Slashdot Mirror


CaminoBrowser.org Launches

Samuel Sidler writes "Introducing CaminoBrowser.org, the new Camino project site. The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures. Months of effort have gone into creating a truly excellent site. While the product pages will remain hosted at mozilla.org, our new website will be the home of the project and all support/development information as well as up-to-date news and information."

126 comments

  1. Slick by billybob · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I agree that's a slick looking site. I didnt even know camino was still being developed :P Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need. Sorry :P

    I mainly use Firefox on Windows anyways (as my main browsing experience). Good to see this baby still in development though. I remember how excited I got back in the 0.1 and 0.2 days everytime a new release came out :)

    --
    Joseph?
    1. Re:Slick by ravidew · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not being fortunate enough to own a G5, how does Camino stack up against Firefox: is it Firefox for the Mac?

    2. Re:Slick by Kraeloc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would think Firefox would be Firefox for the Mac. It is very nice, though, primarily because it's a lot lighter on the usage of system resources.

    3. Re:Slick by Trillan · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, but many Mac users don't want Firefox for the Mac. Even if it behaved well and fit in with the theme of the OS, which it doesn't.

    4. Re:Slick by Kraeloc · · Score: 1

      Now, where do you get that idea? My Firefox runs great, and looks right at home among my X11 apps and terminal windows ;) Seriously, though, Firefox does work for Mac. It runs a tad faster than Safari, and has compatability with nearly all plugins that are supposedly Windows-only. I mean, really, I don't see anything at all wrong with it.

    5. Re:Slick by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. There's nothing really wrong with it.

      But that doesn't mean I want to use it as my default browser. It's just a little too buggy, and not Mac-like enough (both in appearance and in keyboard bindings).

      Depending on my mood, I use either Safari or a recent Camino. Camino 0.82 doesn't work well with Google maps, so I tend to use a nightly... until I start to run into problems, then I either go to another nightly or Safari.

    6. Re:Slick by j0nkatz · · Score: 0

      Bro, you shoulda left out the "isn't near usable" part. You could have got more bites with that Troll.

      --
      Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
    7. Re:Slick by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Well, I use Firefox on my Windows PC, and I love it. But using it on my Mac just didn't work out- I'm used to hitting the "backspace" button to go back, which for some reason doesn't work on the Mac. So I abandoned Firefox in favor of Safari, which does other things that bug me. It especially lacks plugins like Adblock that I have come to rely on on the other computer.

      So right now I can't say there are any browsers for the Mac that I like. I remember trying Camino long ago, I'll have to download this version. Do any Firefox plugins work with Camino?

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    8. Re:Slick by Clock+Nova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I used Camino until they removed the sidebar feature. I would much rather have my most often used bookmarks on the side of my screen than the way Safari and Camino now do it.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    9. Re:Slick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I HATE Safari and I really hate how Camino tries to do things the "Apple way". I'm sorry but the bookmark manager is Silly. It shound't take up the current browser view window!!! It really shouldn't.

      I stick with Firefox on OSX. It does everything I want the way I want... Safari well it works, just not works well enough for me...

    10. Re:Slick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So use a nightly build of Camino, where you can open it in a new window/tab.

    11. Re:Slick by qw(name) · · Score: 1
      There's nothing really wrong with it.

      The only thing that's wrong with it on the Mac is the lack of support for the middle button. Middle-button-click-load-in-the-background is invaluable to me. I use it constantly while in Windows at work (Firefox).

      BTW, the middle button is supported in Safari and Camino.
    12. Re:Slick by revscat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need.

      My only problem with Safari is that it is so noticeably slower on HTTPS connections. I use a G4 at work, and any time I need to use an HTTPS connection I use Camino because Safari drags so much. It's not so noticeable at home where I have a 1.8GHz G5, but when on slower machines (including my mom's iBook), Safari just drags on secure connections.

    13. Re:Slick by trevorcor · · Score: 1

      The 'tad faster than Safari' only applies if you have a newer Mac with lots of Mhz, unfortunately. My 500mhz G3 has a fast disk and lots of RAM, and for moderate-to-heavy desktop use can keep up with anything but a G5 for most tasks -- but the CPU-usage difference between Safari and anything Gecko-based is pronounced, just as it was between Moz and Konqueror on my K6-2 450 box 3 years ago. Gecko is a CPU-hog, and always has been.

      This is more important on Macs than other platforms, I think, because it's only been in the past couple of years that Macintosh processor speeds have started to approach parity with the i386 PC world. The number of mhz-challenged Macs out there is large; they're only a few years old.

      --
      "That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
    14. Re:Slick by trevorcor · · Score: 1

      The patch to fix this landed just after FF 1.0 shipped -- grab a nightly build.

      --
      "That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
    15. Re:Slick by qw(name) · · Score: 1

      I grabbed today's build and couldn't find anything in the preferences to configure the middle button. The Mozilla build works but not Firefox.

      I used firefox-1.0.2.en-US.mac.dmg from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nig htly/2005-03-22-06-aviary1.0.1/.
    16. Re:Slick by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Was one of those Caminos supposed to be a Firefox? :)

    17. Re:Slick by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      No. Firefox has a sidebar, Camino and Safari do not.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    18. Re:Slick by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I gotcha now! Thanks. And yes, I agree.

  2. Re:Boo. by Kraeloc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Safari, especially the version that run on 10.2, is slow as a dead dog. Camino is fast, very fast, and positively blazing compared to Safari. Ya damn troll.

  3. Great! by geekylinuxkid · · Score: 0

    I've always preferred Chimera/Camino over any other browser in OSX. It's fast, friendly and it just works. Keep up the good work.

    1. Re:Great! by Kraeloc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wish they still called it Chimera. Camino reminds me of the rusted-out junk heap sitting on cinderblocks in my neighbors front yard.

    2. Re:Great! by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 1

      Both are spanish. Literally, El Camino means "The Road", but like a lot of spanish words, it changes in context, and for the browser, Camino refers to "Pathfinder", which fits in nicely with the Navagator, the Explorer, and (sort of) the Conqueror and The Big F***in Lizard.(?)

  4. Ok, we have clones by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful
    can we now have some innovation? I remember reading a scientific paper, around 1999, which showed that 90% of web browser users hate "history". They use the back button, hardly ever use the forward button and get annoyed as hell when they lose an entire "forward history" because they happened to click on a link after they went "back". Every browser on the planet (probably, maybe, probably not Opera, don't flame me) still has this annoying behaviour. The paper found that the best "history" was a pictorial one that actually showed the user when and how they got to a page with a thumbnail of that page as each node in the tree. That was pretty damn cool! Unfortunately I don't have it for FireFox or any of the many clones.

    That's one aspect of a web browser, there's dozens more. I kinda feel like tabs are the last real innovation for web browsers. Kinda like cup holders in cinemas. Guess I should be greatful it didn't take 30 years.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Ok, we have clones by guet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I've just been looking at history for a different kind of program, and was surprised by how counter-intuitive the browser ones are when I examined them. The Safari one doesn't reflect the menu, and removes previous moves when you take a positive action and aren't at the top of the history stack.

      An easy solution is to flip the history ahead of the current position and insert it before current when the user chooses a new site.

      ie (where '-' is current position and the user has come back to site c from site a)

      a
      b
      c-
      d
      e

      when the user clicks on new site f becomes

      f-
      c
      b
      a
      d
      e

      because the user just came to c back through b and a, so to them a and b are behind them now.
      Rather than starting it again with

      f-
      c

      As Safari does. Perhaps there are other orderings that make more sense - it'd be interesting to see how a lot of people use history, and how the current ones frustrate them - you don't have a link for that paper do you?

    2. Re:Ok, we have clones by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that's a pretty good idea! I was going to respond that there is no way I could find the paper in question but I think I did :) There's a number of other papers that cover the same sort of studies that are cited on that page too.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Ok, we have clones by PatSmarty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why so complicated? Dude, just timestamp every page visit and sort the menu by timestamp. Simple, consistent, effective.

      Cheers!

    4. Re:Ok, we have clones by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Firefox History sidebar does? :)

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    5. Re:Ok, we have clones by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that browser history should be a tree, not a list, and that you should be able to navigate it graphically. At the very least, the forward button should provide a drop down list of potential destinations. Another thing that irritates me about browser history is the fact that (in most browsers I've used) opening a link in a new tab causes it not to inherit the history from the previous tab. Why can I not go back to the page I just came from when I have opened a link in a new tab and closed the old one? Sometimes I feel like beating browser developers to death with the principle of least surprise.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Ok, we have clones by guet · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the order in the menu (which is obviously usually just sorted by date), but the order of the stack of locations which is used to navigate with the back/forward buttons.

      When you go back and forth it becomes more complicated to know where to insert new locations. Most browsers (including Firefox) take the easy way out and throw away all locations forward of the current location in the stack when the user clicks to go to a new site, so the stack of back options is often only a few locations deep - as compared to the menu which of course grows with the number of locations visited.

      Sometimes the most intuitive solution for the user is not the simplest one to program...

    7. Re:Ok, we have clones by jbtule · · Score: 1

      TrailBlazer was a proof of concept of what you were talking about. http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/macwarriors/projects/trail blazer

    8. Re:Ok, we have clones by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mozilla fanatics will downmod me but, Camino is not a clone. It must be installed/supported/helped instead of Firefox.

      Its a native OS X application. If you use Firefox instead, you just have a windows/unix browser on OS X which is 5 years ahead of them.

      E.g. Omniweb here, while I write this reply, spell check is in action. It just calls spell check framework of the system.

      You wouldn't believe the "services" a mac user uses everyday. For me, a foreigner, its "one click answers" at first place.

      Opera does some inventions about the stuff you mention. Their work with IBM will be in cars. A browser which you control purely by voice, voice XML etc.

    9. Re:Ok, we have clones by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      begun the software clone wars has.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    10. Re:Ok, we have clones by zonker · · Score: 0

      i like how opera does it. it keeps track of windows that you closed in your current opera session. for instance, i almost always have 20-30 tabs open. when you close a window that i opened 4 hours ago it remembers both the time i opened it and closed it.

      i may have opened the window hours ago but only gotten to reading it just now. if i close the window it remembers that i closed the window (in the order i closed them) in the 'window->closed' menu. but if you look in the history file it also remember when you first opened the site.

    11. Re:Ok, we have clones by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 0
      You mean, like this browser?

      Trailblazer

  5. Why? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac.

    I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?

    1. Re:Why? by Kraeloc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speed. Speed speed speed. Camino uses a small fraction of the resources that Firefox does.

    2. Re:Why? by dolphinling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (IIRC) Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

      --
      There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
    3. Re:Why? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 0

      Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

      Yeah, but...so what?

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.

    5. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      Camino's better integrated with OS X and probably fractionally lighter on the resource requirements. Integration can mean more than you think - until relatively recent nightly builds, the OS X version of Firefox didn't support the middle mouse button, for example.

      OS X manages things like proxies and other network settings as part of the OS, so you can relatively easily (but not seamlessly, alas) switch from Ethernet to WLAN to modem connections just by selecting the configuration you're using from the Apple menu. Firefox doesn't pick up the proxy settings itself if you do this. Camino would.

      Now, that said, Camino isn't compatable with Firefox's plug-ins, and I don't know about you but I've found it's gotten hard to browse without Adblock and Flashblock having tried them. (Hacks to add crippled functionality similar, but not really, to the two are usually quoted when I mention this, but the full blown "I want to be able to get a flash animation to start only when I click it" and "I want to be able to easily add wildcards to my ad blocking script" functionality just isn't present with these "answers.")

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Why? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      So why not improve Firefox until it uses similar resources to Camino? It seems a waste to divide developers among three browsers on one platform.

    7. Re:Why? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides all the nice features that others have pointed out, the simplest reason for using Camino is that Firefox for OS X looks like crap no matter what stupid theme you try to paste on top of it.

    9. Re:Why? by Guspaz · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I would imagine that it would take less work to create a native front-end for Firefox than to code an entirely new browser?

    10. Re:Why? by godless+dave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You imagine wrong. For one thing, dedicating part of the Firefox team to making a native OS X port would take resources away from Firefox. They are two different projects with different goals. Firefox is a multi-platform web browser. Camino is an OS X native web browser. In my case, I use Camino because it is far less likely than Firefox to crash my ancient 400 Mhz G4.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    11. Re:Why? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac. I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?

      MacOS X has two native API's - carbon and cocoa. Carbon hardly has any virtues of its own, it's main advantage is that its relatively easy to port old, non-Unix Mac applications to Carbon, so whenever anyone has any project that has its roots still in last century, he sticks with Carbon. This is not just the case of various Mozilla-derivative projects but also of - say - Microsoft Office for MacOS. Cocoa is the "native native" API and here's where MacOS X really shines. If you use MacOS X a lot, you tend to hate Carbon and favor Cocoa because Cocoa apps offer much better overall integration with systemwide services, such as your favorite spellchecker, they generally run faster and consume less resources. Camino is Cocoa, Firefox is Carbon.

    12. Re:Why? by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      Apparently, a decision was made by the Mozilla team some time ago to build their own interface engine and slap it on the rendering engine rather than using the native interface engine for each platform and they are now slave to that initial decision.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    13. Re:Why? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.

      No, I still don't get it, and no, I do not write Mac software. I'm an end user. Why should I be expected to know the programmatic reasons behind Camino to answer the question "why Camino over Firefox"?

      Of course the custom widgets behave differently. Firefox is supposed to use the same widgets across platforms so it behaves consistently. Is the only difference that Camino conforms better than Firefox to Macintosh standards?

    14. Re:Why? by bdaehlie · · Score: 1

      Comparing Carbon and Cocoa is like comparing apples and oranges for most purposes. They are both nice and useful but usually for very different things. From a theoretical standpoint you might be able to say that the Cocoa API is better designed than the Carbon API, but in real life you normally need to use one or the other for certain tasks and the decision doesn't come down to which API is "better." Cocoa's problem: you can only use it with Objective-C and Java. If you're using straight C++ or C, you need Carbon and that is that. Also, some system services are exposed in only one of the two APIs.

  6. One more item by ravenspear · · Score: 1, Funny

    The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures.

    Unfortunately they forgot to upgrade the bandwidth as well.

  7. Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets... by FlipmodePlaya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently stumbled upon Kazehakase, which uses GTK+ and is available for Linux. It's in many ways a superior Gecko browser for Linux to Firefox, mostly because it avoids the drawbacks of XUL. It has mouse gestures, full text search and thumbnailed history, RSS, better tabbing (drag and drop of them, they can be displayed vertically, etc.), and I believe some sort of benefit for Japanses speakers. Despite their limited development base, I really think Firefox's platform-specific alternatives (including Camino and K-Meleon) are superior to it.

  8. Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten better by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 0

    I was extremely annoyed by Camino's old tabbing system arbitrarily refusing to display more than 15 tabs. (a year or two ago, someone complained that tabs didn't look nice when they got really closely packed, and one of the developers decided to 'fix' things by pulling a number out of his hat, and simply ignoring any attempts to open more tabs than that)

    Now that I can load up my morning webcomics with a single click again, I may actually switch back from safari to Camino.

    Also, Safari & Firefox don't let you cmd-click items in menus to create new tabs, like you can in the windows version of firefox. And it seems Camino supports this too now, cool.

    The graphics could use a bit of updating to match Panther's version of pinstripes, but otherwise this looks very cool.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  9. Well... by j0nkatz · · Score: 0

    Not trying to troll here but they should update the damn browser before they try to update the web site. 0.8.2 has been out since freakin December!

    --
    Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that makes sense. Because the non-coders who were responsible for creating the web page should just sit around and twiddle their thumbs rather than help out in the ways that they can.

    2. Re:Well... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      The nightly builds have been pretty stable for me, and it is constantly evolving.

  10. Camino's neat, but... by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 0

    ...It's awful hard to live up to the standards set by Firefox & Safari on the Mac!

    I'm a Firefox diehard, but I find myself still launching Safari on occassion, either due to a neccesaiity (For instance, I don't fee; that DEVONthinks applescripts integrate as well with Firefox as they do with Safari), or just out of the "Wow, it feels so 'lightweight'" feeling that it brings to the table. And this is Firefox we're talking about here! It ain't no slouch when it comes to speed.

    In fact, until v1 of Firefox came out, Safari was my number one browser when on the Mac (which is basically any non-work related computer time). But since v1 hit the streets, and especially since the (newish) Saferfox theme came out, Firefox is my browser of choice, just like it is under Linux & Windows.

    The reason? The plugins! If Safari supported Firefox's plugins, I would be in a major dillemma(sp?) about which to use.

    But this thread's about Camino, and the whole point I started out to make was that Camino's always felt like it was somehow a couple of versions, feature-wise, and stability-wise, behind Safari and Firefox. It is slick, but it's not as feature laden as Firefox, and the last release I used wasn't able to use Firefox's plugins. I hope that changes soon.

    Hopefully this new site signals a more active development cycle for Camino. It's goals are to basically convert Firefox/Moz over to a more polished "native app" like look n' feel, which I think would/will be a great thing, if they can accomplish it.

    On the other hand, if Safari follows KDE's lead (Safari's still based off Konqueror/KDE code, I believe), and ports the Moz rendering engine for use with Safari, they could, in theory at least, also make Firefox's plugins work also...

    Suffice it say that Camino has its work cut out for it! Give me Firefox, the Adblocker, and Tabclick extensions, as well as the aforementioned Safefox theme, and it'll take something revolutionary to make me consider switching. After all, if I need something a little more Native app-like, I can always fall back on Safari! 8)=

    1. Re:Camino's neat, but... by gitana · · Score: 1, Informative
      The reason? The plugins! If Safari supported Firefox's plugins, I would be in a major dillemma(sp?) about which to use.

      Agreed, one nice addition to camino functionality is the the extended preferences found here http://www.nada.de/mac/camino/cep.html

      The ExtraPrefs include a highly effective CSS based ad-blocking system, as well as features such as the ability to customize search engines, spoof your browser type, image control, window reuse etc.

      One nice thing about Camino tabs are their low profile - they do not seem to use as much screen real-estate as say the Safari tabs.

      All in all Camino needs quite a bit of work but I think that it is poised to be a very good browser for the Mac.

    2. Re:Camino's neat, but... by dn15 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      On the other hand, if Safari follows KDE's lead (Safari's still based off Konqueror/KDE code, I believe), and ports the Moz rendering engine for use with Safari, they could, in theory at least, also make Firefox's plugins work also...
      The abundance of extensions for Firefox is in no small part thanks to the way the interface was handled (XUL.) Most of them would be useless in Safari even if it used Gecko, just like Camino can't currently use Firefox extensions either. To make them usable you'd have to adopt both the front-end and back-end of Firefox. And if you're going to do that, you might as well just use Firefox itself.
    3. Re:Camino's neat, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this thread's about Camino, and the whole point I started out to make was that Camino's always felt like it was somehow a couple of versions, feature-wise, and stability-wise, behind Safari and Firefox.

      Always, eh? Even back before Safari and Firefox existed, when Camino (Chimera) did?

      It's goals are to basically convert Firefox/Moz over to a more polished "native app" like look n' feel, which I think would/will be a great thing, if they can accomplish it.

      Again, not really, since it pre-dated Firefox. Its goal is/was to make a Mac browser that wasn't as god-awfully complex as Mozilla was, and that integrated with the OS. It's more accurate to say that Firefox started out as an attempt to make a Windows (for it was not cross-platform back in the day) browser like Camino was for the Mac.

      Camino has never been intended to be a Mac version of Firefox, it's just that Firefox happens to share some of the goals of the Camino project (but not others, since cross-platform similarity is always at odds with true navite look-and-feel).

    4. Re:Camino's neat, but... by samuelsidler · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unfortunately, you need to understand that Camino and Safari can *never* support Firefox extensions. Firefox extensions are written in XUL while both Camino and Safari use the native Cocoa environment. For this reason, you'll never get your extensions.

      On the other hand, the latest nightly builds of Camino support user-defined pref panels making the addition of new features very easy and completely configurable. If you're willing to write it, all those extensions can become pref panels.

  11. Firefox doesn't cut it by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a mac, firefox just doesn't cut it. I really love the extensions but i'm willing to live without them to have the power of the wheel mouse and other such useful things. Camino uses a nice native cocoa interface which makes a big difference in usability.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      ill give you the interface, but exactly whats wrong with the way the mousewheel works? scrolls fine for me... unless you actually mean middle click, which is broken in the latest stable, but fixed in the trunk nightlies (of which im running a build with my own tweaks; ie. maximizing works the windows way. whats the point in a 128px gap on the right?)

      --
      TIAEAE!
    2. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Scroll-wheels in OS X change focus with the mouse-cursor. This behavior extends to any app which is developed properly for OS X with the Cocoa toolkit. Most other apps (especially those ported from Windows or Linux) fail to behave this way, you have to click on something first before you can count on the wheel scrolling it. Using TextEdit on Windows drives me mad for this very reason. When I get home to my Mac, I want things to "Just Work."

    3. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the gap on the right is so you can see at least some of your desktop icons, and can get to finder with one click on the desktop. not as useful today as it used to be, but i still prefer this behavior over the windows way of applications taking over my entire screen

    4. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      This isn't flamebait. This is a valid and common concern amongst Mac users who look for interface consistency throughout their applications.

    5. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the fact that Firefox interprets horizontal scroll-wheel movement as going back and forward through history, because of course this what the user expects rather than scrolling horizontally.

    6. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 2, Informative

      about:config
      mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.action = 0
      mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.numlines = 0

      --
      TIAEAE!
    7. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scrollwheel works this way on Linux too regardless of what toolkit you use. Why Apple choosed to put this behaviour in a toolkit is beyond me though.

    8. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by dimator · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's at least one extension that works pretty well under Camino, and once I installed it, Camino became a lot more responsive on my old-ish iBook. It's flashblock, and since I hate pretty much all flash, especially all the ads, this has been a great addition.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    9. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Actually, I worry about Camino. I find myself in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to browser choice in OSX. I like Safari because it's fast, slick, and includes features like built-in spellcheck. You know, generally it has the polish you'd expect from Apple, and I don't have a lot of problems with it.

      I like Firefox, especially for the fact that I can use the same browser on all my apps, but also for the extensions, and wide support among web-developers (it seems to me that Firefox is the second most supported after IE). However, it seems sluggish and out-of-place when compared to Safari, the interface isn't quite fitting in places, some fonts render ugly, etc.

      Enter Camino, which I would hope would be the best of both worlds. I've been a fan of Camino for years now, and even when it hasn't been my browser of choice, I've been rooting for it. However, it only confuses my choices more. I think it offers a much nicer feel than Firefox, but still lacks Safari's polish. Some of the sites that give Safari trouble and force me to go to Firefox also give Camino trouble, not that I know why. I can't use extensions, from Firefox, and I can't get it to spell-check like Safari.

      So, in my experience, instead of giving the best of both worlds, in gives kind of a mixed bag, some weaknesses and strengths from each. Unfortunately, it doesn't really serve to replace either Safari nor Firefox for me, and it doesn't offer anything which adds to my current Firefox/Safari combination. In the end, it sits on my hard drive unused.

      I sort of wish Mozilla to do something to incorporate the two projects-- either work on moving Firefox into a nicer native cocoa browser on OSX, or focusing on Camino as THE Mozilla browser on OSX. Either way, it'd be nice to see them come up with a single native cocoa browser with all the advantages of Firefox, and end the duplication of effort. I know there would be downsides to such a decision, but I hope, at least, that this new page of Camino's will bring it some much needed and much deserved attention.

      To sum up, I think both Camino and Firefox "cut it" on OSX, but the division of effort between them has kept either of them from reaching their full potential.

    10. Re:Firefox doesn't cut it by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 0

      For me the scrollwheel doesn't work in the prefs pane with FF. Same with Thunderbird, but that is probably the best mailnews client for the Mac, so I use it nonetheless.

  12. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1

    Hmm...Actually, it looks like Camino and mac-Firefox will let you cmd-click items in menus to create new tabs, but both still won't let you middle-click on menu items to do the same thing. Oh well, there's allways room for improvement.

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
  13. extentions! extentions! extentions! by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 2

    A new webpage is great but until the browser supports extentions its no good to me. browsing without adblock (amongst others) just doesnt feel like browsing anymore. why would one use camino over safari anyhow? exentions are the main reason i use firefox over safari; remove that from the equation and im not sure it would take much to make me swap

    --
    TIAEAE!
    1. Re:extentions! extentions! extentions! by dn15 · · Score: 1

      I use Safari a lot myself, but one possible reason for favoring Camino is good old fashioned principle. All else being equal, some people simply would rather use software that is totally open-source (even though Safari itself is partly open, thanks to KTML/WebKit.)

    2. Re:extentions! extentions! extentions! by Lussarn · · Score: 1

      The underlying libraries on OS X is still closed source so no matter how you flip the coin everything you run is part closed source.

  14. Integrated Services by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Camino has built in support for a lot of the system wide OS X features like Keychain, the spell checker, Address Book, most of the cocoa services, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

    1. Re:Integrated Services by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Does one really require a whole new browser to do these things? What about implementing support for these native services in extensions, and shipping them with the OSX port of Firefox? Or perhaps building them right into the Mac port of Firefox?

    2. Re:Integrated Services by Fuzzle · · Score: 1

      They've been trying to do this for over a year now, and still no good progress. To completely redo the FFox interface in standard cocoa widgets is hard to do and keep feature parity. Anyways, I thought one purpose of OSS was to have a choice? Camino is a slim, lightweight browser that does one thing -> Browse the Web. FireFox is now an ecosystem of a program, where you can browse the web, take notes, do ftp transfers and much more.

    3. Re:Integrated Services by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to have choice among various OSS projects, but when you have the developers of ONE OSS group maintaining Mozilla Suite, Firefox, and Camino, it seems to me like there is a lot of work being duplicated, and one browser would end up a lot better with all developers working on it.

      They say that larger programming teams don't make better products, but I have to argue that, since with good use of CVS and a good bug database, the more people you have fixing bugs the better, so long as you have good communication. And Firefox has no shortage of bugs!

    4. Re:Integrated Services by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      I just downloaded Camino, and I'm using it right now. Wheeres the freggin speal cheecker?

      I had heard that to use true native components in the browser window (rather than just painting native components to the browser), there would have to be hooks added to gecko. Of course this means as soon as Camino has real native widgets in the browser, so will firefox.

      Of course, that may not be true... but still... where are my red squigglies?

    5. Re:Integrated Services by ravenspear · · Score: 1

      I believe you have to select "Check Spelling as I type" from a menu or something.

    6. Re:Integrated Services by espek · · Score: 1

      Don't know...I can't do my contextual spell checking in Hotmail like I can in FF. If anybody can help turn this on, let me know.

    7. Re:Integrated Services by LordoftheFrings · · Score: 1

      Yes, throw more developers at it and it will be better. You are smart. SMRT. Idiot.

    8. Re:Integrated Services by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 1

      ravenspear was wrong, there is not support for spellchecking in Camino, precicely because it doesn't use truely native widgets with gecko. Spellcheck support was, until recently, planned for 0.9 but has since been pushed-back to a later version (along with other useful features, such as form auto-complete) because of how long it would take to finish - they want to release 0.9 sooner rather than later.

  15. Cool website! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hopefully a new version of Camino will look this cool. I still like Camino most besides Safari, but lately I've been avoiding it because I hate to get attached to a piece of defunct software. Seriously, I thought Camino development was abandoned a while back, since it seems like it's been at 0.82 for friggin' ever. Now I can start using it again!

    Why Camino over Firefox? Camino is faster, uses fewer system resources, and has a beautiful Cocoa front end, meaning that it's GUI and widgets are all Aqua goodness. When I use Firefox, I feel like I'm on a Windows box, and that's not why I bought a Mac.

    Thanks to all the Camino developers out there, they rock! I wish all the resources that went to Firefox for Mac were concentrated on Camino instead. Downloading a nightly as I type this to see what's up.

  16. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by murphj · · Score: 1

    Middle click works in Camino. It doesn't work in Firefox.

    --
    SONY. Because caucasians are just too damn tall.
  17. Camino: It's FAST! by BobWeiner · · Score: 1

    Just downloaded 0.8.2 - first things first - glad to see that development is still ongoing with this browser. I had given it up for dead, though 0.8 was never deleted from my HD.

    I toggle between Firefox and Safari for the most part, but the one thing I love about Camino is it's speed. Firefox, by comparison, feels bloated - and Safari feels slow.

    I'm very anxious to see Camino hit the 1.0 milestone. Kudos to the developers.

    --
    The PC Weenies: 11 Years of Online Tech 'Too
  18. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tab behavior in Safari is totally user-configurable.

    Camino would be my browser of choice if Safari did not exist, but it does, so it's not.

    Still, I pity Windows users, who have access to neither of these superior browsers. Firefox does okay in a pinch, but IE6 is gawd-awful.

  19. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think part of the reason for the limitation was speed. I opened up a bug complaining that Camino (then Chimera) was incredibly slow when opening up a large number of tabs; turned out to be an issue with variable width tabs (ie: trying to fit as much text as possible on the tab bar by having the tabs be different widths).

    Part of the fix was to limit the number of tabs accessible within a single window. I protested this, but nobody listened. Glad that that limitation is gone now.

  20. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    Does in the nightly builds.

    (Running "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041222 Firefox/1.0+" here)

    The next point release of Firefox should support it "officially."

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  21. Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    God knows the best part about any browser is how good it's website is! Woohoo!

  22. Mozilla power, Mac style... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla power, Mac style, Lossy JPEG compression. Could it get any better?

  23. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC, they'd allready switched to fixed-width tabs somewhat before they put that limit on the number of tabs per window.

  24. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope - it happened at the same time.

    How do I know? I wrote the fixed-width tab code, then bitched when the guy that checked it in added a "max tab per page" constant.

  25. Nice, but I still prefer Firefox by deep+square+leg · · Score: 1

    Camino looks better and renders faster, for sure. But the reason I use Firefox rather than Safari is the extension system, so it's still my browser of choice.

  26. The three minute test... by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've had Camino 0.8 on my PB for a bit... it's been relegated to my 3rd browser, though. It's not a bad browser by any means.

    Camino:
    +Nicer tabs
    +Better scrolling
    +Better integration
    -No Mozilla extensions. :-(
    -So no way to block Flash or images natively
    +Much better preference panel
    +Pretty close functionality to Safari.
    +Fastest of the three, it seems.

    Firefox:
    -A little glitchy at times
    +Very good extensions support
    +Works mostly the same as Firefox on other platforms
    -Integration with OSX not so good, nor is it supposed to be.
    -Slow at times.

    Safari:
    +Just works
    -No way to block annoying Flash popups

    Safari works for most things, Firefox works for the rest, and Camino sort of just ends up out there in case the first two don't work.

    1. Re:The three minute test... by mrgeometry · · Score: 1

      Here is a short tip on how to enable Flash blocking for OmniWeb and Camino:

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050 313224837662

      I don't know about Safari or image-blocking, sorry.

      HTH

    2. Re:The three minute test... by Nastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm replying to you, but really, this is for everyone who complains about no flash/popup/ad/whatever blocking in Safari, as well as lack of serious tab control.

      Saft

      PithHelmet

      Yes, they cost money. Yes, they are worth it. No, I don't care if Firefox can do this for free.

    3. Re:The three minute test... by sootman · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Safari:
      >-No way to block annoying Flash popups

      It won't fix everything, but a custom /etc/hosts file like this one will kill a lot of ads, including lots of Flash. Takes a bit of work on OS X--you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s' and actually *be* root before you add their hosts file to yours. Not sure why, but once it's working, it's great.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:The three minute test... by FangVT · · Score: 1
      you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s'
      I'm not anywhere I can test this right now but I can make some suppositions that might or might not hold up.

      It appears to me that the problem with your command is that the append redirection ('>>') is being executed by the same shell by which sudo is being executed. This means that it does not have the permissions that are granted by sudo to the child shell that executes the "cat" command. What you would want to do would be something like:

      sudo bash -c 'cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts'

      That way the redirection is done within the child bash process that is running under sudo, not in the parent shell in which sudo is executed.

      A couple of caveats: I haven't used bash specifically that much, so I'm not sure if it takes the -c argument the same as the Bourne shell does, so it may be that rather than "bash -c" you should be using "sh -c". I haven't used the command line that much under OS X, so it may be that "sh -c" is not available there, but I find it almost impossible to believe that it isn't.

    5. Re:The three minute test... by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 0

      Firefox:
      + more Mozilla features, more prefs
      - like you said, not the best integration

      Safari:
      + uses less memory
      + faster than Camino (IMHO slightly)
      - always pops up dialog with bad certificates

      Camino:
      + Gecko rendering
      + Fast
      + good integration, like Safari
      + better prefs than Safari
      + remembers bad certificate, doesn't ask every time

      I have cookies and plugins disabled in Camino. For cookies I set some exceptions; for Flash I have to turn plugins on and restart, but mostly I don't want Flash.

      BTW, try the new nightlies; Camino has new tabs and is nicer in general!

  27. Check this on the Mozillazine forums by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    For everyone who thinks Camino is speedy versus Firefox and Safari, you should search the mozillazine forums for arch optimized nightlys of it... The closest comparation I can make is when the roadrunner goes "Beep-Beep" and leaves the coyote in the dust. :P

  28. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

  29. Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any better? by Cpyder · · Score: 1

    Yes. They could have started by not ruining their nice design by using Jpegs for text.
    That aside it's a very nice site for a very nice browser.

  30. choice for old Macs by BibelBiber · · Score: 2, Informative

    This browser is certainly the best choice if you have Panther on something like an iBook 500 with just about 400MB Ram. Safari tends to be slow, FF doesn't scroll well and is too heavy for my system (and doesn't feel right under OS X) So Camino does really do a nice job. And if you feel that 0.8.2 is too old, why not use a nightly. They work perfectly most of the time.

  31. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by RevAaron · · Score: 1

    It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

    Huh, weird.

    It's just I've never heard of anyone having an attitude quite like that. That is, if Firefox demanded a bunch of crazy shared libraries that all had to be installed, that would blow. But like many applications like it, as well as all the Moz apps that you download from their site, they've got it all linked in there. And they have for years. Just like Netscape before it. *shrug*

    I mean, if I'm worried an app will have a bunch of dependencies I try to install it. If it complains about not having libfoo-2.1.4-24 and I have libfoo-2.1.4-39 and a bunch of others, I may reconsider. But why hestiate? The only way to find out is to try it.

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  32. What you lose by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
    Those are nice, but you lose the wonderful extensions of Firefox.

    That's the real bummer that prevents me from using Camino.

    ExtraPrefs offers an Adblock-a-like, which helps, but some of the other extensions that I no longer care to live without just aren't there.

  33. Still sticking with Safari... by plj · · Score: 1

    ...and I've stated the reason before.

    Why it has to be so hard to implement this kind of basic functionality? There are at least three bugs in Camino's Bugzilla that are related to this.

    --
    “Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
  34. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by tooth · · Score: 1
    Hardest thing I found when using firefox on gnu/linux (Ubuntu for those playing at home) was getting Java to work. And this was just because I didn't know where to install it and changing bash_profile etc. It took about 2 minutes to find this out and get it working.

    I was initially disapointed as I had become lazy running the fox under win32 and the "click here to install this plugin" goodness.

  35. A little history. by Xenex · · Score: 5, Informative
    "So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?"
    That's not what happened.

    Camino (then Chimera) was first released in January 2002. Firefox (then Phoenix) was first released in September 2002, and said this about the Mac:
    Where's the mac version?
    There is no mac version. While Phoenix could be made to run on Mac without much trouble, we see no point in competing with Chimera. Chimera is the lightweight, standalone Mozilla browser solution for Mac OS X. We have received requests for a Mac classic version, and are considering the idea.
    Not until Firebird 0.6 in May 2003 was the Mac was officially supported. If you're going to 'blame' a project for duplicating effort, don't blame Camino.

    Also, an amusing aside: Dave Hyatt started both the Chimera and Phoenix projects. Now he works fulltime at Apple on Safari...
  36. Star Wars Episode II by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

    "Camino" reminds me of the name of the cloner's homeworld in Star Wars Episode II. Though I believe it's spelled "Kamino" there.

    Both have milky white design lines, so...

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  37. No support for PAC by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    AFAICS (and I've just tried) Camino still doesn't support automated proxy configurations, eg load a .pac file from the Network preferences.

    Works with Safari and Mozilla but nothing else so far.

  38. On my OS X machines: Safari, Camino, FireFox by singularity · · Score: 1

    I have three browsers on my machine, Safari, Camino, and Firefox. I use them in that order.

    I would like to use FireFox more often, but the hideous Windows interface is unbearable. I can deal with it for a couple of sites every now and then than are broken under the other two, but that is about it.

    Camino is a great start, but does not offer the full features of the other two browsers. It would be unusable for day to day use, I think (I am sure there are people that use it day in and day out, but for me it is simply too limited).

    Safari does most of what a browser should. It is far from complete (PithHelmet goes a far way to improve that, at least in the filtering category), but it looks good and works well 99.9% of the time.

    I would like nothing more than to see the day when Camino is feature-complete and a worthy alternative to Safari.

    --
    - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
  39. Re:Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any bett by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

    That's a header, with special text that needs to look a certain way. It's a perfectly justifiable use of a graphic for text. A great many well designed sites do this, including A List Apart and Zeldman.com.

    --
    Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
  40. Chimera reminds me of... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well 'Chimera' reminds ME of the lump on my back that was supposed to be my twin brother. Oh the humanity!

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  41. IDN spoofing still a problem by objekt · · Score: 1
    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  42. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Also, Safari & Firefox don't let you cmd-click items in menus to create new tabs, like you can in the windows version of firefox.

    Wow - you can use the command key on Windows?

  43. Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Tab behavior in Safari is totally user-configurable.

    Then please tell us all how to configure it so that the command modifier opens a menu item in a new tab as it does for a simple click.

  44. Re:Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any bett by trendyhendy · · Score: 1

    And they also could have gone with a div and css based layout, rather than tables. They have a rendering engine that can handle it.

  45. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 0

    OMG. That looks as ugly as KDE, and possibly worse than Konqueror!

    Have you hade a look at Epiphany for Gnome?

  46. Re:Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any bett by Cpyder · · Score: 1
    I know what a header is. I also know the difference between JPEGs and PNGs. JPEGs are good for pictures, but not for text.

    If you don't believe me, ask Zeldman, or read here.

  47. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by atani · · Score: 1

    Native widgets can be a mixed bag. I don't use Camino primarily because it uses native widgets for it's form elements (or some approximation thereof) and just like Safari, these widgets don't seem to be keyboard accessible. I've tried basically every browser available for the mac and in the end I keep end up in Mozilla because being able to set and toggle select boxes, radios, etc is a priceless feature and without it I feel handcuffed (fingercuffed?)

  48. Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets by atani · · Score: 1
    *munch, munch, munch* <- me eating crow

    It seems that Camino's form elements are keyboard accessible; they just don't all consistently highlight visually to let you know that the keyboard focus is on the element.