of people just give up with it and go back to IE while its got a lot of failings at least you know where you are with it and it doesn't keep breaking every month

    1. Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THERE is no one telling you, you have to upgrade and break your extensions! Quit your bitching..

      I still use Mozilla 1.6 because its stable..Firefox is still pre 1.0 because its still like BETA! SO everyone quit their bitching.

    2. Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by colinramsay · · Score: 4, Informative

      0.9 will FIX the extension system in Firefox, which has been one of it's weakest points thus far. After 0.9 there will be no further major shifts in the way extensions are handled, and so this is the first and only time that extensions have been broken in this way.

      It's a necessary change.

    3. Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by globalar · · Score: 1

      I think Firefox as a project has a lot of stress and expectation on it that is unusual for a majority of OSS projects. Firstly, browsers are very important and IE has encouraged people to switch. Secondly, browsers for years were a little stagnate, but now Mozilla/Firefox has allowed some homegrown customization and creativity. Thirdly, the project became popular before it was 100%. I use Firefox, but it still has a few bugs (probably inherited from Mozilla).

      All this culminates in a large, expectant userbase which relies on the browser, even before it's 1.0 release. People care a lot about this software, and I think it takes a very capable leadership to understand this and work with the community. That's not something you just volunteer for - it takes a personal committment to people, not just projects. As OSS projects become bigger and include users who have no clue about development and less patience, the leadership of such projects will need to be that much more understanding and workable. Not that leadership is all about giving and compromising, but let's face it, the software is for people so that should be the goal. That is why we use it.

      I thank all those who have, in any way, made Mozilla/Firefox what it is and who will play a part in what it will become.

    4. Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful


      once again backwards compatibility has been sacrificed (and we are not even at 1.0 yet)

      Uh, hello? How did this get modded up?

      Rather than feeding this relatively obvious troll, I'll simply remind folks that the whole POINT of the pre-1.0 development cycle is to break things. And nobody's forcing anyone else to use Firefox, stable or not. End of story.

    5. Re:Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to tell me they broke compatability in a pre-release version to fix something? Quick! Boycot software fixes, fixing pre-release versions is unacceptable!

  37. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by turnin · · Score: 1

    IE browser is part of OS, so you got the platform to extend.
    When it comes to Mozilla, browser itslef is THE platform to extend and it is truly compatable across all major OSes ... so ... 10 MB.

    Now, do you really want to compare with Opera?

  38. Slashdot Rendering by md81544 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apologies for only just vaguely being on-topic - but does anyone know what the progress is on the Slashdot rendering problem under Firefox (it gets mentioned regularly when Firefox comes up as a topic). I would have thought it would be an important fix for the Slash guys to put in, as I regularly have to refresh a page three or four times before I get any text in the main boxes. This can't help bandwidth...

    1. Re:Slashdot Rendering by linuxci · · Score: 1

      It should be fixed in the latest branch builds. For updates on Firefox development see The Burning Edge

    2. Re:Slashdot Rendering by TrentL · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed the rendering problem in weeks. (The again, I haven't been visiting Slashdot as frequently as I used to). My understanding was that it had to do with bad HTML in some advertisements.

    3. Re:Slashdot Rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bug 217527 - bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217527

      It's just been fixed on the trunk, but it'll remain broken in Mozilla 1.7 and Firefox 0.9/1.0

    4. Re:Slashdot Rendering by marq00z · · Score: 3, Informative

      This bug has been fixed recently. (bug 217527).

    5. Re:Slashdot Rendering by thumperward · · Score: 1

      The one where the left column is too narrow was fixed last week. Dunno about your one.

      - Chris

    6. Re:Slashdot Rendering by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I have given up and view Slashdot using the "Light" settings.

  39. You act like IE is stable... by gtaluvit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've seen IE barf on pages before. No browser is going to be perfect and I think explaining to people that you may have to close and restart a browser during the day (if they keep it open THAT long) is a lot easier than saying "ok, if you close those 5 pop ups and uninstall CometCursor, you'd see the page you're lookin for."

    --
    - gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
    1. Re:You act like IE is stable... by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Parent has a very good point. IE still freaks out with regular use, bloating up to tremendous size and crashing. Opera (which I'm writing this on now) also crashes, perhaps once a day. It's not such a big deal in Opera, because it saves what pages you're looking at, but it still happens. Mozilla crashes. iCab crashes. I can't vouch for Konqueror or Safari, as I haven't spent enough time with either.

      In short, while bugs are annoying, FireFox isn't buggier than any of the other browsers out there, and in some comparisons is a lot less buggy. Compared to Opera's break-fix development cycle, FireFox is a rock of gibraltar.

    2. Re:You act like IE is stable... by mebob · · Score: 1

      Safari is pretty impressive, but still cracks sometimes. Unfortunately with safari I tend to have a lot open when it does crash, it would be nice if there was some kind of recover for history feature, or at lease have each window run in a separate process but that wouldn't be very mac-centric.

      I really wish apple would have put effort into firefox or something similar. Konqueror and safari are both very impressive for thier age. I honistly thought apple would go the mozilla way or even buy opera and make it an apple product.

      As for IE I've seen it choke on slashdot quite a few times. The giant metamoderate forms make IE crawl on some systems. Causing graphical errors throughout the page and sometimes even in other windows running in the same proccess.

      --
      =1000101
    3. Re:You act like IE is stable... by Kyouryuu · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just because IE isn't stable doesn't mean Firefox can't aspire to be. IE is an archaic browser as far as I'm concerned, and that's why Mozilla and Netscape are actually gaining momentum. Prior to Mozilla 1.0, IE dominated. Now, at least according to my statistic, it's more of a 90%-10% or 85%-15% distribution. And although that may seem small, in something as gigantic as the browser market, that's actually quite a lot of people.

      Why are they gaining? They offer technologies people want. Tabbed browsing, pop-up blocking, and are generally less crashy. They are also generally more immune to the various sorts of crap unscrupulous advertisers have been pulling that "infects" IE. To keep gaining, these browsers need to keep doing this. That means not allowing large and highly documented bugs like the memory leak in question to be ignored.

    4. Re:You act like IE is stable... by farnsworth · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not such a big deal in Opera, because it saves what pages you're looking at

      If I understand you correctly, there is a way to do this in mozilla as well. Set the pref browser.startup.page to the integer '2', and mozilla/firefox/et al will start up on the page last loaded.

      --

      There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.

    5. Re:You act like IE is stable... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Mozilla, Netscape, IE.. they are all archaic browsers, all of which can trace their history back tot he early days of the web.
      khtml (Safari, Konqueror) and Opera are the only browsers that are both somewhat mainstream and are not archaic in origin.. Given that all of them render quircky old html versions and broken html, they are all archaic in the end.

      Given all that, we have lots of such content around, and I doubt that is gonna get fixed really, so we have to live with it ;P

      Firefox is doign a good job here, and while I can easily live with the standard themes, its nice to see some work on that as well.

    6. Re:You act like IE is stable... by anaradad · · Score: 1

      Opera will open all pages that were up when the browser crashed - not just the last page loaded. For example, I have ten pages (on ten tabs). Opera crashes. I restart it and all ten tabs load. Sweet.

    7. Re:You act like IE is stable... by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Opera not only saves all the windows and tabs but also the history of each page, your position on that page etc.

      It's like you never restarted which is a great feature because I use lots of tabs and when I want to play a game (the main reason for booting Windows) I have to get rid of the browser to limit memory consumption

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    8. Re:You act like IE is stable... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I think the last study I saw said something like 30% of business users use Mozilla while about 90% use IE.. which works because many people use more than one browser. 30% of those that use the Internet at work exposed to Mozilla is a lot higher number than I would have guessed. I'd suspect that is why Microsoft is suddenly making noise about an upcoming IE release with popup blocking and stuff. (I just wish they'd fix their CSS and PNG support!)

      I introduced Firefox and Thunderbird where I worked and it's been pretty successful. Firefox was impressive to the boss and he's became something of a Thunderbird convert from Outlook.. going as far as trying to get other people to switch to Thunderbird.

      I think my main wishlist is better support for plugins (in all OS's), better extension and theme UI (Ximian's Red Carpet would be what I'd copy), and giving Thunderbird better support for dealing with large amounts of mail. Better UI in the individual apps for intergrating Firefox, Thunderbird, etc would be good too. It'd be nice to be able to, in Thunderbird, set Firefox as my default browser and vice versa.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    9. Re:You act like IE is stable... by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1
      But the desire to separate the browser from the e-mail client is what led to Firefox and Thunderbird and additionally why I like it. The Mozilla suite, as a whole, feels clunky to me compared to these refined, individual components. Even though I used to use Mozilla proper religiously, I switched to Firefox/Thunderbird a few months ago and have been very pleased with it. I tried the Mozilla 1.7 RC2 build yesterday and was disappointed by it. Compared to Firefox, the Mozilla suite seems to lack polish and quality, slowly succumbing to nonsensical feature creep.

      Where I work, we have to use Outlook for e-mail because of the meeting scheduler, so unfortunately Thunderbird is not an option. But, I can easily replace IE with Firefox without problems.

      My wishlist would have Thunderbird - or a branch therein - evolving into something similar to Evolution, like a personal information management program.

    10. Re:You act like IE is stable... by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Mozilla 1.0 was rebuilt from the ground up after tinkerings with the buggy Netscape 6 code proved to be unsalvagable.

    11. Re:You act like IE is stable... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      You can sepperate the programs but still realize they'll need default mail and web programs to interact with even if not the counterpart from the Mozilla Suite. I'd just like a uniform UI place in these programs where these options can be set. Underneath it should just set the default in the OS's standard way.. I just want a common UI to that already existing functionality.

      I'd actually like to scrap Thunderbird and make a Mozilla based db-driven mail client. You can get a Thunderbird extension that does this (sort of) so maybe a lot of the code could be reused. I like Evolution's virtual folders and I like the way Gmail is described to use virtual folders based on filter (search) data rather than real folders. I'd like to see Thunderbird extend that concept.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    12. Re:You act like IE is stable... by Rysc · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was Netscape 5 code. The "Netscape 6" thing was an AOL attempt to beat Microsoft inv ersion nunmbers.

      --
      I want my Cowboyneal
    13. Re:You act like IE is stable... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Galeon also restores everything after a crash.

      There's an extension for moz/ffox that does this as well.

    14. Re:You act like IE is stable... by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      This is a great feature, but it's not limited to Opera (on Linux, anyway). Galeon (every time) and Epiphany (on a crash) do it too.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    15. Re:You act like IE is stable... by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      IE still freaks out with regular use, bloating up to tremendous size and crashing.

      Mozilla used to do this to me a couple of years ago.

      But now I'm going for weeks with the same invocation of Firefox, just screen saving, ending my user sessions maybe every few months.

      Browser crashes are down to 1-2 per year in 2004 from 10-12 per year in 2003.

      I'm happy, happy, happy with Firefox.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  40. Open source = unprofessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    or thats how its starting to look, tarnish it all with the same brush

    PR is everything, or has no-one been paying attention to Microsofts marketing, OSS should take notes MS didnt get to number 1 by having a good product, you think a few bighead developers know better ?

    LMFAO :)

  41. Grim reading by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Most of the members of the "community" seen in that thread seem to be a bunch of shouty whiners.
    Sadly I expect that for many of them that is their sole "contribution" to Mozilla.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Grim reading by macshit · · Score: 1

      Most of the members of the "community" seen in that thread seem to be a bunch of shouty whiners.
      Sadly I expect that for many of them that is their sole "contribution" to Mozilla.


      Yeah, I got the same impression. I ended up thinking ``Hey, wait a minute, Slashdot seems more mature than this...'' (I browse at +2, btw :-)

      Scarey, huh?

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
  42. Plastikfox by twener · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't care about the default look as long there is Plastik for Firefox available which also includes Crystal icons and Cancel<->OK button swap.

  43. Re:Nope by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    Yes, I'm aware of that, and I tried to fix it. Gave up after a few tries and went back to IE6+Avantbrowser. Yes, I run (licensed) W2KPro, fully patched with firewall and updated virus protection and Ad-Aware.

    I did have Firefox set up with all the extensions I wanted and then it just broke. Not too confidence-inspiring.

  44. It is fixed... by WD · · Score: 2, Informative

    Assuming you're talking about this bug:
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id= 205893

  45. Re:GTK 2 by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Firefox isn't well-threaded on any platform (I'm using it under Windows on a dual Athlon and it hangs when I load a complex page into one tab). QT wouldn't change that.

    I'd be intrigued to hear why you believe GTK is so "fundamentally backwards", seeing as just about every useful Linux app (except for maybe KDevelop, K3B, and OO.o) is written in it.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  46. here's a link to the theme itself by reeb · · Score: 2, Informative


    It looks very nice!! (a work in progress, and this maybe an older version).

    save to disk: pinstripe theme

    use the tool here to install it.

    1. Re:here's a link to the theme itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not the proposed theme! This is. Much too Luna-specific to my taste. I think this is going to scare away many potential users!

    2. Re:here's a link to the theme itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i tried on linux and it worked /shrug

  47. How about we fix the more important things first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ..like the CSS rendering. Horrible.

    Not to start a flamwar, but it's sad when IE can render CSS better.

    Need proof? display: inline; doesn't work. For those that don't know, if you have 3 divs and set them all to "display: inline;" it will align them horizontally similar to TD tags.

    display: block; is supposed to align them vertically, much like the TR tag does.

    There's a laundry list of other very BASIC CSS styles that will not render properly, and it's very odd that such very basic things don't work or function properly.

  48. Not so silly... by gumpish · · Score: 0, Redundant

    even silly things like what theme ships with Firefox as the default.

    As stated by earlier comments, the default theme can make or break an application's acceptance by the masses.

    This is no trifling matter. If Qute makes it easier for people to migrate from IE, then Qute should be used. There should be no room for ego in the process of selecting a default theme.

  49. Engineers vs. Software Creators by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    I've worked with engineers like him before

    I wish software developers would stop being referred to as "engineers". Not gonna happen though, there's too much prestige quotient.

    1. Re:Engineers vs. Software Creators by nostriluu · · Score: 1

      Plus they are diluting the cachet of sanitation engineers.

  50. Idiots love skins by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, the look of things is about the only thing that even total idiots do change about their computers.

    Many, many thousands of machines out there run without having ever been update since install, with every service under the sun enabled, and probably with the default passwords still in place. However, these same machines have custom backgrounds, colour cursors, sound effects and a dozen screensavers.

    Skins are big with people who don't know how to change the Start menu and believe Linux must be a windos program, because how can something run on a computer if it isn't a windos program?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Idiots love skins by neko9 · · Score: 1

      amen!

    2. Re:Idiots love skins by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      I remember about 5 years ago when I got given a 486 running Win95. I got so excited when I found I could change the wallpaper on the desktop. A day or two later I found the dialogue that let me change system fonts, screensavers and so on. I spent a couple of days at work dreaming about the possibilities this had.

      About the same time, in an effort to learn how to use my new toy, I bought a computer magazine. There was an article in there that said how Linux was so much more configurable than Windows.

      I couldn't believe it. Once I've configured the desktop, the fonts, the screensaver and (so I discovered) the alarm sounds, what's left?

      Gees, next you're going to tell me that each user can have a separate configuration.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

  51. IE Theme? by callermann · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok so who's gonna be the first person to write an IE look alike theme ;-)

    1. Re:IE Theme? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was done years ago.

    2. Re:IE Theme? by CeleronXL · · Score: 1

      There already is one. Luna | Lune Blue

  52. you forgot #97283 ... overflow:auto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the overflow:auto bug.... even IE and Opera can handle that properly. This bug is in mozilla since like 2000? And no hopes to get that fixed soon.

    Bug# 97283
    "scrolling (keyboard or mouse wheel) does not work for elements such as div using overflow - auto or scroll"

    Given the following test:

    <div style="width:100px; height:50px; overflow:auto; border: inset 2px white">
    Line 1<br>Line 2<br> Line 3<br> Line 4<br> Line 5<br> Line 6<br>:Line 7<br>
    </div>

    Using the scrollwheel while the mouse is inside the div should scroll it.

  53. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    4/10 troll, it works fine.
    <html>
    <head>
    <style type="text/css">

    h1 { display: block; }
    h2 { display: inline; }

    </style>
    </head>
    <body>
    <h1>Th is </h1>
    <h1>Is </h1>
    <h1>Block </h1>
    <h2>This </h2><h2>Is </h2><h2>Inline</h2>
    </body>
    </html>
  54. And what about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... creating a field in preferences for "Browser Name".

    It would a big boost to development, and it would allow conservative folks to keep the name Phoenix. :-)

    (Just kidding, you trademark owners, ok?)

  55. Re:GTK 2 by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

    That and, in all honesty, if you're in a Qt environment in Linux then odds are you're also running KDE and thus have a nice helping of Konqueror.

    And yeah, the Flash plugin is ass. What ticks me off is that using Crossover Office to use the Windows plugin works much better than the "native" Linux one.

  56. But I use KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The backwards HIG does not apply.

    So it is a bug.

    1. Re:But I use KDE by marq00z · · Score: 1

      Firefox is a GTK/Gnome application.

    2. Re:But I use KDE by Jameth · · Score: 1

      No, Firefox is a GTK application. It does not use GNOMElibs, so it is not a GNOME application.

      It should follow the standard which is more widely used in Linux, not the GNOME one.

    3. Re:But I use KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any other GTK apps you use will have this button order as well. And at least this one is trivial to change for your preference.

      So stop complaining. Change your userChrome, or help revive QtMozilla.

    4. Re:But I use KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all GTK2 apps use Gnome's button order, whether or not they're directly associated with gnome.

    5. Re:But I use KDE by marq00z · · Score: 1

      It's not a 100% Gnome application yet, but version 1.0 is going to be highly integrated with Gnome. (it already supports GnomeVFS). Check bug 233462 (or rather its dependencies) on bugzilla.mozilla.org for details. http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=233462

  57. Office 2003 skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  58. Grandparent is NOT a troll, proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before calling someone a troll, please invest a little more time than basic examples.

    Proof:

    <html>
    <head>
    <style>
    #test, #test2
    {
    display: inline;
    width: 250px;
    padding: 0px;
    margin-top: 10px;
    margin-right: 10px;
    vertical-align: top;
    border: solid 1px #333333;
    }
    </style>
    </head>
    <body>
    <div id="test">
    <div class="a">aaa</div>
    <div class="b">bbb</div>
    <div class="c">ccc</div>
    <div class="a">aaa</div>
    <div class="b">bbb</div>
    <div class="c">ccc</div>
    </div>
    <div id="test2">
    <div class="a">aaa</div>
    <div class="b">bbb</div>
    <div class="c">ccc</div>
    <div class="a">aaa</div>
    <div class="b">bbb</div>
    <div class="c">ccc</div>
    </div>
    </body>
    </html>

    1. Re:Grandparent is NOT a troll, proof! by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      Your HTML shouldn't render well as you're breaking the rules of the game. Check the specs, but you aren't supposed to have block elements being the children of inline ones. If you're wanting to have the divs #test and #test2 be next to each other, you'll need to assign a "float: left" to them, or use a less supported display type such as table-cell.

      Mozilla often renders things correctly according to the specs, while other browsers (especially IE) don't follow the rules consistently.

    2. Re:Grandparent is NOT a troll, proof! by colinramsay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please. This just shows your lack of understanding of the entire issue. The reason that your examples appear under each other is because display is not inherited. Therefore the divs inside test and test2 have a display:block - the breaks caused by such a block level element cause them to be displayed on a new line.

      Basic CSS, confused by the fact you have nested it in another div.

    3. Re:Grandparent is NOT a troll, proof! by shish · · Score: 1

      What's happening is that you're putting a "display: block;" element (div class "a") inside a "display: inline;" one (div id "test") - firefox thus stops the inline, goes into block mode, and then goes back into inline.

      A better example. To put the class "a" divs inside the "inline", they too must be "inline" elements - uncomment the obvious line to see it work.

      <html>
      <head>
      <style>
      #test {
      display: inline;
      width: 250px;
      border: solid 1px #FF3333;
      padding: 3px;
      }
      .a {
      //display: inline;
      }
      </style>
      </head>
      <body>
      <div id="test">
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      </div>
      <div id="test">
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      <div class="a">bbb</div>
      </div>
      </body>
      </html>

      Also, the premise of "should act like <td> or <tr>" is flawed anyway - if you want something to act like a table, you should be using the "display: table-foo;" attributes. Or better yet, if you want an actual table, use the <table> tags.

      Here is the same code as above, but written properly. It displays as I assume you expect it to

      <html>
      <head>
      <style>
      #test {
      display: table-cell;
      width: 250px;
      border: solid 1px #FF3333;
      padding: 3px;
      }
      .a {
      display: table-row;
      }
      </style>
      </head>
      <body>
      <div id="test">
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      </div>
      <div id="test">
      <div class="a">aaa</div>
      <div class="a">bbb</div>
      </div>
      </body>
      </html>

      And for your future reference, the specs are here, please read them:

      http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
      http://www.w 3.org/TR/CSS21/

      ED> Slashdot seems to be messing up the formatting, and there are some other whitespace issues that appear in the preview but not in this text area. I only used 1-space indents beause /. complained of too much whitespace otherwise

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  59. I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Informative


    I reported the memory leak on October 17, 2003:

    Firefox 0.8: All instances crash. Memory leaks.
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222660

    (Copy and paste the link to view the bug report.)

    Please add your experiences to the report.

    I reported the same bug in Mozilla browser, a long time ago. Huge memory leaks have existed since Mozilla version 1.0.

    A recent experience: After two days of opening and closing instances of FireFox, with two FireFox instances open and maybe 5 tabs total, the FireFox memory usage in Windows XP was 374,656 kilobytes. When I closed one of the instances, the memory usage went UP to 385,868 kilobytes.

    When you reach the limit of installed memory, Windows XP has to do its terrible disk thrashing thing. If Bill Gates weren't so poor, he could fix that. The advantage of open source is that there is at least a chance that the FireFox bug will be fixed.

    1. Re:I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by Pieroxy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If Bill Gates weren't so poor, he could fix that

      You are just an ass. What could Bill do when you reach your physical memory? Blue Screen? Kill the faulty app? Start paging?

      Well, it looks like they chose the best of all three options...

    2. Re:I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by linzeal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Send me 512 megs of ram every 6 months to keep up with feature bloat?

    3. Re:I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Blatant MS bashing gets you mod points aparently. When you reach the upper limit of memory, this "disk thrashing" you speak of is the cache being resised. All that you need to do to stop that is set your cache minimum size the same as the maximum. No more disk thrashing. Or you could just hate on M$, that might be even easier.

    4. Re:I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 3, Informative
      Blatant MS bashing gets you mod points aparently. When you reach the upper limit of memory, this "disk thrashing" you speak of is the cache being resised. All that you need to do to stop that is set your cache minimum size the same as the maximum. No more disk thrashing. Or you could just hate on M$, that might be even easier.

      Poppycock. In order to shrink the cache, only dirty pages have to be flushed. However, dirty pages have to be written much earlier than that in order to reduce the damaging effects of system or power failures anyway, so most of the cache will very likely not be dirty at that time. Cache pages which are not dirty, i.e. identical to the version on disk do not need to be written out, but can simply be discarded. So shrinking the cache should typically involve little disk I/O. Exceptions would be times where you do write lots of data to harddisk (e.g. downloads over a fast connection).

      Btw, Linux may write "anonymous" pages (e.g. application memory) that haven't been recently accessed into swapspace before it actually runs out of physical RAM, but keeps them in RAM as "not dirty". That way, it can also just discard them once memory conditions get critical, and thus avoid a lot of disk I/O delays.

    5. Re:I reported the leak on October 17, 2003: by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

      I've experienced similar issues on a few machines I run XP on, and all of them have at least 1GB of ram, and all of them have the page file statically set from 2GB - 4GB.

      When Windows XP automatically resizes the page file, it TELLS you, so I don't think it's happening without people knowing it..

      Sometimes I just run low on available memory, and then Windows XP goes to shit, whereas when it happens to my Linux boxes, they don't.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  60. Change! Aiiieee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. I once installed Netscape Navigator on my father's computer. Uninstalled it less than a week later because it "was so weird". Translation: Different than what he was used to.

    I recently installed Firefox on his machine. I dinked around with it for a few minutes to match his button layout and whatnot then handed over the reins. His response to this? Not, "What is this?" or, "Why does it look so weird?" Nope, he simply said, "Uh, what'd you do?"

    First impressions are VERY important to casual users.

    In my opinion the default Firebox theme should visually be as close as legally possible to the default PC IE theme. Add a "Change your theme" to the 'Tools' drop down boxes so that casual users don't have to get into (and possibly undo anything their friendmin has done!) the 'Options' settings and you're set.

    Rip IE, Rip IE, Rip IE...

  61. Save/Discard not Discard/Save by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I care less that action verbs are used or not.

    I care more that the affirmative choice comes first, as this is normal in a left to right written language.

    1. Re:Save/Discard not Discard/Save by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people are right-handed. When reaching for a button the one on the right is the natural selection.

      You can try to argue that it doesn't matter when technically speaking the pointer may very well be to the left, but that's why you're not a human interface expert.

  62. It's just Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, maybe Firefox leaks memory, but the problem you are facing with the paging and responsiveness is a problem in Windows (worse in XP) and you should blaim Microsoft, not Firefox developers.

    Fix the cause, not the symptoms.

    1. Re:It's just Windows by E_elven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It may be just me but when the 'lean', 'no-nonsense' and 'stripped' version of software requires 27MB to run with two open tags I think it's perfectly fine to blame the developers of that software, even if there were no extra resource leaks.

      I hope someone will write a browser that will parse only valid XHTML 1.1/CSS and nothing else. Would cut the executable in half not to try to support the horrible code people put on the web a few years ago.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    2. Re:It's just Windows by Kyouryuu · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It would also probably cut the number of web pages you can view by half as well.

      I still write in HTML 4.0 Transitional and validate it. Why should I be left out? XHTML is unnecessarily complex for my needs. At the end of the day, I merely want a site that looks reasonably good and is functional. I don't really need the wizardry and features XHTML can offer.

    3. Re:It's just Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > It may be just me but when the 'lean', 'no-nonsense' and 'stripped' version of software requires 27MB to run with two open tags I think it's perfectly fine to blame the developers of that software,

      I would agree with you if it still were 1990's. But today, memory is dirt cheap, new computers tend to have 256MB to 512MB fast, real memory and lot's of more virtual memory, which works very well in modern operating systems, like linux and other unix-like operating systems. What difference does it really make if a software requires 27MB to run?

      In field of embedded software the thing is different but AFAIK Mozilla is not targeting that field. Actually with a real OS it would not matter the requirement would be double or quadruple. All that memory is not needed all the time, ad as said, virtual memory works fine.

    4. Re:It's just Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Try the browser named "Dillo"

    5. Re:It's just Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt, wrong. Try it in Linux sometime.

    6. Re:It's just Windows by E_elven · · Score: 1

      > It would also probably cut the number of web pages you can view by half as well.

      I'm well aware. I actually really like the other poster's suggestion about Dillo, thanks to them!

      >I still write in HTML 4.0 Transitional and validate it. Why should I be left out?

      You're not left out. If I *really* need your site, I can scrounge up the 27MB of Firefox.

      >XHTML is unnecessarily complex for my needs. At the end of the day, I merely want a site that looks reasonably good and is functional.

      XHTML is, by definition, much simpler than HTML, since it comprises of a smaller set of tags and attributes. I'm assuming you mean CSS, but -honestly- you can make an ordinary site very easily using CSS (admittedly making an absolutely positioned site is much easier than a relatively positioned one).

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    7. Re:It's just Windows by E_elven · · Score: 1

      Sure, the resources are there but --and let me be very clear about this-- this is not an acceptable excuse for poor coding. I think (or hope?) most of the poor code in Firefox is directly inherited from Mozilla, but I'm honestly a bit afraid it may continue to exist since it's probably pretty deeply rooted in the structure.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    8. Re:It's just Windows by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1
      I was under the impression that XHTML was more about being able to eXtend the functionality of HTML by allowing the user to create new tags and modules as needed. Sort of like the Scheme approach of giving the user a minimal set of commands and allowing them to derive more complicated ones manually. Being XML based, it also supposedly has better interaction with databases. It is also much stricter than plain HTML.

      Which is great and all, except I don't need all of that power.

    9. Re:It's just Windows by E_elven · · Score: 2, Informative

      XHTML is a misleading name. Essentially all XHTML is is simply an XML document type -it has a schema, and, yes, it is theoretically extensible just like any XML document. The extensions are known as releases -XHTML 1.0 vs. XHTML 1.1, which have different schemas.

      The individual web developer will not extend XHTML in any fashion (he can, but then it's not of the same document type anymore and will therefore not work with the clients (browsers)).

      XHTML is mostly a subset of HTML (although one or two new tags are defined also). See here for all XHTML 1.1 tags.

      The reason for XHTML's existence is that HTML concentrates (heavily) on presentation as well as structure, and it was felt that this should not be. So XHTML defines the structure of a given document and leaves any presentation of that data to some other entity (like any good XML document)*. The presentation layer is called CSS or Cascading Style Sheets.

      * I don't mean that an XML document can't define presentation per se -what I mean is that a good XML document does one thing and one thing only: presents some data in a structured manner (for example, this post contains a MemberName, Subject, Text, ModerationScore and so on). There's nothing that prevents using XML to describe presentation, but it should not be presentation -that's a very important distinction. So theoretically an XHTML file describing the structure of the document could be accompanied by another XML file that described how it was to be presented, but at least for now that task has been given to CSS. For information about XML as presentation description, you can take a look at XUL from Mozilla.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    10. Re:It's just Windows by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      I guess from what you're saying is that you want a parsing & validating browser. AFAIK, the closest thing to that is the W3C's Amaya browser, and that's almost painful to use.

      It would be cool if Mozilla had a "strict" mode, though.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    11. Re:It's just Windows by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Let's put it the other way:

      Large resource usage in complex program is not necessarily a sign of poor coding!

      I'm sure there's lot of poor code in Firefox, but even if every last line of it were perfect, it's still damn complex application and would still eat memory. There's no magic "640kb is enough for everyone" switch.

    12. Re:It's just Windows by E_elven · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're certainly right, there are complex applications. A web browser is not necessarily one of those. For example the Dillo browser mentioned above produces an executable of about 350KB, and is fairly featured.

      I'm concerned that the availability of resources will encourage developers to use questionable techniques. Have you seen the tentative Longhorn hardware requirements?

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    13. Re:It's just Windows by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1

      When did XHTML come into common usage with browsers though? Would the people back on Netscape Communicator or Internet Explorer 5 still be able to view it?

  63. I thought... by IshanCaspian · · Score: 1

    ...waterchicken was next in line.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
  64. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this some kind of a joke? gecko has much much better CSS support than IE. if you think gecko is broken because it does something differently than IE does, chances are its your expectations that are actually broken and gecko is doing it the proper way.

  65. Oh good God! by templest · · Score: 1

    Is this that Mac OS X look-a-like thing?

    Great... Those kids that like making Windows XP look like Mac OS X will have a field day with this.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  66. Screenshot of the New Default Theme by sgarrity · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Screenshot of the New Default Theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugly if you ask me.

    2. Re:Screenshot of the New Default Theme by globalar · · Score: 1

      It's dry. Something an engineer would pick. Not bad in the least, but the disputed alternative has more presence, life, and feels fresh - it is more attractive no question. The fact that it fits with Windows so well makes the user's choice clear.

  67. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, people are closed minded.

    Why was the parent marked as a troll? Just because someone finds a flaw in your precious non-MS product doesn't mean you have to get your temper flared up and silence their post.

    You people boast about your software being so much better than others, but someone finds a bug and you're quick to mod them down? Such bullshit.

  68. Screenshot of the new theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The author of the new theme, Kevin Gerich, has posted a screenshot in his blog:
    http://kmgerich.com/archive/000062.html

  69. That's odd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot get *anyone* to switch from IE to moz because they complain "its all akward and stupid". And I can't even argue with them, cause its true. The way it attempts to do tabbed browsing is horrible, its slow as hell, the menu is inconsistant with *EVERY* other app on the planet, the only thing they decided to keep from the mess that was netscape I guess.

    Since there are plugins to add pop-up blocking to IE, no windows users switch to a slower, more confusing, harder to manage browser. I've had good luck switching people to opera though, but that requires creative removal of the ads, since nobody is willing to pay for a browser.

  70. Complete Screenshot of the New Theme by CeleronXL · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Complete Screenshot of the New Theme by tono · · Score: 1

      That's just blah, there's no character there like there is in the icons. It's just bland and boring.

      --
      cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
  71. Please don;'t change the theme. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should keep the default theme as in .8.
    It's one of the best themes I have seen.

    I dare Mozilla.org to put it to a vote.

    Are people trying to subvert the project from the inside?

  72. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  73. SVG Support by kiyut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about firefox native SVG support? Does anyone know if native SVG is included by default install?

    --
    Sketsa
    SVG Graphics Editor
    http://www.kiyut.com
    1. Re:SVG Support by marq00z · · Score: 2, Informative

      SVG support is in the CVS, but it's not considered stable at the moment. It won't make it into the 0.9 release of Firefox (it's not even a part of the "aviary" pre-0.9 branch).

      So, if you want to have an SVG-enabled Firefox you have to pull the trunk source from the CVS and then add these lines to your .mozconfig before building the browser (I assume you're using GNU/Linux):

      ac_add_options --enable-svg
      ac_add_options --enable-svg-renderer-libart
      export MOZ_INTERNAL_LIBART_LGPL=1
      mk_add_options MOZ_INTERNAL_LIBART_LGPL=1

      Some people from the MozillaZine "Firefox Builds" forum are creating their own builds. If you've got luck, you may find an SVG-enabled build there, too.

    2. Re:SVG Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but there are builds of Mozilla (not sure about Firefox) with SVG enabled. Get them here.

    3. Re:SVG Support by marq00z · · Score: 1

      Unofficial Firefox 0.8/SVG builds can be found here. The SVG code, as I said before, is not a part of the 0.9 branch, though.

    4. Re:SVG Support by ear1grey · · Score: 1

      It's still optional - builds are available, but no release builds yet. If you're on linux, have a look here and to find out more I suggest the firefox forum on mozillazine.

  74. That's because TBE is unstable shit.[nt] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt means no text, mkay?

  75. Well, there's lots of ways of looking at it.... by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    First the positives:
    1)It looks beautiful.
    2)It does look like a Mac app now, but it still looks beautiful even if that might be out of place on Windows or Linux.
    3)Very nice icons
    4)Even looking a little out of place can be a good thing - example Opera.
    5)It's still Firefox, no matter what it looks like - it works the best and it's my favorite browser, so I'm willing to give this new theme a try based on the trust and admiration I've built up for the application and it's developers. Thank you for this wonderful piece of software.

    Now the negatives:
    1)On Linux and Windows, this will look out of place and won't go down well with people who like a consistent look and feel.
    2)The Mac themes are starting to get old and it is time to start off in a new direction and not change to a Macish theme now.

    Lastly I have one question to any of those on the Firefox team who are willing to answer:

    There are so many themes already for Firefox. Qute was great and I admit I did not change the theme from the default. But what makes you so sure that people are going to do the same with the new theme?

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    1. Re:Well, there's lots of ways of looking at it.... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      The new theme really doesn't look beautiful at all. Nor does it look like a Mac app (or a Windows app, or a Linux app). And the icons look like they came from the late '90s--completely inappropriate for a piece of supposedly professional software in this day and age.

      I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, blah blah blah. There's still a difference between a Picasso and the kindergarten doodlings of a blind kid.

    2. Re:Well, there's lots of ways of looking at it.... by sessamoid · · Score: 1
      Now the negatives: 1)On Linux and Windows, this will look out of place and won't go down well with people who like a consistent look and feel.
      How many people running windows have winamp, musicmatch, shareaza, dc++, etc. on their machine and running almost constantly? Where's the consistency? People on windows generally don't care much about consistency in their desktop look and feel. Don't even get me started on UI consistency on Linux apps....
      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  76. Ugh, that looks like six asses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  77. FireFork? by gumpish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will this blunder by Goodger & Co. be the straw the broke the camel's back and cause a FireFox fork (FireFork?) to rise to prominence, a la the XFree86 story?

    We can only hope.

    1. Re:FireFork? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XFree86 was forked because the XFree86 crew chose an unfree license. Firefox is changing themes because Axelsson has chosen an unfree license. A fork of Mozilla to keep the old theme would thus be analogous to using the unfree XFree86 codebase, not to adopting the X.org fork.

    2. Re:FireFork? by pmsyyz · · Score: 1

      Can you fork something that is proprietary? Cause the current Firefox theme is proprietary. That's why it is being changed. It shouldn't have been checked into CVS in the first place.

      If the author would have placed it under a Free license it would have been kept, but he refused to.

      --
      Phillip
  78. Well he could... by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    write his OS so that applications that aren't in use get put out to swap and stay there. I'll admit I don't really understand the technical aspects here, but the complaint seems to be that the this is 'thrashing'; which usually means _sustained_ memory swapping for no really good reason. I've had plenty of instances of that in WinXP, and a lot less of it in Linux (and I've heard great things about the BSD's but I'm too lazy to install them right now). Anyway you cut it though, I think we'll all agree the memory management in WinXP (and probably every other OS on the planet to be fair) could use some work. The grandparant is just ticked off that with all the money XP costs, something as basic as memory management isn't a top priority.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Well he could... by Kyouryuu · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Perhaps, but even then you have to hit a fundamental limit. Even if you swap out applications to compensate for the rising demand, at some point that demand is going to outpace the available RAM. Then what? Linux is not immune to this either, though perhaps it handles it more gracefully. Windows XP goes into a very sluggish, stuttering mode where it becomes difficult to innoculate the offending program.

      But on a more basic level, while Microsoft can work to prevent thrashing, program authors also need to fix legitimate memory leakages. Otherwise, it's like asking the government to step in to regulate something because people are too lazy to fix their own problems (i.e. video game violence, movie violence, fast food lawsuits, etc). It's really not Microsoft's responsibility to "Make Firefox not leak memory." Microsoft's job is to handle the "thrashing" gracefully if and when it does happen.

    2. Re:Well he could... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Swap is evil in any OS. Don't use it and you'll be happier.. if you can afford enough physical memory to begin with. :)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  79. Thanks for saying that,... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Thanks for saying that, it's exactly what I would have said. With Linux, the virtual memory use seems to be much more orderly.

    1. Re:Thanks for saying that,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. I've had the same problems with Linux too. Worse even.

    2. Re:Thanks for saying that,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I take that back. I have never had such problems at all.

      Also, I am ashamed to have posted anecdotal evidence as an Anonymous Coward, and I apologize.

  80. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

    As a professional web developer who tries to use standards as much as possible, I can tell you that display: inline does not work reliably (at all?) in Mozilla. It's another one of those quirks you have to work around. It surprised me too.

    Incidentally, it works fine in Safari (KHTML)...

  81. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by colinramsay · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Firefox CSS rendering, but it's fairly clear you have little idea how the box model works.

    display:block and display:inline have nothing to do with how elements are aligned. They control the behavior of an element within the document flow. An inline element, such as an anchor, does not disrupt the flow. A block level element has breaks before and after; as such, it will interrupt the flow.

    Your perceived alignment comes fromt this. When three inline elements follow each other, the act line words in a sentence and flow one after the other. When three block level elements follow each other, the breaks before and after the element cause each block to appear under the preceeding one.

    Just a quick lesson. If I were you, I'd read up on CSS and prepare some testcases with a well written bug report before you talk about rendering issues. From your post you appear to be fairly ignorant of what's really going on.

  82. Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do however think Opera is a very good peice of work for gettin g all that in 3.5MB

    No. It's not their work. Opera is small because they use the Aspack compressor.

  83. Spent time != contributed by tepples · · Score: 1

    The way they have treated the artist who contributed so much of his time is appalling.

    The artist may have spent so much of its time, but he hasn't contributed his time unless and until he licenses the theme under the appropriate license.

  84. I want a theme.... by fozzmeister · · Score: 2

    ... That looks like my OS (GNOME)! Firefox isn't too bad atm, infact its amazing that they have got as much looking like native, but its still not right, infact its still not anywhere close, my highlighting in the menu bar is a dull blue white text in sinks into the menubar. the items selected are rounded dull blue with white letters in firefox they are square edged. Sure its mostly there, but its not quite, and in UI issues not quite is not a great deal better than nowhere near! That's why i use Epiphany as my browser, but I use Firefox for developing (it really doesn't matter for that coz i use jEdit which is Metal Themed so that is nowhere near either)

  85. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if they run firefox on windows, then how are they gonna download spyware? ---- www.lowbrow.com

  86. Fisher Price Theme for XP! by Prototerm · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Mozila should default to a Fisher Price theme, so it fits in with the default look-and-feel of Windows XP.

    Interesting that the smallest market share, OS X, should determine the default look-and-feel of Mozilla everywhere.

    Suggestion: Ship Mo with several themes, and make sure the user knows how to change it. The default should match the user's OS, and not the one some developer or artist working on Mo is using.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  87. Please let the new extension manager be sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I hate the way extensions currently work in Firefox, where each one decides where and how to intall itself. In particular, many plugins try to install themselves in the Firefox main folder rather than in the user's profile directory; this is not only annoying for those who want different plugin sets for different users, but it flat out prevents some people from installing some plugins (I cannot install any of the Mycroft quick search plugins because of this, for example).

    Not only that, but there is currently no consistent way to remove extensions, either; each one has to provide its own removal method. An extension manager that provides an uninstall function would be nice, but what would be nicer is if I could install a plugin simply but placing a file in the plugin directory, and uninstall it by removing that file. Simple, intuititve, and it doesn't preclude having a nice extension manager on top, either. In fact, this is exactly how the old Extension Manager on pre-OS X Macs worked: disabling an extension would simply move it to a folder called "Extensions (Disabled)" in the System folder.

    Mike

    1. Re:Please let the new extension manager be sane by astroboscope · · Score: 1
      ...and actually have some reasonably easy way of auditing the security of extensions before they get a chance to screw things up.

      I thought of writing an extension that would be a better extension installer, but only got (and that, only conceptually) as far as a naive cut of does not use chrome (safe) vs. uses chrome (the unsafe majority that Firefox warns you about anyway).

      It would be nice if whoever runs this Firefox 0.9 extension registry audits and approves all listed extensions (Is that the point? It wasn't crystal clear.), but I suspect they're unwilling to take the legal liability. Meanwhile galeon still has the edge...

      --
      If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
  88. Why not Orbit? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Wasnt orbit (or a clone) the default theme on a prior version? I'm very certain it was, and it was gorgeous, usable, and well done. In fact, I remember thinking Qute was pretty crappy in comparison. Qute is very 'Microsoft' and corporate. The different button sizes in Orbit and other elements were very usable and damn cool looking.

    The current proposal looks like a mock-up done on MS Paint by an 8-year old.

    Go with Orbit (or its clone). Please.

  89. Instead, it would be nice... by TheVidiot · · Score: 1

    to actually get 0.9 out the frikin' door, rather than fiddle with themes!

  90. Interesting by colinramsay · · Score: 1

    It will be interesting to see the Mozilla reaction to this - the response to the new theme has been mostly negative. I certainly haven't seen anyone raving about as they did with the recent Firefox application icons.

    Will Mozilla make some kind of pretence at listening to the community here?

  91. at least better than the current one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not like what he did for OS X, but at least it is better than the current kiddy-quake-toy-land theme. Who ever did choose that Quake crap as default for Firefox has no idea about branding, taste, or the target group (which is definitely not a bunch of pre-school kids).

  92. Screenshots by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Um here are the important things... the screenshots of it. Who cares about reading a description of a browser theme, I mean really??

    --
    the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
  93. When you think you know it all.... by SvendTofte · · Score: 1

    It's always fun seeing people going "this shows your lack of understanding", when CSS is in fact a huge monster of a spec, and extremely complex.

    As for the matter of contention, yes, inline elements can contain block elements. This is usually illegal HTML, but XML is another ballgame.

    Q: May elements with display:inline contain children with display:block?
    A: Yes, absolutely. I do this occasionally (by Bert Bos, you know, CSS guru and all?)

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/20 02 May/0226.html

    Now, I do not pretend to know whether Bert is right or not, but when I can find out this much, with five minutes, don't go around thinking you know it all.

  94. huh. by colinramsay · · Score: 1

    You've totally missed the point. I fully agree that an inline element can contain a block level element.

    What I am trying to get across, and what the original poster missed, is that div elements contained within an inline element will be block level elements unless explicitly told otherwise.

    In fact, I fail to see what you think you have proved with your quote.

  95. For those curious, here's a Pinstripe gallery by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's what Pinstripe looks like. Goes to show OS X still has the most beautiful, pleasant, and clean-looking GUI around; no wonder everyone tries to rip it off yet fails:

    Pinstripe Firefox Gallery

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  96. No... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To win the average idiot, you need simple layout, bright colors, and hand-holding wizards.

    To win the average idiot, you need to do two things:

    1.) Make something fun to use. That encompasses everything from a pleasant visual look to a simple yet powerful interface. Something most OSS lacks.

    2.) Don't call them "idiots." They're not idiots just because they have enough of a life to not treat browser and operating system wars like religious crusades, like we do.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  97. Not to mention, Opera already was less cluttered by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting for Mozilla/Firefox to integrate the Reload and Stop buttons into one button. Why are they seperate? Since Mozilla has ripped everything else off from Opera, why not this basic interface decluttering idea? Right now, I have grayed out Stop button that only ungrays when the page is loading. Stop and Reload should be the same button, toggling when a page is loading and when it has finished loading.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  98. Funny, Opera does most of what TBE does by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

    Yet automatically by default.

    Maybe we need to lure some Opera developers away and have them hack on Firefox for a while.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  99. MOD PARENT UP. *n/t* by Cinematique · · Score: 1

    123121321321321321321321

  100. AND YET... by xgamer04 · · Score: 1

    Some simple bugs haven't been fixed yet. 0.8 has a great bug (in windows in linux at least) where checking the "don't let sites that set removed cookies set future cookies" doesn't actually make it work. This works in the suite, but not in firefox.

    The rendering engine still barfs on images that have been scaled to large sizes too, making pages scroll slower than a snail.

    --
    When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
  101. Re:Opera versus Firefox by MvD_Moscow · · Score: 1

    Please shut up! Some people like Firefox others like Opera, there is no point in saying which browser is the best! Btw, you forgot to mention ads in Opera and firefox being free!

  102. "Brand identity" = attitude problem by McDutchie · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    "We have also had a desire to present a consistent look and feel for our browser across the platforms that we support - including Windows, MacOS X and Linux. This allows us to create a stronger brand identity for ourselves."

    "Brand identity", psah! I'm not familiar with the whole Mozilla/Firefox dev team but that alone there tells me there's something wrong with their attitude. How about creating a better experience for the user? That's better than any "brand identity!"

    Cross-platform looks suck, I won't use any browser that makes my Mac looks like some second-rate Windows monstrosity. Thank goodness there's Camino...

  103. IE style favorites by Tekoneiric · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just they'd enable a user to select IE style favorite handling (in .lnk files) if a user wanted it. I prefer the way IE handles favorites.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
    1. Re:IE style favorites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they're .url files.

  104. Firefox by Agret · · Score: 1

    I hope we don't have a Mac style Firefox, Qute works so much better with Windows and I'd hate to see an Apple design on my PC. Chances are it'll be a different default skin for the Windows version, but Qute was awesome. I will miss it.

    --
    Have you metaroderated recently?
  105. The more important question is... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1, Redundant

    What's it going to be named? ;^)

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  106. Me Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use this new theme as default, it really does matter for new users, I hated Mozilla's Netscapeish theme, and I think that look and feel was part of the reason I used IE for so long (also IE seemed quicker, more stable, more convinient,...) till FF came along. Qute was/is great, esp. for people converting from IE. Use something like Qute, if not Qute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  107. Something is wrong with MS memory management... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Except that when you reach the memory limit in Windows XP, the OS often becomes unstable, and remains unstable until you reboot.

    Something is wrong with MS memory management, but I have never been able to determine what makes it go bonkers.

    You say, "All that you need to do...". That's a good nickname for Windows XP. It's an "All that you need to do..." operating system. Go a little bit deep into how it works, and you begin experiencing its sloppiness.

  108. Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disable by _Qiang_ · · Score: 0

    disable.. er, bugzilla/mozilla blocks links coming from slashdot ?

    Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

  109. You use windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By using windows you are not helping the GNU Comunity, you are helping Micro$oft.
    So go ask Micro$oft to fix your bugs, not us.

  110. firefox 0.9 release date? by solferino · · Score: 1

    From the minutes of the mozilla.org Staff Meeting of Monday 24th May 2004:

    *Firefox 0.9*

    - Firefox branch tinderbox finally turned green last night

    - No automated nightly builds or Tinderboxes for AVIARY_1.0 yet

    - 10 bugs left; take about a week to fix

    - Release at the end of the 1st week of June

    - Asa has update to the primary Mozilla roadmap chart and table

  111. No use unless they fix bugs and clean up interface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been trying out different versions of phoenix / firebird / firefox for the past few years and it does look promising but it is not there. The latest versions seem to be mighty unstable, and 0.8 is the only version I'd recommend to anyone. The changes in the extensions API broke many extensions and some of my favorites (adblock, tabbrowser extns) kill firefox. Nice try, but it's still too raw and unstable for production use.

  112. Past the URL. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Just make a new tab and paste the URL to that.

  113. Re:Opera versus Firefox by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    Are you using OOo on Windows or Linux? I find it insanely slow on Windows (which isn't really OOo's fault) but just fine on Linux.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  114. cant wait by techefnet · · Score: 1

    Cant wait til firefox is getting the standard browser in the mozilla package. Mozilla is slow, but altough its getting better and better for each version tho, 1.7 final is soon out, like 10% speed increasment there.

  115. themes with class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    both the qute theme and this new monstrosity or godawful. as a discerning graphic designer, i use the 'le breeze' theme, and sometimes switch it with 'smoke'. now those have class. fuck this candy nonsense, i want some greyscale pixellated glory to surf the web in, squire.

  116. Re:Opera versus Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OOo is insanely slow on just about anything, IME ...

  117. Like the AC said, by grepistan · · Score: 1

    I think this might possibly be an XP issue? Firefox 0.8 running under win2k SP4 has always behaved immaculately IME - commit charge around 170 mb. I'm sure this has already been said somewhere else, but it can be difficult to tell whether the fault lies between XP's sometimes-flaky (IMO) memory management and Firefox itself.

    --
    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
    -- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
  118. Re:F**k the Mozilla devs by Gerv · · Score: 1

    Leaving aside what I think about this issue, your post contains major factual inaccuracies.

    their lackadaisical attitude towards branding of their product (Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox?)

    I'm sorry to use strong language, but that's completely clueless. The Firefox naming decision took such a long time precisely because we spent an inordinate amount of effort trying to get it right. We even held up the 0.8 release for months to make sure we had a solid and sustainable brand and strategy.

    Realize that your contributions, while critical, do not need to include drawing shitty icons

    The new theme is being designed by graphic designers.

    Gerv

  119. Re:How about we fix the more important things firs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As I've already moderated this thread I'm posting this from another IP as AC via lynx, but seriosly, what the _fuck_ are you talking about? As others have stated your arguments are flawed; but how about CSS support in IE? background-attachment: fixed for other parts than page body? And especially, position: fixed, which would enable frame-like behaviour without resorting to frames (not to mention very many interesting layout possibilities)? When will these be supported in IE?

    And not related to CSS, but when will IE support alpha channel in PNGs without resorting to nasty Javascript hacks? (answer: Longhorn by the earliest, since MS has stated there won't be any standalone versions of IE anymore)

  120. bad interaction between FireFox and Windows XP? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    It's very interesting that you say that, because I've often thought that there was a bad interaction between FireFox and Windows XP.

    In Windows XP, it is ALWAYS possible to make the problem happen simply by opening and closing enough instances and tabs of FireFox. Eventually, FireFox will be reported as using a huge amount of memory. I haven't tried Windows 2000.

    Sometimes the problem has seemed associated with loading PDF files into FireFox tabs.

    It's amazing to me that, after all these years, Windows memory management is still sloppy.

    1. Re:bad interaction between FireFox and Windows XP? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      I have had problems with the adobe acrobat reader browser plugin with every browser and operating system I have used since acrobat reader version 3. I have used it on Netscape, MSIE, Firefox, Galeon, etc. on linux and windows xp, 2000, NT, 98, etc. and every time, there is about a 1 in 4 chance of it locking up the browser and being unresponsive to the point that I need to kill the browser. As a result, I always just save pdfs and view them not in a browser. (except occasionally I'll click a link unintentionally that is a pdf and I can see that yes, the newest version still has the problem.)

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  121. The Linux version of FireFox failed, also. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I forgot, temporarily. Back when I did the testing, I found that the Linux version of FireFox failed in exactly the same way. However, when FireFox has memory leaks, Windows XP becomes unusable until rebooting. I never saw any evidence of OS instability in Linux.

    Notice that two women posted messages to my Bugzilla report that said that Linux was unstable and Windows XP was reliable. I assume they are paid astro-turfers, or it is some joke that is funny only to them.

    1. Re:The Linux version of FireFox failed, also. by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone has run firefox in valgrind to find the memory leaks...

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?