Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 3 Release On Tuesday

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the let's-get-ready-to-downlooooooad dept.

unkgoon writes "The Mozilla Developer News blog is reporting Firefox 3 will be released on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, and you're invited to the party! From the website: 'After more than 34 months of active development, and with the contributions of thousands, we're proud to announce that we're ready. It is our expectation to ship Firefox 3 this upcoming Tuesday, June 17th. Put on your party hats and get ready to download Firefox 3 — the best web browser, period.'" Update: 06/12 17:44 GMT by T : Dan100 was among several readers to write with news that, rather than just being announced, "Opera 9.5 has been released today after nearly two years of development. New features include increased speed (particularly in the Javascript engine), Opera Link (browser synchronisation), and a 'sharp' new theme." Dan100 also links to a full changelog from 9.27.

79 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. opera is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    it was released today

    1. Re:opera is faster by willyhill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know why this was modded troll, Opera is faster and it was released today. "Faster" is a value judgment I suppose, but can I mod the article troll because it called Firefox "the best browser, period"?

      --
      The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
    2. Re:opera is faster by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Opera is faster, but my computer is so fast that you really can't tell the difference much, especially when you take into account internet connection speed. Firefox has extensions. Which is where the real advantage is.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:opera is faster by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Funny

      Opera is faster, but my computer is so fast that you really can't tell the difference much...

      Yeah? Well my computer is so fast that it loads pages before I request them.

      Oh, who am I kidding? [sobs]

    4. Re:opera is faster by immcintosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, "faster" is absolutely not a value judgment. It's testable and quantifiable, and the claim that Opera is "faster," at least according to one benchmark, doesn't seem to be true. I won't even go into memory usage. I personally think we should reserve judgment until we can test final releases against eachother, but I think a troll mod is perfectly appropriate.

    5. Re:opera is faster by No-Cool-Nickname · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder if my wife will believe this explanation for the porn on my computer.

      Honey! I didn't type in www.sluttyteenagenubileprincesseswrestlinginpudding.com

    6. Re:opera is faster by alpha_loopy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      swoosh.... it was a joke, ppl.. Opera is faster [because] it was released today [instead of next Tuesday]

    7. Re:opera is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is, "faster" is absolutely not a value judgment. It's testable and quantifiable, and the claim that Opera is "faster," at least according to one benchmark, doesn't seem to be true. In context, I think maybe he meant "faster to the market" ... in that they got their update out "faster" than the Mozilla foundation did...

      -AC
    8. Re:opera is faster by DiarmuidBourke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, this is somewhat true. With Opera speeddial, my 9 most viewed websites,are loaded before I request them.

    9. Re:opera is faster by bishiraver · · Score: 5, Informative
      That's the HTML rendering engine. That only happens when:
      • The page is loaded
      • The DOM structure is changed
      • A previously visible element is hidden, or vice versa
      • Size of an element changes
      The more important benchmark, especially for applications like google docs and other pseudo-application applications is the rewritten JavaScript engine in Opera 9.5, which is indeed extremely fast.
    10. Re:opera is faster by sulfur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am typing this from a 600 MHz / 256 MB machine that is running KDE, and I assure you that Opera is the fastest browser I tried - not even KDE-native Konqueror can match it (I've been using Opera since version 6). Websites that make heavy use of Javascript (digg, google apps, etc) are absolutely unusable in Firefox (3 had some improvements over 2, but it's still slow). While I do use Firefox on my home computer, there is no match for Opera on older machines. I wish Opera developers found a way to port AdBlock and Flashblock plugins - these are "killer" plugins that prevent me from switching to Opera completely.

      I am amazed how a closed-source app like Opera can outperform open source browsers that can supposedly integrate into the enviroment much better by such a high margin.

    11. Re:opera is faster by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      If your worried about security why are you on the Internet?

    12. Re:opera is faster by dmsuperman · · Score: 3, Funny

      My computer loads pages before IT even requests them. Then it DELETES them before I even know I want them. Top that!

      --
      :(){ :|:& };: Go!
    13. Re:opera is faster by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I personally suspect (although I have no proof) that is must have to do with some specific extension that a lot of people use. I've ran Firefox for weeks at a time, and only had the memory go up to about 200MB, but that's with about 15 tabs open, spread between various windows. Since so many people experience it, it must be a popular plugin. But there's enough people who experience no problems at all, that it can't be something built into the browser by default.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    14. Re:opera is faster by Torvaun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, that's not a real site! Getting me all excited for nothing...

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    15. Re:opera is faster by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am amazed how a closed-source app like Opera can outperform open source browsers that can supposedly integrate into the enviroment much better by such a high margin. I am not sure Firefox developers even *care* enough about speed. Unfortunately, most developers have this attitude that "I can make code as slow as I want, and Moore's law will take care of it". Optimization is seen as a waste of time.
    16. Re:opera is faster by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Funny

      Opera is faster, but my computer is so fast that you really can't tell the difference much I guess you're a Vista user.
      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    17. Re:opera is faster by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Coincidentally, Firefox 3 also has a new extremely fast JavaScript engine since beta 5. I'm not sure if it was rewritten from scratch, but it's winning some tests at least.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    18. Re:opera is faster by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's one of those tests:
      http://flickr.com/photos/nitot/2410514595/sizes/o/

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    19. Re:opera is faster by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or they realise that aslong as it works, nobody outside of slashdot cares if it renders pages in 100ms or 200. Years ago I saw an Opera ad and thought "Ridiculous. Internet browsing is obviously IO-bound. Having a faster browser obviously cannot improve it". When I actually tried Opera though, I was proven wrong. I then realized that other browsers were so frickin slow that yes, Opera could make internet browsing far more pleasant. I later realized that the whole "IO-bound" meme is often just an excuse for slow software... If you actually optimize the software, you find that yes, it can be made much faster.

      Mind you, I nowadays don't use Opera because it is not Free Software. I use Firefox.
    20. Re:opera is faster by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Mind you, I nowadays don't use Opera because it is not Free Software. I use Firefox.

      Well, it's good of you to admit that Opera is better than Free alternatives. But based on that, a non-Free product is competing with Free alternatives and succeeding (at least in the performance arena) on its own merits and providing a good, perhaps even better quality product without acting unethically. RMS himself in his early essays would describe why Free produced better software, at least for some areas (TurboTax and its ilk is IMHO a counterexample to the Free is better argument). Where Free doesn't produce better software for one's use, shouldn't one use the best (ethically-produced) tool for the job -- I mean, it's a piece of software, not a human rights issue, right?

    21. Re:opera is faster by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Minimo (based on the ff3 tree) is faster, supports more javascript, and has a smaller memory footprint than Opera does on my 400Mhz Nokia N800. Minimo runs flash better, too.

      Firefox 3 is a tipping point. It is the point at which Opera's claim of greater speed is quite arguable if not entirely unfounded. Considering that speed and portability are essentially the only things that Opera has going for it, the latest version of Firefox may actually destroy Opera's market.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    22. Re:opera is faster by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't AJAX applications changing the DOM and hiding/unhiding elements fairly frequently?

      The HTML renderer still seems important for fast operation of Google Docs.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    23. Re:opera is faster by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe Free Software is indeed about freedom. And I believe that Open Source does tend to produce the best technical results, but of course there are exceptions. Specially in areas where Open Source is not (at least yet) mature enough, possibly due to presently having too little momentum. Perhaps one example would be 3D FPS gaming, but I cannot comment because I currently rarely play games.
      I do believe that by stimulating free software I am stimulating both superior technology, economic efficiency and issues like
      1) The freedom of access to information
      2) The independence of people, including in foreign countries, from a particular corporation *
      3) Power to the people, including from repressive governments
      4) The framework (free, good quality compilers and libraries for software makers; free and good image editing tools for image makers; etc) for people to learn something, or, after learning, to express their potential

      And there is no doubt that by merely using Firefox, I help them. It is called network-effect. The network effect in software is so strong that a scientific study has found that, if not for piracy (which allows people who otherwise would use Linux to use Windows), Microsoft would undoubtedly lose to Linux. With piracy, the study found that the future is uncertain, and no winner can be predicted (and maybe there won't even be a clear winner). The reason is that each person that uses Windows (even if without paying) is one less Linux user. One more person in the market for Windows software. One more person for a windows user to turn for help. One more reason for hardware companies to develop Windows drivers. So yes, network effect is so strong that Windows has a *net benefit* from piracy.

      So I do help Free Software by merely using it, and even more when I advocate my friends to use it too, and when I help people in the forums, report bugs, etc.
      And I am always honest: I only advocate Firefox because I know that, while being (possibly) worse than Opera, it is good enough, and I don't claim it to be the best. I just claim it is very good, and much better than IE.

      * Really. I'm not the usual moon-landing 9/11 JFK conspiracy retard, but it is scary that our whole country, including the armed forces, depend on Microsoft. It is not like the USA has not deliberately leaked booby-trapped technology to the Soviets before**... There is a real-world possibility that the US government has made Microsoft put traps on Windows
      ** And, by the way, it was good. I am not your usual Soviet Union panderer either. I thank God that the Soviets are gone, and I hope the Chinese dictatorship goes away as well. Unfortunately, the reality is currently different from that, and the future seems worrisome, specially for us in Latin America...

    24. Re:opera is faster by BZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Between the start of Gecko 1.9 development and now (effectively the end of Gecko 1.9 development), 389 bugs with the "perf" keyword got fixed. That's not counting the UI-only performance bugs (e.g. the Firefox UI took up about 15% of the pageload time in Firefox 2; in Firefox 3 that number is much smaller).

      People care, I can assure you. On the other hand there are a _lot_ of performance bugs. At least in part because any algorithm that's not O(N) or faster amortized is automatically a performance bug on the web: people throw up multi-tens-of-megabytes HTML files all the time.

  2. Zoom by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been using the RC, and must say the memory issues that the Mozilla developers have tried to claim never existed, are almost nonexistent now. The only tiny thing I don't like is the Text Size function which is now called "zoom", and is sucky.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Zoom by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 5, Informative

      View->Zoom
      Check off "text zoom only"

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    2. Re:Zoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's because now it really acts as zoom: it doesn't resize only the text, but the images too (though this can be configured), as opposed in FF2 where only the text would change size, and thus the "Text size" terminology made more sense.

    3. Re:Zoom by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality.

    4. Re:Zoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality. Of course there's a way. There's an extension. :)
    5. Re:Zoom by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just wish there was a way to revert the 'Awesome Bar' to the standard address bar that FF2 had (with no automatic searching, just url matching), because I hate the new functionality. Of course there's a way. There's an extension. :) From that page:

      Note that the underlying autocomplete algorithm is the Firefox 3 algorithm, not the Firefox 2 algorithm. oldbar only affects the presentation of the results. Its the algorithm that I want to disable completely.
    6. Re:Zoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Check off: We are looking for Nuclear wessels...

    7. Re:Zoom by pubjames · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. Apparently it's especially annoying when you are demonstrating something to a client and they get to see all the websites you were exploring the night before...

    8. Re:Zoom by deroby · · Score: 4, Informative

      ctrl-shift-del is your friend ?

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    9. Re:Zoom by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Funny

      What kind of weasel?

    10. Re:Zoom by SEMW · · Score: 4, Informative

      IE7 had it first. Actually, I think you'll find that Opera had it several years before either IE7 or Firefox.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  3. Opera 9.5 released today by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Informative

    In other news, Opera 9.5, the other best browser, released today.

    1. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Opera 9.5 was just released today, however on slashdot we have an article about how Firefox will release on Tuesday... nice...

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    2. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Funny

      x.0 = major release

      x.5 = minor release

      I infer only the former is newsworthy.

    3. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by Threni · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Yes, but 9.5 > 3.0 release numbers don't mean much. Opera 9.5 is just as important release as Firefox 3.0 is.

      Hardly. Firefox has larger market share, is more popular, has more add-ons, is supported more widely even by mainstream non-nerdy websites etc. I use Opera Mini on my phone nearly every day, largely because it's free but also because it's pretty good, but when I decided, years ago, to experiment with a non Internet Explorer browser, I discovered that Opera had ads all over it, and to get rid of them I had to pay. I googled for another one and within seconds had started to download what is now Firefox. Things might have been a little different for Opera if they'd been more realistic about what an acceptable cost for a browser is, but that's just speculation nowadays.

    4. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By the way, the other day I was wondering what the point is in releasing your software as freeware, rather than as open source. I can see the point of _selling_ closed source software (you make money), and I can see the point of releasing as open source (you get a lot of mind share and free contributions), but when you release as freeware, you get neither advantage. So why do it?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by SEMW · · Score: 3, Informative

      "After almost two years in development ... Amongst the major improvements are a revamped rendering engine, massive increases in performance, EV and malware security features, synchronisation of bookmarks, a re-engineered mail back-end, improved address-bar searching..." Doesn't sound like a "minor release" to me. Version numbers can be misleading: different organisations have very different ideas about when a new release should get a new version number. You can't compare versions numbers of different applications directly.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    6. Re:Opera 9.5 released today by csimpkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the general idea is that Opera makes money by selling a version for mobile uses. If they release the desktop version as open source, then someone else can port it to mobile platforms and eat into their revenue.

  4. speaking of releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just released a brown trout in the 3rd floor men's room. The toilet seems to be broken (or "beta" as us googlers call it), so you might want to avoid the middle stall.

  5. I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... by sznupi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean...it was, like, RELEASED, today; not only announced to be released.

    But I guess that clears any doubts as to "/. pet-browser" that Firefox has... :/

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... by Mark+Gillespie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Funny thing is, only opera has the /. easter egg in it... Yep, type /. in the address bar to come here. Talk about cool easter eggs...

    2. Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Guess no one submitted a story on it.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    3. Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... by Zwicky · · Score: 5, Informative

      Create a Slashdot bookmark and set its keyword to '/.' (sans quotes).

      --
      "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
    4. Re:I was expecting more to see Opera 9.5 news... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      a) I'd bet more people don't care than care.

      b) The people who do care are idiots. Opera is a web browser with enough notoriety that a release is newsworthy, open-source or not. Slashdot isn't "open-source news", it's just about news.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  6. What about the fsync problem? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will it be fixed in 3.0, or will I have to wait for 3.1? See, I use Linux and my partitions are ext3. The fsync issue affects me.

    1. Re:What about the fsync problem? by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Informative

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421482

      This is probably it.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:What about the fsync problem? by sootman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Will it be fixed in 3.0, or will I have to wait for 3.1?

      You'll probably have to wait for 3.11 for Workgroups. Or possibly Firefox 95.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  7. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what do you want? A cookie?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house

    I don't, it sheds hair all over the couch and chases my pet firehen.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  9. smaller memory footprint by pak9rabid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From what I can tell from using the beta, it seems a lot of the reduced memory footpring from Firefox 3 appears to be the result of it using the OS's native GUI widgets, as opposed to widgets supplied by Firefox itself. FF3 is coming along nicely, but still has a few annoyances that need addressing. Hopefully the release version will address those minor annoyances.

    1. Re:smaller memory footprint by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesnt use the native widgets. It uses its own widgets and then it paints them so that they look like they were native (other browsers also do this)

    2. Re:smaller memory footprint by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, it's not. Haven't you read the news? They completely revamped memory management. Among the improvements, are:

      • Reduced Memory fragmentation
      • Fixed cycles with the Cycle collector
      • Tuned the caches
      • Adjusted how image data is stored (hint: compressed)
      • Hunted down leaks. "Overall, we've been able to close over 400 leak bugs so far, most of which are very uncommon, but can still occur."


  10. 8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today by MollyB · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was part of the Update Manager offerings...
    (no conflicts with beta add-ons)

    1. Re:8.04 Hardy Heron users got it today by MooseMuffin · · Score: 4, Informative

      None of the release candidates identify themselves as release candidates in help/about. You're running RC1.

  11. I'm waiting. by oliverthered · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm waiting until flash is ready and all of my addons work with Firefox 3, it's only half a browser without them

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:I'm waiting. by Rurik · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't wait, contact the developers! Each add-on developer works independently from the rest of the system. I assumed my extension worked fine in 3.0 and was going to wait until FF3 became finalized, but I received enough comments and issues from beta users that I went and updated mine and continued to update the versions so that it would work with all of the betas and RCs. If there's an extension you need, email the authors and hound them to update it asap.

  12. Damn. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dont have a party hat.

    All I have is a cloak and a wizard hat.

    --
    1. Re:Damn. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 3, Funny

      I cast Level 7 Noscript. Firefox turns into the best browser.

  13. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by Rurik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you thought it was so good, wouldn't you have upgraded to the release candidate weeks ago instead of continuing to use the beta? :)

  14. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house and I even have the thumb drive version. This is when a 'fanboi' mod would come in handy.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by springbox · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what do you want? A cookie?
    Free cookie, visit Google
  17. Re:Addons by tuffy · · Score: 5, Informative

    NoScript, Adblock Plus (w. Filterset.G) and FlashBlock are supported in the current 3.0pre Firefox, so they'll work in the final build. Checking Mozilla's addons website isn't that hard, really.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  18. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by Dmala · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was originally called Firebird, a reference to the Phoenix and the idea that the app was born from the ashes of Netscape. They changed it after receiving complaints from the Firebird database people, keeping the "fire" and swapping out the animal. I assume the fox was chosen for the alliteration and for the image of the fox as being scrappy and independent. Fireslug just doesn't have the same ring...

  19. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by nuzak · · Score: 4, Informative

    > I wonder how they came up with the name Firefox?

    It used to be called Phoenix, which was to evoke the whole "rising from the ashes" imagery WRT the (at the time) moribund Mozilla project. The BIOS people didn't like that and asked them to change it, so they renamed it Firebird, which the database people weren't keen on. So finally they came up with Firefox, and it stuck. Better name anyway.

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  20. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by yuriyg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Me: Oh the great, all-knowing wikipedia, please enlighten me on the reason Mozilla Firefox chose such a glorious name!
    Wikipedia: It was first named "Phoenix", because it arose from the ashes of Netscape. Then (due to international copyright laws and conflict with Phoenix Technologies) they chose to rename the great product as "Firebird," and all rejoiced! Alas, the great joy did not last long, as the wicked Firebird Database Server users started to complain. The great creators then finally settled on the name that is heard throughout the land: FIREFOX!

    I did have to sacrifice a goat though...

  21. Firefox has severe problems with IPv6 by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Firefox basically can't do SOCKS proxying and connect to IPv6 sites, even if you configure a SOCKS5 proxy which can handle IPv6.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  22. Re:I have firefox 3.0 beta by TClevenger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox is the best browser out there and it is the only one I will ever allow in my house and I even have the thumb drive version.

    This is when a 'fanboi' mod would come in handy.

    It sounds even better when you say it in a Ralph Wiggum voice.

  23. Re:Will Firefox 3 fix the annoying .net bug? by MP3Chuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you SHIFT+Enter in the address bar it'll tack a http://www on the front and a .net on the end. It has happened to me accidentally before, but nothing consistent or even remotely frequent...

    --
    Who doesn't like free music?
  24. Thank you. by Bananatree3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're right it isn't a bug, its a feature! I have been hitting at the very bottom end of the Enter key, so I've been simultaneously striking the top of the Shift key at the same time. I'll just make sure its more in the center next time.

  25. FF3 Annoyances by drew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using Firefox 3 on my linux partition since I upgraded to Ubuntu Hardy a few months ago. Honestly, I've found the new version to be more of an annoyance than anything else, although it's been hard for me to figure out how many of these annoyances were due to Firefox itself, and how many were due to Ubuntu.

    1) Font rendering problems. Any font sizes specified in points were about 2-3 times the size they were supposed to be relative to anything else on the page. I eventually figured out that to fix this I had to manually set layout.css.dpi in about:config.

    2) It feels significantly more sluggish than 2.0, although this has gradually been getting better lately. Maybe by the time it's actually released they will have this all worked out.

    3) URL bar #1: I do find the new algorithm of the "awesomebar" to be annoying, although I can see how it might be a better experience once I get used to it. I'm going to hold off judgement on this until I've had a bit more time to get used to it, but regardless of the sorting matching algorithm, it just looks way too cluttered.

    4) URL bar #2: They have changed the selection behavior in the URL bar to always select the entire url. There doesn't seem to be any way to quickly select a single portion of the URL for example to change from http://games.slashdot.org/ to http://hardware.slashdot.org/. I have found this to be the single most annoying feature of the new Firefox by far. In fact that alone is probably enough to keep me from upgrading on my other computers.

    While none of these annoyances by themselves are deal breakers, I have yet to notice any changes (from an end-user standpoint - I understand the rendering engine has been significantly improved, which is great, but doesn't really help me all that much) that really make me want to upgrade.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  26. Feature: Re:Will Firefox 3 fix the annoying .net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    when typing in the url in the address bar:
    [enter] Takes what you typed in, will assume http:// if not provided
    [ctrl+enter] http://www.url.com
    [shift+enter] http://www.url.net
    [ctrl+shift+enter] http://www.url.org

    It's not a bug.

  27. How to get it almost like the FF2 Adress Bar by forgot_my_nick · · Score: 3, Informative
    open about:config and:

    1) Edit this key: browser.urlbar.maxRichResults and set the value to 5 or 6 (or even 0).

    2) Most importantly create this key: browser.urlbar.matchOnlyTyped Type: Boolean Value: true

    The Awesomebar will now behave almost like the FF2 addressbar.

    --
    Cultist of the Average Middle-Aged Ones
  28. Re:Pledge map: Can someone explain Poland? by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    South Korea has the minor issue that they started doing internet banking very early, before SSL got standardized. So they came up with their own encryption setup.

    They use it to this day, with an ActiveX control to handle the encryption. Which means you can't use any serious bank site (and can't use a lot of e-commerce sites) in South Korea unless you're using IE on Windows. There is basically no marketshare for Macs or non-IE browsers as a result.