Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 3 In Alpha

illeism writes to note that, a mere six weeks after the launch of Firefox 2, Firefox 3 is now available in alpha. CNet reports that it is currently recommended only for software developers and testers. The big change is the upgraded Gecko rendering engine (the UI is unchanged from version 2). From the CNet article: "Firefox 3 will include some significant changes. It uses version 1.9 of the Gecko rendering engine — which itself hasn't been released yet but which includes the Cairo graphics layer. Gecko 1.9 has been in development since before the release of Firefox 2, and it provides vector-based rendering on all platforms. As the Gecko 1.9 road map explains, Cairo will 'bring modern, hardware-accelerated 2D-graphics capabilities to the whole of the Web without requiring proprietary plug-ins or rendering obsolete the broad and rich set of Web-authoring techniques developed over the past decade.'"

51 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. It's not really a Firefox alpha by davidmcg · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's more of an alpha of Gecko than of Firefox. There's no front end changes in this release, all the changes are to the backend which are shared with all Gecko browsers (Camino, Seamonkey and other Gecko apps like Thunderbird).

    Development has been going on the trunk since the Gecko 1.8 was branched (sometime in 2005) - Gecko 1.8 was the basis of Firefox 2 and 1.5. So there's a lot of backend work been going on that's not been tested by a wider audience. While lots of frontend changes were made on the branch for Firefox 2, most of the backend work was restricted to the trunk.

    Future alphas and betas will have more UI changes in them so can more accurately be called Firefox alphas.

    1. Re:It's not really a Firefox alpha by MemoryDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is more than ie7 was, ie7 was a frontend change with only a handful of bugfixes in the backend, and even the top 10 list of worst bugs was not fully fixed.

    2. Re:It's not really a Firefox alpha by CubicleView · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, the fact that all the "new" features in IE7 were implemented in the front end was news to me, thanks for the info. However would it not be better to argue how this release fits in the generally accepted definition of an alpha release http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release rather than flogging a dead horse, just because it happened to be in the same field?

  2. will not run.. by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

    > this release will not run on Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.

    That's nothing. IE7 doesn't even work on Windows 2000!

    1. Re:will not run.. by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > face up to the fact that technology advances, software changes, and no matter how much they love their old machine/OS, they're going
      > to get left behind.

      I don't love my old OS, but I have to use it (sometimes) at work because it's the OS that deployed apps use. No point in retesting huge apps on different OS's just to get a new browser. It doesn't bother me - I now use Firefox on those machines anyway. It seems a little odd, though. Aren't browsers just displaying text and graphics, and running scripts? (I don't include plugins such as Flash and Qtime as the run as seperate executable code invoked by the browser).

      > Backwards compatibility leads to backwards thinking.

      Hmm. You could also write "Pointlessly adopting new technology leads to the need for frequent bug fixes and faster CPUs".

    2. Re:will not run.. by wwwojtek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Backwards compatibility leads to backwards thinking.

      It depends on the stage of development. Knowing that you'll have to maintain backward compatibility leads to forward thinking - you have to design in a way that makes it feasible

    3. Re:will not run.. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shame really, 2000 is a decent OS (and I'm still going to have it around for a bit.)

      But I guess it's time to start getting on the horse with Linux, because it's also the last MS OS I'll be using.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:will not run.. by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Wait, you're web browsing on machines that are kept around for no reason other than running legacy apps? Why the hell would you do
      > that

      Because it's the machine I use to support and maintain the code? Why do you think I'm doing it?

      > why the hell would you do it so much that you're complaining that Firefox 3 isn't going to support your system?

      Where did I complain that FireFox3 isn't going to run on Windows 2000?

      > Sounds like your workplace has issues.

      Sounds like you have problems with basic English comprehension.

    5. Re:will not run.. by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Informative

      When will people learn that you have to buy a completely new machine and set of applications every couple of years!?

      About the same time that people get rid of their AS/400 machines.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  3. Too bad by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because of the new Gecko code, this release will not run on Windows 95, 98, or ME, or OS X 10.2 or earlier.

    One of the great strengths of OSS compared to proprietary software is the ability to make use of older hardware. Not so with this new release of Firefox. But then it's the same with other "heavyweights" like KDE, so I guess there's a trend there. That's too bad...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Too bad by linuxci · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's because cairo is not compatible with win9x they decided that it wasn't worth the effort to support this platform any more (they still support Win2k - they only dropped support because supporting win9x was holding them back). If anyone is able to contibute coding skills to make it work they have no problem accepting it. It's a technical rather than a political decision.

    2. Re:Too bad by makapuf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why ? To each program its own target.
      KDE has never been "for older hardware". However, perfectly nice & actively developed Desktop Environment exist for older hw (xfce by ex.).
      Same here, OpenSource is about making use of older codebase, so nothing prevents anybody to patch FF2.x !

    3. Re:Too bad by MountainMan101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the great strengths of OSS compared to proprietary software is the ability to make use of older hardware.

      This doesn't happen automagically when you license something by GPL (or similar). It takes work. The strength of OSS is that no one is stopping you from making it work on older hardware. All the code for older firefox versions, and the code for gecko 1.9 is available. Just because Mozilla team is dropping support doesn't mean they won't add patches to fix this if someone else does it. Now compare that with say Windows Vista - you have no way of patching that to run on an old 386.

      Moral of the story... don't be so quick to bitch about stuff.

    4. Re:Too bad by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, I guess you're right. There was a time when OSS software was the solution of choice for those who didn't want to throw away semi-obsolete hardware in working order to dance the Microsoft forced upgrading dance. I suppose this means OSS solutions have gained enough traction and have become credible enough that they justify requiring newer hardware to run them, which is good.

      I'm aware of xfce and blackbox and the likes, they are nice, but if you want to run mainstream software that require KDE libraries, you're still hosed.

      But in the case of FF for Windows, the problem is that Win9x users (and there are many left) will find themselves in the same situation they were with IE: they'll have to keep running the latest older version of the browser that works with their OS, which will quickly become out of date. I'm sure the FF/Gecko guys have perfectly good technical reasons to leave the old platform behind, but in a sense I hope someone will fork off a Win9x tree of FF and keep developing it, otherwise it would mean OSS is no better than Microsoft with regard to software obsolescence.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Too bad by ari+wins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I understand your gripe, let me introduce you to Firefox 2.0. It was just released, and likely going to be around for a long enough time to outlast your computer with the P200 chip w/MMX technology that still has windows 98 installed.

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    6. Re:Too bad by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, I guess you're right. There was a time when OSS software was the solution of choice for those who didn't want to throw away semi-obsolete hardware in working order to dance the Microsoft forced upgrading dance. I suppose this means OSS solutions have gained enough traction and have become credible enough that they justify requiring newer hardware to run them, which is good.
       
      I'm aware of xfce and blackbox and the likes, they are nice, but if you want to run mainstream software that require KDE libraries, you're still hosed.
       
      But in the case of FF for Windows, the problem is that Win9x users (and there are many left) will find themselves in the same situation they were with IE: they'll have to keep running the latest older version of the browser that works with their OS, which will quickly become out of date. I'm sure the FF/Gecko guys have perfectly good technical reasons to leave the old platform behind, but in a sense I hope someone will fork off a Win9x tree of FF and keep developing it, otherwise it would mean OSS is no better than Microsoft with regard to software obsolescence.
        So how long are they suppose to be supporting the Win9x OSes? 2 more years? 5? 10? 20? Until there aren't any more Win9x users? But if all of the Win9x users have their OSS software continue to support Win9x, what incentive do they have to upgrade? They obviously don't care about bugs or viruses if they're still using Win9x software after all these years.
    7. Re:Too bad by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But in the case of FF for Windows, the problem is that Win9x users (and there are many left) will find themselves in the same situation they were with IE: they'll have to keep running the latest older version of the browser that works with their OS, which will quickly become out of date.

      If lots of people run Firefox on old PCs, there will be lots of people to develop patches for Fx 2.x.

      It works the same as any open source project. The more common the scenario of your use of the project, the more likely lots of other people will be working on it.

      In other words, you have nothing to worry about if in fact lots of people run Fx 2.x on old PCs.
    8. Re:Too bad by mwaggs_jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I didn't see anything about FF3 not running on older hardware, only older OS's. I have a laptop that shipped with Win98 on it, and it will run FF3 with no problem I am sure, since it is now running a very modern version of Linux. If you want FF3 and you are running ME, just drink the koolaid and install Linux.

      --
      No one here gets out alive
    9. Re:Too bad by crazyjimmy · · Score: 2, Informative

      So how long are they suppose to be supporting the Win9x OSes? 2 more years? 5? 10? 20? Until there aren't any more Win9x users? But if all of the Win9x users have their OSS software continue to support Win9x, what incentive do they have to upgrade? They obviously don't care about bugs or viruses if they're still using Win9x software after all these years.

      How do you reach that conclusion? Win9x isn't any more virus prone than WinXP (in fact, you could argue it is less so since it's no longer the main target). As far as bugs, it has it's share, but again, so does WinXP (I just did an fresh install of XP on my wife's computer that didn't take, and is causing all sorts of minor headaches like disabling the sound server every-other time the comp is started).

      What 9x has that XP does not is full Dos support. No biggie if you only want to do the latest of the late, but some members of my family have been buying and using software for decades, and would rather keep using what they know and understand rather than buying the latest, less-useful bit.

      Geez, stop being a software bigot :D :D

      --Jimmy
    10. Re:Too bad by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Informative
      So how long are they suppose to be supporting the Win9x OSes? 2 more years? 5? 10? 20? Until there aren't any more Win9x users? But if all of the Win9x users have their OSS software continue to support Win9x, what incentive do they have to upgrade? They obviously don't care about bugs or viruses if they're still using Win9x software after all these years.

      Until there's a good technical reason not too? It's not your responsibility to give people incentives to upgrade. In a lot of cases it makes more sense to continue using an already working system than to upgrade for upgrading's sake. And if viruses were a concern, they wouldn't be using any version Windows.

      As another poster said, there's a good technical reason for Firefox no longer supporting older Windows. But when there's not, with a little care while programming, software for Win XP will usually run on Windows 9x without modification, so why not support it?

    11. Re:Too bad by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a feeling that the 2.x.x branch of Firefox will live on for a very long time, and will continue having bugfix and security updates. If you're running Win98, it will certainly not be the weak point in your system in terms of security or stability! My point is that if by your standards you consider Win98 good enough to use, there will always be a version of Firefox that far exceeds your standards. And I mean, by many miles.

    12. Re:Too bad by swthomas55 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some "real world" stats:

      According to the stats we collect at www.jstor.org, Win98 accounts for 1.4% of our hits (appx 2.1 million out of 151 million so far this month), but they account for only 0.6% of the Firefox users. Both Win95 and WinME are below 0.1%.

      Mac OS X (all versions) is about 9% (the user-agent string, which is what we use for this analysis, doesn't distinguish versions of OS X, so I don't know how many of these are 10.2 or earlier).

    13. Re:Too bad by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Proprietary software can support old hardware, too. They just choose not to.

      OSS software can support old hardware, as well. More often, they choose to. But not always. Why can't I run Firefox on Commodore 64 or an Altair? Because I haven't downloaded the source code, written the missing parts that would enable the trunk code to be ported to $myplatform, and recompiled it.

      You want legacy hardware support? If you're one of the few people still using something that old, and no one else wants to support it, hire a developer.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    14. Re:Too bad by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People worried about security updates for their browser shouldn't be using operating systems that get no security updates -- namely, Windows 95 and Windows 98.

      There are a number of security issues in your OS that no browser can smooth over.

      On the other hand, Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 6, Xandros 3, NetBSD, and Mac OS X 10.2 all run reasonably well on 500Mhz systems with 256MB of RAM (albeit OS X on a 500Mhz Mac instead of a PC). I haven't run Solaris, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD much recently, but I'd bet you could get at least Solaris and OpenBSD to run comfortably on that type of system, too. Other than OS X, all of these are available for free (as in beer) download. Some do have commercial versions with more support. OS X generally comes with the hardware that runs it, although a 500Mhz system probably originally came with OS 9 instead.

      If you really want old, I have a 386sx 16Mhz laptop with 5MB of RAM and an 80MB HD running SmallLinux with Links. Perhaps I should complain that there's no support for OpenGL 2.0 on my system or something...

    15. Re:Too bad by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? You mean it doesn't support MS DOS 3.0 anymore? BOO FIREFOX!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  4. Cairo by astralbat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Glad to hear that the rendering will now get some hardware accerlation. Does anyone know how faster this will be? Will it lead to smoother scrolling as on my Linux machine 'smooth scrolling' is very jerky - especially so with flash adverts.

  5. Acid2 by savala · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before someone else brings it up, no, this doesn't pass acid2. Purposefully, as the build from two days later does. This Gecko alpha (not Firefox alpha) was released so there'd be a good reference for people to test with before several rather major changes were landed on trunk, one of which was the reflow branch that made Gecko pass the acid2 test.

    1. Re:Acid2 by luserSPAZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let me know when you've got that regression test suite done that tests the entire internet. I'm sure we can get it checked into CVS. Thanks!

  6. Re:gecko 1.9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >> It sounds like something is wrong with that.
    Yes. What's wrong is having users who still scream for compatibility with their old OS. XP was out in 2001. Win2000 was out in '99. That's 7 years. I really doubt much software when Win2000 was RTMd was still compatible with Windows 3.0 of 1992...
    For how many years should we cripple innovation in open source projects just to support DOS 3.3 on 286 ?

  7. Re:fix the memory leaks first by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unfortuantely Opera 9 is too unstable.

    I keep hearing this... don't know why, but in my Linux box, Opera 9.02 is rock solid - it haven't crashed once since i installed it. I experienced a couple of crashes back then with O8 though, but the session management (restores your session completely after a crash) rendered them relatively painless.

    I must say all versions of FF i've tried were perfectly stable aswell, but the insane memory requierements (among other peeves) prevents it from being my main browser.

  8. Re:Acid 2 by matlhDam · · Score: 3, Informative
    But will it pass Acid 2?

    My understanding is that this alpha won't, but the next alpha should. The reflow refactoring branch was merged back onto trunk recently -- this is a rationalisation of the layout code that fixes a lot of bugs, which also gets Acid 2 rendering properly.
  9. Re:ACID test by vally_manea · · Score: 2, Informative
    No, it didn't RTFA you linked.

    Also, the recently released Firefox 3 Alpha 1 does not pass the test
  10. What does this mean? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Funny
    Sorry, I left my marketspeak chip in the other bot. Can anyone translate this to English:

    Cairo will 'bring modern, hardware-accelerated 2D-graphics capabilities to the whole of the Web without requiring proprietary plug-ins or rendering obsolete the broad and rich set of Web-authoring techniques developed over the past decade. Without my marketspeak chip I translate that to say "We'll be doing things faster and still supporting HTML." Please tell me I got that wrong. Do they really need to specify "We support HTML" in a browser engine? And even if they did, why did they need to translate it to marketspeak? Do they have a brand new marketing droid they just couldn't wait to use?
    1. Re:What does this mean? by modeless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It means that they're making the graphics of AJAX apps faster to better compete with Flash. That way the kinds of things that used to require Flash can move back to HTML + SVG + JavaScript. In the future we should see a lot more Google Maps style interactive HTML applications, where it becomes meaningful to talk about the "frame rate" of your web page. Firefox will achieve high frame rates using hardware graphics acceleration provided by Cairo. Today, your GeForce 8800 with X hundred million transistors and X MB of video RAM is almost totally ignored while drawing web pages on the screen; Cairo could change that.

  11. performance improvements by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Informative

    This version is much faster and resource friendly - opening a test google spreadsheet page went from 52 MB of RSS to 43, and almost 4 seconds less to render it.

    Lots of javascript benchmarks are faster too (depending on the benchmark - other parts are slower)

    Gecko 1.9 has been being developed for a long time (the "reflow branch" is 2 years old it has been said!) so I guess it's expected that it improves things so much!

  12. If it means decent Zoom... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this means Firefox will have decent support for higher dpi displays, then I just might jump at it once it goes Beta.

    As it stands, the rest of my Linux desktop is perfectly readable at 1280x1024 on a 21" monitor from 10' away. The browser is the only part of the experience that gives me trouble. Sure, I can increase or decrease my font sizes to make the text readable, but that seriously borks most sites' CSS layouts, and doesn't do squat for image-based text.

    1. Re:If it means decent Zoom... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 3, Informative

      Go into your FF preferences. Select the 'Content' preferences and look at the advanced font settings. You'll see a minimum font size setting. Change this to be however big you need the font to be and behold, your problem is solved.

      You're very welcome.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  13. Re:Cairo is kind of slow now by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yeah, I totally agree. I'm also hoping that Gecko coders will turn their attention towards optimizing Cairo, because its current performance is unacceptable. According to this benchmark, Cairo's rendering performance isn't just somewhat slower than its open-source rival Qt. It's something like 700% slower. If that doesn't improve dramatically before Mozilla's 3.0 release, it will account for dreadfully many wasted CPU cycles.

    I understand the decision to go with Cairo, but like you said, I hope it's coupled with a commitment to seriously fix Cairo.!

  14. Front End? Hardly by shaneh0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Adding tabs was a huge change to the IE application model.
    The rendering engine was updated for efficiency and standards compliance (which is much better now, if still not yet where you'd like it to be)
    Things like anti-phishing, new security models, and a new plug-in interface are features that 'go down to the metal'

    IE7 was very substantial. I'm writing this on FF2.0 and I have to say: The IE7 upgrade was far more successful than FF2. I still believe that Firefox is a better browser over all, but not by very much. The only reason I'm still using FF is the extensions. There are just things that aren't available as IE Plugins yet that I would miss too much to fix. Funny enough, FireFox has be in vendor lock-in.

    I'd say that the FireFox 2.0 upgrade was a debacle. There are so many things that I dislike about this release. I know I could go back to 1.5 but thats a PITA, too. Some of the many flaws with 2.0 are:

    1. The "quick find" menu. When I 'find as I type' it no longer opens-up the actual "find" bar that allows me to highlight/move next/move previous. Instead, it opens a USELESS quick find bar and I have to press ctrl-f to get the full find-bar. This is so idiotic it's difficult to put it into words. There is absolutely no good reason for this. The quick-find takes up as much screen real-estate and my guess is that it takes up just as much resources.

    2. The absolutely HORRIBLE options menu. In addition to being visually unappealing, it's horribly convoluted. I now have to click 10 times to do what I used to do in 2 clicks. Changing proxy settings is an example.

    3. Ugly graphics. IE7 is just clearly more beautiful. For that matter, FF1.5 is clearly more beautiful. I don't know who created these things (the 'home' icon in particular) but somebody really should have said 'thanks but no thanks.'

    4. Why change terminology? Extensions are now Add-Ons. Will they be plug-ins in the next release? BHOs after that? It took me 3 minutes after I upgraded to find the extension control panel.

    5. More in-built functionality that I don't need. Like a phishing filter. This shouldn't be in IE, either, but DEFINITELY not in firefox.

    6. I dislike having close buttons on each tab. I thought I would like it, but in reality, when I want to close multiple tabs now I have to keep moving my mouse to do so. Before, I could just click, click, click and close 3 tabs. I liked that much better.

    What's even worse is that they didn't actually fix the things that would really make this browser better:

    1. Memory Foot print. Right now, I have 2 tabs open (one is gmail) and about a dozen extensions. Firefox is using 101MB of RAM.

    2. Extensions are not in a 'protected' mode. A misbehaving extension can still leak memory and bring down my entire browser. This infuriates me to no end when it happens.

    3. No ability to see what extension has crashed. The recommended solution is to disable extensions one at a time. I should not have to do that.

    4. When one tab is 'busy' (opening a PDF, for example) the entire browser window freezes. This is a tough one, I understand, but not impossible.

    In summary, FireFox 2.0 was a step backwards for the browser. I sincerely hope they produce better results with FF3.

    1. Re:Front End? Hardly by Andrewkov · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can configure Firefox 2 to have a single tab close button, like in 1.5.

      Go into about:config, change browser.tabs.closeButtons to 3.

    2. Re:Front End? Hardly by spitzak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats the "middle mouse button" for those few left who speak english.

      The fact that they made the wheel also be the middle mouse button is clever, but in no way required. There are mice available that seperate the functions.

    3. Re:Front End? Hardly by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They could have the phishing philter and spell checker as addons which are installed by default - with the option to not install in a 'custom' install, like you can do with the DOM inspector. Then you can remove them if you don't want them. Customisation is always fun :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Front End? Hardly by charlieman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is with javascript links, which open in a new window... galeon can handle them... firefox can't?

  15. Mac version faster by shaper · · Score: 2, Informative

    Recent nightly builds for Mac OS X feel much snappier than Firefox 2.0. One of the obvious culprits is that Cocoa widgets are now used on Mac OS X builds. I don't know if there are other changes affecting the performance on Mac OS X, but the difference is fairly dramatic.

    I love Firefox on Windows, but I have stuck with Safari on the Mac because Firefox has always felt porky and slow compared to Safari on the same hardware. The newer builds of Firefox 3 for the Mac are much better: windows, tabs, menus and other user interface elements have a nice immediate feel to them. And the page rendering is more performant than Safari on certain Web 2.0 type sites like digg and Slashdot's new discussion system. It's buggy alpha code, but early indications seem to be good for a nice improvement on the Mac when Firefox 3 comes out.

  16. Re:Cairo is kind of slow now by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 2, Informative

    You should try the 1.3.x preview release series on cairographics.org. There are a whole bunch of performance improvements, including a new tessellator. Also, cairo's performance on linux is heavily dictated by how well your video card driver supports XRender. I have found that r200 radeons with the new EXA driver acceleration mechanism accelerates cairo, among other things, quite nicely. If you can't use a driver that supports EXA, you can try rendering to a image backend first(which forces software fallbacks) and then drawing that onto your xlib surface, which is usually many times faster than drawing directly to the screen if you don't have decent xrender support.

    --
    thisnukes4u.net
  17. Re:fix the memory leaks first by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even though I have 2 gigs of RAM, FF routinely escalates to over 1 GB of usage (I have a lot of tabs open, but c'mon), and hogs so many resources that the system slows to a crawl that requires a reboot.

    IMO, this issue should have been the #1 priority in the move from 1.5 to 2.0. I am losing hope it will be fixed in the next release either (which is a shame, since I would prefer to run FF). IE7 and Opera9 simply do not have this problem to the extent FF does.


    While I wholeheartedly agree I've found that using the session saving features in Firefox 2 together with the FlashBlock extension greatly improves things. This lets me close Firefox and return to where I was, and only view the flash content I specifically decide to.

    It's more of treating the symptoms than the disease, but at least I can benefit from Firefox's other great extensions this way.
    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  18. Cairo by stud9920 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Personally, I'll wait for Chicago.

  19. Re:Hosed? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In some people's minds, an extensible system where you can selectively add everything and the kitchen sink by your own choosing is bloat, even if the minimal installation is extremely efficient.

    I prefer to call that level of choice flexibility.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  20. Quick Find by Robmonster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Put the following in your userChrome.css to revert to the old Find Bar:-

    /* Use the old-style / and ' QuickFind Bar behaviour */
    #FindToolbar > * {display:-moz-box}

    --
    I have no sig yet I must scream.
  21. Some people have to by DrYak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some people HAVE to use old windows, because the old proprietary controlling software that came with a given hardware (say a robot in bio-medical lab), only runs on old OS (I've even seen spectro-photo-meters that only run on DOS. Yeah. Thank goodness FreeDOS is our friend in such deprecated cases). The company has dropped support for newer OS for this peice of hardwre and is only doing hardware repairs. You either have to keep a deprecated OS for your machine, or you have to buy a newer model (Which most of the time is out-of-question because the prices are horribly expensive and the older one still does its job).

    The good thing with open source software is, compared to proprietary software like IE7, is that users aren't necessarily stuck with this "won't support anymore situation".
    In the IE7 world, whatever Microsoft decides, you'll have to accept it. They decide to drop support for everything before WinXP ? Upgrade to a newer more expensive software is your only hope.
    In the opensource world, if there's a big enough userbase (and there is surely a big enough userbase in the scientific community), some users will start tweaking and hacking. As the source is open, nothing stops programmers to start a new separate fork that will support a separate platform that won't be supported anymore in the main line.

    Once FireFox 3.0 official is out, be sure that you'll see separate Win9x branches : either FF3.0 with a patched Cairo support. Or FF3.0 with a retro-fitted (non cairo-based) Gecko 1.8 engine. Or a separate continued 2.0 branch that is kept up to date and security-patched for users who can't use FF3.0. Or a completly different Gecko-based browser specially tailored for Win9x users (K-maleon 9x ?)

    The only drawback is that, because of registered Mozilla Foundation's trademarks, they'll surely have to call it IceWeasel. Or SnowCat. Or FrostBear. Or LavaBadger. Or whatever else.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]