Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Releases Firefox 3.1 Alpha 2

daria42 writes with news that Mozilla has released the second alpha build for Firefox 3.1, codenamed "Shiretoko." The new build includes "support for the HTML 5 <video> element" and the ability to "drag and drop tabs between browser windows." ComputerWorld is running a related story about benchmarks shown by Mozilla's Brendan Eich which indicate that Firefox 3.1 will run Javascript faster than Chrome.

81 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mozilla has released the second alpha build for Firefox 3.1, codenamed "Shiretoko."

    I see. Is that why I was yet again presented with a dialog tonight inviting me to "Upgrade to Firefox 3!" even though I've hit the Never button on that same dialog at least twice on this machine over the past few weeks?

    If you give me an upgrade option that says "Never," and I choose that option, my expectation is that I will no longer get random dialogs offering the upgrade. Ever. That's sort of the reason I keep clicking "Never" instead of "Later," but Firefox doesn't seem to care.

    This is really starting to get annoying.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That bug was fixed in version 3.0. I recommend you upgrade your browser to fix the bug.

    2. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Psychotria · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is a fix/workaround for this behaviour--make sure that you do not connect to the internet. This way firefox never sees the update and the nag dialog to update never appears.

    3. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cool, thanks. I'll get on that right awa

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    4. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by zig007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is really starting to get annoying.

      I suppose you filed a bug report a few weeks ago and no one has done anything about it?
      Don't bother to check, I am quite sure you didn't:
      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453452

      This was posted on the 3rd. On the highly unlikely event that it was you that posted that bug, maybe you should give them more than 3 days to do something about it before bashing them on /.?
      Also, I would categorize this as a low priority bug(OMFG? Pressing a button AN EXTRA COUPLE OF TIMES? You still alive?), so don't hold your breath.
      It is also in the 1.8 branch..

      You know one thing I find annoying?
      Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    5. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by zig007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because no more than one person could possibly be experiencing the same bug

      Yep. Quite likely.
      And besides being an excuse to not report bugs, it would also be an excuse to bash them on forums? Right?

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    6. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe, If you started to think, instead of demanding from people who give you stuff for free, you'd found out, that "Never" means "Never ask me if I want to update to *this* version.".

      Besides: If you don't like it, you can easily fix it. Every noob can change some "if (...)" in some JavaScript C code.

      Never forget that all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it. And if we listen to you, it's only because we like to make people happy.
      If you insult us, call as stupid idiots, tell us that we're shit... do not expect us to even talk to you.

      It's common sense: Be nice. Most of the time, people will help you.
      But maybe some people do not get out of their basement too often... (Users and Developers alike)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the other hand... if you call us *the* shit... we might accept it. :D

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although Psychotria (953670) was meant to be funny it gave me an idea. add firefox's upgrade address to your host file and point it to yourself thus it will not look for an upgrade.

    9. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by nightglider28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My Firefox is at 2.0.0.16. This is an official release (and, as far as I know, the most recent revision to the 2.0 tree). When Mozilla issues a public software update that has passed their internal reviews and release management processes, I don't believe that it's my responsibility to report bugs prior to complaining about them.

      While I agree that it's not your job to make sure there are no bugs, it's not realistic to assume that a non-alpha/beta release is perfect. It should be stable and bugs should indeed be few and far between, but it's not going to be a flawless product. You shouldn't have to hound the programmers to get things fixed, but as far as I'm concerned, you have no right to complain about something you can do and have done something to fix.

    10. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by FoboldFKY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I once had a chat to some Mozilla guys on IRC; I'd just gone through the rigmarole of posting a bug in Bugzilla, and was saying how it wasn't exactly easy to work out.

      Their response was that Bugzilla isn't intended for end-users to submit bugs; it's for developers.

      The average user is going to take one look at Bugzilla and run screaming so fast the air friction will burn their face off.

      --
      We're geeks... We're the sorcerers of the modern-day world. --
    11. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know one thing I find annoying?
      Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

      You know one thing I find annoying? Spending a good half an hour producing a long bug report to a third party, detailing my configuration carefully, testing on other machines, suggesting possible causes and workarounds, explaining why the bug is important... then having someone who clearly knows his users' needs better than his users either
      (1) ignoring it as if it was never posted;
      (2) marking it the "so low priority you might see a fix within 3 years, if at all" category; or
      (3) slamming a "wont fix" or a "by design" on it and closing with 0 to 5 words of explanation, because if a bug's not worth considering a bug today, by golly it needs to be ignored Right Now before others point out that it bothers them too. Never mind that it's useful to collect feedback since, if sufficient users argue in some direction, it might be that there's actually a problem.

      Though nothing riles me more than offering some patch and the FIRST thing you get is not a comment on its engineering quality but a rant about spacing and variable naming. Two things, fuckers:
      (a) First tell me whether you feel the code works and the algorithm is elegant/efficient, because that's where the thought has gone (or hasn't, if I've made some mistake - which I'd be happy to know about);
      (b) Then consider that because it's your project you might just this once be able to stretch your valuable time to re-indenting a few lines of code.
      Then, and only then, might you SAY THANK YOU then politely point me to some well written style documentation for the project to help me for next time. And, if you do these things, I'll feel welcomed and there will likely be a next time.

      I've pretty much given up on reporting bugs to third party projects, in the same way I gave up reporting HTML issues to webmasters before 1998. I think one particular problem is that major open source contributors feel that users owe them in return for the work they do - hell, the parent poster seems to speak as if they do. It's a side effect of the transition from an academic (where things are done for the sake of improving human knowledge) to a commercial (where things are done for oneself) Internet - even in the OSS context, people participate to boost their own egos/resumes/bragging rights/sense of entitlement. Wrong! Take a leaf out of organised religion and assume that you'll get into some sort of Free Software Heaven or something, if it makes you feel better; you do not owe me when I publish a paper in my field that you happen to benefit from reading, and I do not owe you when I use your software, okay?

      Moving from a technical to a political note, I refuse to provide any help to the Mozilla Foundation until it stops trying to disguise itself as a non-profit. I don't like Google's hypocritical "do no evil" image either, so it'll be good to see Chrome and Firefox fight it out - hopefully to the detriment of each other by fragmenting marketshare - and it's nice to see Google giving Mozilla an unexpected kick in the balls.

    12. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, I've never come across a bigger cry baby tardmonkey.

      You cry about a bug, then refuse to submit a bug report. You know what, pack your computer up (or disassemble it, but I doubt you make your own computers) and send it back to whoever you bought it from because you're too fucking stupid to own one.

      You posted on slashdot crying about a product issue with a free browser used by millions of people that has a very simple bug reporting system. Do you not see how unbelievably retarded you come across?

      I'm no genius, but to me, reporting a bug that DIRECTLY AFFECTS YOU seems like a SMART thing to do. Crying on slashdot about it, then proceeding to try and prove that it's mozilla's fault you don't report bugs, well, really comes across as MONUMENTALLY FUCKING STUPID.

      Then again, the stupidity of people using the internet never fails to astound me.

      Look forward to seeing your place in the Darwin awards.

    13. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes less time to report a bug to Mozilla than to bitch about it on slashdot then defend your own moaning. If you want bugs fixed then report them, if you don't want them gone, don't complain about them. If you think that Mozilla has enough "internal reviews and release management processes" to find all their bugs before it goes out to users then you are an idiot. Most bugs aren't discovered until the users use it in their own different ways and no amount of testing or anal retentive release management is going to fix that. Mozilla does thousands of things right and you're complaining some trivial dialog box; if they had waited until all the bugs were found before releasing, you would still need to use another browser such as Internet Explorer, Opera, Crome, Safari which are all even buggier.

      You're right about Mozilla, they do release free software and you don't have to do anything in return. It also means that they're just writing it because they want to make the best software possible and unless you help them by reporting the bugs, they don't care about you or whether you like their product or not.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    14. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by craagz · · Score: 3, Informative

      downgrade your FF 2 a lower version, i.e. 2.0.13 if it is 2.0.14 right now. Tha nag will go away. But i will advise you to switch to FF3 it is so awesome.

    15. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly : you aren't paid to report/fix bugs , but you don't have to pay for the software either.

      So , simply put , you can't complain . You can post bug reports to help speed things up

    16. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "They have people who are paid to do this shit."

      Ridiculous. They are giving you stuff for free, *and* you expect them to do even more stuff for you for free while insulting them at the same time? Talk about being ungrateful, rude and anti-social!

    17. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DAs I pointed out in a prior post, I'm using an official public release version of Firefox. Not a beta, not a nightly, not an RC. In this capacity, I'm an end user, not a QA tester. Do you actually presume that everyone who uses Firefox should report each bug that they encounter?

      If they want it fixed, yes. It is impossible for a programmers to fix a bug they don't know exist, even if it's in an official public release.

      What if your grandmother uses Firefox and something doesn't work as she expects?

      Then she better tell someone about it, if she expects someone to do something about it, just like she would with any other kind of problem.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also means that they're just writing it because they want to make the best software possible

      Last time I checked, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company. This is not the Foundation we're talking about here. The people who work for Mozilla Corp (the people who put out Firefox) all get paid and they're trying to make a profit.

      Usually, when a software company expects their customers to be beta testers, they get slammed on /.

      And let's understand something: just because you don't pay for something does not mean you are not a customer. Remember, free is the new cheap.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you understand the difference between using Ubuntu and Firefox? One is made by people who really are doing it just for the love of it, and the other is a for-profit company.

      There are some who don't seem to be aware of the difference between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp.

      Why did Google get slammed here on /. for Chrome, which is given away for free, but then go on to polish Firefox's knob? Can you really not use a product without becoming emotionally attached and using it's fucking logo as a family herald? Am I obliged to change my middle name to "Apple" because I use a MacBook? I was about to use as a hyperbolic example the idea of getting a logo tattooed on my body, but then I realized that it's already common.

      I refuse to use a corporate identifier as my avatar (and I don't mean in an MMO).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I refuse to provide any help to the Mozilla Foundation until it stops trying to disguise itself as a non-profit.

      OK, Once and for all:

      From Wikipedia:
      "On August 3, 2005, Mozilla Foundation announced the creation of Mozilla Corporation, a wholly owned for-profit taxable subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation, that primarily focuses on delivering Firefox to end users. It will also oversee marketing and sponsorship of the products."

      Emphasis mine.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by zig007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Last time I checked, Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company.

      Quote wikipedia:
      "The Mozilla Corporation reinvests some or all of its profits back into the Mozilla projects.[2] The Mozilla Corporation's stated aim is to work towards the Mozilla Foundation's public benefit to "promote choice and innovation on the Internet."

      Just like Microsoft, right?
      Except it isn't:
      "The Mozilla Corporation was established on August 3, 2005 to handle the revenue-related operations of the Mozilla Foundation. As a non-profit, the Mozilla Foundation is limited in terms of the types and amounts of revenue. The Mozilla Corporation, as a taxable organization (essentially, a commercial operation), does not have to comply with such strict rules. Upon its creation, the Mozilla Corporation took over several areas from the Mozilla Foundation, including coordination and integration of the development of Firefox and Thunderbird (by the global free software community) and the management of relationships with businesses.

      With the creation of the Mozilla Corporation, the rest of the Mozilla Foundation narrowed its focus to concentrate on the Mozilla project's governance and policy issues. In November 2005, with the release of Mozilla Firefox 1.5, the Mozilla Corporation's website at mozilla.com was unveiled as the new home of the Firefox and Thunderbird products online.

      In 2006 the Mozilla Corporation generated 66.8 million dollars in revenue and 19.8 million in expenses, with 85% of that revenue coming from Google for "assigning [Google] as the browser's default search engine, and for click-throughs on ads placed on the ensuing search results pages."[4]"

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    22. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Cheesy+Fool · · Score: 2, Funny

      s/Ubuntu/Debian/g

      --

      Hail to the king, baby!
    23. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wow... that's got to be one of the quickest and most amazingly silly Godwins I've ever seen.

    24. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by sameerds · · Score: 5, Informative

      My Firefox is at 2.0.0.16.

      Have you read this? Seems like they have really started pushing FF3 hard like they said they would!

    25. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if your grandmother uses Firefox and something doesn't work as she expects?

      My grandma would probably just click the 'Never' button every once in a while.

      If something really gives her problems, she'd call me up. I'd look at it, and file a bug report.

      Wow... the system works.

      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
    26. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are giving you stuff for free

      Pardon teh second post, but "free" is an interesting concept in today's online economy.

      Most users of Google products also don't pay anything, but do you believe you are anything but their customer?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "... but what other explanation is there for Firefox, Netscape, Windoze, or other programs to keep INSISTING that I MUST upgrade my software immediately OR ELSE face dire consequences?"

      That's because morons like you, with vintage software, are responsible for all the hundreds of thousands of bots flooding the net with spam and other nasty stuff.

    28. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by repvik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, google "users" are a product. The advertisers are the customers of google.

    29. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by gumpish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After reading that flamebait, I'm seriously wondering if you work for Microsoft. You seem to be intentionally trying to piss off the Mozilla user base.

      I can assure you, no one is working harder to piss off the Mozilla user base than the Mozilla dev team.

      Just look at the AwesomeBar.

    30. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Insightful"? More like "mods on crack"! Firefox 3.0 final was released on June 17, 2008 - that's just 3 months ago. FF 2.0 is not "vintage" by any sane measure.

    31. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by rubah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not yet, but the unwillingness to upgrade is why we had to start this intense firefox promotioning in the first place because IE6 *had* gotten to where it was vintage software. We'd like to not see that happen again.

      Aside from that, I can sympathize. I used winamp3 up until last year.

    32. Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means by dveditz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you really don't want any upgrades just go into the options and toggle the "Check for updates" box. The default auto-upgrade is appropriate for 99% of internet users, but if you're one of the 1% please use the preference we put in just for you. No need to get all hostile about it.

  2. Re:"New" features by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I didn't know that. Tried just now on 3.0.1 and yes, you can.

    It's one of the things I really like with Chrome; I think Chrome does it slightly better (FF replaced the content of the the open tab in the destination window with the page from the source window and left the source tab open - Chrome creates a new tab in the destination window and closes the source tab). I'm still firmly in the Firefox camp so it'd be great if 3.1 more closely mirrors Chrome's tab moves.

    --
    This is where the serious fun begins.
  3. This version does not include Tracemonkey by Anik315 · · Score: 5, Informative

    To get a version with Tracemonkey, download a nightly build and follow these instructions:

    open a new tab
    type about:config and hit enter
    read the warning and heed its wisdom
    enter jit in the filter field
    double click on javascript.options.jit.chrome and javascript.options.jit.content to change their values to true

    1. Re:This version does not include Tracemonkey by Rachman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had no idea Google was coming out with a browser and the wonderful Chrome comic came completely out of nowhere for me. I had been using Firefox since it was first usable. I downloaded Chrome thinking it would mildly interesting to see Google's take on a browser. Oh my god. I can't think of another piece of software that has made such an immediate impression on me ever. It isn't the individual page rendering that is so fast it is the overall application.

      Switching to Chrome gave the feeling of in the past when I went years between upgrading computers and suddenly everything just feels instantaneous and responsive. And Chrome feels incredibly sleek and native running on Vista. Sharp and refined elegance are the impression it gives. Firefox continually degrades in performance and memory usage over time where you can feel the tabs taking longer and longer to switch. And the memory leaks and left overs from long since closed tabs won't go away without quitting out of Firefox. With Chrome there never is any sort of performance decay. Close a tab and memory usage drops exactly as much as that tab was using. And now matter how many tabs are open and have been opened and closed the entire UI remains as lighting quick as when the app was first launched.

      There's no way I will ever go back to Firefox. It would feel like going from Win2k back to Win95.

  4. Re:"New" features by bytta · · Score: 3, Informative
    Works fine from tabbar to tabbar in latest FF (3.0.1) - but TFA points to a bug from 2001 that's finally resolved.

    Probably dragging to anywhere in the window works now.

  5. We ain't dead yet! by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So here we have the Moz FF team saying: "We ain't dead yet!".

    With IE as the undisputed champion, nothing happened. FF brought the "browser war" back, and suddenly IE starts getting new features.

    Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!

    Here's what I'd like to see:

    1) Process-per-tab. It sucks when some JS in some tab gets hung up, bringing everything else in the browser to its knees! Chrome is the only game in town here.

    2) Fast (native-speed) JS execution. (Chrome? FF?)

    3) Excellent plugin compatibility. Both FF and IE have this down.

    4) Cross Platform support. I'm a Win/Mac/Linux guy, I expect my software to work equally on all three. FF is the clear winner here.

    4) Ubiquity. For me, this is FF, because it's the first thing I download after a fresh OS install, regardless of the OS. But for most people, this is still IE.

    What am I going to use? Firefox has my money, still. I type this in Chrome, but I usually am not using Windows, so Chrome, Safari, and IE are non-starters for me.

    But Chrome makes it obvious: the browser is the next O/S.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:We ain't dead yet! by Locomorto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh cookies? Lets not get too excited here over nothing.

      --
      Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
    2. Re:We ain't dead yet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cookies are shared among all tabs. That isn't just expected behaviour, it's the only sensible one (except for privacy mode).

      You're either trolling or not understanding the purpose of having different processes for different tabs.

    3. Re:We ain't dead yet! by tobiasly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!

      I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars. They will make no money from Chrome; it is just a means to an end. What they are trying to do is just make sure that the rapid pace of browser development over the past few years continues unabated, so Microsoft doesn't pull another IE6 on us.

      I see Chrome as more of a "reference implementation" than a true competitor. Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade? To foster the type of developer and add-on community that Firefox has? I just don't see it happening. I think they really just hope that Firefox, Safari, and Opera et. al. incorporate all the new ideas in Chrome into their own products.

    4. Re:We ain't dead yet! by amirulbahr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Each tab does run in its own process. A "persistent login" is usually implemented using a "session" on top of HTTP and usually using cookies. One would think, that a cookie is a cookie across all Chrome processes. That is the behaviour that one would expect and also the behaviour that has correctly been implemented in Chrome.

      Before your next troll, perhaps you should go and write a multi-process application, then go and write a web-application that stores login information in a session. Then think about what you just posted.

    5. Re:We ain't dead yet! by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But Chrome makes it obvious: the browser is the next O/S.

      I wish this meme would die... tell me... will your browser have a posix API? Will your browser have it's own video and printer drivers? Will your browser allow me to run Linux as a hosted process?

      Honestly, kids these days...

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:We ain't dead yet! by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you read the comic announcing Chrome? I did. You should, too!

      Sure, standard processes can share memory. Sure, they can share cookies. And I don't mind them doing so in a derivative fashion. EG: If I open Tab B from Tab A, it should get Tab A's cookies. But cookies in Tab B shouldn't "backport" to tab A.... The point is that if different processes can communicate with each other, that significantly increases the likelyhood of cross-tab / cross-process vulnerabilities. The attack footprint just grew, rather sharply, in size.

      I have no problem with cookies being shared. I do have a problem with NEW cookies being shared across processes in an obviously shmop-type environment. Suddenly, tab A can theoretically access session cookies running in tab B, and worse, can even set them.

      But that's not what the comic described! What I read sounded more like a description of a JVM or a chroot-jail. Each process would run in its own highly protected space. There were pictures of bars on the comic. And that sounds very different than the idea that the tabs all share a memory space that contains (among other things) security sensitive session cookies!

      If I'm trolling, I sure don't mean to be. But it's pretty clear that the whole "each tab is a different process running in its own jail" is crap. Sorry. It may be significantly better than the "everything runs in a single process" model that FF uses. I don't want to imply that this isn't a significant improvement. But it's certainly less than claimed, and it's certainly less than their comic announcement led me to expect.

      And that leaves me disappointed.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:We ain't dead yet! by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Will your browser have it's own video and printer drivers?

      There's no reason why it can't. In embedded space it even makes sense.

      The other two examples have nothing to do with whether or not something is an OS. Just your narrow definition of one.

    8. Re:We ain't dead yet! by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade? To foster the type of developer and add-on community that Firefox has? I just don't see it happening. I think they really just hope that Firefox, Safari, and Opera et. al. incorporate all the new ideas in Chrome into their own products.

      If they have structure their code properly (and initial feedback indicates that they have) it will take perhaps a dozen reasonably qualified software engineers to keep Chrome relevant. Compared to the size and resources of Google, this is a fairly small investment.

      But the result is likely to be rather dramatic for Google: if they provide a simple, rapid, quality browser for a reasonable price that takes browsers to a whole new level, where the browser is very literally more like an operating system, this can have tremendous benefits for Google with its significant and growing number of online applications like google maps, gmail, calendar, and more by the day.

      Unlike IE, Chrome developers only have to build a browser that works. They don't have to integrate with some ActiveX or Cocoa API, they don't have to maintain retro-compatibility with a bazillion intranet applications. They just have to make a browser that's cross-platform and implements O/S features in the 80 MB or so of its download size that were common in early Unix Operating Systems that were 10 MB or so.

      While I have my doubts as to whether Chrome is everything claimed in their introductory comic, Chrome represents a good step forward, and the fact that it's open source and open license means that it's likely to spread far, wide, and deep within a few years.

      It's a double-plus sign to the KDE team; Chrome is based on webkit which is based on Konqueror which was written for KDE. Open-source cross-polinization at work!

      Go Google!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    9. Re:We ain't dead yet! by Yer+Mum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With reference to my babble; I know, but I used a paragraph of his to introduce an observation.

      My observation was that people have slated Firefox 2 and IE 7 and 8 for using 200M of memory, and when Chrome uses the same it's all shiney and new.

      I see you're quoting from that comic. Firefox does not have one giant address space, it can allocate memory and release it as and when required using various different methods depending on data requirements (just as any other process can).

      The fact that this memory is attached to one process or various is beside the point, apart from one: When a process (tab/window) in Chrome is destroyed the OS cleans up the memory. When a tab or a window is destroyed in Firefox the application cleans up the memory.

      Very well, but this basically means Google's designers have decided that any memory problems will solve themselves (or rather the OS will solve them) when a tab or window is closed in Chrome and that this advantage outweighs the disadvantage involved in spawning new processes and the IPC between them. There is also less incentive to spend time fixing memory leaks because the workaround will be to close the window/tab and re-open it again.

      FF3 has achieved quite a reduction in memory usage and received praise for it until now, and slating it as 'crappy code' and 'half-hearted attempts at fixing [memory leaks] is disingenuous.

    10. Re:We ain't dead yet! by Fweeky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I open Tab B from Tab A, it should get Tab A's cookies. But cookies in Tab B shouldn't "backport" to tab A

      Uh, why not? If I'm browsing a site using multiple tabs, and the site resets the cookie to avoid session fixation attacks, or it uses cookies to configure features to whatever, all my tabs should get the new cookie, they shouldn't behave like entirely separate browsers.

      The point is that if different processes can communicate with each other, that significantly increases the likelyhood of cross-tab / cross-process vulnerabilities. The attack footprint just grew, rather sharply, in size.

      Compared to what? Everything running in the same memory space?

      The multi-process model Chrome's using means tabs communicate via message passing*, rather than grabbing locks around shared data structures and poking at things directly, which seems to be what you think is going on. A message passing model's a far smaller area to attack, since it can be a rigorously defined, limited and enforced protocol, rather than an advisory thing a programming error can easily forget or an attacker ignore. And yes, it allows child processes to be run with significantly reduced privileges; e.g. your tabs could be running as user nobody, chrooted to /var/empty, unable to create files or even see most of the system; any time they need to do anything with higher privileges, they need to talk to the parent process, which can consider what they *should* be able to do and reject anything else.

      Sure, the message passing might not be as robust as paranoid as you'd like, but it's a far smaller space to attack and secure than "well, if someone gets an arbitrary code execution attack going on, it's game over".

          * I haven't looked at the code, it certainly *could* just be sharing big chunks of memory like that, but I somewhat doubt it.

    11. Re:We ain't dead yet! by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see you're quoting from that comic. Firefox does not have one giant address space, it can allocate memory and release it as and when required using various different methods depending on data requirements (just as any other process can).

      Do you know what "address space" is, and how memory allocation works ? Because the only way to have more than one address space is to have more than one process.

      The fact that this memory is attached to one process or various is beside the point, apart from one: When a process (tab/window) in Chrome is destroyed the OS cleans up the memory. When a tab or a window is destroyed in Firefox the application cleans up the memory.

      And sometimes Firefox misses some of it. Then it stays allocated until Firefox exits, at which point the OS can clean it. Since the total memory is limited, when such things happen over and over again, these little crumbs of allocated but unused memory take up greater and greater portion of memory space, until finally there's not enough unallocated memory left to satisfy an allocation request, and Firefox crashes, taking all its tabs and windows with it. On the other hand, if each tab has its own process, a particular one might crash, but the rest keep on working.

      Of course, the same goes for any error. In Firefox, it kills everything, while in Chrome, it kills only the tab in which the error happened, or that's the theory anyway. And since browsers are complex, it's easy to make errors while coding them.

      There is also less incentive to spend time fixing memory leaks because the workaround will be to close the window/tab and re-open it again.

      As opposed to the Firefox way of closing the whole browser and starting from scratch.

      FF3 has achieved quite a reduction in memory usage and received praise for it until now, and slating it as 'crappy code' and 'half-hearted attempts at fixing [memory leaks] is disingenuous.

      FF3 is crappy code. Even if it doesn't have a single memory leak - which I sincerely doubt - the UI has a tendency to hang while the browser is busy, which is simply sloppy.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:We ain't dead yet! by vidarh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Address space is not fixed per application on modern OSes or on UNIX-based OSes,

      No, but it IS limited to one per process, which was GP's point.

      If Chrome has a bad memory leak (when e.g. it destroys a flash object) and you restrict your use to one window only without opening new windows or tabs, you will eventually notice it just as much as you would in Firefox.

      No, you won't, since Chrome also (at least according to the comic) throws away the process in certain other situations as well, such as when loading a page from a new domain. But that is irrelevant: If it only affects a single tab, the "cost" of a restart is minimal: You have to close that tab and load a single page again, instead of reload every single tab (in my case often 40-50).

      The fact that Chrome's design means it uses the OS as a crutch and it steps in and throws everything out when a window or tab is closed does not mean Chrome's design is inherently good, it just means it's more robust at the cost of the extra baggage the OS needs to maintain separate processes (extra memory, slower speed).

      More robust == better. That "extra baggage" is mostly the cost of memory protection, which was accepted by most people as good in the early 90's at the latest. The ONLY place where we've put up with the kind of poor isolation that we've seen in the browsers have been in the browsers. That may have been acceptable when they were mostly used as document viewers, but no longer now when they have become application platforms. Todays browsers are throwbacks to Windows 3.1, AmigaOS and old MacOs version prior to memory protection.

      I think FF3, Opera, and Safari will go with threads, IE8 will go with processes, and Google will have a decision to make with regards to benchmarks when memory usage and new tab/window response time places them closer to IE8 than it does to the competition.

      I very much doubt that. The cost of multiple processes here is minimal. In fact, with multiple cores becoming more and more common, designing for less shared data structures will reduce cache coherency and locking issues and may end up being faster. It is in any case an overhead that is small enough that the extra protection is worth it.

  6. Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster by zoips · · Score: 2, Informative

    After reading the rest of the article, and a reply below me, I think Tracemonkey wasn't enabled when I ran the Sunspider test on the 3.1 build. Therefore the numbers in my post are useless. Ignore.

  7. Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster by MoFoQ · · Score: 3, Informative

    u have to turn tracemonkey on (even in the tracemonkey capable builds).

    see this guy's post

  8. Still somewhat disappointed in Firefox! by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I appreciate the new features in Firefox's latest release, I am still disappointed in it because I cannot watch CNN live streams.
    Before you jump to conclusions, let me inform you that I have all the latest plugins installed; from Flash, Shockwave, Java and all the rest.

    I even have CNN's own plugin for Firefox installed...but live streams will not play! Incidentally, the commercial before the the actual content (which is in Flash), plays fine. When it's over, what one sees is a black screen!

    Whose fault it is, I do not know...all i know is that I cannot watch those live streams on CNN. What's going on?

    1. Re:Still somewhat disappointed in Firefox! by lazy_nihilist · · Score: 5, Funny

      I even have CNN's own plugin for Firefox installed...but live streams will not play! Incidentally, the commercial before the the actual content (which is in Flash), plays fine. When it's over, what one sees is a black screen!

      The commercial plays fine, that's all what matters.

  9. Re:"New" features by konohitowa · · Score: 2, Informative

    As an FYI for Safari users, you can do the same in Safari. IIRC, it came in sometime in the 2.x era, but I might be mistaken in that. I frequently run the betas and the feature vs version issue gets a bit clouded for me.

    Anyway, you can rearrange the tabs, drag them to other windows, are drag them out into a new window.

    The only down side is that, as far as I can tell, you have to have multiple tabs in the window from which you're dragging. So consolidating two windows into one means you have to Cmd-T in one of them to open another window first, then close it after consolidation. Rather silly - and the preferences don't have an "Always show a tab" option.

  10. shiretoko by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    too bad they didn't say which kanji. shiretoko could be shireitoko, the place of a ghost. or it could be command place. shiretto-ko would be the little one who doesn't care. shiiretoko could also mean the buying up place ... japanese has so many homonyms

    1. Re:shiretoko by Mr+Z · · Score: 3, Funny

      japanese has so many homonyms

      I dunno. They all sound the same to me.

      ;-)

  11. Firefox's bottleneck isn't JS by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From Brendan's JS benchmarks:

    We win by 1.28x and 1.19x, respectively. Maybe we should rename TraceMonkey "V10" ;-).

    Apart from getting the "asshat" award for this comment, Brendan seems to ignore Firefox currently has the slowest DOM manipulation of any of the major browsers.

    And it's that DOM which is the bottleneck in most web applications (as I can testify as a web developer), as JS is mostly used to modify the document in some way, not to compute cryptographic hashes of huge datasets or the like.

    I am noticing a consistent trend in Mozilla trying to one-up the competition in their benchmarks, while ignoring the real-world problems of their products. Bad for their users, but in the long run, bad for Mozilla as a company and initiative as well.

    1. Re:Firefox's bottleneck isn't JS by haruchai · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://developer.mozilla.org/En/DOM_improvements_in_Firefox_3

      It seems they have been focusing on extending the DOM support but TraceMonkey will eventually be used to enhance FF's DOM performance

      (Excerpt from this page: http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/)

      Right now there isn't any tracing being done into DOM methods (only across pure-JavaScript objects) - but that is something that will be rectified. Being able to trace through a DOM method would successfully speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation and property access.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  12. Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster by zoips · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because I still feel stupid for having made my original post without knowing that you needed to enable Tracemonkey, here's results from my home Windows machine, which is similar to my work machine (Intel Core2 Quad Q6600; work is XP 32 bit, home is Vista 64 bit):

    Chrome Sunspider results (TinyURL to Sunspider results)
    Tracemonkey Sunspider results (TinyURL to Sunspider results)

    Tracemonkey was faster than Chrome. I think it's odd that Chrome was slower than at work considering my home machine has much better parts. Chalk it up to Vista 64bit or something, I dunno.

  13. Re:FF 3.1 JavaScript == Fail by Necroman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or you're just caught up in the hype and think it's faster? Do you have any benchmarks or data that show Chrome is performing better than FF3.1 alpha2?

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  14. Firefox Developers by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chrome isn't perfect and doesn't run all that well on a hyperthreaded P4 single core.
    I'm not about to throw away my computers just to run a beta Chrome which really isn't as functional as my Firefox. I doubt if it would ever be.
    A lot of us appreciate the work that FF dev. does and it can only improve.
    Thanks.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  15. Don't want to report bugs? Don't expect fixes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    n/t

  16. Re:How about the extensions too? by Paaskonijn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because addons.mozilla.org doesn't allow us to call our add-ons compatible with future versions of Firefox. We have to wait till Firefox releases a new version and then update the compatibility.

    It kind of forces developers to check whether their add-ons are actually compatible with the new version. But not really.

  17. Re:Eich twists the facts a little by randomc0de · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't like that Eich seems to not give any credit to Adobe at all for their contribution, and on top of that tries to belittle the effort of Google, who are technically paying their sallaries at Mozilla Corp.

    FTFA:

    This reminds me: TraceMonkey is only a few months old, excluding the Tamarin Tracing Nanojit contributed by Adobe (thanks again, Ed and co.!), which we've built on and enhanced with x86-64 support and other fixes. We've developed TraceMonkey in the open the whole way. And we're as fast as V8 on SunSpider!

    and

    V8 is great work, very well-engineered, with room to speed up too. (And Chrome looks good to great -- the multi-process architecture is righteous, but you expected no less praise from an old Unix hacker like me.)

    Yup, lots of credit-stealing and belittling going on there. Meanwhile, I don't like that you can't even spell "salaries" correctly. You see, I'm new here: I RTFA, point out inaccurate comments, and correct spelling. An unholy trinity I suppose.

    --
    Three rights make a left. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly.
  18. Re:"New" features by LiquidFire_HK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the other hand, Chrome doesn't seem to allow me to switch to another window by hovering the mouse over that window's taskbar button while dragging a tab - which makes the feature nearly useless if you use maximized windows. Especially since pressing alt-tab stops the dragging immediately. Hopefully they'll fix it by the release version.

  19. Linux by tolan-b · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if FF are planning to fix the poor memory handling and speed in Linux any time soon. I'm getting quite tired of just how Windows focussed they are. I know that needs to be their primary target, but it would be nice if the Linux version didn't lag behind *quite* so much, especially seeing as they forget to mention that all these fancy improvements listed for a new version don't actually apply to the Mac and Linux versions.

  20. Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster by dotancohen · · Score: 3

    Tracemonkey was faster than Chrome. I think it's odd that Chrome was slower than at work considering my home machine has much better parts. Chalk it up to Vista 64bit or something, I dunno.

    Which one is the Vista 64 bit machine? What OS is the other?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  21. Meh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speed, who cares. As I work in websites I of course need to have all browsers installed and running, Opera is my favorite browser, its mouse gestures is simply the most complete and function, in Firefox, it still feels tagged on. Same with tabbed browsing, although firefox is getting better at it, opera does it best. For specific tasks, I use firefox, I especially like its spell checked in textarea's, if I care about my spelling (guess what weeb site I doo nt car abot speeling) then that is the one I use, it also used to be the one with the best tools for a dev to see what the hell is going on with CSS and html. And then chrome landed and WOW. Maybe I am using the wrong add-ons in Firefox/Opera but Chrome gives some very nice tools for inspecting CSS and how it is affecting your layout. I really couldn't care less about executing speed, what I expect in a browser is to do what I want it to do well, a mili-second faster or slower has no effect. Firefox is still the most well-rounded browser out there, but right now, two of its tasks for me are better handled by other browsers.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  22. HTML 5 video by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great! Now all of Opera, Safari and Firefox support the video element, can we please kill flash already?

    I doubt youtube, game trailers, southpark studios and friends will demand this real soon now because people in general suck but I can wish can't I?

    1. Re:HTML 5 video by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now all of Opera, Safari and Firefox support the video element, can we please kill flash already?

      There are useful parts of SWF other than FLV, such as the ability to synchronize vector animation to audio, and the ability to run in Windows Internet Explorer on parent-owned, employer-owned, or library-owned PCs that restrict the execution of "all of Opera, Safari and Firefox".

    2. Re:HTML 5 video by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now all of Opera, Safari and Firefox support the video element, can we please kill flash already?

      You have to support the browsers your target audience uses; until IE drops to single-digit usage figures or implements the video tag, Flash video isn't going anywhere.

  23. Still no .. by jopet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    still no decent process separation between tabs and plugins though. FF has a lot of work to do to catch up to Chrome (or even IE) in this respect. This problem has been known since years now and nothing has happened.
    They could also learn a thing or two about sandboxing from both IE and Chrome.

  24. Re:Uh, hello, cadettes, "alpha" is not a release by AngelofDeath-02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I donno if you're the same guy as ShawnC

    but there was something recently about Mozilla being more persistent about people upgrading from ff2 to ff3, in that they would pop up a dialog asking you to upgrade periodically, even if you selected never.

    But then again, a quick google search reveals nothing, so maybe i'm imagining it/typing in the wrong words to search from

    --
    No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
  25. Always javascript performance by AndersAA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one finding the fact that they only test javascript performance a bit retarded? Dont get me wrong, there's a lot of javascript on the web, but it seems the "performance race" between browsers only include javascript, when normal rendering performance ifs more important as far as I'm concerned.

    1. Re:Always javascript performance by TLLOTS · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually JavaScript performance is extremely important to Firefox, as the UI and its countless addons run on JavaScript.

      As for rendering performance, I haven't really encountered any websites where I noticed any issues with the speed at which it was being rendered, any slowness has always been with poor performance server side when serving up the requisite HTML, CSS and JavaScript files. That said, if you have any good examples of poor rendering performance I'd be interested to take a look.

  26. But why maximize? by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chrome doesn't seem to allow me to switch to another window by hovering the mouse over that window's taskbar button while dragging a tab - which makes the feature nearly useless if you use maximized windows.

    Most web site designs nowadays are tested against window widths of 800 to 1000 pixels. Many of them are "liquid", meaning that the width of the main text area resizes with the width of the window; on these, if you make the window too wide, you have to move your head back and forth to read. Others just put blank bars at the sides if your window is too wide. So unless you use a small screen, such as that of an older PC or a subnotebook PC, why would you use maximized windows with a web browser?

    1. Re:But why maximize? by Kugrian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So unless you use a small screen, such as that of an older PC or a subnotebook PC, why would you use maximized windows with a web browser?

      Poor eyesight?

      I increase the text size of all pages, just because it makes it easier on my eyes. Maximized windows means I get to see more of the easier to read content.

  27. Um, no by amake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All of the possibilities you mentioned are not the same word as "Shiretoko." Did you even notice as you typed them differently from the actual name?

    shireitoko != shirettoko != shiiretoko, and none of those are actual words, much less homonyms.

    AFAIK Firefox releases use place names, and Shiretoko is a peninsula in Hokkaido. See: Shiretoko Peninsula.

  28. Chrome? what Chrome? by mutherhacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome stayed on my system for about 15 minutes during the evaluation. Yes it was fast, yes it was shiny but I dont think i can browse without my firefox addons (adblock plus!!, piclens, rikaichan for japanese etc). I got used to the web without ads and I just cant go back.

  29. Oh dear, and FF 3.1 was going to *win* at JS by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement. Their implementation of our JavaScript is SO GOOD it's ... pleasing. Really."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk