Firefox 4 Will Push Edges of Browser Definition

Chris Blanc writes "Mozilla Lab's push is to blur the edges of the browser, to make it both more tightly integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services. So extended, the browser becomes an even more powerful and pervasive platform for all kinds of applications. 'Beard wants the new online/offline, browser/service to be more intelligent on behalf of its users. Early examples of this intelligence include the "awesome bar," which is what Mozilla calls the new smart address bar in Firefox 3. It offers users smart URL suggestions as they type based on Web searches and their prior Web browsing history. He's looking to extend on this with a "linguistic user interface" that lets users type plain English commands into the browser bar. Beard pointed me towards Quicksilver and Enso as products he's cribbing from.'"

Comments

I hope they implement this as plugins

[pembo13]

Because I would like my browser to interact with my machine as little as possible && and I am not at all into social networking.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[bkr1_2k]

"Weave extends the browser in the other direction: Not toward the desktop, but instead into the Internet. Mozilla wants an individual's browsing experience to stay with them no matter what machine they are on."

Screw that! My employer doesn't need to know I read slashfiction or what kind of porn I browse at home. Now, the porn I browse at work, that's different!

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[webmaster404]

I honestly don't want Firefox integrating too much with Ubuntu or other Linux installs. Now while Firefox is a great browser (I usually prefer it) recently it has gotten very popular and is now more of a target for malware, while most malware doesn't target Linux, if Firefox has a flaw in all versions, it would make just adding a Linux binary to the malware to make it affect Linux, and that is something I would rather not ever have to deal with.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[moranar]

I'm appalled at how people downplay the effect of rm -rf ~ . A Linux install can be reinstalled in a couple hours, but the important documents people have usually aren't backed up at all, and are therefore much more valuable than the contents of /usr or /etc.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[cheater512]

But on Linux, backing everything up is far simpler than windows.
cp -rf ~ /backup does the job.

Compare it to Windows where data is everywhere and its impossible to back up everything properly.

Anyway most malware wants to make the maker cash, not be disruptive.

Admittedly, no I do not backup. :P

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[MrNaz]

I'm appalled at how after 10 years of dealing with regular every day users, just how recalcitrant open source nerds are in failing to recognise basic behavioural patterns that just won't change.

I agree, not backing up is stupid. But as an IT admin, ensuring all of my users' data is safe is my job. It'd be like a security firm hired to manage a company's building security saying "dumb staff, if they aren't second dan black belt karate masters with a 9mm tucked into their belt I have no sympathy if they get mugged in the lobby".

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[Per Wigren]

"If you didn't back it up, it wasn't that important in the first place, right?"

Is that what you say to your dad/mom/daughter/son/best friend/grandma when they come to you in tears because they just lost three years of photos or cubase masters?

It's true that they should had backed up the data, but it's just evil to put it in their mouth that the data was somehow unimportant for them. Just like if wake up late, risk your life in panic trying to get to work faster than it's possible, arrive 10 minutes late and then hear "I see that you don't care about your job, right?". Or to make a car analogy: If you didn't wear your seat belt, your life wasn't that important in the first place, right?

Repeat after me: People are humans. Humans error.

Not everybody have computers as their hobby like you and I. In 2008 people a LOT of people have their whole lives on their computer with no back up what so ever, but somehow I really think it's more the fault of the makers of operating systems and sellers of computer systems. Just like Windows pop up warnings saying "your antivirus is not updated", it should say "Your home folder doesn't seem to have a backup. In case of a hardware failure or a virus you may lose all your data. Do you want to back up now?". Power users like you and I can turn the warnings off and implement our own rdiff or Git backed scheme and others (and lazy power users) can use the better-than-nothing built-in system, but at least they will no longer be unaware of the problem and they can keep using computers for what they were meant for: Being lazy.

is it just me?

[Ecobady]

I really dont want mozilla suggesting anything in my address bar

Re:is it just me?

[jellomizer]

Oh yea it is easy type about:config (like that is a common way to change preferences in application of the 21 centory) Then hunt down for some feature name that is probable more reference to a Varable Name and less of what it actually does and then figure out what the value should be... A piece of Cake, I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.

Re:is it just me?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Oh, yeah, sure. I'm going to go and... read, whatchamacallit .. *instructions about how to do the thing that I want to do.

Not likely. Firefox doesn't behave how I like by default because it's, um, open source software I guess.

-PseudoJello

Re:is it just me?

[SatanicPuppy]

gp is right...You shouldn't have to look up instructions on how to change a basic setting. It irritates the hell out of me when FF does crap like this. You can add an "Advanced Configuration Options" button that will provide this sort of functionality without forcing the user to remember a piece of command syntax.

Re:is it just me?

[at_slashdot]

I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.

I have no idea either, open source is a just way to develop programs, I see no connection between this and the complexity of programs or their user-friendliness, I bet there are many tic-tac-toe programs that are open sourced... I can write a shitty program with close source or open source alike. If it's open source at least there's a chance that somebody else can fix it.

Re:is it just me?

[soliptic]

That way out doesn't look like it would be any use to me. From the comments:

Would it be possible to add an option to give the same search behaviour that the old address bar gave? i.e. Just search based on the beginning of the URL, not searching against sub-strings within the entire URL and title.

This is what bothers me, not the presentation.

The current autocomplete matching behaviour suits me perfectly. I press "l", I get "last.fm/user/myusername" suggested. Which is what I want. Because it's the most common site I visit beginning with "l". Which is why I frickin' pressed "l", goddamnit! Not because four weeks ago I once visited a page with <title>Little random thing I have no intention of visiting again</title> !! Ditto "f" for facebook, "e" for "en.wikipedia.org", and of course "s" for slashdot... etc etc.

With almost every single one of the short list of daily / most-visited URLs (not even just sites, but specific URLs), "initial letter, down arrow, enter" gets me straight there.

Of course, sometimes this isn't enough. My two most visited forums both begin with "d". Big deal. It's not a chore to type two letters, down arrow, enter.

It is a chore to have the autocomplete search space vastly increased with a bunch of crap, whereby simple mathematics dictates the S/N ratio will be worse and the matching will get worse. I mean, ffs - it's been standard SEO policy to have lengthy <title> tags and lengthy URLs, containing the maximum possible number of keywords and keyphrases, for years. One or two letter autocomplete terms will be guaranteed to match almost every page in my history.

Now, people will say, "great, you're a geeky power user who remembers wikipedia will autocomplete from "e" for "en.", but a normal person would type "wiki"..." In that regard I don't really mind that they're monkeying about with this. I am not wanting to be that stereotypical slashdotter who presumes his own habits are the be-all and end-all, if something works perfectly for him then god forbid millions of people should dare to differ, etc.

In that spirit, whilst I can see what this post is getting at, I wouldn't give a damn if changing this back was in about:config. In my experience, every time I've needed to delve into about:config it was something where I felt, "fine, fair enough, that's the sort of geekism where anyone caring enough to change it will be cool with googling the about:config tweak".

But from what I gather, it's not even possible to change this with about:config. Which makes me want to reach for the :mad: smilies I would have available on the more frivolous boards I frequent.

Active Desktop?

[Hatta]

Didn't we try this 10 years ago, and it sucked? I want more separation between my browser and OS, not less.

Oh please DON'T

[snarfies]

I don't WANT the edges pushed. I just want a browser, really. I just want to look at web pages, maybe even post to the occasional online forum (like Slashdot). I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources and take two minutes to fire up. I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser. Please, just let Firefox be that and make a new program to do all that other crap.

Re:Oh please DON'T

[moderatorrater]

I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources...I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser You obviously haven't read the standards. Honestly, they're so complex they scream "bloat" at the top of their lungs.

Frightful?

[Gay for Linux]

Anyone else find the security aspect of this a bit frightful? They want a database which will track our browsing habits, constant updates to the Mozilla servers, and integration with the OS?

Firefox starts to sound like the next big brother.

Re:Sounds Scarry.

[TubeSteak]

At this point, I'd take a browser with half the awesome and none of the bloat.

Maybe FireFox needs a "lite" version.

Firefox development should fork

[MyDixieWrecked]

The whole original premise of Firefox was that it was lightweight, fast, and actually worked. Because of this, I think they should keep the firefox brand as-is... make it smaller, faster and more lightweight, but no reason to go fill it up with these features.

I think they should fork development into a new product. Basically going in the direction that they are discussing with version 4. These features look like they could be a great idea. A lot of really progressive and great things look stupid on paper, but once you see them and use them, they can surprise you, at times.

Personally, I think they need to make firefox even moreminimalistic. Something that will have the absolute smallest memory footprint after being launched and be snappy and responsive. Modern websites have a TON of code ([x]html/css/javascript) and graphics so it's understandable that the footprint would grow when you have 30 tabs open; but on slower hardware such as the eeepc or older laptops, I'd like the browser to not impact the system quite as much in the memory department.

What is it with everyone and HTTP / XML?

[shish]

It seems that the world is moving back to a thin client setup; but instead of a client having a network connection to a server, its communication is via several abstraction and generic transport layers (HTTP / AJAX); instead of using a relevant protocol, everything is translated into XML-based RPC; and instead of using a useful widget set, everyone is bastardising HTML (eg, the hundreds of javascript-based calendar widgets; when all GUI toolkits I know of have one built in).

Is it just me, or is this hideously inefficient, ugly, and Wrong(tm)?

Jumped the shark

[Quattro Vezina]

Tagged with "jumpedtheshark".

A web browser should be a web browser, goddammit.

The Mozilla Foundation is the single biggest thing hurting Firefox. The MoFo has already turned Firefox into proprietary software. Seriously, Firefox isn't as free as you think, all while falsely claiming Firefox is open-source. They commit extortion against people who make custom icons, and they've announced that no one is allowed to distribute Firefox without MoFo signing off on it. Debian and the FSF want nothing to do with them, and for good reason.

I have much less of a problem with Opera. Opera doesn't hide the fact that they're not free at all. It's a closed-source browser that admits it. The Mozilla Foundation lacks that honesty.

Not to mention performance: Firefox is a giant memory leak, while Opera just keeps chugging along. Then again, Opera has managed to piss me off with 9.50...I hate how 9.50 totally locks up my computer and makes my hard drive grind for 30 seconds flat every time I type a URL into the address bar.

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[monkeyboythom]

Welcome timetravelers to the world of 1996!

Funny..will they talk about about running applications from a browser window...and will they then tout pay-per-services through a web-based subscription model? And yes, why use Microsoft, when a thin OS client is all that will be needed when Netscape...oops...Mozilla runs everything from a browser.

Gee, I bet they'll next try to sell me on Savings & Loans created funds to house all my Dot.com gains!

Huh? Why?!

[neowolf]

They really need to just work on having the fastest and most standards-compliant Web browser available. That is what people want and expect from Firefox.

Microsoft has been trying to "blur the lines" of their browser for years, and look at the mess that's ended up being. Once you start blurring the lines and hooking more and more into the operating system- you create security and reliability risks. Firefox is popular now because it is more standards compliant than IE 7 (and probably IE 8) and is considerably safer and more reliable. Why ruin a good thing?

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[Clete2]

Kiss the original reason for Firefox's invention goodbye. "Now introducing Firefox 4! Now with added bloat!"

That said, I'm using Firefox 3 Beta 4 and it's less bloaty (memory footprint wise) than Firefox 2.

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention that a browser,which is the single biggest source of viruses and exploits,really shouldn't be more tightly integrated into the OS it's running on.The fact that IE is tightly integrated is the reason I have it blocked at the firewall on all my machines and am using Firefox in the first place.But at least with Open Source if Firefox royally bones it there will be Seamonkey,Kmeleon,or some other fork pop up that uses the Gecko engine without doing something stupid like tightly integrating with the host.Now if I could just get Noscript and Adblock running in Kmeleon I'd have what Firefox was supposed to be originally:a fast lightweight and nicely customized browser that gives me the web MY way.But this is just my opinion,YMMV.