Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

202 comments

A little anti clamantic... (1)

SchizoStatic (1413201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366141)

Since chrome did 100/100 and its "beta"

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

samexner (1316083) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366175)

Midori got 100/100 too.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (2, Informative)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366621)

Every WebKit browser should be getting 100/100.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

M3rk1n_Muffl3y (833866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366951)

right

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366183)

And both the latest Opera and Safari 4 already score 100/100...

Re:A little anti clamantic... (4, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366321)

yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366445)

Such as...? I use Safari (at home) and Konqueror (at work) nearly exclusively and haven't had problems with these mythical IE-and-Firefox-only pages.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (2, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366519)

That's interesting. Which version of Konq? On 3.5.10, the Slashdot discussion system is FUBAR for a few weeks now. It was working fine, in-place replies, dynamic comment loading and all, but it stopped at some point.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366649)

I've had problems with Firefox ever since Slashdot added in the thick border to the left of people's comments for no appreciable reason.

Slashdot's Javascript has never been anything but appalling however. The programmers should go and buy a book on data structures and algorithms. No excuse for multi-second browser pauses because of poor algorithm choice.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366669)

4.2.something. The only problem I have is that /. changed their CSS in the last couple of days so that now the message header sometimes fills the whole screen and pushes the message text against the far right edge.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366775)

Oh, well. They must've fixed something important in 4.x. Well, good to know. Even though I'm not switching to KDE4, still no OS X xtyle menus there...

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Dr.Fujitronic (919028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367049)

Do you use big screen letters? I encountered the same odd behavior. Try to shrink the lettersize a bit, (ctrl+minus key) the layout propably goes back to normal, at least it worked for me.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (2, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367051)

The amusing part is that, on my screen, your post looks exactly as you describe.

I've found the problem goes away if I increase the window width sufficiently.

I'm running Firefox 3.0.11 on Windows XP, but I see the same problem on Firefox 3.0.? on MacOS Leopard at home.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367111)

Heh, the same for me. His post was squished up against the right.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366705)

Konqueror 4.2.4 seems to work well enough with Slashdot. It's actually a fairly decent browser, although I use Iceweasel out of habit (and ABP+ and NoScript). The only site I have found it doesn't work properly with is Gmail. It scores better than Firefox and Iceweasel on Futuremark's Peacekeeper benchmark, but feels a bit slower in reality.

I'm posting from it now, mostly to test it with Slashdot, and everything from logging in to using the slider thingy, previewing, continuing editing and posting (hopefully) seems to work.

Also, when Slashdot suddenly stops working with something, it's most likely Slashdot's fault.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366455)

Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.

I think that's the crux of the problem. If both the pages and browser were standards compliant this wouldn't be an issue, but alas, neither truly are. Especially the pages.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366707)

The few times I've encountered this problem in the last year or so, it has been in Firefox, and Safari has worked fine.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366211)

To be fair, Chrome is from Google. It's going to be beta for another three years.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (3, Informative)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366287)

just three? Gmail is beta for already five years [slashdot.org] ..

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1, Redundant)

Zarel (900479) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366369)

To be fair, Chrome is from Google. It's going to be beta for another three years.

What are you talking about? Google Chrome has been stable since December 2008, and Chrome 2 has been stable since mid-May (and scores 100/100 on Acid3).

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366469)

Gmail is stable too, and STILL has the little "BETA" tag on it.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366735)

And Chrome doesn't.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366797)

And Chrome doesn't.

No, Chrome didn't. It's back in beta.

But I'm glad it got burned. Think of all the things we learned for the people who are still alive.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366481)

Something being beta doesn't necessarily imply that it's not stable. Beta just means it's a pre-release version.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366655)

However, the parent is saying that the version that has scored 100/100 in the Acid3 test is the version that has no beta tag. There still may be a beta-tagged Chrome version, but it is not the only Chrome version to have a 100/100 score in the Acid3 test.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367007)

That's for windows. The linux version is in the "developer" stage (it's like alpha, but it has some marketing twist to suggest that you're part of some clique of "developers" allowed to see this early version).

Re:A little anti clamantic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366275)

You're right. We need an iPhone plug to punch this up.

"Mozilla shuns iPhone users with Firefox 3.5RC1"

or

"Firefox 3.5RC1 Released for the iPhone!"

I don't know if it runs on the iPhone or not. The beauty of it is: it doesn't matter. Now you've got yourself a bonafide news article; Acid or no Acid.

Re:A little anti clamantic... (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366907)

No "extra" browser will ever be accepted by apple in the store. Period.

Beta "99" (2, Insightful)

xigxag (167441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366169)

Beta 99 [mozilla.com]

Re:Beta "99" (5, Informative)

Freetardo Jones (1574733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366217)

That's the old preview build. This [mozilla.com] is the RC link.

Re:Beta "99" (2, Informative)

neiby (1097305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366693)

That's incorrect. That is the Release Notes page for the RC, but the download link (mislabeled) actually leads you to Beta 4, which obviously predates Beta 99. If you install Beta 4 after Beta 99, you'll corrupt some files that you'll need to delete manually afterward. I learned this the hard way today. If you already have Beta 99, just check for updates from within the browser.

Re:Beta "99" (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366727)

That still links to the beta 4 download.

Re:Beta "99" (3, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366263)

This is actually the one after that - I had 3.5b4, got 3.5b99 last week and "3.5" today. The user agent string is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1) Gecko/20090615 Firefox/3.5

(yes, this is the NT laptop - haven't checked Karmic yet)

H.264 or Theora? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366195)

So, does this version finally supports industry standards, such as H.264, or is it still trying to push Theora which nobody uses and that can't even begin to compare to H.264?

93/100... (5, Insightful)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366299)

I still don't understand the obsession with Acid tests - they measure performance in incredibly obscure areas and have a comparatively small bearing on real world performance. Webkit and Opera in particular have designed to the test to an extent, resulting in good scores but not necessarily comparable general compliance. I'm also slightly confused by the use of the word "still" - none of these bugs are severe enough to risk breakage leading up to a release candidate. I believe far more relevant are performance, bug fixes, features and HTML5/CSS3 support (which make far more of a contribution to moving the web on that Acid Test scores do) - areas in which Firefox 3.5 has improved dramatically. Talk about focusing on the negatives...

Re:93/100... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366339)

No. You're wrong and an ignoramus. I only visit websites which use those obscure areas of compliance, and I visit them ALL THE TIME, and the more I visit them, the more I can brag about how much better MY browser is than YOURS. Do you see how useful this is now?

Re:93/100... (5, Insightful)

glop (181086) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366377)

Why don't I have mod points today?
The parent is so right. The video tag means that youtube and all the web streaming websites can work without Flash. And since Firefox users update quickly, this means 20% of Internet users will be able to do that within 6 months. That's pretty big when you think some people try to make us believe that HTML5 is 10 years away...

Re:93/100... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366417)

Yet that codec sucks.

Re:93/100... (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366571)

So make a better patent-free codec, or buy a licence for the world.

Re:93/100... (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366931)

Why do you say this?

Please elaborate: is it poor in bandwidth, is it poor in quality, is it poor in what area?

Re:93/100... (0, Redundant)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366431)

> I still don't understand the obsession with Acid tests

It is about marketing. It is something that can easily be measured and you can put products in quality order (or so it seems from the point of viewer) according to it. Reality is irrelevant in marketing.

Re:93/100... (1)

theodicey (662941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366531)

Bad measurables are worse than no measurables. Counting enemy combatants killed didn't get McNamara or the army results in Vietnam.

ACID 3 sure came along at a convenient time for Google's browser marketing strategy. And it was designed so every browser would start from around the same score, not to test the most useful standards or the real-world web, so it wasn't very hard for Google and Apple to get to 100 when they focused on it.

The author of the test works for Google, of course...clearly it's a conspiracy, and frankly one I'm sick of hearing about.

Re:93/100... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366609)

Bad measurables are worse than no measurables.

A lot of people would disagree with you that Acid3 is in fact a bad measurable.

And it was designed so every browser would start from around the same score, not to test the most useful standards

A lot of people would disagree with you that the parts of the DOM that Acid3 tests are not useful.

or the real-world web

When Gecko-based browsers first came out, the real-world web still included ActiveX, which was already recognized as a security hazard.

Re:93/100... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366833)

A lot of people would disagree with you that Acid3 is in fact a bad measurable.

And so what does Acid3 measure? Obscure things that don't matter because unless IE gets better than a 20 on it, I can't see it being used for actual pages. Until IE at least scores an ~80 or so, those nice standards will simply be used in tech demos.

A lot of people would disagree with you that the parts of the DOM that Acid3 tests are not useful.

Useful for what? For measuring standards that aren't really used? Its like advertising your sound system as supporting some strange format of jack that doesn't matter to 99.99999% of potential customers. Its not a bad thing that its included, but when you advertise it like its a necessary thing, the advertising loses momentum.

When Gecko-based browsers first came out, the real-world web still included ActiveX, which was already recognized as a security hazard.

There isn't that much difference in time periods though. Gecko was developed in 1997 while ActiveX was developed in 1996.

Re:93/100... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366985)

And so what does Acid3 measure? Obscure things that don't matter because unless IE gets better than a 20 on it, I can't see it being used for actual pages.

For one thing, it appears to be designed to shame Microsoft into improving Windows Internet Explorer. Had there been no Acid2, there might not have been an IE 8.

Useful for what? For measuring standards that aren't really used?

Just because a standard isn't used on June 17, 2009, doesn't mean it won't be used on June 18, 2009. Be it your intent or not, you are giving off an impression that bug-for-bug compatibility with a non-free program called Windows Internet Explorer is more important than following published standards.

When Gecko-based browsers first came out, the real-world web still included ActiveX, which was already recognized as a security hazard.

There isn't that much difference in time periods though. Gecko was developed in 1997 while ActiveX was developed in 1996.

By "came out", I meant as general releases, not as technology previews. Mozilla Application Suite didn't hit 1.0 until the horrors of ActiveX were already apparent.

Re:93/100... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367161)

For one thing, it appears to be designed to shame Microsoft into improving Windows Internet Explorer. Had there been no Acid2, there might not have been an IE 8.

Actually I think that there would have needed to be an IE 8 otherwise with the OEMs in Europe being allowed to bundle browsers of their choosing and wanting to have sites that look like they should in 2009, not in 2001, would bundle Firefox, Chrome or Safari leading to dwindling marketshare for MS and ultimately leading them to abandon their browser market or release a better browser.

Just because a standard isn't used on June 17, 2009, doesn't mean it won't be used on June 18, 2009. Be it your intent or not, you are giving off an impression that bug-for-bug compatibility with a non-free program called Windows Internet Explorer is more important than following published standards.

Ok, but IE still has the majority of marketshare and there are still legacy sites out there. The fact that it is non-free should only add to the fact that a free browser that is widely used should work with all sites, even those not coded up to specifications, otherwise if there was an IE only site that you had to access you would either be hand-parsing the HTML files, would have to emulate IE if you were using a different platform other than Windows, or run Windows in a VM. Myself I prefer the web to "just work", be secure, and not be a pain to code for. Firefox has all that and compatibility with IE only helps those goals. If that means that I don't get a standard that isn't used, thats fine with me. Its sorta like reverse engineering the iPod Dock connector to use with your own MP3 player so it can work with existing accessories rather than spending development on an ultra-free connector that may or may not be used. Sure, if time allows include both, but I'd rather have compatibility with existing sites than sites that may or may not be used in the future.

Re:93/100... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367295)

Actually I think that there would have needed to be an IE 8 otherwise with the OEMs in Europe being allowed to bundle browsers of their choosing and wanting to have sites that look like they should in 2009, not in 2001, would bundle Firefox, Chrome or Safari leading to dwindling marketshare for MS and ultimately leading them to abandon their browser market or release a better browser.

And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.

The fact that it is non-free should only add to the fact that a free browser that is widely used should work with all sites, even those not coded up to specifications

No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.

otherwise if there was an IE only site that you had to access you would either be hand-parsing the HTML files, would have to emulate IE if you were using a different platform other than Windows, or run Windows in a VM.

Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site. On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows. Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident. That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.

but I'd rather have compatibility with existing sites than sites that may or may not be used in the future.

About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?

Re:93/100... (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367429)

And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.

True, however anything better than an 80 should be deemed "acceptable" in acting like a 2009 browser. A 94 isn't much different than a 100 when it comes to web standards whenever there are competitors who score a 20.

No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.

No, but Firefox comes pretty close, in my experience it does a better job of rendering than WebKit based browsers or IE.

Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site. On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows. Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident. That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.

What happens if you go to a site for a small bit of information but the site hasn't been updated in a while and uses IE only code? I'd much rather my browser render it like its supposed to look (how the web designer wanted it to, not how standards necessarily dictate) than have an unusable site. Sure, there aren't many sites like that anymore but there are some.

About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?

There is a difference though, AOLs system was 100% proprietary, compared to simply bad code which has A) a reference implementation (how it looks in the browser it was coded for) along with B) an OSS rendering engine that due to hard work can render it almost as good as the reference. implementation. There is no reason to simply drop compatibility modes for the sake of enforcing standards which will never work on those older sites because they are simply archives.

Re:93/100... (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366465)

Talk about focusing on the negatives...

It's open source. If it doesn't conquer the world, massage your back and bake you cookies all at the same time, it was a failure. Don't you know how these things work?

Re:93/100... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366503)

What about buttering my bread?

Re:93/100... (1)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367549)

What about buttering my bread?

Yes! It will! [opensourcecook.com] You have to supply the butter, though. (Unless you're running body-levels/cholesterol >=200.0, then you'll need to downgrade to margarine, which will satisfy the =body-sense/taste-5.0" to prevent your flavor from being upgraded in the future).

Just sayin'...

Re:93/100... (5, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366877)

Acid tests are designed to highlight rendering bugs in current browsers, giving browser developers a chance to easily see where something is going wrong. All major browsers currently pass Acid2, which means if you create a web page that only uses the kind of code that Acid2 tests for, you can be sure it will render precisely the same way in current versions of Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc. This is a huge step forward; ten years ago, it wasn't uncommon for a page to work correctly in one browser but be completely unusable in another.

Now that all the major browsers pass Acid2, we need to find other ways in which web pages can display differently between different browsers. Since there is an official standard that defines what the correct behavior should be, we have something to test against; this is what Acid3 does. You're absolutely correct that passing Acid3 should not be the top priority, and failure to pass Acid3 is not a good reason for a user not to choose Firefox. However, the remaining things that prevent Firefox from passing Acid3 are indeed bugs, and eventually, they do need to be fixed. There are also other bugs in Firefox, that also need to be fixed, and many of these are more important than the bugs that cause Acid3 to fail.

I agree that HTML5 and CSS3 are awesome, but if browsers can't render them correctly, they're not much good. Acid tests are an incredibly useful tool for browser developers to ensure that this happens. Acid4 is already being planned, and will help to find bugs in the way browsers handle HTML5 and CSS3 and SVG and other stuff, taking into account some of the lessons learned from problems with the Acid3 test (for example, Acid3 tests rendering speed; Acid4 will not).

Re:93/100... (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367071)

When Firefox fail it's always that other "designed to the test", yeah, yeah.

Still the slowest browser. (4, Interesting)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366319)

Yes, even slower than IE8. From start up times to rendering pages firefox is by far the slowest. If you don't believe me download IE8, use it for a week, and you'll see for yourself. IE8 sucks for other reasons (crashes more, no plugins, forgets log-ins), and firefox is my main browser, but it is seriously falling behind. It's speed, private browsing, and I would argue even security (no sandbox/protected mode) are subpar compared to the competition. And they really need to fix private browsing, it's pretty sad when an IE feature works better than the open source alternative. As repeated ad-nauseum here firefox is still my main browser due to plugins, but everytime the browser freezes because one tab decides it wants to do something I re-evaluate this decision.

Re:Still the slowest browser. (5, Informative)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366447)

CNet show firefox being substantially faster [zdnet.com.au] as of March in terms of browser performance. Admittedly firefox is a dog to start up, but that's one of the major goals for 3.6 last I checked. Having used the betas for a while, it's been a long time since I've felt I'm waiting on my browser as I did in versions 3 and particularly 2. I don't think anyone with a decent PC is going to be frustrated by the performance on 3.5, and with additional improvements already underway in trunk I don't think firefox is in any way falling behind. Oh, and how is private browsing broken in 3.5?

Re:Still the slowest browser. (0, Redundant)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366569)

I don't care about benchmarks. I have the most up to date versions of chrome, firefox (previously 3.5b4 I believe), and IE8. Firefox is patently the slowest in nearly every regard.

As for private browsing, firefox signs you out of and closes whatever you are doing and starts a new private browsing session (then when you are done returns to the state you left, although sometimes logs you out of everything). Chrome and IE8 open a new private browsing session, so you can keep one window logged into all your sites and use the private window for your private stuff.

Re:Still the slowest browser. (3, Insightful)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366683)

I'm sorry, but without any benchmark or other reasonable test there's no way of ranking the browsers in terms of general speed. I personally find firefox 3.5 faster than IE8 - I don't know if that's because I'm using XP, because that's the result I want to see or any other reason; the point is it's a subjective evaluation. Furthermore, adblock with a reasonable filter list and flasblock improve page load times and responsiveness substantially. The private browsing issue is reasonable, although I've not personally been troubled by it having no real need to combine "private" and less private browsing. I also feel the clear recent history function mitigates that to some extent.

Re:Still the slowest browser. (0, Redundant)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366927)

Yah but none of those are real life benchmarks, they are javascript tests. To judge my own curiosity I did my own inaccurate benchmark using naked browsers (no extensions) warm booted with yahoo as the homepage, going to different sites in my bookmark bars (all aligned in the same order) and using a timer program.

Firfox consistently loaded through my test at around 11 seconds, Chrome and IE8 each at 15. So that does backup what zdnet is saying. I think my perception of firefox as being slow has more to do with the browser locking up when a tab locks up, and this may occur more in firefox, which would lead me to believe that overall it is slower.

What is decent? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366633)

I don't think anyone with a decent PC is going to be frustrated by the performance on 3.5

I don't understand what you mean by "decent". Low-cost subnotebook PCs optimized for size and battery life over CPU speed have become popular over the past year; are those "indecent"?

Re:What is decent? (1)

mejogid (1575619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366779)

This is a strawman - nowhere did I claim that firefox would perform at the desired speed on any piece of hardware, and I'm sure there are some netbooks on which its performance leaves something to be desired. However, that remains only a minute proportion of total computer ownership. If it's specifically the implication that netbooks are indecent that offends you, then replace "decent PC" with "the majority of personal computers or notebook purchased within the last 3 years at a cost of $500 or greater".

Re:Still the slowest browser. (1)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367121)

Does 3.5 actually *have* private browsing? The equivalent of IE8's InPrivate mode, or Chrome's Incognito? If so, good for them - Google and Microsoft released those features near-simultaneously, and it's about time they made it into the world's second-most-popular browser (ignoring version numbers).

Firefox 3.0 takes bloody AGES to start up on the Linux boxes at my school (GNOME, Fedora 9). It's probably a misconfiguration thing - it's faster on my KDE4 system (although still slower than Konqueror) - but even on Windows it's still substantially slower to start than IE8. I suppose I should try 3.5 and see if they've improved there, though.

Re:Still the slowest browser. (3, Informative)

anaesthetica (596507) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367259)

Indeed, performance is the top priority for Firefox.next (presumably Fx3.6 although you never know). Codenamed 'Namoroka [mozilla.org] ,' the developers have selected several common tasks which they want to perceptibly increase the speed of, including:

  • Startup
  • Opening a new tab
  • Loading a bookmarked page
  • Autocompleting a location in the Awesomebar
  • Play rich media content
  • Animation and other interaction techniques to reduce lag between action and feedback, and to improve perceived speed

Re:Still the slowest browser. (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366713)

I've been using 3.5's beta for a while (and I'm running the RC now). It's only slightly faster than 3.0, but it's not substantially slower than IE8 by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe you need to steak your "about:config"?

Open Source FAIL *again*. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366351)

Another failure for Open Source. There are now TWO non-beta 100% fully ACID compliant CLOSED SOURCE browsers available (Opera and Safari). Why can't the "Open Source" community come up with something competitive?

This just goes to show that Open Source is not even CLOSE to being as good a development methodology as it is so often proclaimed to be. In point of fact, every major open source project (GIMP, Linux, Firefox, etc) is not even remotely comparable to its closed source competitors. At this point the real question needs to be whether open sourcing code is good for anything at all. In my opinion, the concept of "open source" needs to join the "man month" and the "waterfall method" in the pantheon of trendy, but useless, software development gimmicks.

Mod me down, freetards, I know you dont want to hear the truth.

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (1)

Synchis (191050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366483)

First they ignore you...
Then they ridicule you...
Then they fight you...

Then you win.

Enjoy [youtube.com]

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366725)

Gee, that's original. As if we haven't seen that same tired Ghandi quote hundreds of times before. Your creativity stuns us all. The video however, fails to impress. I guess you have to be a Linux geek with a chubby for OS advocacy to really get worked up watching it. What they don't tell you, is that while you're celebrating your pseudo-victory, we go right back to ridiculing you. You will never learn.

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366759)

Actually, it's going in reverse with open source:

First you have a cool sounding idea to share source code and collaborate and you call it open source.

Then they fight you because open source sounds like a good idea.
Then they ridicule you because it actually fails in the real world.
Then they ignore you because the only people who still believe in it are the zealots.

And then you lose.

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366711)

Opera and Safari have rather low adoption rates. Acid3 compliance is purely a marketing gimmick until people actually implementing those features in real webpages. Opera and Apple decided that such a gimmick was a relatively fast and cheap way to get publicity, but we don't know what damage was incurred in the codebase(s) to make it happen.

Few websites will use the final 7 tests until Mozilla or MS get around to it. Mozilla can afford to take it slow and implement the features properly, rather than tacking it on. MS obviously isn't in any hurry.

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (1)

zoips (576749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366871)

Technically you have one non-beta closed source; Safari gets its 100% from Webkit, which is open source.

Fed troll is fed.

Re:Open Source FAIL *again*. (1)

Simetrical (1047518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367093)

Another failure for Open Source. There are now TWO non-beta 100% fully ACID compliant CLOSED SOURCE browsers available (Opera and Safari). Why can't the "Open Source" community come up with something competitive?

WebKit and Opera had 100/100 on the same day (March 26, 2008). WebKit is, of course, open-source. It's used by more than one open-source browser, including Chromium. WebKit and Chromium aren't developed solely by the stereotypical basement-dwelling hackers who communicate only over the Internet, but corporate-funded open source is still open source.

By the way, "Acid" is not capitalized. Perhaps you're confusing it with the database concept of ACID compliance (atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability).

Extensions (2, Insightful)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366357)

Anyone know if xmarks, adblock, and firebug extensions are available for it yet? If so I'll download it in a heartbeat.. Otherwise I think I'll wait.

Re:Extensions (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366525)

Adblock Plus & NoScript work fine in Minefield, so they almost certainly will work in the RC. I don't know about other plugins, though.

v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (5, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366419)

I wish Mozilla would make up their minds: are they going to target the Corps or not?

Even if you can get an MSI from Frontmotion (http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/download_firefox.htm), the corps will never go for it unless it comes off the Mozilla servers and is on the same web page as the current XPI installers. It's a "warm and fuzzy" thing that they need.

If Mozilla could somehow sanction those MSIs from Frontmotion then the corps would be more comfortable with it. Even a link from here (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all.html) would give FrontMotion's MSI package credibility.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (1)

Slashdot Suxxors (1207082) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366529)

Pardon my ignorance, but this is a serious question; what would be the difference in downloading an MSI package versus an .exe if they both achieve the same thing?

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366681)

They don't achieve the same thing in all cases.
Admins can slipstream the MSI as an update using their existing systems. The .exe requires human intervention.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (2, Informative)

Elgonn (921934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366697)

They don't achieve the same thing because the MSI while seemingly doing nothing more than an exe installer integrates correctly with Active Directory. You don't roll out 10k+ installs with an exe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Installer [wikipedia.org]

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366701)

Pardon my ignorance, but this is a serious question; what would be the difference in downloading an MSI package versus an .exe if they both achieve the same thing?

Because they don't in fact achieve the same thing. Deployment of software across hundreds of machines in an Active Directory environment relies on Group Policy objects that reference .msi packages.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366723)

Same reason you would probably prefer a .deb or an .rpm over some random executable binary in Linux.

More specifically an MSI describes how the software should be installed which is something that the OS itself can handle or there are several tools which can be used with MSIs for deploying the application. For example, in Active Directory I can take any MSI and deploy it to thousands of machines with custom features selected based on a criteria, or I can publish that the application exists and allow the end user to decide to install the application, even if they don't have the rights to install other applications. I can take the MSI, customize the contents and repackage it.

It's no longer the 90s. No OS should rely on installer programs that run native code that copy files.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366549)

You are correct, and since windows is the only platform they really care about, it should be an MSI. The linux and mac ports are second class and they don't care about any other OS at all.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (2, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366741)

I think that Google Chrome will get corporate friendly before Firefox.

Firefox doesn't really have a plan for targeting business users - it's as if they don't understand corporate needs!

* Redirect update server to internal corporate network so they can test new releases before updating the corporate desktops.

* Fine-grained control at the policy level over installable extensions, themes, plugins. I.e., stop users installing their own, define a set of standard corporate extensions, and so on.

* Can run those internal designed-for-IE6-by-inept-programmers websites, that the company has no budget to update.

And I'm sure many many more can be thought of by people who actually work in corporate IT departments.

Re:v3.5 and still no MSI package for Windows (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367389)

open a bug report?

93/100 (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366497)

RC1 still scores a 93/100 on the Acid3 test.

Minefield has scored 94/100 for quite some time now, so I doubt Shiretoko will score any better at release.

Have they improved the memory leaks? (4, Interesting)

superyanthrax (835242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366515)

I know it's a tired topic, but it's a legitimate one, and not one that can be explained away by saying "extension writers suck".

Re:Have they improved the memory leaks? (3, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367515)

yes, as with 3 the memory footprint is significantly reduced, its still a bit on the high side here 128mb (the most any one program uses) but i have plenty of ram (~1.5Gb) so much of that may be features instead of leaks.

I'd like to try the new firefox in Ubuntu (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366573)

But the new "improved" Xorg breaks Intel graphics hardware acceleration. Fix it, teabaggers!

Will they fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28366729)

Will the fix either the spellchecker (which is supposed to be enabled automatically) or the documentation (which says it's supposed to be enabled automatically).

Probably not - they're too busy adding support for XZXZXZXZRSSML 5.3.1.2.c. Still, I prefer it as a browser to IE, especially on forum type sites where IE is sloooooow, but the help & documentation are total babber.

Re:Will they fix (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366899)

Errr... Having installed Firefox many different times, on many different releases, on many different platforms, I would have to say that at least for versions 3 and above (been forever since I have installed anything in the 2.X branch, but I think it was enabled by default then too), spellcheck is enabled by default.

to heck with firefaux (1, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28366901)

when firefox first started out it was ok, a lightweight alternative to Mozilla/Netscape but feature creep bloated it up that even Seamonkey runs just as good and even better in most cases than firefox so whats the point of firefox anymore, i rather just get seamonkey since it already has a built in email client, but for just a stand alone lightweight browser i been using dillo for a GUI browser and lynx for a console/cli text mode browser, besides it is the text is what i am after anyway, i could care less for plugins and graphical animations which is just kludge anyway that offer no insight & information anyway

Re:to heck with firefaux (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367055)

substituting "fox" with "faux" is a level of fail reserved for american news (olds?) services.

Re:to heck with firefaux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28367261)

I'll never use Firefox again. Everything from its horrible memory leak, high CPU use, inability to use more than a single core, sluggishness, instability and the arrogant "we can do no wrong" attitude of its developers drove me away. Now I use Opera and it's far superior to Firefox in every single aspect. No more resource hogging, no more instability, has proper multithreading, smaller, faster and has real developers who are nice to talk to and implement truly innovative ideas (unlike Firefox developers, who just steal everything). I've also been successful at getting a few dozen other people to drop Firefox for Opera once they saw how much better it was.

Fuck Firefox. I'll never go back. Never.

Re:to heck with firefaux (1)

jpmkm (160526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367289)

Faux does not rhyme with fox. You are not clever.

Re:to heck with firefaux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28367419)

Actually, it is clever. It doesn't have to rhyme. The comedy is in the combination of the two words. You are simply too narrow minded to see it.

Re:to heck with firefaux (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367405)

if your so happy about dillo and lynx why did you give enough of a shit about an alternative post?

Hold me closer, Private Browsing dancer! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367215)

I can feel the power of Privacy growing, leaving no traces in History, no stored passwords, and telling Big Brother to go back to Cuba with his comrades like Yoo et al.

Free at last!

Thank d0g, I'm free at Last!

Turn off Geolocation! (1)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367299)

One of the upcoming features is a way for Firefox to send websites your location information based on a best-guess provided by Google (or your location-guesser of choice) once you've expressly okayed it. From the sound of it they try to extrapolate based on nearby wi-fi hotspots and your IP address.

This isn't really the kind of information I would like to share, and I imagine other people might not like it either, so to just disable it so you won't even be asked, do the following:
  • go to about:config
  • Change the "geo.enabled" preference to false

All information summarized (read: stolen wholesale) from http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/ [mozilla.com]

What's the all fuss about the test results about? (1)

CosmicRabbit (1505129) | more than 5 years ago | (#28367411)

I don't get the problem of the test showing you a distorted image. If you're seeing it on Acid, what would you expect?

I wish javascript links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28367423)

would open in new tabs like they do in Opera.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...