Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released

elfguygmail.com writes "Firefox 1.5 beta1 is out! It includes many new features including a new automatic update system, reworked options dialogs, faster browsing, new error pages, memory and stability updates. Get your beta at Mozilla.org."

626 comments

  1. Auto update! by Seumas · · Score: 0

    new features including a new automatic update system

    Awesome - because we all know how well auto-updating stuff goes. Take Windows, for example! :P

    Seriously though, I can't wait until we get an OSX port that doesn't suck (Camino is okay, but what good is it if you can't use all the cool firefox extensions?).

    1. Re:Auto update! by neongrey · · Score: 0

      I didn't think people actually used auto-updaters. I know the absolute most I've ever used is something that'll tell me if there's updates, and then ask me if it wants to get them.

    2. Re:Auto update! by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

      Since I installed the "GrApple (Brazil)" theme in Firefox on OSX, I haven't been bothered by the look and feel. Oh, occasionally it bothers me, but not everyday like it used to. (I still use Safari for ad-free sites.)

      --
      Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
    3. Re:Auto update! by Kichigai+Mentat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Awesome - because we all know how well auto-updating stuff goes. Take Windows, for example! :P

      Well, as one who manages the family computer, which runs WinXP, AutoUpdate is actually pretty useful. I haven't had to install an update manually for quite some time.

      Seriously though, I can't wait until we get an OSX port that doesn't suck (Camino is okay, but what good is it if you can't use all the cool firefox extensions?).

      Well, as a Mac OS X user, I feel your pain. But, I'm wondering which parts suck for you? I have issues with page rendering. Look at these rendering jobs from the LiveJournal home page (be kind! this is hosted on my personal server box):

      • FireFox 1.0 (Sorry, but the "About" Dialogue blocks the effected text, so you'll have to trust me)
      • FireFox 1.5 Deer Park Beta 1 the distributed Mac OS X binary, not compiled from soruce
      • Camino 0.92 just for comparson
      • Opera 8.02 for Mac OS X
      • Safari 2 (And if you don't trust me, think about how many web browsers have a brushed metal GUI like that)
      This occurs on several pages, but the only one I could produce on-demand was the LiveJournal page. Note that this is the LiveJournal home page, not user pages, and contains relatively simple and stable code. Note that Safari and Opera read the pages perfectly fine, but all the Mozilla-based browsers (all versions), even Camino, can't render the page properly. And these problems are not always so minor. On occasion, text can continue right outside of the view (and scroll) of the window. Text boxes will end up with text no longer inline with the cursor, making editing and correcting typos virtually impossible.

      Any one else have this problem? I know it's not too isolated since I've had this happen on both installations of OS X 10.4 and even 10.3. Or are there other problems that I don't know about?

      --
      Rawr
    4. Re:Auto update! by XemonerdX · · Score: 1

      I didn't think people actually used auto-updaters. I know the absolute most I've ever used is something that'll tell me if there's updates, and then ask me if it wants to get them.

      That's the default behavior if I read the 'what's new' notes correctly (I haven't installed the beta):
      Automated update to streamline product upgrades. Notification of an update is more prominent, and updates to Firefox may now be half a megabyte or smaller. Updating extensions has also improved.

      I wouldn't want an update to be fully automatic without any sort of notification & confirmation-dialog... Automatic checks for updates are fine, updating automatically isn't.

    5. Re:Auto update! by nietsch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My debian system has a manual update every once in a while (usually after i get the Debian Weekly News(letter)) How should this auto update feature workt together with apt-get? it's nice if it can signal there is an update available, but usually I dont run firefox as root, which would be the only one that has permission to do the writes necesary.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    6. Re:Auto update! by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      (And if you don't trust me, think about how many web browsers have a brushed metal GUI like that)

      Uhm... Firefox? (http://lillesvin.net.nyud.net:8090/stuff/FirefoxB rushed.png) Yeah, I know that it's not entirely the same and I know how Safari looks - I just wanted to point out that brushed metal isn't Apple-only.

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    7. Re:Auto update! by GuidoW · · Score: 1

      I think that feature is Windows-only. As you pointed out, Linux-users in general already have a system wide auto-update mechanism, so they don't need it. Besides, you wouldn't want some third-party tool to fool around with your rpm/dpkg/portage controlled system, would you?

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    8. Re:Auto update! by doddi · · Score: 1

      I think you are having some font issues. I think the mozilla browsers are still using some pre-carbon method for displaying text. If you go through your fonts in Font Book, disable all the 'Classic Mac OS' fonts (not 'Classic') and check if you have any damaged fonts.

    9. Re:Auto update! by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      There's one thing I don't like abut Windows automatic updates. I rarely have my computer turned on the same time each day. Sometimes it's on in the morning, sometimes afternoon or night. If auto-updates are turned on, you can set them to download and in stall at a specific time (say 3 am). There is not a good time that I can ever set this to, so if I leave auto-updates on, I will probably never receive the updates.

      What I do instead is use the "download automatically and notify me" option. That is similar to firefox's red arrow button. I still have to remember to click on it. At least Windows will pop up a bubble above the systray telling me it's ready to install.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    10. Re:Auto update! by cortana · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't and it doesn't--the Debian packages disable the auto-update mechanism.

    11. Re:Auto update! by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, things like aptitude, porthole (or it is portal? I forget) and red carpet - they're the devil. I hate when third party apps mess with my packages. :)

    12. Re:Auto update! by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      "Works For Me" in Firefox beta1, Camino 2005090404 (0.9a2+) on Mac OS X 10.4.2

    13. Re:Auto update! by GuidoW · · Score: 1

      I don't know about porthole/portal or red carpet, but aptitude is just a frontend for dpkg.

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    14. Re:Auto update! by Tombstone-f · · Score: 1

      LiveJournal looks just fine for me in both Camino and Firefox 1.5. I think you have a font problem.

    15. Re:Auto update! by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're all frontends to package management systems. And firefox's update could easily be a frontend for dpkg, apt, rpm, emerge, portage, pkgtool, etc. It takes what, one like to update a package? It'd be pretty trivial to add package support and auto-built packages to the distribution scheme, and it'd make more sense to do that than to worry about keeping track of the install path for future upgrades. It's not like installing on Linux is just like installing on Win32/OS X anyway - which reminds me, do they use the OS X built-in installer system yet, or is it still "drag this application to the Applications folder"?

  2. Yeah! by OctoberSky · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah! New error pages! Finally no more of that 404 bullshit.

    1. Re:Yeah! by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, they said NEW ones.

      I would suspect they've introduced new errors, entirely! Maybe some 700s, 800s.. maybe even some googols!

      Since I'm not going to install it on my mac, someone want to post screenshots of the new screens? Please tell me they're more informative (for unsophisticated users) but not mimics of MSIE.

    2. Re:Yeah! by chewy_2000 · · Score: 1
      If a website times out or whatever, the error message is now displayed in a new tab, not a dialog box.

      Great feature, one of the reasons I've been running the alpha for a while now.

    3. Re:Yeah! by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a new tab?!?!

      Screw that. I'll take the very annoying dialogue popup instead.

      How hard is it to make the error just pop up on a page in place of the page that didn't load in the first place?!

    4. Re:Yeah! by chewy_2000 · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong. That was unde Alpha 2, and I can't check it now.

    5. Re:Yeah! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Put the following line in your current version's user.js to get rid of the popups.

      user_pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", true);

    6. Re:Yeah! by johndoe7776059 · · Score: 1

      I just checked, and that is indeed exactly what it does.

    7. Re:Yeah! by Schrade · · Score: 2, Informative

      That pref is default under 1.5 beta 1.

    8. Re:Yeah! by Schrade · · Score: 1

      It does not put the error in a new tab. It puts it in the current tab.

    9. Re:Yeah! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      w00t! Much improved:
      • Can use back button
      • No messy URL in the address bar
      • Better looking boxes
    10. Re:Yeah! by masklinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not in a new tab, in the current tab, and it now behaves in a sane way (no more chrome:// bullshit and no more "hey that didn't work and now you can't correct the wrongly typed URL you loser" crap).

      The new error page even looks quite good.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    11. Re:Yeah! by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 1

      Error 432: Error code too long.
      Error 433: Error code overflow.

    12. Re:Yeah! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't open in a new tab, but the current tab (as you'd expect).

      Have a look at this error screen for an example. I'm on XP at work, but I would think that other platforms would be similar.

    13. Re:Yeah! by cyborch · · Score: 1

      Not in new tabs, but inline in the page...

      So if you have a million tabs open the one containing the bad url will say "problem loading page" and contain some friendly text, in stead of saying "untitled" and being blank.

      I kinda like it.

    14. Re:Yeah! by abdulla · · Score: 1
      someone want to post screenshots of the new screens?
      This is one I found on Mozilla's Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=181 714
    15. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean prefs.js?

    16. Re:Yeah! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Prefs.js says "Do not edit this file." so no.

    17. Re:Yeah! by Phil1 · · Score: 1
      I installed it on Tiger, my wife then used it to compose a message in Hotmail and Firefox crashed, losing the long message in the process. I'm keen to keep her happy with Mac and Firefox, so I've rolled back to 1.0.5.

      I know 1.5 is in beta, but even still I would expect it to handle a site as widely used as Hotmail.

      --
      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
    18. Re:Yeah! by gearry · · Score: 1

      As you and I both feared, the new error screens are much like IE. I liked the old error screens that actually gave me some idea of what had happened. I am saddened to see Firefox go this way. I am not running the new beta yet, but has anyone found a way to turn this new "feature" off?

      Gearry

      --
      like g-a-r-y, only different
    19. Re:Yeah! by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      Huh? So you did not really try it? If I go to http://slashdot.org/dsghs I get slashdot's 404 message.

      If I go to http://www.fklgsadfklg.com/ I get the new "Firefox can't find the server at www.fklgsadfklg.com."

      Unlike IE this does not replace a server generated 404.

      Big improvement over the normal popup 'server cant be found' deal.

      (Watch someone actually register fklgsadfklg.com now)

    20. Re:Yeah! by Sorce · · Score: 1

      You can type about:config into the address bar and change the setting there and let firefox edit the file.

    21. Re:Yeah! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      But that wouldn't give you an excuse to much around with user.js.

    22. Re:Yeah! by josath · · Score: 1

      why does everyone tell me to edit .js files hidden on my hard drive, when i can just go to about:config and change it there??

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
  3. new error pages! by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm excited to see these new error pages!

    --
    -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
    1. Re:new error pages! by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, whatever. You say that now, but I bet you were one of those jerks hating on Network Solutions for making "new error pages" last year, weren't, you?

  4. Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by zymano · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeeeeeeah ! Faster back and forward means better performance reading messageboards . Deerpark alpha wont start on my machine. I am one those that submitted a couple of bugs on this. Good job boys!

    1. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yeeeeeeah ! Faster back and forward means better performance reading messageboards .

      I agree completely--slow back/forward has made me stick with Opera. Firefox 1.0.6 takes a while to render the page, which is annoying especially when going back to anchors. Opera is nearly instanteous; hopefully Deer Park can compete (trying it now).
    2. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by ayden · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm trying this out now on 1.5 Beta - works like a dream on slashdot!

      --
      "I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
    3. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Titus+B.+Otch · · Score: 0

      Are these furry horned browsers in season yet? I got a place on my mantle for it, just above my nice and shiny silverback gorilla skin rug.

    4. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Dread+Pirate+Shanks · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they can get it to be as fast as Opera's cached pages, they'll really have something there. Going back and forth in Opera is almost entertaining, it's so damn fast.

    5. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Vicsun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to troll, but Opera has had this feature for ages.

      Now that Firefox have finally caught up I might just switch back, though. It was the feature that converted me to Opera in the first place.

    6. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At last, I always hated typing those german-umlauts, by pressing alt+148, and then noticing I forgot the Num-Lock. Which made me go one page back, and when I returned everything I typed was all gone....

      Now at last it works, it will remember my text, without reloading the whole page!!!

      And for one!!! It's free!!!

    7. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by suyashs · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't seriously expect Firefox not to work on Slashdot, can you?

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    8. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by DoctorBulwer · · Score: 1

      What I'd be interested in is Opera's session-saving features. I tried it out briefly, and that was what really impressed me. Does anyone know if there's an extension?

    9. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by tolan-b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must be new here...

    11. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
      Faster back and forward means better performance reading messageboards

      It's about time. When I tried FireFox after Opera's recent 8.00 fiasco, the re-rendering of pages when I pressed the back button was the most frustrating part of using that browser. I really couldn't understand how FireFox was getting so much "buzz" with that design flaw so prominent.

    12. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by smartdreamer · · Score: 0, Redundant
      I can't remember when I last pushed the Back button. In fact I use it but not much since I discovered tab browsing. Take slashdot for example, if there is three new links that I want to read, I open then in three tabs (middle click with background loading) and I continue to browse for more on the main page. So I get better 'spatial organisation' and no wait for these page to load. Thanks to some other extensions I get a couple extra features.

      Now I can't live without...

    13. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      What version of Opera?

      Myself, I exclusively use Opera, but Opera's back/forward performance, ESPECIALLY on forums (or other pages with REALLY complex tables), has taken a SERIOUS nosedive on Opera 8. Previous versions allowed you to back and forward to a prerendered page. Opera 8 rerenders the page, and it seems that Opera's table rendering isn't exactly fast.

    14. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh... it is as fast as opera's back/forward...

    15. Re:Deer Park !!!!!!!!!! by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      I'm the same way. I see some people here talking about fast backtracking helping a lot with message boards, but I just open 10 or so tabs at a time and close them as I read them. In my opinion, it's much better than going back over and over and over again.

  5. Fp by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Informative

    Posting on it now. Generally teh snappier on OS X, which I appreciate. Text handling still isn't good enough to switch from Camino. The drag n drop tabs are a very welcome addition. Also, it looks like the Slashdot bug has been cleared up. Sweet.

    1. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it looks like the Slashdot bug has been cleared up. Sweet.

      Yeah, right before Slashdot decides to switch to CSS anyway. Great timing there guys :P

    2. Re:Fp by nighty5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did support for aqua buttons etc make it in for this release?

    3. Re:Fp by Schrade · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Slashdot bug was probably only a problem for people with corrupted profiles or those that didn't use Adblock. The ads on slashdot often would corrupt the pages.

    4. Re:Fp by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

      I use Firefox about half the day, and Safari the other half.

      I really cannot see any features in either that the other lacks in a serious way. No sites work differently, other then some sites still block firefox demanding IE, but Sfarai is beter supported.

      If anything the new features list looks like they are adding Safari features to Firefox, so what reason do you have for using Firefox on OS X?

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    5. Re:Fp by prockcore · · Score: 1

      No, but that's a good thing.

      Aqua buttons and input boxes can't be styled.

    6. Re:Fp by Some+Guy+in+Canada · · Score: 1

      If anything the new features list looks like they are adding Safari features to Firefox, so what reason do you have for using Firefox on OS X?

      How about consistency for those of us who use 3-4 different operating systems a day? Oh, and it has the Adblock extension. Ultimately, you use a specific browser because you like it. Beyond that, there is no need to have a reason!

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Fp by pomo+monster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what, if the vast majority of websites don't bother styling them? Form controls can default to Aqua without compromising the spec. In other words, there's no need for controls to be ugly if ugliness isn't specified in the HTML, and even then, you can handle it the elegant and tasteful way:

      Some controls are going to naturally discard the Aqua look if you "fall off the cliff" by customizing the control to the point where the Aqua look can no longer be maintained, e.g., if you set the border and background of a button. Others, like checkbox, are going to refuse to "fall off the cliff" unless you explicitly turn off the -khtml-appearance property. The choice of when to disable the Aqua look is going to be chosen to match other browsers (and Internet Explorer in particular).

      Naturally, that's how WebKit behaves. Ugliness has no place on the Mac desktop, even on the web.

    8. Re:Fp by KeyboardMonkey · · Score: 1

      Generally teh snappier on OS X

      It looks like the spell check some work.

    9. Re:Fp by Titus+B.+Otch · · Score: 0

      > It looks like the spell check ? some work.

      Maybe he needs the grammar insertion tool you use too...
    10. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rest of the operating system isn't consistent, why make yourself suffer with the lowest common denominator? I think Safari is far, far, far better than Firefox for OS X. The gap is much smaller compared to Camino though.

      Consistency usually ends up with java apps or horrible interfaces that take you back to the days when Motif or Windows 95 was king.

    11. Re:Fp by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      So only 90% of the general populace then?

      oh.

      In that case...

    12. Re:Fp by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      No, it was an HTML rendering error. Some blamed Slashdot's non-standard HTML, and some blamed Mozilla for letting itself screw up over non-standard HTML.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    13. Re:Fp by bay43270 · · Score: 1

      Obviously not, or the spell check in the native text field would have caught his typos.

    14. Re:Fp by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I think my sig will suffice here :-)

    15. Re:Fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it looks like the Slashdot bug has been cleared up.

      You mean that bug where duplicate stories keep appearing?

    16. Re:Fp by zootm · · Score: 1

      Also, it looks like the Slashdot bug has been cleared up.

      Yeah, this was fixed in trunk a long time ago, but this is the first version of Firefox to get back up to date with that version of Gecko.

      Ironically, though, since Slashdot is apparently imminently moving to a CSS-based layout, the bug will be fixed by both sides at once...

  6. Woohoo! by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they've really made it more stable and fixed the apparent memory leak, I'll be really happy. Firefox is great as it is, but it seems that if you leave it open for too long it starts to take up insane amounts of memory.

    1. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pr0n gets boring for me after like 5 minutes. Then I close the browser.

    2. Re:Woohoo! by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was actually giving this some thought the other day and perhaps firefox should use one of the C++ garbage collecting libraries. A webbrowser really just needs to be usable and low on memory, no crtical speed requirements as long as the UI is responsive, websites render quickly, and javascript interprets at decent speeds (none of which a garbage collector would slow down). Firefox developers could still focus on keeping the memory footprint down, but applying a garbage collector is a good solution because its unlikely they'll ever remove every memory leak. This would remove most of them, help detect others, and keep the remaining problems minimal.
      Regards,
      Steve

    3. Re:Woohoo! by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Don't C++ garbage collectors just pick up blocks that have been marked free?

    4. Re:Woohoo! by vsimon · · Score: 2, Informative

      you sure not from network.prefetch-next=true? all those pages take up memory.

    5. Re:Woohoo! by Rirath.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've been using the nightly branch builds for some time now, and no... I've seen no apparent fix for the memory leak. I mean, maybe a few holes have been plugged... but it still takes more memory than one would expect. On the other hand, I don't remember them claiming it fixed.

      The best feature for me is the new automatic nightly version system using Firefox's update system. No more manually downloading, unraring, and changing folder names... just a few clicks and I'm done. A very big plus, for nightly users.

      And since 1.5a may break a whole lot of extensions, I recommend Nightly Tester Tools, which can force an extention to work. You may also try going into about:config (type that in the URL bar) and manually making the entery:

      app.extensions.version

      Then setting this to a value of 1.0+. Can cause other problems though, so I'd go with Nightly Tester Tools first. Lastly, you could simply open the extension with an unzip util and modify the install.rdf, perhaps the most time consuming but failsafe method.

    6. Re:Woohoo! by Kremit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've definitely noticed this too. I leave Firefox open for days at a time sometimes. Actually, I'd guess it to be caching of the pages in memory and not so much as a memory leak... but in that case the developers need to implement a "memory cache" that can be controlled from the Preferences -> Privacy -> Cache. If I knew anything about the FF/Gecko codebase I'd attempt it myself.

    7. Re:Woohoo! by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, here is one worth reading about.
      Regards,
      Steve

    8. Re:Woohoo! by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately garbage collection is not a cure-all for memory leaks; the programmer(s) still must take care to ensure that references to memory-consuming objects are removed when no longer needed. This can be a nontrivial task e.g. in a complex application where state is shared among multiple threads and certain corner case situations blur who is responsible for reference clean-up.

      Bugs is bugs!

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    9. Re:Woohoo! by CaptnMArk · · Score: 1

      Most software using garbage collectors starts to suck when you start using the swap file.

      They should not do this.

    10. Re:Woohoo! by kbrosnan · · Score: 1

      That would be the following bug. bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188720 - more facilities for cache management needed WontFix

      --
      These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
    11. Re:Woohoo! by psavo · · Score: 1

      It's the flash piece-of-shit -plugin. Just use the click-to-play extension and it won't bother you again (unless you leave some flash game/site on for a long time).

      --
      fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    12. Re:Woohoo! by richlv · · Score: 1

      have you java/flash enabled ? is this reproducible with them both (and all other plugins) disabled ?

      i had similar problem with opera - leave it open and once a week all ram is eaten.
      when i disabled java & flash, it has not had a mem-leak since, so now i'm keeping them disabled by default :)

      --
      Rich
    13. Re:Woohoo! by Poor+College+Student · · Score: 1

      I cant speak for Firefox in particular, but Mozilla did have a configure option for compiling in the Boehm's garbage collector. Supposedly it was mostly used for leak testing though.

    14. Re:Woohoo! by Titus+B.+Otch · · Score: 0

      Maybe you need to add a little spice to your computer marriage. Dr. Phil recommends throwing a wig over your monitor and playing "full metal jacket - me so hony.mp3" in the background as you surf...

    15. Re:Woohoo! by gibbo2 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the memory usage fixed too, but it looks like the fix in this beta for the XMLHttpRequest leak didn't actually work:

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29507 4

      (not linked because Bugzilla blocks slashdot)

      The final comment on that bug added today is "reopening. this isn't fixed."

      Oops!

      Still, the new beta looks slick, especially the error pages. Haven't decided if I like the look of the new Options dialog though...

    16. Re:Woohoo! by gibbo2 · · Score: 1

      Hmm it got auto-linked anyway... you'll have to copy the URL to your address bar and remove the space to use it.

      ps. New drag-able tabs rock! I sometimes find myself idly dragging tabs wishing they would re-order (didn't want an extension just for that) and now it works nicely.

    17. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you blow your load in 5 minutes?

      man, I feel sorry for you

    18. Re:Woohoo! by cahiha · · Score: 1

      The best feature for me is the new automatic nightly version system using Firefox's update system. No more manually downloading, unraring, and changing folder names... just a few clicks and I'm done. A very big plus, for nightly users.

      That may be good for nightly testers, but it's a horrible idea for regular users. Something as important as the web browser should be consistent with all the other installed software on the system; randomly updating it just because a new version is out is not a good idea.

    19. Re:Woohoo! by Rirath.com · · Score: 1

      That may be good for nightly testers, but it's a horrible idea for regular users. Something as important as the web browser should be consistent with all the other installed software on the system; randomly updating it just because a new version is out is not a good idea.

      I believe this is a misunderstanding, I hope. The nightly update check is only, as far as I know, on the nightly branch / trunk builds... and so nightly testers are the only ones who will be doing the updating. Even for them, it's a one click thing to turn off, and it asks nicely when it's ready.

      Yes, nightly updating for the average Joe would be a disaster... although these "new" features are available long before the public / preview / beta builds, and even longer on the trunk builds, they aren't without hiccups, regressions, and bugs.

    20. Re:Woohoo! by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1
      It seems to be a problem with the cache for the Flash plugin. Either disable Flash (I use click to view for Flash, usually), or limit the cache size.

      Here's a page about it.

    21. Re:Woohoo! by Rirath.com · · Score: 1

      That may be good for nightly testers, but it's a horrible idea for regular users. Something as important as the web browser should be consistent with all the other installed software on the system; randomly updating it just because a new version is out is not a good idea.

      Here we go, from The Unofficial 1.5 Beta 1 Changelog.
      (Great resouce, should have been with this story.)

      >302721 - Implement update service channels (e.g. "nightly trunk", "nightly branch", "betas and releases", "releases only").

      Go to about:config, filter for app.update.channel and you'll see your currently selected update group. 1.5b is, appropriately enough, in the beta group. I'm using nightly branch builds, and so in the nighly updates. Regular users using regular releases will continue with the regular update service, as before.

    22. Re:Woohoo! by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the best new feature is the update system, however, if you click "No" on the would you like to update box, there appears to be no option to manually update (with the exception of course of going to mozilla.org and getting it from there).

      A simple update now button would be perfect, much like there is for extensions/themes.

    23. Re:Woohoo! by frankthechicken · · Score: 1

      OK, I lied, I feel like a fool, and deserve to be ridiculed and generally beaten to within an inch of my very existence.

      I managed to find the update button, under the help menu. Why is it not in the tools/options menu, indeed, why is it in a menu at all? Surely, at minimum, it should be given a menu option all to itself?

    24. Re:Woohoo! by masklinn · · Score: 1

      You look like you should give a shot at Pornzilla, would probably shed a new light on the whole porn thing.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    25. Re:Woohoo! by masklinn · · Score: 1

      The leak was that a tab's content (history, cached data, ...) was left in memory (not put in disk cache, not removed, it just stayed there) when you closed said tab. Issue has been fixed.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    26. Re:Woohoo! by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Because, as sad and counterintuitive as it is, they used a quite common placement, one which is used in Eclipse for example (updater is in the About menu), FlashFXP too, I think, and Trillian are examples of softwares with updates in the Help/About menu.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    27. Re:Woohoo! by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      A webbrowser really just needs to be usable and low on memory

      Web browsers are one of the pinacles of modern complex software. Think about it. A web browser is a document viewer, a network-aware program, an application platform with built-in scripting language runtime(s), a parser and renderer for dozens of varieties of HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, a secure e-commerce tool, a pluggin host, a media center and a personal communications tool.

      Now you want it to be small too? Efficient use of memory with no leaks: a good goal; actual low use of memory: not likely.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    28. Re:Woohoo! by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Firefox is great as it is, but it seems that if you leave it open for too long
      > it starts to take up insane amounts of memory.

      I guess my 1.5 gigs of ram, or the fact that I log off after every 4 hours or so explains why I never get this problem.

    29. Re:Woohoo! by vidarh · · Score: 1

      That's not enough. I don't even have the flash plugin installed on my Linux box at home and it still ends up eating every page of memory it can get it's grubby paws on... After a few days Firefox typically consumes half a gig of memory or more and I end up having to kill it because my system starts trashing.

    30. Re:Woohoo! by bkessels · · Score: 1

      Jus wondering: Did they allow -disallowing- teh upgrade system, finally. It is hell to have the update system, when your OS (macos, most linux distro's) has a perfecly capable upgrade system already. My ubuntu just keeps choking on the upgrade system in firefox, that is really only there, because our happyWindowsBrethren have a crappy update system in their OS. It really annoys me that the upgrade is handled by a custommade system in the app. imagine all my applications doing upgrades all in a different way. Shivvver. From what I see this did not change at all. which IMO points ot that FF is primary for windows. pity.

    31. Re:Woohoo! by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      The firefox memory leak has nothing to do with any extension. It happens even in a vanilla install. No idea where you got that lie from.

    32. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Web browsers are one of the pinacles of modern complex software. Think about it. A web browser is a document viewer, a network-aware program, an application platform with built-in scripting language runtime(s), a parser and renderer for dozens of varieties of HTML, XML, CSS and SVG, a secure e-commerce tool, a pluggin host, a media center and a personal communications tool.

      Then maybe they're trying to do too much?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    33. Re:Woohoo! by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Sadly the 1.5 beta is considerably less stable than 1.0.6, but then again it is a beta.

    34. Re:Woohoo! by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I think you've been spoiled by too much ram. I've had firefox take up 145 Mb of memory, that is ridiculous. I've seen what can be done in 5Mb or so. Opera is a good example (stays around 15Mb for me), albeit it could be even better. With a proper design there is no reason why the base memory footprint can't be 3Mb or so, and then there is just additional memory needed for each website being viewed. A web browser doesn't do too much more then any office program and Excel rarely goes above 4Mb or so for me despite being so complex and supporting so many things.
      Regards,
      Steve

    35. Re:Woohoo! by arkanes · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      1. I am almost certain from your comments that you don't actually have much experience with measureing and detecting memory leaks. The first rule: what Windows is telling you is not true. You cannot get an accurate measure of an applications memory use using the standard Windows tools.
      2. Firefox makes a number of design decisions to trade memory usage for performance.
      3. The flexibility of the Firefox platform comes with a price in memory and CPU overhead. Thats another design decision which is inherent in the platform. If you want something smaller, you'll want to use a different browser.
      4. GC won't reduce Firefoxes memory footprint. In fact, efficent GC requires signifigant memory overhead, so memory usage would actually *increase*.
      All this is not to say that there's room for improvement or optimization - there always is. But you don't know what you're talking about.
    36. Re:Woohoo! by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      A type of automatic pointer (nsCOMPtr) is used that handles refcounting. Unfortunately, there are still situations where a manual addref is required; these are some of the kinds of things that can lead to leaks. The JS engine uses a normal mark & sweep garbage collection algorithm.

    37. Re:Woohoo! by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Are you talking (and I use the word loosely here) about the extension updater? This has to stay, because otherwise every single extension has to be packaged for every disto and OS's native update facility. Firefox has never auto-updated itself on Linux systems.

    38. Re:Woohoo! by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Umm... I don't beleive you know what you're talking about. A GC would reduce the footprint, the overhead is usually insignificant. Flexibility has nothing to do with anything. I know what windows is telling you isn't necessarily 100% accurate but it gets you in the ballpark and when Opera is using 15Mb according to windows and Firefox is using 145Mb according to windows, you don't need to load any debugging tools to tell you that there is a problem in firefox somewhere. When you see windows reporting that memory usage is consistently going up overtime despite the program appearing to not be doing anything, there is a memory leak, there are many memory leaks in firefox (this is commonly known). Many of the memory leaks that have previously been fixed would have also been suppresed by a GC, which is most likely a pattern going foward. I think you've been misinformed about garbage collecting in general. There is a reason that just about every modern language implements garbage collecting (Java, .Net, Python, etc...). It shows your ignorance by the fact that you simply disregard it as a solution.
      Regards,
      Steve

    39. Re:Woohoo! by roror · · Score: 1

      You mean Bugs _are_ bugs!

    40. Re:Woohoo! by bkessels · · Score: 1

      konqueror has exensions too. By my knowing nautilus too. They all update find *with my default update manager*. So yes: I am saying: leave /all/ the updating where it belongs: in teh OS.

    41. Re:Woohoo! by arkanes · · Score: 1

      The short answer here is that you're wrong. Theres a longer answer with more discussion, but honestly looking at this crap you spew instead of language is making me a little sick.

    42. Re:Woohoo! by Tezprice · · Score: 1

      I think it has got worse, 1.5 Beta 1 is now at this very moment using 66 meg of memory, and this is the only tab I have open.

    43. Re:Woohoo! by hritcu · · Score: 1

      I've had firefox take up 145 Mb of memory, that is ridiculous.

      Was it really only Firefox or the installed plugins and extensions. I know from experience that on Windows the Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash plugins are the biggest memory hogs. One more reason to think that Adobe buying Macromedia was not just a coincidence :)

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    44. Re:Woohoo! by bkessels · · Score: 1

      uhuh. "crap i spew". It is a meaning. something I think; Teh only one spewing here, is you. Sorry.

    45. Re:Woohoo! by kminchau · · Score: 1

      Many, many times, I've used FF a ton (20+ tabs at a time), and I get FF using up to 150Mb of memory, then I start closing tabs, but FF still retains that memory (even if I close all my tabs). This is a case where there are definetly memory leaks, and where garbage collection definitely can help.

      --
      "Never underestimate the power of the Slashdot!"
    46. Re:Woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. 20 seconds and out, yo!

    47. Re:Woohoo! by legirons · · Score: 1

      If they've really fixed the apparent memory leak, I'll be really happy.

      * So, we want faster back/forward performance, caching the DOM of every page in the history, in memory.

      * And we want tabbed browsing, so there can be hundreds of these browser histories to store

      * But we don't want it to use too much memory, otherwise we'll assume it's a memory-leak, bloated, or badly-programmed.

      I'm starting to see why there's always something wrong with every program. "Given enough eyes, there's always another bug"

  7. Classic windows by Bob54321 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those here that run Windows in the Classic theme, here a link to info on how to fix the menu looks http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_windows_classic

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  8. Still waiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still waiting for basic keyboard shortcuts to work in any version of Windows lower than 2000.

  9. I'll update if... by nigham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... all my extensions work on it. I had no problems with Deer Park Alpha, except that nothing except Adblock worked.

    --
    I don't want to read /. I want to go home and re-think my life.
    1. Re:I'll update if... by korea · · Score: 1

      not a chance in the world. 50% of mine are now disabled :/

      --

      --

      "pain is weakness leaving the body."
    2. Re:I'll update if... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      thats like expecting MS to fix all the 3rd part apps for windows. the firefox team simply cannot fix all your extensions, nor should they be expected to.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:I'll update if... by Schrade · · Score: 1

      If you want to go through and make your extensions compatible, you might want to install MRTech's Local Install(beta version) or the Nightly Tester Tools extensions.

      These allow you to right on extensions in your extension manager and select 'Make Compatible' and it will up their version number for you.

      Alternatively, you can open the .xpi files with WinRar and edit the install.rdf file. Change the maxVersion number to 1.5. Then save the install.rdf (WinRar will automatically notice you changed it and want to import it into the .xpi... do so.)

    4. Re:I'll update if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i updated and most of my extensions did not work. for the ones i did not want to wait for, i edited the ~/mozilla/filefox//extensions/- key>/install.rdf
      files to have an <em:maxVersion>1.5</em:maxVersion> (even if 1,4 would have been enough).

      at the monent, i have not tested a lot, but most of them seem to work properly

    5. Re:I'll update if... by lupin_sansei · · Score: 1

      Ah, but MS go to incredible lengths to ensure that all the most popular 3rd party programs still work with each release of Windows. Even if those programs do crazy things:

      http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/12/ 24/45779.aspx

      "Why not just block the apps that rely on undocumented behavior?

      Because every app that gets blocked is another reason for people not to upgrade to the next version of Windows"

      I think Firefox should take a leaf out of MS's book and ensure that each release is compatible with the most popular extensions.

    6. Re:I'll update if... by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 1

      Afraid most of my extensions are blocked. Boohoo. Mercifully, the gmail notifier still works. But the advanced tabbing (really helpful) is turned off. I think I'll revert back to the stable release soon, if it gets too annoying, SessionSaver ain't working either.

    7. Re:I'll update if... by chewy_2000 · · Score: 1

      Ace, thanks.

    8. Re:I'll update if... by cortana · · Score: 1

      Freezing the extensions API puts an unecessary burden on the developers that they don't want to have to deal with. They don't want decisions made years ago about the extensions API design (which may not even be relevant several years down the line) to limit the changes they can make in future versions of the browser.

      At the end of the day, if your extensions are still maintained, they will be ported. If not, then it's best that they fall out of use... unless you enjoy being exposed to remotely triggered security problems. :)

    9. Re:I'll update if... by lupin_sansei · · Score: 1

      Maintaining backwards compatibility is a necessary burden I would say as there's a growing backlash to upgrading Firefox as each new version breaks all the extension, and extensions are one of the chief reasons why Firefox is so popular. If grandma has all her favourite extensions installed, then upgrades to the latest Firefox and all the extensions break she's going to blame Firefox.

  10. Watch Out Extensions Break by Blahbooboo3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Warning, seems like most extensions won't work from 1.0x to 1.5beta1..

    1. Re:Watch Out Extensions Break by Azarael · · Score: 1

      They changed a few things from Dear Park a2, they disable incompatible extensions now. In particular, the Google Toolbar caused a few problems like the slow script warning and spell check only working sporadically.

    2. Re:Watch Out Extensions Break by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it is a beta.

      In theory there should be time for extension authors to update before the final is released. I've only got 6 extensions, of which one worked already, and one was updated during the day today.

  11. I hope it will turn out more stable... by beeswax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My employer forces us to use firefox at my job... The database front-end they had designed uses flash. Firefox segfaults quite often and the copy/paste buffer is always farked up. I really hope these issues have been taken care of :(

    If it were my choice at work, I'd use Opera.

    1. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by Namronorman · · Score: 0

      Have you tried talking to your employer about the use of Opera? It sounds like they are atleast a bit open minded if they have you guys use firefox

      --
      $fortune
      Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
    2. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i think that is a problem with the flash plugin, i have seen occasional sour firefox installs almost all were involving flash. though sometimes the adobe plugin was at fault.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I have had a lot of problems with Flash on Firefox too :

      - Sometimes Flash wont process mouse clicks.
      - Sometimes Firefox would start to work slow when
          looking at a Flash movie/application. [ not happening in opera]
      - When into a Flash page, if you leave Firefox open for a lot of time then memory will go up a lot (once it ended being like 250MB with only 1 window (no tabs) open in a flash page).

      Oh and one thing I LOVE about opera Flash support is that when you resize the window Opera resizes the Flash content. It is REALLY good as in firefox resizing just affect the fonts (I would also want it to resize images but... i think it is a lot to ask for).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by a.d.trick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love to say that the new firefox will fix you flash front end, but it probably won't. The issues that you have with flash are probably Macromedia's fault, and there's not much of a way that Mozilla could test it because it's all proprietary code. You'd better wait for GPLFlash if you want them to be able to do anything about it.

    5. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by Hast · · Score: 1

      I believe it's possible to run later versions of Firefox with full SVG support in the browser.

      That should give you some alternatives to pure Flash.

    6. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by Matt+Perry · · Score: 2, Funny
      My employer forces us to use firefox at my job...
      You might want to try an alternative browser such as Internet Explorer.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    7. Re:I hope it will turn out more stable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, thanks for the Link. I didn't know there was another free browser.

      Ah, never mind, I just checked it out and it doesn't work in Linux.

  12. what is a by ViaNRG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    fire fox?

    --
    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Heinlein
    1. Re:what is a by KillShill · · Score: 1

      an animal that chases away large blue things,
      typically from a north-westerly direction.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    2. Re:what is a by acd294 · · Score: 1

      Firefox was a bad movie in the 80's.

      They are aparently coming out with a remake or something.

      --
      main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
    3. Re:what is a by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      OT:

      A fire fox is what happens to a fox when it gets caught in a fire. BTW, every fire fighter will tell you that these are indeed a problem as they tend to run into the unburnt bush before they die. This causes the fires to spread faster. Same with rabbits.

      And for those who think it would not make a difference, I have seen a burning rabbit run over 100 metres through the bush, lighting the undergrowth as it went. We had a fun time trying to extinguish the fire before it had a change to take off.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    4. Re:what is a by jisatsusha · · Score: 1

      Another name for a red panda, according to the Firefox devs.

  13. Memory Leak appears fixed. by MrArmyAnt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's good to know, can uninstall that firefox speeder upper thing. So far there turning out updates quicker than MS, and has better support. Nothing like the lack of pop ups and spam that just doesn't know how to work a PC without IE :) Go firefox! On my site 65% of my users use firefox. It is a hardware site, so you'd expect it, but Firefox is gaining momentum and space. Anyone else have percentages from there site? Slashdot?

    1. Re:Memory Leak appears fixed. by MrArmyAnt · · Score: 1

      UPDATE, the Proxy Switch tool is incompatible with this, as are some other functions. Just know this before installing, see if the author of your plugin is updating it!

    2. Re:Memory Leak appears fixed. by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 1

      If every open source app could be as organized and professional as Firefox, we'd be in utopia. Don't get me wrong, I love open source... but the organization is usually shit, and half the time the apps look like they're banged together with no consideration for usability or appearance. That, I think, is what's keeping away "the average user."

    3. Re:Memory Leak appears fixed. by Bedouin+X · · Score: 1

      the organization is usually shit, and half the time the apps look like they're banged together with no consideration for usability or appearance.

      This statement could have been lifted directly from the Mozillazine.org archives in the period before the release of mozilla-browser (the very first iteration of what we know as Firefox). It was this discussion that spurned the development of Firefox / Firebird / Phoenix in the first place.

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    4. Re:Memory Leak appears fixed. by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

      Accepted Students micro-site for a University... Here are the top five: 80.5% - IE6 8.7% - Firefox 5.6% - Netscape 7 1.6% - IE 5.5 1.2% - Safari

  14. Deer Park Alpha 2 is great by bahwi · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been running Deer Park Alpha 2 recently with no problems(SVG is kinda funky, but works great, and with the field testing it should be much better).

    I hope SVG integrates with XUL ok. Gotta test out my XUL apps I have in the field for compatability too.

    There's some changes Extension Authors need to check out too. Mozilla Developer News has the info and the big thing is XPCNative Wrappers will be on by default. (Yet more info on XPCNative Wrappers is available too).

    1. Re:Deer Park Alpha 2 is great by Compuser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I really hope XUL goes well with SVG. Maybe then
      the guys behind the tabbrowser extention will make
      it so the tabs can be on the left side of the browser
      window AND have tab name run vertically. This is the
      one thing I still wish for in terms of UI that is
      not available from any browser I know of.

    2. Re:Deer Park Alpha 2 is great by gregger · · Score: 1

      The SVG engine doesn't appear to render the SVG files my company produces. I will try to do some more testing, but our files render in Adobe SVG Viewer, Corel SVG Viewer, FrameMaker, Illustrator, and Mozilla's old SVG build from ages ago. The DOM only works so far in Adobe's SVG Viewer (we adhere to the SVG spec, but everyone's viewer interprets the SVG standard a bit differently).

      We really require the DOM to make our SVG's function, but I can't get that far into Firefox's SVG capabilities to see if it is possible to make it work.

      It would be nice to have another environment as an option, especially since Microsoft is mostly concerned with XAML and VML currently. SVG doesn't appear to be on their list of things to do.

      TTFN

    3. Re:Deer Park Alpha 2 is great by micheas · · Score: 1

      Galeon had side tabs before version 1.3 (I don't know if they ever returned to Galeon 1.3 or not.)

    4. Re:Deer Park Alpha 2 is great by roca · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please file bugs in Mozilla's Bugzilla. We really want to fix as many SVG compatibility issues as we can for Firefox 1.5 and we need people with SVG content to test it in Firefox.

  15. Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As both a pro and a con, it appears that flash does not work in this version. Just a heads up.

    1. Re:Flash by Tidal+Flame · · Score: 1

      It seems to work for me, but it could be that I haven't used it extensively yet. Can you elaborate on the problem?

    2. Re:Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a single flash applet has loaded for me. Not much else to explain - not sure why. No puzzle piece, but no applets either.

    3. Re:Flash by thesolo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Works just fine if you go directly to the swf, but attempting to load it in a webpage does nothing.

      For example:
      This swf loads.
      Its containing web page shows nothing. Works in 1.0.6

      I mean, that's why this is a beta, clearly something is wrong. Shame though, I was hoping to use this on a daily basis to QA. No flash means I can't, I do too much work in flash to not have it load.

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

      That's precisely what's happening with me. The first link works properly, but any website that has embedded flash, such as Homestar Runner, as a popular one, do not load the flash objects.

    5. Re:Flash by Hellasboy · · Score: 1

      i think with the recent full page flash ads that float over all content that this would be welcomed.

      shit, i think im going to download 1.5 b1 now!

      --

      "Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
    6. Re:Flash by Schrade · · Score: 1

      Works perfectly fine for me. I'm using Shockwave Flash 8.0 r15.

      You can get it here: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashplayer/pub lic_beta/

    7. Re:Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new firefox overlords.

    8. Re:Flash by bvdbos · · Score: 1

      works fine in 1.5beta... I ran into this problem a week ago (on 1.06 obviously) and heard the following possible solution. My page had a in it. Removing this made the page work as it should.

  16. Incompatible, duplicate extensions by ReformedExCon · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are two things I am not fond of with the current non-Beta Firefox. The first is the way it needs to download the whole installer just to update a point release. The second is how extensions with similar functionality are not coordinated.

    Take the GoogleBar for example. When I first installed Firefox it didn't come with a usable search tool, so I had to find GoogleBar which approximated the functionality of Google's IE GoogleBar. Now, Google comes along and releases their GoogleBar for Firefox and I'm left having to uninstall the old toolbar and install the new one. I'd rather the two projects just work closely together so that it could be updated seamlessly in one fell swoop.

    Things like these occasionally mar my Firefox experience which is otherwise very smooth.

    Speaking of smooth, does anyone else get a brief (1 second) pause when loading large pages in Slashdot? It seems to load part of the page, then it freezes for a second, then renders the rest of the page. It also happens on Photo.net, but there the whole discussion page reloads itself after loading once. Just a strange thing I noticed about Firefox.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Tedddee · · Score: 1

      why would you need googlebar??? it comes with a built in search bar right next to the URL bar... and you can use whatever search engine you like :(

    2. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      My annoyance is every time portage (yes that means I use gentoo, no I do not have yellow stickers and an exhaust tip for my laptop) finds and sets up a new update, I lose my SpellBound extension. This means I have to load firefox up as root, install the extension, quit, load up as root again, install the dictionary, quit, and then I'm free to go. I do not know if this is a problem with firefox, SpellBound, or a combination of the two, but it's pretty damn annoying after a while.

      Although as I close this rant, Adblock seems to always stay around with each update, so my uneducated finger points to SpellBound as being the culprit.

    3. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      Firefox's default search tool is teh suk. At least it was several versions ago. I haven't touched it since.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    4. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 1

      uh, so um, why are we using root to install/update the extension?

      I use gentoo and haven't lost an extension once.

    5. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by shellbeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not know if this is a problem with firefox, SpellBound, or a combination of the two, but it's pretty damn annoying after a while.

      It's a mozilla dictionaries problem, I think - the dictionaries (which spellbound doesn't provide itself) install into the Firefox application folder, rather than into your profile folder - so when you overwrite that folder, you've just nuked your dictionaries.

      If this annoys you, you could always ask the spellbound devs to provide dictionaries that install into your profile ... It amuses me the way people are far happier to post complaints on /., where they achieve nothing, instead of sending the same complaint direct to the developer, where they might fix the problem!

    6. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 1

      enlighten us... what more do you need besides a box to type your search term and a dropdown menu to pick the search engine?

      --
      TIAEAE!
    7. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Azarael · · Score: 1
      Speaking of smooth, does anyone else get a brief (1 second) pause when loading large pages in Slashdot? It seems to load part of the page, then it freezes for a second, then renders the rest of the page. It also happens on Photo.net, but there the whole discussion page reloads itself after loading once. Just a strange thing I noticed about Firefox.
      I have the same problem probably. On some sites like rotten tomatoes, ff's cpu usage stays over 90% and the scrolling momentarily freezes. I reported it on IRC but neither of the people I asked could duplicate it, it might be an XP only problem.
    8. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Kelson · · Score: 1

      There are two things I am not fond of with the current non-Beta Firefox. The first is the way it needs to download the whole installer just to update a point release.

      Good news: One of the major new features in 1.5 is an incremental update system. You'll be able to update just the parts that have changed by going to Help->Check for Updates.

    9. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by monkeybrain · · Score: 1

      Googlebar and the GoogleToolbar are produced by different groups of people. I tried Google's version for a while - I like the spell checker, but found that popup windows take about 3 seconds to load when it is running. Switching back to Googlebar the delay is closer to 1 second (way more acceptable and 3).

    10. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      What I don't want is a dropdown menu that needs to be selected each time I do a search. I don't want a small box that can barely display three search terms. I don't want the Search bar way over on the side of the screen.

      I want highlighting to be toggled with a single click. I want to be able to do site searches without having to know the correct search engine syntax to do it. I want the full features of a search engine easily accessible.

      I don't want to just search.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    11. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Ooh! Ooh! (hand in the air)

      I'd like the Mozilla (now Seamonkey) search functionality, where you just get a "Search (engine) for (whatever)" when you type in the Location bar. Type, up-arrow, Enter. No muss, no fuss.

      Yes, I know I can set up a keyword and get it in two more keystrokes, but why should I have to hack it when an elegant solution existed?

      Perhaps suprisingly, that was one of the big things holding me back from going to FF from Moz for quite a while. Now, though, "Extension Uninstaller" not working in Moz 1.8 is a "deal killer" for Mozilla, so it looks like I'll have to deal with Deer Park.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    12. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by kbrosnan · · Score: 1

      Because Spellbound installs part of the extension into the Firefox directory where the executable is contained rather than into the users Firefox profile.

      --
      These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
    13. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 1

      Um... just keep a tab open to google (or whatever)? Honestly, I think the minimal search bar hidden away in the corner (one tab away from the address bar, and with ctrl+up and ctrl+down to cycle through the engines) is the perfect integrated tool. I don't want more features taking up more space. I think it's a very sensible default (although I'm all for customization, if others want more bells and whistles).

      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
    14. Re:Incompatible, duplicate extensions by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 1

      I see, sounds like a bug report should be sent to the developer. No extension should be required to be installed as root.

  17. history speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, it still takes forever to open the Go menu or the history sidebar, even on a P4.

    Note to Mozilla developers: Bubble sort is not a good algorithm for 1000+ item lists.

    1. Re:history speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even worse.

      If you look at the code, what they are doing is enumerating all 2^n combinations of the n most recently visited sites and stopping when they encounter one whose last access times are sorted descending.

    2. Re:history speed by beetlefeet · · Score: 1

      you mean n! combinations. But still that is completely ridiculous if it's really how they do the sort.

  18. Upgrade man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you using, Windows ME? Good god man, anything is better than ME/98se/98/95.

    1. Re:Upgrade man by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 1

      What are you using, Windows ME? Good god man, anything is better than ME/98se/98/95.

      I agree with the grandparent. Believe it or not, not everyone has the luxury of being able to upgrade their hardware all the time. I'm posting this from my old 333 MHz box. It does everything I need it to, except let me open a url in a new tab, and I don't particularly want to spend a few thousand dollars upgrading my computer just so that I can run a version of Windows which this bug doesn't affect. This bug really does need to be addressed.

    2. Re:Upgrade man by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      If you're running a 333 MHz box, and are intending to stick with Windows, you should be running W2K Professional. The extra stability is worth the upgrade... W2K was the best OS MS ever made.

      And what are you talking about 1000s of dollars for, you can get a computer that will stomp that one into the dirt for a couple of hundred bucks easily.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:Upgrade man by Basehart · · Score: 2, Funny

      "you can get a computer that will stomp that one into the dirt for a couple of hundred bucks easily."

      No way. Robot legs are very expensive, and fitting a pair onto a case would be run into the tens if thousands of dollars.

    4. Re:Upgrade man by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      have you tried opera, i use firefox since my slowest computer runst at 1.3 ghz, but when i am setting up fresh installs on older hardware i usually point people towards opera. for quick safe browsing with tabs.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Upgrade man by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For older hardware, I strongly recommend installing Mozilla instead of Firefox. You install only the parts you want, and even with a "complete" install, the memory usage is much lower. This despite that Firefox was supposed to be a leaner alternative to the Mozilla suite -- it's ended up s much more bloated and resource craving. If you have less than 512 MB RAM and use the PC for more than one thing at a time, I honestly can not recommend Firefox at all.

      Opera seems nice, but it's not customizable enough for me. I also can't compile my own, but have to use pre-compiled binaries that links against old libraries I don't even have installed anymore.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    6. Re:Upgrade man by YowzaTheYuzzum · · Score: 1

      have you tried opera, i use firefox since my slowest computer runst at 1.3 ghz, but when i am setting up fresh installs on older hardware i usually point people towards opera. for quick safe browsing with tabs.

      Yes, I have tried Opera - it's not customizable enough for me though. Other than that, it's not a bad browser. I've actually never had any speed problems with Firefox, even on my older computers (233 MHz). In fact, the only problems I've ever had are the Alt+Enter bug the great-great-grandparent linked to, and the fact that the bookmarks toolbar can't be right-aligned.

  19. flash as front-end to database by quintesson · · Score: 1

    ok to be fair i haven't used flash all that much, but is that at all practical?

    1. Re:flash as front-end to database by beeswax · · Score: 1

      I asked the same question, heh.

    2. Re:flash as front-end to database by FLEB · · Score: 1

      It probably was for the two-bit "web designers" someone hired to make the front-end.

      (Grumble-grumble two-bit Flash-jockey hacks)

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    3. Re:flash as front-end to database by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      If you're coding in ColdFusion you can generate flash based on server-side data to send to the client. Or maybe it's a client-side flash that can be cached on the client but dials up a server to get some data... or the data is passed to the flash object as a parameter... something like that. I've played around with it a bit but none of the flash controls that ship with ColdFusion were all that flexible or useful for what I was doing and I don't know anything about rolling my own flash.

    4. Re:flash as front-end to database by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      It's not just the flash controls. The HTML controls in ColdFusion are pretty inflexible and useless for most web development tasks.

  20. Now with native SVG support! by sootman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So the Adobe SVG plugin, which works fine in IE/Win and FF/Mac, will no longer be needed, which is great, since it crashes FF/Win! w00t!

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  21. Extensions by 2MuchC0ffeeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far the only extension that works is the gmail notifier. Not even the all-in-one mouse gestures works... I'm patient, but will all of the developers make and re-make their extensions for every version?

    I smell a need for backward compatibility

    --
    Runnin' On Empty .... I'm Still Alive
    1. Re:Extensions by asa · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I'm patient, but will all of the developers make and re-make their extensions for every version?"

      No. Developers will only have to test their extensions to make sure they're not broken by the latest Firefox release. All they have to do if their extension still works is tweak a version field at addons.mozilla.org (or wherever their extension checks for updates) and Firefox will allow the extension to run.

      We're still at beta and that gives developers quite a bit of time to get their extensions certified against the upcoming Firefox 1.5 release.

      If the extension author was relying on Firefox application code that changed, and broke the extension, then the extension will have to be updated.

      I'm hopeful that most of the popular extensions will have certified against 1.5 or made updates available by the time 1.5 final ships.

      - A

    2. Re:Extensions by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All they have to do if their extension still works is tweak a version field at addons.mozilla.org (or wherever their extension checks for updates) and Firefox will allow the extension to run.

      I haven't made any extensions before, but from what little I know, doesn't that mean I can unzip the installed extension, find the file, add 1.5 to the list, rezip and go?

    3. Re:Extensions by benna · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup, just open install.rdf and change 1.2 to 1.6a2 and most extentions will work fine. The only one that isn't working for me is bugmenot.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    4. Re:Extensions by aniceyoungman · · Score: 1

      NoScript works as well...

    5. Re:Extensions by rm999 · · Score: 1

      I don't like that system. It makes upgrading firefox a dreaded experience for me, as usually at least one of my many beloved extentions doesn't work without at least a little effort. I seriously am scared of upgrading to the next version of Firefox because of this problem. Something always breaks. Ideally, once you have something working and tweaked the way you like, you should be able to leave it alone.

    6. Re:Extensions by JoeF · · Score: 1

      Adblock seems to work as well. Thank god. I can't live without that. Everytime I have to use IE or another browser without ad blocking I freak out...

    7. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you wanted to leave it alone as you claim, you wouldn't be updating firefox, therefore you are just a troll.

    8. Re:Extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to leave all the parts working for me alone but still get the security fixes.
      How do I do this?

      Unfortunately security patches are only delivered as new versions of the entire app.

    9. Re:Extensions by Wm_K · · Score: 1

      I've got the newest all-in-one-gestures working on my 1.5 beta. It works perfectly fine for so far i can see.

      I uninstalled the currently installed all-in-one-gestures extension from my firefox. Downloaded a new one from the all-in-one website (0.16). Opened the xpi as a zip file and edited the install.rdf that's contained in the xpi. Changed the maxversion value to 1.5+. Draged the xpi with edited maxversion value in my firefox 1.5 beta. Installed it...and it works like a charm...

      great because i really can't do without all in one gestures.

    10. Re:Extensions by ZeusAndHades · · Score: 1

      hmm... maybe someone can make an extention that reports a different certification number for all your extention... but then that extention itself would have to keep being updated regularly...

      --
      -=Zeus=And=Hades=-
    11. Re:Extensions by Mercano · · Score: 1

      Its anoying, though, that extentions that need no changes will refuse to work. If an extention gets orphoned, it will not work with the next version even if there is no need for code changes. I wish there was some way, on an extention-by-extention basis, to force it to load even if the versions don't match up. Still warn users that things don't look like they would work, but let them make the final call.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    12. Re:Extensions by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      Nope. As an extension dev, I like the fact that they break - it forces me to ensure that the extension really is compatible with that particular build.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
  22. Copy and Paste Fixed? by Cruithne · · Score: 1

    Not trolling, but is the copy and paste issue finally fixed? You know, the one where cant copy and paste URLs from the location bar, or occasionally anything at all from within FF. From something else to FF works fine, but the other way around sometimes just doesnt work at all... That's really the only thing i dislike about FF...

    1. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure about that being a real bug and not just some environmental problem? I don't ever remember seeing this problem on any FF on any machine. I just tested it again and it works fine.

    2. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by Cruithne · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure, but it happens on my lappy, my gf's lappy, and my box at work... I've never seen anything on it either - but then again i havent looked closely. It seems like it works after 30 seconds or so. :/

    3. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by agm · · Score: 1

      Copy and paste is very non standard in Firefox running under KDE. The whole "select to copy" paradigm doesn't work as it does with every other X11 application. The only way to get it to work is to resort to ctrl-c. Arghh. Very annoying.

    4. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an option to set in about:config to have it behave correctly. I can't understand why they don't set it by default on their linux packages.

    5. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by Ankle · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by Lurks · · Score: 1

      This thing was driving me crazy. It plagued all my machines with Firefox installed no matter what the version. Like you in this thread, I also got lots of people claiming there was no problem because it worked fine for THEM. Well I found the problem. It's RDC. If I vape RDC windows, then Firefox copy/paste works fine. If one is open, then suddenly it goes screwy and randomly works again. RDC isn't something that you'd think would break things like this but it is doing clipboard work too of course.

    7. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by Cruithne · · Score: 1

      oh my god you're right. That has got to be the stupidest thing ever.... i ALWAYS have rdc windows open.. :( Eh, well I guess i'll submit a bug.

    8. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by artson · · Score: 1
      "I found the problem. It's RDC. If I vape RDC windows, then Firefox copy/paste works fine."
      This is not a spelling/grammar troll, but help me out here - how do I vape RDC windows and what are they anyway?
      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    9. Re:Copy and Paste Fixed? by EvlG · · Score: 1

      This is a very real bug that has been around for years.

      Nobody seems to know exactly what causes it, but some theories are that it has to do with having lots of tabs open, or otherwise stressing the application.

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96645
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13343 9

      (have to copy/paste that since Bugzilla doesnt permit links from Slashdot)

  23. Firefox 1.5 installation directions by mdew · · Score: 5, Informative

    When installing Firefox 1.5

    (1) Backup your old Firefox 1.0 profile
    (2) Start with a clean profile, its best to use a clean profile
    (3) Update your extensions
    (4) If the extensions still complain, try this following the directions from this link

    --
    http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
    1. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      (5) ???
      (6) Profit!

    2. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on man. My grandmother will NOT go through this list.

      UPGRADE not REINSTALL

      This whole idea of going through hoops in order to get the latest version/update will make firefox a geek-only thing. Yes it's BETA but all the previous versions (1.0.1 - 1.0.6) had this recommendation.

    3. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by DraconPern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They want corporate to use it, but I will say it again. Item (2) is the primary reason firefox isn't being used by normal users and corporations. Every .x version requires a new profile (otherwise FF doesn't run). Extensions get broken, etc. Most normal sofware will either include migration, or use a major release number. I know this is a problem because I author a Mozilla Firefox MSI

    4. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by jilles · · Score: 1

      Some elaboration:
      1.1) Also clean out the program directory. Make sure to backup any search plugins and plugin dlls because you may be able to reuse them.
      2.1) When you launch move the plugin dls back to the plugin directory, don't overwrite existing files (probably newer)
      2.2) Copy the searchplugins to the searchplugins dir
      2.3) Copy the bookmarks, cookies and passwords from your old profile to the newly created one
      3) this step is not possible because you have a new profile: reinstall all of the extensions you want to use

      --

      Jilles
    5. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by saml1 · · Score: 1

      on the subject of cleaning profiles, check out AM-DeadLink (download.com) helps clean up your bookmarks etc been tinkering with it this morning to distract from my horrible hangover off to install 1.5 next will be interesting to see the ie7 attempt at tabbed browsing

    6. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Typically that only applies to betas does it not?

      Since a bit before 1.0PR I havent bothered starting "clean" profile-wise and nothing bad's happened yet. After 1.0 I havent even done the install-to-a-new-folder thing anymore. Doesn't seem to be causing any problems.

      I agree though, either way it's a hassle, and having to go do that for a customer instad of letting them just upgrade away makes things seem very unpolished.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    7. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by roror · · Score: 1

      Corporates are not supposed to use Beta releases anyways.

      <<rolls eyes>>

    8. Re:Firefox 1.5 installation directions by RangerRick98 · · Score: 1
      I used the following procedure for testing purposes, and it has worked out pretty well (installing on Windows 2000):
      1. Backup Firefox profile
      2. Install Firefox 1.5b into a different program folder
      3. Start Firefox 1.5b and go through normal profile upgrade steps
      4. Start Firefox 1.5b profile manager (C:\Program Files\Firefox 1.5b\firefox.exe -profilemanager)
      5. Create new profile for Firefox 1.0 (I named mine profile.1.0
      6. Close all firefox instances
      7. Restore Firefox 1.0 profile to profile.1.0
      8. Setup two shortcuts
        1. The first is called Firefox 1.0 and runs the following: C:\Program Files\Firefox\firefox.exe -p profile.1.0
        2. The second is called Firefox 1.5b and runs the following: C:\Program Files\Firefox 1.5b\firefox.exe -p profile

      Now you have the beta with its own profile that you can test with, and your old 1.0 profile still accessible with the 1.0 software in case you need it.
      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  24. New Firefox...same goofy theme by darxpryte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was hoping that they'd replace the big goofy icon buttons on OS X and Linux that just don't go with anything. Maybe next version. The upside is the preferences layout is simpler, and browsing is a little snappier.

    I'm also hoping that my memory leakage problems on linux are solved. We'll see! Now back to searching for the safarifox theme to see if it'll work...

    1. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by daeley · · Score: 1

      I've really taken to the themes done by Aronnax -- especially GrApple (Zaphod). Absolutely makes Firefox feel like a part of the OS.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Not really. Contextual menus use the wrong font; menu selections don't blink; default buttons lay corpselike, not pulsing; the preferences are all fucked. Even with OS X-ish themes, things are still just weird enough to feel, well, creepy. You know the uncanny valley? It's like that, with Firefox's strange simulacra of Aqua controls. I don't mean to be negative.

    3. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, are any of those "GrApple" themes up on the site? The server's telling me they're not available.

    4. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by daeley · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, I agree. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get some sort of mutant SafariFox offspring (which I hope Camino will be some day; can't live without AdBlock and FlashBlock, though). Looking at the screen, however, it's less glaring of a difference between the browser window and the rest of the apps.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    5. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by daeley · · Score: 1

      I think his server was down last night, but is back up now -- plus he's got them updated for the new beta.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    6. Re:New Firefox...same goofy theme by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I really hope the Firefox team can get their act together for the Mac version. Until then, there's SafariStand for FlashBlock and SafariBlock for AdBlock, which work pretty well despite the funny names.

  25. Based on 30 seconds of usage by ocelotbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just downloaded it, seems cleaner, the new error pages seem a bit better than the old popup systems; informative and not nearly as cluttered as IE's. Haven't tested page rendering that much, so that remains to be seen, but seems good so far.

    --

    Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    1. Re:Based on 30 seconds of usage by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i haven't seen the new error pages but i suspect they are the same as those enabled in about:config browser.xul.error_pages.enabled = true

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Based on 30 seconds of usage by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Could be. Never used that setting, could be that they have enabled it by default now. I like them a hell of a lot better than IE's error pages; they're clean, informative and actually useful.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    3. Re:Based on 30 seconds of usage by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      The error pages enabled by that about:config setting in 1.0 totally suck compared to the new ones. They've had a makeover and they look way better (they even have a favicon that appears in the tab to notify you of the error inconspicuously). More importantly, they behave much better with respect to the back/forward buttons and the URL bar (previously the URL bar would show this giant ugly chrome:// monstrosity; now that's completely hidden and back/forward work as you would expect).

      Previously pages loading in background tabs or even minimized windows could interrupt you with annoying error dialogs; having error pages as the default is a much better situation.

      I've heard some people complain about them because they think Firefox will replace HTTP error pages pages sent from a server (such as a 404) with the new error pages (as Internet Explorer does). This is not true. The error pages only show when the server cannot be contacted for some reason (DNS error, timeout, etc).

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    4. Re:Based on 30 seconds of usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you had multiple errors within thirty seconds?

  26. Ctrl+Shift+Del by ViaNRG · · Score: 0

    Should bring some paranoid I.E. users aboard...

    --
    Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -Heinlein
  27. svg release schedule? by radarsat1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Very cool that they have a new release out, I'll be downloading it soon.
    But I'm a little dissapointed it looks like the built-in SVG support isn't in there. Guess it's still alpha? (Haven't been following the Deer Park releases)
    I'm really looking forward to the day where I can actually do a site in SVG and be able to expect more than 2 or 3 people to be able to see it...
    And wow am I ever tired of struggling with the Flash IDE.

    1. Re:svg release schedule? by urmensch · · Score: 1

      How interesting... It works for me. Try again maybe.

    2. Re:svg release schedule? by cduffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      But I'm a little dissapointed it looks like the built-in SVG support isn't in there.

      Huh? It's there.

    3. Re:svg release schedule? by timealterer · · Score: 4, Informative
      SVG is absolutely built into Firefox 1.5. I've been using the nightly buids for months now, and it's there (I've tested it myself.) It's possible that they may set about:config's svg.enabled to false for the final release, but I think that is highly unlikely.

      See: Mozilla SVG Update and Mozilla SVG Status for some more info.

      --
      - Allen Pike
      Altering time, one time at a time.
    4. Re:svg release schedule? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      SVG support is excellent in Deer Park Alpha 2. When released, I see SVG + Ajax revolutionizing the web.
      Regards,
      Steve

    5. Re:svg release schedule? by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

      SVG support has been working well for many months, but if you just try to reference an SVG from an IMG tag, it won't work. The embed tag should work though. Their website has many SVG examples, even some created and animated using javascript.

      The e4x support looks pretty cool too, actually making XML userful and easy rather than just another burdensome technology chosen for its buzzword value.

    6. Re:svg release schedule? by AnamanFan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Works for me. Here's a good page of samples for you to check out:

      Croczilla SVG Samples

      --
      AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
    7. Re:svg release schedule? by gaspyy · · Score: 1

      SVG is promising, but I'm afraid it'll be very long until browsers will have have wide support it... and when/if becomes widespread, its first usage will/would be ads.

      As for Flash, for graphics, the interface is OK. The IDE is crude though, have a look at SEPY or FDT for Eclipse. The latter one is very nice, but not free.

    8. Re:svg release schedule? by tapo · · Score: 1
      What are you talking about? From my end, SVG support is built-in and working perfectly.



      Here's a site with examples, if you want to test it out.

      --
      "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
    9. Re:svg release schedule? by ldpercy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just tried out a quick comparison of SVG rendering between FFb1 and Adobe SVG Viewer 3.02 (in IE 6) using the sample svg suite that comes with batik (1.6)

      All worked okay (no crashes), but there were quite a few small differences when placed side-by-side
      - Alot of font faces and sizes were different
      - Some line thickness were different (fatter)
      - filters and patterns don't seem to be working at all yet
      Some things that are good:
      - gradients look nearly identical
      - Most basic line art looks really good
      - the dynamically drawn 3D.svg sample file works really well and is very smooth

      All up I'm bloody impressed and can't wait to see this mature further.
      Congratulations to the FF team!

    10. Re:svg release schedule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The problem is that every single real site out there that uses SVG is designed for the Adobe SVG plugin, and Firefox appears to be nearly completely incompatible with all of these sites. I suspect the problem has more to do with trivial things like doctypes, namespaces, and mimetypes than actual incompatibility of the parsers and renderers, but for some reason compatibility with existing SVG implementations is not a priority for the Firefox SVG developers.

      Overall Firefox 1.5's SVG support seems disappointing to me: major features are still being added late in the alpha/beta cycle, huge swaths of the SVG standard are still not implemented, UI features like zooming and scrolling are MIA, and compatibility seems to have been ignored thus far. IMHO Firefox 1.5's SVG is likely to be buggy, incomplete, and quirky. Perhaps the only way for it to progress is to shove it into a release and get people using it, but I hope that doesn't mean we'll be stuck supporting Firefox 1.5's SVG quirks forever. I suppose the improved updater should help eliminate that problem.

    11. Re:svg release schedule? by n6mod · · Score: 1

      You have a very strange definition of 'working well'.

      Text is almost entirely unsupported, which makes the excellent diagrams my colleagues prepare in SVG totally useless.

      They work fine with the Adobe plugin under IE. But hey, standards are good, right?

      Sigh.

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    12. Re:svg release schedule? by abulafia · · Score: 1

      I haven't sucked it down yet (can't risk breaking my browser until the weekend), but the release notes say SVG it is there. Woohoo! I'm all over this, too.

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    13. Re:svg release schedule? by nbahi15 · · Score: 1

      SVG is built into 1.5 beta 1! There are a number of samples that you can check out at http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples.
      I especially like the SVG Tetris game.

    14. Re:svg release schedule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Why does Mozilla show the source code instead of displaying my SVG?

      There are two possible reasons for this. If there is a grey area above the source that says something like "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it", then your problem is probably that you haven't given your root tag an 'xmlns' attribute or that the value you gave it contains an error. The correct string is "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg". If you don't see a grey area above the source code then the problem is most likely that the server your SVG files are on hasn't been configured to send the correct MIME-type for files that have the file name extension ".svg" or ".svgz". Unless this has been set up, your server will probably send the value "text/plain" for the Content-Type HTTP header instead of "image/svg+xml". Mozilla quite properly respects what the server says and displays your files as text. Note that this is not a bug! Failing to respect the MIME-type sent by the server has been a source of security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Mozilla will not be changing this behaviour."

      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/faq.html#sourc e

    15. Re:svg release schedule? by abjames · · Score: 1

      Right...

      One example on the mozilla website:

      http://developer.mozilla.org/presentations/xtech20 05/svg-canvas/SVGDemo.xml

      On my newly installed FF 1.5 it just comes up as a form inside a single pixel black box. No gradient or anything...

      What do other people see?

      Does anyone think it might be because I had the Adobe plug-in installed as well???

    16. Re:svg release schedule? by ishmalius · · Score: 1
      but for some reason compatibility with existing SVG implementations is not a priority for the Firefox SVG developers.
      Nor should it be. Any responsible group of SVG developers should be trying to converge to the W3C specs, not imitating each other's shortcomings.

      However, there is at least one Mozilla extension that allows switching between plugins and the internal implementation, for usability's sake.

      Maybe some polite emails to these SVG sites (GIS, mapping, etc) could convince them to use an alternate set of tags for their SVG.

    17. Re:svg release schedule? by kumachan · · Score: 1

      Yeah same, i get the form, can fill in some value and click the button. I even see the "Incorrect value!" message appear but there is nothing else. I don't get a gradient :(

    18. Re:svg release schedule? by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

      When I first load that page, there is a yellow to green horizontal gradient. When I enter a value and click the activate button, the gradient changes to a yellow to red horizontal gradient.

      This is with Firefox 1.5 beta 1 on Windows (I have to use Windows @ work - no flames please!)

    19. Re:svg release schedule? by Touisteur · · Score: 0

      SVG works fine on Deer Park Alpha 2. My guess is there's no more problems in FF 1.5beta...

      Still, it has some really annoying memory leaks... Not really easy to load 3MB SVG. Fast, but greeeeedy.

      And you have to be careful with mime-types. DPa2 won't recognize a SVG as as SVG unless it has .svg extension or the right MIME type (image/svg+xml), while ie/asv won't really bother you with it. FF is right about being strict about filetype detection.

    20. Re:svg release schedule? by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

      SVG is absolutely built into Firefox 1.5 Beta. It's been there since the alphas as well. Go to http://www.codedread.com/ and see my little nav menu with the aqua buttons. Go to http://www.codedread.com/yastframe.php and play my SVG Tetris clone. These things work in IE+ASV, Fx1.0+ASV and Fx1.5. The menu slightly works in Opera 8.02 but the game does not (Opera does not support SVG scripting yet).

      If you are experiencing issues it is likely due to incompatibility issues with Adobe SVG sites. Firefox is stricter so people out there need to update their content. See http://jwatt.org/svg/authoring/ for more details.

    21. Re:svg release schedule? by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      I must be an idiot but when I try to open an SVG file all I get are repetitive dialogs asking what I want to do with this file. It never actually loads the xml.

    22. Re:svg release schedule? by pecko666 · · Score: 1

      If SVG support is absolutely built into Firefox 1.5, why it opens save dialog for every svg file instead of rendering it properly ?
      Or can you tell me what is wrong with my install ??

    23. Re:svg release schedule? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be your server, not your browser install. Check the mime-type the server is sending. I believe it should be image/svg+xml but I am not totally sure, so do a little research...

      Firefox should take the server's mime-type at face value, rather than looking through your file to see what it is, so if you are sending something like application/downloadmenow or application/adobe-svg-plugin-content or whatever, it won't know what to do with that and will offer to save it for you.

    24. Re:svg release schedule? by pecko666 · · Score: 1

      mime type is correct [image/svg+xml], but 1.5 behaves as old firefix witouth SVG support :-(

    25. Re:svg release schedule? by pdc · · Score: 1

      SVG works on Windows XP (using something called GDI+). I gather than on Linux, where it uses a different graphics library, it might not quite be there yet. So it might be that SVG support depends on your platform.

    26. Re:svg release schedule? by testerus · · Score: 1

      SVG works just fine. Some Linux Distributions like Mandriva are shiping SVG enabled Mozillas for months. At http://www.linuxrising.org/svg_test/ you can see that many samples look the same in Opera, Firefox and Konqueror.

    27. Re:svg release schedule? by cortana · · Score: 1

      Send in a bug, the FF developers will push it upstream to whoever writes the SVG library they use, and eventually it will be fixed.

    28. Re:svg release schedule? by uradu · · Score: 1

      We're converting AutoCAD drawings to SVG, and comparing Adobe's viewer and FF as you did definitely shows some differences. Embedded rasters don't seem to be displaying right, and at least in the SVG file I'm viewing font colors are the same as the background (black), making text visible only when you select it. The killer for us is that you can't pan and zoom yet, which for large CAD drawings is a must.

    29. Re:svg release schedule? by pdc · · Score: 1

      Actually there has been some work on compatibility: Firefox can work with SVG linked to with embed tags (which is a good thing since object tags cannot be relied upon), and a certain amount of effort has been expended on other things that make it possible to embed SVG in a way that works with Adobe SVG Viewer and Firefox.

      In some cases there are incompatibilities that their developers have argued over for some years now, but will not fix because they contradict web standards. For example, compressed SVG files (.svgz) do not work until you tweak your Apache settings to label them properly. I am willing to forgive this (assuming it works) because this is a case when cleaving closer to web standards fixes the problem.

      The biggest disappointments for me are the total lack of declarative (SMIL) animation and the non-support of SVG fonts. But at least these are cleanly omitted features, not buggy half-baked implementations, which would be worse.

    30. Re:svg release schedule? by n6mod · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug, it's just not finished yet.

      If you look at the SVG status page linked earlier in this thread, it's very clear that most of the text tags aren't implemented yet.

      Which is fine, actually. I just don't think something that incomplete can really be called "working well".

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    31. Re:svg release schedule? by (eternal_software) · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down.

      SVG works fine in 1.5 beta 1 and is enabled by default. I just tried it.

    32. Re:svg release schedule? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Tried the samples at http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/? Using this 1.5 beta, they Work For Me.

    33. Re:svg release schedule? by kumachan · · Score: 1

      Problem turned out to be that FF1.5b1 needs gdiplus.dll. Windows XP comes with it, but earlier versions of windows needs to download it separately. read more here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=1731 455#1731455

  28. Beta 1 on Mac OS X by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 1

    Well, so far it seems pretty cool, the popup for pasword manager is nicer. The things I noticed: Extensions are fucked Flash is fucked.(I don't use flash that much anyway, I have flashblocker on 1.06) RSS button moved from bottom right corner to next to URL. Overall I'm happy.:) Cna't wait for fullr elease with extensions compatability!

  29. my big hope by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Does it have a multithreaded interface yet? This is by far my biggest gripe with Firefox. Well, that and the ridiculous memory requirements.

    1. Re:my big hope by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Does it have a multithreaded interface yet? This is by far my biggest gripe with Firefox.

      I agree 100%. There are often pages that I visit which take a while to load. I load them in the background in tabs, but the whole browser grinds nearly to a halt while they load. In fact, if a flash animation takes up lots of CPU in one tab, then all the other tabs, and every other part of the user interface sometimes locks up for a minute at a time. This is just sad.

      My second big gripe is just general bugginess. Yes, it takes time to iron out bugs, but Firefox has had some time. Right now, we're on 1.0.6, and honestly I'd rather see them just spend 100% of their effort on a 1.0.7 that is as close to bug free as humanly possible rather than adding more features. I'm sure the features they're adding right now are worthwile overall, but I'd much rather stay with the feature set I have now and see all the bugs disappear. The worst one is something that seems to relate to perhaps an event queue. Every now and then, something will happen that seems to cause Firefox to just stop processing events. I can press buttons and hit Command-W (I'm on a Mac), and nothing will happen. But if I hold down the mouse button inside a window, somehow this rejuvenates the event queue and these events get processed eventually. Totally, totally weird.

      The worst part is that it seems that flash animations use the same thread as the user interface. So if you have a flash animation that takes a LOT of CPU, which lots of them do, then the user interface becomes unresponsive. This is just silly. You're taking untrusted code (flash from whatever web site) and letting it take CPU time away from critical stuff like being able to close the window that contains the CPU-hogging flash code!

    2. Re:my big hope by roca · · Score: 1

      1.0.x is a security branch now. 1.0.7 will only get security fixes.

      1.5 has thousands of bug fixes. Try it.

      We do need to do some work to make the browser more responsive, especially with plugins.

    3. Re:my big hope by milimetric · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree with you about the Flash plugin issue. I have had the same problem and it's really annoying on a slower system.

      Also, one thing that I found in Opera that I really loved (besides the free license a week ago :) was that you could open like 400 pages in the background and at some point it would have an adverse effect like you couldn't ctrl+scroll to zoom any more, but that's understandable taking into account I was pushing the limits.

      As far as bugs, if you consider what you're going against, I think Opera is the only browser out there with a smaller bugs / features ratio. But firefox is da bomb and I'm sticking with it. Good job on the 1.5 beta you guys, keep up the good work.

    4. Re:my big hope by mpcooke3 · · Score: 1

      Yes. The single thread thing is really annoying and really makes you realise it's not a "normal" native windows/linux application.

      For example, if you leave the betfair website open in a tab, the async updates of odds cause the whole of firefox to lockup.

      It's particularly bad on slower connections and means leaving certain websites open can make firefox unbearable.

    5. Re:my big hope by renoX · · Score: 1

      I agree and I would even go further: multi-threading is not enough for the Flash plugin.
      Those kind of complex plugins whose reliability cannot be trusted should run in another process.
      This way, if the plugin crash, the application stays alive (and there could be a right click option to trigger a restart of the plugin).

  30. Funny by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

    I installed Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 a couple of hours ago and now I've switched back because the beta has problems with Java and streaming of Windows Media Player films. Luckily I had a backup of my profile because simply uninstalling the beta and installing the 1.0.6 version caused big problems. The beta is superb but it has problems with external programs. It also has a new genious extension structure but that breaks old extensions (like every new Firefox edition *sigh*) and I've read that themes also gives problems. My system config is Windows XP and Sun Java, both fully updated.

    1. Re:Funny by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      It's Adblock. Go and get the unofficial Adblock v0.5.9.2 and install it into 1.5b1 - I'll bet that your issues will go away.

      And the "genious new extension structure" does _not_ break old extensions - the 1.0.x extension documentation is still valid and will be for some time.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    2. Re:Funny by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't Adblock. Also tried something else following an email tip from a guy reading Mozillazine. Bottom line is that everything worked exceptionally good except external programs like Java and streaming of Windows Media Player videos. Downgraded to Firefox 1.0.6 after that. Looking forward to beta 2 October 5th though.

  31. Users need it by nukem996 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have switched many people to Firefox and have found that people I switched months and months ago will never update. They never look at the little red arrow on the top right. They stick with the same version they have unpatched. Other applications use auto update because users dont update programs, its a problem but if Firefox is to be known as the most secure, fastest, bug free browser on the internet then they have to make sure everyone updates.

    1. Re:Users need it by ahaning · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The biggest problem I can see with the old way that Firefox was updated was that you'd have to completely reinstall. So you were hardly updating.

      You'd also have to stop and restart the browser, thus losing whatever page you were on when you decided to update. Here's hoping that the final versions will restore your browsing session after updating (similar to recent versions of Adobe Acrobat Reader). (Yes, I know about and use sessionsaver.)

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    2. Re:Users need it by asavage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For everyone I have switched to Firefox (>5), a few months later I have used their computer and noticed they have never updated. It isn't obvious at all that you should click on the arrow and that it means new updates are available. The auto-update can't come soon enough.

    3. Re:Users need it by catwh0re · · Score: 1

      This feature is absolutely essential! It allows users to be updated long before vulnerability exploits are despatched to the internet.

    4. Re:Users need it by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Informative

      This, however, is solved in Firefox 1.5.

      Now, when Firefox notice there's an update available, the user gets a dialog telling there's an update, asking "do you wish to close Firefox and install it now? (otherwise it'll install next time you start Firefox)"

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:Users need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      You'd also have to stop and restart the browser, thus losing whatever page you were on when you decided to update.

      In GNU/Linux and BSD you can upgrade to a new version while Fx is running. You only have to restart Fx to load the new version.

    6. Re:Users need it by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I almost regret running the auto update to be honest with you 1.0.6 is the least stable of the release versions of firefox yet...I had almost no bugs with 1.0.1-1.0.4, but with 1.0.6 I continually have bizarre behavior in the windows version, for instance...the application disappearing from the task bar randomly, yet the thread is still running... download estimates that show negative million bytes and then count up... at least two bizarre crashes... The security holes this version fixed wasn't worth upgrading in my opinion.

    7. Re:Users need it by Budrick · · Score: 1

      I had that for quite a few versions beforehand, and I know at least part of why it happens.

      When you run a program from the Start Menu, quicklaunch bar, desktop and what have you, the Firefox process becomes a child process of the main Explorer instance.

      Sometimes, Firefox "detaches" itself, and this causes the taskbar button weirdness in any process that does this. It usually happens when the Explorer instance controlling the taskbar crashes, in which case all its child processes suddenly have no parent, but Firefox sometimes just does this all by itself for no readily apparent reason.

    8. Re:Users need it by Myen · · Score: 2, Informative
      Firefox will respawn itself and die (effectively doing the detach you mentioned) if
      1. there is no old copy of Firefox around to attach to; and
        • it needs to install / uninstall / update extensions; or
        • your XPCOM registry thing (compreg.dat/xpti.dat) is busted; or
        • you started with the profile manager.

      I probably missed some situations.

      Basically, it loads half way, figure out that it loaded stuff it shouldn't have (or didn't load stuff it should have), and restarts itself. Completely normal for the stuff mentioned above. This will not occur if you already have an existing Firefox window (since the new instance actually just tells the old one to open a new window, then quietly commits suicide).

      As to GP's complaint about the negative download count - that actually exists in any version 1.0.x and older. Using a 32-bit number to keep track of file sizes didn't work so well with > 2GB files :) (There was also something about how the order of operations got it to overflow first - that was also fixed post-1.0.x, I think)
    9. Re:Users need it by hahafaha · · Score: 1

      Just another reason to use GNU/Linux!

    10. Re:Users need it by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      There's no correlation between an upwards pointing red arrow and downloading new updates. That is why most users did not click on it to upgrade. Perhaps it would've been better to have it textually say "Upgrades Available", rather than showing a picture that relates in no way to the action that can and should be performed.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    11. Re:Users need it by bynary · · Score: 1

      ...if Firefox is to be known as the most secure, fastest, bug free browser on the internet then they have to make sure everyone updates.

      Uh...don't you have to update in order to have automatic updates? Notice the irony...

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    12. Re:Users need it by shokk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Because it's so hard to wait until you are done browsing to do the update. One MUST ALWAYS update while they have a dozen tabs open.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    13. Re:Users need it by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      Because it's so hard to wait until you are done browsing to do the update. One MUST ALWAYS update while they have a dozen tabs open.

      Oh, what a sad day for my mod points to expire!

      I was just thinking the same thing myself. Why complicate things? When you update, just close the dang browser and let it replace all its files without worrying about load/lock status. KISS, people! Keep It Simple, Stupid!

      Honestly; who's so busy that they need to update their software while in the middle of a dozen tasks? Slashdot is cool and all, but c'mon, take a break from commenting for 3 minutes to update your browser. Geesh. :P

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    14. Re:Users need it by bynary · · Score: 1

      Touché.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    15. Re:Users need it by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But my only concern is that sometimes updating Firefox can break extensions and has (at least once for me) caused Firefox not to start except in safe-mode.

      Admitadely, the extensions seem better able to cope with new versions of FF (or is it the otherway around?!). But non-tech users might be a bit upset if their browser updates and then forces them to diagnose the problem..... they'll be likely to switch back to that "other" web browser!

    16. Re:Users need it by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      The only bug I've run into, and this has happened with every version since 1.0, is sometimes my bookmarks scroll backwards when there are too many to display on the menu. I'll mouse over the scroller arrow at the top of the menu or bottom of the menu and for whatever odd reason, they'll scroll the opposite direction. This only happens occasionally though, and quickly fixes itself when you hit the end of the list.

      I'm glad someone else has had that problem too! I'm surprised it hasn't been fixed, but it's one of those ones that I could never find on Bugzilla because it is difficult to search for, so maybe no one ever registers it as a bug for the same reason? Maybe? Who knows!

    17. Re:Users need it by ahaning · · Score: 1

      I understand what you're saying, but it sure would be reassuring to users if they were told "There are updates for your browser. You can update now and Firefox will install in the background and restore your current session when you're finished, or you can choose to update later."

      Making it easier and less intrusive for the user would make it more likely that they would perform the updates. Isn't this what we want?

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    18. Re:Users need it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add, SMALL upwards pointing arrow. I did not notice the icon for some time.

      I tend to check for updates manually, as slashdot is my update advisor

  32. as another non upgrader by Nf1nk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am running a 450 mhz box, that up until about two months ago was running windows 98. It ate a bunch of files when it crashed, and I was getting ready to do a fresh install when a freind at work gave me a ubuntu disk. The start up is a bit slower than 98 was, but it doesn't crash very often. (I crashed it good yesterday). The machine feels faster now and I can do anything I could do before, except talk to my crappy print server.

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  33. OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by aergern · · Score: 1

    It seems quite nice to me. :)

    --
    Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
    1. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      It still doesn't support the OS X way of doing web proxy changes, by reading the network settings. Seriously, if Microsoft can do it, why can't the Mozilla people? So the disk image has a fancy icon, but the software is still missing useful (to me, anyway, who shuffles from uni campus to uni campus, all with different proxy settings) functionality.

    2. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by fsterman · · Score: 1

      Why the OS X port is so unstable bothers me. That's not the only OS X port localization problem. When are we getting a spell checker and real download que?

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    3. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by pbulteel73 · · Score: 1

      I use the ProxySwitch Tool. An extension for Fx. Works great allowing me to switch between proxies for tests.

    4. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Yes but Mac Os X has it built into the OS which is used when you switch locations and is used by EVERY OTHER APP. Why is another tool for FireFox which does the same thing as whatever is there now supposed to be easy?

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    5. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the complete lack of Keychain support. There's a billion other things wrong with Firefox on OS X, big and small. I don't mean to be negative, but the Mac version of Firefox just seems inelegant beyond repair. It's like it got cobbled together from leftover parts from Gnome and XP's Luna.

    6. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by GuidoW · · Score: 1

      Look at your parent-post and you have the answer.

      --
      If it's so secret, then how come I've never heard of it?
    7. Re:OS X port rocks. Re:Auto update! by B747SP · · Score: 1
      Why the OS X port is so unstable bothers me.

      The bit that you're whinging and complaining and not leaping in to solve the problems you're bitching about bothers me. Free software works like this: if it's broken, you fix it. If you can't fix it, you wait patiently for someone who can to fix it and find some other way to contribute in the meantime[1].

      You don't get to whine and complain and have anyone take any notice of you.

      [1] whining on slashdot does not constitute 'contribution'

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  34. Too many browsers by CFMLSpecialist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Each time a new browser or new version of a browser is released, we get one step farther away from ever having any hope of being able to develop webpages that will truly be cross-browser compatible.

    1. Re:Too many browsers by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      Just develop to standard, then it should run on any browser.

    2. Re:Too many browsers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides IE

    3. Re:Too many browsers by MykeAbner · · Score: 1

      Not really. Ever heard of the W3C?

    4. Re:Too many browsers by jotux · · Score: 1

      YEAH! Why did they ever make these other browsers anyway? I mean, if they would have just had one browser, and never updated it, then making pages for it would be super-easy...cause you dont have to worry about cross-browser compatibility. We should have just stuck with IE 5!

      All the other browsers do is offer us better standards compatibility, and easier personal configuration. Who would ever want that?

  35. Definitely a Speed Upgrade... by Praedon · · Score: 1

    I really do notice the browsing speed upgrade.. as well as some major issues changed and resolved with div's and css's. I am very impressed so far with this beta.

    --
    Just me
    1. Re:Definitely a Speed Upgrade... by fupeg · · Score: 1

      1.5 is much faster than Firefox 1.0. It seems identical in speed to Deer Park Alpha 2. Of course still much slower than Opera. It was about 30% slower on BenchJS on my old P3-1.2 GHz laptop.

    2. Re:Definitely a Speed Upgrade... by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      It will always be slower than Opera. It can't get as fast as Opera unless it wants to get as sloppy in rendering as Opera.

  36. Now we're talkin' by psallitesapienter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Report a broken Web site wizard

    Now here's something other web browsers should also include in themselves. Let's hope that M$ also "copies" this feature into de "new" IE 7.

    1. Re:Now we're talkin' by DigitumDei · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Incidentally the report a broken web site wizard is great to use from the acid 2 test page. ;)

      Go there and let them know you want web standards compliance.

    2. Re:Now we're talkin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we mention that the shiny new firefox flunks the test?

    3. Re:Now we're talkin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the point...

    4. Re:Now we're talkin' by P-Nuts · · Score: 1
      Incidentally the report a broken web site wizard is great to use from the acid 2 test page. ;)
      Bear in mind that the Acid2 test involves invalid CSS (link to validator). It's not just a test of how a browser copes with compliant pages, but how the error handling copes as well.
    5. Re:Now we're talkin' by Fez · · Score: 1

      I remember when reporting a broken website was as simple as going to Fork in the Head. Alas, the site doesn't really exist any more, only an explanation of why it had to stop.

  37. I'll Crush Those Fuckers! by Basehart · · Score: 3, Funny

    Right now Steve Balmer is running around naked, drooling at the mouth and ripping up pictures of Bambi, convinced that they named the beta Deer Park because of him somehow.

  38. Funny... by VinodTandon · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the hell of it I clicked on view source on the provided link...

    This was a comment in the code:

              Note to Editors of this Document!

              I have meticulously repaired the indentation here. DO NOT OPEN THIS
              DOCUMENT IN A WYSIWYG EDITOR OR (in the words of Robert DeNiro) I
              WILL BRING YOU DOWN! I WILL BRING YOU DOWN TO CHINATOWN!

                -Ben

    nice.
    -Vinod

    1. Re:Funny... by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      I really hope that someone has edited since that message was placed. The indenting is terrible! I can deal with just about any reasonably sane indenting style in any markup or programming language as long as it's applied consistently. This document completely fails that criterion, though it's worlds better than the worst I've seen.

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    2. Re:Funny... by cerberusss · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I find even worse is that this guy wasted valuable time doing indenting when there are a gazillion programs doing it much better, like HTML Tidy.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    3. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Too bad the guy didnt know about the "View Formatted Source" Extension for firefox (Bigger shame since he is a part of the mozilla foundation). http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic =3565 Enjoy. Rahul

    4. Re:Funny... by zobier · · Score: 1

      Or they could use Dreamweaver which does a pretty good job of formatting code (except it stuffs around with xml-style pre-processing directives like php tags which you can easily fix with a regex search and replace)

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  39. No extensions work? by evenSong · · Score: 0

    What is so great about a release if none of the extensions work? Im really missing my StumbleUpon!

    1. Re:No extensions work? by MykeAbner · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main point of the beta is so that extension developers can make their extenions work. Nothing is supposed to be great about it.

    2. Re:No extensions work? by Elder+Young · · Score: 1

      People who are complaining about broken extensions or crashes should read the warning on the download page for the beta: Note: This is not the final release of our Web browser, it has been made available for testing purposes only, with no end-user support. If that sounds scary, you'd probably be better off with the latest version of Firefox 1.0. Basically this is saying that you should not install this on the computer of your grandma, who barely knows how to hit the power switch, because something will probably get broken and grams will call you about it. I'm not suggesting that everyone here who is a noob, I'm saying that people shouldn't say things like, "I've installed this on 100 computers and the new theme is ugly. These people don't know how to change any options or fix the problem." Well, they're not the type of people who should be using beta software. Yes, it is kind of annoying that extensions get broken with most new releases, but they are working on improving the update procedure. Currently, the program warns you when you first update that the following extensions aren't compatible and it offers to search for updated versions. If new versions aren't available, it disables the extensions. I believe they are working on a feature that warns you BEFORE you update that the following extensions may be incompatible. There is also some discussion about implementing a blacklist feature so that extensions with major issues, like the greasemonkey security flaw, are disabled until a fixed version is released. Like others have said, to get extensions to work you can do one of three things: Unzip the xpi and change maxversion to 1.6 or something similar, or you can install nightly tester tools and right click on every disabled extension and click "make compatible," or if you are trying to install a new extension that might not work and you have nightly tester tools installed, it has a checkbox at the bottom of the xpi install window that says "install using nightly tester tools to force compatibility." Basically you can force almost any extension to load in beta 1, and assuming the extension isn't really old, it should work without a problem. Oh, and for the person who said that they should work on a stable 1.0.7 build; builds with a number after the second decimal point (ie. 1.0.x) are basically just security fixes and don't try to fix usability problems, unless the problem breaks almost all extensions like 1.0.5 did. For anyone using XP classic theme, or a version of Windows previous to XP, here's a link to code that you can put in your userchrome.css file to get things basically looking the way they used to. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_windows_classic

  40. fix the operating systems by cahiha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    including a new automatic update system

    I am sick and tired of every application including its own update system. They all have different user interfaces, they don't handle dependencies correctly (e.g., Firefox may upgrade its own extensions, but not the download manager that they depend on), and they make random connections all over the Internet.

    When will Windows and Macintosh get decent package and dependency management so that developers don't have to put this functionality into applications anymore, and that we don't have to put up with the security risks of many different update systems anymore?

    1. Re:fix the operating systems by rolfc · · Score: 0

      When they become open source software and adopt debian package system?

    2. Re:fix the operating systems by cortana · · Score: 1

      Possibly once it becomes possibly to unlink opened files in Windows. I wonder what else would prevent a port of dpkg to Windows...

  41. I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm getting a mac next month, and am curious, does Safari have extensions, and more importantly does it have an AdBlock like extension?

    If so it'll be my main browser, if not I won't touch it.

    1. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by pomo+monster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, it does. The adblocker's called PithHelmet. There's dozens of other extensions available, most of very high quality.

    2. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet!

      Thanks for the info :D

    3. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grandparent forgot to tell you PithHelmet is NOT free. So just Screw Safari, don't waste your time on it. At the end, you'll be converting to FF or Camino anyway

    4. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be free, but it doesn't bother you about payment. Also, there's a simple "I Paid" checkbox you can tick in the config panel. It's not like you need to hunt down a serial number or anything.

    5. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer SafariBlock. It works more like Firefox's Ad Block.

      Get it here.

    6. Re:I hate to be the one to bring up adblock but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better (and even easier to remember the name).

      Thanks!

  42. I agree by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    I think the parent poster might be right. From what I've seen, Fx seems to memory-bloat because of some sort of caching, or by not reusing old previously used memory areas. (?)

    If I start a fresh Fx run, and do heavy surfing (esp. many images, and moreso with viewing movies within Fx.) the memory that it uses swells up pretty quickly. OTOH, opening a fresh Fx to a blank page, or something minimalish like google, it can sit around for days and the memory used doesn't change.

    1. Re:I agree by BrynM · · Score: 1
      If I start a fresh Fx run, and do heavy surfing (esp. many images, and moreso with viewing movies within Fx.) the memory that it uses swells up pretty quickly. OTOH, opening a fresh Fx to a blank page, or something minimalish like google, it can sit around for days and the memory used doesn't change.
      Though I can't claim to have even seen the code for FF, you may be onto something. I think I'll set the history low and try for a low disk cache for some tests when I get the chance. Keeping histories, cache, form details, search histories all of that stuff across tabs has to be some goodly overhead. Especially with one of the tab browser extensions installed. Hmmmmm....
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:I agree by drbill28 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The memory is still bloated. But it's clear there have been some improvements in that area. The issue is at least still under some control. But you are all correct, it is a caching issue. Memory is now usually released back to the system. As in 1.0.6 when you closed a window, the cache for the page in memory was never released. When I close a tab, I see memory drop. I just had two broswer windows open and about 4 tabs in each, took up 80Mb. After closing the other window, I'm now at 65Mb. Still too much though. At least it doesn't continue to bloat until it reaches 200Mb and crash. Oh and I've had this window open all day, so that is a plus.

    3. Re:I agree by tqft · · Score: 1

      If you are going to go to that trouble please try a test for me.

      I have a suspicion detailed in this thread which may or may not help
      http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2879 79&postdays=0&postorder=asc&postsperpage=15&start= 0

      that refreshing/reloading one site does something, rather than varied browsing.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
    4. Re:I agree by BrynM · · Score: 1
      detailed in this thread
      Linky
      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  43. It's a beta by biraneto2 · · Score: 1

    It's ok to test it, but it's still to soon to use it seriously. I'll wait for a non beta version, since being a beta also means it may contain not only development bugs but also even regression bugs. I wonder if it hasn't any security issues in this version.

  44. Re:IE 7 is... by Titus+B.+Otch · · Score: 1, Funny

    IE 7 is out? How do I go about installing this in gentoo?

  45. GCC 4.01 by (1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Beautiful: Firefox' source finally builds with GCC4 out of the box; no mucking around necessary!

    1. Re:GCC 4.01 by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Is there somewhere where I can use apt-get and update from?

  46. inline-block? by Yjerkle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They've jumped up half a version and still no display:inline-block? Shouldn't they finish CSS 2.1 before they start on CSS 3? Every other major browser out there supports it, so it can't be that hard. Even IE, with it's dismal standards support, has inline-block.

    1. Re:inline-block? by SimplexO · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bug 9458 - Implement inline-block in layout.

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

      This is one of those golden-oldy bugs with a 4-digit bug number, so chances are it's really hard to implement.

      Opened: 1999-07-08 15:25 PDT
      Last modified: 2005-09-06 12:46 PDT

      It looks like you might be able to get away with using both of the following rules:

      display:-moz-inline-box;
      display:inline-block;

    2. Re:inline-block? by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even IE, with it's dismal standards support, has inline-block.

      It should be pointed out, however, that the reason why Internet Explorer has inline-block support is that it was a previously proprietary Internet Explorer extension to CSS, that was added to CSS 2.1.

      Furthermore, CSS 2.1 is only a working draft at the moment, whereas some CSS 3 specifications are candidate recommendations, which means they are ready for implementing, but CSS 2.1 is not ready.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  47. Speed Enhancements by sn0wman3030 · · Score: 1

    I'm noticing some considerable speed enhancements. Loading a page full of /. comments renders instantly and that cool effect on google.com/ig where you drag the boxes around and they turn transparent is very fast now. I'm really glad that performance has been taken into consideration in the recent work.

    --
    Life is offtopic.
  48. Find As You Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they would only fix "Find As You Type" I could switch to FF. It is broken it its current release.

    1. Re:Find As You Type by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Broken" ...or "perfect"? I don't know what you're on, but I don't consider it at all broken.

  49. Using it right now on MacOS X by PinkX · · Score: 1

    It feels snappier.

    Joking aside, the tab reordering via drag and drop is a feature I have long wished. Obviously, all of my extensions stopped working (give me my WebDeveloper back!!), but other than that this version indeed seems to be faster. Great work by the FF team!

    1. Re:Using it right now on MacOS X by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Dude, Safari's had drag-and-drop tabs forever, with the right extension. I don't mean to be negative, but I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to ruin the polished look and feel of the Mac desktop by launching a grotesquely incongruous monstrosity like Firefox.

    2. Re:Using it right now on MacOS X by PinkX · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info, would you share the URL for the Safari extension that you mention?

      I do use Safari for my everyday browsing, but when I do web development I honestly prefer Firefox. Besides there are some sites which don't work well with Safari yet but FF does supports just fine.

      Regards,

    3. Re:Using it right now on MacOS X by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

      Try GrApple (Graphite Pro) by Aronnax and Firefoxy to take care of that "...grotesquely incongruous monstrosity" that is much more extensible, customizable and flexible than the included MacOS solution.

      FWIW, I'm delaying installing until adblock, forecastfox and webdev extensions are updated.

      --
      Some days it's just not worth
      chewing through my restraints.
    4. Re:Using it right now on MacOS X by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Saft lets you rearrange tabs and even drag and drop them between windows. It's pretty cool--everything just works the way you'd expect, even with forms or whatever.

  50. What happened to the Win32 zips? by slittle · · Score: 1

    So.. what are Win32 users who don't want to "install" it supposed to do these days? There used to be ZIP versions that could be opened and run.

    For testing and.. eh, stealth "installations" (ie. work computers) zips are better than exe/xpi.

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
    1. Re:What happened to the Win32 zips? by jesser · · Score: 1

      There are no longer zip builds for releases, but there are still zip builds for nightlies. Find the nightly zip that corresponds to the release (in this case, 2005-09-08 branch nightly) and download the zip.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    2. Re:What happened to the Win32 zips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  51. Turn "prefetch" off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the loading in the background that slow it down.

    1. Re:Turn "prefetch" off by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I just turned prefetch off, then rebooted this computer. The sites I mentioned still freeze for a second when loading large pages. The behavior is unchanged.

      Firefox 1.0.6 on Windows

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  52. Java by alpharuin · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Java finally works properly under OS X! (10.4.2)

  53. Normal Google search from the address bar by kbrosnan · · Score: 1

    Or you could tweak an about:config setting and switch the behavior to a normal Google search.
    http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries#Mis cellaneous
    Find keyword.URL and change it to
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=

    You won't have access to mutiple search engines via the address bar, but some improvement is better then none.

    --
    These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Normal Google search from the address bar by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I forgot about that tweak.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
  54. Trying it out right now.. by FunWithKnives · · Score: 0

    On SuSE 9.1. Pages seem to be loading somewhat quicker. Most themes/extentions are incompatible at the moment, though. Movable tabs is nice. Haven't had it running long enough to watch for a mem leak. One thing that's irking me is that my cursor changes when it's within the program. Weird, and a bit uncomfortable for me, because my default cursor is significantly larger than the one in Firefox. Oh well, I'll test-drive 1.5b for a day or so. Can't say I won't be heading back to Opera, though :P

    --
    "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
  55. New error pages... a screenshot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by crayz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, XUL errors. The Seamonkey alpha version has these too. Kinda cool...

    2. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 'cuz "friendly error mesages" is my favorite feature of IE, too. I certainly don't turn it off as one of the first things I do after a clean install or anything. I mean, why in the world would I want to know what the server is telling me *actually* went wrong, when I can see a generic interpretation of what the error code might mean? The generic interpretation is *prettier*!

    3. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by Jon-o · · Score: 1

      These look a lot more informative than the IE error pages (it'd be hard to be LESS informative!)

    4. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, ah, what exactly would you like the server you can't resolve to tell you?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    5. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      "Unresolvable server" isn't a server-generated error - it's an application-generated error. I read "descriptive error pages" as being for server-generated errors, though that doesn't agree at all with the screenshot, does it? :)

    6. Re:New error pages... a screenshot by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a cheap shot :P

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  56. Back by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Faster back and forward means better performance...

    Nice. Too bad its taken over 11 years for someone to optimize this in a relevant browser.

    I'm not a browser developer so I've always wondered why browsers do not simply re-render what has already been cached when 'back' is used. I hit 'back' and I observe network activity even when the page is entirely 100% cacheable content. The browser is probably playing with If-Modified-Since... I'd rather it just render what's cached especially when, between the time the page was first rendered and the time I hit 'back' the network flakes out and, rather than simply rendering what is already faithfully stored on my local disk, the browser hangs!

    It's not just inconvenient. It's wrong in principle; 'back' should be 'back to precisely what I received previously', not 'attempt to re-get whatever now appears at the previous URL.' If I want the page refreshed, I will use the provided 'refresh' button, mkay? Thanks.

    There's probably some profoundly crucial and subtle reason for all this and I've foolishly revealed my ignorance. Apply the necessary flames, but only if you have credible answers.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Back by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the "problem" with Firefox 1.0 was that it wasn't caching the DOM tree, and given how complex that beast can turn out to implement (code can for example modify their own DOM on the fly whenever they feel like), it's not really surprising to me.

      I think Firefox 1.5 is basically as fast as Opera on this now, so it's nice to see one of Opera's killer features in Firefox.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Back by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
      I hit 'back' and I observe network activity even when the page is entirely 100% cacheable content.
      Check again. Old Firefox/Mozilla functionality is precisely what you're asking for here: Firefox re-renders the cached content without reloading it from the server (since you sounded so sure, I had to try it myself -- back button works with the network cable unplugged).

      What's new here is that not only the page content, but also the DOM tree is saved -- there's no need to render the page again. With complex pages this is quite noticeable.

    3. Re:Back by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not a browser developer so I've always wondered why browsers do not simply re-render what has already been cached when 'back' is used.
      For the record, they do. Well, some of them - Opera has been doing this for at least as long as I've been using it, since version 6. Coincidentially, this particular feature, or rather its absence from Mozilla and derivatives, was what kept many people (myself included) from switching. Now that it has been finally implemented, I shall probably give Firefox another try.
    4. Re:Back by MimsyBoro · · Score: 1

      I just downloaded and installed firefox-1.5b because if this feature, and WOW! Instantaneous back and forward!

      --
      God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
    5. Re:Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He knew that. That's why he added the "relevant browser" part in there.

    6. Re:Back by FreshnFurter · · Score: 1

      Who needs a cached back and forth. Use tabbed browsing and switch tabs if you want to go back.

    7. Re:Back by arkanes · · Score: 3, Informative
      The current standard says that "back" should always load from cache, but for a long time it didn't directly address it and a lot of browsers did various thing. IE and Netscape both send a HEAD request for to check for a new version. Opera will unconditionally load from cache. I believe that Opera will load from cache even with a page that has no-cache set, which is wrong.

      Firefox, by the way, will fall back on the cache if it's unable to get the HEAD request. I'm not sure if it will correctly fall back if the HEAD succeeds but the actual request does not. IE will crap out, though.

      Precisely what the "correct" behavior is, by which I mean "what the user expects" will vary from case to case, so it's hard to have a case that everyone agrees with. Netscape and IE both implemented what they thought was right, and have retained that behavior for consistencies sake even though some of the purists in the standards bodies have changed it.

    8. Re:Back by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      It's not just inconvenient. It's wrong in principle; 'back' should be 'back to precisely what I received previously', not 'attempt to re-get whatever now appears at the previous URL.' If I want the page refreshed, I will use the provided 'refresh' button, mkay? Thanks.

      There's probably some profoundly crucial and subtle reason for all this and I've foolishly revealed my ignorance. Apply the necessary flames, but only if you have credible answers.

      No, you are absolutely right. From RFC 2616 (the HTTP 1.1 specification):

      History mechanisms and caches are different. In particular history mechanisms SHOULD NOT try to show a semantically transparent view of the current state of a resource. Rather, a history mechanism is meant to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was retrieved.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    9. Re:Back by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      It's not a "design flaw" - actually implementing fast back properly is very difficult. There are a lot of sublteties you aren't seeing - for example, the page could have some JS scripts running, and you need to preserve their state. If you resized a window and then went back, you need to make sure that the page gets the resize event. It's not as simple as it sounds.

    10. Re:Back by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      "Nice. Too bad its taken over 11 years for someone to optimize this in a relevant browser."

      I guess that's a stab at Opera as not being popular enough. Opera has the fastest back and forward buttons (it even keeps for you the text that you typed in a form). It's not my fault that you use substandard (but relevant) browsers.

      Signed: one proud Opera user (one of the two users ;-)

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    11. Re:Back by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      The current standard says that "back" should always load from cache, but for a long time it didn't directly address it

      It's been directly addressed since the first specification:

      User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved earlier in a session. By default, the Expires field does not apply to history mechanisms. If the entity is still in storage, a history mechanism should display it even if the entity has expired, unless the user has specifically configured the agent to refresh expired history documents.

      Opera will unconditionally load from cache. I believe that Opera will load from cache even with a page that has no-cache set, which is wrong.

      Technically, "no-cache" doesn't mean "don't cache". That's what "no-store" is for. RFC 2616 says that clients must revalidate (not refetch) no-cached documents before using them for subsequent requests:

      If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent request without successful revalidation with the origin server.

      I wouldn't consider hitting the back button to be a subsequent request, since the specification is quite clear that hitting the back button is going back in history, not showing the current state. Furthermore, even the more restrictive "no-store" is specifically allowed to be used in conjunction with history lists:

      Even when this directive is associated with a response, users might explicitly store such a response outside of the caching system (e.g., with a "Save As" dialog). History buffers MAY store such responses as part of their normal operation.

      Precisely what the "correct" behavior is, by which I mean "what the user expects" will vary from case to case

      What's your basis for claiming that? I believe users who hit the back button want to see what they previously saw, and only a small minority (i.e. web developers) understand how things work well enough to expect anything different.

      Netscape and IE both implemented what they thought was right

      Do you have any evidence of this? I'm more inclined to believe they implemented what was easier.

      and have retained that behavior for consistencies sake even though some of the purists in the standards bodies have changed it.

      That's not true; nothing has changed since the first formal specification. No demonisation of "purists" please.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    12. Re:Back by arkanes · · Score: 1
      That is not the first specification - look at the date on the RFC. HTTP was in common use for several years before then and browsers already had common behavior.

      Technically, "no-cache" doesn't mean "don't cache". That's what "no-store" is for. RFC 2616 says that clients must revalidate (not refetch) no-cached documents before using them for subsequent requests:

      I should have been more clear, I believe that Opera does not revalidate no-cache documents when you hit "back". I know for a fact that some older versions didn't (or at least not always), I don't use Opera on a daily basis anymore though.

      What's your basis for claiming that? I believe users who hit the back button want to see what they previously saw, and only a small minority (i.e. web developers) understand how things work well enough to expect anything different.

      I regularly see users who hit the back button and expect to see a report or view refresh. The need to manually refresh these is addressed through training, of course, but the first reponse is to assume that the data is fresh.

      I wouldn't consider hitting the back button to be a subsequent request, since the specification is quite clear that hitting the back button is going back in history, not showing the current state.

      Well, sort of. You can quite reasonably make a claim that the back/forward buttons are not neccesarily the history lists addressed by the standard. Many people expect the back button to be a shortcut for "reload my previous page", rather than navigation in an offline history, in which case it is a new request and you'd interpert the no-cache and no-store parameters differently. It's an issue of user expectations and preferences. Do you have any evidence of this? I'm more inclined to believe they implemented what was easier.

      It's not any more difficult to implement one way than the other. It's a design decision, not laziness.

    13. Re:Back by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      That is not the first specification

      You are right, that is merely the first RFC. However, HTTP 0.9 didn't address history mechanisms at all, it's not a turnaround from "the purists in the standards bodies" as you claim.

      I should have been more clear, I believe that Opera does not revalidate no-cache documents when you hit "back".

      Yes, I understood that. I was saying that the specification only requires that you revalidate for subsequent requests, and that I don't consider going backwards in your history list to be an action that generates a subsequent request.

      You can quite reasonably make a claim that the back/forward buttons are not neccesarily the history lists addressed by the standard.

      It's not reasonable to claim that 13.13 doesn't apply to back buttons - it mentions them directly:

      User agents often have history mechanisms, such as "Back" buttons and history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved earlier in a session.

      History mechanisms and caches are different. In particular history mechanisms SHOULD NOT try to show a semantically transparent view of the current state of a resource. Rather, a history mechanism is meant to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was retrieved.

      By default, an expiration time does not apply to history mechanisms. If the entity is still in storage, a history mechanism SHOULD display it even if the entity has expired, unless the user has specifically configured the agent to refresh expired history documents.

      It's not any more difficult to implement one way than the other.

      Yes, it is. If you already have all the code to make a new request, then it's easier to reuse that than to figure out what to do in the myriad situations that a real history list can produce.

      It's a design decision, not laziness.

      Please try and be more clear: do you know this, or are you just speculating?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    14. Re:Back by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Note that SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are not binding behaviors in RFCs. MUST and MUST NOT are. SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are reccommended, not mandatory.

      Regardless, the difference is that standard suggests one concept for back buttons/history lists, and (some) browsers choose to implement a difference concept. In many ways, the one that IE and Firefox use makes more sense. In others, the standards recommendation makes more sense. Take the recent surge in web applications for example - the need to keep state in sync between the browser and the server makes the usage of the history list more problematic.

      Yes, it is. If you already have all the code to make a new request, then it's easier to reuse that than to figure out what to do in the myriad situations that a real history list can produce.

      This would be true if the browser unconditionally issues a new request, which is not what it does. The logic both ways is equally complicated.

      Please try and be more clear: do you know this, or are you just speculating?

      I have implemented caching and history lists myself and I know for a fact that it's just as easy to implement it either way. It's not laziness.

    15. Re:Back by carsamba · · Score: 1

      I do have both Opera and Firefox, and use them alternatively, though Opera is my main browser. I only resort to Firefox for the adblock (the way opera handles blocking is awkward). Opera is faster and appears to safer (according to security experts, one of which I am not), the notes, the save/remember session ability, the zoom facility, the mail client has me sold. Even though Firefox can be extended to have many abilities Opera has built-in, they occasionally do conflict and responds sluggishly, and I do have a fast computer with loads of memory. IMHO the back and forward b uttons should behave like flipping to check a page in a book. There is always a reload button if I need it.

      (Oh, and Opera does even remember what I filled into forms when I go back).

  57. Mozilla? by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone know if any of the code changes will make it back to the Mozilla Suite tree? Or is that officially dead as of 1.7? I would like to know because I love the integration of email and browser. I've been using the Suite style since Communicator first came out and I really like it at home. At work I use Firefox and Outlook.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Mozilla? by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      The Mozilla Suite is not dead - a group of hackers have gotten together and created the Seamonkey Project, dedicated to maintaing the Suite and bringing it into line with the core codebase used to create Firefox, Thunderbird, Nvu, Sunbird and the rest of the menagerie.

      See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ for more info.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    2. Re:Mozilla? by CTho9305 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "Mozilla Suite" under that name is no more... the Mozilla Foundation isn't doing any more releases (well, security updates to 1.7, but that's all). However, a community group is continuing its development under the name SeaMonkey. It contains all the core improvements that went into Firefox 1.5 (pretty error pages, svg, canvas, performance improvements) and some new features of its own. Not all changes to Firefox go into the suite - SeaMonkey doesn't aim to be exactly like Firefox.

      If you're interested in it, we'll be shipping 1.0 alpha very soon now (based on the code that would have been Mozilla 1.8 beta4), and nightlies are available here (you want the -mozilla1.8 directories at the bottom). We're hoping to ship within the next week or two (it's just an installer bug that we need to fix before release).

    3. Re:Mozilla? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Thanks to you and others! Firefox is good, but too dumbed down for me, and TB is not very compelling - so the suite wins for me.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    4. Re:Mozilla? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Thanks!
      Are you guys using the Mozilla Foundations Bugzilla, and if so what keywords are used? I'll be happy to test new versions.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Mozilla? by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      Yup, bug it's not specific keywords... it's the "Mozilla Application Suite" product (see list here). It may get changed to SeaMonkey when someone at the Mozilla Foundation has time to reorganize the Mozilla Application Suite components into the SeaMonkey component setup we would like.

  58. RE: Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released by Yehooti · · Score: 1

    Does it ameliorate the pain in dealing with .pdf files?

  59. Re: Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released by MykeAbner · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, no.

  60. I'm the master of timing. by Trius · · Score: 1

    I just downloaded 1.0.6 a few hours ago to give it a go and 1.5 comes out. Gotta love the timing. I like Opera better anyway.

    --
    It's hard to strive for greatness when surrounded by the mediocre.
  61. FireFox web page in IE by SnprBoB86 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I understand that IE isn't standards compliant, but it is dominant. As such, many people will be viewing the FireFox web site in IE. But IE doesn't render many of the FireFox site's pages correctly! Rounded corners don't work on every page and some pages (such as the "Mozilla FireFox 1.5 Beta 1 Release Notes" page) have much larger issues. However, IE renders the content at full width and FireFox leaves a substantial margin on either side (I have a wide screen display, I want to make use of it!).

    Blame Microsoft all you want, but this is inexcusable. If you want people to switch to FireFox, they need to believe FireFox is better. Seeing as most web sites are built for IE, users coming to FireFox's web site see a page that doesn't render correctly and they assume the makers of the page are to blame. Why would they blame IE? Every other page they go to renders just fine in IE.

    Since the same organization that made the page makes the software, it is conceivable that people would be turned away from FireFox on the assumption that people who produce broken web pages also produce broken programs.

    Whether the FireFox web site doesn't properly support IE out of laziness, or out of malice. It should be fixed.

    --
    http://brandonbloom.name
    1. Re:FireFox web page in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Firefox</anal-retentive>

    2. Re:FireFox web page in IE by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      How do you know that IE is rendering the page correctly? IE has many known quirks when it comes to things like box models and padding and element size within pages. While I accept that there may be some minor issues, it hardly seems like the tag soup crapfest that you allude to in your post.

      The Firefox web site doesn't deliberately break IE anyway - is the site unreadable? Is it blank? Is it corrupted? A basic issue like over-stretched content hardly seems that terrible, under the circumstances. Besides, I doubt the Mozilla.org webmasters are that rabid about the W3C anyway - why would they write a site that deliberately broke a browser that is still used, despite the efforts of many, by a majority?

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    3. Re:FireFox web page in IE by infestedsenses · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Firefox is displaying the site just as it was meant. IE is breaking the layout due to its lack of support of the CSS max-width rule. It's supported by every other modern browser.

      But users don't care for that, I know, and what counts isn't the technical proof but the impression the site leaves on Joe Sixpack.

      Any professional typographer will tell you the way Firefox interprets the site is much user-friendlier. Text lines should not be too wide or it will make reading more difficult. This is a common problem with most liquid layouts and max-width would be the perfect solution to the problem if IE supported it. While I agree that Mozilla should have used a work-around to make it display the same everywhere, I can understand the idea behind using standards-compliant CSS and like this demonstrating Firefox's superiority. Your comment, however, shows that this probably isn't working for a lot of people.

    4. Re:FireFox web page in IE by BathAndy · · Score: 1

      To view IE specific pages, you can install the IEView extension to Firefox. To view the same pages within Firefox just like Netscape8, check out the following post http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=1640 418#1640418

    5. Re:FireFox web page in IE by hhghghghh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that like going to France to learn French, and then being horrified that the locals don't speak English fluently?

    6. Re:FireFox web page in IE by filipvh · · Score: 1

      The opposite rings true as well. I haven't looked into the technical feasibility of this, but how about an "emulate IE rendering" mode in Firefox, which can render IE-only sites properly?
      I use the "view in IE" extension to achieve this, but that still has me compromising and using IE sometimes.

    7. Re:FireFox web page in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why waste the effort? Isn't it better to pressure websites into becoming standards compliant? If Firefox can render like IE, then every website will keep doing things the IE way.

    8. Re:FireFox web page in IE by vrt3 · · Score: 1
      Any professional typographer will tell you the way Firefox interprets the site is much user-friendlier. Text lines should not be too wide or it will make reading more difficult.
      That's my problem, not the site designer's.
      This is a common problem with most liquid layouts and max-width would be the perfect solution to the problem if IE supported it.
      The perfect solution would be for web designers to stop using max-width and other width constraints. I have a windowing system that lets my resize my browser to exactly the size I want it to be; web sites shouldn't think they know better than me. I don't know any liquid layout that causes me problems; I know lots of sites with width constraints that are either too small or too large. Most are too small.
      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    9. Re:FireFox web page in IE by unoengborg · · Score: 1

      I tested the mozilla site with an old IE5 browser
      True, the mozilla pages doesn't look as good in IE as they do in Firefox. However the site is still readable and I can still download the browser. And it the page doesn't look horribly broken if you don't know how it is supposed to look. This is not much of a problem. Unless of course IE6 does a worse job than IE5, but that is generally not the case.

      What would be more interesting is to know how it would look in IE7. If that can handle the rounded corners, and web developers continues their tradition of developing for the latest version of IE then firefox will have excellent marketing opportunities. The most common desktop in business is still win2k, and that will not run IE7. So they will have to use some other browser to get better web experience.

      Is there anybody that have tested the mozilla pages using IE7?

      --
      God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
    10. Re:FireFox web page in IE by crazyaxemaniac · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what 'quirks' mode was. IIRC, quirks mode is enabled for anything without a proper DOCTYPE.

    11. Re:FireFox web page in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being flamed on /. since 2002 for not hating Microsoft.

      Or, possibly, you might be being flamed for taking something so irrelevent so seriously. Your sig reminds me of people who whine about how hard it is to be a young white male.

    12. Re:FireFox web page in IE by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Whether the FireFox web site doesn't properly support IE out of laziness, or out of malice. It should be fixed.

      Then fix it.

      Being flamed on /. since 2002 for not hating Microsoft.

      Oh! Oh! Look at me! I'm a martyr! Everybody hates me because they're so unjust!

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    13. Re:FireFox web page in IE by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1
      For those of you using IE View:

      There is a tab extension to the extension available that allows you to use IE from within an FF tab. (Opens up a tab using IE view)

      You can find it Here.

    14. Re:FireFox web page in IE by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Blame Microsoft all you want, but this is inexcusable.

      Why? A lack of rounded corners and margins doesn't stop the page from working. Just because Firefox can display the page a little nicer doesn't mean that the way Internet Explorer renders it is unacceptable. Don't get caught up in the myth that if a web page looks different in different browsers it must be broken.

      users coming to FireFox's web site see a page that doesn't render correctly and they assume the makers of the page are to blame.

      How would the average potential new user coming from Internet Explorer - who hasn't installed Firefox yet - know that they are missing out on a better rendering?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    15. Re:FireFox web page in IE by drew · · Score: 1

      It looks fine to me other than that Internet Explorer doesn't support max-width. But seeing as the layout doesn't break with or without it, the only way anyone would ever notice the missing max-width is if they looked at the page side by side in both browsers. So I don't really see the issue there.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    16. Re:FireFox web page in IE by RealityThreek · · Score: 1

      It's alot more like finding out they speak English more fluently than you do. And complaining to them about it; explaining that they need to mimic your quirks and inconsistencies because you, as an American, speak English better than they do.

      .. but sure.

      --
      :wq
  62. Auto update is big in general by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    That's always been one of my concerns with Firefox. I decided to roll it out to our labs, since I personally like it better and as of now it has a better security record than IE, but I worry. What happens if our Ghost server fucks up (which is known to happen) and I can't do system updates? No problem normally, if Matlab gets a revision or two old, who cares? Windows patches itself so most security problems are taken care of... Except Firefox.

    Browsers are probably the biggest security concern. All the computers have firewalls on them, there's a departmental firewall, and a campus firewall. I'm not too worried about open ports. But browsers get exposed to all manner of sites and thus all manner of exploits. They need to be secure.

    So what happens if a major security bug hapen in Firefox and I can't push an update? Well shit, that means going to hundreds of computers and manually installing it. Talk about a waste of time.

    So auto updating is a major feature for alrge environments like where I work. If FF will take care of itself, that'll really take care of my last concern with it. There's other things I'd like fixed (like the memory leak) but I can deal with those, so long as I'm not worried about it staying venurable if I'm unable to manually push updates.

    1. Re:Auto update is big in general by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That's a windows problem as much as anything else, there's no centralised package management tool like you get on unix os's.. It needs a facility like RPM/APT or such, so that when the OS updates it`s core files it will also check for updates to third party packages which have been installed..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Auto update is big in general by moonbender · · Score: 1

      You can distribute software (updates) using MSI and Active Directory... There are Firefox MSI distributions, so that would work, I think. Not exactly the same as clients checking themselves like they do in Debian, but I'm pretty sure most system admins wouldn't want client systems updating on their own authority, anyway.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Auto update is big in general by dan+the+person · · Score: 1

      He's already got a server to do autoupdates.

      He's asking but what if i can't do updates?

      That's the same has having your lab linux machines pointing at a departmental .deb repositry, and then saying but what happens if my apt server fucks up?

  63. Re: Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like to think of PDF files as permission to take a coffee break. And maybe a smoke break too.

    God knows the PDF reader software usually hasn't started up by the time I get back.

  64. Improvement? Sure, but.... by dpk011 · · Score: 1

    Being an ordinary user of Firfox, here are the reasons I moved back to Safari from Firefox 1.0.6 1) Extremely unstable. Even sometime I got error while exiting Firefox. 2) Drop-down menu options on buttons in Yahoo! Mail do not work. (Whatever it means in technical term.) 3) Non-English unicode language fonts do not show up correctly, and nowhere close to Safari quality. I use Devanagari (Hindi). Surely #2 problem is solved in Firefox 1.5. Too early to comment on #1. There seems to be some improvement in #3 but still far from Safari quality.

    1. Re:Improvement? Sure, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I also had #2 but then found out it was my settings. I run adBlock and told it to reomve the annoying ads on Yahoo!. Unfortunately if you set the filter string a bit agressively it also removed the 'drop down' arrows in the action buttins, since they are images that are then blocked by adBlock.
      Setting the filter a bit more carefully solved it for me.

    2. Re:Improvement? Sure, but.... by The+One+KEA · · Score: 3, Informative

      1.) OS X builds of Firefox 1.5b1 are _much_ more stable than their 1.0.x cousins. If you take a look at the URL below you'll see a great big stack of bugfixes, including many for OS X.

      http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/releases/1.5 b1.html

      2.) That sounds like an issue with JavaScript menus - I doubt it's the browser's fault per se; it could be an issue with the way the menu is designed.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
  65. What I want to know by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Will the Linux version suck less? Its the slowest of the big three (OSX, Windows, Linux) in the 1.0.x series. Isn't it going to use Cairo more? Will it eat less CPU and RAM so I can stop recommending Epiphany instead?

    I like how it looks best in Linux, but I kinda miss the Windows version sometimes...with its speed and all. And I know its not Linux/Gnome- Epiphany flies. So does a WINEd IE. Only Firefox is slow. Will that be better?

    1. Re:What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop karma whoring and just download the file, dammit. :-p

    2. Re:What I want to know by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      Cairo is not part of Gecko 1.8, which is the version of Gecko used by Firefox 1.5b1. Cairo will be part of Gecko 1.9, from which Firefox 2.0 will be released upon.

      As for eating CPU and RAM, I haven't seen an issue like that in a long time. I suspect that most such bugs were squashed as part of the efforts surrounding Gecko 1.8.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    3. Re:What I want to know by labratuk · · Score: 1

      Will it eat less CPU and RAM so I can stop recommending Epiphany instead?

      Is it really so bad to reccomend Epiphany? At least the user will end up with something that integrates with their desktop better.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    4. Re:What I want to know by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Cairo is not part of Gecko 1.8, which is the version of Gecko used by Firefox 1.5b1. Cairo will be part of Gecko 1.9, from which Firefox 2.0 will be released upon.

      All I can say is: dammit!

      Oh well, its not like the GTK folks allow me to have a hardware accerated Cairo yet.

    5. Re:What I want to know by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Is it really so bad to reccomend Epiphany?

      Yes, because Ad Blocking is a "killer feature."

  66. Looks good... by Norfair · · Score: 1

    Tried out the RC1 last night. Didn't work. Uninstalled. Tried the Beta 1 this morning. Didn't work. Uninstalled. Deleted the Mozilla Firefox folder in Program Files in XP. Installed. W00T! My educated guess is it wouldn't start because of my extensions (Flashgot + Adblock). So you know what to do if you have those start-up woes.

    1. Re:Looks good... by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Both of these extensions are causing trouble for 1.5b1. The best version of Adblock to use is the unofficial version 0.5.9.2, as it is being actively developed. I think the developer of Flashgot has already updated his extension.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
  67. A Rebuttal by Phil+Urich · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ugliness has no place on the Mac desktop, even on the web. Neither does actual functionality. Style over substance, baby! (Honestly, there's no OS without flaws)

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
  68. Doesn't Fix Splitting Absolutely Positioned Frames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, this still doesn't fix bug #154892: "Splitting Absolutely positioned frames not implemented - Missing second page of content when printing or print previewing this site"

    This bug prevents many web sites from printing in any useful respect from Mozilla browsers.

    Its existence keeps me from rolling out Firefox as the default. It probably keeps any organization that frequently prints web pages from considering Firefox.

    But what really irks me is that this bug has existed since 2002!. The bug has been duplicated in dozens and dozens of bug reports. It has at least 70 votes in Bugzilla. Yet no one has fixed it, and there is NO INDICATION that it will be fixed in the foreseeable future, yet it directly affects the user's browsing experience.

    The history and severity of this bug does not reflect well on the Mozilla browser or its open source development model. NOTE: I am actually, personally, quite impressed with the Mozilla project, but someone who wants an excuse to banish free software might start with something like this.

    Finally, as a Firefox user, a personal plea: Somebody, please fix this! Please?

    For more information:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15489 2

  69. FF 1.5 reports itself as 1.4?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050908 Firefox/1.4.

  70. Re:Flash - no problems by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 1

    No problems with my 1.5 beta - in fact I visited the site with the Deer Park alphas and there was no problem at that time as well (I remember distinctly trying to open the page in various different ways).

    Check that some extension e.g. AdBlock isn't stripping out the flash in one the pages. It sometimes does things like that depending on how you've configured it.

  71. HTML rendering is WAY faster by melted · · Score: 1

    HTML rendering is WAY faster. No other visible differences, though.

  72. Seems to work for me after uninstalling AdBlock by zero0w · · Score: 2, Informative

    After a clean install of Firefox 1.5 Beta 1, I tried to reinstall each extension I used, only to find out that Flash stops working after installing AdBlock, so for now the solution is to uninstall it until an update version comes out.

    1. Re:Seems to work for me after uninstalling AdBlock by thesolo · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is the problem. Even with an updated version of AdBlock, Flash doesn't play when the extension is enabled. Disabling AdBlock and restarting Firefox fixes the issue immediately.

    2. Re:Seems to work for me after uninstalling AdBlock by petabyte · · Score: 1

      Adblock Plus doesn't seem to have this problem. I'm using it currently with Filterset.G and Flash works without issue on 1.5 Beta :).

  73. State. by abulafia · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's not just inconvenient. It's wrong in principle; 'back' should be 'back to precisely what I received previously', not 'attempt to re-get whatever now appears at the previous URL.' If I want the page refreshed, I will use the provided 'refresh' button, mkay? Thanks.

    So, the big deal here is maintaining consensual state. I'm sure you know the basics here. Best practice is to POST when changing state on the server, and GET when reading. But, not everone does that. And it also took a long time to come up with that simple rule. The upshot is that when using browser based C/S apps, there is no good way to tell if the last action changed the state of whatever it is you're looking at. (For a simple example, think of confirming a bank transfer, and hitting back from the "it worked" page.) And even the POST means change rule doesn't always work or apply. Good app design has to play a role, but a browser has no idea if what is going on with the server.

    There are other reasons why back can't always be exactly "what you got a page ago", but the above is the main killer (from the perspective of what I do, at least). Developers can make this better by playing tricks with the last-modified header and whatnot, but you're either going to sometimes get broken info or at least do a HEAD when going back, take your pick.

    It is notable that the whole AJAX obsession usually completely kills the back button, and many web developers are very hot on the idea. If global state, session, and sometimes transaction can be bound that much more tightly, it does make life easier for a coder, at the expense of some great client side functionality. (Again, depending on how you think of it.)

    Doesn't mean I'm not using XMLRPC - I don't mind bragging that we were doing some of this a few years ago. Having a community to trade ideas with kicks ass, and I've learned a lot from other's experimentation. But we shouldn't lose track of basics, like "the browser is not just a window frame; inbuilt functionality is important and if you make your own back buttons, you're missing the point."

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:State. by rastos1 · · Score: 5, Funny
      Use the approach that is used in my company:

      Developers: Do you want to use approach A or B?
      Sales: Both! And make it configurable!

    2. Re:State. by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "But we shouldn't lose track of basics, like "the browser is not just a window frame; inbuilt functionality is important and if you make your own back buttons, you're missing the point.

      Actually, a web browser if first and foremost a window frame. From a user point of view, most web pages don't need any state information. I would suggest that the standards guys devise a tag or something to indicate when a page should NOT be rerendered without contacting the server. Most pages need not worry, but you web app guys would have to add this little tag.

      I do agree though, that there are some things in common use that can't be handled with a back-cache. These are not in 90 percent of web pages. For developers just remember, it's MY browser not yours.

    3. Re:State. by Myen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, you would have they would have come up with something like Cache-Control: no-cache by now.

    4. Re:State. by artson · · Score: 1

      It's nice that you speak your own discipline-specific version of acronym so well! Felicitations!

      From what little I could decypher, much of this seems like a control issue. You guys want to control precisely what my browser does and so do I. Might I suggest that there are times that it is completely correct to render the precise page from the user's cache no matter the insanely complicated goings on at the programmer's end? If it isn't possible to signal those instances when that might be done, I suggest your software is broken.

      But then, that's just me, your customer, blithely changing the luvvily charcoal grey print on black background to black text on a white background. {grin}

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    5. Re:State. by abulafia · · Score: 1
      It's nice that you speak your own discipline-specific version of acronym so well! Felicitations!

      Well, sorry, but it is a domain-specific conversation. For the record, I speak set theory with database geeks, mathematese with math geeks, and german with Germans, too.

      From what little I could decypher, much of this seems like a control issue. You guys want to control precisely what my browser does and so do I. Might I suggest that there are times that it is completely correct to render the precise page from the user's cache no matter the insanely complicated goings on at the programmer's end? If it isn't possible to signal those instances when that might be done, I suggest your software is broken.

      That's exactly what I was getting at. To remove the technicalities, the problem boils down to this. If all web applications were properly coded, then browsers could make the right choices and properly render from cache when appropriate, and make a network request when it isn't. However, we don't live in a perfect world, and there are lots of crappy apps out there. Therefor, browsers need to be tolerant of edge cases (they can't detect crappy web app coders) and make sometimes-spurious network requests, or people would be angry at browser makers, instead of the crappy app developers, when things went horribly wrong and someone purchased 18 flower deliveries instead of one without realizing it. This is the old "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" maxim. (RIP, JP.)

      For the record, I want the user to be in complete control of the experience on sites I build (modulo obvious security, privacy and asshat concerns). That's the whole point. I want them to use it however they see fit, because (and I realize this sounds obvious, but it isn't at all to a lot of developers) that means people use your service more. That's the point of building it, isn't it?

      In order to do that, the developer is obligated to do things correctly. For a case study in incorrect design, seek out your closest custom vertical Java webapp; I'll bet even money whoever built it forgot that Tomcat is the controller, and uses Javascript for the links when it just makes more work to do so. I'm currently in a protracted argument with a client about why this is such a bad design "pattern". (Sorry, fell back into jargon there.)

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    6. Re:State. by master_p · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the HTTP/HTML standard have an 'expire' tag? why isn't it used? web pages that depend on state and need to be refreshed like the bank account example you mentioned should set the 'expire' field to 'immediately'; other simple data-only pages should have the 'expire' field to 'forever'; therefore a browser should check if the page should be reloaded when the user presses the back button depending on the 'expire' tag.

    7. Re:State. by naasking · · Score: 1

      So, the big deal here is maintaining consensual state. I'm sure you know the basics here. Best practice is to POST when changing state on the server, and GET when reading. But, not everone does that. And it also took a long time to come up with that simple rule.

      Not really. It's in the HTTP RFC. GET requests are supposed to be idempotent. POST requests are not.

    8. Re:State. by artson · · Score: 1

      What a great reply! It's clear and it opens the discussion to everyone, probably much like your website designs....

      There are no end of poorly constructed, poorly spelled, poorly conceived websites, written in languages and using tools that almost encourage this junk. As a matter of fact, I'm writing in one now - slashdot's text entry screen is too narrow. The average sentence in English is one to two dozen words and this entry field is only about fifty characters wide, when it needs to be at least sixty-four. It's difficult to create good sentences and think creatively when constrained to only partial sentences. This may well be one of the reasons one has to wade through so much broken language on this website. It's all about communication, yet the design almost forbids it.

      There are so many web applications that offer the customer a text window that is tiny, constraining and says "we don't really want to hear from you, we're much too busy to read it anyway and so please keep it brief". I realize that's not really what you're talking about, but it's one of my pet peeves and this is a good chance to vent about it.

      --
      In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    9. Re:State. by abulafia · · Score: 1
      What a great reply! It's clear and it opens the discussion to everyone, probably much like your website designs....

      Thank you. Like I said, I try to communicate with the person I'm talking to.

      There are no end of poorly constructed, poorly spelled, poorly conceived websites, written in languages and using tools that almost encourage this junk.

      Yep. That's why I'm in business - we're one part garbage collectors, two parts architects, one part graphic designers. We're not big enough that people call us first, but we clean up after other consultants fuck everything up. And, it's a growing business. I'm of two minds - clearly, I like making money, so it is great for me. But I think we could all be doing much more interesting things if people would just stop cutting corners. Some of what I do is fun - solving new problems, or trying to shoehorn an established business process into an online world, or (in some cases) walking managers though changing business processes. But a lot of it is just what I call forensic plumbing. "Why's the water squirting out over there?" As a matter of fact, I'm writing in one now - slashdot's text entry screen is too narrow.

      I'm not about to defend slashdot's design, either from a code (shudder) or a usability standpoint. But, you can change that - if you're logged in, click here, or just navigate through the preferences section. As I said, this is clearly shitty design, but at least Taco and company threw up their hands and made preference options, which is more than I can say for 80% of the sites out there.

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    10. Re:State. by abulafia · · Score: 1
      Not really. It's in the HTTP RFC. GET requests are supposed to be idempotent. POST requests are not.

      We're probably disagreeing with what it means to discover a simple rule.

      Yes, RFC1945 was approved, what ten years ago? And how often to simple webapps written today actually follow the basic observations contained therein?

      I would suggest that the GET/POST dichotomy for handling data is a useful (lossy, I admit) way to beat crappy web developers over the head with a simple idea that makes the web a better place. It should have been learned a long time ago, but it hasn't been. I'm way cool on any effort that makes the script kiddies do something somewhat in line with something approaching best practice. Nobody loses.

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    11. Re:State. by naasking · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that the GET/POST dichotomy for handling data is a useful (lossy, I admit) way to beat crappy web developers over the head with a simple idea that makes the web a better place. It should have been learned a long time ago, but it hasn't been. I'm way cool on any effort that makes the script kiddies do something somewhat in line with something approaching best practice. Nobody loses.

      You should definitely check out the Web-Calculus as embodied in the Waterken Server; all your composable, object-oriented programming goodness, embedded in the pure resource-oriented web.

  74. Change log by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's new in Firefox 1.5 Beta 1
    This page lists the improvements in Gecko 1.8 branch builds (as of September 6, 2005) over Deer Park Alpha 2. One of these builds will soon become "Firefox 1.5 Beta 1", which is scheduled to be released September 8.

    Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 includes several key security improvements: splitting windows into inner and outer objects, enabling XPCNativeWrappers by default for extensions, and improving the application update system to make it easier for users to keep Firefox up to date. Several security holes have been fixed as well (not listed here).

    New browser features
    280190 - Error pages should look a bit better.
    229737 - Add icons for error pages.
    299424 - Restore JavaScript annoyances prefs that were missing in Deer Park Alpha 2.
    285440 - UI to clear SSL session, as part of the "Clear Private Data" feature (formerly called "Sanitize").
    304403 - Better safe mode UE.
    304469 - Add -new-tab option to auto-remote.
    289362 - Replace Dictionary.com with Answers.com for dictionary lookup.
    Improvements to application update
    305642 - Turn on bsdiff-based binary updates so that future security updates to Firefox can be half a megabyte or smaller.
    302721 - Implement update service channels (e.g. "nightly trunk", "nightly branch", "betas and releases", "releases only").
    302073 - Turn Software Update background checking on by default.
    302062 - Comprehensive Log of Updates.
    259429 - Proxy: Software Update does not request authentication and fails.
    Improvements to extension update
    296566 - Move Extension Update into Extension Manager.
    300731 - Change app/extension version scheme going forward.
    Improvements to Find toolbar / Find As You Type
    298658 - When Enter key is pressed in FAYT mode, we should close find toolbar.
    250274 - Find Toolbar: Esc doesn't focus link.
    236304 - [Mac] MacIE Profile Migrator.
    New web developer features
    155723 - Make innerHTML property work with XHTML (?).
    244964 - Support quotes around the charset parameter value.
    305583 - Allow explicit use of XMLList constructor with E4X disabled.
    280792 - Include Optional Support for MIT Kerberos for Windows.
    302103 - Implement SVG events.
    306664 - Bump JavaScript version to 1.6, for E4X + Array extra + Array/String generics.
    New extension developer features
    300423 - Expose nsIPipe implementation via component factory.
    298498 - Allow extension XPIs to ship multiple independent extensions.
    302834 - Components.utils.evalInSandbox should return result, throw exception.
    302276 - Flip XPCNativeWrappers default to yes. It is now much easier to write extensions that interact with content without introducing security holes.
    Notable bug fixes
    Web page rendering and interaction
    Many regressions due to fastback were fixed. As far as I know, Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 doesn't have any glaring bugs that weren't in Firefox 1.0.6.
    86999 - Hebrew support for Universal (All) Autodetect.
    78510 - Link should become :visited color if URL is loaded in another window/tab/frame.
    138403 - Text-align:left; for submit Button does not work.
    223542 - Weird scrolling using autoscroll over iframe / frame.
    295074 - POST responses remain in the memory cache when using XMLHttpRequest => huge memory leak.
    296639 - Split windows into an inner and outer object.
    Bookmarks
    178120 - Chevron box not updated when renamed bookmarks exceed/under-run the Bookmark Toolbar.
    255255 - After searching bookmarks, the results are not editable.
    269775 - Bookmarks toolbar 'shrinks' when window is resized/restored.
    274382 - Loading live bookmarks bypasses cache.
    258223 - Bookmark keyword quicksearch need a way to specify character encoding for query URLs.
    300412 - A menu option for Bookmark All Tabs (Ctrl+Shift+D on Windows, Cmd+Shift+D on Mac) and bookmark options in the right-click menu for tabs.
    271359 - Wrong favicons appear on bookmarks for sites with no icon of their own.
    305004 - Create a dated bookmark backup file

  75. Nice work! by mr_zorg · · Score: 1

    Nice work guys... It starts up much faster on OS X than the previous version, and it FINALLY maximizes properly on mac. It also now knows how to set itself as the default browser on OS X! The "little" things go a long way.

    1. Re:Nice work! by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be negative, but it's a shame that there's a million other "little things," and another million "big things," keeping Firefox from behaving like a real Mac application. It barely even deserves a place in the Applications folder alongside aesthetically pleasant, tastefully designed applications like Safari. Again, I don't mean to be negative, but anyone who buys a Mac and then installs Firefox on it should just take their computer back to the store for a refund.

    2. Re:Nice work! by mr_zorg · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some people are more interested in a proper, functional browser over a "real Mac application"...

  76. turn it off by cahiha · · Score: 1

    I hope I'll be able to turn it off; I really don't want Aqua buttons inside web pages. It would get really confusing if web sites start looking different on OS X and on other platforms.

    1. Re:turn it off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a lot more confusing to the full-time Mac users to see a "Windows button" in a web page, especially when Safari and IE show an Aqua button. Mac browsers have always used mac-style form controls.

    2. Re:turn it off by cahiha · · Score: 1

      It is a lot more confusing to the full-time Mac users to see a "Windows button" in a web page

      Apple has had half a dozen different button styles over the last ten years (including what you call "Windows buttons"), and right now, they still have at least three in Aqua applications alone, not even counting the OS9 compatibility stuff. And from observing complete novices working with Mac, I can assure you that they are not confused by it either. The only people this sort of thing bothers is people to whom Macintosh is some kind of ego thing.

  77. Re: Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released by Gallvs · · Score: 1

    As a workaround, there is an extension called PDF Download which gives you the choice of viewing a PDF inside the browser window or to download it.

  78. Hate the installer... by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    Only 1 complaint so far.

    Wish you could just type the install directory, instead of clicking each sub-directory. "c:\net\mozilla\firefox-beta" and be done with it. Same with profiles.

  79. oh yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) they killed old extensions support: clap-clap!

    2) None of the 9 serious bugs I submitted has been fixed: clap-clap

    3) There are still present many annoying well known issues: clap-clap

    So, in resume, I'll stay with my MS Internet Explorer and waiting for version 7.0 that will definitely kill this Firefox crap.

  80. UNTITLED tabs on timeout by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone else suffered with the weird thing where if a website times out, the browser displays a blank page, the tab says 'untitled' and if you refresh, instantly you just get a blank page (as if it hasn't even tried to refetch it).

    Also there's that thing where the browser will not display the page due to some timeout again I guess, but the ticker thing still rotates as if it's trying to fetch the page (a look at netstat or LievHTTPHeaders tells you it's not).

    Mind you I think the rotating ticker thing is broken in Thunderbird too, as it keeps on going after 'no new messages on server'.

    Or is it meant to constantly rotate in the top right of the window just to distract you?!

    Don't get me wrong, I love Mozilla stuff, but there's still basic bugs in it that need fixing before adding more crap.

    --
    #include <sig.h>
    1. Re:UNTITLED tabs on timeout by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

      I don't think this issue exists anymore - if you type a URL into the URL bar in a blank tab and try to load it, and you end up with an "untitled" tab, the URL remains in the URL bar, allowing you to reissue the request.

      Besides, if you have error pages enabled you'll get a nice error page saying what the problem was, and the URL bar will _still_ be in the URL bar! :-)

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
    2. Re:UNTITLED tabs on timeout by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 2, Informative

      well it appears to happen more when you open a url in another tab - that way you have no back button, no url in the url bar for some reason, and refresh just refreshes the blank page.

      this is present in 1.0.6 for linux and windows.

      --
      #include <sig.h>
    3. Re:UNTITLED tabs on timeout by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      if you type a URL into the URL bar in a blank tab and try to load it, and you end up with an "untitled" tab, the URL remains in the URL bar, allowing you to reissue the request.
      That's not the bug. The bug involves opening a link in a new tab or window.

      A bug like this indicates that there is a flaw with the basic design. While a professional team could fix this problem (or a group of amateurs could write a page not found minipage as a workaround), it will interfere with those who want ot load links in the background only to discover that they timed out. This is a severe problem in cominbation with Slashdot.

      The same rationale applies to pop-ups: a professional team would try to identify the source of these pop-ups, and block them at that level. The current system is ineffective - not only can I not discover which site is making popups (unless I do trickery), but it is also difficult to identify which windows want to popup since the main popup indicator doesn't hold the list of popups for a long period of time. The original Mozilla was worse - it kept the popup icon without keeping the names of popup sites.

      There's also the case of clicking on an HTML document on the desktop - it waxes some random window, thus disconnecting you from the TopCoder competition. (IE already fixed by placing something in the Advanced Options menu.)

      And finally, cookies. Mozilla used to have a cookie icon whenever a cookie was received. This included sites that should be accepted (rather than flagged.)

      While Mozilla can be considered a better browser, it still has problems in basic functionality.
  81. 1.6a1?? by xer.xes · · Score: 1

    Just downloaded it.. Help -> About...

    Version 1.6a1

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20050908 Firefox/1.6a1

    1.6a1???

    --
    xer.xes -- 4181
    1. Re:1.6a1?? by The+One+KEA · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a Firefox trunk build - much different than Firefox 1.5 beta 1, which is a Firefox branch build.

      --
      SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
  82. Re: Mozilla Firefox 1.5 Beta 1 Released by iamsure · · Score: 1

    PDF Download doesnt work with 1.5 beta 1 yet.

  83. "Find Whole Word" still missing by Selanit · · Score: 1

    . . . sadly. If you search a document for "words" and the document happens to contain "swords", it'll still match. And there's no way to make it not do it. It used to do it, back in the halcyon days of yore. But now it doesn't, and it annoys me no end.

    The relevant bug appears to be this one:

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14871 ... which you can't link to from Slashdot, because bugzilla disallows slashdot referrers, so copy that link and paste.

    1. Re:"Find Whole Word" still missing by Phil+John · · Score: 1

      Just tried it (with the word allow, which appears in disallows in your comment). If I put a space before and after the word in the search it doesn't highlight anything in your post. Granted this isn't very user friendly and there should probably be a checkbox on the search bar for this, but for someone who has a low UID on /. it should be a piece of cake to add the spaces.

      --
      I am NaN
    2. Re:"Find Whole Word" still missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      have you tried searching for ' words'?
                this is a space ----^
       
      If you don't want to do this, try using the highlight button to help you search for stuff.
  84. Autoupdate! by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    I love this feature and i think its one of the most important ones in this release. Since clueless users dont update its important its done for them.

    This applies to all the Linux dists who aims at the desktop. A knowledgeable user will know howto turn autoupdating off but the chance of a newb to know howto update or even know he has to update is much smaller. Ofcourse autoupdating demands a bit more testing to be absolutely sure that an update doesnt hoose the system but thats not bad is it?

    I really hope all the dists will start autoupdating before Linux gains to much traction and gets a bad rep because of users that dont know they should update.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  85. Re:Auto update! - Great ... IF it works by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Well, as one who manages the family computer, which runs WinXP, AutoUpdate is actually pretty useful.

    Indeed .. but unfortunately on Win2K the auto-update patch order got messed up. The result was that on my machine it was repeatedly installing the same patch over and over and.... :-|

    Evententually found a fix which involved manually uninstalling and then re-installing 2 updates in the correct order.

  86. Stability "updates"? by Laconian · · Score: 1

    I would imagine that a beta would have more bugs. Updated stability indeed.

  87. ACID2 by Dayflowers · · Score: 2, Informative

    Needs some more work to pass the Acid2 test

    --
    I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
    1. Re:ACID2 by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      Everybody knew Acid2 complaince wouldn't make it in Gecko 1.8. It's not like passing some random test is super-important as long as normal pages render properly.

  88. "New support for Web Standards including SVG, CSS" by baadger · · Score: 1

    ... and they still haven't fixed CSS floats. See the 5 year old bug report.

  89. Real-World Demonstration by XanC · · Score: 1

    This may not be a bad thing. When people do try it and go back to the Firefox page, they see a page that looks better in a standards-compliant browser than the one they've been using.

    1. Re:Real-World Demonstration by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Why would you go back to the Firefox page after you've already downloaded it? Ideally, you'd never have to.

  90. being a web developer i find it interesting that.. by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    display:inline-block;

    is STILL not supported despite the fact that a lot of the existing code emulates it anyway (-moz-inline-box). this is the most important bug fix IMO as it will mean that web designers can get on with cross browser designing. as opposed to bells and whistles (ooh favicons bug fixed! gee wizz!)

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  91. That is an Acrobat Reader built-in option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're using Acrobat Reader 7.0, you can uncheck "Display PDF in browser" under Edit --> Preferences --> Internet

  92. Re:being a web developer i find it interesting tha by iamsure · · Score: 1

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

    Targetted quite a ways out. (1.9).

  93. Re:"New support for Web Standards including SVG, C by baadger · · Score: 1

    Here is a screenshot of Acid 2 in 1.5b1 and Opera. There doesn't appear to be any visible progress from FF 1.0.6/Mozilla 1.7.10 to 1.5b1.

    Opera nazi disclaimer: I'm by no means trying to downplay the good work of the folks at Mozilla or the significance of this release, i'm just stating the facts.

  94. The CPU hogging bug is worse, in my opinion. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I get display bugs like those, but by far the worst bug for me is the bug that causes Firefox to sometimes use 30% to 98% CPU time.

  95. Broke most of my extensions... by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I think extensions are going to bite firefox in the ass - sure there are lots of active developers now, but down the line there will be allot of extensions that don't get updated so often, even projects on source-forge etc. What if people get reluctant to upgrade firefox because half their extensions don't work and it takes weeks or months for them to be updated? some kind of compatability control might help?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  96. 1.5beta??, pffffff.... by DohnJoe · · Score: 1

    IE is already at 7beta, so that must be ehm, a lot better!

  97. Bookmarking frames still not fixed by De+Lemming · · Score: 1

    When bookmarking a web page with frames, only the top frame is bookmarked, and the location of the sub-frames won't be remembered. IE does this correctly.

    I don't like sites which use frames, but it's still used. Example: Google groups. And I would like to be able to bookmark these pages too.

    The bug in Bugzilla: Frame State Bookmarking (frameset bookmarks) (copy link and paste in new browser window, they don't allow linking from Slashdot). This bug exists since 2000... Please vote for it.

  98. Old version crashed on large amount of tabs by KayakFun · · Score: 1

    When I read a discussion site like slashdot, I read the whole page, middle-clicking all the interesting links which will then get loaded in the background. I end up with many tabs, sometimes too many to read in one session. What I've read I close, so I keep moving to the next tab.

    I found that Firefox 1 (on Suse 9.3 Linux with KDE) will freeze on large amounts of open tabs. I contributed that to the memory-leaking bug, so if that's solved I am a happy surfer dude.

    Another great reason to upgrade is being able to view SVG files in 1.5. SVG viewing is the business case for rolling out Firefox 1.5 on all the SUNs in the company I work for. PCs still only get IE6, but IT turns a blind eye when you install Firefox 1.5 in your data disk, many people do this.

  99. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight: I would upgrade to FF 1.5b1, only to realize none of my extensions works? Thanx but no thanx, I won't upgrade now. I'll give the time so the writers of my favourite extensions can relase a compatible version of their extensions for this new FF release.

  100. Re:IE 7 is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obviously, you need to compile it

  101. zip version by Danathar · · Score: 1

    I could'nt find a zip version available. Does anybody know where it is. I'd love to try it out but really don't want to upgrade or uninstall my current stable firefox.

  102. Re:Woohoo! - Not a troll by coolsva · · Score: 5, Informative
    Right on the mark. I have been using FF since version 0.6 or so and spreading the word to all people I meet. At that time and all the way till version 1.0, I accepted most bugs/performance issues as beta related. But at version 1.06 if I still have random performance problems, memory hogging. Also, IMHO, I see a lot of arrogance among the developers/supporters. Personally, I want a browser that works well, is fast and supports all sites. IE also does satisfy all my needs but is full of exploits. I recently downloaded Opera to try this past month and there is no looking back. Sure, some features like adblock, flashblock, 'images from originating server' and most importantly extensions/plugins are missing, but guess what, I can live with that. All these latest greatest features we keep talking about are not really revolutionary, they have been implemented in other browsers (including opera)

    Well, there goes my karma, I WILL be modded as troll for this, but had to get it out

  103. Firefox = Security Flaw by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
    I don't think the new versions of Firefox are secure.

    In the past, when I would install Firefox, and use it, I would get one pop-up from my firewall saying "Firefox wants to access the internet". Now I get two. First it asks "Firefox wants to access the trusted zone". If you click "Yes", it then asks "Firefox wants to access the internet".

    Why the change?? What did Firefox do different?

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Firefox = Security Flaw by palndron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Firefox == Security Flaw

      --
      a man, a plan, a canal, panama
    2. Re:Firefox = Security Flaw by n0-0p · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like there are any issues to me. For IPC purposes Firefox listens on a local port on the loopback adapter; this is the request to access the trusted zone. After that you'll get prompted when it actually browses to a web page; this is the Internet request. I actually get three prompts when I install a new version. One for the local listening port, one for the first DNS query, and one for the first HTTP(S) connect.

  104. B-E-T-A by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    This is a beta release folks - remember that if you convert that newbie over to 1.5.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  105. Heh. by abulafia · · Score: 4, Funny
    Reminds me of a joke we repeat to each other.

    Consultant: No, what I'm asking is, do you want us to build the method that works, which you hired us to discover and spec out for you, or the broken one, for which you're now asking?
    Client: The broken one!
    Consultant: You're sure.
    Client: Are you billing me for this conversation?

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  106. Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Thank you for posting that. I wish more people would understand that GC is not some sort of resource management panacea, and stop relying on it as a crutch to support bad designs.

    Typically, GC prevents exactly one category of programmer error for exactly one type of resource: forgetting to release memory before your program ends. That category of error is one of the least dangerous anyway, since pretty much any modern OS will do it for you as a last resort.

    GC provides no guarantees against a poor design hogging memory while the program is still running, and often doesn't work well with resources other than memory. What really matters in a typical application is the timely release of all resources, and usually GC won't help with that.

    Remember, boys and girls, the first rule of resource management is that every resource must have an owner responsible for releasing it when it's no longer needed. If your ownership strategy isn't clear or the owner doesn't have the knowledge/ability to release its resource(s) promptly, then your design is beyond hope and no GC in the world will save you.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Exactly by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm the GPP os the thread. Read my post and you'll see that it clearly states it wouldn't cure all of the problems but it would help and its better than nothing. I said that the developers could still work on keeping the memory footprint down, but the GC would help.
      Regards,
      Steve

    2. Re:Exactly by arkanes · · Score: 1

      The Mozilla codebase already has a reference counting mechanism that handles GC as well as any C++ GC can. What you're suggest is a) not better than nothing and b) wouldn't help.

    3. Re:Exactly by p3d0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      GC also protects against dangling references, which is a more serious problem than a pure memory leak.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    4. Re:Exactly by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Typically, GC prevents exactly one category of programmer error for exactly one type of resource: forgetting to release memory before your program ends. That category of error is one of the least dangerous anyway, since pretty much any modern OS will do it for you as a last resort.

      Wrong. Many (most?) GC implementations don't bother to run a collection cycle at shutdown - precisely because the OS will clean up anyway, so there's no point.

      GC provides no guarantees against a poor design hogging memory while the program is still running, and often doesn't work well with resources other than memory.

      Oh dear, the old "it's not absolutely perfect so I will reject it out of hand" line. Yes, of course GC isn't a silver bullet. It's just another useful tool that makes it easier to write programs with fewer bugs in them. Yes, of course it doesn't magically remove every single possible cause of memory leaks. It just removes one large class of potential problems from the things the programmer has to worry about.

      And yes, GC doesn't solve the problem of handling resources other than memory. RAII cleans up file handles and stuff for you too. That's nice, I admit it. But there are other strategies that can handle this in a GC language. C#'s "using" statement, for example. And I don't know about the code you write, but in the code I write, the vast majority of objects do not represent any resource other than memory - so GC handles them just fine, thank you.

      If doctors were C++ programmers, we'd still have kids dying of easily treated diseases daily - after all, antibiotics don't cure viruses, so there's no point using them, is there?

    5. Re:Exactly by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      The Mozilla codebase already has a reference counting mechanism that handles GC as well as any C++ GC can.
      No, reference counting doesn't handle cycles as well as the Boehm conservative collector.
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    6. Re:Exactly by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      When read the docs for GLIBC I thought that it said that GLIBC only releases the task's heap when the task terminates. I.E. The heap will only grow while the task is running and never shrink. I might have miss read it or it might be out of date.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Many (most?) GC implementations don't bother to run a collection cycle at shutdown - precisely because the OS will clean up anyway, so there's no point.

      Some do, some don't. How does that make my actual claim (that GC is only really useful for addressing one class of programmer error) wrong?

      Oh dear, the old "it's not absolutely perfect so I will reject it out of hand" line.

      Not at all. But in C++, GC can actively get in the way, because (a) you then have (at least) two kinds of memory management going on, and (b) GC has natural conflicts with C++'s deterministic destruction approach that make it unsuitable for a lot of applications.

      If doctors were C++ programmers, we'd still have kids dying of easily treated diseases daily - after all, antibiotics don't cure viruses, so there's no point using them, is there?

      As opposed to applying a treatment that hides the symptoms but doesn't actually cure the illness six months late, I presume?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      GC also protects against dangling references, which is a more serious problem than a pure memory leak.

      Or, depending on your point of view, it hides the fact that your design is broken because you're trying to access data in one part of the code at a time when another part of the code thought that data wasn't useful any more.

      My problem with GC isn't that it doesn't fix every problem, it's that it sometimes hides problems so nothing else will fix them either.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Read my post and you'll see that it clearly states it wouldn't cure all of the problems but it would help and its better than nothing.

      Sure. Now I'm challenging that assumption. As I'm arguing elsewhere in this subthread, in C++, it's far from clear that GC helps, and it can actually be counter-productive compared to the alternatives.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    10. Re:Exactly by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Remember, boys and girls, the first rule of resource management is that every resource must have an owner responsible for releasing it when it's no longer needed.

      Remember, boys and girls, begging the question only works when everyone else is too polite to point out how stupid you sound.

      If your ownership strategy isn't clear or the owner doesn't have the knowledge/ability to release its resource(s) promptly

      No problem! The resource is owned by the GC, which has the knowledge and ability to release it properly, so all is well.

    11. Re:Exactly by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      How does that make my actual claim (that GC is only really useful for addressing one class of programmer error) wrong?

      It can be really hard to explain something that's already been made self-evident, but I'll try.

      You acknowledge that some GCs do not collect at shutdown. But you also claim that GCs accomplish nothing useful except terminal reclamation. Therefore, you are stating that a substantial segment of GCs have been authored for positively no reason whatsoever. And since programmers are rather loathe to do work for no reason (that would be absurd), it is much more likely that your earlier claim was simply wrong.

      As it is, for other reasons too. Your claims have been unfounded, supported by nothing more than your personal authoritativeness.

    12. Re:Exactly by Trillan · · Score: 1

      If doctors were C++ programmers, we'd still have kids dying of easily treated diseases daily - after all, antibiotics don't cure viruses, so there's no point using them, is there?

      Seriously flawed analogy. It's more like not trying two different antibiotics at once.

      There is a cure for memory leaks: debugging where the leak occurs and fixing it. Decent programmers (of which there are few) constantly monitor to make sure memory leaks don't last long.

    13. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Remember, boys and girls, the first rule of resource management is that every resource must have an owner responsible for releasing it when it's no longer needed.
      Remember, boys and girls, begging the question only works when everyone else is too polite to point out how stupid you sound.

      I wasn't begging the question at all. I would define a resource to be something that must be acquired before use and released afterwards. These are my axioms.

      No problem! The resource is owned by the GC, which has the knowledge and ability to release it properly, so all is well.

      Except that in practice, that's frequently not the case. GCs can involve very lengthy delays before releasing memory, and usually do not handle other resource types, as has been discussed elsewhere in this subthread.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    14. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      You acknowledge that some GCs do not collect at shutdown. But you also claim that GCs accomplish nothing useful except terminal reclamation.

      No, I claimed that the only class of programmer error they fixed was failure to release memory before the program terminated. That doesn't necessarily mean at termination; in a system that relies on GC, it may be necessary to collect earlier in order to release memory for other uses.

      However, GC-based systems are notorious for being memory hogs, because the requirements of other processes running concurrently may or may not be taken into account when deciding when to do this. They're also notorious for causing awkward delays, if the GC kicks in and does a whole load of housekeeping at an inopportune moment. These issues can make them a liability for either memory in a timely fashion or for managing other resource types at all, which rather constrains the classes of programmer errors they can possibly help to address.

      And since programmers are rather loathe to do work for no reason (that would be absurd), it is much more likely that your earlier claim was simply wrong.

      No, it would be a waste of time. It should be absurd in an ideal world, but since this kind of muppetry happens every day and there are even whole web sites devoted to programmers doing such daft things, apparently it isn't.

      It can be really hard to explain something that's already been made self-evident, but I'll try. [...] Your claims have been unfounded, supported by nothing more than your personal authoritativeness.

      For someone who obviously likes to argue logical fallacies, you're pretty much trying nothing but proof by intimidation. Go ahead, knock yourself out, but please don't imagine you're convincing anyone at this end.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    15. Re:Exactly by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1
      I think I understand why you and Minna Kirai are jumping on his post.

      If you generalize "program" as he uses it to mean "any code path which takes responsibility for allocated memory and then abandons it" (rather than taking it literally to mean, a process), his point is still valid: classic GC helps when your "program" forgets to release memory; still no cure for heap cancer.

      I'm seeing the names of fancy GC libraries being dropped in this thread, and I'm not familiar with all of them, but I would think any GC that's going to protect the heap by trying to outsmart me asynchronously with heuristic "observations" about my intentions, could be a big bitch of a bug for someone else to debug later on!

      I also don't see where the grandparent was claiming that GC should be rejected out of hand because it doesn't solve all memory problems. All he said was, it doesn't solve all memory problems. If you code like there isn't a safety net, you probably write better code. If a yeoman programmer grows up believing that merely using GC, or auto_ptr, or RAII, or popular-pattern-of-the-week will always save him, he stands to get sucked into the "aw, fuck it" (a.k.a. MaxRequestsPerChild) coding mentality. Broken windows, etc.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    16. Re:Exactly by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      I also don't see where the grandparent was claiming that GC should be rejected out of hand because it doesn't solve all memory problems.

      Neither do I, and I wrote it! :-)

      All he said was, it doesn't solve all memory problems. If you code like there isn't a safety net, you probably write better code. If a yeoman programmer grows up believing that merely using GC, or auto_ptr, or RAII, or popular-pattern-of-the-week will always save him, he stands to get sucked into the "aw, fuck it" (a.k.a. MaxRequestsPerChild) coding mentality. Broken windows, etc.

      I happen to believe that that's often true as well, and it's a very bad thing. However, since it's much harder to prove the "negative education" effect than it is to demonstrate concrete errors where a GC will hide the symptoms of a problem without curing it, I've stuck to the latter in this subthread.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    17. Re:Exactly by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      All he said was, it doesn't solve all memory problems.

      No, he said it solves one and only one problem, and a problem which is so obselete that solutions are usually worthless. Thus, he's saying that GC is worthless except on those uncommon systems where memory leaks last after a process ends. That claim is factually incorrect on multiple levels.

  107. 6.3% by Chaotic+Spyder · · Score: 1

    I run a webpage for a University Campus bar in Ontario. 90% IE and 6.3% firefox.

    --
    Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
  108. honest question by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

    If you have firefox installed on a linux system, and use the browser's upgrade feature, can you configure your linux distro's package manager to not downgrade the browser when you do a system update? Firefox's update feature might give you a newer version than what exists in, say, Gentoo's portage tree, or Mandrake's urpmi repository.

    --
    Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
  109. Crashy? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Will it crash less? Please?

    Failing that, will it remember what I was browsing, like Opera has done for umpteen versions, and restore that when the browser is restarted?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Crashy? by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      Extensions? Remember those? Right, get SessionSaver and stop whinning.

  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  111. Themes by dumeinst · · Score: 1

    When are they going to stop breaking the themes implementation with each version?? I'm not much of a coder, but shouldn't the hooks for themes stay more or less the same?

    1. Re:Themes by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Even themes that claim to support Deer Park, the immedite precursor to this beta, do not work in this release.

      It's a toss-up whether it's worth using this browser - I personally think it is worth it. I couldn't care less about themes. I use the Web Developer extension and Greasemonkey, but they're not vital. But what I get in exchange for giving up those things (temporarily) is way faster browsing. I can't believe how much faster this thing is than 1.0.6.

  112. Bug! by anupamsr · · Score: 1

    I have found a bug (probably). Does any body know where to report it? I am unable to find such a place on mozilla site.

    Btw, here are the screenshots of the problem: problem in scrolling down: 1 2

    Actually, please comment also wether it is a 'bug' enough to be reported?
    --
    I forgot to be anonymous.
    1. Re:Bug! by smiffy1976 · · Score: 1
  113. Speed issues by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

    I have been using Mozilla Browser, then firefox, then Deer Park, and have one consistent complaint. It takes an eternity to load. Unlike most who just want to complain, I would really like to have an intelligent discussion on how to speed up the process of openning up this browser.

    This is NOT flaimbait! I love mozilla products, but am bothered by this design flaw. Does this bother anyone else? Has anyone else solved this issue?

    Thanks in advance!

    --
    Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
    1. Re:Speed issues by cyborg_zx · · Score: 2, Informative

      I canne' change the laws of physics Capn'.

      The basic problem is that it is a big program and uses a lot of memory. The basic trick IE uses that makes its load-up times faster is that it doesn't really 'load-up' at all - its process it a permenant residence of Windows. However there is a quick start agent for Mozilla - I don't remember if they turned it off by default or something but they did have one. I'm not sure one exists for Linux either. It's all about sacraficing boot times vs. individual loading times though.

  114. The Rich Client by aCapitalist · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what is up with XPCOM and XUL? Coming from a c++, systems background i've always resisted this "webapp" crap, but obviously this is what the suits want.

    The question is, with Firefox being a 4 meg download on windows, how come Mozilla hasn't become a "platform"? I've heard shitty, changing interfaces, bad docs, etc...what's the scoop?

    For years, and years I've been talking about the "deployment" issue with my colleagues. Runtimes suck, but i'd love to have a total flexibility...eventually, where i can put a lot of client logic or not a lot of client logic, but the point is its my choice.

    Anyway, here's a cool XUL app that i'm sure many of you have seen......later on...i can't find it, but it's at spreadfirefox.com.

  115. Extensions by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Don't bother upgrading. All your extensions won't work. This has to be the biggest problem with firefox. Everytime I upgrade, a bunch of extensions stop working. Not because they don't work, but because whoever coded them says it only works with 1.0 to 1.0x. Isn't there a better solution, like checking what functionality the plugin uses, and if the functionality hasn't been removed, then it should work?

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  116. Re:Woohoo! - Not a troll by Threni · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    > But at version 1.06 if I still have random performance problems, memory
    > hogging.

    I don't have this problem. Perhaps you should speak to someone who is comfortable configuring PC software - perhaps they'll help you sort it out? Or file a report with the FF developers? Or wait for the next version to come out?

    > Personally, I want a browser that works well, is fast and supports all sites

    Do any browsers satisfy these conditions? Especially the last.

    > All these latest greatest features we keep talking about are not really
    > revolutionary, they have been implemented in other browsers (including opera)

    I don't keep talking about them, I just use them. Opera isn't free, and doesn't offer any advantage to me over what I get for free with FF.

    > I see a lot of arrogance among the developers/supporters.

    Who cares?

    > I WILL be modded as troll for this,

    Who cares?

  117. Re:Woohoo! - Not a troll by jp10558 · · Score: 1

    The problem is Opera isn't immune from this arrogance IMHO. I'm an Opera user, and I've used it for about 4 years now. During that time, there have been some seemingly simple requests that have been contiunously asked for and ignored.

    http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=36 9058&view=findpost&p=586499396

    is where I am right now. Although, I'm figuring that no matter what browser you use, there will be some really annoying things about it.

    --
    Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  118. Opening SVG Files by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

    First, make sure you have the Fx 1.5 Beta 1 (obviously). Now do you see these dialogs when going to my site (http://www.codedread.com/) or is it only local SVG files? If it is just local SVG files, see this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30358 1 that I filed with a workaround to fix this issue. If it solves the problem, go vote for that bug!

    1. Re:Opening SVG Files by dumeinst · · Score: 1

      The symptoms you described are identical. Tabs ad infinum when 'always use this action' is checked.
      However, I ALWAYS get the "open with" dialog (Local or remote) and I have removed the svg action from the file types. It must be something in my config. Thanks for your help though!

    2. Re:Opening SVG Files by jeff_schiller · · Score: 1

      Go to about:config and make sure svg.enabled is set to true. It is in the default download but perhaps you disabled it in an earlier install?

  119. Use Firefoxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ugliness has no place on the Mac desktop, even on the web.

    Use Firefoxy to make the widgets pretty on OS X. (Not Aqua pretty, but nice nonetheless.)

  120. Some can be forced to work by StonedRat · · Score: 1

    If you find the respective install.rdf file for the extension (it usually says inside which it is). In windows they're located:

    C:\Documents and Settings\WINDOWS_USER\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\profilename.default\ extensions\

    and change to 1.4, firefox will assume it works. This doesn't necessarily mean it will work though. I found the WebDev toolbar to break. But adblock works without needing to be modified.

    --
    "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
    1. Re:Some can be forced to work by StonedRat · · Score: 1

      Damn formatting broke it, should have used preview. here it is again:

      If you find the respective install.rdf file for the extension (it usually says inside which it is). In windows they're located:

      C:\Documents and Settings\WINDOWS_USER\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\profilename.default\ extensions\

      and change <em:maxVersion> to 1.4, firefox will assume it works. This doesn't necessarily mean it will work though. I found the WebDev toolbar to break. But adblock works without needing to be modified.

      --
      "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
  121. Indeed. Much FAAASSSSTTTTEEEERRRRR! by Zemplar · · Score: 1

    Just Get it.

    Thanks to all the contributors!

  122. 0xAD Bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know if 1.5beta1 is vulnerable to the 0xAD bug currently being reported on Internet Storm Center's Notes?

  123. Does this release allow disabling... by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    The Import Settings Wizard?

    While great for individuals migrating from another browser, this is a total PITA for anyone running a lab.

    <newb raises hand>Uh, what should I do with this box that popped up...?<repeat n times/day until postal>

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  124. Anyone get the beta for Linux to run? by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

    The first problem is that the wrong file is downloaded: firefox-1.5b1.tar.gz

    whereas the pattern I expected for the alpha was: firefox-1.5b1.installer.tar.gz

    When the file I downloaded was extracted it seemed to create a new firefox directory above the Desktop and the startup script calls the location where the alpha resides. Hence trying to run it brings up my Alpha 2 version. I attempted a source type installation where it failed immediately at the ./configure step. Anyone have any ideas how I can get the beta running?

    I already have a firefox-installer directory from my Alpha 2 installation, however, I cannot believe Mozilla can assume every tester will have had a previous test version installed.

    So far in most respects I find Deer Park even at the Alpha 2 stage better than 1.0.6, however, it is not without flaws. I woold like to see if some of the problems I encountered have been fixed.

    I am using Deer Park routinely, with the exception where I am trying to determine if I am really seeing a test browser problem or where a problem within Deer Park is too onerous.

    TIA

  125. preference dialogs like the mozilla suite by mcn · · Score: 1

    the preference is no more "simple and intuitive" like firefox 1.0.x. there is no "clear all" in the privacy tab. it's now more complicated, much like the original mozilla suite....

  126. about:mozilla by jimcooncat · · Score: 1

    I can't believe no one has reported the most important feature of a new Firefox release! What's it say?

  127. You mean auto break-all-yer-plugins by s88 · · Score: 1

    I never update right away, as it invariably either disables my plugins, or they break anyway. Until they stablize their plugin APIs... no thanks.

    1. Re:You mean auto break-all-yer-plugins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, nobody's forcing you to use a BETA. Frankly, nobody's forcing you to do anything.

      I'm using the beta and I'm lovin' it, to borrow a bit of McSpeak. The Mac version is much more Mac-like. It's fantastic. Plugins don't quite work, but who cares? The only one I DEPEND on is AdBlock, and it appears to be operational.

      As it happens, the other plugin I used most was TabBrowser, the functionality of which appears to have been integrated into 1.5b.

      So. You don't want to use it? Fine. Your decision. Your loss.

  128. Error pages by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

    Those error pages have been a looooooong time coming. Bug 28586 which is just the meta bug for the whole issue, was opened in 2000!

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28586

    (Copy and paste the URL as moz disables slashdot referrer).

    It's great to see them finally enabled in a release and working well - one of the last remaining minor points where IE was preferable.

    Congratulations and thanks to all those people who worked on delivering them!

    --
    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  129. Way to answer the wrong question. Attaboy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've renewed my faith in Slashdot. There's always one person who gives the answer to a question that is completely the opposite of what the OP asked. It's one of those constant, natural phenomena that is so re-assuring.

    The grandparent wasn't asking about viewing IE pages in Mozilla. He was pointing out that the Mozialla.org pages, while they render fine in standards-compliant browsers, break in IE. So in this case, we're not looking for a fix to Mozilla to view IE pages - we're looking for a fix to IE to view standards compliant pages correctly (and have been waiting for 6 years, alas).

  130. Let me see if I can understand this by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firefox and Mozilla have to deal with every quirk of IE's broken css support and none standard extensions because any website that renders in IE "correctly" but not in Firefox/Mozilla is the fault of Mozilla/Firefox?

    Now you are saying that the web designers for Firefox/Mozilla must not use w3c standard code because it does not look as good in IE as it does in Firefox? So when a website that doesn't render correctly in Firefox it is Firefox's fault but when a website doesn't render in correctly in IE even if that website is COMPLETELY w3c compliant it is the website's fault....
    Wow and people wonder why Microsoft is hated by so many knowledgeable computer users.

    "Since the same organization that made the page makes the software, it is conceivable that people would be turned away from FireFox on the assumption that people who produce broken web pages also produce broken programs."
    Unlike Microsoft that produces broken programs and websites?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  131. first thing i tested.. by Hohlraum · · Score: 1

    went to 'latest headlines' and did an 'Open in Tabs' .. the browser menus were still usable while all 25 or so headlines loaded. thats pretty nice in itself.

  132. Too bad... by Marthisdil · · Score: 0

    That 1.5 beta 1 has so many bugs in it, and if you weren't smart enough to back up your profile, you can't take your settings back to the earlier version.

    For me at least, most of my Firefox plugins are also disabled due to incompatability.

    One would think that they would have been smart and made the uninstall a lot better and not screwed things up. Ah well. They're developers - like most of them, they're pushed to push stuff out the door before it's ready. I'll wait a while before converting my main machines over to the newer version.

  133. new feature by Hoohoodilly · · Score: 1

    I've been using Deer Park Alpha for a while, mostly because I have a Athlon64 and the only 64-bit version of Firefox is based on the alphas. Since then I've started using it at work also and haven't run into any problems. My favorite 'new feature' is that links, when clicked on, will now automatically open in a new tab, instead of opening in the current tab. This annoyed me to no end in previous versions.

    1. Re: New feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm waiting for Opera's feature of charging money or showing ads to be encorporated...

      please send me a check, you insensitive clod!!!!

  134. Canvas tag = Bloat? by kumquathead · · Score: 1

    One of the new features in 1.5 is the support of tag (http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Drawing_Grap hics_with_Canvas). I thought firefox was about being fast, having a small memory footprint and letting users add bloat features through extensions. <canvas> tag is currently supported only on Safari, is not a W3C standard (unlike SVG), and I don't see why do I need to load its support stub/code into memory every time I want to browse the web.

    Can these sort of things be moved to extension land?

  135. Wait 'til they fix this, then download... by lpangelrob · · Score: 1
    Most likely will be a separate story in the Near Future, but worth posting now...

    Security-protocols.com issued an advisory for a Critical buffer-overflow problem. I was unable to reproduce it with the links they provided, however.

    Assuming this is confirmed as problem, wait 'til they fix it, then download the secured version. All versions of Firefox are affected.

  136. Auto-update isn't going to work! by Theovon · · Score: 1

    ... on *NIX where file permissions are set properly so that user apps cannot overwrite system files.

    How the hell are they going to solve THAT problem?

  137. anothing cool thing.. by Hohlraum · · Score: 1

    search plugins now get installed into your profile instead of the global application directories. looks like they are finally fixing all the little inconsistencies. good job guys!

  138. Did they fix the 2GB download limit? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    It would be nice to be able to download DVD isos with the premiere open source product.

    --
    This is my sig.
  139. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  140. Normal User Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome - because we all know how well auto-updating stuff goes. Take Windows, for example! :P

    Well, I run Windows as a Regular User (not "Power User or Administrator), so how will this AutoUpdate help me? Or is Firefox moving to the "All Windows users must be Admin User Only" crowd?

    The current Update doesn't even detect new version of the browser (availability) after a week or more of the release so that is no help at all.

  141. Has the pop-up bug been fixed? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    It really irks me that sites are somehow figuring out ways around the pop-up blocker.

    Usually casalemedia and fastclick are notorious for this.

    Has this issue been resolved yet?

    Also, couldn't you just... hardcode it to ignore ANY rendering from those sites (amongst others) since they're not really legit? :)

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  142. Will it work for Linux?? by ylikone · · Score: 1

    I want to know if updating via a little icon in the top right corner will now be working for Linux? I find that feature handy on my Windoze machines, but miss it on my Linux boxen.

    --
    Meh.
  143. did they fix this problem yet? by tacokill · · Score: 1

    My biggest gripe with FireFox is ONE bug. I have installed Firefox on every machine I touch and this issue has shown up on every installation -- so I know I am not alone. I've read the web and tried every solution offered with no success. And apparently, there are a LOT of people having this issue.

    The problem occurs when I leave Firefox up and running but minimize it to do other work. After some period of time (no pattern that I can recognize), FireFox will freeze when I restore the browser to my desktop. It will unfreeze after it gets done "processing" whatever it is doing. But it takes about 30sec - 1min for it to unfreeze. The problem is repeatable over and over again and it is unbelievably frustrating. I've hung in there and dealt with it up to now but it seems to be so goddamn common that I have a hard time understanding why the issue persists and Firefox has not fixed it yet.

    To reproduce the issue, open a /. thread and minimize it. Then after a while, restore the window to regular size. You should see the freeze.


    This may be the same memory leak issue that was mentioned above. If so, FIREFOX TEAM LISTEN UP: please fix this or many of us will be forced to go elsewhere.

    1. Re:did they fix this problem yet? by chuyskywalker · · Score: 1
      That is not a Firefox specific bug, pre se. It's a bug in the interaction between Firefox and Windows. The FF team let FF be 'memory friendly' to windows. This means that if you minimize FF and another program comes along and says "I need that memory", Firefox will give it up and go to page file. Coming out of page file is what you are waiting that 30-60 seconds for.

      There IS a fix though. ( Taken from http://windowssecrets.com/comp/041202/ )

      Tweaks for the ultimate in performance

      There are several settings and options that can make Firefox run as a much faster browser. You should test these techniques before you roll them out to, say, a thousand workstations in your company.

      Speeding up the maximizing of Firefox By default, when you minimize Firefox, it gives back to Windows most of the RAM the browser was using. It sometimes can take several seconds for the browser window to become fully loaded when you restore the window to its original size. This is one of those "version 1.0" things, in my opinion, that will become more streamlined in future bump revs of the program.

      Fortunately, there's a hidden setting that can accomplish the restoration of Firefox windows much more quickly:

      Step 1. Use about:config to create a new, Boolean value. Type or paste the following string into the dialog box that appears:

      config.trim_on_minimize

      Step 2. Click OK to close the dialog box. Change the value from "true" to "false" and restart Firefox.

      This doesn't piggishly retain all of the RAM that Firefox has claimed. If Windows needs more RAM to devote to another application, Windows can take it. What the setting does is prevent Firefox from giving up most of its RAM until the memory is actually required elsewhere.

      Setting this item to "false" may noticeably slow down other applications while Firefox is minimized, if your PC has less than 256 MB of RAM. If so, change the setting back to "true."

      There's an extremely long discussion about the development of this trick, going back to March 2004 (and continuing up through today), in Bugzilla bug report #76831. If you're determined to delve into this, I'd recommend starting with comment 329.
    2. Re:did they fix this problem yet? by tacokill · · Score: 1

      "That is not a Firefox specific bug, pre se. It's a bug in the interaction between Firefox and Windows"

      Well, maybe it's not a Firefox bug. But Firefox is the ONLY application that I have ever seen with this problem.

      Opera doesn't have it. IE doesn't have it. So I disagree with you as to who's issue it really is. Seems fairly obvious that it's a Firefox-only issue.

      But thanks for the solution. I will give that a shot and see what happens. If it solves this problem, then you sir -- get the gold star award. :-)

    3. Re:did they fix this problem yet? by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      On my P4-3gig with 1gig ram box and SATA drives, XP boots faster than FF comes back up after being minimized for a while. There's no way that the wait it simply reloading from paging file.

  144. To fix memory leak by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

    read this : http://fusion94.org/archives/2005/07/firefox_memor y.html

    1)Type about:config into the location bar and press enter
    2)Right click any line to bring up a sub-menu
    3)Choose "new">"integer"
    4)paste this into the dialogue that appears: browser.cache.memory.capacity
    5)Next click Okay
    6)Specify the amount in kb (about 60000 should do) in the next dialogue that appears
    7)Restart Firefox and happy surfing.

    --
    Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
    1. Re:To fix memory leak by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the source code that reads that preference, it really looks like that fix is entirely bogus.

      1259 /**
      1260 * CacheMemoryAvailable
      1261 *
      1262 * If the browser.cache.memory.capacity preference is positive, we use that
      1263 * value for the amount of memory available for the cache.
      1264 *
      1265 * If browser.cache.memory.capacity is zero, the memory cache is disabled.
      1266 *
      1267 * If browser.cache.memory.capacity is negative or not present, we use a
      1268 * formula that grows less than linearly with the amount of system memory.
      1269 *
      1270 * RAM Cache
      1271 * --- -----
      1272 * 32 Mb 2 Mb
      1273 * 64 Mb 4 Mb
      1274 * 128 Mb 8 Mb
      1275 * 256 Mb 14 Mb
      1276 * 512 Mb 22 Mb
      1277 * 1024 Mb 32 Mb
      1278 * 2048 Mb 44 Mb
      1279 * 4096 Mb 58 Mb

      1280 *
      1281 * The equation for this is (for cache size C and memory size K (kbytes)):
      1282 * x = log2(K) - 14
      1283 * C = x^2 - x + 2
      1284 */

      You're setting it to a higher value than what it would be have if you had 4GB of RAM.

  145. When IE couldn't display it's own website. by seanmceligot · · Score: 1

    At least the site is still functional in IE. I remember when you couldn't use IE's website from the version of IE that came with Windows NT. You had to download another browser that was capable of displaying IE's website and then download the latest IE.

  146. I'm never done browsing. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Browsing is a continually ongoing process. I'm not constantly at the browser but it keeps track of the process. I never close out my Explorer folders either.

  147. Windows media? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    I've been using 1.06 for a while now, and upon upgrading, my windows media is now completely broken. Has anyone else had this problem?

    1. Re:Windows media? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      Answering my own question - Adblock was still installed. Disabling it made WMP work fine again, but of course, Firefox still has the fun little flash popup issue - anybody thinking about fixing that one of these days?

      Anyway, I guess you get both video playback AND popups or you get neither. AWESOME.

    2. Re:Windows media? by Packet+Pusher · · Score: 1

      Use flashblock

    3. Re:Windows media? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1
      Google is now implanting itself firmly in Firefox - which is way uncool. If MS behaved like this, we'd have a freakout.

      From Google watch:

      When a Firefox user clicks on an ad from a Google-box search, Mozilla gets a cut of Google's profit. A couple of months ago it was discovered that Google is also prefetching the top result for all searches done from the Google search box. This means you end up with cookies from sites you never visit, and much bandwidth is wasted in the process. Fortunately, you can disable this "feature" by entering about:config in the address bar and then scrolling down to network.prefetch-next and toggling it to false. You can also change the default search box to any of nearly 2,000 plug-ins that can be downloaded from Mozilla.

      There are other Google connections in Firefox. If you enter search terms in the location bar instead of a web URL address, Firefox goes to Google and picks off the top link, and takes you directly to that site. A surprising percentage of web surfers don't know the difference between a location bar and a search box, which makes this is a major concession to Google. If you try the same thing in Explorer, you get a search preview from MSN, but you aren't sent directly to the top site. Microsoft's behavior is less intrusive because it gives the user more options, and therefore has less of an impact on traffic patterns. Google and Firefox are behaving the way that Microsoft used to behave in the days when it forced manufacturers to bundle certain software. This behavior is unacceptable.

      If you don't wear tin-foil, you haven't been paying attention.
      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    4. Re:Windows media? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Didn't know about the prefetch thing, thanks. I thought Google was essentially proxying cookies at me (I never had a clear idea of how I believed it was being done, but frankly, it didn't seem unreasonable to me that they could do that if they chose to), and it seemed really sleazy. Now that I know Mozilla is doing it, I still find it just as sleazy. Cookies initiated "fairly" at least get a duration-of-session acceptance. Those set "unfairly" get a lifetime block.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  148. Firefox != Security Flaw by TetryonX · · Score: 1

    Firefox isn't a security flaw.
    Would you rather have IPC open as an RPC? No. They bind to 127.0.0.1 for IPC (restricting it to local traffic only). Security +1. If you think this is bad, how do you think two processes of firefox talk to each other and realize "Oh... I'm already running, rather than starting another copy, I'll tell the other to load xxx page/new window"

    Then you got another socket for internet. You don't really need this, but without this firefox is sorta restricted to intranet/local browsing.

    Just be happy they don't leave an open RPC.

    --
    [!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
  149. Re:Woohoo! - Not a troll by GweeDo · · Score: 1

    "Well, there goes my karma, I WILL be modded as troll for this, but had to get it out"

    Ahhhh...the ninja art of "Bye Bye Karma" Karma Whoring....

  150. except it doesn't work ... by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

    What you wrote would be true if there was no memory leak but that is not the case, the algorithm does *not* work like expected.

    If you do not set browser.cache.memory.capacity, the memory used on your system can grow limitless. It has been seen by many users, just search "firefox memory leak" on the web.

    Now you can set it to a lower number if you want or need it.

    --
    Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
  151. Re: I would expect the WYSIWYG editor to be used.. by Eric+Coleman · · Score: 1

    I would expect the WYSIWYG editor to be used on the mozilla web site is either the html editior in the 'suite' application or possibly the gecko based Nvu.

    There's some irony in there somewhere.

  152. First impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - It's faster.
    - The new error screens are simpler, clearer.
    - Love drag-n-drop reordering of tabs.
    - Love Ctrl+Shift+Delete to delete all private data.
    - Options dialog is cleaner.
    - Just discovered and *love* the option to "Allow text to be selected with the keyboard" on Tools->Options->General!!! How long has this been there? Why didn't you tell me?

  153. Ah, nifty. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    The last time I saw an extension to do that, it had to manually save the state. Not terribly useful for crash protection. Thanks!

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Ah, nifty. by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      One needs to remember that just because something didn't exist in the Open Source world last week doesn't mean it doesn't exist now. I'm constantly astonished by the rapid development of some of the bigger Open Source projects - Linux in particular.

  154. The Sad Thing About Opera by podperson · · Score: 1

    Even with the free license, it's just plain ugly. It has a UI that isn't worthy of a professional application, both in terms of eye appeal and low level attention to detail.

    Do some decent UI design, make it free as in beer, and Opera might be a contender.

  155. An SVG app I wrote... by spike2131 · · Score: 1

    Here's an SVG sample I wrote myself: SVG Electoral Vote Calculator

    I'm thrilled with the SVG support in this browser - IE's Adobe plugin not withstanding, this is the first browser that I've been able to get that page working in without a hitch. Should open the door to some more widespread SVG development goodness, once this browser gains popularity.

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:An SVG app I wrote... by AnamanFan · · Score: 1

      There's an app I'm working on that would be perfect for SVG. Saddly the computer labs won't have any SVG support till next fall, and the application is due in Febuary.

      --
      AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
  156. Wrong version number by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    That's actually "4.0.1". There's a subtle-but-important difference, mainly that 4.1 doesn't exist outside CVS yet.
    </pedant>

    Sorry, but I see that mistake a lot, even among people that should be familiar with x.y.z version numbers. I know people who will think that Firefox 1.5 is less recent than 1.0.6 (which they mentally abbreviate to 1.06 -> 1.6).

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Wrong version number by (1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1) · · Score: 1
      That's actually "4.0.1".
      Interesting; though I suppose that's understandable, given that 4.01 occasionally appears at gnu.org.
  157. Official branding but extension nastiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike the Deer Park Alphas, this comes with official branding. How handy.

    However, I'm a little pissed that once again Mozilla have decided to radically jump the version number (as in extensions) the night before (this build is identified as 1.4) which means for most users upgrading it'll disable all their extensions, claiming they're incompatible. They're not obviously, they worked fine on last weeks build - it's quite rare extensions are badly incompatible (only in major trunk development, not the night before a build). I imagine most developers, like me, had their extensions marked as compatible (maxversion) 1.0+ or maybe even 1.1+

    In future Mozilla, us extension developers would appreciate some advanced warning before doing this, because now we have some million users mailing us asking why the extension won't work. We are half the functionality, so treat us nice please :)

    So, don't upgrade quite yet unless you can bump the maxversion tag in install.rdf in the .xpi (ha ha these days I bet most users don't).

  158. What about fixing the BSOD with oversized images ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  159. Re:Auto update! - Great ... IF it works by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    Same here... KB823353 is the only thing showing up in my AutoUpdates, and I've probably installed it 5 times...

    It seems that it's a well documented problem, as well...

    (KB897715 appears to be the update that causes the problem, as it has to be installed AFTER 823353...)

  160. WTF! by smiffy1976 · · Score: 1

    Just checked my own link, seems that Bugzilla rejects referalls from /. Any ideas why?

    1. Re:WTF! by anupamsr · · Score: 1

      No idea. But thanks anyway. I will copy paste it to other tab :)

      --
      I forgot to be anonymous.
  161. Re:Doesn't Fix Splitting Absolutely Positioned Fra by drew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    only 2002? pfft!!!

    this bug:
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458
    has been open since 1999 and has over 150 votes. and quite frankly, i don't think the votes mean much. i remember reading a quote from a major maintainer saying that he might consider how many votes a bug had if it was something in the tens of thousands. (this was about two years ago, regarding the most voted on bug in bugzilla, with a little over 500 votes. and still open, by the way...)

    and as much as i like mozilla/firefox and appreciate the work that the developers are putting into it, i still find it ridiculous how they will frequently mass move bugs that they don't feel like fixing (even ones marked as release blockers) from one release to the next. the bug above was originally targetted for mozilla milestone M9...

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  162. valgrind, anyone???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just use valgrind on it?? it will find any memory leak in your program easily.

  163. A reason for using Firefox instead of Safari by frehe · · Score: 1

    I'm still using Safari 1.3.1, so I'm not familiar with the latest versions of it. Is there anything in the latest versions of Safari which does the open-these-multiple-links-in-tabs trick that the Linky extension does for Firefox? I find that trick to be very useful in general, and a must have feature for some surfing in particular.

  164. Pigs is pigs by tepples · · Score: 1

    The nonstandard grammar of "bugs is bugs" was more than likely an allusion to Pigs Is Pigs by Ellis Parker Butler.

  165. But it's not bug-for-bug by tepples · · Score: 1

    True, both IE's Trident engine and Firefox's Gecko engine have a quirks mode, and they're triggered in similar ways, but Firefox's quirks mode doesn't emulate the box model bugs in IE's quirks mode.

  166. Notepad Nazi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Nuff said.

  167. Are you joking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera's user interface is a work of art! It behaves naturally, the shortcuts and gestures are easy to learn, and the themes are lovely.

  168. Re:Doesn't Fix Splitting Absolutely Positioned Fra by OpenServe · · Score: 1

    The history and severity of this bug does not reflect well on the Mozilla browser or its open source development model.

    Somebody needs to set up a webpage where we can all pool donations to be specifically allocated to folks who volunteer fix these sorts of tough bugs and annoyances. It is obvious that the Mozilla team doesn't respond to vote count in any reliable fashion. However, if there was some money on the line, I bet they'd bite. Frankly, the Mozilla guys are doing a pretty good job and they deserve the compensation regardless. But it's fact that people are more willing to 'donate' when they get something in return. Is fixing bug 154892 worth $50 to me personally? No, but I'd be willing to donate that much to a "bug 154892 bounty" because I know it will support a hard working developer while also guaranteeing that a pet peeve is eliminated.

    Good things are always worth paying for..

  169. Re:IE 7 is... by Toba82 · · Score: 1

    Oh well, I guess nobody knows about something called a joke here.

    --
    I pretend to know more than I really do by mooching off google and wikipedia.
  170. Reworked and "Improved" Options? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

    Was there an issue with the options layout before? Did they receive complaints about the layout or is this another example of change for the sake of change?

    I used to be able to clear all my browsing history from the same page, now history, cookies, cache are all on separate tabs.

    1. Re:Reworked and "Improved" Options? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, I just found Tools->Clear private Data.

  171. Uhmmmm... line spacing in bookmarks??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I installed this, it blew away all my old Firefox (BAD MOVE) and among the many visual disasters is the new "extra wide" spacing between the items in the bookmarks list. What's going on, did someone decide to make FX1.5 by porting the GTK engine?