Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Pitches Firefox 3.1 Alpha For July Release
An anonymous reader writes "Just a week after Mozilla shipped Firefox 3.0, the open-source developer has proposed ship dates for the next version that, if approved, would produce an alpha release next month and a final no later than early 2009. According to a draft schedule discussed at a recent meeting, Mozilla wants to have the first Firefox 3.1 developer preview ready by July, then move to a beta by August. The schedule slates final code delivery in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2009. A month ago, when Mozilla first started discussing Firefox 3.1 internally, Mike Schroepfer, the company's vice president of engineering, said the upgrade's target ship date was the end of 2008. If Mozilla holds to that plan, Firefox 3.1 would be its first fast-track update. Firefox 3.0, for instance, launched approximately 20 months after its predecessor, Firefox 2.0."
But so what?
There's nothing in the article or summary that hasn't already been covered in the other 76 articles about Firefox in the last 2 months.
Firefox team is still developing Firefox... shit, so is Opera, so is IE, Safari, etc, etc...
Let's hope the Mozilla devs get the Acid3 test to work with Firefox 3.1.
Well, I can dream, can't I?
They could change the version number and release a production-quality 3.1 tomorrow. What matters is the new features/bugfixes/optimizations in 3.1. Without them there's no context for the news.
Is there a reason this update is happening so much more quickly than other transitions? Are they trying to overcome problems that FF3 introduced? Do they want to add some features that are close to completion, but got shelved?
I have never had Firefox 3 crash and have been using it since beta 1 on Mac, Linux, and Windows.
Anonymous Coward
In every release, they would be given a cake.
Im glad to see them coming out with a .1 release, it says that we are going to develop upon this platform and make it stable. I dont think they have done that since the pre 1.0 days. They called the first one 1.0 then 1.5 jumped to 2.0 and then rocketed to 3.0. So my question is: Why is this "simple" .1 upgrade going to take nearly 6 months? This is just getting the features they wanted in place for 3.0 but scrapped do to time, i thought. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
Comes Firefox 95!
Defective Logic
MSIE developers already figured out the cake is a lie long ago.
Have to agree - not sure if its add-on related but since I updated several PCs to FF3 I have had about 2-3 browser crashes a week and one UK grocery shopping site makes FF3 just 'disappear'.
AT&ROFLMAO
Right now it's Firefox 3.0 and soon we'll have Firefox 3.1. What's planned beyond that?
Firefox 3.11 for Workgroups
Firefox 95, then 95b, then 95c.
Firefox NT
Firefox 98, then Firefox 98SE
Firefox Me
Firefox 2000
Firefox XP
Firefox Vista
Firefox 7
Then someone will come up with a new program, which will be a "browser-only" browser!!
Nah, just kidding. Don't take it seriously. :-)
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Firefox 2.0 was also supposed to be a quick development, based on the same gecko branch. It eventually took about a year.
I think the past record of Mozilla.org has repeatedly shown that it is unable to release a product on time, given the huge amount of testing/fixing iterations that must come before the final release. A Firefox "quick release" will take time, and divert resources from important future projects such as Gecko 2.
I would have thought Mozilla.org would have finally admitted that the architecture and development model of Firefox is characterised by long maturation times. This is needed to keep up its high quality level.
Of course, at one time, Firefox 3 was targeted for a Q3 2007 release.
Seriously, the whole summary is lifted straight from the original article at ComputerWorld:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1914870647;fp;16;fpid;1
Of course, this same article has been repeated across tons of blogs and other news sites. But come on.
I had 3.0 beta virtually from the get-go. On my machine, it's crash-happy. So is the official release. Not often. Not all the time. But I occasionally get a nice little grey box telling me that Firefox has crashed, and asking me if I'd like to report the circumstances.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Try using it without any add-ons. It's been rock solid here and I have 15 different add-ons installed with 40-50 different tabs open (I've been researching a few different topics and have had FF3 like this for a couple of weeks). There is still a memory leak or two, I suspect an add-on is causing the problem. If I leave the browser open with that many tabs memory usage still creeps up. Not nearly as fast as FF2, but after a few days of opening and closing other tabs and general browsing FF3 will be eating up 750MB to 1GB of memory. At which point I need to close it and restart it.
it makes me feel very dirty to say this, but on my dual boot laptop, fire fox 3(no add-ons) has been crashing very often in Ubuntu, but, it has been working flawlessly under winXP.
so, my options are:
1. use a buggy, crashy web browser in a rock solid OS.
2. use a rock solid web browser in a buggy, crashy OS.
-I only code in BASIC.-
3. Use a stable, mature browser in a rock solid OS -- Konqueror! ...Who am I kidding? Konq is usually pretty solid, but likes to crash (very occasionally) when editing textareas. Unlike Firefox, the contents of that textarea will be completely gone... which leads to a lot of re-typed Slashdot comments.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I do have add-ons installed and it hasn't crashed once. Aren't anecdotes fun?
The person who wrote this summary has a name. It's Gregg Keizer.
For example, if I open just three tabs of slashdot, the usage jumps to 85-99% territory (and stays there even after the pages have stopped loading), and the computer starts locking up. Only two extensions too, adblock and flashblock.
Does anyone know what the hell is going on, and how to get this CPU usage to manageable 10% levels. I don't recall the exact number, but I do not think that the 2.xx ever got that high.
Hell, who needs options dialogs? about:config options would be good enough.
I don't think you're right.
During Fx3, tons of regression tests were added.
So it's becoming less risky to change something and do a release.
By doing a time based release this year (or most realistic sometimes in the beginning of 2009), it lower the pressure to get a feature in "this big major version".
They have also changed from cvs to mercurial so hopefully having experimental branch in parallel will be easier.
I hope to see the html 5 video support added for Fx3.1
I'm passing up the opportunity to moderate you as 'troll' despite your obvious troll post on the basis that maybe, just maybe, you have some evidence to back up those statements. I'm not sure what bugs you're talking about but I use Firefox all day long every single day and very rarely have any problems.
I also use an application (MediaCoder) that I believe uses the XUL parts of Firefox seemingly without any problems (other than annoying load times for what should really be a simple control panel thing).
People getting bent out of shape about the address bar is simply absurd. While I admit, the option to turn it off should appear somewhere, if only in about:config, the development team isn't ignoring it's users. I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it. I certainly find it very useful at times. I also happen to find the new user interface to be well thought out and designed.
The "it's only one option in the config dialog" argument is wearing a bit thin. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding on what testing is required for even simple options. Perhaps terms like "decision coverage" and "condition/decision coverage" are meaningless to you, but they are quite important to software testers. Also important is the psychological concept of the paradox of choice in which many people will not make a choice if presented with too many options. I really am quite sick of hearing, "But it's just one little check box in the option dialog." Take a second and think about how many features that has been said about. Then take a second to consider how much your really now about good user interface design and how much research is done in the area of human/computer interaction.
The changes presented in Firefox 3.0 are actually quite minor when compared to other UI modifications such as Office 2007 or KDE 4. Such drastic language on your part is quite uncalled for. The changes presented in Firefox's front end are, in fact, not for the sake of change but rather for the sake of improvement. I hope comments like yours don't encourage the developers to stagnate on a single UI design because every time they work to improve it, a vocal minority of rigid people can't pull a stick out of their ass.
I understand what you are getting at, but XP shouldn't crash, and if it does you likely have a driver or hardware problem. However, if it makes you feel better under Vista firefox 3 crashes constantly while firefox 2 only rarely crashed. I would switch back if firefox 3 wasn't so much faster.
It also has new weird behaviour like the right mouse click sometimes deciding to select random items off the right click context menu. Still can't find a workaround for this ...
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
IME usually it's flash. install flashblock or noscript and enable only those flash movies you really want to see - haven't seen ff3 crash since I started doing that.
I hope to see the html 5 video support added for Fx3.1
You're almost certainly going to get it, with Ogg Theora support at the very least (a DirectShow backend for Windows, QuickTime backend for Mac OS X, and GStreamer backend for Linux are also in the works). But the real question that no one seems to be asking is, where is HTML 5 audio support? It's just as much a part of the specification, and Ogg Vorbis is well-known enough that corporate entities aren't so worried about patents. I've seen some work on it recently, but I'm not sure it's mature enough to make the deadline. HTML 5 audio and video support in Firefox 3.1 would be a dream though. Safari already has at least some support for both, and Opera has partial support for audio with video surely not far off. Internet Explorer is obviously going to take a long time to catch up, but I guess we can't have everything...
According to
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/First-critical-security-hole-in-Firefox-3--/110959
Fx 3.0 (and previous. 2.0.x versions) contain a flaw that lets "Attackers [...] inject malicious code into a PC by means of a crafted web site, and launch the code with the user's rights." Does anybody know whether this is going to be fixed in 3.1, or earlier, or if it's kept secret when it is going to be fixed or already is fixed?
3.1 is badly needed! Firefox 3.0 is crashing left and right. I guess they were too eager to get it out the door.
P.S: I don't have any add-ons installed.
On what OS? How much memory? What processor (and how overclocked is it?)? What else is crashing on your system? Please provide a link to the bugzilla report too. With no addons, this should be easy to diagnos.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Flash sites?
Only times I've had firefox 3 go down is on particular, badly made, flash-based sites, when trying to do specified things, which makes me fairly sure it's Adobe's fault.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
in Sid, nor Experimental. There are some issues still needin to be resolved.
It's pure garbage. I cannot believe that people defend having the address bar randomly pick through your bookmarks and display them in kindergarten writing - 2 lines each no less.
Office 2007 is another Kindergarten interface. I haven't got much experience with KDE4.
Change for the sake of change isn't good, especially when the changes are negative.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"Well, I can dream, can't I?"
I dream of a Firefox that doesn't have CPU hogging problems. Firefox 3 seems to be a little worse than the previous version.
For those of us who open a lot of windows and tabs and leave them open a long time, as when doing research, Firefox is a hassle. It slows the entire computer until all windows and tabs are closed.
I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it.
I'm one of the people who, for the most part, really likes the new address bar. Being able to type in a site's title to get to the url is a great time saver for me. However, there is one thing I can't stand about it, which is that sometimes it takes a second or two for it to load (especially if I'm on battery power and the hard drive is spun down) and in the meantime firefox freezes. If they could just sort that problem out I'd be very happy.
Speak for yourself instead of using the word "we".
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I just wish it would stop crashing every time I start it until I restart my computer. Even does it in (firefox) safe mode. I want to downgrade back to 2.0, but the download on their ftp does not seem to work.
The "awesome bar" is pretty nice, and I can't see that it is any more difficult to use versus the old urlbar. I really have never gotten a clear answer on how the new one is worse than the old one. I've seen some complaints about how typing "w" now gets a bunch of useless results due to "www", but you can easily avoid that by typing ".w" to get sites that start with a W. If you want to make a more complex search just hit the space button and type in another term.
It would be nice if the dev team would add some meta commands to let us change the behavior. Things like a regex match or ways to order the results by the last visited page or something, but thats a reason for the to just add features not to go back to the way it was.
Try playing around with "browser.urlbar.search.chunkSize" and "browser.urlbar.search.timeout" in about:config. The prefs file says this about it.
Which Ubuntu? If you didn't get FF3 from the repositories there are probably weird binary incompatibilities.
I've been seeing this, too. Very annoying.
"Kindergarten interface" is probably the most subjective complaint possible on the matter and last time I checked, kindergartners don't write in a sans serif font face. If you're referring to multiple colors, there is scientific research to support such a change, but then again you consider research to be garbage so I don't see you taking much stock in that.
It's also interesting how you reiterate "Change for the sake of change isn't good" with no new content despite that very point having been dealt with in the parent (repeating the same point verbatim is not actually a rebuttal). Despite what you may think, you have not successfully argued that these changes were made for the sake of change (they were not, any such statement is clearly ignorant and closed minded) or that the changes were actually negative. All you've done is described why YOU don't like it in the vaguest possible terms you could manage. I assure you, you are a minority and a small one at that.
While I don't have a problem with your personal taste in web browsers, I do find your critiques to be more of insults rather than critiques. If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine, but making ignorant statements is a hard position to defend. I challenge you to provide actual evidence that suggests the user interface in Firefox was changed solely for the sake of change.
Just to be technical, there is an algorithm for what to display based on what you have typed. It is anything but random.
I've used Vista for more than a year and also Firefox 3 for about a year (from pre-alphas to release) - with the exception of some Java- and Flash-wielding sites, Firefox hasn't crashed.
(Off-topic, but I can see this one coming - Vista hasn't, either. Also, Opera 9.5 crashed often, because I can see that one coming as well.)
So more add-on incompatibility?! I want my Develpers Add-on to work again, not another!?
Only times I've had firefox 3 go down is on particular, badly made, flash-based sites, when trying to do specified things, which makes me fairly sure it's Adobe's fault.
Hey, if we're blaming Bill for Windows going down because an app crashes, we can do the same for a browser that crashes when a plugin does something bad. If it really misbehaves FF should just kill the plugin, not die itself, shouldn't it?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Just kick out the damn buggy Adobe Flash plug-in.
It runs in the same process as Firefox :
It eats to much memory, slows too much the browser, and take the whole browser down with it.
Either disable it, or at least use adblock+ and noscript to avoid having 80 flash widgets running inside your 30 tabs.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
haven't seen ff3 crash since I started doing that.
Same behaviour observed here.
In addition the parent might be interested in installing Adblock+ (to block all flash ads) and maybe give a try to Gnash (opensource reimplementation of flash - it's still buggy, but at least it runs in a separate process and doesn't take the whole browser down).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Hope that in this alpha release we will have the element with the DOM minimal media player! Because, the main video sites will have to provide beta testing quickly for that player: finally the video for the web!
Crashes a lot for me too (WinXP).
Hopefully 3.1 will be better thanks to all the crash reports I've sent 'em!
Flash sites?
Only times I've had firefox 3 go down is on particular, badly made, flash-based sites, when trying to do specified things, which makes me fairly sure it's Adobe's fault.
It also seems to me that the latest Linux Flash release is much worse than the previous ones (which were pretty bad already). I don't know if Adobe replaced the Linux team or used new tools, but I hope the trend doesn't continue given the number of Flash tools being deployed online.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I do have add-ons installed and it hasn't crashed once. Aren't anecdotes fun?
Well, I know someone who hasn't installed it yet, but I'm pretty sure that if he did, it would crash. (upping your anecdote by one made up semi hear-say) :)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Funny, you are not the first person to lick my ass to say that.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I really have come to like the new development style on the Kernel 2.6 branch. At first, I thought that rolling new features in with security and bug fixes was a bad idea, but it has worked out really nicely. Other projects should consider doing these rolling releases.
I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected "Always ask" or "Save File". I will try that. It's necessary to do that carefully, because the selection box is buggy.
I was already using the latest Adblock Plus and NoScript versions.
I don't think Google is getting much software development for the $50,000,000 each year it is paying.
It would be great if the Firefox team could release updates on a schedule ... I know, I know it is a crazy dream.
But think of it this way. Release the incremental updates (.x) every quarter or six months and release them on time. Release version updates every 12 -24 months, up the the FF team, but stick to the schedule. If the FF team could do that it would show constant improvement and drive MS nuts.
Isn't this how the Ubuntu team operates? I know it is an apples to oranges comparison but I think it could work. There is no way MS could keep up with a consistent release schedule.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
nope - the pop-up menu doesn't even appear even with the mouse button pressed continuously. It just picks an item to execute.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
can we look forward to a 3D web experience?
So, if it's Adobe's fault, why is it taking down the browser instead of just crashing on its own? (Flash does this sometimes in Opera on Linux for me).
Once again, are you sure that's not just Flash?
hyades1, I also get a lot of crashes with FF3. Usually find it's crashed when I get into work in the morning. (I leave my work PC on overnight)
It actually took out an hours work on a company wiki page that I forgot to save before being distracted by other more urgent things. Next morning it was gone because FF3 had crashed. Quite ironic that the main reason for upgrading for me was that FF2 used to balloon to 1Gb+ after running for a couple of weeks so I had to restart it every few days... seems this is now automatic. ;-P
People get "bent out of shape" because something that worked well for them has been taken away and replaced with something that (for them) works less well, is less intuitive (when I'm in a URL entry box, I don't expect to have searches on titles), looks awful (that two line layout is not nice to read, despite having pretty colours) and does not allow a return to old functionality. If "awesome bar" had been an option, then there wouldn't be a fuss. But the developers seem to have decided they know what is best for the users and because they have made this great new thing it should be shoved down their users' throats. Last time I had this happen to me was Clippy - but at least you could turn that wonderful new functionality off!
As we can customise the interface, the awesome bar could exist alongside the address bar so that you could drag one or the other into your interface to use.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I'd say there's something wrong with your computer without actual evidence that Firefox crashes for a significant amount of people. Given how its worked flawlessly for me and many others.
I have never had this happen to me. I use the Firegestures addon (adds mouse gestures) which uses right-click-drag and it may indirectly be fixing this.
Try it and see if it fixes it.
Unicode in Slashdot
Flash runs inside of the Firefox process. They die together. On a side note, I've been running Firefox 3 on 3 Ubuntu machines and a Windows machine without any crashes so far.
Thanks. I'll give it a go, but the trouble is that the problem isn't so easy to replicate. I have one PC it happens on and one it doesn't- both XP - both Firefox 3 release - same ADD-ONs.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Yes, Firefox 3 does seem improved. But it still becomes a CPU hog (not crashes) when there have been a lot of windows and tabs open for several days, especially when Windows XP has been put into and out of hibernation several times.
I just re-started Firefox because of that problem. I was already using NoScript and Adblock Plus, and now, since the re-start, I'm using Flashblock again, also.
As I mentioned, I went to Tools/ Options/ Applications/ and selected "Always ask" or "Save File" for every application. I will try that over the next few days.
In another discussion on Slashdot about the CPU hogging bug, it seemed plausible to us that the bug is due to the way Firefox hooks and unhooks the keyboard driver. Something gets out of control. With Firefox 2, it was necessary to re-start Windows XP to recover, not just Firefox. I haven't tested Firefox 3 enough to know if it corrupts the operating system.
No one who says the problem doesn't happen to them seems to have duplicated the factors that cause the CPU bug. It is necessary, not just to have a lot of tabs open, but to open and close a lot of tabs, as when someone is doing research over several days.
Conditions for the CPU bug to appear:
1) Open lots of windows and tabs.
2) Close many windows and tabs, and open new ones.
3) Over several days.
4) With several hibernations or standby periods.
Since Firefox corrupts not just itself, but the Windows XP operating system, I suppose that there is a Firefox bug that interacts with a Windows XP bug. That causes me to suspect keyboard handling.
In tests of previous versions of Firefox with Linux, I was able to get Firefox to show the CPU hogging bug, but I was never able to get Firefox to corrupt Linux, which was always very robust.
Yes, I reported all this on Bugzilla, but all I got was the 22 standard excuses for not fixing the bug, which I won't post again in this comment.
Fifty million dollars a year from Google doesn't buy much if Firefox can't become stable, in my opinion. Howewver, I get the impression that Mozilla Foundation is managed better now that the technology-shy lawyer is no longer the chief, so maybe the next several years will be better than the last seven.
I generally like the new address bar. When I need to get back to a page that I recently visited and didn't bookmark, the history search is very handy. The only annoying part about the new design is that it strongly favors recently and frequently accessed pages. Favoring the most recently and frequently accessed page makes little sense when the top few options are very frequently accessed. In this case I would prefer the top results to be ordered by best match and not based on insignificant differences in frequency and last access time. For example, typing 'go' into the address bar should always bring up google.com as the first suggestion, not news.google.com or mail.google.com. As firefox works now, typing 'go' will always suggest the last google site I visited, which is not useful to me. I think that lots of the people who complain about the new features of the address bar would be happy if the search algorithm gave a boost to sites with domain names that begin with the search text.
I don't understand why there is a problem here. Simply shut down FF when you aren't using it, then let the tabs repopulate when you start again.
Heck, that isn't even a workaround, since it is a best practice for users anyway. Why expose your system to possible attacks from a freshly compromised web site, when you aren't actively browsing?
In the more general case, why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it? Memory that is being hogged by a PIBKAC could be used by the background system diagnostics and tuning routines.
People claiming the new address bar is no big deal are simply absurd.
I don't know squat about user interface design, but I know a great deal about common sense, and I know from my own experience as a user that the new "awesome" bar is an unusable disaster. As a frequent user of, say, Yahoo, who routinely types Yahoo in the address bar, I expect that the first suggestion when I type the letter y in the address bar should be Yahoo, like it was in version 2, rather than bringing up a dozen pages from my ancient history that happen to have the letter y buried somewhere in the middle of their URL or page title. If this usability trend continues, version 3.1 will have Clippy pop up and say "Looks like you typed the letter Y! Is that because you want to visit http://www.example.com/cgi-bin/do_something.pl?request=search&session_id=27ghapg80zy87344 (yes/no)?", which as you can see does plainly contain the letter y and is therefore an excellent candidate for the page I probably wanted. The sad thing is, except for the Clippy part, this is literally not an exaggeration of what the "awesome" bar already does.
I also don't know about "decision coverage", but again I know about common sense, and I know that being able to opt out of an extremely controversial new feature is a good idea, and hiding behind the paradox of choice is a piss-poor excuse for forcing something down users' throats that many of them loathe. I know that the old address bar didn't need any testing because it already worked perfectly. And I know that Firefox has lost its way from its original goal of being the streamlined no-frills browser where people who wanted stuff like the awesome bar could opt in by adding them as extensions, rather than bloating the main program with non-essential features and not even letting people opt out. This is not the result of usability research, this is the result of arrogance.
If it weren't for the "Old Location Bar" extension, I'd be looking for a different browser.
I've installed several add-ons and it hasn't crashed for me, either. I thought it would be just as stable on any other OS, so I installed it on my mother's tablet (with M$ Vista), and it crashed almost immediately. Every once in a while, it'll randomly crash when I hit F6 (to highlight the URL), or when I first browse to a site. I would venture a guess, based upon my admittedly limited amount of experience on the matter, that the Windows version may have more instabilities than that of Linux... gosh, imagine that. ;)
Sanity is like a condom: rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
that sounds entirely plausible.
FF3 ALWAYS crashes on me when i go to youtube, and scroll down while the video is playing. this only happens on the second video i attempt to watch. that brings it down, every time.
i will try that out right now. i hope it fixes things. I really hope this works out better than that time i typed "sudo chmodd 777 / -r^^".
-I only code in BASIC.-
XP is buggy (all non-trivial software is to varying degrees) but it is certainly not crashy. I have had installs of XP stay up for over a year with SP1 and SP2. People either have really crappy hardware with poorly written drivers or they install some crapware that makes their Windows installs so crash prone. Of course it's probably the OEM's fault with all the crud they load because I haven't run an OEM install of XP ever and I haven't seen the problems so many people report. I think the problems with FF are largely the same, it's not that the browser is crashy, it's the plugins and addons that people load. Unfortunately Flash is one of the worst offenders and it's basically required for many sites, I almost wish MS would open up Silverlight and win against flash.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The only issue I've had so far with all versions I've used (b5, rc2 and the release, both on windows and ubuntu) is that it doesn't always close cleanly, leaving an unresponsive process open. Other than that everything's shiny.
"Bi-la Kaifa"
Anyway I wholeheartedly agree. The "awesome bar" is an awesome cluster fuck. I can't believe the devs pulled this kind of shit on the FireFox faithful. Forcing a change on the userbase is something one of the many proprietary companies we all hate would do. I think Moz is getting to big for it's britches.
I'm sorry, but if you've never tried to develop an XUL application, then you're not qualified to judge whether not the previous poster is a troll.
Does Gnash suffer from the same issues?
No.
Gnash might be more buggy and could have more stability issues *BUT* gnash runs in a separate process (gnash's "browser plugin" is in fact a thin layer that launches a separate standalone player and embeds it into firefox) and thus doesn't leak memory from firefox or take down the whole browser whenever it crashes. Also, Gnash can be set in its configuration file not to automatically start playing the animations.
That's why I use it at home (note: I don't read lots of 100% flash-based websites neither).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
OS Integration? How about OS support. Firefox 3 is a real pain in the ass on non winodws/mac/linux systems.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Thanks for sharing your opinion that other people's opinions are absurd. I think your opinion that our opinion is absurd is absurd. Aren't opinions great?
That's all we're asking for.
Yes they are. Many of us users hate the annoying bar, and they're ignoring our requests to provide a way to get rid of its annoying behavior via about:config.
I have a feeling that more people want to elect me president than Obama or McCain. Unfortunately I have no hard data to back up my feeling.
I'm very happy for you. If they would give us a choice, your choice would presumably be to leave it set to the default behavior.
Find free books.
I've had a CPU hogging issue with Firefox 3.0, and no, it wasn't flash.
I use two computers - a desktop and a notebook. My desktop still runs Firefox 2.0 (and it's beginning to crash a bit too frequently for my tastes), and my notebook runs Firefox 3.0. I export the bookmarks from my desktop, and import them onto the laptop. If I ran Firefox 2.0, it would be done very quickly (10 seconds maximum). However, Firefox 3.0 takes 1 minute to do so, given the quantity of bookmarks I have. Even if it's a "minor" section in the Firefox code, don't be suprised if there's some other portion of Firefox that's taking longer than normal, in the same way that Netscape Communicator 4.7 CPU-hogged on some cascaded tables.
As for flash, I haven't seen it hog CPU very recently. The worst case where was Flash was able to take out Firefox on certain embedded objects (i.e. as with Sonny) by somehow locking portions of Firefox's interface (i.e. you couldn't select menu items).
Quote: "I don't understand why there is a problem here."
That's right. You don't understand.
The Firefox session manager doesn't always work. If it has some problem reaching a web page in a very short time, it puts a blank space instead of the address in the address bar. It's "I couldn't get there in two seconds, so I suppose you don't want to go there".
Also, exiting Firefox and re-starting often doesn't work. It may improve the CPU hogging, but it is only an improvement, not a fix.
Another quote: "... why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it?"
I think I can re-phrase that question into what seems to be your statement: "Your use of a browser cannot possibly be different than mine." There are people, such as computer software and hardware buyers, who need to keep tabs open for several days, until they get an email from a seller, for example.
It seems your usage is so far removed from both
that I don't see why a browser should be expected to perform well against your criteria.
FF is open source, so it would be a simple enough thing for you to either fork it yourself or hire someone with the skills to do so, and build a variant that could be left running for days on end, with hundreds of tabs left open.
But I'm not sure that the community needs a browser that meets these requirements. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case I expect this post to get soundly trounced.
I don't understand why there is a problem here. Simply shut down FF when you aren't using it, then let the tabs repopulate when you start again.
When I use shut down firefox when it isn't in use, I don't have an idea what I'll use it for the next time I launch it. It may be for Slashdot, to look up information about a function, or for some other reason. Having background tabs load tends to slow down what I intend on doing at that given time.
Also, loading an instance of an application is perceived to be slower than pressing alt-tab.
Why expose your system to possible attacks from a freshly compromised web site, when you aren't actively browsing?
A better question is to ask is why web browsers automatically gives that level of trust to a foreign website, given the number and type of attacks that have occurred in the past 10 years. Web pages are just that: pages. They don't need to automatically refresh (unless the website operator is desperate for traffic enough to cycle ads), and the content doesn't change that frequently (unless it's a really high-traffic website, in which case you'll miss stuff anyway.)
In the more general case, why keep any software running for hours in an idle mode when you aren't using it?
I came up with an even more general case - why keep software installed if you aren't going to use them? This resulted in installing only the minimal components of Windows 95, causing some later applications to falter since I didn't install any networking components on a non-networked computer.
Basically, you have to have software installed, even if there's no perceived use. At that point, you can keep certain applications in memory with full knowledge that they can be swapped to disk if they aren't doing anything (they'll be reloaded if you click on the window.)
People getting bent out of shape about the address bar is simply absurd. While I admit, the option to turn it off should appear somewhere, if only in about:config, the development team isn't ignoring it's users. I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it. I certainly find it very useful at times. I also happen to find the new user interface to be well thought out and designed.
The current about:config does not have the ability to revert the bar to its previous behavior. It gives a few options to reign it in a little, make it behave a little more like it traditionally (and, dare I say, sensibly) should. The thing that irritates me the most is that, in earlier versions of the 3.0 beta releases, there was a config option to completely revert to previous behavior. Why in God's name remove that option?
It feels like a real push from the designers to try to make everybody use their new feature. That's a push that good features shouldn't need. There are already add-ins that take care of much of the problem, though, and I'm sure they'll get better within the next few months.
Eventually, years from now, I won't need to post the list. I'll just answer such comments with the excuse numbers.
Firefox Developer Top 20 Excuses
for Not Fixing the Firefox CPU Hogging bug
These are actual excuses given at one time or another.
I for one find that small "minor" changed to a UI are harder to deal with. to use your examples of Office 2007 and kde4; Office 2007, i expect nothing to be where it was in 2003 because it looks nothing like 2003, so I look where i think it should be not where I would expect it in 2003 (hope that made sense). As for KDE4, being a long time gnome/xfce user the switch to kde alone is a UI change, but the above logic still holds true, it looks like nothing I am familiar with.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
Sounds like you'd like SeaMonkey quite a bit.
"Kindergarten interface" is probably the most subjective complaint possible
By "Kindergarten interface" I mean bright with big colours, made so a child could understand what's on the screen but hiding, making less accessible, or removing useful features that an adult using the product for serious work would want to see.
last time I checked, kindergartners don't write in a sans serif font face.
Last time I checked AC posters on /. were arrogant condescending prats.
If you're referring to multiple colors, there is scientific research to support such a change, but then again you consider research to be garbage so I don't see you taking much stock in that.
No, if you must use clown colours, go for it, though I have to doubt the value of doing thtat. I'm referring to moving from a tried and true familiar interface, to one where options are hidden or removed making the product less useful and requiring retraining.
It's also interesting how you reiterate "Change for the sake of change isn't good" with no new content despite that very point having been dealt with in the parent (repeating the same point verbatim is not actually a rebuttal).
It's also interesting how you attempt to discredit everything I say with a new straw man or similar misdirection. Re-stating one's position for emphasis does not invalidate the point.
All you've done is described why YOU don't like it in the vaguest possible terms you could manage.
I'm sure I could manage vaguer. Could you manage to be more condescending or dismissive? I think not!
While I don't have a problem with your personal taste in web browsers, I do find your critiques to be more of insults rather than critiques. If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine, but making ignorant statements is a hard position to defend.
I made no ignorant statements whatsoever. You write like a politician. You say "If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine" but you qualify it with words to the effect that it's not fine unless I shut up and keep it to myself.
Finally why post as AC? Is there something you're embarassed of here? Perhaps you wouldn't want such a childish attitude associated with your name?
and some knob modded this trash as insightful.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I have only ever had FF3 crash when it receives an update and restarts but as long as I can restore my session i am happy
null
I really have never gotten a clear answer on how the new one is worse than the old one. I've seen some complaints about how typing "w" now gets a bunch of useless results due to "www", but you can easily avoid that by typing ".w" to get sites that start with a W
Oh yeah, typing .w is real intuitive. Don't see a problem there at all *rolls eyes*
Here's why it's worse.
- The old address bar worked just fine, and searched only my history. If I wished to remove everything I'd just need to clear my history.
- I don't want bookmarks being searched. I don't want my wife knowing that I've been searching for eternity rings for her at jewellery sites/stores. I don't need my friends knowing which bank i use. I don't need the local news website being displayed for my boss every time I type something into the address bar, as if to say all I ever do is goof off and look at these sites. When I mention this people automatically assume I bookmark porn. I personally have never bookmarked porn for a variety of reasons. However I know there are others that do, and that this has actually contributed to the proliferation of the Internet. Whether or not you agree with them doing so, they should not have their right to keep those bookmarks private overridden by some Firefox developer's sense of what the address bar should look like.
- The new address bar is inefficient. The old address bar just showed addresses. Most addresses I have visited or bookmarked I recognise and do not require 2 lines with an explanation of each site. If this were a default I could turn off as an advanced user, I'd say it would only be a small move backwards but...
- ...it requires 2 extensions to turn off the new functionality and as I understand it it's a bit of a hack. It shouldn't be that hard to get back what worked well in the previous browser version. I have a real problem with developers deciding for me what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do in a new version of software. I have a problem with good useful features being replaced even when many users object.
So please stop telling us how you don't understand why people take issue with the new bar. If you don't agree with the above points, or you don't feel they affect you that's one thing, but stop deciding for others what should and shouldn't bother them.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I think it's a cluttered mess, as do some others. Those others, me, and everybody else, are going to have to live with it. I think that is enough to justify a 'we' there: do you really disagree?
Part of why it's a mess is that the option bar pulldown function is overly large and tends to go to lengthy, recent URL's instead of site URL's. This debris can clutter a screen quite a lot. The ordering and size of the bar also makes its use awkward when sites have complex URL's identifying specific and potentially hazardous to repeat operations. It's also cluttered by the 'favicon.ico' URL at many sites, which is not helpful at all. Even for simple sites like webcomics, previous day's URL's seem to be frequently listed ahead of the main site URL.
So yes, it's cluttered.
One thing that changed substantially during the Firefox 3 development cycle was that Mozilla finally created a useful testing architecture to spot and avoid regressions much better than before. Also, they've switched to Mercurial for post-3.0 development to allow for better development on concurrent branches while staying off the trunk. As a result, they're aiming to keep the trunk in a constant release-ready state specifically to allow for faster turnaround time for 3.x releases.
Can you name/link-to the offending site?
While I admit, the option to turn it off should appear somewhere, if only in about:config, the development team isn't ignoring it's users.
Really? So far, it seems like we can paraphrase the response from the developers as, "We'll tell you the same thing we told the other 100,000 people who asked for it: Nobody wants the old behavior back!"
The awesomebar debate has had tons of anecdotes and personal theories, but very little hard data. So here's a real data point:
Since Firefox 3.0 went to general release, the Oldbar extension has been downloaded at least 70,000 times. (It was at roughly 15K when I downloaded it on 3.0 release day.)
70,000 seems non-trivial to me.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I said:
I'm referring to moving from a tried and true familiar interface, to one where options are hidden or removed making the product less useful and requiring retraining.
You responded:
So just to be clear, you're arguing against any change what so ever unless there is a clear defect in the code.
Either your lack of comprehension is astounding, or you're just trolling. You simply can't go from what I said to your interpretation using any form of honest logic. The rest of your message is more of the same. As for your "good feedback" about the address bar, there are pages of complaints and 2 shiny new extensions to turn it off that show up what you say as a complete nonsense. You are either a Firefox developer in disguise, or more likely a fanboi.
Either way, I've concluded replying to your tripe trolling crap is a complete waste of my time. The challenge isn't to come up with a persuasive argument - it's too counter every purposeful misinterpretation you can come up with. No thanks. Have a nice life, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out, and enjoy the validation that being modded up seems to give you.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
when I'm in a URL entry box, I don't expect to have searches on titles
Short answer: it's not a URL entry box anymore.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Roughly 1 in 50 downloads doesn't really seem like they're ignoring the user base.
Hypothetically, if it was someone demonstrated that Firefox lost 1 in 50 users to MSIE, Opera, etc., it would cause great response (Slashdot headlines, etc.). Obviously, people aren't that upset about it, but I think it demonstrates that 2% of users is not the same as two pennies. I'd call it significant enough a number to warrant developer response beyond the current behavior. Again, the response so far has been to tell people who want an option for the old behavior that they're wrong. Especially since we're not talking about writing a lot of new code; we're talking about not removing the old code. Indeed, there used to be such an option; it was removed (along with the old code). So it actually took more developer effort (short term) to get the current situation.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I've never had any issues with Konqueror. It's also lighting fast on my aging laptop compared to Firefox, which crawls and slows everything else down, too.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
I'm sorry, but if you've never tried to develop an XUL application, then you're not qualified to judge whether not the previous poster is a troll.
I'm not saying XUL is bug free or painless for developers. The post I was replying to was a clear attack on the end-usability of XUL applications. I merely pointed out that I use XUL applications on a daily basis and don't experience "major" bugs.
Your post appears to support the troll but like the troll, you haven't even included any even anecdotal evidence to support your case, so I have no way of changing my opinion!