Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla.org Relaunched
mpeach writes "Mozilla Organization has launched its new Web site and it's looking a fair bit sleeker than it used to. No new product releases to go with the new look unfortunately, but, according to the Firefox 1.0 Roadmap, release candidates of the latest browser are getting closer by the day."
I'm glad that the creative designers behind the firefox look finally got a crack at the homepage. IMO it gives the browser much better more credibility if it has a professional looking website. Not just like some hodge-podge browser. *warning ... blatant plug to get me free stuff following
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Why not actually compare it to the previous design they had?
Soon as that is fixed I'll recommend it to my mother.
Omnis amans amens
I, for one, think they have made some great UI improvements. Most people don't hit moz.org seeking news and whatnot about the project. Instead, they just want to know where to get The Better Browser(TM). More than once, I've had to hold a few slower-than-I'd-like hands in finding where to download the latest and greatest version of Moz and variants. I just wonder why they featured FireFox so prominently and put the full version of Moz in the "bottom" row.
Slow news day or infatuated with Mozilla? Heck, I like Mozilla and use it at home and work, but I don't drop everything to see what's happened with their website in the last day. Gee willikers.
Here's some other fine articles which could probably have been posted:
Philadelphia Considering Free or Low Cost Wireless For All
Microsoft to Exploit Japan's Post Offices to deliver SP2 (their word, not mine!)
The Road Ahead, According to Steve Ballmer
X-Rays Reveal Mummy Faces (Low Cancer Risk to Mummy)
Owls Use Poop to Lure Beetles
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They shouldn't be using "Free download" as the prominent eye-catching link. "Free download" does not mean the software is free, only that it costs nothing to download it. This semantic fuzziness is often used by commercial software vendors (and spammers) as a way to entice people to download trial and/or crippled software. They should instead say something like "Free software", "Free to get, free to use", anything that doesn't have the bad vibe that comes with "free download"
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
Links to the bleeding edge 1.8 Alpha versions are not immediately apparent...why?
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Looks nice, And valid too! :-)
--
Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 2 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so.
-
I'm still posting
It seems the website knows what system I'm running, as they offer for me to download the OS X version of Firefox, yet the screenshot of it to the right shows the Windows version. It'd be nice if they tailored this page to me a bit more and showed a screenshot with OS X chrome.
Does anyone know how well Firefox integrates with Thunderbird? Specifically, if I click on a "mailto" link in Firefox, will it pull up Thuderbird without any custom configuration (assuming Thunderbird is installed)?
Last I looked into this, Firefox and Thunderbird would not work together like this "out of the box". This was a real bummer, and it made me wonder if Firefox wasn't being targeted a little too much at the geek community. Compared to the simple integration of IE and Outlook Express, the Firefox/Thunderbird integration was really clumsy.
(On a side note, it kinda irritates me that Firefox is being pushed so hard over Mozilla. I've had a few clients download Firefox (thinking it was a Mozilla update), and then wonder why they couldn't get to their email program anymore when it replaced all of the Mozilla icons...)
It looks great. Awesome. Great new site.
Expect lets make it more clear that Moz is free. "Free Download" makes me think of a demo, or a trial, or the __download__ is free but might cost more later.
It should say "x is a FREE product. Free to own and use forever."
So /. renders really poorly in Gecko
Huh? The only way rendering varies from other browsers is the left edge of the main content section is occasionally a little too far to the left. That's a bug in Gecko, it's already been fixed, and it's not the catastrophe you are making it out to be.
as do a myriad of other sites.
If you don't name them, it's just hand-waving FUD. Get specific.
On the contrary, placing images with CSS is extremely useful, especially for excluding images from print versions or providing pages that degrade to nothing but the most basic layout (the way the new Mozilla site does). Positioning can also be a lot easier this way.
Personally, I think it's much more elegant than a bunch of inline floated or, god forbid, align="right"ed image tags.
I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
That's what generated content is for. Unfortunately, since IE does not and may not ever support it, ugly hacks such as background images are used instead.
Background images should be used for background images only. Anything else breaks most of the normal user operations that can be performed on content images.
Honestly, I'm not sure it's even necessary to take this step on the Mozilla website anyway. I imagine that most of the users browsing without CSS would be browsing without images as well, i.e. text browsers such as Lynx.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if I got a flood of indignant responses to the effect of "I use graphical browsing without CSS all the time, you insensitive clod!"
That article looks very suspicious. I'm amazed that it's written by someone 'credible' like wired. The whole thing reads like an advertisement. It doesn't say one bad word about it. How do you know that everyone who 'got' an iPod isn't a plant?
Anyone with an IQ above 60 must realise that this scheme is not sustainable in the larger scale (not that I even think it's sustainable on the smaller scale). But what's that you say? It doesn't matter as long as you're at the top of the scheme. These things rely on everyone thinking they're pretty near the top, and they're the ones getting the free iPods. And if every third slashdotter is into this as they seem to be, do you really think you're high enough on the scheme?
Whatever's going on, someone is getting scammed here. The return on investment doesn't add up. It's either the free iPod company, the advertising broker, the ultimate company doing the advertising, or the participating member of the public.
With any of these, the person in the chain getting scammed will soon wise up and 'plug the hole' before they let too many free iPods get taken out of their bank accounts. Unless it's the member of the public, in which case they'll continue being as gullible as ever and fall for the next scam.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.