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!

Firefox Beta Touts Advanced Engine, Solves 8 Flaws

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the more-is-better-right dept.

493

nandemoari writes "Mozilla may be this year's winner in the 'browser battles' as they ready the next beta version of their tour-de-force, Firefox 3.1. Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox — a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users. As this year's crop of new browsers emerges, enhanced features are becoming secondary to one thing: speed. Mozilla is nearly ready to release the next beta version of Firefox 3.1 to the public for testing, and insiders predict that it will outpace even Safari 4, which has been the fastest browser in wide release since its beta began last week." It looks like they also will be upping the next major release to v3.5 to better show the significance of the release.

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

First posts suckerz! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077177)

First posts suckerz!

ACID3 (-1, Offtopic)

gravos (912628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077191)

So Firefox 3.1 scores a 93 on the Web Standards Project's Acid3 standards compliance test. Firefox 3.0.6 only scores 71. Of course, you can't get any better than Safari 4 beta's score: a perfect 100. Or Opera 10 Beta's 100. So why doesn't Mozilla get on the ball?

Re:ACID3 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077279)

Look, get with the program: a profit-making enterprise which disguises itself as a non-profit tax avoidance foundation interested in bettering the world (a Google ad on every desktop!) is a great thing worthy of our cheerleading. It's especially good that the project is open source as this means that many eyes eliminate all vulnerabilities in advance and ensure it remains the performance leader - your bug reports and patches are not just free work done to help line the pockets of the owners.

I hear they are giving out free badges at the Party rally!

Re:ACID3 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077287)

Because Acid3 only tests a small part of CSS compliance. Giving fanboys pretty number to shout about should not be a priority. Also, please don't reply to posts that you are actually not replying to. Replying to the first post is obvious attention seeking.

Re:ACID3 (-1, Offtopic)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077549)

Also, please don't reply to posts that you are actually not replying to. Replying to the first post is obvious attention seeking.

That's a good point. I first noticed this over on Reddit and Digg; now it's popping up here. I plan to start using my mod points (and I get a lot of them) to mark people who clearly are misusing the threading system "Off Topic".
So if you want to do it, beware; if it's off topic in the thread at the top it better be a good post and worth reading.

Re:ACID3 (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077819)

So if you want to do it, beware; if it's off topic in the thread at the top it better be a good post and worth reading.

Or else electrosoccertux will come and GET YOU!!

Re:ACID3 (3, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077473)

The ACID3 test is not important. It tests for unimportant small rendering bugs, and CSS3, which isn't even a standard yet.

Shouldn't the headline be.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077189)

Firefox 3.1 Scrapped [slashdot.org] ?

That's nice, but... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077225)

...how many critical vulnerabilities have they INTRODUCED?

I hope they fix a couple of things (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077243)

Right-click is a nightmare on linux platforms (don't know if it affects others, I'm exclusively a linux shop these days).

It randomly follows an action rather than bringing up the menu about one time in ten. Opening up email programs, choosing a new window, bringing up link properties... needs fixing, badly. (Workaround for fellow sufferers - install mouse gestures add-on)

Also it seems really really processor-hungry on one of my machines. Wish I knew why.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (2, Interesting)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077291)

Hmm.. I find it does the right-click thing on my iMac but it might be 'cause the Mighty Mouse is so awful.

I've started using bash for file management instead of Finder because I can't trust the mouse to accidentally move folders etc.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (1)

Doug Neal (195160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077351)

Hmm.. I find it does the right-click thing on my iMac but it might be 'cause the Mighty Mouse is so awful.

I've started using bash for file management instead of Finder because I can't trust the mouse to accidentally move folders etc.

Have you not considered getting a nice Logitech mouse or something? The latest "MX Revolution" mice are very pleasant to use, and work fine in OS X...

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (2, Insightful)

donstenk (74880) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077367)

I concur - the Mighty Mouse is not so mighty, Apple's worst product in a long time. I have the problem you describe in Safari 3 and 4 beta. Plus scrolling down has worn out somehow.

I am now back at using an unbranded (but white!) mouse bought 4 years ago for under 10 euro! The bluetooth one may have a function in the living room for BBC iPlayer etc.

You can fix the scroll ball (5, Informative)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077579)

I concur - the Mighty Mouse is not so mighty, Apple's worst product in a long time. I have the problem you describe in Safari 3 and 4 beta. Plus scrolling down has worn out somehow.

Right clicking on the Mighty Mouse appears to have been designed by someone who only used one-button mice before. You have to pretty much take your fingers off of the mouse and only click on the right side of the mouse. It would have made much more sense to make it signal a right click if the right "button" area of the mouse was being touched, regardless of what's happening on the left. It sucks, and they really should fix it (probably could be done with a firmware update).

As for the scroll ball, I have used the "turn the mouse upside down and run the scroll ball around on your pants leg" method with some success. It only works until you get something inside the scroll ball that won't come out. My primary Mighty Mouse (I have four, two are bluetooth and on the same desk) would not scroll right, and even throwing it at the floor and wall didn't work, so I decided to break the damned thing open.

It's actually not hard to crack the mouse open, if you don't mind breaking that little collar that runs around the bottom of the mouse. There are two flexible connections that you have to disconnect, but you can remove the scroll ball mechanism with a small phillips screwdriver, disassemble it, clean it out, and reassemble it. I did it a month ago with no further problems. There is an order to reassembling the mouse and not having one of the flexible connections pull out, but it's not hard to trial and error your way through.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (5, Insightful)

1stvamp (662375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077381)

Have you considered using a mouse that doesn't suck?

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (1)

Ythan (525808) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077331)

Also happens for me in the Windows version.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (1)

Altreus (1492723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077445)

I might suggest that perhaps your mouse is bouncing the right-click and therefore selecting something from the context menu... Quite why that would open an email client, mind you, is anyone's guess.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (3, Informative)

myxiplx (906307) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077659)

Nope, it's definately a Linux Firefox issue. I have exactly the same problem.

I've found that the workaround is to hold down the mouse button, and only release the button once I've selected something from the list. That works reliably every time. Right-clicking once sometimes brings up the menu, sometimes fires off the last action, and sometimes fires off a completely random action.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077667)

It does feel like the mouse is bouncing, but it never happens in anything else.

It opens an email client because of the "send to" options on the context menu.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077523)

I have that right click problem with a few things in Linux. Mostly Azureus/Vuze. Never really noticed it in FF though.

I just assumed it was a GTK/library bug.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077625)

I have the same problem in Linux, sometimes it will decide to show an image in a new tab instead of saving it, etc.

Also, I don't know if it's Gecko or Firefox sucking, but scrolling is a BITCH.
Even just on this comment thread it's lagging like a motherfucker every time I scroll. Windows Firefox doesn't do this, Webkit-based browsers don't do this either. What the hell, Gecko or possibly just Firefox???

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (1)

Jamamala (983884) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077637)

This might be a bug with nVidia's drivers more than anything. I experienced similar problems with the default drivers in intrepid, but the issue is fixed for me in jaunty. See this bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/269904 [launchpad.net]

Of course, this assumes you're using the defective drivers in the first place...

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (4, Insightful)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077681)

I don't even bother with Firefox on Linux anymore. It's dog slow, and clear that the work goes into the Windows version.

A year or so ago I thought I'd try something out...if it's so slow in Linux native, what if I tried browsing in Firefox under Wine? Surprise! Wine+Firefox is _much_ faster than native Firefox. Sure enough, this was confirmed a month or two ago on /. The AwesomeBar, in particular, is SLOW in Linux; this is coming from someone running a 3.4Ghz Core 2 Duo chip.

Not sure why it's this way, but it's pretty clear the work goes into the Windows version and hardly any goes into the native version.

As a matter of fact, the lack of an alternative decent browser (no please not Opera) on Linux is one of the major reasons why I don't bother with it at all, currently. Yes, I've tried about 7 others (insert your favorite one here); about the only alternative I would be OK with using is Chrome but that's not available for Linux.

So, I'll just check Linux out again when Chrome comes out for it.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077743)

I've had this same problem with firefox in Ubuntu, drives me crazy.

Re:I hope they fix a couple of things (0, Offtopic)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077775)

This article is complete rabid fanboyism. Spending about 10 minutes (thanks to the server being slow atm) downloading the very latest minefield and enabling the JIT JS engine revealed these results (tests conducted on a 4-core 2.8Ghz MacPro)

V8 Benchmark (higher scores are better):
Safari 4 beta: 1866
Minefield: 285
FF 3.0.7: 201

Sunspider (lower times are better):
Safari 4 Beta: 981.0ms
Minefield: 1391.6ms
FF 3.0.7: 2758.8ms

RAM usage (5, Insightful)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077267)

I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks. My firefox process is currently using 1.1GB of RAM and I have to restart it about twice a day just to free up some RAM. I've only got about 4 extensions installed and I've tried disabling each of them in turn to ensure the problem didn't lie in an extension.

Re:RAM usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077361)

Firefox goes to 11 dude!!

not V3.1, it's V3.5, we rock!1!!!1

Re:RAM usage (2, Interesting)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077391)

You must be doing something wrong (seriously). I have 4 extensions and 16 Addons installed and have routinely checked my Firefox memory usage; it's gotten to 700MB before a few times but not twice per day, it was after 3 days of having it open.

Re:RAM usage (5, Funny)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077419)

> You must be doing something wrong (seriously)

If "by doing something wrong" you mean "you're a web developer" then you're probably right - I am. :)

Re:RAM usage (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077605)

If by "I am" you mean "I am a paedophile" then you probably didn't want to say that.

Re:RAM usage (3, Interesting)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077587)

Yikes! Opera peaks at 250MB, and stays there. They really need to work on the memory issues. Even though I don't even touch computers with less than 4GB RAM, it's pretty sick to see 25% of that eaten by a web browser.

not RAM but CPU usage (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077409)

I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.

I have the exact opposite experience.

My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.

Even if it crept up to 500 MB, I wouldn't mind much (I'm using almost 1 GB of core and 800 megs of cache ATM). If it was always fast and snappy, I'd be much happier.

I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...

Also, when it restores the last session, why doesn't it load the tabs in MRU order? Does it think I want to look at the tab that's been stale for two weeks?

Fix the raw speed and be smart about CPU allocation so it does the important things first and appears faster. Then fix the memory.

Anecdote + (-Anecdote) = 0 data ;-)

Re:not RAM but CPU usage (1)

Altreus (1492723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077525)

I don't find Firefox slow myself until I a) try to watch a Flash video (which is slightly easier than trying to watch BBC programs on the BBC) or b) change tabs, whereupon it takes ages to load the new tab. Accidentally using the scroll wheel while moused over the tab bar is an absolute nightmare and I might as well go make a cup of tea until it's finished whenever I do that.

Re:not RAM but CPU usage (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077611)

My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.

Yes, this is an oddity I have heard about before. :-S I wonder what's going on there. I know a friend who used Firefox 2, but she can't switch to Firefox 3 due to this problem that understandably drives her mad on especially heavy sites. Personally I'm not seeing it at all, and it should of course not consume CPU especially on a static web site without Flash or many GIF animations.

Re:not RAM but CPU usage (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077627)

I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...

Btw, this... IF some tabs have Flash content up, I don't think it helps to have them inactive, and I think that's a limitation of Flash / addons.

Re:not RAM but CPU usage (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077723)

Amen to that. Firefox has CONSTANTLY been using 100% of one of the cores on my macbook pro. Finally yesterday I fired up safari 4.0 beta and loaded up all of the exact same tabs. Current cpu usage is 7.2%.

I don't know what's wrong with firefox but thats pretty sad. And yes, I have tried the "disable all plugins", uninstall/make sure all profiles are gone/reinstall. Same behavior.

Re:RAM usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077417)

I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.

Yes, the devs have been busy working to reduce memory usage [karlt.net] too. The actual memory leaks were plugged quickly, users still insisted that Fx leaked and began complaining that the devs were ignoring them. Eventually Stuart Parmenter identified the issue as memory fragmentation, major work already went into firefox 3 to help minimize this.

Re:RAM usage (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077551)

I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.

Firefox 3 is the best performing browser memory-wise according to all independent tests that I have seen. It barely ever creeps beyond 200 MB RAM usage for me over days of usage. In comparison, Safari 4 Beta and IE 8 easily grows to 300-400 MB after a bunch of tabs browsed. It doesn't even take much effort to get those there.

Re:RAM usage (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077765)

Use the Restart Addon for Firefox.

Ctrl+Alt+R and you are back in business.

Preferential treatment? (5, Insightful)

McFadden (809368) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077271)

Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox

Interesting how stories spin out differently depending on the browser in question. If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.

Re:Preferential treatment? (4, Interesting)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077537)

Yes, but Firefox has a faster turnaround time as it is. Microsoft only patches once a month, often misses critical patches and then didn't update their browser for years. Mozilla was the first true competition that IE had, has a fast turnaround time, and patches vulnerabilities fast, often within days of being made aware of them. Sometimes they don't do as well as they could, but when they're able to put out 3 major versions of their browser, 2 .5 versions and many smaller ones within the time that IE's able to put out 2 new versions, they deserve praise instead of scorn.

Re:Preferential treatment? (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077577)

I know. Check out this discussion I had with my neighbor Bob the other day.
me: Hey Bob, was that your mom just leaving?
Bob: Yeah, she came over to hang out this afternoon.
me:Oh - little hypocritical Bob?
Bob: What do you mean?
me: Well when that homeless guy that tried to rape and kill your wife came by the other day you called the cops. But you just let your mom right on in and hang out.

I've decided people are just like that - that can't seem to be impartial. They have some crazy desire to take past actions and relationships into account. Weird.

Re:Preferential treatment? (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077597)

The difference is that Mozilla actually resolves issues with their browser. Those are probably the only known critical vulnerabilities. :P

Re:Preferential treatment? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077639)

If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.

It could have something to do with IE usually leading the browser pack with unfixed major vulnerabilities at Secunia.

Re:Preferential treatment? (2, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077643)

Interesting how stories spin out differently depending on the browser in question.

Humans aren't perfectly reasoned or objective, nor do they apply the same standards fairly to everyone and everything. More news at 11 ;)

What would be interesting to point out is why we treat FF better than IE (the interesting question is always "why?").

I think it's fair of "us" to hate IE, because we are the ones suffering from its bad security. We are the ones who have to clean up after the messes that IE allows others to make. Instead of MS making their browser less flammable, they have us put out unnecessary fires.

With FF, we could (ostensible) take control ourselves and fix the damn thing. With FF, we have the power to solve a hard problem once instead of a dumb one n times.

(and of course, there's nothing you can do to secure users from their own willingness to trust untrustworthy people, but that's true for both browsers.)

When bad IE security causes us pain and good FF security causes us relief, is it any surprise we shame IE for having the bugs while applauding FF for fixing the bugs?

Re:Preferential treatment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077661)

You find that interesting? I would hate to see how exciting the rest of your life is.

Re:Preferential treatment? (2, Insightful)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077713)

I was actually thinking why do 8 critical vulnerabilities exist without ASAP patching...hell a patch with a minor revision number would be good. The idea that I should wait for the next major release of a browser to fix a critical vulnerability is insane.

Re:Preferential treatment? (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077817)

Critical vulnerabilities aren't necessarily easy to patch, and waiting to patch them in a 3.x release might make more sense than doing so in a 3.0.x version if you can't fix the vulnerabilities without high-impact changes.

Nope (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077283)

Still crashes on me everytime I try to close it. 2.0 did not.

Re:Nope (1)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077397)

The 100% CPU usage issue where you have to open the task manager to kill the process manually while your computer grinds to a halt after closing FF3?

I also get this about 9 of 10 times and my partner does too. Why there isn't a bigger outrage over this BS after they forced us to move to FF3, I'm not sure. In my mind, they had no right to force the end of life of FF2 until *this* bug is fixed, and I've seen very few people even talk about it.

Re:Nope (2, Interesting)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077467)

and I've seen very few people even talk about it.

Because a lot of people don't get it? This is the first time I've even heard about it and I've been using FF3 since installing Intrepid Ibex on release day.

Re:Nope (1)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077557)

It's a windows thing. It doesn't happen on my BSD or Solaris machines. I did say "task manager".

Re:Nope (1)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077745)

It's a windows thing.

Never seen it on Windows either. Been using it on two different Windows machines (one XP, one Vista) for at least 4 months.

Re:Nope (1)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077833)

Yet I know multiple people that confirm what I see, a large percentage of the people that I know that use firefox. I didn't claim it happened to everyone, but I am suggesting it happens to a significant percentage of people. Most computer illiterate people would think their computer locked up and reboot to fix it.

Re:Nope (1)

Altreus (1492723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077615)

That's not a bug, that's the new session saver.

And yet (-1, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077293)

Firefox 3.x is STILL straddled with the "Awesome Bar" AKA the "Awful Bar". At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?

Unfortunately, the manner in which they implemented the Awful Bar means that it's impossible to go back unless you want to program your own version. You basically have to DISABLE the bar entirely, simply sacrificing the URL bar for anything other than typing URLs into.

I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?

Re:And yet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077377)

Firefox 3.x is STILL straddled with the "Awesome Bar" AKA the "Awful Bar". At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?

Unfortunately, the manner in which they implemented the Awful Bar means that it's impossible to go back unless you want to program your own version. You basically have to DISABLE the bar entirely, simply sacrificing the URL bar for anything other than typing URLs into.

I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?

Because the only people who dislike the awesome bar are people who haven't figured out how to train it?

s = slashdot, y = youtube, i = images.google, g = google, gm = gmail. x = xkcd, etc etc

Re:And yet (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077399)

So what is your complaint about the new location bar?

I switched to Firefox 3 some time ago, and I've never bothered to notice the differences (which means that the new behavior doesn't bother me or get in my way).

Re:And yet (1)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077539)

The biggest problem with the awesome bar is that 5 or 6 sites show up all of the time, and nothing else does. Typing in 'w' or 'c' will pull up your most used "www." site or ".com" site, etc.

There are some great features with the new bar. I like some of them. But those 5 or 6 sites that always pop up are already in my link bar at the top. I'd like to be able to type in 'm' and see all the sites I visit that begin with the letter 'm' instead of "The New York Times."

Re:And yet (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077695)

Even worse, it will bring up the same five or 6 sites REGARDLESS of how often you view them. I went to 4chan ONCE on a fresh VM with FF3 installed, and FOREVER AFTER it was the first result in the Awful bar! I had to do a complete uninstall and reinstall of FF3 (including manual deletion of leftover folders) to get this to stop!

Since then the first thing I do after installing FF3 is go to about:config and completely disable all the Awful bar functions.

Re:And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077401)

I guess because everybody who does not live in geek-land likes it.

I hated it at first too, now I don't know how I'd lived without it.

An option to disable it would be nice, but removing it entirely? *Please* don't!

Re:And yet (5, Informative)

1stvamp (662375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077407)

Ooooooooooooor you could just go to about:config and set browser.urlbar.maxRichResults to 0.

But you know, if aimlessly bitching is your thing, please continue.

Re:And yet (5, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077527)

You shouldn't have to dig in about:config to disable a prominent feature.

Re:And yet (1, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077835)

BINGO!

While the Awful bar would make an EXCELLENT extension, it is wrong to force it on people that don't want it. FF started out as a nice, stripped-down browser that you could customize any way you want with easy to install extensions. now it's become a bloated, slow beast that get's features put in that a significant amount of users DO NOT WANT (note I said "significant amount", not necessarily "majority". Just because users who don't want it are a minority doesn't mean we shouldn't get a say.)

The problem is that this is one part of the browser that is NOT modular. There isn't a way to REVERT the behavior back to the old way, we are stuck with it. Even extensions can't fully fix the problem. (Yes, I've tried "Old Bar" extension and all the about:config tricks. None of them return the desired traditional functionality.)

So basically I'm stuck with either completely disabling the URL bar, or the horrible new behavior. Frankly, i hate the new behavior enough that I narrowly prefer NO function to it's current function.

the lead devs for Mozilla need to listen to ALL the users and realize that NOT EVERYONE LIKES the new bar and they should make it MODULAR as it should be.

Re:And yet (2, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077441)

Personally, I like the awesome bar but I do wish there was a way to easily disable different classes of entries from getting added. I have turned off history on my machine because the awesome bar just gets too cluttered, but I use it all the time to quickly navigate to my bookmarks.

Re:And yet (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077443)

I loved it from the first time I saw it.

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone hates it. Maybe it's just a vocal minority that hates it. Maybe the 'community' -is- getting input and the problem is that you are going against the community, not them.

Re:And yet (4, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077451)

I love the "awesome bar" myself, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the community in this community project gave Mozilla similar feedback.

I'll admit, the bar hasn't helped me find the really odd or obscure site I havn't visited in a while, but that's what bookmarks are for.

Re:And yet (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077459)

What's your beef with the awesome bar? I actually *like* how it searches through my bookmarks as I type in keywords. No more having to go through multiple levels of bookmark folders. I pretty much just click the yellow star to bookmark a page, then add a few custom tags to it. I got rid of the "I feel lucky" google search behavior, but I've been doing that since firefox 1.x...

Re:And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077493)

I like it. It lets me type part of title of a website (e.g. "Do you" or "Girls with" for http://www.dywhcomic.com/ and http://www.daniellecorsetto.com/gws.html respectively). This means I don't have to remember the obscure URL.

It brings up things from my bookmarks, even if I haven't looked at them for ages (which is good).

Etc. Just because a few people very vocally dislike the thing, doesn't mean it isn't popular.

Re:And yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077503)

These replies don't look like a "groundswell of dislike" to me.

Re:And yet (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077573)

The default behavior can be annoying. But that's why you stop bitching about it, install whichever extension reverts the behavior, or even better, the Configuration Mania extension and go under "Location Bar" and set to "Match only websites you've typed previously" - also, learn to use bookmarks in a temporary fashion as well as permanent fashion, so that instead of leaving the browser open all day to accumulate memory leak buildup, you can close the browser and go back to the page...

Problem solved...

Re:And yet (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077583)

At what point will they recognize the groundswell of DISLIKE for this part of the browser and just go back to the old 2.x behavior?

You're assuming that the "groundswell of DISLIKE" actually exists. Citation needed.

Personally, I think it rocks.

Re:And yet (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077655)

I thought Firefox was supposed to be a "community" project? Why isn't the community getting input?

It is a community project. Definitely. But I think you belong to the vocal minority here.

Don't you love competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077347)

It's wonderful that adding a single browser to face down internet explorer has turned this into a race for speed that will make internet more usable and awesome than ever.

And best of all it's made websites more compatible than ever, meaning that we're free to use those "other" browsers! Thanks Mozilla/Firefox!

</hippie>

Stuck at beta 2 (2, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077349)

It seems like 3.1 has been stuck at beta 2 for several months. This is while Chrome and Safari have leapt ahead with the taps and top interface and other improvements.

I still prefer Firefox, but the difference in screen real estate between Firefox and Safari Beta 4 is jarring.

8 flaws (2, Insightful)

GerardAtJob (1245980) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077383)

I love Firefox, I currently use it... but only one question : 8 flaws solved / how many vulnerabilities not solved?

Dear Adobe (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077389)

Please fix your flash plugin. Seems that once a day if I go to a page with considerable flash (which is most pages these days), the browser will crash and when I examine the crashfile, it's *gasp* always you. I've reinstalled flash and FF 3.0.6.....

Re:Dear Adobe (4, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077569)

While you're at it, Adobe, could you also consider fixing the streaming video issues in Firefox? There's no reason on this planet why Firefox's version of flash has to take up 99% CPU on a quad-core system to play video, while the IE version takes a measly 2% to play the same video.

Oh, and if you could do something - anything - about your 64bit linux support, that would be fantastic. Kill it if you must, or open source it, because your engineers are simply not talented enough to make it work.

Re:Dear Adobe (4, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077797)

Oh ugh, yeah, Adobe + 64bit = Fail. Which is rather ironic considering how much many of their products would benefit from it. I suppose they're too busy adding new DRM and activation schemes to add working 64bit support. 'Cause, you know, those have really stopped people from pirating their software - What a waste of time.

Re:Dear Adobe (2, Informative)

Jamamala (983884) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077693)

Not a fix, I know, but have you considered Flashblock? [mozilla.org]

Re:Dear Adobe (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077725)

Second the recommendation of flashblock. Whitelists are the way to go.

Re:Dear Adobe (-1, Redundant)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077803)

Dear Adobe, please fix your flash plugin. Seems that once a day if I go to a page with considerable flash (which is most pages these days), the browser will crash [...]

There's a third-party fix available: Flashblock [mozilla.org]

Re:Dear Mozilla (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077805)

Please fix your plugin backend. I hate Adobe's crappy flash plugin, too. On Linux it makes Firefox almost unusable imho.

But only Firefox. Somehow Konqueror and Opera manage to survive the crash* of one measly plugin while the great and mighty Firefox goes down in flames.

*Chrome's allegedly designed to do so, too. Although the one time I tried it shortly after release it almost immediately crashed when, you guessed it, Flash decided to take the day off

fast is a matter of perspective (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077431)

by the time you install all of the essential add-ons to firefox, it becomes slow again.

a few things I can't live without are adblock, rip, forecastfox, ietab, twitterfox, firebug, foxmarks and ubiquity.

With these installed, the browser is no longer fast.

Oh well.

Re:fast is a matter of perspective (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077653)

A solution can be to use different profiles for different jobs. I have a developers profile in which I have developers add-ons like firebug, in my normal surfing I do not need it so it's not in my default profile.

Multithreading (5, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077433)

This article sounds like empty hype to me.

I still use Firefox, and will continue to do so for the time being. The reason being adblock and flashblock, exclusively. I am not as happy with Firefox as I was when I first used the 0.8 something version. I feel Mozilla have lost their way. Too much bloat like the awesome bar -- which frankly just does not work for me at all, it's an hindrance, not a help.

I want to use chrome, because of the multithreading. Firefox absolutely needs to have multithreading to compete. It can be a true dog to use if you have tabs that reload in the background.

The second that there is some sort of adblock and flashblock for Chrome I'm gone. No more Firefox for me.

I'm sorry to have to do that. I actually bought the firefox T-Shirt. I was active in the GetFirefox campaign. But now, I use it only because of the extensions.

Please, Mozilla get your act together. Now more useless features that should really be extensions, and get multithreading sorted. I want to be a Firefox fan again.

Re:Multithreading (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077607)

Seconded, sick to death of FF grinding to a halt whilst a background tab is doing something (not even JavaScript in many cases, just loading/rendering a scriptless page or image).

Add this to the fact that the future is multicore CPUs and you have to wonder how Mozilla can justify sticking with a single threaded model.

Re:Multithreading (3, Informative)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077619)

Did you know that there are other Mozilla Gecko-based web browsers that you can install Adblock Plus and Flashblock into? They're SeaMonkey (cross-platform as well) and K-Meleon (Windows only). Try them.

By the way, Chrome doesn't do multi-threading. It has a multi-process architecture.

Re:Multithreading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077721)

I have been using FF since 1.0. Awesome bar is the best thing to happen to FF. I hate seeing it dismissed as a "hindrance".

Re:Multithreading (3, Interesting)

Renegade88 (874837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077759)

I agree, although I had Opera ranked over FF for casual browsing. I only used FF for it's web developer tools and firebug. Now I have made the move to Chrome for casual browsing, so now FF is in 3rd place.

Where Chrome is really better than opera is closing down. I can have 20 tabs open in Chrome and when I close the application, I recover all the memory pretty much instantly. Opera needs about 2-3 minutes where it actually takes more memory (e.g. jumps from 170MB to 210MB ram) before finally closing down internally. As I mentioned elsewhere, FF in windows normally just crashes upon closing, taking 100% CPU usage and requiring killing from the task manager. Therefore I use it as little as possible.

Adblock is not a dealbreaker. I have it installed in FF but it's normally off. The sites I visit don't require blocking ads. I won't visit a site so obnoxious that it would require adblocking to be functional.

Re:Multithreading (2, Informative)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077795)

I know I know - yet another Opera user. But disable plug-ins and javascript and re-enable them on site I want them on. I have a very happy browsing experience and its three clicks away from re-enabling flash/javascript. If .gif adverts are a pain you can also block moving images. All without any impact on an already respectibly fast browser. Sorry, I'll go back to my little Opera hole now.

Tamarin (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077465)

Has anyone heard when or if Tamarin is going into FF at any point in time? I checked the site quite vigorously the other day and could find no estimates, time-lines, or even projected version.

Version Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077471)

It looks like they also will be upping the next major release to v3.5 to better show the significance of the release.

Oh god. I thought we were passed this. It felt like only yesterday that linux distrobutions were playing the "Ha Ha we're going to one-up your distrobution with our version number" game. It really got out of hand. I anticipate seeing the same thing happening soon with the current crop of browsers.

Huh? (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077505)

Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.

Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?

(I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

m0i (192134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077821)

Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?

(I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)

RTFA: "The beta Firefox 3.1 will still have a few bugs to work out, but Mozilla officials have promised that eight of the security flaws found in the current browser, six of which have been rated critical, will be fixed in the updated version. The most serious of these vulnerabilities are already being repaired, and can be downloaded as patches from the Mozilla website."

Still slow (1)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077531)

I know all the new JavaScript engine is supposedly much "faster", but I don't see it in normal use.
Compared to Google Chrome, Firefox 3.1 is dog slow and I don't understand why? I only have a 4 add-ons, including adblock plus. I use firefox on 3 different computers, and they are all much slower compared to Chrome. Every time I use Chrome I am shocked how the pages render instantly... I would switch if Adblock for Chrome were available and a few other features I love in Firefox.

Re:Still slow (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077823)

It's because all these articles reporting that it competes with chrome/safari are bullshit. See above for my test results â" even the very latest minefield still lags massively behind Safari, which depending on the test you run is either slightly faster or slower than chrome.

when you read (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27077533)

"Microsoft is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of IE -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted IE users."

slashdot users laugh at the propaganda

but when a firefox shill says

"Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users."

slashdot puts it in the story summary reverently

propaganda is propaganda is propaganda. no matter the source, even if you love the source. just say "firefox fixed some bugs." and leave the sleazy ad copy out of it please

what next?

"the exploit found in firefox is a feature, not a bug" maybe?

Re:when you read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27077731)

Because when there is eight critical vulnerabilities in IE, they have been found in the wild and exploited many times over, and Microsoft drags their feet getting a patch out for them.

Firefox finds them before they can cause problems, patches them, and pushes the patch out to all the clients before any damage is done.

THIS is why we cheer Firefox and other open-source solutions over the crusty, ancient, slow-as-molasses closed-source Microsoft development process.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?