Slashdot Mirror


For Firefox 4, You'll Need To Wait Until 2011

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla said that it will not be releasing Firefox 4 RC, or the final version, before early 2011. Apparently, the bugfixes in the current beta take up much more time than anticipated. Mozilla is working on the feature freeze release Beta 7, which has 14 bugs left. The beta 7 is about six weeks behind schedule and will be released 'when it is ready,' according to Mozilla. It seems as if the original schedule, which estimated that Firefox 4 RC would be released in the second half of October was a bit too optimistic. Microsoft, by the way, released a new IE9 platform preview (PP6) at PDC 20910 today."

238 comments

  1. When it's done by Joehonkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing wrong with releasing it when it's done.

    1. Re:When it's done by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You're a fan of Duke Nukem, I see.

    2. Re:When it's done by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Unless we're talking about Microsoft, in which any delay is castigated.

      --
      This space for rent.
    3. Re:When it's done by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not really, they were delayed by years after having allowed their platform to lag behind the competition and mysteriously still didn't manage to crush the bugs. As opposed to Firefox which is generally ahead of the curve and is delaying to fix the bugs.

    4. Re:When it's done by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with using it until it's done (as I have been for several months now, though not on this box).

    5. Re:When it's done by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with MS isn't the delay itself, its the fact it gets delayed with no improvement. The problem wasn't that Vista was delayed, it was because Vista was delayed and crap.

      Theres nothing wrong with taking your time, but when you take a long time then still release a half-baked product, that is where the problem comes in.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he is a fan of the movie 'They Live'.

    7. Re:When it's done by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Unless we're talking about Microsoft, in which any delay is castigated.

      The delay of Vista was one of the best things for users. It's allowed me (and others too) to use the same XP computer for nearly ten years. Plus the occasional RAM upgrade (from 128 to 512K). What a great bargain that allowed me to save tons of money, and it reminds me of how I was able to use my Commodore Amiga for ten years without needing to upgrade.

      Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to get 10 years out of my Windows 7 or OS10.6 machine, which is a shame because I'm used to driving things until they die. My TV is twenty years - my VCR 15 years - the cars are 25 years and 13 years respectively. I like to get my money out of the things I buy.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:When it's done by gorzek · · Score: 3, Funny

      You ran XP with 512K of RAM? I assume there was no GUI and you had no drivers installed and you could only enter text by manually flipping bits through the serial port. :)

    9. Re:When it's done by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I ran XP on 512K of RAM quite nicely, after a bunch of unnecessary services were turned off. I was even able to afford such niceties as active desktop and font smoothing.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? 512K should be enough for anybody!

    11. Re:When it's done by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the joke. 512K != 512MB

    12. Re:When it's done by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      512K != 512MB

      Ah... yeah, I did indeed miss that.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:When it's done by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You ran XP with 512K of RAM?

      No. I ran XP with 128K of RAM. That's the recommended spec (minimum is 64k). ----- And right now I have XP with 512K and it runs just fine. Hell even Seven can run with only 512K (but not vista).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:When it's done by XanC · · Score: 1

      I think we have an order of magnitude problem here... K != M

    15. Re:When it's done by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ooops. I see what I did there. I mean 512 M of RAM.

      Just you wait! Someday you too will be in your senile 40s, start thinking that Synthesized/Electronic Disco is the latest style of music, and that computers still use kilobytes

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:When it's done by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at first I thought it was a typo, but it appears commodore64_love really doesn't know the difference between kilobytes and megabytes.

      Old versions of MS-DOS ran under 512KB of RAM. Windows XP requires, I believe, 64MB of RAM. Slight difference there.

    17. Re:When it's done by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Only if you run Debian. *ducks* /bad joke

      I think there is though. Only 14 bugs to squash until it's released to the wild, then there will be about 1400. Unless those 14 are showstoppers, you might as well release it, find the rest of the bugs, grab some news headlines and go from there. IE is making (good) waves again and Chrome is REALLY starting to come on strong, so you need something to keep the marketshare you have.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    18. Re:When it's done by XanC · · Score: 1

      They DO use kilobytes, just a lot more of them. :-)

    19. Re:When it's done by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yes. And apparently Synthesized/electronic music IS in style. Again.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:When it's done by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I have a modern OS that fits on a 1440 K floppy.
      Still won't fit inside a 1/2 meg of RAM though. ;-)
      http://wiki.kolibrios.org/

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:When it's done by master_p · · Score: 1

      3DRealms said the same thing.

    22. Re:When it's done by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Oh Slashdot, where making an appropriate Duke Nukem reference gets you modded as a troll.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    23. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing wrong with releasing it when it's done.

      Thats what Duke Nukem's Dev Team says.

    24. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gorzek means is that you didn't have 512 KiB, but 512 MiB. They may look similar, but it's about the difference between walking to work and getting there by a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

    25. Re:When it's done by Krneki · · Score: 1

      XP without SP and anti-virus can use as low as 40MB Ram to run.

      Not every likes his OS to be a bloat-galore fest.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    26. Re:When it's done by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Windows can run in 40 MiB, but can the trojans?

    27. Re:When it's done by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      You really need to look into Ubuntu. With its more efficient use of hardware resources and its strategy of nearly-automatic upgrades (and of course its ease of installation), it would be very easy to get another decade of use from that old WinXP hardware.

      --
      Will
    28. Re:When it's done by Shark · · Score: 1

      And we could all try to tackle those individual bugs (isn't that the point of open source) instead of wasting time posting about the delays...

      Now I just have to hold back the little troll on my shoulder shouting something to the effect that patches would be ignored as usual.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    29. Re:When it's done by BZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 14 bugs are blockers for a beta, not a final release. And yes, they're showstoppers for the beta, at least in part because there are supposed to be no API changes between beta and final.

      Looking at the bugs, 7 are crashes that happen far too often, 1 a security bug, 1 a serious rendering regression that makes form controls disappear altogether in some cases, 2 are interface changes that are needed for Firebug to work with Firefox 4 (and have to happen before beta; see above), 1 a problem with rendering Google maps, 1 a regression that breaks execution of scripts inserted via XSLT, but requires nontrivial changes to the script-execution-ordering code to fix. One is an API change needed to make Jetpack actually work; again needs to happen for beta.

    30. Re:When it's done by flanktwo · · Score: 1

      512K ought to be enough for anybody!

    31. Re:When it's done by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      To be fair the delay of Vista was years! Its interesting though how Windows7 got a better reception, I suspect having a beta program helped them a lot.

    32. Re:When it's done by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      I think that Firefox4 is already used in the wild. You can download it now! Its just not released. You can post bugs. I am finding very few regressions having moved to Firefox4 for some time. As for Chrome your browser of choice taking marketshare from Internet Explorer. Firefox's growth has been stagnant since the last release, but is going for a major release in a few months. That's when it will lose or gain marketshare.

    33. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotal, but I ran XP with 512K of RAM also, and managed to not only play several decent computer games with this, but one resource-hog online FPS as well--for years. (The game was PlanetSide.)

      XP was and still is very functional in a variety of configurations, that's why people (including me) still use it.

    34. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have a VCR?!?

    35. Re:When it's done by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Of course, today the virus spread made impossible to keep that system in a safe way.

      I still remember the time when I was an admin in a small student PC lab. Every Win95 had his own public IP and no firewall. Today you would be called mad to have a setup like that, but back then it was the norm.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    36. Re:When it's done by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      So did ID Software, and we all know what we got "when it was done".

    37. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Firefoxes since at least v 1.5 were released significantly behind schedule, that what's wrong.

    38. Re:When it's done by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      I think the fact hardware improved was enough to make Windows 7 a better release.

      Vista was designed for systems to have about 2 GB of RAM in an age where most typical PCs shipped with 512 MB of RAM or 1 GB, especially for laptops. People who either bought new PCs when Vista started shipping on all of them by default (and yes, a ton of them shipped with Vista pre-loaded and only like 512 MB of RAM) then thought Vista was crap. XP can run very comfortably on 512 MB or 1 gig of RAM, Vista cannot. By the time Windows 7 was released, even the cheapest of the cheap computers were shipping with 2 or 3 GB of RAM.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    39. Re:When it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win2k lasted almost ten years despite XP being released only a year later. Your argument is pure bullshit.

    40. Re:When it's done by wickedskaman · · Score: 1
      That's when it will lose or gain marketshare.

      We'll see if your far fetched prediction plays out...

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    41. Re:When it's done by Schmyz · · Score: 1

      Why is it that just when I finally get my puter running the way I am use to...some program I use HAS TO make some change in order to force me to learn all the new features. Dont tell me it is all in the name of progress.

  2. Anybody remember if... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...version 4 will 64-bit native? A quick googling shows that they planned to implement it, but I can't find a confirmation that FF4 will come in a 64-bit version.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Anybody remember if... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with 64-bit browsers is that you need 64-bit plugins. Most people only install 32-bit plugins and some plugins may not have 64-bit plugins (chicken-or-egg problem... no-one pushes 64-bit browsers due to plugin compatibility, no-one makes 64-bit plugins due to browser compatibility). But now with Chrome and Firefox's plugin process model this could be easily worked around though by having both 32 and 64-bit plugin host binaries and launching whichever one you need, then the browser could use both types.

    2. Re:Anybody remember if... by jonescb · · Score: 4, Informative

      What are you talking about? I've been using 64-bit browsers in Linux for years!

    3. Re:Anybody remember if... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Why would you need a 64-bit native browser? For some application having that makes sense, but for a browser it's pretty much completely downsides. The only reason I can think of is if your on a platform where using 32-bit binaries with a 64-bit OS is broken, and that's hardly a Firefox problem.

    4. Re:Anybody remember if... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you're so mainstream.

    5. Re:Anybody remember if... by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do they run Flash?

    6. Re:Anybody remember if... by Dayofswords · · Score: 1

      the nightlys have a x86-64 version for windows, linux and mac

      http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

      --
      Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
    7. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know minefield has a x86_64 build....

    8. Re:Anybody remember if... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Well there are a few plugins I think, but didn't Flash come out with an official 64-bit Linux plugin only recently? And I know Java has one, but I don't know about others. Silverlight and some other less-used ones (Quake Live anyone?) might be 32-bit only.

    9. Re:Anybody remember if... by mweather · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, actually.

    10. Re:Anybody remember if... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      How many addons do you have for it?

    11. Re:Anybody remember if... by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Java integration: if you want to run a 64 bit JVM for your plugins then you want a 64-bit browser.

      Better Flash support: 64-bit flash plugin runs better than the 32-bit version on a 64-bit platform.

    12. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "official" you mean beta then, yes, Flash did come out with an "official" 64 bit Linux and Windows plugin. For some reason they called it Adobe Square.

    13. Re:Anybody remember if... by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      There have been very usable flash 64-bit linux betas available for download for quite some time.

    14. Re:Anybody remember if... by omnichad · · Score: 3, Funny

      How else will Firefox address more than 4GB of memory? What, your Firefox doesn't use that much memory?

    15. Re:Anybody remember if... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Huh? The vast majority of addons for FF are built with Javascript and XUL. They're entirely platform agnostic.

    16. Re:Anybody remember if... by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flash 10.2 is 64 bit. Preview 2 is already out. :)

    17. Re:Anybody remember if... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you need a 64-bit native browser?

      So I don't need to have 32-bit libraries on disk wasting space? Not to mention the performance improvements to be had with a proper 64-bit jit'ing JS engine (don't underestimate the power of a larger register set).

    18. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there....

    19. Re:Anybody remember if... by inode_buddha · · Score: 0, Troll

      For what its worth, my *entire machine* has 512 megs, and FF 3.6 runs just fine. I leave it up for days with a few tabs, video is just fine, etc. Using Fedora 12 with a few tweaks to sysctl.

      --
      C|N>K
    20. Re:Anybody remember if... by jonescb · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? I use Gnash.

    21. Re:Anybody remember if... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      So then what 64 bit browser is he using that makes these agnostic addons easy to add?

    22. Re:Anybody remember if... by slashchuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have most of my addons working on Minefield 64-bit 4.0b7pre (released 08-24-2010)

      I disabled "Add-on compatibility checking"

      Even though a few of them show as incompatible, they seem to work normally.

      The exceptions are Xmarks & Web Developer which don't seem to behave.

      --
      $sig not found
    23. Re:Anybody remember if... by omnichad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry...I'll correct my post:

      How else will Firefox for Mac address more than 4GB of memory? What, your Firefox doesn't use that much memory?

    24. Re:Anybody remember if... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And I usually have roughly 30 tabs open for months on end.

    25. Re:Anybody remember if... by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you meant plugins.

    26. Re:Anybody remember if... by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

      My Firefox crashes once it gets about 1700 Megs or so... Not sure why that's the magic number but it crashes EVERY time the memory usage climbs above that!

      --
      -Myke
    27. Re:Anybody remember if... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh. Firefox. I've had 64-bit FF running on my Ubuntu laptop for over a year, now. Add-ons work fine. *Plugins* can be tricky, but the common ones, Flash and Java, both have 64-bit versions.

    28. Re:Anybody remember if... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      And this latest one is actually stable again. They fixed a lot of the JVM issues they've had over the past few weeks, and the fixes finally trickled all the way down to the main nightly trunk builds.

    29. Re:Anybody remember if... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There is a 64bit version of the current one. Been using it for years.

    30. Re:Anybody remember if... by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would you need a 64-bit native browser?

      So I don't need to have 32-bit libraries on disk wasting space? Not to mention the performance improvements to be had with a proper 64-bit jit'ing JS engine (don't underestimate the power of a larger register set).

      This. I would hate to see a distant future where we still use i386 binary browsers with compatibility layers on top of compatibility layers on top of compatibility layers, just because no browser needs more than 4GB.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    31. Re:Anybody remember if... by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Thirty? Pish posh. Right now I have 281 tabs in 581 MiB of RAM.

    32. Re:Anybody remember if... by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Ironically, there's 64-bit Flash for Linux, but not Windows. Theoretically, a 64-bit version for Windows wouldn't take too much work, but look how long Adobe took in producing a proper 64-bit Photoshop.

    33. Re:Anybody remember if... by jesser · · Score: 1

      Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions are being produced on all supported desktop platforms (Windows/Mac/Linux), with the exceptions that Windows 64-bit builds are only produced once a day rather than upon every checkin, and Mac builds are packaged as universal binaries where the 64-bit part requires Snow Leopard.

      Running plugins out-of-process allows us to avoid the "plugin is for the wrong architecture" problem, at least in theory.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    34. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because I don't HAVE that much memory in my PC yet. ;)

    35. Re:Anybody remember if... by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      The nightly are 32 and 64 bits so i guess we can assume that yes, it will most likely exist as 32 and 64 bits

    36. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because time doesn't stand still and the stuff that I do today requires more memory than the stuff I did 10 years ago.

      You might as well ask why anyone would need a 32-bit text editor when there are perfectly good 16-bit ones around.

    37. Re:Anybody remember if... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      And still slow as hell, sadly.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    38. Re:Anybody remember if... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      The XUL/JS things are extensions.
      Flash, Java, etc are plugins, as you said
      Themes and personas are themes and personas

      All of the above are addons.

    39. Re:Anybody remember if... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Nope. Both my FF and my SeaMonkey (both 64-bit) are currently using under 650 MB res, and under 1,300 MB virt. SM has ~60 tabs open and FF has well over 100.

      About the most I have seen in either is ~800 MB res and ~1,600 MB virt. All this is with 4GB ram, with most of that available to the browsers as I run Awesome WM rather than Gnome or KDE.

    40. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmap()

      that is all

    41. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be 64-bit versions of Firefox 4 for Linux and Mac OS X. There will not be an official 64-bit build for Windows.

      The Mac OS X build will be an i386/x86_64 universal binary. The x86_64 browser for Mac OS X will be able to load i386 plugins and it is significantly faster than the i386 version. The default architecture on Mac OS X 10.5 is i386 (the x86_64 version will not load on Mac OS X 10.5), x86_64 will be default on Mac OS X 10.6 but you can also run the i386 version on Mac OS X 10.6 if you want.

    42. Re:Anybody remember if... by BZ · · Score: 1

      It will be 64-bit native on Mac OS 10.6, except for the plugin process which will run as 32-bit. The 64-bit OS/library support in 10.5 is broken enough that only 32-bit Firefox will be supported there.

      Also, 64-bit will be a supported configuration, on par with 32-bit, on Linux. I would expect that "Linux" in this context includes things like *BSD as well.

      I believe that 64-bit has been the "supported" Solaris configuration for a while now.

      On Windows, 64-bit will probably compile and run but not be a supported setup for Firefox 4; bugs that only show up on Windows in 64-bit builds are not blocking release at this point.

      I expect OS/2 builds will continue to be 32-bit only. ;)

      For other OSes, it's not clear to me when Fx4 will get ported, nor in which flavor, at this point. I welcome any information on the matter.

    43. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 64 bit versions but whether they are the default version depends on the platform. Windows is lagging a bit but on OS X the the majority of people (basically everyone with a Core2Duo or newer and 10.6 Snow Leopard) will run the 64 bit version by default.

      The 32bit and 64bit version come in one Universal Binary and the OS will use the 64bit version, unless your MAc doesn't support it.

      Oh, and yes, Flash works just fine with a 64bit browser on OS X.

      As for the need, considering on OS X 64bit is the default, there is no need to deliberately develop for 32bit and turn off 64 bit compilation (which is on by default). Incidentally, there is some anecdotal evidence that some things are considerably faster in the 64bit version , although I believe why exactly is not yet clear.

    44. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also you get at lest SSE2 when you compile for a x86_64 architecture since all those chips have it. You can't say that about your all your i386 binaries which often have such newfangled instruction sets disabled in order to have the broadest compatibility.

      I don't know what it will take to beat it into peoples heads, but really the bigger address space isn't the only feature you gain. Your moving your minimum system requirements ahead a few generations.

      I once tried to make a 32-bit program just as fast as its 64-bit counter part by turning on compile time options like SSE that are enabled by default by compilers when targeting a 64-bit chip. It came down to math routines in the 32-bit system libraries not being built with SSE. Simply put I couldn't make the 32-bit program version as fast as the 64-bit version.

      It's not just about the address space. It's about moving your whole platform ahead a few generations.

    45. Re:Anybody remember if... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Too bad they are without exception dramatically slower than running on Windows on the same hardware...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Anybody remember if... by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      I used to have issues with Firefox starting out using about 20M and slowly growing until it had everything. I got used to restarting it every four hours. Finally I systematically started disabling plugins. It turned out to be the fault of a little plugin called "It's All Text!"*. I disabled it, and now Firefox stays between 20 and 25M.

      * I guess it could be the fault of interaction between two plugins. The following set leads to increasing memory:

      • Adblock Plus
      • All-in-One Gestures
      • Cookie Button in the status bar
      • Flashblock
      • Tree Style Tab
      • It's All Text!
      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    47. Re:Anybody remember if... by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I would hate to see a distant future where we still use i386 binary browsers with compatibility layers on top of compatibility layers on top of compatibility layers, just because no browser needs more than 4GB.

      That'd be almost as bad as having processors implement the crappy x86 instruction set as a layer of microcode on top of a clean new RISC design.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    48. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox doesn't care what my mac address is.

      Fine. I'll whoosh myself.

    49. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long has it been out (that's rhetorical), and Flash isn't the only plug-in people need. Internet Explorer gets excellent third-party support and even it is basically useless as a browser due to the lack of 64-Bit Add-Ons.

      Also, lots of 32-Bit applications may embed shared components from the browser installation. That can cause problems as well.

      There's very little need for a Browser to be 64-Bit, anyways.

      The greatest thing about them is the way they make you install two versions of some software, like Flash and the Java Runtime Environment. - That was sarcasm, by the way.

    50. Re:Anybody remember if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      64-Bit Firefox won't help much with that, the same way 64-Bit IE doesn't help Windows users with that. That's because a lot of people actually do still use 32-Bit Operating Systems and because of that, Software is typically compiled primarily for 32-Bit architectures to ensure complete compatibility with all users OSes. Only some software really need to be 64-Bit at the moment.

      32-Bit applications that embed specific components will still need the 32-Bit version of thost components installed and since all Add-Ons aren't 64-Bit you'll be pretty much forced to fall back to the 32-Bit version of the browser anyways.

      Your Use Case != The General Situation among Firefox's user base.

      Lots of people use Firefox on XP because they don't wanna upgrade their computer or OS. It's most assuredly a 32-Bit OS. Lots of Vista Machines were shipped with 64-Bit Processors but 32-Bit Operating Systems. Most computer users don't upgrade their OS until they buy a new computer.

    51. Re:Anybody remember if... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      There's a 64-bit Windows version now.

  3. No need to wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No need to wait. I have my dear Chrome!

    1. Re:No need to wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... Are you saying chrome is FireFox 4.0, or that chrome allows for time travel?

    2. Re:No need to wait. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      So... Are you saying chrome is FireFox 4.0, or that chrome allows for time travel?

      Um, let me check my Charlie Chaplin DVD collection and I'll get right back to you on the time travel bit ;-)

  4. At least it's a worthy upgrade by xmuskrat · · Score: 1

    I don't mind waiting for FF, because it comes with a lot of versions. Unlike Chrome, which changes their version up an entire whole number every 11 minutes.

    --
    activestudios web design
    1. Re:At least it's a worthy upgrade by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      who cares, version numbers are pretty arbitrary anyway.

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  5. Chrome by baresi · · Score: 4, Funny

    And by that time Chrome will be at version 12 or 13

    --
    RGdot.com
    1. Re:Chrome by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Never mind the quality, feel the width!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Chrome by presca · · Score: 2, Informative

      I remember reading, here on slashdot, earlier this year that Google is going to be on stable version of 8 by the years end.

    3. Re:Chrome by the-matt-mobile · · Score: 1

      True, but Firefox has pretty much already lost me to Chrome v7. Not saying I won't go ever back, but it's going to be a hard sell.

    4. Re:Chrome by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Its funny how Firefox is compared to Chrome not IE. I prefer Firefox to Chrome because of the extensions. My personal most wanted feature windows being put back where I left them at restart has been done. What can chrome do that I really need?

  6. I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by Lucas123 · · Score: 0

    I use a Mac, and Firefox is the buggiest browser I've ever used on my machine. While it's vastly superior to IE on a PC, Google Chrome is overall the best browser going.

    1. Re:I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      Chrome is definitely faster and more stable on a Mac than FF 3.6. The FF4 beta 6 is just about at parity; there was a huge difference halfway through the betas once they sandboxed Flash.
       
      I've been very happy with beta 6, and imagine the final release will be pretty solid.

    2. Re:I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using a platform that doesn't suck donkey dong before you pass judgement.

      Chrome is win on all platforms though, I'll give you that.

    3. Re:I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Chrome more stable!? seriously!? I suspect exaggerating your claims :) I suspect they are both pretty good. I suspect Firefox has faster page loading times as well. I think the only interesting thing is your using a Mac talking about flash and not using safari. I'm using beta8 that has the new Javascript is faster than Chrome.

    4. Re:I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vanilla chrome sure is faster, but after you install 2 or 3 extensions it becomes slower than IE8. On the other hand, FF and IE add-ons have minimal impact on it's performance.

    5. Re:I hope they fix the issues it has with Mac by Lennie · · Score: 1

      While I'm not on a Mac, I do think use the beta's and they are pretty good. Lots of improvements, for example, interface and startup speed have improved.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  7. Great Zip? by carrier+lost · · Score: 1

    ...at PDC 20910 today.

    Isn't that 90210?

    1. Re:Great Zip? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      What? No, PDC was in Silver Spring, MD!

  8. IE6 Exclusively by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    I use IE6 exclusively and have for years. Nobody needs pesky add-ons, ad-blocking and tabbed browser functionality.

    I'm one of the 4.5% of the users out there who STILL use it and say sorry, but IE6 is browser for me!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you weren't even modded funny

    2. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I speak for all web coders out there when I say: FUCK YOU.

    3. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      No! Never! I use Netscape Navigator 2.0! This Browser War isn't over yet!

    4. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An IE6 user by *choice*? You're a rare breed, alright.

      I'd wager most of that 4.5% either don't know there are other options or are prevented from using them (corporate policies, etc).

    5. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's because you lack vision.

      As a web developer, I LOVE IE 6. If my clients want IE 6 compatibility I gladly give it to them - at a 50% premium.

    6. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care if I'm the only person in the world that uses the line mode browser. Some day everybody will come back around to my way of using the web and then we'll see who has the last laugh!
      ^C
      quit
      exit
      diediedie
      stupid program

    7. Re:IE6 Exclusively by houghi · · Score: 1

      There is Netscape 2? I need to upgrade my version 1 : http://houghi.org/Fun/Netscape.zip

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:IE6 Exclusively by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I use Netscape Navigator 9.
      What? It's only two years old. (cough)
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Netscape9.png

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What scares me is I think you're being serious.

    10. Re:IE6 Exclusively by homes32 · · Score: 1

      so I'll see you same time next Thursday for your weekly virus removal?

    11. Re:IE6 Exclusively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4.5%?????

      The corporate standard at my 120,000 employee company is still IE6, and I'm told we're not the only group with our head in the sand...

  9. Depends on what "beta" means... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You could have predicted this lateness because the Firefox folks seem to think "beta" means "Let's add new features every couple of days". I've been using Minefield on and off for several months and it got a lot less stable once it hit the "beta" stage, about the same time that they started changing a bunch of things and adding a bunch of features. Before it went to "beta" it had been fine for a long time, but several times since the beta stage I've had to revert to 3.6.

    Yes, I realize I'm using nightlies and should expect bugs, etc, but the traditional definition (not that it is relevant any more) of "beta test" is that the software is basically complete and is being tested for stability and regression, _not_ that it is in a mode where new features are being added on a weekly basis.

    I'm looking forward to Firefox 4 and am sure it will be good overall when it's finally done, but the progress in this period of development has not filled me with a lot of confidence that this will be any time soon.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      The new definition of "Beta" is "I have enough users to come across more bugs in 1 night than I would if I were to try and test it all by myself all week".

    2. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by xded · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It all depends on whether your development cycle can keep up with the competitors or not. And I think Google and Microsoft are giving Mozilla hard times lately.

    3. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And beta is the absolute deadline for ALL the new features. You just saw the effect of 1000 independent commits right before the beta deadline. As long as it's half broken AND in there, they have to fix it for the final release and it becomes a new feature! I don't know if that's really how it works - but it sounds pretty likely.

    4. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by FedeTXF · · Score: 1

      Firefox uses the "beta" name to encourage early adopters to use it so they can help find bugs by sending crash reports and usage statistics.

    5. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Firefox folks seem to think "beta" means "Let's add new features every couple of days". I've been using Minefield... and it got a lot less stable once it hit the "beta" stage

      That's weird. I've been using SeaMonkey, based upon the same mozilla/gecko core, and its beta is rock solid. I haven't been able to crash it, or even slow it down by watching lots of youtube videos.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by God'sDuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>>Firefox folks seem to think "beta" means "Let's add new features every couple of days". I've been using Minefield... and it got a lot less stable once it hit the "beta" stage

      That's weird. I've been using SeaMonkey, based upon the same mozilla/gecko core, and its beta is rock solid. I haven't been able to crash it, or even slow it down by watching lots of youtube videos.

      Mozilla's "Beta" is different from Minefield. Minefield is the nightlies where they test new things and is meant for the benefit of developers and masochists: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minefield/

      Betas might have bugs, but they're meant to mostly work. Minefield might work, but it's meant to mostly have bugs.

    7. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      You could have predicted this lateness because the Firefox folks seem to think "beta" means "Let's add new features every couple of days".

      I think you're confusing cause and effect. You could argue that early on they mismanaged the scope of the project and therefore set unrealistic expectations, but so far as I've seen, the build monikers themselves (alpha, beta, nightly, RC, etc.) have proven to have surprisingly little to do with the actual readiness of the code.

      Rather I would say you could have predicted this lateness based on a quick gander at a historical trend showing the number of bugs that are being found, fixed and remain on a daily basis. You tend to get a rather predictable bell curve from release to release when you track such things. We appear to have just recently started building horizontally over the crest of the bell curve for Firefox 4, as you can see here. As a fairly clued-in nightly tester, and based on what I see in the bugzilla database and the movement of the trend graphs over the past several months (and also assuming a nearly 3 week dead time for winter holidays) I would not at all be surprised to see a mid-late March final release.

    8. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by BZ · · Score: 1

      For Firefox, "beta" means "get the web developers to test their sites and actually report any issues they find". Sadly, web developers don't do that until you call what you have a beta, and one can sort of understand them: they don't have time to run nightlies.

      Predictably, this means that once you release a beta you get a slew of bug reports...

      In this case the situation was complicated by the fact that while there were some major changes still pending (e.g. an entirely new JS jit), other major changes that needed website compat testing ASAP (like an entirely new HTML parser) had already landed. So the beta cycle started to get web developers to report bugs in the latter (of which there were plenty, largely due to incomplete reverse engineering of parsing behavior in the HTML5 spec), even though everyone knew that there were more major changes to come.

    9. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      For me, the current FF beta cycle has been more of a pain in the ass due to bugs and incompatible changes than any Mozilla/FF cycle since Mozilla 1.3 or thereabouts.

    10. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by celticmonkey · · Score: 1

      Nightlies are NOT betas. These are two different things.

      Beta releases are milestone releases that represent the closing of bugs. Nightlies are buggy as all hell experiments that change, well, every night.

      Here are the nightlies:
      http://nightly.mozilla.org/

      Here are the betas:
      http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

    11. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Or it could be well thought out marketing. Firefox4 was always going to be released before or after the Christmas period, Simply because it would make no impact in that time. They have simply missed their window of opportunity, as for features the only major features I see are the new Javascript engine which unfortunately has become the only way to compare browsing, so needed to be included. What has made me confidant about their release is running the beta as my main browser its superb.

    12. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Google release regularly. Its what make Chrome so compelling to me, but Microsoft how!? IE9 still does not have a release date...is not available on XP/Linux/Mac its not even on WP7

    13. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

      Betas has bugs NO! seriously that's no surprise. I'm surprised though I've found FF4 Beta to be solid as a rock. As for incompatible changes WTF!

    14. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I don't think they ever done as many changes at the same time as they are doing now.

      HTML5 is a really large spec.

      Have a look here to see the large amount of changes that every browser vendor is implementing:

      http://html5readiness.com/

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    15. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that Minefield is the nightlies and periodically they tag a particular release as a new beta. Are you suggesting they aren't the same branch?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    16. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      See I realize that, but I'm getting the impression from people here the nightlies are possibly not even the same branch.

      The point I'm making, however clumsily, that I was using the nightlies without issue for a long time (and my coworker had been using them far longer) and only when the beta period of Firefox 4 started did I start seeing problems in the nightlies, often significant ones. I also started seeing a lot of changes, although they were usually cosmetic.

      Perhaps I don't understand the process here. I assumed that nightlies are just that, nightlies, and that periodically they reach a point where they are ready to tag one of those nightlies as a milestone beta release. Given that understanding, it's confusing to me to be seeing lots of changes and new behavior... like that period for a couple weeks where 301 redirecting intermittently stopped working.

      So while I understand, and take responsibility for using alpha-level versions of the software, I don't understand why the nightlies suddenly became a lot less stable, to the point where I was frequently reverting to 3.6, after being pretty consistently usable for months. Given the original ship date of October (IIRC), this didn't make sense at all.

      Nevertheless, I remain a big fan of Firefox and appreciate the tremendous efforts of the devs and am looking forward to version 4 in its full glory.

      The only thing that would please me more is finding out a way to tell which extensions make Firefox run like a fat porch hound under Linux (where I'm only running 3.6).

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    17. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minefield is the nightlies where they test new things and is meant for the benefit of developers and masochists

      Wow. There really is a browser for every niche.

    18. Re:Depends on what "beta" means... by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      I've always gotten the impression that the betas are a bit more than a standard nightly, because they tend to have a set of milestones and less-bug-ness they try to achieve.
       
      Eg: minefield w/new features >> minefield with temporary feature freeze and lots of bug-fixes >> BETA >> minefield w/new features >> etc
       
      If that's the case, the original GP's complaints that there are lots of buggy new features in Minefield after the first beta is somewhat silly...because that's the point of Minefield right after a beta. But IANAmozdeveloper.

  10. For Firefox 4, You'll Need To Wait Until 2011... by dvanse · · Score: 1

    And wait until 20910 for IE9?

  11. we know all about it by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    a couple of thousand of us have been watching you surf since one of the many bored hackers decided to install the streaming remote desktop on your pc about 5 months ago just for fun. how do you get any work done with all those pop ups?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:we know all about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Work? He was looking for the viagra and porn, the popups pushed to his screen. Those silly hackers did the leg work for him!

    2. Re:we know all about it by Lennie · · Score: 1

      To bad he didn't have a webcam connected.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  12. Pepperidge Farms Remembers by Stanistani · · Score: 1

    *Rocking back and forth*
    Ayyup.
    Nothing wrong at all.
    *whittles*
    They could just finish it and hold on to it too.
    *rocks a bit more, snaps his galluses*
    Ayyup.

  13. WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've wanted a way to draw in a browser - I mean really draw, not just use divs as pixels - for a long time now. Finally it's here! WebGL is really smooth now, I've been watching it in the latest minefield builds. Some guy in IRC posted a demo city drawing that had 24k faces and still rendered smooth as silk. 2d drawing on a canvas is also very nice - very easy to use.

    This is the dawn of a new era of killer web content. My guess - within two years, WebGL will be the highest paying job in web dev.

    A few more months is nothing, I've been waiting years for this ;-)

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    1. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dawn of a new era of killer web security problems. My guess - within two years, exploiting WebGL vulns will be the highest paying job in web dev.

      FTFY! Sad but true.

    2. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it's exploits you're looking for, I doubt WebGL is a good vector for attack. It's a relatively small finite API. Where are you going to attack? Vertex and fragment data is only handled at all inside a shader - which you must supply. Good luck breaking out of that box. Any obvious attacks like resource over-allocation will likely be squashed quickly.

      Compare this with the video spec, which has a huge abstraction right in the middle of it. This opens up any attack vectors that are already in the supported codecs.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    3. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      If it's exploits you're looking for, I doubt WebGL is a good vector for attack. It's a relatively small finite API. Where are you going to attack?

      Well and good, as long as it’s limited to that.

      I remember hearing about a SecondLife virus that spread via an infected QuickTime .MOV embedded in a “picture frame” in the game. IIRC, you didn’t even have to look at the surface onto which the video file was embedded; it could infect the user as soon as they loaded the map.

      It’s little stuff like this that makes it easy to miss these infection points. Building a limited API for 3D graphics is well and good but then you extend it to allow videos, link in the original video libraries to support common formats, and suddenly you’ve got all the vulnerabilities of QuickTime and Windows Media Player...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      WebGL doesn't support video on a texture. It's based on GL ES (embedded) and has a limited set of functionality, even in GL terms.

      Well, I suppose you could fake it with a texture atlas, but that would require exploit in PNG or JPEG, which probably would be noticed elsewhere too :-P

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    5. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It’s little stuff like this that makes it easy to miss these infection points. Building a limited API for 3D graphics is well and good but then you extend it to allow videos, link in the original video libraries to support common formats, and suddenly you’ve got all the vulnerabilities of QuickTime and Windows Media Player...

      No not really... video format handling doesn't need to occur outside the provided OS sandbox. e.g. on Windows ffmpeg parsing could run below the user account (where HTML/JS handling occurs now). IE9 & Chrome may already do something like this. I remember this codec strategy being discussed well over a year ago.

    6. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      exploit in PNG or JPEG, which probably would be noticed elsewhere too

      Well, hopefully they’ve found most of those, but I remember hearing about a few of those in the past too.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That being said, you’ve still got to deal with the small possibility that the codec be broken out of its sandbox with a privilege escalation exploit.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    8. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The browser already supports <video>. There are demos that work in current browsers which copy the contents of a video tag into a canvas to get video-on-canvas so you're behind the times. (i.e. if it's the end of the world, it ended yesterday)

      I don't see what point you are trying to make either. The SecondLife vulnerability was caused by SL using Quicktime to play embedded videos, the "game" loads the movie into Quicktime then extracts frames of video, converts them to a texture and renders the scene in OpenGL/Direct3D. The attack point was at stage 1 (Quicktime), the 3D rendering was irrelevant. Hell, the hackers could have just embedded the mov as an <object>/<embed> in a web page and emailed URLs to a bunch of people in spam for the same effect.

    9. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hell, the hackers could have just embedded the mov as an <object>/<embed> in a web page and emailed URLs to a bunch of people in spam for the same effect.

      You might think... but the target groups would be different and probably not completely overlapping.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      but that would require exploit in PNG or JPEG, which probably would be noticed elsewhere too

      Considering how often there have been security fixes for libpng and libjpeg I wouldn't be acting too high and mighty.

    11. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Shit. In the past I've been able to avoid most of the worst web designs just by disabling flash. Now it's part of html itself. This will only encourage web designers to build flashy unusable ones rather than simple, easily read ones. Go progress.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it’s that much of an issue, just adblock the canvas tag with ##canvas. Plus you can do it on a site-by-site basis if you like.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      Not at all acting "high and mighty". It's just - this is not related to WebGL. At all.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    14. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been much of an issue in the past, because most sane web developers know that flash isn't necessarily supported or installed on many desktops. With all this flashy stuff being stuck in HTML proper, there's less of a reason not to use it. I expect browsing the web to become a much busier, bewildering visual experience, and blocking canvas to make very large chunks of the web unusable.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've wanted a way to draw in a browser - I mean really draw, not just use divs as pixels - for a long time now.

      SVG?
      Flash?
      Silverlight?
      Java?
      VRML?
      Server-rendered-GIF and AJAX?

      You'd have to be more specific in your requirements. But people have been "drawing" in browsers for some time.

    16. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Like I said, you can narrow it down on a site-by-site basis. You could also block specific canvas tags using more complex element hiding rules.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe WebGL will be a good attack vector because I don't trust video card driver writers to write stable code, let alone secure code.

    18. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've wanted a way to draw in a browser - I mean really draw, not just use divs as pixels - for a long time now. Finally it's here! WebGL is really smooth now, I've been watching it in the latest minefield builds. Some guy in IRC posted a demo city drawing that had 24k faces and still rendered smooth as silk. 2d drawing on a canvas is also very nice - very easy to use.

      This is the dawn of a new era of killer web content. My guess - within two years, WebGL will be the highest paying job in web dev.

      Indeed. Only it'll be the second highest paying job. The most highest paying one would be developing ad blockers that can detect HTML5 canvas and WebGL ads... ~

    19. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, your signature would fail to parse with a missing template specification. Why not use: auto sig=new std::disclaimer<std::legalese>;...

    20. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      SVG: This is the only one in your list that resembles what I mean. I've tried messing with SVG. It's only very recently that it's acceptably fast to do animation type things with it. Canvas 2d is much more lightweight and just feels simpler / easier to use. With SVG you have to stomach the XML too :-)

      The rest all require plugins or server side work, so that's technically not really "drawing in a browser", it's drawing in a plugin supplied context.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    21. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      You're wrong, my sig works as intended! It's a trap for pedants :-P

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    22. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by graveyhead · · Score: 1

      -.-

      I was hoping more for 3d entertainment and interaction than ads. Games. Wow the pessimism here makes my eyes water. It's no wonder I haven't been reading it much lately.

      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
    23. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's not pessimism, it's realism. After all, HTML5 is supposedly a replacement for Flash, and what else is Flash heavily used for, apart from video streaming?..

      There's one other aspect of canvas which I really, really hope I'm wrong about... but technically it seems flawless. You know all those web sites today which try to hijack your right-clicks and otherwise block copy/paste to "protect content"? Trivially defeated by not using IE (and also probably why so few bother), usually, but with canvas it's going to be a much bigger issue. Of course the result wouldn't be indexable with Google, but then News Corp already hates Google... so that's the sort of thing I'd expect from them.

    24. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by BZ · · Score: 1

      The attack surface with WebGL are malicious shaders that try to trigger bugs in graphics drivers. Sadly, graphics drivers trust shaders to not be malicious.

      Note that both Gecko and Webkit are shipping shader validators that process the provided shaders; they're not passed through directly to the graphics driver.

    25. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Lennie · · Score: 1

      While I would love to criticize Microsoft as much as the next person on slashdot, I hope Microsoft also validates.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    26. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by Lennie · · Score: 1

      You could also turn it around, now that we have this, it is possible to be more selective about what you block. Because it is all real HTML/JS, instead of in the plugins.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    27. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by BZ · · Score: 1

      That's pretty likely, and I assume they do; I just haven't seen their code, and they haven't said what they're doing, so I couldn't use them as an example. ;)

    28. Re:WebGL / Canvas is really exciting! by josath · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I believe Flash with hardware accelerated 3D will become standard in browsers long before WebGL does. (You need about 80% adoption among all web surfers before major projects start really getting built for a particular technology). So just having it available in the very latest release of a single browser is meaningless, if 75% of users are running other browsers or older versions.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
  14. Hello Sea Monkey by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'll just switch to that browser instead, since it has the same core as Firefox 4

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  15. Neither the RC nor the final version? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Be bold: release the final version before the release candidate. You can release the final version on schedule in 2010, and then slip the RC to 2011. That's the kind of innovative software development methodology we should expect from Mozilla.

  16. Re:Until then you can just use Opera... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is a universal truth, understood by everyone, marked as flamebait?

  17. yo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yo

  18. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Troll

    The last really stable version of Firefox was called Firebird 0.7. It amazes me that it's become so popular when it's such a horrible resource pig. Were it not for the video downloader add-on I'd never use it at all.

    Then again, most people are stuck using Windows, and Internet Exploder sets a mighty low bar...

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  19. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You forgot to call them "whipper snappers" and yell at them about the whole lawn situation.

  20. Use nightlies by FedeTXF · · Score: 4, Informative

    I encourage everyone using beta 6 to use the nightly version (http://nightly.mozilla.org/) as their main FF experience. The JS is 10 times faster on most public benchmarks and the boomarks and profile data are not affected even when switching back and forth between 4.0 and 3.6.
    I have both installed: 3.6 that comes with my Linux distro and 4.0 unzipped in my home folder and being updated every morning automatically.

    1. Re:Use nightlies by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mod parent up! Just checked out the nightly build, and it is indeed very fast and smooth. It's really slick, just the way Firefox seemed back when it was the "fast" browser forked from the Mozilla suite. My old P4 3GHz IBM desktop seems fast again. :-D

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
  21. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    Mozilla Firefox likes to blame Adobe Flash for the memory leaks / CPU hogging, and Adobe Flash likes to blame Mozilla Firefox...

    Personally, I don't care WHICH one is causing it, it just needs to be fixed! When Firefox gets above 1.7 gigs of RAM usage is crashes on me, and I have 16 gigs of RAM, which SHOULD be plenty.

    --
    -Myke
  22. Re:For Firefox 4, You'll Need To Wait Until 2011.. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    No, no. It rolls over from 2009 to 20010

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  23. Only 14 bugs? by grikdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You don't know what you don't know -- Donald Rumsfeld

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  24. One hopes that this version ... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't foul up your printing parameters like most of the previous "upgrades" have managed to do. 'Cuz I just love tracking down all of my saved passwords and rebuilding my FF configuration from scratch after an upgrade turns all of the fonts on my printed webpages into something that looks like they were taken from an old CGA adapter's output.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  25. Worst. Betas. Ever. by Rastignac · · Score: 1

    Checklist so far, from beta1 to beta6:
    - Disk Trashing. A lot. To death. No fix.
    - Cookies eating. All erased. Randomly. No fix.
    - Very few extensions ready. Raw back Firefox riding. Valkyrie needs extensions, badly. Can't use it.

    "Back to Firefox 3", is it the only way ?

    (Firefox4 progress looks like Vista's).

    --
    -- Rastignac was here.
    1. Re:Worst. Betas. Ever. by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      It's a BETA dude. If you want something stable without killer bugs, use a release version.

  26. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    I finally got tired of FF 3.6 causing my entire windows 7 Pro x64 PC to slow to a crawl after running a few hours so this last weekend I looked to see if they had released a 64 bit version and sure enough...they haven't. Fortunately Vector 64 took the time to recompile the source and I was able to download and install it. Getting the Beta Flash (Square) drivers from Adobe wasn't too hard. They work well but YMMV. I run Greasemonkey with numerous scripts and all seem to be working as expected. I have had it running for several days and now when I go check memory usage it is sitting at ~450MB right where it was when I launched it. The whole browsing experience is more fluid. Of course with all that beta code there are hiccups but they are much less frustrating than constantly fighting for control of my machine.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  27. I Think It's Finished Now by southlander · · Score: 1

    They just want to wait 'til 11.11.11 to give it a cool release date.

    1. Re:I Think It's Finished Now by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      The must have missed the date of The Answer a few weeks ago.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
  28. 2011?! by Mysteray · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's literally two months away!! OMG how could a software release schedule ever be allowed to slip by two months? What will the retailers do now that it won't be on shelves in time for Christmas?!

    I just hope it's not too far into January. Especially not Jan 31. The flying car from the magazine ad I ordered back in 1972 was scheduled for delivery on that day.

    -1 silly.

  29. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox runs out of address slots - hence the crash.

    Standard 32-bit environment programs are only able to utilize 2GB of RAM for their process; and trying to exceed that will always result in a crash. This is also part of the reason why +4GB of RAM suffers such severe diminishing returns; because theres few 64-bit programs (which are capable of using tons more RAM), and even fewer 32-bit which are designed to be capable of addressing 4GB of RAM.

    2GB for a large program leaves 2GB for background tasks and the system - which is more than enough. More RAM doesn't do anything for the large program cap, and the background programs don't need it. The effects of this 2GB limit is becoming very apparent in a lot of new games; I've seen a few such as WoW crash - and others are having to be more restrictive about the size of the (loaded) environments.

  30. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's amazing is how it has been progressively heavier, but yet loses functionality. There's no bookmark/cookie/password sync anymore (which was really nice in Netscape), no email or nntp support, and with Firefox 4, gopher:// will be gone too. And don't suggest using plugins for the lost functionality -- that will lead to an even bigger footprint.

    Code bloat attacks pretty much any long-lived app that isn't controlled by one or two people, but Firefox has bloated more than most apps. Sure, it has many nice features too, but it's not just features, but layers upon layers of abstractions.

  31. PP6? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"Microsoft, by the way, released a new IE9 platform preview (PP6) at PDC 20910 today."

    Kewl? Does it run on any other platform besides MS-Windows yet?

  32. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very true. The really ironic thing is that the browser/mail-news-client they now call "seamonkey" was the original Mozilla browser and they actually spun off Phoenix (changed to Firebird, and now Firefox) to create a slimmer, faster browser!

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  33. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You can mod clang_jangle troll, but everything said in that comment is true and you can't change that, slimey troll with modpoints!

  34. 17 bugs! by crabel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Currently there are 17 bugs open. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=blocking2.0%3Abeta7 The good thing: 6 hours ago there were 18 bugs ;-)

  35. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try Freemake Video Downloader. It works quite well.

  36. Re:Until then you can just use Opera... by wampus · · Score: 1

    Because fuck Opera and fuck everyone who can't stop gushing about it whenever someone mentions a fucking web browser. No one cares what fucking browser you use.

    See what happened there? Flame. Catch AIDS. Smooches!

  37. Re:Until then you can just use Opera... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as Firefox copied it in just about every single way. Hey Firefox, remember when you laughed at us Opera users for having a unique URL attached to each tab instead of just one URL above the tabs? Well, we told you so!!! :-) Oh yeah, enjoy our cool new all in one Menu button like you do our tabs!! Hopefully soon you can have your private browsing tabs in the same Window like us too without having to close down and restart your whole browser.

  38. WebM Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Mozilla is not including WebM support in any versions of Firefox before 4.x, it's disappointing to see how long WebM support is being delayed as compared to Chrome or Opera. With the video codec landscape in the shape that it's in, I feel like Mozilla should have at least strived to get WebM in the 3.6 series.

    1. Re:WebM Support by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Well, Mozilla is doing one big release. Opera and Chromium-developers are doing lots of small releases. I hope Mozilla understands this needs to be the last big release for a while, they should do a lot of smaller ones from now on.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  39. slackware policy by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    "It'll be ready when it's ready" as we say in slackware circles.

    I believe more software projects should adopt this policy.

  40. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Thats a strange comment. Whats amazing is unless your a potential developer of the program you would care. What is true is that Firefox has got FASTER and has added features I USE. Reduced memory usage(the lowest) and significantly removed memory leaks. Bloat has become just a comment you level at programs. If you could point at several thousand lines of code they could remove I'd care.

  41. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Is it does it. I'm not saying its not true, but I use my browser for weeks without any problems. I do use Linux, but I don't think Windows is the problem. Firefox has a lovely feature that you can close the browser, and you can restart it and continue...Why don't you do that.

  42. ACID3 by EmotionToilet · · Score: 1

    And it still probably won't be able to pass the Acid3 test. Firefox has turned into a piece of crap that people use instead of using something worse, like IE. Mostly, the average user thinks that running Firefox will prevent them from getting viruses. For most people who understand browsers, there is Safari and Chrome.

    1. Re:ACID3 by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, fuck Acid3!

      It is not a standards test. Mozilla said they are never going to get a score of 100, because they have better thing so do than implement old, unused features that the Acid3 test checks for.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  43. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, worthless to the entire 1% of you who don't use Windows AND needs to download from video sharing sites AND doesn't know how to do apt-get install youtube-dl (or the equivalent) AND doesn't know how to use WINE.

    Oh wait, you're one of those bandwagon users who doesn't actually know how to do anything, you just run an alternative OS purely so that you can say that you do.

  44. Re:Until then you can just use Opera... by tuppe666 · · Score: 1
    How has Firefox copied it. Firefox is the child of Netscape. Opera was not the first to have tabs or private browsing.

    Thank god they didn't copy the godawful UI...or the every Net Application in one place.

    Perhaps Opera should go Open Source maybe then it will get more love, Especially since Chrome and Firefox now work on mobile Phones, At least its better than IE

  45. Wait. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight: You're complaining about bloat, but you insist on retaining a feature no one uses? Isn't an unnecessary feature the definition of bloat?

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    1. Re:Wait. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No, unnecessary code and inefficient algorithms is the definition of bloat. Like adding so many layers of abstractions that something takes up 50 MB when it earlier was done in 500 kB.

      If you can have more functionality without increasing the runtime requirements, it's not bloat.

      But when you, in the act of removing several features, refactor the code and end up with a product with a footprint that's twice as large, then it's bloat.

  46. GUI.... by mcn · · Score: 1

    I don't really like the FF4's GUI... maybe it's just me... I prefer FF3's or even Chrome's.

  47. Too little, too late.. by wave84 · · Score: 1

    It seems like the guys at Mozilla "lost" their direction some time ago. I mean, I remember 2004 when Firefox first came out - I was so excited that I could finally ditch IE (yeah, i know Opera was around for a long time but somehow I never got to like it). Compared to IE, Firefox was blazing fast, light and secure. Fast forward a few years later... and it seems like the tables have turned. Chrome is so much faster than Firefox that I simply can't look back. And I'm not talking about the damn javascript benchmarks which everyone seems to be posting all over the Internet; the general program and system responsivness is light years ahead. Starting the browser, opening tabs, opening websites, everything is faster on Chrome. Even switching or dragging tabs around is prefectly smooth on Chrome while Firefox has delays. Not to mention the superior interface (which everyone seems to be copying now). In the meantime Mozilla releases new versions on a slow schedule and sometimes buggy as hell (version 2.0 or 3.0 kept crashing for me). The program's memory issues have become a subject for jokes all over. This is not the Firefox I fell in love with so many years ago. I think the future looks grim for Mozilla... they are alone on a market surrounded by software giants (Microsoft, Apple, Google) and they lost their biggest advantage (being the rebel, the alternative). I think it's a matter of time until they slowly get "eaten" by the rest.

    1. Re:Too little, too late.. by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      actually current firefox is extremely better than firebird or phoenix (or even firefox 1)
      in javascript it's also extremely good in FF4 (as in better than everything else in many ways - remember than sunspider/chrome v8 are really benchs that are benching their own engine to "look good", and FF4 matches their perf on sunspider now, nearly on v8 at very quick progression rate)

      memory consumption is much better in FF4 than chrome as well. even HTML rendering is extremely good and fast, even thus it doesnt support *everything* no browser does (especially when most of the so called standards have not been standardized/finalized yet, but hey there's still some CSS3 stuff..)

      I also find it extremely stable (except minefield which crashes from time to time) compared to chrome at least. Yes chrome interface doesn't crash but the tabs crash all the time. Can blame flash or whatever, but the same tabs in FF just don't crash and FF itself rarely ever crash.

      Now, you're right, the interface of FF is slow. They do have a plan to fix that, but it's not yet there... I would wish they include it in FF4 but we'll see (it's electrolysis btw - separates browser into 1 process and UI in another - instead of UI in 1 process and 1 process per tab in chrome - i like the FF way better, uses way less memory)
      This includes FF startup time, tab switching/moving around, going through menus etc when heavy stuff is going on.

      They should have fixed that first, as it's the part users feel bad about - users use the interface (incredible lol)

      Now I don't think it's too little too late, Firefox has a huge market share and is respected in many companies, unlike Chrome (it will eventually happen).

      On the other hand they must not fail FF4 and they know that, hence the delay for the release..

  48. Because native code runs better by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    While Windows has an exceedingly good 32-bit emulation layer, and Intel CPUs make that possible, it still isn't as fast as 64-bit native code. The CPU has to switch out to a special emulation mode, which takes some extra cycles, there is some translation to do, which takes some extra cycles, and not all the new features are available. So memory aside, it is still best for performance to be 64-bit native. You can see that with Prime95. It shouldn't get any faster on a 64-bit system since it is all FP but it does slightly. That is in part because there's less overhead, and in part because there's access to some new things like more general purpose registers (which compilers use without special effort on the programmer's part).

    So while I agree, it is not critical, we don't need all 64-bit apps right now, it is the direction we should be moving. Native 64-bit apps run the best.

    Besides, it might be nice someday for OSes to be able to ditch their 32-bit emulation layers. Won't happen for a decade or more I'm sure, but it'll never happen at all if people don't release 64-bit apps.

    1. Re:Because native code runs better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have seen in many cases where 32-bit apps running under wow64 are actually faster than running on 32-bit windows.

  49. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And we need the move to happen sooner rather than later if we want a hope of ditching the compatibility any time soon. Even if every app went 64-bit today, it would be years and years before an OS could realistically jettison the 32-bit layer, because people would need to keep running older apps. So it would be good to get on this shit now rather than later so maybe in a decade or two we can get rid of the 32-bit layers.

    As an example of how long this shit can stay around if you don't work at it, look at the 16-bit issues. 64-bit Windows doesn't have a 16-bit compatibility layer. There is good reason for this because the one that is in 32-bit Windows wouldn't work, you can't access the processor mode needed from long mode. So they'd have to redo the whole thing in a much more complex emulation manner which is not even remotely worth it.

    Well should be no problem right? I mean 32-bit has been around for a long time, and everyone really went 32-bit in 1995-1996 with Win95. You'd have to have amazingly old apps to have a problem...

    Ya not so much. People were still using 16-bit installers because "It still worked," and shit like that. You can find stuff from not that long ago that will fail to work completely on 64-bit Windows because it has 16-bit parts. Usually just the installer (and MS has some workarounds for that) but sometimes it'll be something like the main app is 32-bit but it has a 16-bit helper or whatever.

    This same shit will go on with 64-bit as well, but a major step to making it easier and faster is for companies to stop being retarded and start putting out 64-bit versions of their stuff. Nobody is saying stop with 32-bit versions, there are still lots of 32-bit systems, just put out 64-bit versions as well. Yes, there may be problems with things like plugins. Guess what? Gotta have the 64-bit versions before 64-bit plugins are useful!

    The audio industry has been dealing with this since there more memory IS needed. Yes, it has been a pain and no the process isn't complete yet, but these days most software ca be had 32 or 64-bit, including plugins, and you use the ones you need.

  50. Firefox crashes when not being used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Firefox runs out of address slots - hence the crash."

    Firefox crashes often occur when you are not using the computer, when no one has touched the keyboard or mouse.

    1. Re:Firefox crashes when not being used! by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      i heard firefox has memleaks when the computer is off!

  51. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people are happy using Windows. Only basement dwellers get "stuck" with it.

  52. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by tehcyder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Re your sig - hating someone for using a Mac is always right, being an arrogant bitch is not always wrong.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  53. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

    Err it was done to split the browser from the mail client.
    Last I checked Firefox does not operate as mail client by default (one could always make/use a plugin or extension for it, but so could they for chrome and even IE actually)

  54. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IOW you're proud of your bigotry and happy with you ignorance, check.

  55. Re:Memory hogging, CPU hogging. by wickedskaman · · Score: 1
    I wish I could say it's only Windows but I moved my Firefox profile to an OS X installation (Snow Leopard) and it still slows to a crawl eating up over a gig of RAM easily.

    I think the problem is mainly add-ons adding to the bill and making the install sluggish... like old Windows installs that have lots of registry issues that slow them down. I'm thinking of just uninstalling Firefox and redoing the whole thing except for my bookmarks and passwords.

    --
    Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
  56. Re:Until then you can just use Opera... by wampus · · Score: 1

    Didn't you hear me? Fuck you and fuck Opera.