×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Pitches Firefox 3.1 Alpha For July Release

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the fast-track dept.

Mozilla 257

An anonymous reader writes "Just a week after Mozilla shipped Firefox 3.0, the open-source developer has proposed ship dates for the next version that, if approved, would produce an alpha release next month and a final no later than early 2009. According to a draft schedule discussed at a recent meeting, Mozilla wants to have the first Firefox 3.1 developer preview ready by July, then move to a beta by August. The schedule slates final code delivery in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2009. A month ago, when Mozilla first started discussing Firefox 3.1 internally, Mike Schroepfer, the company's vice president of engineering, said the upgrade's target ship date was the end of 2008. If Mozilla holds to that plan, Firefox 3.1 would be its first fast-track update. Firefox 3.0, for instance, launched approximately 20 months after its predecessor, Firefox 2.0."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

257 comments

I learned something today (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012277)

When your penis itches, DO NOT try to scratch it with a cheese grater. If you do, you will soon wish that you hadn't. Seriously, this is horrible. Just looking at the aftermath makes me want to puke.

2ND!!!!!IIII111111 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012917)

53c0nd p057 5145hd00dz!!!!!!!!!!iiiii111111111111122

No Offence To The Devs or Firefox (5, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012291)

But so what?

There's nothing in the article or summary that hasn't already been covered in the other 76 articles about Firefox in the last 2 months.

Firefox team is still developing Firefox... shit, so is Opera, so is IE, Safari, etc, etc...

Re:No Offence To The Devs or Firefox (4, Insightful)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012361)

Err, release dates, maybe?

Yeeee Hawwwwwwwwww !! Ride 'em cowboys !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012715)

If it weren't for the dab-burned honeydrippers at Firefox H-Q we would be drinkin mule piss and eatin heffer pie and wishing it were beaver pie until the new IE ands on these shores. That that old Opera. The fat lady has sung her swan song.

Re:No Offence To The Devs or Firefox (3, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012945)

Err, release dates, maybe?

Release dates, what's that? Firefox2 didn't even make it to 2.1 after a year and a half, and Firefox1 jumped right up to 1.5.

What is with Mozilla and their versioning?

Re:No Offence To The Devs or Firefox (2, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013341)

What's versioning got to do with release dates?
It even says in the summary that this is to be the first "fast-track" update, hence the relatively minor version jump.
Firefox 3 was a huge leap over firefox 2, hence the major jump. 1.5 was more of an extension to FF1 than an entirely new version, so to me, at least, the inconsistent version numbers are consistent with the changes and additions to the browser.

Can't blame them... (4, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012379)

In every release, they would be given a cake.

Re:Can't blame them... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012883)

The cake is a lie...

Re:Can't blame them... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013113)

Don't you know?
The cake is a lie!

Acid 3 (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012295)

Let's hope the Mozilla devs get the Acid3 test [acidtests.org] to work with Firefox 3.1.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

Re:Acid 3 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012375)

obligatory 3.11 for Workgroups tired nerd joke goes here

Re:Acid 3 (4, Informative)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012459)

You can keep dreaming. While Firefox 3.1 is certainly going to improve on Firefox 3.0 (Firefox 3.0 gets 71/100, Firefox 3.1 pre-alpha 1 gets 80/100, I predict Firefox 3.1 final to get 80-90/100), the aim to make changes drastic enough to make Firefox 3.1 pass Acid3 and the aim to get Firefox 3.1 released in a Q4 2008/Q1 2009 timeframe are plainly incompatible. I'd expect Acid3 to pass in Firefox 4.0 myself. Shouldn't be much of a surprise given how long it took Firefox to pass the Acid2 test, but then that never stopped us from using it. ;-)

Re:Acid 3 (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012959)

I'd really rather they focus on important things first. The Acid tests are specifically much harder than what a browser needs to handle to do a good job with web browsing, in fact a few of the tests specifically use broken code IIRC.

Really the updates to the bookmark system scheduled for 3.1 are probably going to make a bigger impact on most users than Acid compliance would.

I think the main point of getting 3.1 out there is to get the features in that couldn't be completed for 3.0 but weren't necessities. And with the level of rebuilding that 3.0 required it's not a shock that a few less important features would have to be dropped to get the important stuff finished.

Re:Acid 3 (1)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013225)

I'll probably enjoy the user interface changes myself (I haven't go acquainted much with the 'awesomebar', I'm waiting on my extensions), but I'm really more excited about some backend changes. @font-face [mozilla.org] is my 'pet bug' of the moment, I'd like to see that in Firefox 3.1. I'm also watching progress on SVG animation [mozilla.org] and SVG in img tag [mozilla.org]. I'm reasonably hopeful for seeing better and more flexible SVG support in Firefox 3.1, and it's about time.

Re:Acid 3 (0, Troll)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012953)

Let's hope the Mozilla devs get the Acid3 test [acidtests.org] to work with Firefox 3.1.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

And how does that help normal browsing? The acid3 test was made just so that Opera could scream Fr1st P0st again.

I wish they would fix the CPU hogging bug. (4, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013105)

"Well, I can dream, can't I?"

I dream of a Firefox that doesn't have CPU hogging problems. Firefox 3 seems to be a little worse than the previous version.

For those of us who open a lot of windows and tabs and leave them open a long time, as when doing research, Firefox is a hassle. It slows the entire computer until all windows and tabs are closed.

Re:I wish they would fix the CPU hogging bug. (1, Flamebait)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013295)

Not only is crashing a hassle, it is fatal.

30 tabs open of articles and search results, and poof. You wake up in the morning, and your open windows are gone. With FF2 I didn't need it so I had crash recovery turned off, but now it is a must.

I hope the FF team realizes how crucial stability is. Anything else is a far second.

FF2 would slow down, but at least you'd could react. FF3 just dies and takes down the castle with it.

Re:I wish they would fix the CPU hogging bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013353)

Maybe your plugins are the problem - I've been running vanilla FF since 1.x on a myriad of computers, and I've never had it crash inappropriately (if I use it to do open a file it shouldn't be opening, etc). Or, try running it with a different process priority (how this is done varies from OS to OS).

Cake? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012305)

At this rate, Microsoft better start working on the next cake!

Re:Cake? (2, Funny)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012401)

At this rate, Microsoft better start working on the next cake!

MSIE developers already figured out the cake is a lie long ago.

Useless summary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012319)

They could change the version number and release a production-quality 3.1 tomorrow. What matters is the new features/bugfixes/optimizations in 3.1. Without them there's no context for the news.

Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012327)

3.1 is badly needed! Firefox 3.0 is crashing left and right. I guess they were too eager to get it out the door.

P.S: I don't have any add-ons installed.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (0, Troll)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012349)

What are you talking about?, firefox 3 works perfectly fine over here

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012447)

I had 3.0 beta virtually from the get-go. On my machine, it's crash-happy. So is the official release. Not often. Not all the time. But I occasionally get a nice little grey box telling me that Firefox has crashed, and asking me if I'd like to report the circumstances.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012957)

obviously something wrong with you machine
reinstall you OS

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (2, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012975)

Flash sites?

Only times I've had firefox 3 go down is on particular, badly made, flash-based sites, when trying to do specified things, which makes me fairly sure it's Adobe's fault.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1, Interesting)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012353)

I have never had Firefox 3 crash and have been using it since beta 1 on Mac, Linux, and Windows.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012473)

it makes me feel very dirty to say this, but on my dual boot laptop, fire fox 3(no add-ons) has been crashing very often in Ubuntu, but, it has been working flawlessly under winXP.

so, my options are:
1. use a buggy, crashy web browser in a rock solid OS.
2. use a rock solid web browser in a buggy, crashy OS.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012531)

3. Use a stable, mature browser in a rock solid OS -- Konqueror! ...Who am I kidding? Konq is usually pretty solid, but likes to crash (very occasionally) when editing textareas. Unlike Firefox, the contents of that textarea will be completely gone... which leads to a lot of re-typed Slashdot comments.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012777)

Firefox 2 is in the Hardy repositories.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012785)

I understand what you are getting at, but XP shouldn't crash, and if it does you likely have a driver or hardware problem. However, if it makes you feel better under Vista firefox 3 crashes constantly while firefox 2 only rarely crashed. I would switch back if firefox 3 wasn't so much faster.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

Cyvros (962269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013265)

I've used Vista for more than a year and also Firefox 3 for about a year (from pre-alphas to release) - with the exception of some Java- and Flash-wielding sites, Firefox hasn't crashed.

(Off-topic, but I can see this one coming - Vista hasn't, either. Also, Opera 9.5 crashed often, because I can see that one coming as well.)

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013235)

Which Ubuntu? If you didn't get FF3 from the repositories there are probably weird binary incompatibilities.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (4, Informative)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012403)

Have to agree - not sure if its add-on related but since I updated several PCs to FF3 I have had about 2-3 browser crashes a week and one UK grocery shopping site makes FF3 just 'disappear'.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

wtfispcloadletter (1303253) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012457)

Try using it without any add-ons. It's been rock solid here and I have 15 different add-ons installed with 40-50 different tabs open (I've been researching a few different topics and have had FF3 like this for a couple of weeks). There is still a memory leak or two, I suspect an add-on is causing the problem. If I leave the browser open with that many tabs memory usage still creeps up. Not nearly as fast as FF2, but after a few days of opening and closing other tabs and general browsing FF3 will be eating up 750MB to 1GB of memory. At which point I need to close it and restart it.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (5, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012553)

I do have add-ons installed and it hasn't crashed once. Aren't anecdotes fun?

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012827)

It also has new weird behaviour like the right mouse click sometimes deciding to select random items off the right click context menu. Still can't find a workaround for this ...

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (4, Informative)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012903)

IME usually it's flash. install flashblock or noscript and enable only those flash movies you really want to see - haven't seen ff3 crash since I started doing that.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012961)

3.1 is badly needed! Firefox 3.0 is crashing left and right. I guess they were too eager to get it out the door.

P.S: I don't have any add-ons installed.

On what OS? How much memory? What processor (and how overclocked is it?)? What else is crashing on your system? Please provide a link to the bugzilla report too. With no addons, this should be easy to diagnos.

Re:Firefox 3.0 is crash happy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013073)

Maybe you should try diagnosing your awful butt smell for once.

Why? (1)

arrenlex (994824) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012351)

Is there a reason this update is happening so much more quickly than other transitions? Are they trying to overcome problems that FF3 introduced? Do they want to add some features that are close to completion, but got shelved?

Re:Why? (1)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012377)

After reading the article (a novel concept for slashdot I know), the answer to both your questions is "Yes".

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012969)

After reading the article (a novel concept for slashdot I know), the answer to both your questions is "Yes".

Which both of his three questions?

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012397)

6 months isn't "quick", its only the Alpha in a month...that's about normal for most smaller software, especially for a point (*.1) update, this isn't Firefox 4.0.

Hell, Opera released 9.51 RC1 (now on RC2) just a few days after 9.5...

Its pretty normal as far as I see it, and I'm glad they are (or seem to be) returning to a more consistent release schedule, it may eventually become my default browser again, which it hasn't been since Phoenix.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013019)

9.5 to 9.51 is a small revision patch
And is NOT comparable to 3.1 which is like between 9 and 9.5
equivalent to firefox 1.5
A single digit .0x is a small quick to release usually a bugfix or security update. .x is a major revision which takes a longer upgrade cycle.

The longest time between releases it a major overhaul +1.0

Re:Why? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013251)

I'm aware of that, what I meant was I hope they release revisions soon, forget about 3.1 which is months away, where is 3.02 or something...

IMHO, they fucked up with 2.0 because between 2.0 and 2.0.14 was...nothing, each patch fixed some, made an equivalent amount of new bugs.

I completely forgot about Firefox once it became Firefox, I was hopeful about 2.0 but, that was a letdown to the point where I didnt even bother installing it half the time.

3.0 looks promising, but it's got a lot to do before it drags me away from Opera now.

Re:Why? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013161)

Firefox 3.1 is supposed to have feature changes though, Opera 9.51 merely bug fixes, more specifically a number of important crash fixes.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012651)

Firefox 3 included large scale changes to the platform, the rendering engine, and all kinds of other stuff. Firefox 3.1 is just user-level features that didn't make the cut for Firefox 3. That way, the UI guys have something to do while the engine developers work on Gecko 2.

At least it isn't version 4 (1)

tecker (793737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012389)

Im glad to see them coming out with a .1 release, it says that we are going to develop upon this platform and make it stable. I dont think they have done that since the pre 1.0 days. They called the first one 1.0 then 1.5 jumped to 2.0 and then rocketed to 3.0. So my question is: Why is this "simple" .1 upgrade going to take nearly 6 months? This is just getting the features they wanted in place for 3.0 but scrapped do to time, i thought. Please correct me if I am wrong.

And after Firefox 3.1 (5, Funny)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012399)

Comes Firefox 95!

Re:And after Firefox 3.1 (2, Funny)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012475)

Comes Firefox 95!

Nope, it will be 3.11 and FWG... THEN we can get to 95, though I'm probably going to wait until FF98 if past experience is a guide.

Re:And after Firefox 3.1 (1)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012501)

yea.. but saying 3.11 in my post would have ruined the joke.. I had it in there on my first preview though.. :P

Re:And after Firefox 3.1 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012675)

Just remember to stay the hell away from Firefox ME.

What's after Firefox 3.1? (1, Funny)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012437)

Right now it's Firefox 3.0 and soon we'll have Firefox 3.1. What's planned beyond that?

Firefox 3.11 for Workgroups
Firefox 95, then 95b, then 95c.
Firefox NT
Firefox 98, then Firefox 98SE
Firefox Me
Firefox 2000
Firefox XP
Firefox Vista
Firefox 7

Then someone will come up with a new program, which will be a "browser-only" browser!!

Nah, just kidding. Don't take it seriously. :-)

Re:What's after Firefox 3.1? (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012983)

Nah, just kidding. Don't take it seriously. :-)

Fuck, and I was already registering the domain names to squat...

There is no such thing as a quick Firefox release. (5, Insightful)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012439)

Firefox 2.0 was also supposed to be a quick development, based on the same gecko branch. It eventually took about a year.
I think the past record of Mozilla.org has repeatedly shown that it is unable to release a product on time, given the huge amount of testing/fixing iterations that must come before the final release. A Firefox "quick release" will take time, and divert resources from important future projects such as Gecko 2.
I would have thought Mozilla.org would have finally admitted that the architecture and development model of Firefox is characterised by long maturation times. This is needed to keep up its high quality level.

Re:There is no such thing as a quick Firefox relea (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012683)

This is needed to keep up its high quality level.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Firefox, especially XUL, is a piece of utter crap. It is so full of bugs, a major ones, that it makes me cry every day I develop any freaking XUL application.

Re:There is no such thing as a quick Firefox relea (3, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012741)

I'm passing up the opportunity to moderate you as 'troll' despite your obvious troll post on the basis that maybe, just maybe, you have some evidence to back up those statements. I'm not sure what bugs you're talking about but I use Firefox all day long every single day and very rarely have any problems.

I also use an application (MediaCoder) that I believe uses the XUL parts of Firefox seemingly without any problems (other than annoying load times for what should really be a simple control panel thing).

Re:There is no such thing as a quick Firefox relea (1)

Matthieu Araman (823) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012737)

I don't think you're right.
During Fx3, tons of regression tests were added.
So it's becoming less risky to change something and do a release.
By doing a time based release this year (or most realistic sometimes in the beginning of 2009), it lower the pressure to get a feature in "this big major version".
They have also changed from cvs to mercurial so hopefully having experimental branch in parallel will be easier.
I hope to see the html 5 video support added for Fx3.1

Re:There is no such thing as a quick Firefox relea (4, Informative)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012909)

I hope to see the html 5 video support added for Fx3.1

You're almost certainly going to get it, with Ogg Theora support at the very least (a DirectShow backend for Windows, QuickTime backend for Mac OS X, and GStreamer backend for Linux are also in the works). But the real question that no one seems to be asking is, where is HTML 5 audio support? It's just as much a part of the specification, and Ogg Vorbis is well-known enough that corporate entities aren't so worried about patents. I've seen some work [bluishcoder.co.nz] on it recently, but I'm not sure it's mature enough to make the deadline. HTML 5 audio and video support in Firefox 3.1 would be a dream though. Safari already has at least some support [webkit.org] for both, and Opera has partial support [opera.com] for audio with video surely not far off. Internet Explorer is obviously going to take a long time to catch up, but I guess we can't have everything...

Anonymous? (1)

aptenergy (688428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012445)

Seriously, the whole summary is lifted straight from the original article at ComputerWorld:


http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1914870647;fp;16;fpid;1

Of course, this same article has been repeated across tons of blogs and other news sites. But come on.

Re:Anonymous? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012995)

Seriously, the whole summary is lifted straight from the original article at ComputerWorld

You wouldn't know that if you didn't read the fucking article, noob.

End users don't want constant change (0, Troll)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012491)

There's a reason IE6 is entrenched.

There's also a reason why some users stuck with Firefox 2.0. I was going to until I managed to regain control over the address bar with the oldbar and hide unvisted extensions. In fact if the fucking address bar evolves any further or if those extensions get blocked I'm going to move to another browser. Change for the sake of change is not good.

Now significant new features, which can be controlled without adding extensions? That I'd love to see. However it seems current Firefox policy is to ignore the end user and limit their options using the excuse that you don't want to clutter the options dialogs.

For me, Firefox ain't the shiny magic browser it once was. Years of memory bugs, extensions that require updating on every release, minor features breaking and now this maddness with the interface have soured me to it. I'll still keep using it until something better comes along but I'm no longer excited about new releases.

Re:End users don't want constant change (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012629)

Hell, who needs options dialogs? about:config options would be good enough.

Re:End users don't want constant change (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012767)

People getting bent out of shape about the address bar is simply absurd. While I admit, the option to turn it off should appear somewhere, if only in about:config, the development team isn't ignoring it's users. I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it. I certainly find it very useful at times. I also happen to find the new user interface to be well thought out and designed.

The "it's only one option in the config dialog" argument is wearing a bit thin. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding on what testing is required for even simple options. Perhaps terms like "decision coverage" and "condition/decision coverage" are meaningless to you, but they are quite important to software testers. Also important is the psychological concept of the paradox of choice in which many people will not make a choice if presented with too many options. I really am quite sick of hearing, "But it's just one little check box in the option dialog." Take a second and think about how many features that has been said about. Then take a second to consider how much your really now about good user interface design and how much research is done in the area of human/computer interaction.

The changes presented in Firefox 3.0 are actually quite minor when compared to other UI modifications such as Office 2007 or KDE 4. Such drastic language on your part is quite uncalled for. The changes presented in Firefox's front end are, in fact, not for the sake of change but rather for the sake of improvement. I hope comments like yours don't encourage the developers to stagnate on a single UI design because every time they work to improve it, a vocal minority of rigid people can't pull a stick out of their ass.

Re:End users don't want constant change (1, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013075)

It's pure garbage. I cannot believe that people defend having the address bar randomly pick through your bookmarks and display them in kindergarten writing - 2 lines each no less.

Office 2007 is another Kindergarten interface. I haven't got much experience with KDE4.

Change for the sake of change isn't good, especially when the changes are negative.

Re:End users don't want constant change (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013243)

"Kindergarten interface" is probably the most subjective complaint possible on the matter and last time I checked, kindergartners don't write in a sans serif font face. If you're referring to multiple colors, there is scientific research to support such a change, but then again you consider research to be garbage so I don't see you taking much stock in that.

It's also interesting how you reiterate "Change for the sake of change isn't good" with no new content despite that very point having been dealt with in the parent (repeating the same point verbatim is not actually a rebuttal). Despite what you may think, you have not successfully argued that these changes were made for the sake of change (they were not, any such statement is clearly ignorant and closed minded) or that the changes were actually negative. All you've done is described why YOU don't like it in the vaguest possible terms you could manage. I assure you, you are a minority and a small one at that.

While I don't have a problem with your personal taste in web browsers, I do find your critiques to be more of insults rather than critiques. If you don't like Firefox 3, that's fine, but making ignorant statements is a hard position to defend. I challenge you to provide actual evidence that suggests the user interface in Firefox was changed solely for the sake of change.

Just to be technical, there is an algorithm for what to display based on what you have typed. It is anything but random.

Re:End users don't want constant change (2, Interesting)

dlevitan (132062) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013137)

I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it.

I'm one of the people who, for the most part, really likes the new address bar. Being able to type in a site's title to get to the url is a great time saver for me. However, there is one thing I can't stand about it, which is that sometimes it takes a second or two for it to load (especially if I'm on battery power and the hard drive is spun down) and in the meantime firefox freezes. If they could just sort that problem out I'd be very happy.

Re:End users don't want constant change (2, Insightful)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013227)

Try playing around with "browser.urlbar.search.chunkSize" and "browser.urlbar.search.timeout" in about:config. The prefs file says this about it.

// Size of "chunks" affects the number of places to process between each search // timeout (ms). Too big and the UI will be unresponsive; too small and we'll // be waiting on the timeout too often without many results.

Re:End users don't want constant change (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013203)

I just wish it would stop crashing every time I start it until I restart my computer. Even does it in (firefox) safe mode. I want to downgrade back to 2.0, but the download on their ftp does not seem to work.

The "awesome bar" is pretty nice, and I can't see that it is any more difficult to use versus the old urlbar. I really have never gotten a clear answer on how the new one is worse than the old one. I've seen some complaints about how typing "w" now gets a bunch of useless results due to "www", but you can easily avoid that by typing ".w" to get sites that start with a W. If you want to make a more complex search just hit the space button and type in another term.

It would be nice if the dev team would add some meta commands to let us change the behavior. Things like a regex match or ways to order the results by the last visited page or something, but thats a reason for the to just add features not to go back to the way it was.

Awesome! Maybe they'll ditch the Awesome Bar (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012609)

Awesome! Maybe they'll ditch the Awesome Bar

I mean really, we can wish can't we?

Very high CPU usage (1)

slashuzer (580287) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012621)

I have been using Firefox 3.0 with a new profile, but I have observed that it has absurdly high CPU usage.


For example, if I open just three tabs of slashdot, the usage jumps to 85-99% territory (and stays there even after the pages have stopped loading), and the computer starts locking up. Only two extensions too, adblock and flashblock.


Does anyone know what the hell is going on, and how to get this CPU usage to manageable 10% levels. I don't recall the exact number, but I do not think that the 2.xx ever got that high.

Re:Very high CPU usage (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012641)

I have no idea what's going on with your comp, but on my 3 year old Athlon LAPTOP with 512mb RAM, I'm getting 0 to 4% CPU usage with 3 tabs of Slashdot open. When I move the mouse around it jumps to 8%.

That's lower than IE7.

Re:Very high CPU usage (2, Informative)

risk one (1013529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012747)

Try installing flashblock. Those ads tend to steal a lot of cycles. Worked for me anyway.

Re:Very high CPU usage (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012805)

Well debug the problem -- disable the addons and see if that fixes it. Then check memory usage and try increasing about:config's browse.cache.memory.capacity by 50% and see if that fixes it. Etc.

Re:Very high CPU usage (2, Informative)

deek (22697) | more than 5 years ago | (#24012991)

I see something similar as well. I use linux and Firefox 3 on my work laptop, and at home while browsing www.smh.com.au, cpu will hit 100% and the browser becomes barely usable.

Interestingly enough, at work, I can browse www.smh.com.au without any issues.

I noticed that the stop button is clickable during the 100% cpu periods. When I click it, and it eventually registers, the cpu usage plummets back to regular levels.

I suspect there's some DNS shenanigans going on, because the DNS service at home can be flaky, and I noticed "looking for" like messages in the Firefox status bar. Firefox 3 most likely burns the cycles in some polling loop when waiting for responses to DNS requests.

Anyway, that's my theory. It's strange though, that only one site manages to trigger the behaviour for me.

Re:Very high CPU usage (2, Informative)

Ravadill (589248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013009)

Adblock with large filtersets tends to bog down on slashdot because the sheer amount of text/code it has to work through on each page (especially with the new comment system enabled) try disabling adblock to see if it helps.

What about that zero-day? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24012955)

According to
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/First-critical-security-hole-in-Firefox-3--/110959
Fx 3.0 (and previous. 2.0.x versions) contain a flaw that lets "Attackers [...] inject malicious code into a PC by means of a crafted web site, and launch the code with the user's rights." Does anybody know whether this is going to be fixed in 3.1, or earlier, or if it's kept secret when it is going to be fixed or already is fixed?

Re:What about that zero-day? (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013279)

It's actually put in there by the Mozilla devs because they have this plan for world domination. So you bet that hole will be there in FF3.1 and every FF after that! They need to control your computer someho, don't they?

3.0 [Iceweasel for Debian] still not final... (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 5 years ago | (#24013065)

in Sid, nor Experimental. There are some issues still needin to be resolved.

mod ujp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013165)

do, or 1ndeed what

OS Integration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24013359)

There is one little thing bugging me with FF3, and I hope it's going to be adressed in this next release. It's about the OS integration they promised... Sure, HTML forms now us the OS form controls properly, but most of the time it gets them wrong when used in combination with the color force feature in FF (allowing you to set your own colors for webpages, overwriting CSS. It's very useful for visually-impaired people like me who are easily blinded by light).

Basically, and on some webpages only, FF3 doesn't overwrite all CSS elements anymore, and you find yourself with strange things like black fonts on black-background text boxes. And I thought this kind of bug was only on some badly written Windows apps...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...