Beta
×

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 Releases Firefox 3.1 Alpha 2

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the keeping-up-with-the-googses dept.

Mozilla 348

daria42 writes with news that Mozilla has released the second alpha build for Firefox 3.1, codenamed "Shiretoko." The new build includes "support for the HTML 5 <video> element" and the ability to "drag and drop tabs between browser windows." ComputerWorld is running a related story about benchmarks shown by Mozilla's Brendan Eich which indicate that Firefox 3.1 will run Javascript faster than Chrome.

cancel ×

348 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Informative)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898269)

Mozilla has released the second alpha build for Firefox 3.1, codenamed "Shiretoko."

I see. Is that why I was yet again presented with a dialog tonight inviting me to "Upgrade to Firefox 3!" even though I've hit the Never button on that same dialog at least twice on this machine over the past few weeks?

If you give me an upgrade option that says "Never," and I choose that option, my expectation is that I will no longer get random dialogs offering the upgrade. Ever. That's sort of the reason I keep clicking "Never" instead of "Later," but Firefox doesn't seem to care.

This is really starting to get annoying.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898297)

That bug was fixed in version 3.0. I recommend you upgrade your browser to fix the bug.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898677)

I think he wants the version codenamed "Raven".

Uh, hello, cadettes, "alpha" is not a release (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898679)

Alpha is not and shall not be a release. Stupid girl.

Memo Reveals Miley Cyrus As Original McCain VP Pic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898307)

ST. PAUL, Minn. (GNAA) - GNAA News has learned that Republican nominee John McCain settled on 44-year-old Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential choice only after aides reluctantly informed him that his first choice for running mate - teen star Miley Cyrus - was constitutionally ineligble for the job.

"He wanted a female and someone very, very, very young," a Republican strategist sighed. "I think he's courting the youth vote. And the women vote. Actually, I don't know what he's thinking these days. He gets easily tired, you know."

McCain was reportedly most concerned that Democratic nominee Barack Obama was ahead in polls in Montana and thought someone named after the state would help him win Montana's three electoral votes.

He was then informed that Hannah Montana is not the real name of the Disney actress.

Unable to lure the Hillary Clinton vote with a Cyrus selection - and after being told that is would be "awkward" to pick one of the stars from Sex And The City while Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman were "kind of big Barack fans" - McCain chose the completely unknown Palin.

"Well, she is young and she is a woman," a GOP advocate defended. "And she's pretty cute, for a Republican anyway."

Reaction to the Palin choice ranged from curious to perplexed.

"She seems like a nice lady who is kind of fun to listen to in short doses," an Obama adviser allowed. "Then again, I would say the same thing about Ellen DeGeneres and I wouldn't make her the VP for a 72-year-old president."

Asked what role Palin, or Cyrus for that matter, would have in a McCain Adminstration, the candidate tersely responded: "Are you serious? None, why?"

Reportedly, Palin's only directive on the campaign trail is that she check with Cindy McCain, who is also much younger and better looking than the nominee, to make sure they don't wear the same outfit on the same day.

"We probably wouldn't have had to worry that with Miley Cyrus," the GOP advocate noted. "I heard she is already not wearing all that many clothes these days."

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898329)

There is a fix/workaround for this behaviour--make sure that you do not connect to the internet. This way firefox never sees the update and the nag dialog to update never appears.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Funny)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898347)

Cool, thanks. I'll get on that right awa

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1, Informative)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898357)

I love that this post was modded informative.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898371)

The funny part is that this is modded informative.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898711)

Although Psychotria (953670) was meant to be funny it gave me an idea. add firefox's upgrade address to your host file and point it to yourself thus it will not look for an upgrade.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Insightful)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898377)

This is really starting to get annoying.

I suppose you filed a bug report a few weeks ago and no one has done anything about it?
Don't bother to check, I am quite sure you didn't:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453452 [mozilla.org]

This was posted on the 3rd. On the highly unlikely event that it was you that posted that bug, maybe you should give them more than 3 days to do something about it before bashing them on /.?
Also, I would categorize this as a low priority bug(OMFG? Pressing a button AN EXTRA COUPLE OF TIMES? You still alive?), so don't hold your breath.
It is also in the 1.8 branch..

You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898407)

Because no more than one person could possibly be experiencing the same bug

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (3, Insightful)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898445)

Because no more than one person could possibly be experiencing the same bug

Yep. Quite likely.
And besides being an excuse to not report bugs, it would also be an excuse to bash them on forums? Right?

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898525)

I suppose you filed a bug report a few weeks ago and no one has done anything about it?

No, I did not report this as a bug. To the best of my knowledge I have never reported any bugs to the Mozilla team.

On the highly unlikely event that it was you that posted that bug, maybe you should give them more than 3 days to do something about it before bashing them on /.?

Firefox is used by millions of people. Firefox is also, presumably, used by all of its contributors. I don't download its nightlies. I don't run its alphas or betas. I do participate in the evaluation of other products, and I do report bugs I encounter there, because I'm running pre-release versions of those applications.

My Firefox is at 2.0.0.16. This is an official release (and, as far as I know, the most recent revision to the 2.0 tree). When Mozilla issues a public software update that has passed their internal reviews and release management processes, I don't believe that it's my responsibility to report bugs prior to complaining about them.

You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

Firefox is free software. I appreciate that. But using Mozilla's free software does not automatically enroll me as a card-carrying member of the Mozilla QA team.

They have people who are paid to do this shit.

I am not one of them.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898585)

Can't imagine why this is modded flamebait. Maybe they missed "true" and clicked "flamebait" by accident.

Don't want to report bugs? Don't expect fixes. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898617)

n/t

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (5, Insightful)

nightglider28 (1243916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898755)

My Firefox is at 2.0.0.16. This is an official release (and, as far as I know, the most recent revision to the 2.0 tree). When Mozilla issues a public software update that has passed their internal reviews and release management processes, I don't believe that it's my responsibility to report bugs prior to complaining about them.

While I agree that it's not your job to make sure there are no bugs, it's not realistic to assume that a non-alpha/beta release is perfect. It should be stable and bugs should indeed be few and far between, but it's not going to be a flawless product. You shouldn't have to hound the programmers to get things fixed, but as far as I'm concerned, you have no right to complain about something you can do and have done something to fix.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1, Flamebait)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898611)

Also, I would categorize this as a low priority bug(OMFG? Pressing a button AN EXTRA COUPLE OF TIMES? You still alive?), so don't hold your breath. It is also in the 1.8 branch..

You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

And you are... the soup Nazi? Seriously, what the hell?? Is it your time of month or something? After reading that flamebait, I'm seriously wondering if you work for Microsoft. You seem to be intentionally trying to piss off the Mozilla user base.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1)

Misanthropee (1358807) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898681)

*Users WHO find bugs and never tell you about them.

Just following your maxim.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (2, Insightful)

FoboldFKY (785255) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898835)

I once had a chat to some Mozilla guys on IRC; I'd just gone through the rigmarole of posting a bug in Bugzilla, and was saying how it wasn't exactly easy to work out.

Their response was that Bugzilla isn't intended for end-users to submit bugs; it's for developers.

The average user is going to take one look at Bugzilla and run screaming so fast the air friction will burn their face off.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898885)

You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

You know one thing I find annoying? Spending a good half an hour producing a long bug report to a third party, detailing my configuration carefully, testing on other machines, suggesting possible causes and workarounds, explaining why the bug is important... then having someone who clearly knows his users' needs better than his users either
(1) ignoring it as if it was never posted;
(2) marking it the "so low priority you might see a fix within 3 years, if at all" category; or
(3) slamming a "wont fix" or a "by design" on it and closing with 0 to 5 words of explanation, because if a bug's not worth considering a bug today, by golly it needs to be ignored Right Now before others point out that it bothers them too. Never mind that it's useful to collect feedback since, if sufficient users argue in some direction, it might be that there's actually a problem.

Though nothing riles me more than offering some patch and the FIRST thing you get is not a comment on its engineering quality but a rant about spacing and variable naming. Two things, fuckers:
(a) First tell me whether you feel the code works and the algorithm is elegant/efficient, because that's where the thought has gone (or hasn't, if I've made some mistake - which I'd be happy to know about);
(b) Then consider that because it's your project you might just this once be able to stretch your valuable time to re-indenting a few lines of code.
Then, and only then, might you SAY THANK YOU then politely point me to some well written style documentation for the project to help me for next time. And, if you do these things, I'll feel welcomed and there will likely be a next time.

I've pretty much given up on reporting bugs to third party projects, in the same way I gave up reporting HTML issues to webmasters before 1998. I think one particular problem is that major open source contributors feel that users owe them in return for the work they do - hell, the parent poster seems to speak as if they do. It's a side effect of the transition from an academic (where things are done for the sake of improving human knowledge) to a commercial (where things are done for oneself) Internet - even in the OSS context, people participate to boost their own egos/resumes/bragging rights/sense of entitlement. Wrong! Take a leaf out of organised religion and assume that you'll get into some sort of Free Software Heaven or something, if it makes you feel better; you do not owe me when I publish a paper in my field that you happen to benefit from reading, and I do not owe you when I use your software, okay?

Moving from a technical to a political note, I refuse to provide any help to the Mozilla Foundation until it stops trying to disguise itself as a non-profit. I don't like Google's hypocritical "do no evil" image either, so it'll be good to see Chrome and Firefox fight it out - hopefully to the detriment of each other by fragmenting marketshare - and it's nice to see Google giving Mozilla an unexpected kick in the balls.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898893)

You know one thing I find annoying?
Users that find bugs and never tell you about them.

You know one thing I find annoying? Users that complain "there is no software available for [Linux|Mac]" and never write to software developers to let them know that they want their software to run on their platform of choice.

You want something, let the devs know. In the case of Firefox, or any other application with a public bugzilla or other users-to-devs communication medium, there is no excuse.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898583)

Maybe, If you started to think, instead of demanding from people who give you stuff for free, you'd found out, that "Never" means "Never ask me if I want to update to *this* version.".

Besides: If you don't like it, you can easily fix it. Every noob can change some "if (...)" in some JavaScript C code.

Never forget that all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it. And if we listen to you, it's only because we like to make people happy.
If you insult us, call as stupid idiots, tell us that we're shit... do not expect us to even talk to you.

It's common sense: Be nice. Most of the time, people will help you.
But maybe some people do not get out of their basement too often... (Users and Developers alike)

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898587)

On the other hand... if you call us *the* shit... we might accept it. :D

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898865)

Yeah it has nothing to do with the millions of dollards Mozilla receives from Google. The whole browser thingy is because they are a bunch of altruistic people that just want to make us happy.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (0, Redundant)

wtfispcloadletter (1303253) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898629)

Why is this informative? Funny, maybe, but not really. Informative or insightful, not even close. Mozilla already announced they were going to nag the hell out of FF 2.x users:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/22/1552202 [slashdot.org]

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898689)

Don't expect it to stop.

http://tinyurl.com/68o9hu [tinyurl.com]

"We're pretty committed to user choice, but we're also pretty ardent that Firefox 3.0 is a good product," said Beltzner, explaining why Mozilla won't take 'No' for an answer.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898837)

Good thing, too. You should be using Firefox 3 anyway.

Re:Hey, Mozilla: Learn what "Never" means (1)

stevied (169) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898701)

I have a feeling that behaviour might be "by design." From this blog entry [mozilla.org] :

".. select Never if you don't want to accept this upgrade offer; we might send you another offer again in the future, but it won't be for several weeks or months.."

I don't know whether your "few" matches up with Mozilla's "several" :/

"New" features (1)

SLOviper (763177) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898287)

"the ability to 'drag and drop tabs between browser windows.'"

You can do that now last time I checked...

Re:"New" features (2, Interesting)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898325)

Wow, I didn't know that. Tried just now on 3.0.1 and yes, you can.

It's one of the things I really like with Chrome; I think Chrome does it slightly better (FF replaced the content of the the open tab in the destination window with the page from the source window and left the source tab open - Chrome creates a new tab in the destination window and closes the source tab). I'm still firmly in the Firefox camp so it'd be great if 3.1 more closely mirrors Chrome's tab moves.

Re:"New" features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898365)

------- Comment #86 From Boris Zbarsky (todo: 200+ items) 2008-08-24 06:46:43 PDT -------

Try the following:

1) Go to gmail
2) Start composing a message
3) Type in a to/subject/body
4) Drag the tab to a different window

in 3.0 and 3.1a2. Then you tell me what improvements we have. ;)

> Will there even be added more mochitests or can we mark it as in-testsuite?

There aren't any added yet, since the tree has been closed ever since I wrote
them. Once I check them in (probably tomorrow), I'll mark it.

Re:"New" features (2, Interesting)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898733)

On the other hand, Chrome doesn't seem to allow me to switch to another window by hovering the mouse over that window's taskbar button while dragging a tab - which makes the feature nearly useless if you use maximized windows. Especially since pressing alt-tab stops the dragging immediately. Hopefully they'll fix it by the release version.

Re:"New" features (3, Informative)

bytta (904762) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898349)

Works fine from tabbar to tabbar in latest FF (3.0.1) - but TFA points to a bug from 2001 that's finally resolved.

Probably dragging to anywhere in the window works now.

Re:"New" features (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898401)

Wow, Slashdot's on fire tonight! That's the second top tab tip I've got. Thanks, bytta! Thanks, SLOviper!

I tried tabbar to tabbar, too, and it works *exactly* as I'd expect - source tab closes, content appears in new tab at destination. Awesome!

Re:"New" features (2, Informative)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898405)

As an FYI for Safari users, you can do the same in Safari. IIRC, it came in sometime in the 2.x era, but I might be mistaken in that. I frequently run the betas and the feature vs version issue gets a bit clouded for me.

Anyway, you can rearrange the tabs, drag them to other windows, are drag them out into a new window.

The only down side is that, as far as I can tell, you have to have multiple tabs in the window from which you're dragging. So consolidating two windows into one means you have to Cmd-T in one of them to open another window first, then close it after consolidation. Rather silly - and the preferences don't have an "Always show a tab" option.

Re:"New" features (1)

Hooded One (684008) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898513)

I believe the current implementation just creates a new tab, copies the history of the dragged tab, loads the URL in the new tab, and closes the old one. Try it with a Gmail tab or something, and watch the whole thing reload. This probably also means the current drag-and-drop doesn't work on pages with submitted POST data. I would guess the new feature is true "reparenting" of tabs, which would avoid both these problems.

Re:"New" features (1)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898713)

It reloads the tab though, I'm hoping they mean you can transfer the tab state without a reload.

This version does not include Tracemonkey (5, Informative)

Anik315 (585913) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898333)

To get a version with Tracemonkey, download a nightly build [mozilla.org] and follow these instructions:

open a new tab
type about:config and hit enter
read the warning and heed its wisdom
enter jit in the filter field
double click on javascript.options.jit.chrome and javascript.options.jit.content to change their values to true

Re:This version does not include Tracemonkey (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898493)

It's a pretty huge improvement too, at least on my machine. It's been a little more unstable, and crashes are usually the result. But the speed improvements seem pretty impressive. Both from a subjective feel, and benchmarking.

FF 3.1 JavaScript == Fail (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898515)

Going back and trying FF 3.1 with Tracemonkey is like trying to back to IE. Painful.

Chrome utterly annihilates Firefox in real world performance. I've been running Chrome non-stop since it was released and the performance is astonishing compared to Firefox.

Firefox's outdated codebase with its monolith single threaded and single address space for all tabs means that it is constantly degrading in performance each and every hour of use. I use to have to quit Firefox once or twice a day to clear out all the memory leaks and JavaScript leftovers from long dead tabs.

Chrome is as lighting quick right now since when it was first started up. The upgrade in performance from old Firefox to Chromes state of the art JavaScript engine and fully threaded and memory protected tabs is like that amazing feeling years ago upgrading from a cooperatively multitasking OS where any single app can take down a system to a modern preemptively multitasking and fully memory protected OS.

Sorry Firefox devs, you've been left in the dust. Having seen what a complete mess the Firefox codebase is it is unlikely Firefox will ever make the leap to a real next gen browser engine like Chrome has. Hell, even damn Microsoft now has memory protected tabs.

There's no going back after experiencing Chrome. No desperation benchmarks are going to fix the fundamental flaws in Firefox.

Re:FF 3.1 JavaScript == Fail (2, Insightful)

Necroman (61604) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898551)

Or you're just caught up in the hype and think it's faster? Do you have any benchmarks or data that show Chrome is performing better than FF3.1 alpha2?

Re:FF 3.1 JavaScript == Fail (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898895)

I haven't tried the latest Firefox but so far the day I've had with Chrome has been amazing. Even with the latest versions after less than a day's usage switching between tabs would start to slow down and even closing every single tab would leave Firefox with a huge amount of leftover memory. Responsiveness and shedding the leftover memory would only be fixed by quiting out of the browser two or three times a day.

Even if there are a few benchmarks where Firefox can match Chrome it isn't going fix the performance and resource rot that plagues Firefox.

The bitter reaction some people are having to people going crazy with excitement over Chrome sounds like there are people too emotionally attached to just a piece of software. Dumping Firefox for Chrome was no different than dumping Alta Vista for Google or IE for Firefox years ago.

Re:FF 3.1 JavaScript == Fail (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898801)

That was a very nice puff piece. Congratz. :-)

Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (0)

zoips (576749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898345)

The first thing I did after installing Chrome was run Sunspider. It averaged completion on my work machine in ~1.4 seconds. I went and got two different 3.1 builds with Tracemonkey (9/3 and 9/2) and it averaged ~2.3 seconds. I was kind of surprised as I did expect Tracemonkey to be faster than V8. The only test that Tracemonkey outperformed V8 was the regex test, all the others it got completely spanked.

Sorry, don't have the actual numbers. Like I said, this was on my work computer.

Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (2, Informative)

zoips (576749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898385)

After reading the rest of the article, and a reply below me, I think Tracemonkey wasn't enabled when I ran the Sunspider test on the 3.1 build. Therefore the numbers in my post are useless. Ignore.

Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (4, Informative)

zoips (576749) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898533)

Because I still feel stupid for having made my original post without knowing that you needed to enable Tracemonkey, here's results from my home Windows machine, which is similar to my work machine (Intel Core2 Quad Q6600; work is XP 32 bit, home is Vista 64 bit):

Chrome Sunspider results [tinyurl.com] (TinyURL to Sunspider results)
Tracemonkey Sunspider results [tinyurl.com] (TinyURL to Sunspider results)

Tracemonkey was faster than Chrome. I think it's odd that Chrome was slower than at work considering my home machine has much better parts. Chalk it up to Vista 64bit or something, I dunno.

Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (3)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898899)

Tracemonkey was faster than Chrome. I think it's odd that Chrome was slower than at work considering my home machine has much better parts. Chalk it up to Vista 64bit or something, I dunno.

Which one is the Vista 64 bit machine? What OS is the other?

Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (3, Informative)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898387)

u have to turn tracemonkey on (even in the tracemonkey capable builds).

see this guy's post [slashdot.org]

Re:Hrm, I dunno about Tracemonkey being faster (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898561)

fooh, it almost looked like google spanked the tracemonkey. glad you got it rectified, zoips!

We ain't dead yet! (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898355)

So here we have the Moz FF team saying: "We ain't dead yet!".

With IE as the undisputed champion, nothing happened. FF brought the "browser war" back, and suddenly IE starts getting new features.

Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!

Here's what I'd like to see:

1) Process-per-tab. It sucks when some JS in some tab gets hung up, bringing everything else in the browser to its knees! Chrome is the only game in town here.

2) Fast (native-speed) JS execution. (Chrome? FF?)

3) Excellent plugin compatibility. Both FF and IE have this down.

4) Cross Platform support. I'm a Win/Mac/Linux guy, I expect my software to work equally on all three. FF is the clear winner here.

4) Ubiquity. For me, this is FF, because it's the first thing I download after a fresh OS install, regardless of the OS. But for most people, this is still IE.

What am I going to use? Firefox has my money, still. I type this in Chrome, but I usually am not using Windows, so Chrome, Safari, and IE are non-starters for me.

But Chrome makes it obvious: the browser is the next O/S.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0, Troll)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898369)

BTW: I've just noticed that the "process per tab" concept in Chrome is bullshit. If each tab truly represents its own process with its own address space, how come I can log in in one tab, and then use that login information in another?

I expect that behavior in FF - it's all the same process. But supposedly, tabs in Chrome are each their own process, a la Unix. This provides "protection" from each other, better browser stability, etc. But it's just not so. When looking at a tab, I can create a new tab, login in the new tab, and suddenly my login takes effect in the original tab.

So the whole "each tab is a process" is bullshit. They're talking to each other, and the "protection" offered to a tab from its neighbors is weak at best.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (2, Informative)

Locomorto (925016) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898413)

Eh cookies? Lets not get too excited here over nothing.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898437)

Cookies are shared among all tabs. That isn't just expected behaviour, it's the only sensible one (except for privacy mode).

You're either trolling or not understanding the purpose of having different processes for different tabs.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898439)

It's called shared memory which processes are allowed to do duh.

Cookies, dumbass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898471)

You have no idea how the Internet works.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (2, Informative)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898641)

Each tab does run in its own process. A "persistent login" is usually implemented using a "session" on top of HTTP and usually using cookies. One would think, that a cookie is a cookie across all Chrome processes. That is the behaviour that one would expect and also the behaviour that has correctly been implemented in Chrome.

Before your next troll, perhaps you should go and write a multi-process application, then go and write a web-application that stores login information in a session. Then think about what you just posted.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (2, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898781)

Did you read the comic announcing Chrome? I did. You should, too!

Sure, standard processes can share memory. Sure, they can share cookies. And I don't mind them doing so in a derivative fashion. EG: If I open Tab B from Tab A, it should get Tab A's cookies. But cookies in Tab B shouldn't "backport" to tab A.... The point is that if different processes can communicate with each other, that significantly increases the likelyhood of cross-tab / cross-process vulnerabilities. The attack footprint just grew, rather sharply, in size.

I have no problem with cookies being shared. I do have a problem with NEW cookies being shared across processes in an obviously shmop-type environment. Suddenly, tab A can theoretically access session cookies running in tab B, and worse, can even set them.

But that's not what the comic described! What I read sounded more like a description of a JVM or a chroot-jail. Each process would run in its own highly protected space. There were pictures of bars on the comic. And that sounds very different than the idea that the tabs all share a memory space that contains (among other things) security sensitive session cookies!

If I'm trolling, I sure don't mean to be. But it's pretty clear that the whole "each tab is a different process running in its own jail" is crap. Sorry. It may be significantly better than the "everything runs in a single process" model that FF uses. I don't want to imply that this isn't a significant improvement. But it's certainly less than claimed, and it's certainly less than their comic announcement led me to expect.

And that leaves me disappointed.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898487)

1) Process-per-tab. It sucks when some JS in some tab gets hung up, bringing everything else in the browser to its knees! Chrome is the only game in town here.

IE8 also has process per tab.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898665)

Last I heard IE has a process pool, not a 1-1 process per tab setup. The difference is run away JS will block a group of seemingly random tabs instead of a single tab.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898569)

You've reached the psychiatric telephone hotline. Please chose one of the following options:

1) Feelings of depression
2) Social Anxiety
3) Overwhelming desire to kill people
4) Repetitive, racing thoughts
4) Repetitive, racing thoughts
5) Slashdot Effect

Re:We ain't dead yet! (4, Interesting)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898631)

Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!

I really don't think that Google wants to enter the browser wars. They will make no money from Chrome; it is just a means to an end. What they are trying to do is just make sure that the rapid pace of browser development over the past few years continues unabated, so Microsoft doesn't pull another IE6 on us.

I see Chrome as more of a "reference implementation" than a true competitor. Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade? To foster the type of developer and add-on community that Firefox has? I just don't see it happening. I think they really just hope that Firefox, Safari, and Opera et. al. incorporate all the new ideas in Chrome into their own products.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (4, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898853)

Really, are they gonna put the effort into this thing to keep it current for the next decade? To foster the type of developer and add-on community that Firefox has? I just don't see it happening. I think they really just hope that Firefox, Safari, and Opera et. al. incorporate all the new ideas in Chrome into their own products.

If they have structure their code properly (and initial feedback indicates that they have) it will take perhaps a dozen reasonably qualified software engineers to keep Chrome relevant. Compared to the size and resources of Google, this is a fairly small investment.

But the result is likely to be rather dramatic for Google: if they provide a simple, rapid, quality browser for a reasonable price that takes browsers to a whole new level, where the browser is very literally more like an operating system, this can have tremendous benefits for Google with its significant and growing number of online applications like google maps, gmail, calendar, and more by the day.

Unlike IE, Chrome developers only have to build a browser that works. They don't have to integrate with some ActiveX or Cocoa API, they don't have to maintain retro-compatibility with a bazillion intranet applications. They just have to make a browser that's cross-platform and implements O/S features in the 80 MB or so of its download size that were common in early Unix Operating Systems that were 10 MB or so.

While I have my doubts as to whether Chrome is everything claimed in their introductory comic, Chrome represents a good step forward, and the fact that it's open source and open license means that it's likely to spread far, wide, and deep within a few years.

It's a double-plus sign to the KDE team; Chrome is based on webkit which is based on Konqueror which was written for KDE. Open-source cross-polinization at work!

Go Google!

Re:We ain't dead yet! (4, Interesting)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898715)

But Chrome makes it obvious: the browser is the next O/S.

I wish this meme would die... tell me... will your browser have a posix API? Will your browser have it's own video and printer drivers? Will your browser allow me to run Linux as a hosted process?

Honestly, kids these days...

Re:We ain't dead yet! (2, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898851)

Will your browser have it's own video and printer drivers?

There's no reason why it can't. In embedded space it even makes sense.

The other two examples have nothing to do with whether or not something is an OS. Just your narrow definition of one.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898743)

IE8b2 has process per tab.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (1)

Mike McTernan (260224) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898787)

1) Process-per-tab. It sucks when some JS in some tab gets hung up, bringing everything else in the browser to its knees!

I don't see this as a good thing. Really it's just a workaround for buggy code elsewhere, limiting the scope of damage to a single tab at the expense of using lots more system resources. Instead the JS interpreter or whatever bad behaving code should be fixed so that the browser as a whole is more stable without needing the extra overhead.

The exception to this is of course closed source plugins (Acrobat, I'm looking at you) where the quality if controlled by someone else. These should be in an isolated process and partitioned off as much as possible, killing just the plugin area not the tab if a fault occurs, although that maybe technically difficult to fully achieve without changing the plugin APIs.

I'm not a fan of Microsoft bashing, but it really comes as no surprise that they added this feature to IE8. They don't have a reputation for small and lightweight apps (Vista's much bemoaned bloat being a recent example), and Explorer has had the "launch folder windows in a separate process [winpro.com.sg] " option for a long time (which you'll note WinPro recommend [winpro.com.sg] enabling for stability, disabling for performance). Given they felt explorer needed this functionality when it's mainly running their own code, I can see how they would think to add it for something taking wild and varied input from the web.

I really hope Mozilla don't feel compelled to add process-per-tab just because some other browsers use this, and if they do add it, that it can be disabled.

Re:We ain't dead yet! (1)

Yer Mum (570034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898813)

Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!

I feel sorry for the FF team. After all those criticisms memory usage, they spend all that time ripping out the bloat from FF2 to get FF3. Then Google releases Chrome which is even more memory hogging, but as it's Google they can do no wrong...

How about the extensions too? (1)

ilovesymbian (1341639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898359)

I installed it and the first thing that happens as always is the extensions stop working.

Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?

Oh, never mind the extensions. Firefox 3.1 alpha 2 just crashed on me. :-/

Re:How about the extensions too? (0, Troll)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898427)

Why don't the extension developers keep ready an upgraded version of their add-ons so that with every Firefox upgrade you don't have to sit and wait for days for the add-ons to be upgraded?

Even better would be if Firefox wouldn't break the plug-in API. On OS X I finally got a plug-in for Firefox 2.x that would save tabs and when I upgraded to version 3 the plug-in broke and the preference in Firefox to save tabs on exit does not work for some reason in OS X.

Re:How about the extensions too? (3, Informative)

Paaskonijn (1220996) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898639)

Because addons.mozilla.org doesn't allow us to call our add-ons compatible with future versions of Firefox. We have to wait till Firefox releases a new version and then update the compatibility.

It kind of forces developers to check whether their add-ons are actually compatible with the new version. But not really.

Re:How about the extensions too? (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898657)

Go to about:config, then set extensions.checkCompatibility to false. It worked for many 2.x extensions when 3.0 was released. I haven't tried 3.1, but I presume there haven't been many major changes to the extension support.

Re:How about the extensions too? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898795)

Better idea is to just use the nightly tester tools [mozilla.org] . That allows you to override compatibility on a per-extension basis, which is a good idea, as sometimes they really are incompatible and sometimes they're really incompatible. Just ask anyone who tried forcing Google toolbar on 3.0 before Google updated it.

Still somewhat disappointed in Firefox! (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898393)

While I appreciate the new features in Firefox's latest release, I am still disappointed in it because I cannot watch CNN live streams.
Before you jump to conclusions, let me inform you that I have all the latest plugins installed; from Flash, Shockwave, Java and all the rest.

I even have CNN's own plugin for Firefox installed...but live streams will not play! Incidentally, the commercial before the the actual content (which is in Flash), plays fine. When it's over, what one sees is a black screen!

Whose fault it is, I do not know...all i know is that I cannot watch those live streams on CNN. What's going on?

Re:Still somewhat disappointed in Firefox! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898535)

Being as I consider javascript and Flash very unnecessary risks and having dumped the cable company years ago but wanting to watch the conventions I booted with a Mandriva Spring 2008 Live cd and watched the CBS streams of the Democratic convention via C/Net link. Interestingly when the Republican convention rolled around all I got on the streams there was a black screen. Decided to check MSN and sure enough they were not using Silverlight for the Republican convention and the streams worked just fine. I haven't tried CNN yet but will try to remember to do so later just for curiousity sake.

Re:Still somewhat disappointed in Firefox! (5, Funny)

lazy_nihilist (1220868) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898559)

I even have CNN's own plugin for Firefox installed...but live streams will not play! Incidentally, the commercial before the the actual content (which is in Flash), plays fine. When it's over, what one sees is a black screen!

The commercial plays fine, that's all what matters.

From the Computer World story I stab thee! (2, Funny)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898417)

ComputerWorld is running a related story about benchmarks shown by Mozilla's Brendan Eich which indicate that Firefox 3.1 will run Javascript faster than Chrome.

Take that Google!

GoDaddy Issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898419)

Have they fixed the GoDaddy issue yet?

shiretoko (3, Interesting)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898433)

too bad they didn't say which kanji. shiretoko could be shireitoko, the place of a ghost. or it could be command place. shiretto-ko would be the little one who doesn't care. shiiretoko could also mean the buying up place ... japanese has so many homonyms

Re:shiretoko (1)

zalas (682627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898693)

If it's just "shiretoko", then it might be the Shiretoko Peninsula [wikipedia.org] located in the northeast section of Hokkaido. And hate to be nitpicky, but shiretoko, shireitoko, shirettoko and shiiretoko are not homonyms, as they have a different rhythm when pronounced, although they sound a bit similar. Shireitoko has a prolonged 'e' sound, shirettoko has a stop/pause after the 'e' sound, shiiretoko has a prolonged 'i' sound.

Re:shiretoko (3, Funny)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898751)

japanese has so many homonyms

I dunno. They all sound the same to me.

;-)

Re:shiretoko (1)

magamo (1358811) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898773)

Only the World Heritage on the Hokkaido inland clicked with me. I'm a native Japanese speaker and other words like the ones you listed are just...off.

Re:shiretoko (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898809)

Except the examples you used aren't homonyms (="words that sound the same"), as is obvious even from their transcriptions.
Just because someone uses stupid transcription that butchers the pronunciation doesn't mean anything.

Firefox's bottleneck isn't JS (3, Interesting)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898505)

From Brendan's JS benchmarks:

We win by 1.28x and 1.19x, respectively. Maybe we should rename TraceMonkey "V10" ;-).

Apart from getting the "asshat" award for this comment, Brendan seems to ignore Firefox currently has the slowest DOM manipulation of any of the major browsers.

And it's that DOM which is the bottleneck in most web applications (as I can testify as a web developer), as JS is mostly used to modify the document in some way, not to compute cryptographic hashes of huge datasets or the like.

I am noticing a consistent trend in Mozilla trying to one-up the competition in their benchmarks, while ignoring the real-world problems of their products. Bad for their users, but in the long run, bad for Mozilla as a company and initiative as well.

Re:Firefox's bottleneck isn't JS (5, Informative)

haruchai (17472) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898599)

http://developer.mozilla.org/En/DOM_improvements_in_Firefox_3 [mozilla.org]

It seems they have been focusing on extending the DOM support but TraceMonkey will eventually be used to enhance FF's DOM performance

(Excerpt from this page: http://ejohn.org/blog/tracemonkey/ [ejohn.org] )

Right now there isn't any tracing being done into DOM methods (only across pure-JavaScript objects) - but that is something that will be rectified. Being able to trace through a DOM method would successfully speed up, not only, math and object-intensive applications (as it does now) but also regular DOM manipulation and property access.

Re:Firefox's bottleneck isn't JS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898653)

Damn straight, I want my 0.1 s of life back. Damn bad DOM performance. I cry myself to sleep every night thinking about those 0.1 (that's 100 milliseconds man) second back. Then the blackness comes.

Per-tab processes are great (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898517)

Using FF, I right click on the HTML5 video link in the summary and opened it in a new tab. A rather large page, it maxed out my CPU for about 15 seconds parsing and rendering it. During that time scrolling down the slashdot page became very jerky.

Tried it out on Chrome on my Windows box, and no such problem. Do the FF people plan on going down that path?

Re:Per-tab processes are great (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898871)

Tried it out on Chrome on my Windows box, and no such problem.

That's because you got lucky. Go here [escapistmagazine.com] and watch the video in Chrome. It slows your entire machine down to a crawl, and the only way out is to kill the entire browser.

So much for having flash in its own process.

Eich twists the facts a little (0, Flamebait)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898537)

From Eich's interview:

Eich disagreed. Although he called V8 "great work, very well engineered," Eich said TraceMonkey has more potential than Google's interpreter for additional, and dramatic, speed improvements. "We've only been working on TraceMonkey for, what, three months now," he said in an interview today. Google has said its Danish engineers had been working on V8 for approximately two years.

TraceMonkey was possible in three months only thanks to the efforts of Adobe on developing the AVM2 engine (aka Tamarin), which took over 2 years to complete and release. Tamarin's Micro JIT engine is what powers the heart of TraceMonkey and is a significant part of the update we'll see in Firefox 3.1.

I don't like that Eich seems to not give any credit to Adobe at all for their contribution, and on top of that tries to belittle the effort of Google, who are technically paying their sallaries at Mozilla Corp.

Re:Eich twists the facts a little (5, Informative)

randomc0de (928231) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898651)

I don't like that Eich seems to not give any credit to Adobe at all for their contribution, and on top of that tries to belittle the effort of Google, who are technically paying their sallaries at Mozilla Corp.

FTFA:

This reminds me: TraceMonkey is only a few months old, excluding the Tamarin Tracing Nanojit contributed by Adobe (thanks again, Ed and co.!), which we've built on and enhanced with x86-64 support and other fixes. We've developed TraceMonkey in the open the whole way. And we're as fast as V8 on SunSpider!

and

V8 is great work, very well-engineered, with room to speed up too. (And Chrome looks good to great -- the multi-process architecture is righteous, but you expected no less praise from an old Unix hacker like me.)

Yup, lots of credit-stealing and belittling going on there. Meanwhile, I don't like that you can't even spell "salaries" correctly. You see, I'm new here: I RTFA, point out inaccurate comments, and correct spelling. An unholy trinity I suppose.

Firefox Developers (2, Insightful)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898557)

Chrome isn't perfect and doesn't run all that well on a hyperthreaded P4 single core.
I'm not about to throw away my computers just to run a beta Chrome which really isn't as functional as my Firefox. I doubt if it would ever be.
A lot of us appreciate the work that FF dev. does and it can only improve.
Thanks.

"drag and drop tabs between browser windows." (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24898563)

The current stable build, 3.0.1, can already do this. (and maybe already in 3.0).

The question is... (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898703)

have they fixed the damn "Awesome Bar" so it works? I'm getting a little tired of the way it currently works, where if I start typing "news" (to go to news.google.com, for example), slashdot is listed in the links because the sub-heading is "news for nerds".

Re:The question is... (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898785)

How is that broken? I'm pretty sure that's the whole POINT of it.

Re:The question is... (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898867)

I think the problem is that really, really common words aren't likely to return useful searches, but they are still very common as domains. I'd rather the browser remember where I've been, rather than try to figure out which of the 54,000,000 pages out there might be where I want to go.

Personally, I hate all this integration/simplification stuff. Chrome drives me nuts for this very reason. I want a search bar, and I want an address bar. Don't put them together and call it a feature because it takes up a couple less inches of horizontal space (which compared to vertical space, is not particularly valuable real estate).

Re:The question is... (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898889)

The awesome bar ranks your history. Bookmarks before non-bookmarked pages, pages you visit often before pages you rarely visit, etc.

Make "news" the keyword for the news.google.com bookmark. Awesome bar will rank that above everything else when you type "news".

See.. it really is awesome.

Re:The question is... (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898903)

Like Samah said, thats the intent of it...

But, if you are that pissy about it, there is a simple fix:

Add http://news.google.com/ [google.com] to your favorite/bookmarks, then go to the properties for that bookmark, in the "keyword" option, type "news", then whenever you type "news" into the addressbar and hit enter, it will go to news.google.com...

If you have various news sites you go to, then use "newsG" and "newsC" etc...

Opera has the same option (among others), but IE and Chrome don't seem to...

Linux (4, Insightful)

tolan-b (230077) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898759)

I wonder if FF are planning to fix the poor memory handling and speed in Linux any time soon. I'm getting quite tired of just how Windows focussed they are. I know that needs to be their primary target, but it would be nice if the Linux version didn't lag behind *quite* so much, especially seeing as they forget to mention that all these fancy improvements listed for a new version don't actually apply to the Mac and Linux versions.

one thing I hate about Firefox (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898761)

is that whenever a window for some reason crawls to an end, everything is lost.

For instance, I'm a big fan of Comedy Central (daily show), but watching it at my job is a pain in the ass during noon. I don't know if the site is really busy or if its the traffic inside, but the Flash player just goes "boing" and all my open windows are lost forever.

Please, could you teach these guys about a multi-threaded environment? thanks!

Faster? (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 6 years ago | (#24898845)

Personally, I'd prefer that they worry less about making JavaScript faster and focus on the security policy. Isn't there at least some buried option not to run JavaScript from a 3rd party source, or only to run in-line JavaScript and not imports? How about disabling certain functions? As a person who hates to install 3rd party anti-spam extensions, I think some more low-level control would be a better option than just turning off JavaScript entirely (so, for example, I can actually reply to comments on some AJAX-laden blogs).

Let the advertisers worry about how to get around this. They always do, one way or another.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?