Mozilla Plans Major Design Overhaul With Firefox 25 Release In October

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla is planning a major design overhaul of its flagship browser with the release of Firefox 25, slated to arrive in October. The company makes a point to discuss its plans for changes openly, and this upcoming new version is by no means an exception. In fact, even though Firefox 22 is in the Beta channel, Firefox 23 is in the Aurora channel, and Firefox 24 is in the Nightly channel, Mozilla has set up a special Nightly UX channel for Firefox 25. Grab it here."

Comments

Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[CastrTroy]

From the screenshot, it looks like they are finally completing the project of making Firefox completely indistinguishable from Chrome.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[The MAZZTer]

Don't worry you still have your separate useless search bar you never use and hide from the toolbar (well, I did).

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[The MAZZTer]

But seriously, Chrome did a LOT of stuff right. The menu button thing is still odd if you ask me Firefox's old choice was also valid) but now we have more room for tabs by using Chrome's method.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Synerg1y]

One can argue it's only useless if you have nothing to search for... making you useless in turn :)

I use mine all the time and appreciate it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

One can argue it's only useless if you have nothing to search for...

<troll>Or we act like sane people and just use the address bar to search.</troll>

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Dracos]

No, they made a lot of bad stuff fashionable. The only thing they did right was "Paste & Go" on the location bar context menu.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

The address bar is for addresses. It is a horrible horrible UI mistake to have turned it into a search feature. The url is correct or it isn't. Don't bullshit around with it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Synerg1y]

coincidentally, IE gets confused on the corporate intranet with aliases seemingly all the time, where i have to put the http:/// in there to show I'm not searching for a corporate server on google.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The address bar is for... wait for it... addresses!

For me the search bar is invaluable, my browsing would be severely hampered without it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

If that means that they gonna unfuck their broken ssl nanny implementation, great.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435013

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[The MAZZTer]

You can type in the address bar to search. :)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Mozilla is making products on behalf of the people, does that mean the people want Chrome?

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Synerg1y]

Actually, it's called an address bar, not a search bar. By your logic, why don't we just open our OS's with a single blinking cursor and imply what we want by typing it in. Thankfully we moved away from that in the 90s, lets not re-invent history.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

I don't like the "type in something and it will search" much, but what I do really like is the named searches you can do from it. For me, "g " will search Google, "w " wikipedia, "nws " will bring up the weather forecast, etc.

It's almost like a command line for common searches, and the space means it basically can't be confused with a URL.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Actually, on Chrome, it's not an address bar, it's the Omnibox. The browser only tries to use the input as an URI if none of the installed extensions matches the keyword used. Technically, there is no address bar.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[magic maverick]

Can I quickly and easily change what website I am searching using the address bar? At present in my search box, I can search nine different websites. Four are search engines (DuckDuckGo, Ixquick, Google & Yahoo), Wikipedia (used all the time when I know that's what I want), Wiktionary (similarly), Urban Dictionary (same again), Wolfram Alpha (good for many calculations), and the WordPress Codex. Can I search all of these easily from the address bar without having to remember a shortcut? (Some of them, e.g. the Codex, Urban Dictionary, Google & Yahoo, I use very occasionally).

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Oh good... this should have said, for example "g <blah<" and "g <zip>", etc.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

Yes. And that makes it a horrible horrible UI mistake. Search and URL are two very different things and should never ever be entered from the same UI element.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

Exactly. not every valid URL has a top level domain, and this can consistently confuse browsers who have the UI error of using an address bar for searches.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

"'ls' and 'cat' are two very different things and should never ever be entered from the same UI element."

I don't think they're as different as you do. Entering a URL means "go to this URL exactly"; search means "go to a URL which I am abbreviating a bit."

How different the tasks are depends greatly on what level of abstraction you view them at.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Synerg1y]

basically it doesn't play nice with local DNS always.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[robmv]

not useless for me, it allow me to write things in the URL without sending every keystroke to Google, you know, like which host names I write there. The integrated search and URL field on Chrome behaves for me like the Ubuntu integrated search. I don't want to send everything I write there to Google. You can disable this in Chrome but you loose search predictions, so or you send eveything or we (Google) will not give you predictions. With Firefox I have predictions without sending every keystroke when I write a url

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

ls and cat are not entered from the same ui element, not really. once you enter the ls or cat command the following data is distinct for its intended purpose. Your command line doesn't have to figure out what if you wanted to ls or car "stuff", because you used the appropriate command.

With a combo search/url bar, "stuff" can be a valid domain under your local DNS, but your shit-tastic box will search for it instead of navigating there.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Darkness404]

The problem with Chrome is its complete lack of user customization. Compare that to Firefox (and Opera) where an about:config lets you change nearly anything.

Perhaps the thing that bothered me most about Chrome is there was no option to change history to:

Keep cookies
Keep downloads
But don't keep a log of the pages I've visited and don't change the colour of URLs that I've already clicked on (yeah, I know its minor but it bugs the crap out of me)

Instead, Google thinks you either need to be in super-secret-pr0n-surfing mode or keep a log of anything you visited (and show it in the address bar when you're searching).

Heck, I think even IE lets me have more control of my browsing history than Chrome does!

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

ls and cat are not entered from the same ui element, not really. once you enter the ls or cat command the following data is distinct for its intended purpose.

What? I type both in the same place, and it shows the results in the same place. Works the same in a browser.

With a combo search/url bar, "stuff" can be a valid domain under your local DNS, but your shit-tastic box will search for it instead of navigating there.

That's an implementation problem with the search, not a conceptual problem with the combined address bar. If it tried single words as addresses first, it'd pretty much work the same as the command line.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

Its completely broken with perfectly legitimate local DNS URLs. And can also error on IP addresses entered manually.

Like it or not, it breaks standards. That may be cool with you, but its worth shit to anyone who is more than a trivial user.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

except your command line isn't "stuff" its "ls stuff" or "cat stuff". Entering the specific command changes the intent of the data that comes after it. Effectively making the "stuff" a different part of the UI based on the context of the "ls"|"cat" command that preceded it. But when you enter text in a combo url/search bar, you just enter "stuff" and then hit enter or the "Go to the address in the location bar" arrow. There is nothing you can do to distinctly tell it to search or navigate.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

It breaks web standards and conflicts with local DNS and often times the manual entry of IP addresses.

It has no benefits compared to a separate search field, only flaws.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really just a way for Google to know the URLs you're directly going to without searching. If I type in a URL, I don't want Google knowing it.

It's also a security risk if you type in a URL with an IP address. Leaking internal network information to a 3rd party is considered a bad thing.

For example, say you're browsing your intranet AP system and you want keep the current page open, but want to look up something different. You copy the current URL, open a new tab and paste the URL back in, like this: https://10.1.23.45/accountsPayable/bigAccountName?JSESSIONID=ASDFZXCV

Google now knows your internal network is a 10.x.x.x subnet, your accounting system is located at 10.1.23.45 and can hijack your session using the JSESSIONID. Now Google has as much control over your AP system as you do. Granted this is an edge case and can be secured through other means, but it is certainly possible and was a perfectly secure thing to do when a URL bar was a URL bar.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is all of that wasted space at the top?! Tabs should be flush with the top of the screen, at least optionally.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[K. S. Kyosuke]

ls and cat are not entered from the same ui element, not really. once you enter the ls or cat command the following data is distinct for its intended purpose.

What? I type both in the same place, and it shows the results in the same place. Works the same in a browser.

I'm positive that Nadaka is trying to gently remind you that you should actually have one keyboard for typing URI addresses and another keyboard for typing search queries. :-)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Effectively making the "stuff" a different part of the UI based on the context of the "ls"|"cat" command that preceded it

Why the focus on the "stuff" part of the line? What about if I just type "emacs" or "ls", no arguments to either?

There is nothing you can do to distinctly tell it to search or navigate

Sure there is. If you enter http:/// and it won't search, and if you enter a search keyword it won't try to navigate.

Elsewhere in the thread I said the main thing I like about the combined box is not so much the fact that you can just type search terms but the fact that you can set up keyworded searches. I'm willing to concede that searching without a keyword is somewhat questionable (probably useful for most people, bad for power users) and not going to DNS first for things which could be a URL is definitely bad. (That's probably true for everyone: power users won't like it for obvious reasons, and normal people will have a harder time figuring out how to go to a weird URL if the browser searches than they will figuring out how to search if it goes to the page.) So I'd agree there's room for improvement with current design.

However, I stand by the idea of having just the single address bar. And the difference is such that if you offered me the choice of (1) a Firefox or Chrome-like address bar which does searches or (2) a really old style address bar which only accepts real URLs, I'd take the former one in a heartbeat and never regret it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

I'm willing to concede that searching without a keyword is somewhat questionable (probably useful for most people, bad for power users)

Maybe I should upgrade that to neutral for power users. The main reason it's bad IMO is the interference with DNS, which is covered by my following statement.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Patch86]

My "useless search bar" lets me select between Google, Wikipedia, Amazon and (if I ever wanted to use it, which alas I don't) Twitter. So I can think "I wonder how much a breadmaker costs" or "which year did Henry VIII die" and find out the answer in one click. Can't do that by mashing keywords into the URL bar (as far as I know). I'd have to navigate to the site's front page first, and I've become accustomed to my technologically enhanced laziness.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Darinbob]

Chrome also does a LOT of stuff wrong. I'd dump firefox but there's no reasonable alternative yet.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[All_One_Mind]

they borrowed that from Opera. Back when Opera was still a paid browser, the Paste & Go feature was unique to Opera, and an amazing feature. I'm glad it has been copied.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Opera's invention, not Chrome. (I ain't even an Opera user)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

Why am I focusing on "stuff" instead of the command? Hello! because that is what you are acting on. entering data into a command line is pointless without a command to run.

The thing is, you already have full access to a perfectly useful search tool in the search box (on firefox).

There is absolutely no need to dilute the purpose of the url bar with it.

This is a thing that has NO positive benefits, only negative.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

What about this, the address bar is for addresses, the search bar for searches and the smart bar (or whatever you want to call it) is decides if it should search for it or treat it as an address (making assumptions that might not be standards compliant, but works for most people).

Then everyone can customize their browser interface to use 1, 2 or even all 3 of these and get the browser experence they want.

But I do agree that retooling the address bar to a "smart bar" is not the wisest move from a usability standpoint. It blurs the edges. So I agree with the earlier complaints.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[aix tom]

In the comparison with ls and cat, a unified search/url input in the same GUI element you would basically have to type something like "http://xxxxx" to go to an url ans something like "search://xxxxx" to do a search, wo work like the CLI. There is a huge difference between "ls 30_gig_file" or "cat 30_gig_file" or even "rm 30_gig_file". You have to tell the software somehow to do WHAT action with WHICH object when you want to be sure about the result.

So far in the browser there where two fields for the two different actions ( directly navigate somewhere / search for something. ) The problem is when the software tries to "guess" what you want to do. Either the guessing algorithm is dumb, and annoys the user, or it is really sophisticated, in which case it took probably away a huge amount of developer manpower to implement in a way that pleases both the "I want to shop for something vague" vague user and the "Shit, the system is down, we are losing $100,000 a minute, and this shitty browser is trying to do a search, which he can't do since the connection to the internet is down, and locks up while waiting for the time-out, instead of just going to the web fronted for the NAS!!".

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I type both in the same place, and it shows the results in the same place. Works the same in a browser.

I was going to explain why you're completely wrong, but then realized the only reason you'd say such a thing is that you're either an idiot or a troll. Either way, waste of time.

It was kinda fun calling you names though. :)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[wile_e_wonka]

It has no benefits compared to a separate search field, only flaws.

I disagree. In my opinion there is benefit to not wasting screen real estate. Some of us don't have much. That search bar is usually in the address bar, which shortens the address field, causing me to be unable to see some of the web address. If I am wanting to know what the web address says, then at that moment, I am not in need of a search field, and it would be nice if it could go away and make way for more address field. In fact, I cannot think of a time when I am even in need of an address field and search field at the same moment. So, for those of us with limited screen real estate, it makes perfect sense to combine the two.

As for it breaking web standards, I am not an expert on this topic. The developers of Opera, however, are (and real sticklers about it, to my understanding), and Opera was the first browser of which I am aware that allowed searching from the address bar. I haven't had any issues with local DNS or manual entry of IP addresses.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Why am I focusing on "stuff" instead of the command? Hello! because that is what you are acting on. entering data into a command line is pointless without a command to run.

IMO, the line between data vs command is blurrier than you make it out to be. From some point of view, typing "example.com" into your browser is giving it data. But I'd argue it's just as reasonable to look at it is a command -- "go to example.com". I think this is even stronger with searches: "g blah" is a command saying "search Google for blah". So I think that it's not so outrageous for me to compare entering whatever into the address bar of a browser to entering "emacs" vs "ls".

The thing is, you already have full access to a perfectly useful search tool in the search box (on firefox). ... This is a thing that has NO positive benefits, only negative.

There are at least three benefits, though admittedly two of them are merely deficiencies with the current implementation in Firefox:

1) Having a unified bar means that I can see both long URLs and long search queries. In Firefox, if I copy and paste an error message or something like that into the search box, it will almost certainly be too small to view the entire query. [This deficiency could be remedied by having the search box expand to cover most of the URL as I'm typing stuff into it.]

2) Having a unified bar means I only have to learn and use one shortcut for changing focus to the bar. [This deficiency is very minor, but fundamental.]

3) The address bar keyword searches actually work better for searching than does the search bar IMO (not for everyone, but I suspect many power users would agree) because of the ability to set up keyword searches that use multiple search engines. In Firefox, to change what search provider is used I have to use alt + the arrow keys to change what I want. I can far faster type a couple letters and not worry about what the program is doing. (In addition, adding new keyword searches is easier in my experience than adding a new search provider.) [This deficiency could be remedied by supporting keyword searches from the search bar -- but at the cost of either introducing yet another ambiguity or requiring them.]

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be fine if it actually did go to a URL when given one, but most of the time it seems to delight in redirecting valid URLs to searches.

e.g.
http://192.168.1.1/
http://intranet/
  - ooh! I know, the user is wanting to search for those on google!!

Yes, it does seem stupid, but something I've seen happen all too often.

And of course it's like that in Chrome & Firefox - because it generates revenue for them!

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[__aasehi2499]

This is not a good thing.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Can't do that by mashing keywords into the URL bar (as far as I know).

You can.

In Firefox, go to any website you want to set up a search for, right click on the search box, and choose "add keyword for this search". If you add, say, a keyword of "g" on Google, then "g foo" in your address bar will search Google. In Chrome, you'll choose "add as search engine."

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[nmb3000]

But seriously, Chrome did a LOT of stuff right.

But they did at least one thing horribly, horribly wrong, and have at the same time managed to popularize it amongst many other products. Firefox jumped on board a while ago to some extent, but this new UI looks like they've gone balls-to-the-wall to "COPY CHROME" mode (just look at their new "Firefox menu" icon. It's a damned copy-and-paste of Chromes! What the hell! I don't understand why, but today's user interface designers are like marketing consultants -- they're all in a perpetual race to mindlessly emulate whoever seems to be popular at the moment. Usability studies, what are those?)

Anyway, the horrible misfeature is dicking around with non-client window areas (cutely referred to now as "chrome" so that it sounds unimportant and worth messing around with). It used to be a huge faux-pas in a professional well-designed system to screw around with things like window borders, title bars, system menus, caption buttons, etc. In fact, you could usually tell when a program was complete crap because it tried to make some horrible non-square window with an all custom-drawn non-client area.

Microsoft's best practices for Windows applications dictated for the longest time that you shouldn't mess around with or try to change the non-client area because of the horrible mess of UI inconsistency, user confusion, future fragility, and others (they still do but now just say you should "avoid drawing" there). However, now even they are embracing this stupidity, for example in Visual Studio 2012. Specifically the window caption buttons are a bastardized custom-drawn version of the Windows 8 buttons. What this means is that on Windows 7, if I repeatedly click where the Minimize caption button (to minimize all of my maximized windows), depending on where I click it, I will click the Restore button on programs that use the "normal" Windows 7 non-client area.

I despise the Chrome user interface and if Firefox keeps drunkenly stumbling down that same back alley of UI design then I'll finally stop using the browser. Their plan to completely remove the Addon Bar is another sign they're really only interested in becoming Chromium. My bet is that inside 2 years they'll drop Gecko completely and just adopt WebKit.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

coincidentally, IE gets confused on the corporate intranet with aliases seemingly all the time, where i have to put the http:/// in there to show I'm not searching for a corporate server on google.

Trying putting a trailing dot or ./ on the server name, in some environments that works for me. Save yourself a bunch of keypresses. When it works it is because of the internals of how DNS does lookups.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

If they were worried about screen real estate only, they could have added a mode button that switches it between search and url.

But as it is, they didn't and things are broken because of it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Your.Master]

There's several aliasing problems.

First, many valid searches are also valid URLs. You likely never encounter this if you don't have a local intranet that you go to.

Second, many typos of otherwise-valid URLs are indistinguishable from non-URLs and become searches. This can get confusing and also in the worst case leak some private information.

Third, there's the search provider. If you only ever search google, you're okay. I like to sometimes search wikipedia, sometimes search imdb, sometimes search hulu, etc.. In principle you can put a switcher UI into the address bar (which IE does, but as far as I can tell you have to dig in Chrome), or you can have implicit text-based prefixes (Chrome has this), or you can add explicit text-based prefixes (both IE and Chrome allow this but don't go out of their way to expose this, and Chrome actually disables their implicit text based prefixes in this case. Not sure about Firefox).

Fourth, even without search in there the address bar is already multifunctional: it displays the current address and is an input field for a new address. Merging in search means that search terms must be wiped out after searching, and the current address must be wiped out to search. You can have UI affordances for this but they aren't always simple. This is mitigated a bitencounter much if you always use Google (or Bing or Yahoo or Yandex or whatever), since they show the current search term, but you have to switch what box you're playing in and if you hit the first result and realize "oh yeah, dual meaning, have to refine my search" you have to first click back to see your search term, then continue.

Back when I was in University I really wanted a Firefoox set to a different search provider. boxes, each set to a different search provider. I now have different needs and could deal with one, but I like one.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[adiposity]

It does look more like Chrome, although I think the curved edges waste even more space than the angled edges on Chrome (and they look different).

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Either the guessing algorithm is dumb, and annoys the user, or it is really sophisticated, in which case it took probably away a huge amount of developer manpower to implement in a way that pleases both the "I want to shop for something vague" vague user and the "Shit, the system is down, we are losing $100,000 a minute, and this shitty browser is trying to do a search, which he can't do since the connection to the internet is down, and locks up while waiting for the time-out, instead of just going to the web fronted for the NAS!!".

I don't completely disagree with where you're coming from. I definitely recognize the conflict between "attempt to be user friendly and do a good job most of the time" and predictability (this is not even remotely the. only place it comes up), and I'll admit that I fall a little more on the first side than many power users. But at the same time, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a problem with "try DNS and if that doesn't work then search".

For instance, take your example. If your browser freezes because the internet is down and it can't hit the search provider, then it has bigger problems than URLs vs searches. And it wouldn't be not going to the NAS front end in such a situation if it didn't try to search; it would be not going to the "server not found" error page.

(And of course, that policy isn't what happens now with browsers, but it's also not a fundamental problem with the combined bar.)

In the comparison with ls and cat, a unified search/url input in the same GUI element you would basically have to type something like "http://xxxxx" to go to an url ans something like "search://xxxxx" to do a search, wo work like the CLI

But here's the thing: You can! What you say is already the situation! (Sort of.)

If you type http://url/ it will go to that URL and not try to search. And if you set up a keyword search and use it, then it is unambiguously not a URL (with a different syntax than search://, but same idea).

In fact, the broswer is already applying a heuristic when you enter an address -- it'll prepend http:/// After all, "google.com" is not a URL if I'm a dick and pedant. In some sense, the only thing that's changing is what sorts of heuristics are applied to things which aren't explicit URLs and aren't explicit searches in order to figure out where to go. I mean, take the internet in 20 years. Maybe it'll be the case that HTTPS is universal, and when you type in "example.com", your browser will assume you mean "https://example.com" instead. And that'll break things too! But that's okay, because "example.com" is fundamentally not an unambiguous request even now.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

All of your benefits are meaningless.

1: You can adjust the relative size of the search bar and the address bar manually. And it could have been done automatically.

2: You only need one shortcut to switch focus to the either one, it just happens to be a different shortcut for each (as it should be)

3: the firefox search box allows you to select different search providers already. and your keyword searches could have been incorporated there instead.

You could achieve every advantage by updating the search box and leaving the url bar alone, and that would prevent the disadvantages I and other URL power users suffer. You could have had all your so called advantages without the disadvantages I care about. There was no reason to combine the two, period.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[just_a_monkey]

Have you missed the new Windows UI paradigm, where you just type in a few letters and - get this - it finds and starts the program you want to run? Finally, someone invented an easily useable interface. Thank you, Microsoft!

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

[1.] You can adjust the relative size of the search bar and the address bar manually. [2.] And it could have been done automatically.

(1) Yes, but that's extra work and can't be done from the keyboard (at least AFAIK). (2) I conceeded that point.

You only need one shortcut to switch focus to the either one, it just happens to be a different shortcut for each (as it should be)

Um, that's not a good response, because I disagree on the last assumption.

[1.] The firefox search box allows you to select different search providers already. and [2.] your keyword searches could have been incorporated there instead.

(1) I did mention that. Access isn't as good IMO. (2) Also conceed that point.

But hey, are we talking about how things are, or how they could be? Because if we're talking about how things are, then my first and third objections definitely currently apply. If we're talking about how things could be, then I submit it's also possible to make a combined bar work well enough that it addresses basically every concrete (i.e. not "they shouldn't be combined!") objection in this thread.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

ooh! I know, the user is wanting to search for those on google!!

I entered both of those URLs along with an IP which is actually accessible to me into three different browsers (Chrome, Opera, and Firefox for Linux), and not once did I get a search. Opera and Firefox did add an explicit .com at the end of http://intranet/ and went to http://www.intranet.com./

I also tried just the IP addresses without the http:/// prefix, and not one of them led to a search page.

The only thing that did was entering "intranet" on its own. But turning on troll mode (though "troll mode with a point") for a second, that's not a URL; http://intranet/ is the URL. Your browser is already applying a heruistic (prefix the scheme) to arrive at the URL. After all, who's to say you didn't really intend https://intranet/? In some sense, all the browsers are doing in that case is applying a different heuristic that goes to a far less related page.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is this even a problem?
Internet explorer seems to not understand our intranet, and just takes you to a useless bing page. (strangely only for certain pages, others work fine)
But I've never had this problem with chrome.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

Durrr, what? What you're talking about appears to me to be entirely orthogonal to the issue of whether the address bar searches or not, unless your contention is going to that URL will actually lead you to a search page.

It's not like when you type in a URL you get sent to to a Google page that says "hey, this is a URL, I'll do a silent redirection to the URL". It's the client side that decides whether it just navigates to the page or goes to the URL.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[DragonWriter]

Exactly. not every valid URL has a top level domain, and this can consistently confuse browsers who have the UI error of using an address bar for searches.

Only if they make the fundamental implementation error of not defaulting to resolving the address bar entry as an address first, and only if it is unresolvable as an address resorting to search.

Which, I would argue, is the only error involved, not the error of having a unified "what do yo want" bar that can be used either to provide an address or a search query.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Gort65]

Yet another button and mouse click, though. I have my search bar set up to accept key words to run search terms through various search engines and other sites. Basically the keyword brings up a bookmarked URL string, adding the search term to the end of it, then sending it. If I send an address to the address bar (IP or URL), it sends me to that address. If I put "w border collie" in the address bar, it makes a search link to Wikipedia for the term "border collie". I have many other search keywords for various things. It's better for me to do it this way than to use the search bar, and far more flexible... and quicker to change. Still, I don't object to the search bar, many seem to want it (like yourself), but I'd like the opportunity to remove it for my usage.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

Did they ever fix that issue where using certain search engines to look for a URL would register that URL with an astroturfer? If not, then even your ideal case will produce unintended consequences if the user has the wrong search provider.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[DragonWriter]

After all, who's to say you didn't really intend https://intranet/ [intranet]?

Or, for that matter, mailto:intranet ?

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[EvanED]

First, many valid searches are also valid URLs. You likely never encounter this if you don't have a local intranet that you go to.

My contention is this is mostly just a problem with the decision procedure for what to do: if browsers were better about de-prioritizing search in favor of treating things which could be a URL as a potential URL, almost all of the problems with this I think would disappear. You'd have to do a very minor amount of effort if you wanted to do a search for a single word which was also a valid name on your internet.

Second, many typos of otherwise-valid URLs are indistinguishable from non-URLs and become searches. This can get confusing and also in the worst case leak some private information.

This is an interesting argument; actually I think it's one of the most convincing I've seen in this thread.

Third, there's the search provider. ... you can add explicit text-based prefixes

If what you mean is what I think you mean (e.g. "g foo" can search google for foo, "w bar" will search wikipedia for bar), those prefixes are exactly why I like the combined bar as much as I do. I like it rather more than Firefox-style search providers in the search box. (And yes, Firefox supports keyword searches as well, as does Opera.)

Fourth, even without search in there the address bar is already multifunctional. Merging in search means that search terms must be wiped out after searching...

I think this is a minor problem which is outweighed by the benefits (like reduced clutter and, in practice, too-small search box). ...and the current address must be wiped out to search.

This I don't see as a problem at all; or at least no more of a problem than the fact that you have to wipe out the current address to go to another address now.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

might as well go back to the good old days of having username and password right there in the url, if that's all it takes to hijack your accounting session

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

I don't care at all about the search bar.

What I care about is the functionality of the URL bar.

And the changes made to it have BROKEN it. It no longer works for many valid local DNS entries, it do longer works reliably for some IP addresses.

This and this alone is the problem. You want a fancier search option? GREAT! make a fancier search option. But don't you fucktards dare to corrupt and limit the function of the standard URL bar as it has existed for the entire history of the web.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't you fucktards dare to corrupt and limit the function of the standard URL bar as it has existed for the entire history of the web.

But.... but... Google does it!

And if Google does it, then that means everybody should be doing it, right?

Seriously, I wish the Mozilla Foundation would get over their Google fetish. Every step they make these days seems to be an attempt to emulate Google. Although at least they didn't fall in love with Facebook...

What's with software companies these days and their attitude of "fuck you, customers; we're doing it /our/ way and who cares what you want?". Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Ubuntu; they all seem to have lost their way. Especially when it comes to GUIs.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[pla]

Hey now, whipper-snapper! We greybeards use IP addresses, not these new-fangled "names" you weak kids seem to need to find anything.

Now quick, calculate the tip on a $27.50 meal, without asking Siri!

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Gort65]

I'm actually for having both the search bar and the address bar. I just want to have the option to have only the address bar and use it the way I have used it for some years, where I can use keywords to create searches. Still, if people want the search bar, then fine; I wouldn't want it removed. The point is, I actually hate this dumbing down of the GUI where you can't customise it (thanks, Google...). The poster above yours is just as inflexible as the "fucktards" he/she is lambasting against; same coin different side...

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

I am only being inflexible because they BROKE URL's.

Perfectly valid url's and in some cases perfectly valid IP addresses that I can not force to behave correctly in the browser by ANY means.

I type in what and I should navigate to what or get a server not found.

If I type in http://what just to be sure, I shouldn't be googling "what" (firefox) or going to what.com (chrome).

Damn right I am inflexible. This shit is deliberately broken, and there is not one valid reason or excuse for it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

missing tag for tfs...

QuitFuckingWithMyBrowser

firefox works just the way it is, quit TRYING to screw it up.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Sloppy]

Safari 6 has a bug like that. I think Safari is overall a fine browser, and I use to be very happy to use it as an alternative to Firefox's slow pokey waitiness. But it has a one-two combination of Amazing Stupidity, which make it virtually unusable for me.

1) It removes the protocol from the URL bar, so that entering (or clicking a link to) "http://example" becomes "example" in the URL bar. That's unnecessary and could never possibly be useful, but nevertheless, alone it would be mostly harmless.

2) It asks some search engine what the things in the URL bar mean, if you don't enter a protocol. That's unnecessary and not very useful, but alone it would be mostly harmless.

Together, they add up to lethal unusability.

If I go to "http://example?foo=bar1" then it works. But if I then I change bar1 to bar2 and hit enter, it goes to something like "http://google.com/?q=example%3Ffoo=bar2"

Stupid, stupid, stupid. (And Safari 4 didn't have this bug. Never tried 5.) This one thing, switched me to Chrome at work. And it discourages firing up Safari to test things. Guess what that means for run-of-the-mill users. I really hope someone at Apple got fired over this staggering incompetence. If not, then in a few years, Mac OS will be about as useful as iOS, i.e. not at all.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[John Bokma]

examples? Thanks.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

will act like it too... get rid of my customizable toolbars? mozilla devs that came up with that idea can rot in hell.

adblock and noscript alone will not get me to stay with firefox if you fuck up MY user interface (any more than you already have)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Google now knows your internal network is a 10.x.x.x subnet, your accounting system is located at 10.1.23.45 and can hijack your session using the JSESSIONID

Your accounting system is broken and vulnerable anyway. You shouldn't be using GET for your session id. Even if you find a browser which doesn't suck (good luck, I sincerely wish you the best) that accounting system needs fixing or replacing.

I'm close to deploying something right now, which relies purely on URLs for authentication. *sigh* Oh, the things I've had to do, to try to plug up every possible leak that I, briefly trying to wear a black hat, can think of. *sigh* All I have to do, is miss one thing, be slightly dumber than I think I am, and we're toast. The only reason I didn't yell, "No, we're not doing that," is that the asset has rather limited value and the window of opportunity to exploit it, is short. But an accounting system...no. You've got a problem.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Sloppy]

The only thing they did right.. [some UI thing]

No. Let's not forget Chrome's real claim to fame: it's multi-process. Different web pages don't need to be browsed in the same process. Give 'em some credit for that. Plenty of browsers still do the wrong thing here, Firefox being one of them.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The address bar is for addresses. It is a horrible horrible UI mistake to have turned it into a search feature. The url is correct or it isn't. Don't bullshit around with it.

Speak for yourself. I prefer to hit F5 and type in what I'm searching for instead of having to tab over or reach for my mouse to click the search bar.

At the very least, this should be configurable.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Gort65]

A quick google (or whatever) search reveals a way to change that behaviour in Firefox back to what it used to be. Admittedly, this should be fixable via the GUI, but don't let search engines or about:config intimidate you...

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

A big reason for "follow the standards" is that you totally fuck-over not just consistency but any sort of accessibility standards. Microsoft at least are good at consistency, IE looked at Chrome but didn't need to ditch the menu bar entirely (or pretend to and then bury a bunch of crap in an awkward context menu with rubbish keybindings, where did my Alf+F go Chrome? Years of standards ignored.)
I used to think open source might save me from this stupidity unfortunately there's just as must inconsistent crap, and even the people who try and read the standards end up being so selective they miss the point and produce annoying inconsistent interfaces, that are at best the same but usually worse than the old. Only in rare cases do the designers copy the old first then make real demonstrable improvements.

The lack of consistency and just doing things like most people expect from Windows or Mac bothers me at least as much as most people get bothered by "dumbing down". At least if I could do the things I already know quickly I would not be so annoyed about finding weird ways to reconfigure the obscure minor features. Better needs to be significantly and provably better when it comes to supporting and changing commonly used features.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

in firefox the search box shortcut is control-k. f5 just refreshes the current page, and has nothing to do with searching.

Re: Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[slacka]

Except the user experience that makes Chrome so popular was never its look. It had always been its responsiveness. Instead of copying superficial things like version numbers and menu buttons, Mozilla should have never abandoned Electrolysis, the multiprocess overhaul to Firefox.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[gottabeme]

Please don't call that an invention.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[hedwards]

I disagree, Chrome did it wrong. And that's why the memory usage is so poor.

Firefox is still working on it, getting processes for the plugins and one for the UI at large and one for the content in the tabs basically. I wish they'd put more thought into that, rather than waste energy on stupid bullshit like this.

I do realize that it's different people, but I'm using Firefox because I don't want to use Chrome. At this point though, I might as well switch to Chrome as the Fx developers seem hell bent on turning it into Chrome.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[hedwards]

Precisely, I've been using Firefox for over a decade now, and the developers seem hell bent on chasing everybody away from the browser. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would use Chrome. All the bullshit with the UI changes and the version number nuttiness aren't making me want to stay, the lack of reasonable alternatives is.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[hedwards]

This is the result of handing the responsibilities for UI design to graphic designers rather than to people who actually care about usability and logical consistency. A good UI is one that is out of the way when you don't need it, but easily accessible when you do. Where you can easily find the options that you commonly need efficiently, but where infrequently used options are located in a logical location.

And yes, getting it right is hard, but you're not likely to ever approximate it, if you're focused on making it pretty.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[perryizgr8]

except ie did it first :/

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[rnturn]

``I disagree, Chrome did it wrong. And that's why the memory usage is so poor. Firefox is still working on it, getting processes for the plugins and one for the UI at large and one for the content in the tabs basically. I wish they'd put more thought into that, rather than waste energy on stupid bullshit like this.''

Agreed. While I'm not a Chrome user I was rather hoping that FF would have done something more substantial like breaking out tabs as separate processes as Chrome does over this mostly cosmetic change. As for Chrome being a memory pig: I hadn't heard that before and I'm not sure how it could be any worse than Firefox's appetite for memory. I have three FF windows open with (maybe) 30 tabs total across all of those windows and I'm showing around 1.25GB of memory in use. When it gets much higher than that FF slows to a crawl and often I'll need to switch to a console to "kill -9" the FF processes. I need a new and probably-not improved user interface like a hole in the head.

And a new user interface is not a big priority when FF still gets itself in a state where it cannot print without resorting to crappy badly-scaled bit-mapped fonts that look like they were imported from an old Pet computer. The only fix seems to be to wipe out your FF configuration and reconfigure a new FF environment from scratch. (Including all your saved passwords and, gosh, isn't it fun re-visiting all the sites you had saved passwords so you can get them re-saved in FF's password vault. I've got over a 100 of these that'll have to be re-entered now since FF managed to crap on its configuration a couple of weeks ago.)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[im_thatoneguy]

Says 5% of the population. Me? I love it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Luckyo]

Unfortunately the only functional alternative appears to be to do what about 10% of users did, and simply not update.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Osgeld]

yea I feel that way too, but all the browsers are soo busy trying to play chrome where do you go?

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

By merging the 2, not only does it break URL functionality with local Intranets, it can also break the search side. For example, Firefox mistakes the following search for a URL :
"site:slashdot.org Firefox poor UX"

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[TranquilVoid]

I'm in accord with you that this feature is undesirable, but it's not the end of the world! You may already know but you can turn it off (keyword.enabled = false), see

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-web-address-bar

As it turns out I've been on a new machine for a few months and forgot to change this - haven't had a problem (nor done a search, deliberate or accidental, through the URL bar) in this time. Changing it anyway - standards are simpler and won't bite you when you least expect it.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The true project is to keep you bitching every time the subject of Firefox comes up. They really don't care at all if they look like Chrome. It's really all about the QQ on /.

Yep, the only thing left is to incorporate spyware, stay out of the news, and drop silly features like addons and asm.js.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[sg_oneill]

For what its worth, most mac users I know, dont' actually use safari.

Safari exists only, as far as I'm concerned, as a historic relic of apple reacting to the fundamentally broken version of IE microsoft used to produce for macs that people used by default. .... so they forked the KDE browser. Go figure (Hey I'm not saying webkit is bad, its actually excellent, but back in the day, dear lord was it a mess)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[thegarbz]

It breaks web standards and conflicts with local DNS and often times the manual entry of IP addresses.

Actually it doesn't. I have not seen one documented case of a correctly formed URI not being handled as such. Typing http://ipaddress/ into the omnibar will never result in a search and will always result in a standard HTTP call to port 80 of the intended address.

What you can't do is parse it a non URI and expect it to be handled as such. But then if you didn't append the appropriate URI to the beginning of the address then it is the USER who is breaking standards.

Personally I can't stand having two separate fields and love that when I misstype a URL (providing no one is domain squatting) that it results in a search instead. That's the difference between a simple click and retyping the box. Like it or not combining them makes it easier.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Ash-Fox]

the Paste & Go feature was unique to Opera, and an amazing feature.

Please explain how it is amazing.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[SwampChicken]

Too easy. The answer is 0. (ps: Australian)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Ed Avis]

Its completely broken with perfectly legitimate local DNS URLs.

Can you give an example of a 'perfectly legitimate URL' that doesn't work? (Hint: all URLs begin with a scheme such as http: or file:)

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Xest]

Presumably because they think it'll stop the haemorrhaging of users to Chrome.

Ironically though it'll do the opposite, if Firefox looks like Chrome then I might as well just start using Chrome as that's the last thing stopping me switching to Chrome.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Ash-Fox]

Note: I am not the grandparent.

As for Chrome being a memory pig: I hadn't heard that before and I'm not sure how it could be any worse than Firefox's appetite for memory.

A single 32bit executable can allocate 3.8GB of memory. Chrome uses multiple executables. Firefox uses two, one for the browser (firefox) and one to encapsulate plugins (plugincontainer - so if the plugins crash, the browser does not - Doesn't crash a tab or a few tabs like in Chrome).

I have three FF windows open with (maybe) 30 tabs total across all of those windows and I'm showing around 1.25GB of memory in use.

Let me guess, you have adblock or Skype extensions installed?

when FF still gets itself in a state where it cannot print without resorting to crappy badly-scaled bit-mapped fonts that look like they were imported from an old Pet computer.

I never experienced this.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[jalopezp]

Yes, of course you can. I do it all the time. Although I recall something about it being an 'awesome bar'.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Skrapion]

I'm not sure which browser you're praising, since both have been able to do this for quite some time.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[berberine]

$5.50 if you tip 20%, $4.13 if you tip 15%. Don't be a cheapskate though. Go for $5.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[hedwards]

You're probably doing something weird there. I rarely if ever see Fx use more than about 512mb of RAM, the main exceptions are when I'm playing a flash game. There could be something wrong with Fx on your computer, but more likely you've got some memory hog extensions or addons installed that are causing this.

What you're failing to comprehend here is that Chrome tabs are completely separate from each other, meaning that even things which should be shared are duplicated. Hence the ungodly amount of bloat, Fx developers were allegedly working on a more efficient approach where it was just the tab specific things which were split into their own processes, but AFAICT that's taken a back seat to all the copy the chrome bullshit.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Nadaka]

http://stuff

in firefox it googles stuff, in opera it goes to stuff.com, both are wrong.

And the defacto operation of web browsers for decades didn't require the scheme prefix, and requiring a scheme prefix for local DNS entries creates an inconsistent behavior, and breaks schema discovery mechanisms like switching to https.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Chrome for me is that it's an infrastructural component of the biggest private surveillance agency on the planet ... it's a piece of spyware that you install on your computer on purpose. At least Mozilla care somewhat about privacy.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Igirisu]

Just tried that in FF:

"Server not found

                    Firefox can't find the server at stuff."

Looks like it's doing the right thing to me...

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

a 4 number ID and you've obviously never worked for a real company as you don't understand what's being talked about here. When you say greybeard, do you mean yourself? How depressing.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is that Chrome will send whatever is typed into the Omnibox back to Google to determine if it should treat it as a direct URL or a search query. Chrome then uses that result to either send you to the URL requested, or to the search results page.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing inherently insecure about putting the session id in the GET URL if it is all going over HTTPS. Many systems use that to allow sessions without cookies.

Sending that session ID to a 3rd party is not something a browser should do.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[rnturn]

Interesting. I only see a single FF process (V21.0). There are (currently) 41 threads being reported by "ps -efL" but I haven't seen any correlation between threads and tabs. I have noticed that when that count gets up into the mid-40s that things slow down noticeably. Perhaps there's a kernel parameter that could be altered to ease that problem.

``Let me guess, you have adblock or Skype extensions installed?''

Nope. I do rely on Ghostery and NoScript.

when FF still gets itself in a state where it cannot print without resorting to crappy badly-scaled bit-mapped fonts that look like they were imported from an old Pet computer.

I never experienced this.''

I seem to get burned by this about twice a year. I never know when it's going to occur but it's likely related to a browser crash. The real pisser is that there seems to be no way to fix this without creating a whole new user profile and there's no means of migrating your personal data from one profile to the new one. Which makes sense, in a way, since someone could copy that information from your computer and have access to your account/password information for all the web sites you use. On the other hand, that information is password protected so you'd think there'd be a way to allow you to import it so long as you supplied that password in the new Firefox instance. No... I don't plan on using some off-site synchronization utility where my data is on a disk that I don't control access to. If that's Mozilla's idea of convenience, I'll pass, thank you. I'm in the process of implementing a fix that tars up the ".mozilla" tree every night and keep a week's worth (or more) of those archives. Then when the print function goes awry, restore from one of the saved archives to see if it fixes the problem. Plus, maybe having those archived trees will give me enough to compare -- pre-print-screwup and post-print-screwup -- to see what file(s) are being corrupted.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Ash-Fox]

Interesting. I only see a single FF process (V21.0).

Likely not using a plugin for any the pages you're browsing then.

I have noticed that when that count gets up into the mid-40s that things slow down noticeably. Perhaps there's a kernel parameter that could be altered to ease that problem.

The only thing I ever really do as far as 'tweaks' on my Linux system is increasing file descriptors limits to something insane and that's just because compiling massive projects (of which I am a developer of) take significantly more time due to the system being starved for file descriptors.

I admit that I am a very heavy webbrowser user, and some of it is just because I leave websites open for days without bothering to close them (I'm not a very good user I guess). I haven't really noticed a performance problem with FF nor Chrome, my biggest annoyance with Chrome is just multiple tabs crashing out when one Chrome process crashes (and it does so often enough to be an annoyance), although if Firefox crashed for me as much, it would obviously take out everything and I would probably switch to something else.

Nope. I do rely on Ghostery and NoScript.

I am not a current user of either (I use flashblock, blocks the majority of ads out there - although the reason why I block it is more from a security paranoia standpoint than paranoia of tracking).

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever rounds it up to $30..

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you using metric or imperial decades? Firefox was released 2004, so unless you are a Timelord, you didnt use it over a decade now (that it sometimes *feels* it needs a decade to load does not cound) :-P

Re: Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[slasho81]

Chrome was made popular by being promoted on the most popular homepage in the world.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[lsatenstein]

Its completely broken with perfectly legitimate local DNS URLs. And can also error on IP addresses entered manually.

Like it or not, it breaks standards. That may be cool with you, but its worth shit to anyone who is more than a trivial user.

===
Have patience. As debugging and alpah/beta users provide feedback, these issues will be fixed.
You are looking at a pre-alpha version

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

$5

quick tip calculation: double, divide by 10, truncate ($1 tip for every $5 in bill).

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

And you don't even need to create a search for your default search engine. Firefox will search its default search engine for anything you type into the address bar that isn't an address.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you use Pentadactyl, you'll know that all web browser UIs fall short.

Re:Finally looks exactly like Chrome

[phoenix_rizzen]

Like ... ?

You can't make a statement like "Chrome also does a LOT of stuff wrong" without listing at least one item.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck me, curved tabs instead of square ones. This major change has totally changed my mind about Firefox.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll always have addon and themes. It's not the end of the world.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck me, curved tabs instead of square ones. This major change has totally changed my mind about Firefox.

You see that browser from Mozilla? They’ve got curved tabs. Curved. Tabs.

Re:Wow

[Gertlex]

Well it also does more damage to the default UI... Those curved tabs are just wasting space horizontal space.

Definitely taking the "be like google" approach to UI's seriously. E.g. recollect how Google Reader's UI continued to add wasteful whitespace everywhere over the years. The remake, CommaFeed is glorious in its compact nature. Thankfully, Google Reader is dead.

And thank goodness Firefox at least remains straight-forward to customize, unlike the various Google sites. (And I've tried; greasemonkey script fixes something about a Google page? stops working a few weeks later)

Re:Wow

[Big Hairy Ian]

Needs a button for pictures of cute kittens & lol cats

tl;dr

[OverlordQ]

TL;DR - Make it look like Chrome.

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

This time we can't turn off "tabs on top."

Re:Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, they have an even better system, even less in your face!
We have now added "tabs behind browser" so you never need to see your tabs unless you minimize the browser! AWE!

Coming soon to a theatre near you

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox Eclipse ultra turbo deluxe channel.

Seriously, this is slowly becoming abusive.
Nightly, Beta, Stable. (and Standalone I guess in some cases)

Are Mozilla trying to reach googol before Google do?

Re:Coming soon to a theatre near you

[LordLimecat]

They have had nightly, beta, and stable forever. I remember tinkering with those channels back in 2005.

The only thing that has changed is that today's geeks apparently have a hangup with any sort of change in version numbering.

Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla really needs to focus on getting its shit in order and stop fiddling around with the interface. Perhaps they should leave interface fiddling to Microsoft and Ubuntu and just focus on making the browser work, reliably, and quickly.

Interface design is not why people are using Chrome more than Firefox. A virtual thirty minute startup time(mozilla) and a marketing push(Chrome) are what's causing that.

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[dosius]

Good thing Seamonkey's UI is still pretty much Netscape 4's.

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Pentium100]

Also,I use Firefox because (among other things) its interface is not like Chrome. I hate Chrome style interface. If FF forces me to use Chrome style interface I'll switch to Opera - last time I checked it was possible to configure it as I want.

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Darkness404]

Yep, I hate how I can't customize Chrome. I love the speed of Chrome, like its rendering engine but even the most basic settings you can't change. You can't change history or even put the tabs below the address bar! I suppose if you're the type of person who doesn't change anything Chrome might be for you, but since I spend most of my time on the computer using a browser, I like one that I can customize to my needs exactly.

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also,I use Firefox because (among other things) its interface is not like Chrome. I hate Chrome style interface. If FF forces me to use Chrome style interface I'll switch to Opera - last time I checked it was possible to configure it as I want.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha switch to Opera. My dear slashdotter, Opera has fallen off the cliff way before Mozilla.
At this rate of dumbing down the UI the only viable browser will be (puke puke puke) IE10 and it doesn't fucking work on linux.
Dark days ahead for those that want a functionning/configurable browser. :(

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Opera got chromed, so you have nowhere to run. There is a slight hope that they'll bring some features back but it might be just wishful thinking on users' side.

Re:Mozilla About To Change Everything, Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Opera got chromed, so you have nowhere to run. There is a slight hope that they'll bring some features back but it might be just wishful thinking on users' side.

Opera is dead. To think otherwise is just self delusion in full force.
I'll keep using Opera 12.54 on linux until it becomes unusable due to no security patches and then I'll use seamonkey (that while not up to the level of Opera it's still leagues ahead of the pile of crap that Firefox has become, and lets not even talk about the other browsers).

Curved Tabs

[Anonymous Coward]

Curved Tabs. Curved. Tabs.

More change for change's sake?

[Hsien-Ko]

If you do this to Seamonkey.... then I don't know what i'm going to do.

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Megane]

I came here to post a similar comment. Keep your damn fingers off of my Seamonkey, you god-damned dirty apes. It's the last bastion for those of us who want an old-school browser.

Also, "What, another major design overhaul? How many is that so far in the past 2-3 years?"

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Crispy Critters]

There are three of us still using seamonkey? More than I thought.

Re:More change for change's sake?

[steveg]

I'm not.

But I may be soon.

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Luckyo]

Update to an older firefox?

Re:More change for change's sake?

[antdude]

Ditto for SM. I have been using this suite product since Netscape days. I still love today. Yes, it takes up more resources than Firefox, but I still love it.

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Hsien-Ko]

It used to take less resources than Firefox, until 2.0 when it became "faster". :(

Re:More change for change's sake?

[antdude]

Yeah, I am struggling with v2.17.1 in my old updated 32-bit Windows XP Pro. SP3 with 2.5 GB of RAM. It cannot handle 70+ tabs at once. :(

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and they still haven't released 2.18 -- hope they release 2.19 soon

Re:More change for change's sake?

[Reziac]

Likewise... Seamonkey is the last usable browser (well, once I install Prefbar).

Re:More change for change's sake?

[StuffMaster]

And they're all worse than the last...

For a certain definition of "design"

[SirGarlon]

Based on the headline, I mistook this story for something that might interest me.

From TFA, it's clear that the design overhaul refers to design in the sense of "graphic design," i.e., superficial appearance, not design in the sense of software architecture. So the headline would be better phrased, "Mozilla is planning changes in how the browser looks."

Re:For a certain definition of "design"

[Elbereth]

Yeah, I actually got kind of excited, too. It was stupid of me to think that they were actually going to change something that matters.

It seems like Mozilla does nothing but try to piss off their old-school users, while ineffectually trying to appeal to Chrome users. Some of their changes have been good, and some have even been great, but the vast majority have just been perplexing.

Re:For a certain definition of "design"

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a sentence with both "design" and either "mozilla" or "firefox", it's ALWAYS about graphical design. I am surprised they still bother to render HTML pages instead of just showing a static image of a website...

From experience

[Synerg1y]

Don't redesign the UI once it's accepted by the users, you can't possibly improve it, it's already been accepted... just add features as you need to and stay within the design constraints of the UI.

However, if their goal is to have new devs join their team and venting their frustration, then... score!

Re:From experience

[LVSlushdat]

Don't redesign the UI once it's accepted by the users, you can't possibly improve it, it's already been accepted... just add features as you need to and stay within the design constraints of the UI.

THIS! I wish the hell Microsoft would follow this behavior.... Witness the crapfest known as Windows 8...

Re:From experience

[Synerg1y]

8 or 8.1? :)

Re:From experience

[game kid]

8 or 8.1?

Yes.

Re:From experience

[Darkness404]

Exactly.

Once something has been learned, its really hard to un-learn it. I don't care if your alternative solution is "better" or not its automatically less usable because I have to change my muscle memory. Incremental changes can be good and in places where the "normal" UI hasn't been solidified change can be good! For example, with smartphones and consoles its quite possible to create a new UI that improves usability, because the technology to interface with the hardware is fairly new (capacitive touch-screens for phones, new controllers for consoles), but when it comes to the keyboard and mouse, just keep it the same, Firefox hasn't added anything beneficial UI-wise in the past 3 or 4 "design overhauls" and instead has added a good 15 minutes of tweaks I have to do to any fresh install.

Re:From experience

[Synerg1y]

Dedicated developers seem to have a brain tumor in regards to this, they're always looking for ways to improve an application, but can't emphasize with the users that they are creating for. My biggest criticism of the Moz team is this disconnect and the fact that anybody with leadership/management experience can spot it in under 5 seconds, yet they haven't remedied it and instead maintain the attitude of we do w/e we cause we're OSI.

Re:From experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much, they lost me as a user when they added the so-called "Awesome Bar".

By that time I had lost my irrational need for plugins for every little app and jumped ship to Chrome

I find it somewhat interesting that the new design is very Chrome-like

Re:From experience

[Merk42]

Yes we'd still use the command prompt!

But...but.. typing things works it makes sense, now i have to use this mouse thing to click on stuff???

The big feature is rounded tabs

[Animats]

The new big feature is rounded tabs. Really. I'm so impressed.

Re:The big feature is rounded tabs

[The MAZZTer]

But they're moving the menu button!

You totally needed an add-on to do that before.

But yeah the last time I checked out the UX channel there was an awesome new Customize toolbar UI. It was broken at the time, but it looked like it would be great when they got it working.

Also the XP theming support looks nice. Chrome doesn't even bother to go that far.

it looks better

[Anonymous Coward]

that may be an argument for some users, but ever since the developers had the debate about keep it tiny in memory against cache pages my user experience with firefox gets worse. today i even find error messages cached, so that i got in trouble once i wanted to reconfigure a router, which had been disconnected before. the developers should concentrate on firefox functionality, when this -in my humble opinion- useless design-contest is over.

Kill the link

[phizi0n]

It is very irresponsible to link to a dev branch of firefox without even including instructions on how to set up a separate profile for it. There is a good chance that it will mangle your profile in ways that will be incompatible with the final release or the current release should you choose to go back.

Re:Kill the link

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Slashdot here. Not Reddit. If you can't discern the risks of installing alpha and beta stage software, go away.

captcha: apprise

Re:Kill the link

[vlueboy]

It is very irresponsible to link to a dev branch of firefox without even including instructions on how to set up a separate profile for it. There is a good chance that it will mangle your profile in ways that will be incompatible with the final release or the current release should you choose to go back.

I assume most of us know about Nightly being one of the dev branches. I am a nightly user (despite various posts more or less swearing off firefox since 2010).
This UI version of nightly is news to me: It's so bleeding edge that the DL still had version #24 in the filename when I went to check. What intrigued me is why that is compiled to only EXE (installer has bigger chance of overwriting your current live EXE, unless they now use C:\Program Files\...\Nightly) and no zip file.

Every time I go on a new computer, I just download a ZIP file and expand. Before running that EXE, I make sure to back up my profile and it and the current FF nightly with version numbers, should I want to go back.

Kill off the add-on bar?

[cyberchondriac]

They're outta control with the "minimalistic interface" BS.. No one wants to go through submenu after submenu to get to something.
It's a balance between clutter and functionality. They're obsessed with what they must consider to be a "clutter problem" where there really isn't any; it's not clutter if the user wants it that way. Clutter is in the mind of the beholder.

Booo, hissss

[magic maverick]

First: Search for the addon Status-4-evar [sic] to keep/replace your status bar.

Second: Product manager Asa Dotzler, is this the same person responsible for some of the abominable changes in 4.0?

Third: "Separate Bookmark Star from locationBar and merge with Bookmarks Menu item", well that sucks. (Also, if you hate having stop and refresh as one button, edit the tool bar and drag stop to the left of refresh. Who's bright idea was it to combine those two? I want to hit stop, and if I hit it more than once, it starts to refresh the entire page. The exact opposite of what I want!)

Fourth: Tabs under the address bar please. I don't care about your ideas about how it's illogical, I am more likely to want to change tabs than to click on the address bar, and if I need to get to the address bar I can use ctrl-L or alt-D.

Fifth: I hate the Chrome UI, the new MSIE UI and similar. Don't do it to Firefox as well!

Sixth: From the article: "In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead." What a bloody awful idea. What will I do with my Web Developer toolbar than?

Seventh: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Mozilla will push these changes through regardless. Just because. We can only hope that addons will be developed to revert the more moronic changes (like getting rid of the status bar).

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

Seventh: It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Mozilla will push these changes through regardless. Just because. We can only hope that addons will be developed to revert the more moronic changes (like getting rid of the status bar).

News at 11 :: A user thinks their opinion matters more.

Re:Booo, hissss

[Dagger2]

Sixth: From the article: "In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead."

Heh. "Discussion". This is what discussion means.

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

Second: Product manager Asa Dotzler, is this the same person responsible for some of the abominable changes in 4.0?

Don't know about that. Do know that he's a self-important twit who is convinced he is smarter than all Firefox users despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. If he still blogs jump over there and try to have a conversation with him about this stuff. It's like talking to a brick wall, except that a wall gives the impression that it might actually be listening.

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why they still have Seamonkey, for all the people who dislike change.
Maybe it's time you switch, I hear it includes a pretty nifty email client too.

Re:Booo, hissss

[mlippert]

Yeah I agree, I've had to find ways to "undo" most of their UI changes in the last couple of years.

I like my statusbar with add-on info on the bottom of the window. I didn't like losing the statusbar but at least there still was an addon bar I could use for the info at the bottom of the window. I don't want add-on info being moved to the top toolbar area.

I like having a forward/back dropdown so that I can see where I am in my back/forward history and select how far forward or back to go next. I had to install the addon Backward/Forward History Dropdown 0.2.4 to get this functionality back.

I like my tabs underneath the addressbar, fortunately about:config lets me put that back urlbar.trimURLs false
I don't really want part of the url greyed out; about:config urlbar.formatting.enabled false

I like to see the http: or https: prefix in my addressbar

I like having a menu bar which fortunately still exists. I hope this change doesn't plan to remove it.

Of course I also don't ever use the browser fullscreen. It's a little nuts on a 1200x1960 monitor.

Mostly firefox has let me keep the UI features that I want. It does sound like this is an update that I may not want to install however. And that will suck, because I don't really like chrome or IE. I could go check out opera, but I'm skeptical about it.

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're fine with old versions, go check out the last release of Opera 12.
Opera's effectively turned itself into a half-assed skin for Chrome Beta, oh how they've fallen...

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

Sixth: From the article: "In this vein, there is a discussion of removing the Add-on Bar completely, killing user-created custom toolbars, and having the main toolbar feature a dedicated area for add-on buttons and widgets instead."

Heh. "Discussion". This is what discussion means.

Clarification here...
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/firefox-dev/2013-May/000426.html
But SOL for those addons that can only be built with a dedicated bar.

They're doing their best to kill off Firefox.

Re:Booo, hissss

[sapphire wyvern]

Fourth: Tabs under the address bar please. I don't care about your ideas about how it's illogical, I am more likely to want to change tabs than to click on the address bar, and if I need to get to the address bar I can use ctrl-L or alt-D.

I agree that I'm more likely to want to switch tabs. But that's the exact reason why tabs on top is better. When the top of the tab bar is flush with the top of the desktop (with your browser maximised or aligned to the top of the desktop), all the tab buttons are effectively infinitely tall because you can just smash the mouse vertically upwards and only need to precisely navigate in the horizontal axis. This (by Fitz's Law of GUI design) makes it faster to switch between tabs by mouse.

This is the design principle which led to the Mac's use of a fixed menu bar at the top of the desktop for all applications.

Re:Booo, hissss

[magic maverick]

Yes, that's wonderful. Except that Gnome 3 (what I run, but only because Gnome 2 is no longer supported, and I don't want to mess with whatever abomination the Mint team came up with) has an unmovable top bar. Just like on a Mac. And considering I never run my browser fullscreen, that also is ruled out as a reason why I might want it.

I.e. for me, it's a worse design to have tabs on top. I can't gain the advantages you mention, but I lose a lot. Various other computer users (anyone running MacOS X, Unity or Gnome 3) will have the same problem.

So, don't fucking make the change compulsory and I won't have to come around to your house and smash up your computer (using the generic you).

Re:Booo, hissss

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, all the above plus for me getting rid of the new homepage overview. And in the latest versions reverting to the old download manager.
At least this functionality exists which for still still keeps it ahead of the competition.

Re:Booo, hissss

[CyberDragon777]

I like having a forward/back dropdown so that I can see where I am in my back/forward history and select how far forward or back to go next. I had to install the addon Backward/Forward History Dropdown 0.2.4 to get this functionality back.

You can right-click, or left-click and drag down on the back/forward arrows to bring up the history.
(In case you didn't know and are not just using the addon because of preference.)

Re:Booo, hissss

[mlippert]

Hmm, I knew a "long click" would do that, but not drag down, thanks. However I think I still prefer having the visual button to click on.

Re:Booo, hissss

[phoenix_rizzen]

I like having a forward/back dropdown so that I can see where I am in my back/forward history and select how far forward or back to go next. I had to install the addon Backward/Forward History Dropdown 0.2.4 to get this functionality back.

Why do you need an extension for that? Just right-click the back arrow, and the list appears. Right-click the front arrow, and the list appears.

Now that I use Chrome...

[Trashcan Romeo]

... that "Firefox" menu is like a Cheetos-dust-coated thumb in my eye. Man, I'm never going back.

So long as the original design is always an option

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox has power users, and simple-minded Metro loving clowns as a user base. The former group do NOT mind the later group of idiots being offered a crippled and braindead version of Firefox so long as it remains possible and straightforward to run any future version of Firefox with a proper interface and access to the same powerful plug-ins.

However, we all know that scum rises, and in a big organisation like Microsoft or Mozilla, that scum like to prove its absolute authority by telling, never asking, the user. The rubbish at the very top of management hob-nobs with cretins in high-fashion design houses, and all technical and practical considerations are thrown out of the window. "It's what the kids want" is the mantra of these morons.

Modern computers have enough power and resources to allow the front-end of any important application to be controlled by scripts and the like created by end-users. This should mean that people can have any form of interface they desire on a browser, but empowered users make upper management feel VERY inadequate.

Now we'll see the influx of shills arguing that change is 'essential' and opponents of change are scared, out-of-date oldsters. Of course, they are hoping the betas that fall prey to such a pathetic argument never consider the unchanging fundamentals of their automobile's interface. Change for change's sake is a classic ploy from PR and ad companies, when the market for a given product is considered to be really really stupid. 'New Coke'. New and improved washing powder. You all know how this goes. What most of you do NOT know is how powerful the PR agencies are in working upper management and getting them to spend millions on pointless changes.

There are a million things that need fixing with Firefox, and none of them revolved around dumbing-down the application interface. Of course, finding people to code proper memory management is (apparently) hard, whereas finding clowns to endlessly 'prettify' the interface is easy.

Dear Mozilla,

[Anonymous Coward]

If I wanted such Chrome, I would have installed Chrome. Fuck off.

Signed, the internet

Re:Dear Mozilla,

[rilister]

Dear the internet,
despite your declaration of love, I see you've been unfaithful lately:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter).svg
hugs,
Mozilla

Re:Dear Mozilla,

[SEE]

Dear Mozilla,

Try plotting those dates on the X axis against the Mozilla 4.0 alpha/beta/release cycle and the final end of support for 3.6.x. Go on.

So, since that UI change to be more like Chrome was demonstrably a failure, you're going to try being even more Chrome-like? Did you fall and hit your head?

My advice? Dump that Asa Dotzler shithead and actually try to win us back.

Your ex,
The Internet

Why Do Users Need Two Chromes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been widely known for sometime that Firefox developers have been suffering from a terrible case of Chrome-Envy. When Chrome started gaining market share, and Firefox stagnated(market-share wise) there was great gnashing of teeth. What did people see in Chrome? They couldn't figure it out, so their answer was to slowly but surely turn Firefox into a Chrome clone. Rapid release? Check! Remove most of the UI? Check!

Much to their shock, however, this strategy hasn't increased their market share any as users continue to defect to Chrome over Firefox.

In the very near future, Firefox will be almost completely indistinguishable from Chrome. Oh, sure, Gecko and Blink will still have some differences in the way they will handle things, there will be some minor differences in the browsers themselves-but these will be the kind of differences that are completely non-apparent to your average user.

Once this happens, and Mozilla has successfully eliminated everything that made Firefox unique and valuable, people will ask 'why do we need a browser that looks and acts like just like Chrome when we already have Chrome?'

Forgettaboutit.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the look of Chrome. And if they take my RSS feed tabs away I will be super pissed.

Its obvious Mozilla has no balls anymore and just wants to suck up to Google..

How about OS integratoin

[hobarrera]

Yeah, nice going making a new look and feel that you carry over across OSs. But how about respecting the look and feel the user chose? You know, on gnome, use gnome-like tabs, and gnome-like menus. On plain linux, try and see if the user configured gtk or qt with some theme, and use that. On KDE, use KDE's theme, etc...

It looks like firefox worries more about branding these days than it does about OS integration. Sure, we love firefox, but why don't you make it more integrated into our everyday lives, instead of making it stick out so much? We already have Chrome for that!

Re:How about OS integratoin

[Ant P.]

It's ironic that out of all the software you mention in that post, Firefox is the only one that *won't* respect your GTK theme.

Qt, a completely different UI toolkit, will play nice. Chrome, a browser ostensibly all about tying you into Google's web services and reinventing the UI wheel, obeys the GTK theme settings and even integrates with the Gnome/KDE password manager. Firefox? "We've got animated PNGs!"

Re:How about OS integratoin

[cavebison]

It looks like firefox worries more about branding these days

Branding itself as Chrome, you mean?

Ahhhh

[Mike Frett]

Don't you just love change for the sake of change?. Incidentally, can any of you fine /.ers point me in the direction of some Firefox forks so I can be prepared when they force this change on everyone?. I'm not a slave last time I checked, I hate being forced for silly reasons; especially reasons that are the result of jealousy of other browsers.

If they do this, you might as well just use Chromium or Chrome, it would be a whole lot faster at least.

Re:Ahhhh

[TubeSteak]

If you want to avoid change, try the extended support release.
It's currently on v17: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

It gets security patches from the current version without any nags to upgrade.

Re:Ahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Been using Waterfox since the big upgrade craze started and gotta say I love it more than just the slow update cycle. They're on v17 now, hope they preserve the UI come v25. Oh yeah, this one's x64.

Run AB+(uncheck selective ads) and NoScript and 99% of the exploits never get a chance to run. Clear the white-list .coms and allow selectively. Download Helper works great for vids, no more buffering on your(my) sub 1Mb connection, Great thing is java/flash/BS loads will never bring your quad core 16GB machine to it's knees when not reloading.

LiveFeeds is the only reason I've stayed. Will be jumping to another gecko(non-Google/non-nApple) browser sooner or later...maybe even oft-neglected Seamonkey.
 
ANd here's the oblig YMMV.

Re:Ahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, can any of you fine /.ers point me in the direction of some Firefox forks so I can be prepared when they force this change on everyone?

As it says in TFA, Firefox 24 will be an Extended Support Release, so you could buy yourself an extra year of security updates without the new design.

I'm not a slave last time I checked

I think you might be making an entire mountain range out of a pygmy molehill.

Re:Ahhhh

[tunapez]

I think you might be making an entire mountain range out of a pygmy molehill.

No, OP is not. OP is voicing a widespread concern amongst users. Obfuscating controls is trendy right now as the web is continuing to morph. Creating reliance on 'cloud' services, 'app stores' and 'search' serves only the providers and removes options from the masses. Call this 'walled garden' mentality paranoia, evolution or behavior modification... the fact is usability is being eroded in lieu of monetization.
 
This is a concern for me, the customer. Not me, the 'product'.

Re:Ahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Palemoon?

Re:Ahhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there's always SeaMonkey, which is essentially the continuation of the Mozilla Application Suite, but with the latest Gecko engine, new features pulled in from Firefox, compatibility with many Firefox add-ons, etc.

http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

A couple of years ago it was ever-so-slightly faster, in my experience, than Firefox. I can't speak to the current state of its speed, however.

Re:Ahhhh

[cavebison]

Not sure what the fuss is about, I'm having a fine old time on Firefox 11. You don't have to upgrade. Addons that disable cookies, flash and scripts, until *you* decide they're necessary, keep you sufficiently safe.

Maybe if they improve the speed to rival Chrome I'll consider it. Till then, all these "upgrades" seem fairly pointless to me.

Re:Ahhhh

[TangoMargarine]

I still pray for the day that somebody decides to fork 3.0/3.5/3.6 and just update it for bugfixes & security. I don't think Mozilla has actually added a single feature I wanted since 3.5, and proceeded to fuck over the UI at every opportunity instead.

Re:Ahhhh

[UltraZelda64]

Personally, I would like to see a 2.x fork, before they fucked up the GUI, the location bar, the default settings, and the back/forward buttons. A 3.6.x fork would be somewhat acceptable though, although by that time they have already fucked up a few things they did bring some improvements (out of process plugins immediately comes to mind...).

I have to admit though, while Firefox continues to suck more and more, there is actually one area where it seems to have been hugely improved: stability. It used to crash and leak memory like a son of a bitch, and I have no idea when it stopped, but I haven't had any problems for a long time now. I got sick of hearing, "oh, memory leaks were fixed" every single release and seeing absolutely no change, so I stopped caring and dealt with it, and all of the sudden I started noticing that the browser seemed to have finally got stable.

Curved Tabs?

[Nathanbp]

I'm not really sure what the point of changing to curved tabs is except to make Firefox look exactly like Chrome. And I'll be pretty annoyed if this takes away the ability to enable the menu bar at all.

Re:Curved Tabs?

[Waccoon]

They've been slowly removing many menu items over the last few versions, so even if they keep the menu bar, there may not be much left to put on it.

Re:Curved Tabs?

[MrNemesis]

They foisted curved tabs on thunderbird users some time ago. It's possible to correct it with themes, but as I couldn't find any themes that were basically "default theme but without ugly rounded tabs" and there's no about:config option for it, I had to resort to editing the userchrome.css file - something that I'm now probably going to have to do on all my FF installations too.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2110991&postcount=5

There IS a clutter problem

[Crispy Critters]

There is a major clutter problem. Have you ever looked at a browser on a small 16:9 screen? Count the number of lines of menus/tabs/messages/titles there are on the top and bottom of the already-too-short screen. (Heaven help you if you're also using gnome2.) It's a UI disaster. My solution is to stick with 3:4 screens (and not use gnome), but someday duct tape will not be enough to hold that old thinkpad together.

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is Firefox on small screens is less usable because it is designed for larger screens, and that you'd rather have Firefox on _large_ screens become less usable in favour of small screens. The real solution may not require either experience to suffer.

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[Patch86]

I'm currently typing this in Firefox 21 via Ubuntu (with Unity) on a 10" screen, and I don't see any clutter problem. The top line of my screen is taken up with the system tray, including the File, Edit etc. menus. Next row is the tabs. Next row is my URL bar and Search bar. Rest of the screen is all content. What on earth could be further reduced without breaking my experience? Get rid of the tabs? Get rid of the URL & search bars?

At some point, there is nothing to be gained from reduction, only things to be lost. For me, Firefox is now hovering right at that point.

Although I should point out that I'm not really worried; Firefox remains easy to customise to almost any extent you could want- as long as they don't cock that up, the worst they can do to me is inflict the mild annoyance of needing to spend time tweaking settings...

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[aix tom]

Lines on top at the moment in my case in Firefox 12, set up to look as much as Firefox 4 as possible:
- OS title bar in one line
- Menu bar in one line
- Button / URL field / Search field in one line

At the bottom:
- Status Bar (I needed an extension to get THAT one back)

Since the 16:9 movement (allthough I still managed to get a big 16:10 for my Main PC) by the monitor manufactures, coupled with my needs of keeping a few dozen tabs open quite often I have always installed a vertical tab bar extension (Tree Style Tab at the moment) to have the tabs on the side. And in almost every update I had to search for a NEW one that works. Now I can have dozens of tabs open (even on my small Asus netbook), and still have a vertical web page real estate like in the good old days of 4:3 computer monitors.

Moving into THAT direction with the main Firefox branch might have gotten them something that other browsers don't have and people want. It's ridiculous that I now basically have 7 of my 10 extensions installed just to keep the look and feel of the Firefox that I once loved, and that I want to keep.

 

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so bad about Gnome2? You can remove one of the two panels that are there by default. I'm running Mate on my 11.6" 1376x768 netbook, I use Maximus to remove the window borders and title bar of full screen windows, so I have one panel at the top of my screen, then I just have the tab bar in a maximized Firefox directly below that, then the URL and search bars on the line below that and the rest of my screen goes to displaying the web page, there is very little wasted space.

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, anyone complaining about a lack of screen real-estate on a crappy low resolution wide screen display only has himself to blame for choosing to buy the cheapest hardware they could find. I am also sick of having useful functionality hidden or outright removed simply to cater to the lowest common denominator of users.

The menu bar hasn't been seen in ages. The status bar has recently been removed. Icons have been shrunk. The bookmark toolbar is optional. What more could you possibly want? Maybe a blank screen with a single button that, when hit, reads your mind and does exactly what you want?

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[efitton]

The mind reading thing would be cool. But until it does that, I'm with you, give me some options and tools and shortcuts. There is a reason I have a desktop rather than a laptop.

Re:There IS a clutter problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a 16:9 monitor for working is the disaster, not the browser UI.

No HiDPI support?

[hobarrera]

According to these mockups, all the sizes are pixel-based. One would think that with hidpi displays already coming out (including retina), they'be be designing vector-based and some unit relative to font-size or something.

Re:No HiDPI support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, too, noticed that.

It's a bad habit, but a pixel is still well-relatable. It doesn't really have to be tied to individual pixels of the screen, however; you can think of them as CSS pixels. Officially there are 96 of those in an inch, but realistically it rather depends on the screen (as it isn't quite possible to show things 1/96 inches apart on a 102PPI display).

A hostage to fortune.

[Robert Frazier]

One of the things I've liked most about linux (and other *nix systems, such as FreeBSD) is that a system is build up of small programs that you can combine in various ways to get someone that pleases you, the user. That's the unix way. For example, my "desktop" is a combination of a number of programs, including a display manager, window manager, terminal, and file manager. It turns out that I can replace one part (for whatever reason) and get an overall desktop that works in the same way. And it has looked the same for some time. Some might think it reflects an unwillingness to change, others might think it reflects a desire for some consistency and predictability. Take your pick.

This consistency over time is difficult to maintain with the monolithic, graphically orientated programs such as firefox/iceweasel, thunderbird/icedove[1], and the Gimp. This is sad making. What would be nice is if firefox provided basic services, e.g., a first rate rendering engine/Gecko, while making most of the rest of it (e.g., interface) simply a set of addons. That would be the unix way.

[1] For a variety of reasons, I had to move from using mutt and remind to icedove and iceowl. This was over a year ago, and I'm still trying to recover from the shock.

Best wishes,
Bob

Re:A hostage to fortune.

[Jorl17]

I present to you, uzbl

NCSA Mosaic

[k6mfw]

maybe going OT here but this morning while digging through files on my Mac G3, I found a Mosaic application (transferred from my Performa back in 1990s) and so I fired it up and see how it views Google and Yahoo. Not that great with a lot of text of the script, but it downloaded those pages fast (this G3 uses dialup). It can still be used to search the web (again fast as it doesn't have any ability to run all them script and cannot download all the ads).

Security not eyecandy

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mozilla fire the rounded-corner-transparent-tab and the 3d inspector view guys and make instead firefox implement tls v1.2 please? better sandboxing would be also beneficial. thx, a loyal but disgruntled user.

Fixed address munging yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they fixed that bug where if you go to http://somelocalserver and it doesn't find it, it changes the address to http://www.somelocalserver.com? No? Then stop fucking around with the interface and try fixing some ACTUAL bugs that have only been outstanding for like, the past five years.

Re:Fixed address munging yet?

[TranquilVoid]

That's not a bug it's a deliberate feature. For what it's worth I don't like it either, you can turn it off in about:config by setting browser.fixup.alternate.enabled = false

Re:Fixed address munging yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the user finds the behavior surprising or unpleasant, it's a bug, even if it's working as designed.

Opt-out

[JDG1980]

Can I at least opt out of this crap? I still have my installation of Firefox set up to use the classic menus and no tabs. I'm not going to be a happy camper at all if they start breaking that layout.

If the current trends with Firefox development keep up, it might be time to create a "Firefox Classic" fork, with the traditional UI, traditional status bar, and traditional address bar so you don't have to grub around for add-ons to get it to work the way we're used to.

Which version hooks into h.264?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of these version will allow my OS to seamlessly provide a h.264 decoder for Firefox? Because that's a problem that requires solving, unlike anything in the UI.

Re:Which version hooks into h.264?

[Elbart]

Fx21 for Windows 7+, Fx 22 for Vista, Fx23 for hardware-acceleration via DXVA2. Support for Linux/OSX is still being worked on.

Mozilla Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

My hypothesis: since Google funds most of Mozilla, and many Google engineers develop Firefox, and Firefox is an open source project that, unlike Chrome, contains no proprietary software and doesn't in and of itself spy on the end user, it's in Google's interest to turn it into a slightly feature-poor version of Chrome rather than an actually meaningful alternative. This will seal most of the people not caught in Apple's or Microsoft's walled gardens into Google's.

Their plan: converge Firefox with Chrome, allow it to slowly languish, and wait until it becomes obsolete.

More important things to do

[Hamsterdan]

Such as fixing the fact that it has a tendency to peg the CPU while loading pages? with multi-core machines, there's no reason why it should lag my computer while waiting for a page to download. TCP/IP isn't that hard on a cpu.

They are *way* more important things to fix than try to be another Chrome.

Security features I desperately need

[Anonymous Coward]

1. TLS v1.2 - very important.

2. TLS-SRP authentication + session encryption...soon to be important.

Always eye candy

[kbg]

Why do they always focus on eye candy? The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage, crashes, threading, multi core and some serious basic core fixes.

Re:Always eye candy

[JDG1980]

Why do they always focus on eye candy? The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage, crashes, threading, multi core and some serious basic core fixes.

Because the eye candy is easier and more fun to implement. This is a chronic problem with OSS development: difficult but necessary tasks get pushed back, while developers advance work on the features they want to work on.

Re:Always eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage

FFS, kill this dated meme already .. the FF team implemented massive improvements to the memory usage long ago already.

Re:Always eye candy

[Derek Pomery]

Actually, they started the memshrink project two years ago, and the result has been dramatic improvements in memory usage.
http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/figure3_browserfootprint.jpg

That's from a while ago.

They also aggressively handled memory leakage in addons recently.

Their JS performance has dramatically increased recently w/ IonMonkey and the baseline compiler. They also introduced asm.js.
http://jlongster.com/s/lljs-cloth/ http://www.unrealengine.com/html5/

They also switched to multi-process and sandboxing in FirefoxOS, although apparently addon support makes that problematic on the desktop, although they do use multiple threads for various operations on the desktop. (You can of course sandbox firefox itself on most operating systems if you so desire, just like any other process)

Re:Always eye candy

[Derek Pomery]

And, well, multiprocess has its own problems too, it seems. This was making the rounds a few months ago.
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=113754.0

Re:Always eye candy

[Anonymous Coward]

The browser is in a need of some serious overhaul for memory usage, memory leakage

Why do people keep saying this? This has been fixed for quite a while.
Firefox is nowadays probably the browser withe the lowest memory consumption (except for lynx, maybe).

How about 30 minus version bugs

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

Rapid change leaves FF so buggy. "Will be fixed..." Hey Moz. Why not fix the bugs in the current version BEFORE rushing to a stupid but 'cool' interface?

Re:How about 30 minus version bugs

[Luckyo]

Interface is easy. Especially when you're removing things from it.

Fixing bugs is hard. It actually requires research, unlike stripping elements from UI.

I suffer for your netbook.

[efitton]

On my dual 19" screens of 22" screen this isn't a problem. Having options and toolbars available is nice and it drives me nuts that I keep losing access to them (and my overall productivity and enjoyment) because of the desire to look pretty on a 10" screen.

A lot of complaints ...

[ultrasawblade]

about how a company is forcing a UI design on to you.

I guess you could go completely hardcore and use Uzbl (http://www.uzbl.org/) as your browser, where you can actually script the UI (or have the script be the UI) around the actual browser core. At least that's the impression I'm getting from it.

What keeps me using Firefox is the add-ons, though.

Re:A lot of complaints ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a great suggestion, thanks!

Honestly, I don't really care how long it takes, because right now using Firefox is like torture. Mozilla should stop pretending that they care the slightest about open source and freedom, and instead make you sign in to Firefox using your Google account before you can start using it...

Oh wait, I guess that's what the social media parts (social.* in about:config) of Firefox is all about...

I'm just about ready to quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've run Firefox since like 2004 way back before I moved to Linux. I've watched Firefox go from bad, to worse, to sucky, to just plain crap, and I'm sick of it. I'm going to try Seamonkey, but does anyone know of browsers that support Ad Block, and can be made to look like this?
http://imgur.com/QaL7mQx

Re:I'm just about ready to quit.

[Luckyo]

Firefox 3.6 can. Just sandbox it + adblock+ noscript if you're afraid of exploits.

Re:I'm just about ready to quit.

[Anonymous Coward]

So can Firefox 24, I assume. The issue is that when it is no longer maintained, I can't get new features in gecko and their JS engine, without basically getting Chrome. The parts that they really should be improving.

Better headline

[J'raxis]

"Yet another software company completely fixes what isn't broken, will shove down users' throats"

Making it look exactly like a competing product was truly a touch of genius. Maybe people were using your browser because they don't like Chrome's UI? So let's emulate it exactly!

"major design overhaul" my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like they subtly changed the looks of the thing.... what the headline suggested was a new rendering engine or something other fairly radical.

fuck slashdot

FIX THE DOWNLOAD CRASH!

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the UI revamp, FIX THE DOWNLOAD CRASH! The last time Fedora updated with a new FireFox, the browser started CRASHING every time I DOWNLOAD A FILE! They broke something that worked for decades. When will Fedora ever get a fix for this? FireFox is crippled! Why are they wasting their time working on a new UI when the browser does not work?! It's like there is a conspiracy to make the FireFox user experience as bad as possible.

Noooooo

[peppepz]

First the ribbon, then the user interface formely known as Metro, and now they've taken Firefox, too! I feel trapped into a nightmare, where every application is becoming WinAmp.

I'm confident, however, that sooner or later this will end - and they'll introduce new revolutionary software products with a uniform appearance, and user interfaces exposing consistent and predictable behaviour. Why, Microsoft have already started, they've reintroduced the Windows 3.1 look-and-feel (flat controls, window title in the middle, system-modal dialog boxes taking up the whole screen) and they're selling it as a novelty. I'm less convinced, though, by the Windows 1.0 features they've been introducing as well (windows can't overlap, but hey, with the upcoming improvements you'll be able to run one application and a half at the same time! Conditions apply.)

Stability

[brunnegd]

Every time FF tweaks with a new version number, it becomes unstable until the add-ons are updated by the developers. Why? I have disabled the auto update feature because I don't need crashes, several times a day. I need stability, not features. And I can't wait until a few years from now, when we will be on version 1866. Stupid!

I sense a great disturbance in the Force...

[Anonymous Coward]

as if millions of auto-dates were disabled all at once...