Slashdot Mirror
Firefox for Intel Macs Planned for March
daria42 writes "Although there are unofficial builds already available, Mozilla will release an official version of Firefox for Intel Mac OS X in March, developer Josh Aas says. There are only a couple of minor bugs to work through, such as Flash and Java support."
Looks like the trolls have bitten even at the first post.
Aaaaanyways, what I was actually going to say was that it shouldn't really matter that much, speedwise, whether or not there is an OSX86-native binary of Firefox or not, what with all of the good speed tests I've read. Either way, that's a pretty darn good schedule for *any* piece of software - completely up to date with totally new hardware within 2 or so months.
Congrats to the Firefox team!
"We are targeting the official release of Firefox for Intel Mac OS X in late March with the Firefox 1.5.0.2 update," Mozilla software engineer Josh Aas told ZDNet Australia.
One thing I enjoy about Free Software organizations, but especially Mozilla, is that they give plenty of information about their release goals and we can trust them. After all, we can just download the nightly files and make our own, or check on the progress.
It would be interesting to see a comparision of target dates set by companies, and see how well the initial target date was met. Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Mozilla vs. Opera for instance.
--
Stop Sparky's brain from being probed by Bush
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Flash and Java support are NOT minor bugs.
I'm really disappointed in the PPC version of FireFox. It's slow and chews up RAM. I've gone back to Safari, however am underwhelmed by the lack of ad-blocking plugins. PithHelmet is OK, but something like the AdBlock plugin for Firefox would be much nicer.
I hope it's faster than the PPC version, because that's the main reason I'm still using Safari as my primary browser.
I have a feeling that the slowness has to do more with Aqua and Cocoa then with the processor.
camino follows the MAc GUI guidelines, firefox runs on many platforms and so it has to somewhat create it's own rules since it can never follow all at once without being inconsistant across platforms. one of the greatest things about firefox is that it is almost exactly the same on any platform.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Hard as it is to believe, some people actually *want* Flash! For example, I watch Homestar Runner cartoons, which need Flash. (Although I'm not on OSX86.)
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
But it isn't about the look. It's about the feel. Seriously, I'm not trying to be funny; things in Firefox just don't behave the way they're supposed to, no matter the theme. For instance, passwords aren't stored in the Keychain. Text areas aren't native widgets and so feel alien to the Mac--no Cocoa spellcheck, for one thing. Finally, Gecko's text rendering is just plain shit: drunken, syncopated kerning and inconsistent antialiasing are just two of the more blatant problems.
Camino doesn't suffer from these problems. Somehow it even overcomes Gecko's text problems.
If you didn't want things like Flash, you wouldn't be buying a Mac anyway.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Its funny how for years people have been petitioning Macromedia and now Adobe for and amd64 version of their flash player and have only weeks ago been told in a developers blog that amd64 is unofficaly planned after the flash 8.5 release for Linux x86. I am curious about Java though, I thought apple provided that in their OS.
Yeah, that's exactly it. Never mind the fact that "desktop Linux" requires you load GTK, Qt, and god knows how many other libraries because everyone insists on using some obscure package nothing else uses. Never mind the fact that there aren't teams of developers optimizing all the code that runs on startup (unlike, say, Apple and MS). Never mind the fact that virtual memory management in Linux is good enough that it hardly affects anything from a usability standpoint. Never mind the fact that you can set up a lightweight WM that cuts out the fat.
And if programmers upgrade every six months, why are so many Linux packages still i386?
Because a web browser isn't the only app I use. I use software on each of these platforms that isn't available (at least not always conveniently) on the others. But regardless of which machine I have in front of me, I like being able to use roughly the same methods to open and close web browser tabs, etc.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The Mozilla project didn't have the resources to maintain separate ports for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. They switched from CFM to Mach-O in order to get much better performance on Mac OS X, but since Mach-O binaries can't run on Mac OS 9, support for that OS had to go.
If you think you can back-port Firefox to Mac OS 9, go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to help you, though.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Hmm..i guess if you're basing your judgment of obsolescence purely on 64-bit versus 32-bit processing. Let's take the topic of this thread stick to it, Firefox is not going to be obsolete because of the lack of 64-bit processing. Neither are a host of other programs.
In fact, benchmarks suggest that 64-bit processing is slower for certain applications. However, put the benchmarks aside and just look at the market today, there are as many 32-bit desktops being sold as 64 and no onee is calling them obsolete.
You need to make your purchase decision on what you're going to use the laptop for. Personally, I'm a hobbyist photographer, hobbyist programmer and full time network engineer. The many features of the MacBook will incresae my efficiency and let me do my full time job. I will not suffer for lack of 64-bit processing.
Take a look at what you need, if 64-bit on a laptop is what you desperately need, then please hang on until next year!
So IE:Mac needs another nail?
There's plenty enough nails in that coffin already, surely.
The pun was stupid, though. Expressing it in TeX was cool, and I enjoyed that..but TeX for a visual pun, not a mathematical insight!? That's not funny, it's stupid. The humor is in seeing the rotated 5 written like an infinity sign and seeing the connection, not in seeing \rotatebox{90}{5}. I wouldn't've gotten it if I hadn't known about the pun before.
But there is no (recent/decent) Opera version for OS9. For classic I'd recommend iCab 3 beta - it's pretty usable and passes Acid2 test.