Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 5 Details: Sharing, Home Tab, PDF Viewer
An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 4 may be still new, but Firefox 5 is already being prepared by Mozilla. At least the UI features have been laid out by the Mozilla team — there are nine new features in total. There are some features that are replicating Chrome functionality (tab multi-select or an integrated PDF viewer that will also extend to other file formats), but there are completely new features such as tab web apps, an identity manager a home tab that replaces the home button as well as a social sharing feature that is integrated in the URL bar and enables users to post directly to their Facebook and Twitter pages."
I do not like it.
It's bad enough I always have to yank out PDF-in-browser add-ins and settings, now I'll have to do it even more with Firefox having a built in viewer. Why does anyone want an in-browser PDF viewer?
Perhaps PDF viewer and home tab? The others sure seem like extension functionality. I don't use Facebook or Twitter, so why do I need them crapping up my browsing experience?
In-browser preview: Firefox will also get an integrated PDF viewer (like Chrome) and will extend this capability to more popular file formats, including MP3.
So I'll be able to watch MP3 movies on Linux without having to buy the codec?
Giggity.
Facebook? Twitter? Since when did Mozilla integrate commercial websites into their browser? Since integrating the Google search engine? Since AOL? This is why Netscape and Mozilla were originally kept separate. To keep the commercial bloat in the Netscape browser and allow the community to use Mozilla.
Honestly it makes no sense to integrate PDF. It makes far more sense to integrate IRC, AOM/IM, or something like this but honestly, this is just commercial bloat. What we really want is just a browser that wont crash, that wont open our computer up to hackers, that that will load tube sites and have the latest scripting and html features.
They think this versioning method is a good thing? I read the headline and only thought "5, already? omfg, I'm done with this stupid browser".
I know that's probably biased, and knee-jerky, subjective and immature, but that doesn't change that it's probably a lot of peoples thoughts on the matter.
It's stupid how a number can make you or break your opinion of a product, and even stupider that their change had the opposite affect on me (negative impression, etc)
Too far.
The awesomebar drove me nuts, but I could get an addon to handle it. The PDF viewer I am unhappy with, but I will assume their team is competent enough to sandbox it correctly. But the first day I see a DoS or remote exploit against it, that browser is getting uninstalled for good.
If there's no way to disable the facebook and twitter plugins...it will never be installed to start with.
Oh Mozilla...you've become... netscape navigator or iexplorer/outlook.
Unless--anyone out there that can recommend an appropriately minimalistic fork of it?
I hope someone will be annoyed enough to start a fork which removes this gimmicky crap but keeps the security fixes.
I just upgraded from 3.6 to Firefox 4. I cannot stand it. The UI is very counter-intuitive and I find that it takes longer to access things with the elimination of the File/EditView etc toolbar. I'm about to have to find another browser.
the Political Inquirer
The awesome bar and all this commercial stupidity has to go. Whoever is in charge of Firefox right now sucks.
It made sense to go from Mozilla to Firefox, but from Firefox to this mess? This is Netscape all over again.
> Identity management: ... keep you signed in to websites via an integrated identity manager and even support multiple sign-ons at the same time.
IIRC this feature was requested by someone in the US Army ?
We need a security and functionality oriented fork ASAP. Performance matters also.
Nobody asked for changes to the interface. The interface to Firefox was never broken and nobody complained about it.
Nobody asked for the "awesome bar" or whatever the hell that is. If it improves productivity then fine, tabs make sense, but the majority of this shit is just gimmicks. Integrating the cloud makes sense but not when it's specifically "facebook" and "twitter", but to allow anyone to select anything and make it completely transparent and open. They are going commercial in a really bad sell out kind of way, and you can tell the developers I said it.
Most of the programmers working on the project are from companies like Google who don't know what they are doing.
It was one thing when AOL worked on it, but the quality of the development has gone down. We need an open source browser on the market.
I admit, I'm using Chrome right now because Chrome is better, and I'm not upgrading to Firefox4 because 3.6 is better. They should have kept the option to use the 3.6 interface or just extended it, than go completely alien.
Going down the drain despite everyone's best efforts and intentions. Except for identity management and PDF viewing (why should webpages be limited to HTML??), nothing else makes an ounce of sense in a supposedly light weight browser. Here is hoping Chromium or Chrome catch up on the extensions and sync scene soon.
Google's Ninja's have infiltrated Firefox and are ruining it. Sabotage style.
It's not because Chrome is a overhyped piece of shit whose only valuable feature is its JS engine that other browsers should take a shit along the way wherever the google guys decided to take one.
Why not just take the Chromium tree and figure out how to run Firefox extensions on there and just call that Firefox? Would save time and have much better memory use and performance. Firefox is basically converging on a Chrome clone with slightly worse performance and some dumb UI hacks that will end up largely unused/abandoned (like Panorama).
Isn't all this what the extension ecosystem is for? Why would a team that already is overwhelmed by the task of testing its product incorporate MORE features to test? My main issue with Firefox right now is not a lack of Facebook integration (-_-) but the obvious memory leakage in the released FF 4 with AdBlock/NoScript, which was present through the entire last half of the beta cycle.
Mozilla has really wandered off the reservation here. I want a solid, fast browser that supports the great extensions that Mozilla didn't write, and continues to support developments in the core web standards space. If I want Chrome or Flock, I'll just download those, seriously.
As long as Seamonkey is there I'm fine.
A fast, customizable browser with a nice UI.
People always bitched about Seamonkey being a bloated FF with bad Add-on-support. Now it feels like that the Seamonkey is the browser the FF should be.
You can forget Firefox in a corporate enviroment if it contains facebook and other US websites
the thing cant even integrate into a GPO, go open gpedit.msc and see the hundreds of customisation options for MSIE but there are none for Firefox
so yeah keep adding the fluff and whatever flavour of the month billion dollar US corps websites and see that uninstall button get used more
i dont wont to go back to MSIE but it seems Mozilla are giving us no choice.
Are they trying to drive me to Chrome? I don't want any of that crap.
They need to fix the massive memory leaks. I don't need any features. Spending a year making it more robust.
Right now with 4 simple tabs open(Win7-64), FF4 is consuming 650 MBs. I have to restart it every hour or two as it just keeps growing and growing.
It is my favorite browser for features, but the memory leaks are ridiculous (note the Windows build seems to leak more than Linux/Mac builds from what I read).
If FF5 adds a bunch of lame features and doesn't fix the fundamentals, I am gone.
PS: From the time I typed 650MB above till I previewed and ready to submit, FF4 memory usage as increased to 725 MB...
What happened to the slim, extensible browser? Good god. The whole point of Firefox is that it was supposed to be a slim browser that additional features could be added through extensions. Just add another interface to add features that you like but are not supported due to some shortcoming in that system. All of this is more and more features and UI changes that not everyone wants added into the browser. Add a new theme that does tabs on top, while keeping the old one for people who do not. Add a default extension to do social networking in the awesome bar. As I said in the subject: this bazaar is now a cathedral. Maybe most people like cathedrals because they are simpler for them, but do not be one while claiming that you are a bazaar.
I'm sticking with Firefox 3.6x for as long as possible - it's very stable and runs well.
Firefox is making many of same mistakes Netscape did by trying to be everything to everyone.
On a related topic, the strong push to integrate social networking and apps into upcoming versions of the browser makes me wonder if Facebook is heavily influencing the development of Firefox these days.
Ron
I've been using 4 for over 6 months :-/
Firefox 5 is going to be out in a few months. And some of these features will be implemented in the nightlies soon.
6. In-browser preview: Firefox will also get an integrated PDF viewer (like Chrome) and will extend this capability to more popular file formats, including MP3.
The PDF file format (or at least a certain subset of PDF functionality -- everyone seems to forget about that) is available for use under what I believe are royalty-free terms.
One of the biggest reasons why Mozilla was gunning for Theora (and now WebM's VP8) to be the defacto HTML5 video codec was that those codecs are believed to be distributable under FOSS licenses, without paying any royalties.
I'm sure that there are lawyers who remember the exact patents and dates better than I, but I'm pretty sure that there are patents that read on the mp3 file format that won't expire for several years. How is Mozilla going to ship with support for mp3 files without putting themselves and their users at risk of patent litigation? And if they do ship with mp3 support, does this mean that Mozilla has given up the fight for advocating for only Free/Open codecs, and is now willing to include H.264 support in Firefox and other pieces of Mozilla software?
coding is life
Kill Atom/RSS feed discovery, but integrate Facebook and Twitter into the address bar. Could it be made any clearer that they don't care about standards?
If Facebook and Twitter integration gets shoved into the core browser, they've clearly lost the plot. Promotion of proprietary walled gardens is not the browser's job. Put in things people actually need, like per-site script permissions for security.
All new features in firefox should be implemented as extensions. That is all.
I wonder why he posts if he despises Slashdot so much...
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
I already have a way to view PDF files and I could launch xpdf automatically if that's the behaviour I wanted.
And wont that be fucking useful :roll: ? Long time Mozilla users are already using extensions to remove bloat. Someone should start a small fast browser project, they could call it phoenix and... oh wait!
I presume there are already extensions for that?
New firefox == new shit to revert and remove.
Once upon a time there was a browser named Mozilla, also known as Mozilla Application Suite, which grew and grew. It became a huge pile of bloat. A few developers refused the bloat started an experimental branch at Mozilla which eventually evolved into Firefox. Their goal was to create a mean lean browser without the bloat. This path was good. The new "let's throw in as much bloat as possible" path is a total scandal. I really hope some clever people take firefox 3.6.x and use that as a basis for development of their own without-the-bloat branch. I've used the Firefox browser since it was named Phoenix, and I do think it's gone downwards since a while ago. evince or okular or whatever read PDF files just fine. Having a PDF reader and a pile of dunkey dung built into my browser is not required or desired.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
When Mozilla 5's codebase got too unwieldy, they rebooted it for what we now call SeaMonkey. When what would later be called SeaMonkey's codebase got too unwieldy, they rebooted it for what we now call Firefox. Is it perhaps time for another reboot?
The backend work done for FF4 is good and much appreciated, but the it sounds like the team is resting on its laurels again: it thinks the work on the basics is done. Standards support is still not where it needs to be, yet they're working on fluff like site-specific browsers. It sounds like it's time for someone to go back to the basics again: just a browser in the core, with a good extension model for people to hack all these things into for people who actually want them.
They should have kept the option to use the 3.6 interface or just extended it, than go completely alien.
They have. Right-click toolbar, uncheck "tabs on top" and check "menu bar". Done.
By the unexpected hands of Mozilla. Unfortunately people like crap so I'm sure it'd be enjoyed by the unwashed masses.
Most of the programmers working on the project are from companies like Google who don't know what they are doing.
[...]
I admit, I'm using Chrome right now because Chrome is better
What? Just.... what? Do you even read what you write?
Did you say the same things about Firefox 4 (and possibly some of you 3)
Why are you still all here is Firefox 4 was so bad? Is it possible it ended up not so bad.
I would think when Mozilla say they are going add these features this is list of things they would like the browser to be able to do not the new emphasis of the browser. They may back down and leave some of the status bar at the bottom (making it better for my 600 vertical pixels) is the idea does not really work.
And if Firefox is having memory leaks is probably your fault go though and remove all your weird extensions and check to see if you have any plug-ins you don’t need (about:plugins) a lot of you sound like you might have installed the h264 plugin from Microsoft because you just want it to play there are numerous reports that it has memory leaks.
fork Chromium already. Saves time and manpower.
I still use firefox 3 because of all the ridiculously shitty ui changes 4 made ... stop trying to emulate fucking chrome goddammit, chrome fucking sucks.
As somebody who uses this browser since Phoenix, I think Firefox dev team realty needs a history lesson. You owe your existence and popularity to a fork that started as an effort to de-crapify Netscape/Mozilla Suite. Every early release feature list included "we reduced the size by that much". It is really time to re-focus as you are dangerously close to repeating history. Why is it so hard to focus on stability, security and speed? Just leave gimmicks and specific site integration to add-on writers. As a developer myself I know there is real itch to continue to add features. If that itch is so unbearable - why not do an official add-on pack and let people pick and choose? Everybody would be much happier devs and users alike.
I whish these devs would rather concentrate on security and not implement a zillion different applications into a yet unstable and insecure software.
Many have questioned my extension usage.
I use many, 18 to be exact. But it is the extensions that make Firefox great. If I have to stop using extensions, then I would definitely give up on Firefox.
Trying to diagnose which ones are causing issues is also problematic as Firefox still seemed to grow memory for quite a while when I disabled all of them. It fluctuates even when it is sitting idle.
In use Extensions:
Adblock +
BBcodeExtra
BetterPrivacy
Download Statusbar
Download Helper
FireGesturs
FlagFox
Flashblock
FxIF
Lazarurs: Form Recovery
Leechblock
Newsfox
NoScript
SearchPreview
Simple Timer + clocks
Speed Dial
Status-4-Evar
Text2Link
Any of these known to cause leaks?
The title says it. Adobe's plugin can display slideshows the way they are supposed to work, by instantly displaying the next page when hitting down. Chrome's viewer just acts like a word processor sliding the pages up slowly, which sucks for reading some slides online.
Has anyone else noticed that the abbreviation FF5 looks an awful lot like FFS?
LRN 2 SWM
I think FF4 is great, I've been using it all through the betas. There's a couple of UI things I think need a little polish but compared to 3.6 it's night & day. Faster too.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
What? Netscape and Mozilla were originally kept separate because Netscape was dying and wanted free development but didn't want to relinquish the valuable "Netscape" name..
And forget "originally." Originally, all there was was Netscape Corp. "Mozilla" was an internal codename within Netscape Corp. So, "originally," Mozilla was not independent of, but rather, subservient to, Netscape Corp.
Why not leave social features to extension developers? When I find something I want to share I usually do it via my rss reader on my iPhone or copy and paste in firefox. This will just slow down firefox and add weight to it. Boo bloatware!
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Did you say the same things about Firefox 4 (and possibly some of you 3)
Same things? No, because I'm pretty sure that they weren't doing those things, and I can certainly say I am not using FF4, I don't want to use FF4, and I'd recommend staying away from it.
I can't recall exactly what criticisms I had when FF4 was announced, let alone FF3, but yeah, I'm not comfortable with FF4 at all. I do not like the UI change, and that's enough to keep me far away from it.
Firefox is opening itself for a storm of security issues with a PDF viewer. Virtually anyone that has attempted to make a PDF viewer has opened themselves up for security issues with the implementation. Honestly, this is a horrible direction to take. Every platform in existence (including most mobile OSes) have PDF viewer built in, so why not use it. Have the user download the document and view it.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
PDF viewers on Linux suck, too. It amazes me, how evince starts redrawing the document for a few seconds when I zoom in / zoom out. C'mon, it's not 1982, how could this be so bad?
Use Webkit.
I don't like it. Get this Facebook/Bing/Yahoo/Flickr/Google/Ubuntu marketing crap out of my browser! I don't care who pays you and what for.
I'll just wait until FF6.
I swear, it's like the evil marketing people have hijacked FF development. Lot's of sizzle, but no real substance.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Or finally making true multiprocessing between tabs work? Or declarative plugin security rights? Or making embedding work and usable?
Ahh no -- fiddling with the UI again.
are for retards
Like approximately a dozen extensions already provide for those people who fill their time in between farmville sessions by spamming the everloving crap out of their few remaining friends who have not blocked their posts?
This is a late April Fools, isn't it?
>Integrated PDF viewer.
That's not necessary, and it can only make the browser more vulnerable.
Doesn't anybody think these things through any more?
Plugins will no longer be needed, everything will be built into the browser
Dont know why the AC was modded down as what they say is true. Firepig has turned into just that - bloat and gimmicks. It is slow and still has memory issues (far more than the other browsers). While only an every now and then user of Opera, it does seem more responsive and innovative though I'm kind of set in my way interface wise and extension wise which makes moving a last resort. That though is coming closer.
Why, for once, can't the developers put on a feature freeze and tackle head on performace (speed, memory usuage) issues? Does anyone even try to track how many of these "must have" new features people actually end up using? Firefox should focus on the basics and do them the best before going forward with anything new.
Back during the 2.x era there was a substantial memory leak which caused serious trouble under normal circumstances. But that has long since been fixed, anybody saying that at this point is probably either a troll or blaming it on an extension with a memory leak.
I am not trolling. I love Firefox. It is by far my preferred browser.
If I have to ditch my Extensions, then Firefox wouldn't be my preferred any more. Extensions make the browser IMO.
I kept Firefox open since my first post. It is now consuming a whopping 1.4 GB with three tabs open...
If it is extensions, Firefox has to sandbox, isolate, control them.
That should be a much higher priority than adding a bunch of useless fluff.
Good luck with that... it seems as though the old-school Mozilla fans have sneakily come back to power, and they're dragging Firefox down the same ill-fated path that it was going when everyone jumped ship to Firefox. Ironically, it seems as though we need a new spinoff in order to get back to basics, stop people from bloating the main program with useless features, and get rid of the corporate assholes.
I'd jump ship to Opera or Chrome, but neither really appeals all that much to me. I want a browser with a fucking status bar, and none of the current generation seem to offer this simple feature.
What happened to all the buttons in those shots?
You know: back, forward, stop, refresh, etc. If I have to click twice to use those you're only making it harder for me, and for what? To save 10 or so vertical pixels? I'm already pissed that you idiots removed functionality from the status bar without any good reason. Quit making your browser useless in an effort to save screen space, when resolution sizes are only going up.
If the Mozilla Foundation really wants to promote the idea of apps in the browser (and I think they do because they are increasingly blurring the line between apps and tabs), they must introduce proper sandboxing to Firefox. Otherwise, Firefox will be insecure by design, and no extension will help to fix this gaping flaw.
I'd jump ship to Opera or Chrome, but neither really appeals all that much to me. I want a browser with a fucking status bar, and none of the current generation seem to offer this simple feature.
Yeah, the "Status Bar" option in Opera's "Toolbars" menu is a prank designed specially to annoy you. That's why it's enabled within the default install. Because, you know, the people at Opera Software ASA really hate you.
Oh great! It will have separate processes for each tab? or at least each window? No? Oh. crap.
Chrome doesn't do it for me. I really like Panorama for my tabs and it doesn't have anything like it. It still seems to have a dirth of good extensions and I don't care for the "app store". I just don't see it as an alternative. The only thing I use it for is playing Netflix in a window while I do real work in Firefox.
Also, I don't want a "home" button or a "home" app. Who the fuck uses a home page, anyway? Doesn't everyone have their browser set to load the last session they had when they closed the browser? So instead of giving me a useless button, I get to also have a useless tab taking up horizontal space, too. Wonderful.
Losing me at the "social sharing feature", too. I don't use Facebook, Twitter, or any of those other pieces of crap. I want a browser for browsing. I'm not a highschool kid. I don't need every aspect of my life to feed into self promotion and self indulgence and attention whoring and everyone I know will get along just fine without me forwarding some stupid link or throwing out an inane comment (at least I keep that narrowed to the Slashdot world!).
It sounds, to me, like they're trying too hard to be that Flock fork that was around some time ago. Of course, socializing the browser isn't the worst thing they could do. The worst thing they could do was already done awhile, ago. . . . with those fucking inane "browser profiles" that let little girls decorate their browser in a pink-heart background with ponies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues
The various MP3-related patents expire on dates ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S. The initial near-complete MPEG-1 standard (parts 1, 2 and 3) was publicly available on December 6, 1991 as ISO CD 11172. In the United States, patents cannot claim inventions that were already publicly disclosed more than a year prior to the filing date, but for patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, submarine patents made it possible to extend the effective lifetime of a patent through application extensions. Patents filed for anything disclosed in ISO CD 11172 a year or more after its publication are questionable; if only the known MP3 patents filed by December 1992 are considered, then MP3 decoding may be patent free in the US by December 2012.
So yes, it's possible that the patents will expire in 2012, but it might actually take 5 more years.
With that kind of ambiguity, I can understand someone bringing the idea up in a meeting of long-term goals, but I definitely wouldn't pencil anything in on a roadmap, unless it was scheduled for after 2017.
In any case, why does the browser need to play mp3s? Baking-in a PDF reader that undoubtedly won't handle all of the quirky, latest-Adobe-version PDF add-ons is already a sketchy affair, so why put support for another format in the core? I supported Mozilla and the rest for pushing WebM, but that's because there's a known need for video/audio in the browser, and they got about *half the known software/hardware universe* to sign up for the darn thing (even Adobe + Flash signed up!).
coding is life
There are a whole hell of a lot of advantages of working with documents in text formats like plaintext and HTML.
If Firefox bakes-in a PDF reader by default, then the increasing number of people who send EVERYTHING in PDF format (it's basically become the new interchange format instead of Word or Excel documents) will transmit even MORE stuff as a PDF, now that they know that I have a PDF reader right in my@#$%$% browser. This would be fine if PDF were a lightweight, simple format that guaranteed me access to the actual text of documents, and that interacted with all of the rest of the elements on a webpage in a nice fashion. But it's not.
Putting data into PDFs on the web is like making little data silos. Is it better than receiving documents in Word or Excel format? Yes, sometimes, especially when the content is just going mono-directionally, but for any documents that I want to copy data from, PDFs can present problems.
More content in PDFs just makes me feel like it's Flash-in-a-webpage or Quicktime-in-a-webpage all over again.
Keep the web clean and elegant. Please!
coding is life
What might be getting conveniently overlooked in these comments is the shifting audience spectrum that the Mozilla team is aiming for. They already had the nerd evangelists, that's done now. Tech circles have been suggesting Firefox over Internet Explorer for so long that now the less tech-oriented people repeat the same mantra by rote (even if they're not technically inclined enough to know there are better options). These aren't your programmers and developers, these are your tech support agents and Geek Squad employees. They have the keys to the public at large, and they still think Firefox is the bee's knees.
With a larger market share comes a shift in your audience's perspective, simply because you are pulling from a larger pool. The average netizen almost certainly uses Facebook and YouTube, might have a Twitter account, and at least knows what a blog is. Tech evangelists can only convert so many, so the Mozilla team needs more reasons to sway those who buy laptops at CostCo to download Firefox after launching the built-in IE browser. Social media is not going anywhere anytime soon, so integration is a likely step forward.
Your average person does not want to have to work to get his or her web content. Adobe FlashPlayer, Adobe Acrobat Reader, these are things that people encounter on a constant basis on the web. The more work Mozilla does behind the scenes, the more seamless an experience the user enjoys. I've encountered people who simply stopped using Firefox (after having it suggested to them) because their videos wouldn't play, and they didn't know any better about the installation of FlashPlayer; it was simply easier to switch back to the familiar IE.
With a growing market share, this sort of thing was inevitable. Nerds who crave a lightweight, extensible browser will latch on to another product... or we'll all just start using Opera. Actually, I'd like to see what comes of Chromium development. There have already been a couple browsers based on Chromium crop up (one in fact has the major selling point of being a "social media browser"), I'd love to see one based on staying lightweight and furthering extensibility.
Listen all I know everyone wants to jump the gun here but see I almost lost faith in them then they came out with firefox 4 which caught up on speed (my main concern) But adding features and doing things different is what they want to do then give it a chance cause its the only Great open source browser left that hits all marks so what if you dont like the initial idea try it at least. Its like saying you dont like a food without trying it you dont know that you dont like it honestly, you are just being a d***.
Here's a hint, Mozilla: If you can replicate any feature on Firefox with extensions, then take it off the feature list and let the community create an extension for it. Facebook integration? Seriously? I don't even use Facebook. It's rather odd to see a browser adding features specifically for a individual web services (besides Google, but we can look over that).
Version 3.6 takes 176 meg
Version 4.0 took 360+ megs.
I'm back on 3.6.
I don't want those interface "features"! I want the memory issues fixed. Stop trying to copy Chrome.
I have Adobe AcrobatX. I don't need another "PDF Viewer" taking up even more ram!
I absolutely love Chrome, but the one feature I can't stand is the integrated PDF viewer. Why? You can't save the document to disk from the viewer, and you can't print the document from the viewer. Just what I want in a viewer: the lack of features which even a basic text document has. [Actually, I just checked Chrome 11 beta, and you can print now... not sure when that was added but it must have been recently.]
Who thought that was a good idea? I visit sites for work which generate PDF reports from javascript links. I can't right-click, save those. I sometimes need to print these reports once generated, or attach them to work orders or jobs in another web app. The built-in PDF viewer is completely useless for this. Nevermind if the PDF document has more complex features like forms, which don't work at all. Its one of the first things I turn off when I install the browser (and the inspiration for me tracking down the awesome ChromeAccess extension) now because it's so common for me to run into irritations with it.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
What happened to the browser that was based on being slim and having add ons for everything? Firefox is slower than IE9 as it is, this is just all useless bloated shit no one ever asked for.
SeaMonkey, status bar, normal menu, and for me, actually quicker then Firefox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
First Slashdot posts a load of crap about how nenolod supposedly cracked the Motorola Android certs (hint: he didn't, it was a troll) and now you're quoting bullshit from some no-name site as gospel, go ask someone who actually works for Mozilla what's actually going to be in Firefox 5 and you'll discover that most of that article is complete and utter wank.
Or, there's always that pesky IE9 upstart? But RockMelt (and FlocK) are at least trying to be brave and bold - PDFs are not a feature to brag about.
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
Does anyone else HATE how the HTTP Auth dialogue blocks your entire browser? I thought they were working on this for FF4. Safari/Chrome already fixed this. Firefox changed all other notifications, alerts, password saving dialogues etc to tab-blocking (or straight up non-blocking) UI elements, why not http auth too ???
Curiously yours, crip.
I always knew they had something against me...
I must have been thinking of Chrome. Time to download Opera again.
It's de rigueur that there is at least one mention of the fabled memory leak issue ...
Using a multi threaded program when your HTML and javascript parsers were flaky enough to crash the program was a moronic decision. And AFAIR the Netscape browser used to be split process so did someone think that was old hat and multi threaded was the latest and greatest flavour of the month so thats the way Firefox had to go?
There is no excuse for using threads with todays versions of unix with copy on write and other efficiencies , its just lazy programming. Sure, use threads with Windows which has a hobbled process model but keep it out of the Unix arena please.
In my home machine I am sticking with Firefox for now, till I figure out the equivalent of NoScript for Chrome. Firefox + NoScript + FlashBlock + AdBlock allows me to control what I allow to run on my machine and take up real estate on my screen. I am not giving that back to the servers and pages. Ever!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
They should really look at forcing extension developers to optimize their code simply because poorly written extensions trump all the latest and greatest speed improvements that they're coming out with.
Thanks, now I know when I can see http://www.satiq.net/
Best Regards
That's the worst idea I ever heard. Most of the people on social networking don't even talk or let alone know each other
If I wanted a social browser I would have switched to Flock. Any social browsing should be done by extension instead of actual browser. If URL bar is going to ask me to login or a tab space occupy by "Facebook" I am going have to uninstall Firefox.
Hi,
I am a longtime FF user, loved it, still loving it. My opinions can be biased, particularly given the fact the negative feedback here has driven me to comment. Reading the blurbs of comments on Techie Buzz, it feels that the free/open software idealists are sitting in their ivory towers, and accusing FF of selling out.
'f1' is the best, most non-intrusive, easiest to use implementation of sharing out there. Chrome/IE9 do not have it. Making this a mainstream feature, along with identity management is the next logical step, isn't it? Is FB/Twitter 'commercialization'? What do we want here? Something that makes sense for the majority of the 400 million FF users, or something that ideologically perfect, but makes no practical sense?
Panorama. Although the feature isn't complete (no multi-tab select, dependence on mouse), it is the best tab management solution out there. Let's look at competition. Chrome lacks a tab management feature. IE9 asks us to go back to multiple windows, a crowded taskbar, and pinned sites. Opera sports 'Stacks', but they consume space on tab bar.
FF introduced AwesomeBar in 3, and even today, no other browser comes close to the level of intuitiveness achieved by it. Chrome's Omnibox, IE9's onebar, they all pale in comparison.
FF3.6 was slow to start, maybe slow to run. Those problems are gone from FF4.
I use Chrome for certain websites - the ones I don't want to show up in history on my main browser. Open 30 tabs, and chrome eats up all CPU, becomes slow, and slows down everything. My FF regularly has around 50 tabs open, most of the time without any impact, and, to boot, most of them are 'hidden away' due to panorama.
I will stick with FF. It was out of loyalty in the last days of FF3.6 and initial days of FF4 Betas, but now it is because this browser wins over others in my books.
With all due respect, as I love Firefox, please improve its performance under OS X 10.x.
Fuck this crap, I want a security update for Firefox 2!
If they would have called it this, nobody would complain.
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566
as well as this:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566
as well as this:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630
---
Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
I'm all for new *light* features. But before Firefox copies every Chrome feature, please keep in mind that Chrome is supposed to be an OS and so it has some heavy stuff in there.
Maybe certain "signature add-ons" could be added with a check during installation. This could include the new Facebook and Twitter integration.
An add-on I'd love by the way, is popover blocking. I hate those things.
WTH?
I started a new empty profile and I still have this problem... I can't click any embedded links...