Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 3.2 Plans Include Natural Language, Themes

Shrike82 writes "Mozilla have described plans for the next version of their popular web browser, Firefox. Mozilla's "Ubiquity project" is set to become a standard feature, allowing "users to type natural language phrases into the browser to perform certain tasks, such as typing 'map 10 Downing Street' to instantly see a Google map of that address, or 'share-on-delicious' to bookmark the site you're currently visiting on the social news site." Also of interest is so-called "lightweight theming" allowing users to customise the browsers design more easily. The launch date is still somewhat unclear, and Mozilla are apparently unsure if version 3.2 will be released at all, apparently considering going straight to Firefox 4."

64 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. Why don't they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    save users a heap of bandwidth and build the entire Internet into the browser. Mozilla: the only browser that doesn't need a 'net connection! It'd have around the same amount of bloat.

    1. Re:Why don't they... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      save users a heap of bandwidth and build the entire Internet into the browser. Mozilla: the only browser that doesn't need a 'net connection! It'd have around the same amount of bloat.

      Parent is not a troll. This is about the first thing I thought of when I read the summary.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Why don't they... by aliquis · · Score: 3, Funny

      But the thing is, how many people won't type "download some free porn movies"? Should they make it a button? [I feel lucky!]? :D

      The Internet (is still) for porn

    3. Re:Why don't they... by Malevolyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must not have heard about The Innernette from Cinco Technology. One hundred and three sites with no e-worms!

      --
      Your ad here.
    4. Re:Why don't they... by Malevolyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      [I feel lucky! But not gettin'...]

      --
      Your ad here.
    5. Re:Why don't they... by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ironic thing is that Firefox started as a stripped down fork of the existing Mozilla browser, because the latter was too bloated and feature-creeped.

      --
      For great justice.
    6. Re:Why don't they... by n4f · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't understand why firefox just doesn't offer these features as optional "official" plug-ins. When firefox was first released, I figured that was the direction it was taking. You get a bare-bones vanilla browser, and you can bloat it with whatever plug ins you want to suit your tastes and needs. I'm not understanding why certain features such as these need to be part of the official application and not just an optional plug in.

      I would much rather see the firefox team work on implementing a faster javascript engine (like chrome's), and plugging known security holes than add features such as these. I don't need pretty themes for my browser, I have compiz fusion/emerald for that.

  2. NOOOOOOOOOO! by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds... shit.

    Come on, Firefox was meant to be a lightweight extensible browser. I don't want more features. If they want to ship these features, they should be making extensions.

    1. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Funny

      mod-up-insightful-comment-26796675

    2. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA - Ubiquity is an extension ! But it needs a few changes under the hood, that's all. The main difference is that it will accept commands typed in the location bar, and you don't have to type ctrl-space first (which is what the extension was all about). The actual commands will have to be downloaded/installed from the net.

      Besides, it's nothing really special, you can call it a "command line interface for the browser". It has nothing to do with natural language.

    3. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by Directrix1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, don't upgrade. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Software adds on features over time. Thats how it works. What makes something bloated is if the features they add outstrip the progression of the average man's cpu/memory capacity. This is not the case with Ubiquity. I have used it. You will never notice its there.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    4. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by Zarhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Problem is that they stop security updates for old versions.

      I was HAPPY with firefox 2.x. Even with addon that tries to resemble the old behavior(Old Location Bar), I hate the way firefox 3 handles it. I much liked the way I could type part of the url and I'd see ordered list in my search history of matching places - ORDERED by number of visits.

      I didn't want to go 3.x, but since 2.x no longer gets security updates...I'm SOL.

    5. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by KasperMeerts · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't call it a command line! That's way too hard to understand, that's, like, for nerds and stuff.

      --
      As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
    6. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by irae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What?? But ctrl+space is why I like it! it's like eclipse's content assist, handy and fast. I love translating with ubiquity, it's just ctrl+space, tra shit to french. much easier than going to google page, focus the edit field, choose languages with a mouse, hit search, ugh.

    7. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that Phoenix (the original version of Firefox) was originally seperated away from the main Mozilla suite because the other had become bloated and over-laden with features. It was supposed to built on the philosophy of providing a BARE MINIMUM feature set.

      That means giving me what I need to browse a modern website, and leaving any other functionality up to extensions. If you just stick with an old version, then the first part doesn't remain true forever. Browsers need updates. They need to support newer versions of certain standards, or newer technology such as XHTML and CSS when such things come out. That's pretty much a requirement to continuing to browse the web. You also need updates for security fixes and the like.

      The fact though that such updates are necessary doesn't mean that the developers of what is supposed to be a lightweight product should have open season on adding any and everything they can think of. PARTICULARLY in an open source product. Commercial software gets trapped into doing it because they have to make the user feel like they just have to throw down money for the new version. Freely distributed software has no such need.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, the point of having an extensible browser -- surely -- is to keep the core simple and to allow users to customize what they see as necessary. Firefox has moved away from this model for some time.

      In the light of Chrome's development, I'd see the Mozilla developers time be better spent on developing multi-threading for Firefox. This being the biggest problem with the browser as it is.

      I want multi-threading, but I can't use Chrome on a Mac, and I won't use chrome due to the lack of adblock / flashblock anyway.

      I don't want to upgrade Firefox to this new version when it comes out -- but in order to keep up to date with security I'm forced too.

      I think Mozilla has really lost its way. I switched to Firefox because it was fast, secure and matched how I wanted to browse. It's decreasingly so.

    9. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by slprice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What? Ctrl-Space? I prefer Option-Space.

    10. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by nmg196 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really hate it when the standard answer for everything is "it's open source - just fix it yourself". Do people really think that every single person on this site is an expert C/C++ developer with 80 free hours each month to spend fixing problems in the software they use?

    11. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see how this is any different from the current keywords system. For example, if I type "w firefox" my browser will look up Firefox on wikipedia. It's all done with the existing mechanism of keywords for bookmarks via the address bar.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:NOOOOOOOOOO! by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree, which is why I'm hoping Chrome sticks to "lean and fast" design goals. I really like the fast JavaScript engine, the way it manages downloads, how each window and tab is an isolated process, etc. There are definitely some UI elements I don't like as much as Firefox, but as long as I can see what I want to see quickly enough, Chrome is definitely not bad. It will be interesting to see how long they hold out against the bloat that inevitably infects almost every software project.

  3. Re:More bloat... by chrisgeleven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Weird you should say that. Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 is the fastest Firefox browser yet. The Places feature saves me tons of time by not having to manually go through hundreds of bookmarks. I have far fewer memory leaks then past versions. I can customize Firefox to be as simple or as complex as I wish.

    While Mozilla maybe adding features, it sure isn't looking like bloat to me.

    IE7 is a steaming pile of crap, but it is better then IE6's steaming pile of crap and vomit.

  4. Ask Jeeves all over again by Hoplite3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They want to make Ask Jeeves all over again in the url bar?

    Don't search keywords do this better, and in a more controlled way? I set up a google maps search keyword of "map", then I know what happens when I type "map address". Similarly with other keyword constructs. Keywords let me build on the browser's functionality in predictable ways. Ask Jeeves? Remains to be seen.

    (Although I am given to understand it is the FBI's premiere tool to search for terrorists.)

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  5. Map 10 Downing Street by BarryNorton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's your example of natural language? Map as a transitive verb and a fairly specific reference? How about: "show me where the prime minister's house is on a map"?

    1. Re:Map 10 Downing Street by doti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      agreed.

      this way it's almost indistinguishable from using the (very useful) bookmark keywords.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    2. Re:Map 10 Downing Street by telchine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other this is, it's pointless! Even with current versions of Firefox, if you type in [map 10 Downing Street] to the address bar, you'll get a map of 10 Downing Street.

      That's because words entered into the address bar tapes you to google's top result.

      Google is already pretty good at working out what you want. Why would I want Firefox to override this?

    3. Re:Map 10 Downing Street by irae · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bookmark keywords uses only one parameter %s, ubiquity is much more flexible.

      For example, "tra[nslate] something to french"

      Besides, you don't have to open a new tab for a result, just type "we[ather] madrid" and you get info in a small elegant console, it's faster.

      You can change text with it. E.g., you're writing an email, and you want to change a URL to tinyurl. Select the URL, ctrl+space, type [tiny]url, enter. Voila, it's changed. I find it very useful.

      And it looks cool with different skins.

    4. Re:Map 10 Downing Street by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google is already pretty good at working out what you want. Why would I want Firefox to override this?

      If you play with Ubiquity for a little bit, you'll see why it is not merely a duplication of Google's functionality. It is more than just a shortcut for web searches, it's meant to be a fast and efficient way to do things.

      The example that Aza Raskin most often gives (Aza is the lead on the project and also happens to be the son of Jef Raskin, who started the Macintosh project at Apple) is something like: "You are writing an email and want to embed directions... rather than searching the web and then copy-and-pasting a map into your email, it would be preferable to simply type 'map Washington DC and paste here' and have the computer figure it out."

      In addition to a bunch of search-like commands ('google', 'weather', 'map'...) and quick-reference commands ('define', ...) there are lots of text-replace commands ('translate', 'calculate', ...), and powerful action commands ('add-to-calendar', 'email', ...) and browser-interaction commands ('close-tab', 'bookmark', ...).

      For anyone who is a keyboard-shortcut fanatic, this extension is awesome. You can control the browser largely without using the mouse, for instance. It's also so much faster to perform certain actions. And the framework is extensible: people are writing new commands all the time (and you can create your own commands if you know Java Script).

      In short, Ubiquity is about a lot more than just providing a shortcut to searches. It's about providing a new (and very efficient/comfortable) way to access the functionality of your browser and the web. You may or may not actually like it... but I would recommend giving it a try.

    5. Re:Map 10 Downing Street by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be clear: the end goal of Ubiquity is to have a natural-language command-entry system, so that you can say "Book me a trip from Washington DC to Seattle for next Tuesday" and it will figure out all the details (show you ticket prices, maps, etc.).

      Obviously the current version of Ubiquity is a long way from achieving that goal. You must still enter your commands in a way that it will understand.

      However, Ubiquity is making progress in that direction by having it recognize more natural command structures (e.g. you can say "weather Washington DC" to get the weather, or say "weather Washington DC in C" to get it in celcius (no it won't search for a location called "Washington DC in C")), and providing enough variants that the interface feels natural (e.g. you can type "weather Washington" or "weather 98941" etc.).

      Another thing that it does is provide continual feedback, so the user can see what commands are available. The result of a command is also presented immediately and refreshed as they edit their query. This fast interaction makes it easier to compose the desired command.

      Again, the system is far from perfect. It is not a natural-language system yet (and won't be perfectly so until we've perfected AI). But it doesn't have to be. As Google has shown us, you don't need the system to be perfect to be useful. Google recognizes calculations, addresses, fedex numbers, and a bunch of other things, and it tries to guess what you mean. If it can't figure it out, it defaults to a web-search. Overall this is very useful. Similarly the end-goal for Ubiquity is that you just type what you want and it will do a decent job of figuring it out. In the meantime the user will have to bend somewhat (and learn a few commands), but the cool part is that such a system is useful immediately, even as it is iterated towards being more robust and comprehensive.

  6. Comment on story by windsurfer619 · · Score: 3, Funny

    use natural language

    comment story positive

    example show

    search +5 funny

  7. Re:More bloat... by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2

    We need a branch is all. Gecko is still a good rendering engine, and the XUL platform has such fantastic things as Flashblock, Firebug, and Link Widgits, none of which could I live without. (Even Firebug, while ostensibly a developer tool, is fantastic for finding my way through obnoxious pages.

    IE on the other hand, is just shoddy coding, and remained at least a year and a half out of date last I saw. I'll have to try the new IE8 beta at some point, but from when I looked at it last time, I'd rather be using Dillo for most things.

  8. Shareon Delicious? by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't she make films with John Holmes?

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  9. Rotated text by Stroot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will it finally include rotated/sideways text for column headers? Even IE had this feature for ages.

  10. Re:More bloat... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The bloat needs to be absolutely removed but the functions, features, bells and whistles need to be modularized so that they are available if wanted. People will want them. For me, one of the most compelling features of Firefox is the addons. The enormous collection of addons available keep Firefox interesting and some of them are actually very useful.

  11. Re:More bloat... by xtracto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Compared to IE, I'd rather use a DILLO for most things.

    There, fixed it for you

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  12. Are you kidding me? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firefox 3.1 Beta 2 is the fastest browser yet - that is what makes it so annoying when Mozilla team just discontinues or changes some feature in the name of...

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=456405 ... usability?

    Or the fact that Firefox would rather open Nautilus than opening something *I* want -or- just showing me the information of where a file was downloaded.

    Any why?

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=431521

    Firefox is about having a minimalistic
    UI, and that means cutting things that most of our users don't use.

    Because Firefox is minimalistic, it would rather open Nautilus.

    Nobody - NOBODY - uses Firefox for minimalism anymore. Even Opera is more minimalistic is than Firefox.

    And IE7 is pile of crap how exactly? The reason it is so hated has got nothing to do with its usability, but with the fact that has shitty support for standards and that it is tied with the OS.

    1. Re:Are you kidding me? by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 2, Informative

      This will fix the toolbar...
      [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Toolbar\WebBrowser]
      "ITBar7Position"=dword:00000001

      But it seems to be a losing fight -- from my peeks at Server 2008 and Win7 beta, it looks like MS is keen on making IE7's toolbar behavior (off by default, appears as a minor sub-toolbar when invoked) part of the standard UI.

    2. Re:Are you kidding me? by BZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't the key difference here minimality of UI vs minimality of feature set?

  13. Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Enough with the super-uber-awesome search crap. Give me an MSI (that I don't have to build myself), give me a way to push settings via group policy, and most of all give me a browser that I can centrally manage even half as easily as I can manage IE. Oh, and lemme just give some space here:

    ^ That's where you run-off-to-google-up-some-snark-for-my-reply folks can put your links to tools like FirefoxADM that haven't been touched in almost four years, or to frontmotion and their "give us a 150 bucks and we'll roll your MSI for you" service. Take this example; I want to change the homepage on 50 PC's, each with two or three different users. In IE it's a one-line group policy change. Firefox? roll up your sleves, you'll be there a while. Maybe push out a new prefs.js file into each user's profile. Maybe roll up a CCK custom XPI. Or just roll your own MSI and have it re-install the entire damned browser.

    Until Chrome, Firefox, and Opera get over circle-jerking themselves about getting IE's sloppy seconds market share, there's not even enough motion to say that there's a even a "browser war" going on. I really hoped that Mozilla would take a decent swing at the enterprise market. Instead they're doing 110mph down the netscape road towards a bloated browser. Meanwhile, Chrome and Opera aren't doing much more than pulling on to the on-ramp of the same road, and touting how you'll go do the same path, only in style!

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by auTONYmous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's an idea: get your head out of Microsoft's ass and help with projects that do exactly what you're interested in, like THIS ONE: http://www.kaply.com/weblog/2008/03/14/group-policy-extension-for-firefox/ God forbid people actually learn how to do something they didn't learn in MCSE class *SIGH* Or even worse: looking at page 2 or 3 in a Google search.

    2. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by mmaniaci · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe he's like the rest of us and doesn't have time to spend developing for an open source project. Maybe he doesn't have nearly enough programming skill. Maybe space monkeys force him to use IE at lasergunpoint. Either way you are the stereotypical /. nerd-dick that did 2 minutes of Googling and therefore has the right post a malicious reply to a valid comment. Assholes like you make me want to be a jock instead of a geek... you make a bad name for us.

      Anyway, my 2c: No matter how hard Mozilla tries, they will not beat Google in search. To try is futile, wasteful, and frustrating (for us hopefuls). And there is a damn Google search bar BY DEFAULT in a typical Firefox install which can easily handle real-language queries! C'mon!

    3. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm tempted to adjust my preferences just to mod you up higher.

      Mozilla has poked around with MSI, in the sense that they just have an MSI wrapper over their executable installer, which defeats the point of MSI almost entirely.

      It's not that they're barreling down the road towards bloated browser, it's that they are putting no effort into the enterprise level support at all. I was in a similar situation, and wanted to deploy firefox across the company. There is no way to centrally manage preferences, and that's assuming you can manage to get it installed across the company in the first place. Never mind things like upgrading!

    4. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Posting a link to a half-dead project run out of somebody's basement (a project that's a glorified clone of one of the dead projects I mentioned in the parent post, no less) proves my point. I want these tools *FROM MOZILLA.* You know, the people that actually developed the browser in the first place? Do you have any idea how hard it is to sell Mozilla as being better than IE when this shit is what passes for enterprise support? No, of course you don't. You know what IE settings I push via group policy? Home Page, ignore proxy for local domain, and proxy of 127.0.0.1. I don't let IE off my local network unless there's a damn good reason. Every user in my shop gets FF, and the IE icons get blown away, and it's been the same policy for four years now. Spyware? Barely heard of it. Firefox is the better browser in every last respect, except one.

      This is Mozilla's problem. Not the guys that spend days hacking together fixes to make firefox almost sorta kinda work as good as IE, so long as you don't dink with it too much. If they want market share, why are they concerned with getting me to use their browser on the couple of PC's I use, instead of the hundreds I manage? If they want to be a seen as the better browser, why not step up to the plate and actually fight where it counts? Nope, they're apparently more interested in getting on grandma's PC than they are in getting on the Domain.

      You wanna know where my head is? It's in the real world, watching IE get used in business because the guys who are making a better browser are more concerned with revolutionizing the way I use google fucking maps. Here, lemme contribute: F6 maps.google.com. There, I knocked out that whole search problem for ya. I've revolutionized searching. Now how about working on some better profile management tools?

      But hey, you go ahead be happy with Awesome bar.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    5. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That'd work out ok if Mozilla didn't create a profile folder with the structure of (gibberish).default within the profile location. Then there's also the problem of having more than one user to a machine, multiple (gibberish).default folders for a single user and no good way to tell which of those folders is the 'good' default (which I think has something to do with the upgrade process? I've seen this on machines that have been running for a while. Maybe one profile gets corrupted? Not really sure).

      I can script out a way to push a user.js after some regex fidgeting, but again, it goes back to the point of...why? You guys made the browser, how hard is it to make a management tool? I'll take a snap-in, anything. I'm begging you. Give me a way to easily maintain your browser for a decent sized environment. I *WANT* firefox in the enterprise, I just don't want to get hung out to dry trying to support it myself.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    6. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what if the deployment or management tool is windows only? Big deal. I'm not looking for a total redevelopment of the browser engine to suit the needs of a single operating system. What I do want is an easy way to manage what's already there. But instead development is centering around improving address bar search functions and other spurious "improvements" that are ignoring the elephant in the room?

      Look, Firefox does a great job of being a stand alone browser. But in a work environment, trying to manage it sucks across the board. They're not getting their asses kicked in the "integrated search" market, but that's what they keep focusing. Stability and deployment are real problems, but we keep getting low-hanging fruit 'improvements.'

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    7. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by Arterion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, please!

      How can firefox be taken seriously if you can't push it to 1000 machines in a network and manage all its settings from an administrative console.

      Have you stopped to consider how much of IE's "marketshare" is happening on the countless workstations at various companies?

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    8. Re:Three words: Enterprise deployment tools by ScytheBlade1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean the part where I've repackaged FF with a MSI installer myself?

      Look.

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062

      Politics.

      Meta-whining also accomplishes nothing. But thanks for trying to call me on being an ignorant whining tool and also helping the situation?

  14. Well... if i type... by manoelhc · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I type "map where is Chuck Norris?" is it able to find?

    --
    -- Simon said: Die!
    1. Re:Well... if i type... by Crashspeeder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chuck doesn't like it when people try to keep tabs on him. It will most likely show your current location because he'll be standing behind you snapping your neck.

  15. Re:More bloat... by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another Firefox Version, and more bloat is added to this "clean and lean" version of the Mozilla browser...

    My local electronics store just had a sale - 2GB DIMMs or SODIMMs for $14.99. My processor's average utilization during its ontime sits somewhere between 0.1% and 0.0%.

    The lame "bloat" complaints grow tired, and are generally the fallback of people who just want to hate on Firefox and it's their standard talking point. Firefox easily holds its own against Chrome and Safari, brutalizes Internet Explorer, with the only really "winner" of the bloat competition being Opera (but really, who uses Opera? Joking...I started my departure from IE with Opera, and loved the mouse gestures, but then Firefox won me over).

    Meanwhile, I see each version of Internet Explorer really better than the other.

    Which proves exactly what I said above. Internet Explorer is the piggiest pig pig of the bunch, not only consuming the most storage and memory resources, but dramatically more CPU resources for modern browsing.

    Firefox is a great browser, and they should continue making it better, albeit perhaps having functionality "loadable" and optional so Luddites computing on their 486/33 (DX!) can save the tired whines.

  16. Dear Mozilla Foundation.. by Chineseyes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As I sit here with a nix version of firefox that crashes pretty frequently and freezes when there is plenty of cpu time and memory available I can't help but wonder WTF DON'T THEY DON'T STOP WITH THE FEATURES BULLSHIT AND MAKE THIS DAMN THING RUN MORE RELIABLY. Sincerly, Someone who wants a reliable browser

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
  17. Re:Will happen, eventually by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will be stored in an information cache?

    You can already download a snapshot of wikipedia (which we all know is the end-all source of infinite, accurate information on all things worth knowing.) GPS units can hand you maps and routes for pretty much anywhere a typical person needs to go with a single DVD update. I don't know of a handy, portable dictionary/jargon download but given its size relative to the maps/wikipedia, there must be some out there. All we need is some more advanced diff-tools and we've got it all local all the time.

    Really, the Internet is just needed for updates, interaction with other humans (or at least their avatars/slashdot personalities), shopping, and porn.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  18. Keywords by rnelsonee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meh, I'd rather keep Firefox lightweight and just use keywords.

    When I type "map 10 Downing St" it already goes to a google map. Same with "fromhome 10 Downing St", it will give me directions from my house.

    Natural language could work, but I'd rather have other, more search-focused companies do all the natural-speech algorithms, then just use Firefox as a sort-of-API via Keywords.

  19. Features features features... by squoozer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get it with Firefox. They have (had) the goal of producing a lean and fast browser with additional functionality being provided by plugins which I think they have pretty much achieved. Personally, I think they have left out a whole host of features (such as ad blocking and quick dial for example) which should be in the core but I'll let them off because they are easy enough to add in. But including this sort of browser bling in the core is just nuts.

    It's the age old problem though - you have to be seen to be doing something even if what you have is really good already. I'd actually rather they put their efforts into working harder with other browser manufacturers to make sure that pages rendered the same on every platform. While none of the alternative browsers on their own is much competition to IE if there was essentially zero cost in moving from one alternative to another there is real competition.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  20. Re:Dangerous path by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Natural language? Natural for who?

    Will we have to have versions for the West Coast, East Coast, down South...Ebonics?

    I can see it now "Yo Yo Yo...show me the mother fuckin' U.I. site...Word!"

    No, not Word. OpenOffice.org Writer. Microsoft has trademarked the word 'Word'.

    Besides, Word doesn't work on all supported platforms, so it would be considered discrimination against AAVE speakers running Linux. Or BSD.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  21. Re:Command Line Interface by JustinOpinion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's just a glorified command prompt

    I think that's sorta the point.

    A commandline isn't inherently user-unfriendly. A commandline confuses the average user for a variety of reasons, which Ubiquity is trying to address. So I would say the point is to make a glorified command prompt. So glorified, in fact, that the average person can benefit from it.

    For instance one of the things that makes a command prompt difficult for novice users is that they don't know what commands are available. As you type in Ubiquity, it shows you a preview of commands that might match. So you type 'email' and it lists that there is an 'email this person' command and a 'get last email' command and so on. Another thing that is scary about command prompts is that people worry about making mistakes. Ubiquity fixes this in a couple of ways. First of all, you can't do that much damage in a web browser. Secondly, Ubiquity shows you a realtime result of your typing. So if you type 'map washington' it shows a map of Washington DC... if you keep typing 'map washington seattle' it switches to show seattle. Ubiquity also tries to use actual words or phrases for the command syntax. So rather than remembering what the command to translate text is... you just type 'translate.'

    There are a bunch of things that the Ubiquity team is trying to do to make the commandline more accessible. The interesting thing is that many of these changes are also a huge advantage for those of us who are already familiar with commandlines.

    So, yes, Ubiquity is a glorified command prompt. And it's about time that someone put honest effort into bringing the power of text-command UI to the masses.

  22. It's been 7 years! Fix the CPU hogging. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's time that the Firefox CPU-hogging bug is fixed. (357 bugs!) The bug was less of a problem until version 3.0.4, but versions 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 are much worse.

    If you can't visit Bugzilla from Slashdot, put this URL into another tab: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CPU

  23. Re:Dangerous path by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Natural language? Natural for who?
    Will we have to have versions for the West Coast, East Coast, down South...Ebonics?

    Wait, wasn't there some kind of rumour that a number of people worldwide didn't actually speak English ?

    What's the status of that real language thingy in German, French, Italian, Croatian, Hindi... How does it work with characters from the depth of Unicode ?

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  24. Re:Command Line Interface by Chninkel · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the beginning was the command line,
    then they invented the GUI to make it easier to use that command line
    then they invented the command line to make it easier to use that GUI
    then ...

  25. Re:More bloat... by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Shenanigans, Shenanigans !!!

    Just opened Firefox 3.06 and Internet Explorer 7.0, both clean with no add-ons, and loaded google homepage into each one.

    Hmm ...

    firefox.exe = 21,628k Private Memory
    iexplore.exe = 6,060k Private Memory

  26. Re:More bloat... by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd rather be using Dillo for most things.

    I'd rather use a DILDO for most things.

    I'd rather use a DILLO for most things.

    I'd rather use a DILDO for most things.

    Did I do this right?

    --
    Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  27. Re:More bloat... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Strangely, my browsing consists of more than sitting on the Google homepage.

    Open four tabs in each - digg, slashdot, thestar.com and cnn.com. Firefox comes into a pretty significant lead already, but now trying actually doing anything.

    But you keep on benchmarking sitting in an essentially empty browser if that makes you feel special.

  28. eh? by binford2k · · Score: 2, Informative

    "such as typing 'map 10 Downing Street' to instantly see a Google map of that address"

    Why is this new?

    I've been doing this for years. In Firefox. Try it yourself.
        * Make a bookmark to this URL: 'http://maps.google.com/maps?q=%s'
        * Click the 'More' button
        * Add a keyword of 'map'
        * Type 'map 10 Downing Street' in the address bar.
        * Shout for joy at your upgrade to Firefox 4 months ahead of schedule.

  29. Re:More bloat... by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much of iexplore's memory is shared, though? I don't have a Windows box to check, but don't forget that IE uses a lot more memory that isn't shown in the "private memory" column because it loads up Windows shared libs (that it is the only program to actually use) that do a lot of the heavy lifting.

  30. Re:Will happen, eventually by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your comment was marked for deletion as it does not follow /. guidelines.

    --
    Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.