Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 1.0 Released
New Here writes "November 9 has arrived and with it comes Firefox 1.0. According to its home page, Firefox empowers you to browse faster, more safely, and more efficiently than with any other browser. I'm New Here, but this Firefox does sound very promising! Firefox 1.0 is available now for Windows, Linux, and Mac from the mozilla.org ftp server."
Or at least I hope so, even if IE fights back a tiny ammount we'll see a huge lot of improvements in the web generally, IE is so often the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to designing for the web.
But for usability and speed of use I'd go with Firefox any day.
well done Mozilla on a fantastic milestone. If you can achive soooo much at version 1.0 - imagine what you can get by the giddy heights of version 6.01 of IE ? :)
Get everyone you know onto this ASAP! The sooner we can rid the word of poor quality non-conforming and insecure browsers the better the www will be for all....!
Hmmm.. a couple of theories..
;)
8 million firefox users (as of spreadfirefox.com) all hitting mozilla.org as their default start page must generate quite a lot of traffic, and the start page wasn't that useful other than telling you what you just downloaded and installed.
The other theory is that Google donated quite a bit, but I prefer the first
Thought I would help the cause...Win32 zip torrent
http://www.jiggybyte.com/dl/FireFox10.torrent
There seem to be a lot of FireFox related articles on slashdot and after the release of 1.0 it will only increase. So how about a new FireFox topic in the submit stories section of slashdot with the cool looking FireFox logo?
"How many people who arent geeks like us will spend the time to download another browser and learn how to integrate it with their os"
Easy. I do it for every computer I come in contact with (since everyone loves to bug me to fix their computers). Simply download firefox, set it as the default, and put it where ever the IE icon used to be.
The best part is, most of them don't know the difference.
Thats all well and good for those lucky enough to have someone like us in their lives. I also do the same for the likes of my mother in law, sister in law, etc. However, how many more of them are out there that don't know one of us, or are unwilling to try something new? I say many. Too many.
Don't Tread on Me
Unfortunately Firefox 1 also comes with a number of 'improvements' that are rather dubious. The two that I personally dislike are:
/ Or chidaceae_coauthoring.htm
1. The 'default plugin' which used to be a dynamic library called something like 'libnullplugin.so' is now statically linked in, which means that you can't just remove it. What it does is nag the you every bloody time you go to a page that wants to display something that requires a plugin; these plugins are used intensively in adverts, which is why I don't have them.
2. There has always been a way to search in the displayed page - go to 'Edit -> Find in This Page' in the menu, or press CtlF. In earlier versions you had to press the 'Find Next' button in the search dialog in order to start the search. In Firefox 1.0 the search happens as you type. Some people like it, apparently, but to me it is incredibly disruptive. There are situations where you definitely don't want this functionality; one such is if you, like me, feel it hard to concentrate on the dialog box when the background moves. Another, rather lengthy example is the following:
Assume that you work with a big text that contains a large number of complicated words, like eg (WARNING: its huge):
http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume25
This is a botanical text about orchids in China, and it is full of exotic names. Let's say that you have found 'Hemipilia kwangsiensis', and you want to find other occurrences of 'kwangsiensis'. If you are like me, you press CtlF, type the word (none of this mouse stuff for me if I can avoid it) and press [Return]. Except that the wods you are looking for disappears as soon as you start typing, and now you have the problem of finding the original place in a text of about 900 pages printed. And all that just to be cool. It would definitely have been nice with an option that could turn it off.
Apart from that it is a good browser; definitely better than IE. I can recommend v.0.9
I don't understand why Mozilla is ignoring the suite. It's a great product and is widely used. I personally have been seriously using the suite since about 0.6 and I can't understand why everyone's gone against it. If you have even 256 MB RAM it's fast. Yes it does take longer than IE to load up, but I start up Moz when I start my PC and don't close it until I shut down.
I think it's sad the development of the suite has really slowed now.
It seems Google and Firefox developers really have some grey matter. For a long time Microsoft's strategy has been to use one of its existing monopoly in a market to monopolize another market - Browser, Search Engine, E-mail, Server, You name it. The thing is that all of its program depend on one another - or as Microsoft would have loved to put it, "integrate" with one another. The only way for Microsoft Competitors to compete against Microsoft is to unite - an Office Suite provider can team with a graphics software provider, a server side software provider can team up with a client side software provider, or in this case, a search engine can team up with a Browser. But, Microsoft still has a monopoly in the desktop market and it can use/abuse it to gain marketshare in the search engine and browser fields. So now if Google/Firefox want to make sure they dont't just disappear they have to team up with other desktops like Mac or the open source desktops like KDE/GNOME. Anyway, this looks like an intelligent move by both Google and Firefox. Now google can get a share of Firefox's (increasing number of) users and Firefox will great (customized for Firefox) start page by Google to attract new users.
Running the Ad today would have been extremely stupid, there's traffic enough already (and free publicity on several news sites).
Right because if, by chance, it does cause a problem then a solution is only a 1 minute phone call away.
Certainly Firefox will prevent more problems than it would cause anyways.
Well we don't neccesarily need to convert everyone, and there are those who will simply always prefer IE over Mozilla for whatever reason. The internet just needs a significant market share of more than ONE browser - espeically a standards complient one like Opera or Mozilla, etc.
If people really want their virus ridden browser, then that's fine - I just want enough market share to take the web back.
1. Security
Any really good arguments here?
I'm not sure if you want arguments for or against Firefox, but its security track record is abysmal. There are still UI spoofing security holes relating to XUL, and some of these have been known about for a very long time. It was far worse off than Internet Explorer when it comes to unchecked buffers. Hole-for-hole, it's no better than Internet Explorer.
4. Reliability
They keep breaking themes and extensions every point release. That's unacceptable from an end-user's perspective.
ironically it's not a bug in firefox, but a bug in slashdot.
However, I (under linux) don't get this bug at all since 0.9.
I ran Linux exclusively from 1995-2000, and the lack of a STABLE web browser than would handle LOTS of Java, Flash, etc ... it sent me to Windows 2000.
I kept Linux on the server, but Windows on the Desktop.
I was really not expecting much when I downloaded Firefox 5 months ago, as I had been using IE exclusively for 4 years.
What an incredible surprise. I have not used IE at all for three months, and am considering a switch back to Linux on the desktop.
Firefox has the potential to really open some doors to not only "alterntative" browsers, but "alternative" OS'es as well.
The same might be true at some point for ThunderBird, but at the moment, KMail is just so far ahead of everything else that hurts. When that happens, though, Microsoft should be very, very afraid: If you don't need to care about the operating system anymore for 95 percent of the things you do, you don't need to pay all that money to actually buy one from them.
Sadly being a web developer I end up designing for IE first and foremost because of the penetration, if it works in IE then (usually) it works ineverything else :)
Hopefully I can switch to Firefox all the time at some point, but it won't be for a good few years yet!
My Portfolio
No, it's a bug in Firefox, and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be ironic.
This was a personal annoyance of mine too, until I figured out how it works.
The "/" key invokes search, and escape will take you out of it.
I actually prefer the box at the bottom of the screen, it just take a bit of time to get used to it.
Some may still not work, but most of them probably will.
Hmmm... I wonder why they didn't create a page using XUL, like this page:
I wonder... could it be because it's ugly, looks different on different platforms, takes four times as long to load and provides no extra benefit for the user?
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Then you're not interested, anyway.
Stick with lynx
Isn't the whole point behind auto update is that it does it for you, or it at least tells you that an update is available? It seems to me that auto update isn't working at all. I've gotten no notification of any kind on any of our boxes.
I don't respond to AC's.
and am considering a switch back to Linux on the desktop
...". Now how is trying FF on Win2k relevant in any way to reassure you on the Java and Flash part of its Linux port?
You might be out of focus here. The initial problem you stated was that you would not find a browser that "would handle LOTS of Java, Flash, etc
Flash and Java are still external plugins that are developped by third parties. They could crash your Linux Firefox very easily, trust me on that one.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
"I guess that depends on whether you consider having someone who installs software on your machine and replaces your defaults without your knowledge a good thing. I sure don't."
Sounds pretty trollish, but I'll bite.
Say you see a little baby hitting him/herself in the head with a wooden bat and you just happen to have a nice soft rubber bat, what do you do? Duh, you swap bats. The baby won't notice, and less concussions will ensue. (Granted, if you see babies hitting themselves in the head with a wooden bat, you have bigger problems on your hands.)
Believe it or not, the average person doesn't give a flying fsck what browser is installed on their computer as long as it works. Are they motivated enough to replace their defaults or do they even know how to? No.
Do the right thing and give them a rubber bat!
Oh hell, even if they are not, Google, as a web services company, has an interest in advancing (and standardizing) browser technology. IE hasn't been feature-updated in years. If more people switch to Firefox, Google has more freedom to do cool & non-evil stuff.
Buddy you are COMPLETELY missing the point. If I get called to someones house to fix their computer there is a certain understanding that I will do what it takes to get the job done. The person trusts me to do my job and not hose their system. If I make any major changes its in everyones best interest for me to tell the person ... well I end up being called again right? ... I'm gonna do it period. Any geek who doesn't is out to make cash and thats NOT what I would call a trustworthy geek.
"Hey I installed a new browser..."
If I don't inform the user of what I have done
"Yo Dude what'd you do to my IE stuff???"
I think your taking it a bit far when you freak out over someone installing stuff on your computer. You Obviously look after your own computer and thats fine... you have the ability. What the rest of us here are talking about is the people who DON'T know any better and need our help. They usually have some "geek" that they trust and who is responsible to help them look after their system. I know I am the geek for at least a dozen or so people out there and while I do install things on their system its generally for their own good and my own peace of mind. If I can install some program that will prevent me from having to drive out to this persons house a week down the road
If there's such a simple procedure for manually doing it, why isn't there an automated import? It's just silly that Thunderbird doesn't have a "import my Mozilla mail" option or even a "use my Mozilla mail directory" option.
The big question is should I now switch from Opera? Or even should I download Firefox to try it and possibly compliment Opera?
I dunno, if Firefox is just a better, more secure and more usable IE/Netscape, I don't know what would I get. There was a comparision with Mozilla already in the thread, of course with IE too, but no mention of Opera. Can anyone "spread Firefox" for me? Do I need it as an Opera user?
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I knew it was called "The Psychology of Everyday Things!"
I was trying to find it, but couldn't. Maybe he shouldn't have changed the title around like that and I could have.
I don't think they change anything major (or haven't since .9 or so). In the past (before knowing about this option), I've modified extentions manually to up the target version number to whatever I was running.
I think their way of specifying Firefox versions is rather retarded. Instead, I think each Firefox build should have a list of extention API versions it supports, and all the extentions should have an API version number instead of a Firefox version number. But, at 1.0, its probably too late to change that for the time being.
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Accoustic couplers are only 110 baud. When 300 baud modems with direct connection to a phone line became legal in the early 1980s it was great. With 110 you watch every character slowly spit out. You appreciated the breviety of the UNIX command line and the short command names (ls, cp, mv, ln, rm).
And don't forget that many of your extensions will not be able to work with this version of Firefox. -.-
This is perhaps the one most annoying thing about Fireofox. I love it, the extension concept is fantastic, it really makes my browser the way I want it to be... but it's almost Microsoft-in-a-Can when it comes to upgrades and dealing with old extensions.
I really hope that they include SOME backwards compatability with extensions in future versions of Firefox. I had a nice set of extensions that I had give Firefox EXACTLY the behavior I wanted it to have. (Doubleclick to close tabs, smooth mouse scrolling, BugMeNot, Googlebar -- frickin' GOOGLEBAR! doesn't work yet under 1.0 -- Image Toolbar, and a bunch of others.) But as soon as I upgraded, half my extensions suddenly don't work.
Ironically, FoxyTunes, the extension that took almost forever to get ported over to MacOSX, isn't one of the ones that needs to be updated.
A message to the Firfox developers: I hope this isn't the way things are going to be for EVERY version release, otherwise people might not bother to update, and then we get the same thing that happened with Windows with people not updating their boxen.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
It is well known that AOL do that in exchange for an AOL icon in new Windows installations.. Ahh. So they're whores. That explains alot. Thx!
Does 1.0 handle ASP.NET better that previous versions?
ASP.NET is a server-side technology, so a web browser cannot "support" it at all. The problem is that you are using the .NET web forms, which output broken HTML. It just so happens that Internet Explorer's HTML error handling manages to do what you expect when faced with these errors and Firefox's HTML error handling doesn't. Big surprise there, eh? It's a lot like "copy protection" companies that intentionally produce broken CDs that manage to work properly in most CD players and not most CD-ROM drives.
The proper way to fix it is to yell at Microsoft for selling you a product that clearly produces defective HTML. I believe there are some pretty nasty workarounds to get ASP.NET to produce valid HTML though. A better bet would be to use a vendor that didn't put its own interests (their dominance of the web browser market) ahead of your own (your website working in all browsers).
I can say that on Internet Explorer we are committed to security, the results of which can be seen with Windows XP SP2. If you have automatic updates enabled you can be sure that you are using one of the most secure browsers available.
Great! So this "automatic update" thingy will automatically upgrade Windows 2000 to Windows XP so that I can get the XP-only security fixes then?
" You insensitive clod! What if i'm on a 300 baud acoustic coupler?"
Then this slashdot article would have taken 83 minutes to load (at a comment limit of 3), yet you posted a reply 47 minutes after the article appeared. Assuming you refresh the front page constantly, you can do so every 24 minutes, which means that on average you'll have seen the story 12 minutes after it appeared, giving you only 35 minutes to reply.
So if you are on a 300-baud modem, then you must be in the same room as the slashdot server. Since your UID is not much more than your bandwidth, that may well be possible.
I thought slashdot's bandwidth was higher than that though...