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.

45 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 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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

    12. 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!

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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!

    18. 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
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

      ;-)

  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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