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 Home Coming To iPhone, Browser Next?

StoneLion posted more than 4 years ago | from the where-the-heart-is dept.

Firefox 170

siliconbits writes "Mozilla has launched an iPhone app called Firefox Home that gives iPhone users instant access to their Firefox browsing history, bookmarks, and the set of tabs from their most recent browser session. What's more, it provides Firefox Awesome Bar capability that enables people to get to their favorite websites with minimal typing." With the Mozilla blog promising "There will be more to come," can the full browser be far behind?

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

Surprising (1)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361776)

It's quite shocking to me that Apple is allowing any Mozilla software to come to the App Store from the get go; but regardless it's great news to have open source infiltrating Apple's proprietary market.

Re:Surprising (3, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361832)

It doesn't seem like much of an ifiltration if all it does (by the sound of it) is allow you to open your Firefox bookmarks, etc in the native iPhone browser and provide a search bar that does the same thing. Still nice to have the option to take your bookmarks across to the mobile device, though, and it might help win/retain a little FF mindshare but a far cry from the win that native FF on the iPhone would be.

What would be very interesting... (-1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362098)

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Re:What would be very interesting... (2, Insightful)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362178)

Uhm, I think there may be a step or two about the approval process that you don't understand.

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362498)

i think it has been demonstrated before that the approval process doesnt (always) include a complete code-review, some malicious code has gotten in IIRC

Granted, it would be frikkin hard to hide the ability to download and run a flash-plugin in code so that it wont be found. Not to mention that if you dont succeed the first time, apple will be on their guard the next time.

Otherwise, if the flash option is hidden at first, hardly anyone will be really drawn to install FF unless they offer another killer feature. Then when they reveal the option, apple will drop it from the app-store within a nano-second, so i doubt either way that they could achieve a large number of flash-available iphones this way..http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/05/27/1326245/Firefox-Home-Coming-To-iPhone-Browser-Next?art_pos=2#

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362590)

I think people might also take a while to discover quite how wonderful Flash is... >:S

Re:What would be very interesting... (3, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362712)

Why exactly would Mozilla be interested in helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology?

Even x86 is proprietary technology (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362876)

How is making a bookmark sync tool available for iPhone any more "helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology" than making binaries available for x86 CPUs? Both ARM and x86 CPUs use proprietary technology subject to patent, trade secret, and either mask work right or HDL copyright, and you'd have to switch to something like the MIPS-compatible CPU written in VHDL [opencores.org] to get away from this.

Re:Even x86 is proprietary technology (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363548)

Please at least make the effort to read the post I am replying to, OK?

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363112)

I agree, I cant understand why they released a Windows and OSX version of their browser.

It's called market share.

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363570)

You too: Go read the post I am replying to.

Re:What would be very interesting... (2, Interesting)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362802)

...get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Not everyone agrees that ending Flash's iron grip on video on the web would be a bad thing. Locked systems like Flash are good (sometimes) for fast adaption periods, but often fail to progress technologically long term; while becoming a cost prohibitive hindrance in a growingly commodified market.

maybe. I'm rooting for Apple on this one, but in corporate power plays, consumer benefit is usually only a low occurring side effect.

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362814)

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed?

Then apple would revoke the keys for security reasons and it would stop working, of course.

This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Ha ha ha. No.

Re:What would be very interesting... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362930)

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Have you seen the Android phone requirements for Flash? You need a phone with a 1GHz CPU. No iPhone right now has a 1GHz CPU. The 3GS' is only 600MHz. Which is why if you don't have flash, the Nexus One should blow away the 3GS in everything (and in Android 2.2, it does) - after all, its CPU is 50% faster clock for clock.

Run flash on anything besides a 4G iPhone with its 1GHz A4 (rumored), and everyone will curse Flash more than they already do. Heck, the Flash on Android 2.2 makes the browser dog-slow again. Hardware accelleration only really works on videos (when it's finally implemented), but other flash content won't see much benefit. Advertisers would like it, as you can't scroll away from their ad as quickly, though.

Heck, to be honest, I'd like to see Firefox run acceptably well on any machine sub-1GHz. It ran poorly on my 600MHz PocketPC, it runs poorly on a Tegra dev board I have, and I hear the Android version is good if you like seeing paint dry.

Re:Surprising (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362668)

It doesn't seem like much of an ifiltration if all it does (by the sound of it) is allow you to open your Firefox bookmarks, etc in the native iPhone browser and provide a search bar that does the same thing.

Seemed to me like they were going to have their own webkit (since that's the only one Apple allow) browser built into the app, and it won't use the iPhone browser

Re:Surprising (2, Insightful)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361882)

It's perfectly understandable. Most Apple-bashing zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody, for some irrational control-freakery bout they have attained. So it may seem surprising when their entrenched, biased opinions are rattled by an otherwise business-savvy move that seems too rational.

        -dZ.

More insightful than it sounds (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362042)

Slashdotters have an odd tendency to view things in terms of black and white, good and Evil-with-a-capital-E. Most corporations fall solidly within the Evil category. Slashdot assumes that companies are in business to screw their competitors and customers as much as posible.

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

Re:More insightful than it sounds (1)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362276)

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

Of course it does. However, some corporations seem to conflate the "do business" and "screw everyone" concepts. Some only do it once in a while and a few never does it. That's called "reality" and it doesn't come in black and white.

Re:More insightful than it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362282)

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

It registers nicely. The fact that there are many times in which said business is Evil(tm) (the completely inflexibly unchangeable Evil) apparently doesn't register with you. Hardly our fault.

Re:More insightful than it sounds (1, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362286)

Slashdotters have an odd tendency to view things in terms of black and white, good and Evil-with-a-capital-E. Most corporations fall solidly within the Evil category. Slashdot assumes that companies are in business to screw their competitors and customers as much as posible.

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

The truth is that businesses are out to screw competitors and their customers to what ever extent will maximise their profit. That means locking you in to expensive apps and platforms works, as long as they are not expensive enough to drive people away.

Re:More insightful than it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362328)

I don't see that big of a difference between doing business and doing evil. Yes, this modern world wouldn't be possible without big businesses. But as I see it, the law creates "bare minimum" standards of safety/fairness towards competitors/environmental concerns etc. The role of the businesses then is to maximize their profit by doing things in way that is as close to being illegal as possible.

Re:Surprising (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362152)

No, its just run by a smug cock sucker that thinks he knows better then everyone else ....

If he didn't sell his stupid little music players to the metro-fag demography he would of been left on the road side as yet another has been.

Alas, he must of made a pact with Satan and was restored as position as "father douche" to his minions of mindless lemming followers who want to slide up his ass and nestle for all eternity.

On a more serious note, the only redeemable quality Mac's have ever had was that they were good for graphics related tasks. So is it "Business-Savvy" to wage a pissing match on their biggest Graphic software vendor (Adobe)?

I call it professional jealousy and a selfish means to attempt at driving flash out of the market place so he can try and create a canvasing app for html5 and try to become the holder of the next industry standard flash-like developer tool. Silverlight failed so will this ...

On another note, Steve Jobs loves cock.

Re:Surprising (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362666)

...zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody...

I really don't understand that position. After all, Apple really, really just wants you to think different. Just so long as you don't think differently from them.

Re:Surprising (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362850)

You really think so? I don't think you do. I think most Slashdotters know perfectly well that Apple looks out for Apple's best interest, and screwing the customer is something they do for profits, not for its own sake. Of course, with no rational defence for Apple, the fanboy resorts to strawman bullshit instead.

You think that's surprising? (2, Informative)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361890)

Today on Mac Rumors they posted a story saying that Steve Ballmer will be at the next WWDC keynote with Jobs showing "The new version of Visual Studio will reportedly allow developers to write native applications for the iPhone, iPad and Mac OS."

Re:You think that's surprising? (2, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362718)

Yeah, unfortunately following through the links it seems to be entirely unfounded, and little more than a guess that Ballmer is going to turn up, followed by a guess it'll be about Visual Studio 2010.

The wording also says "Chowdhry says the new version of VS will allow developers to write native applications for the iPhone, iPad and Mac OS.". Which we know is false because VS2010 is already out and has no such support, unless he's suggesting they'll follow it up with some downloadable addon.

If Microsoft are turning up I'd wager it's more likely going to be about an Apple/Bing tie-in after Apple fell out with Google, or perhaps something about Microsoft's new web based version of Office being compatible with the iPad or something dull.

It seems unlikely they'd invest time doing something in Visual Studio that would require a lot of work (new language support, new binary format support/emulator required, new compiler support etc.), and doesn't really benefit them or their customers whatsoever. I just don't really see what they'd gained by it, particularly at a time when Apple has been killing off 3rd party development environments, and is facing potential court cases over it to boot.

Re:You think that's surprising? (2, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363046)

Technically, it's not that hard for MS to add this support. Objective-C/C++ is just a plain C with some preprocessor magic, and VS in its current iteration is quite extensible.

Certainly, adding support for another language is possible as a simple add-on (for example, Nemerle language has one - http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/Nemerle.VsIntegration-en.xml [rsdn.ru] ).

Re:You think that's surprising? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363210)

If you're developing for the Mac OS... you should be working on a Mac. Not that it will be even close to your greatest cost, but just saying. Especially with UI considerations and knowing what your customer is used to and all that.

Re:You think that's surprising? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32364082)

But given the choice, would you rather write an app in Xcode or Visual Studio?

Re:Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32361894)

As far as I can see, the licenses Firefox is distributed under all have GPL-style requirements to provide the source. So wouldn't putting the full browser on the App Store have the same problems as that Gnu Go derivative we had a story about the other day?

Re:Surprising (1)

donny77 (891484) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361996)

Not if the Mozilla team represents 100% of the authors. If it does, they are within their rights to dual license their code in a non GPL form. This is why it will be interesting to see who submitted the GNU Go port.

Cue in fucktard sopssa trolling in 3, 2, 1, ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32361782)

Sopssa is a troll. Remember it moderators.

ahem (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32361802)

I hope they are also working on FireFox for Android.

I don't like the turtleneck ghestapo.

Desktop? (1)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361830)

How does it sync with my desktop? Will it require something on my desktop that then sends all the information from my browser to their servers? Does firefox do that currently now?

Re:Desktop? (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361942)

There is an extension you need called Firefox Sync. Just install it and it walks you through the sync process. IIRC you just need to set up an account with a password and choose what to sync. The data is encrypted by YOUR password which they don't know (so they can't peek at your data). Works with Firefox for desktop and Firefox Mobile. It was called Weave when it was in development.

Keep an eye on labs.mozilla.org, cool stuff on there.

Re:Desktop? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362164)

does "labs.mozilla.org" redirect you to "opera.com"?

Re:Desktop? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363994)

No, but it fucks your mom in the ass. Ha ha!

Re:Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32361958)

Eric,
Well currently Firefox sends the information to DHS db servers for safekeeping. Once all of the information is vetted by the DHS it is then converted to newspeak before it is sent to an Apple server that is located in a synchronous orbit. It is then beamed directly to the aluminum foil located on your head where it is processed and sent via a Bluetooth connection to your iPhone.

Love,
Big Bro

Re:Desktop? (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361966)

> Will it require something on my desktop that then sends all the information from my
> browser to their servers?

Yes (though note https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Crypto [mozilla.org] for details; the only data the server sees is an encrypted blob).

> Does firefox do that currently now?

Only if you install the relevant extension. See https://mozillalabs.com/sync/ [mozillalabs.com]

Re:Desktop? (1)

Own3d-You (1082423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361982)

Yes, it's currently called Mozilla Weave, it's an extension you can get. I believe they are renaming it soon.

application development layer (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32361848)

It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products (plus minor extensions for accessing local stuff etc), via Mozilla. Then we could finally write useful platform-independent apps that also run on Apple products.

--
while [ 1 ]; do curl "http://apple.com" > /dev/null; done

Re:application development layer (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362024)

> It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products

Apple's terms of service for the iPhone and iPad prohibit just this, so it's not likely barring an Apple policy change.

Re:application development layer (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362034)

Sure, ask the Mozilla Dev Team to write iFirefox to use WebKit instead of Gecko. There are other browsers for the iPhone, you know, but Apple requires them to use WebKit as the sole rendering layer.

        -dZ.

Re:application development layer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362096)

"Apple requires them to use WebKit"

Like Opera Mini?

Re:application development layer (3, Informative)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362166)

Opera Mini is different - pages are rendered (and JavaScript executed) on Opera's servers and sent back to the device for display. No rendering happens locally.

Re:application development layer (2, Informative)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362316)

Opera Mini does not render HTML nor processes JavaScript. This is done on Opera's servers, and streamed down to the client for display using the native framework.

        -dZ.

Re:application development layer (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362380)

Which seems to be the better option for me. Let a full-size computer/datacenter do the hard work and just let the cell phone, with it's limited hardware, display the results.

Latency (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362938)

Let a full-size computer/datacenter do the hard work and just let the cell phone, with it's limited hardware, display the results.

With how much lag for an onclick event in JavaScript?

Like.. web apps? (2, Insightful)

Henriok (6762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362088)

Ah, so you mean like writing web apps? The plattform independent platform that is HTML5? The kind Apple thought apps was supposed to work for iPhone since day one, long before the AppStore was even invented? If you think that's a great way to go, just go ahead. It's been implemented in the iPhone the last three years. You don't need Mozilla for writing web apps. Safari is great for such things. It's a web browser you know, they run web apps.

Why not just build web apps (3, Insightful)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362246)

It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products (plus minor extensions for accessing local stuff etc), via Mozilla. Then we could finally write useful platform-independent apps that also run on Apple products.

Why not just build javascript + html5 + css3 web apps? You get full platform independence and no app store hassles.

The iPhone supports HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. As for "local stuff," HTML 5 already has features that allows persistent local database storage. If your app need location awareness, the iPhone supports the W3C Geolocation API.

You may not remember, but originally, Apple's official stance was that the only third-party iPhone apps would be web apps. Lots of people bitched and moaned [slashdot.org] about how Apple was not allowing developers onto its device, so Apple eventually caved and released its SDK [slashdot.org] . But there's no reason you can't still build web apps for the iPhone.

Re:Why not just build web apps (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362536)

Actually, yes. But I think I should have put more emphasis on "with minor extensions for accessing local stuff". It might be of minor difficulty to implement this in a browser, but being able to access the local filesystem is a major feature which would allow web apps, like you mention, to behave more like native apps.

So until something like google gears comes to the iphone, we're still mostly stuck with the proprietary api from apple.

Also, I think for this to be practical, the browser, which acts only as a layer, will have to become a little more concealed (no menu, no buttons, especially no back-button).

Re:Why not just build web apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362746)

You are a fucking idiot. Google gears has been deprecated in favor of html5 local storage. Mobile Safari supports local storage. Get a fucking clue your worthless cock socket.

Re:Why not just build web apps (3, Insightful)

marmoset (3738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362784)

Everything you mentioned can already be done in Mobile Safari, Check.in (from the Brightkite folks) is a web application that makes use of local HTML persistance, geolocation, and hides the browser controls. It looks and behaves exactly like a native iPhone app.

Re:Why not just build web apps (2, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362790)

Why not just build javascript + html5 + css3 web apps? You get full platform independence and no app store hassles.

If such apps started to get really popular, Apple would have to implement a mechanism to enable them to charge for access to them.

STOP advertising apple. (-1, Troll)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362074)

Just quit it already you god damn souless junk peddlers. We're sick and tired of hearing about apple.

How do I make apple go away? Is there a greasemonkey script that would hide every <div>, <span> and <p> that contains the word apple in it?

Re:STOP advertising apple. (1, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362184)

If you don't want to hear about Apple then stop visiting a site thats "News for Nerds".

There are just as many Windows and Linux related stories.

Evidently, you're not as sensitive to those stories.

iSlaves can't help themselves (-1, Troll)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362208)

Just quit it already you god damn souless junk peddlers. We're sick and tired of hearing about apple.

He can't stop. iSlaves simply cannot stop, ever. They are beholden to Jobs, they run only the software he tells them they are allowed to, they buy the devices he tells them to, and they badger the rest of us to buy into their shiny crippleware. Knowing iSlaves is like being friends (or worse, related to) Mormons or members of any other cult ... they simply will not stop trying to force you to think like them. Ever.

Re:STOP advertising apple. (1)

ndvaughan (576319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362462)

This is very possible using Slashdot:
If using "Dynamic Index"
  1. Go to Help & Preferences
  2. Choose "Exclusions"
  3. Type "apple"
  4. Click "Save"

If using "Classic Index"

  1. Go to Help & Preferences
  2. Choose "Sections"
  3. Click 1st radio button on the left in the "Apple" row
  4. Click "Save"

Re:STOP advertising apple. (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362910)

Thanks for the informative answer, also wtf mods? I was serious about this not a troll. Thanks again ndvaughan.

Re:STOP advertising apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363666)

I’m guessing it was the whole "god damn souless junk peddlers” angle.

You’re supposed to lead with the serious question, not the flamage.

Awesome Bar (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362090)

Please, not more 'Awesome Bar' stuff, its the bane of my life. Heres my problem with the 'Awesome Bar':
  1. I start typing 'stackoverflow', with the intent of tabbing to 'stackoverflow.com'
  2. At 's' I get one URL suggested, but not the front page. I have visited this page once before in living memory. Its not in my bookmarks either.
  3. At 'st' I get another URL suggested, but not the front page. Again, I have visited this page only once before and its not in my bookmarks either.
  4. Repeat the last two steps until I get to 'stackoverf' when it finally suggests the front page of Stackoverflow.com to me

And theres no way to turn it off. Fantastic. Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either. Fantastic.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362188)

Yeah, this pisses me off... why no expanding results that always include the 'smart' homepage like:
- Stackoverflow.com (1 more) +
--- Stackoverflow.com/ random_article_with_terrible_long_url_so_its_more_work_ to_select_this_and_go_back_home_than_type _stackoverflow.com_directly/2y498624392328874...

Re:Awesome Bar (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362242)

You just have to learn to train it. I removed my bookmarks toolbar shortly after the awesome bar came out.

In your situation, type until you get stackoverflow.com, tab complete, hit enter. Do it a couple more times, s will tab complete to stackoverflow.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362758)

Why doesn't the Awesomebar consider 's', arrow-key down to stackoverflow.com, hit enter, the same thing as typing in 'stackoverflow.com', enter?

Re:Awesome Bar (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32364032)

Weird, I never had to "train" my bookmarks menu. This is considered "better" how exactly?

Re:Awesome Bar (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362254)

funny how you leave out the part where you get to "stack"...

perhaps it shows you "stackedmidgethorseporn.com"?
that would screw up the awesomebar no matter how smart it was.

Re:Awesome Bar (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362266)

And theres no way to turn it off. Fantastic

about:config
browser.urlbar.maxRichResults - value=0

Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either. Fantastic.

Highlight and delete definitely removes entries from the Awesome Bar database, just confirmed in 3.5 and 3.6.

Just blame the software for your inability to use it. Fantastic.

Re:Awesome Bar (3, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362334)

I can't see why anyone would actually want to port the 'Awful Bar' to another device.

No, seriously, I can't.

Re:Awesome Bar (2, Informative)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362350)

Add tags to your bookmarks, tags come up before cache hits.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362722)

Another workaround but not a fix.

Re:Awesome Bar (2, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362864)

Here's a fix:

Don't use it.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363188)

The moment someone offers a replacement for Firefox keywords in Safari or Chrome, I'm there. Thats the *only* thing I need.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

Senjutsu (614542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363274)

Chrome has search keywords built in

Re:Awesome Bar (2, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362764)

"Please, not more 'Awesome Bar' stuff, its the bane of my life."

Couldn't agree more. Awesomebar is the single reason I have not, and will never, upgrade Firefox. I'm running the version previous to its addition, and am staying with it.

Were it not for the plugins, Firefox would have been deleted off my system the moment they released the version with awesomebar. Once another browser develops a plugin system as good as that available for Firefox, it will most surely be gone.

Awesomebar is symbolic for all that is wrong with Firefox. The fact that Mozilla seems to view it as a success, still touts it as a feature, just shows how totally out of touch they are with their userbase.

Re:Awesome Bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362834)

You know Shift + Delete is the key combination you need, right?

Re:Awesome Bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32363700)

I start typing 'stackoverflow', with the intent of tabbing to 'stackoverflow.com'

There's your problem, right there.

A more retarded site of nonsensical questions with obvious, useless or just plain wrong answers (often submitted by the person asking the question itself!) is hard to find.

Re:Awesome Bar (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32364024)

Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either.

Use "Shift + Delete" while one of the items is highlighted and it will be removed. (Unless it's a bookmark, in which case you need to remove it from your bookmarks.)

In your case, you could go to stackoverflow.com, then click the bookmark icon (the little star to the right of the address bar). This will give this URL higher priority. In fact you can add tags/keywords to the bookmark while you're at it, to identify the site by a more unique word that is easier to type. Or add the tag "stack" to it so that this bookmark will be heavily associated with you typing "s-t-a-...".

This is usually enough to promote a given URL so that awesomebar will put it first. If not, you might have to type "s-t-..." and select it a few times to train the system that this URL is higher priority.

Yes, it's a bit annoying to have to train/fiddle with it. But for many of us, the amount of fiddling with the awesomebar is much lower than it once was fiddling with bookmarks and the like. The vast majority of the time, I start typing in the awesomebar and it brings me where I want (usually within two or three characters typed). There are some times when it doesn't... and this is frustrating (all the more since I've gotten used to relying on it). But, as I've outlined above, you can then manually promote the behavior you want. The awesomebar is not perfect, but it is quite useful for many of us. (Again, your mileage may vary... my main point is that many of us use it productively. If you don't like it, that's fine too. You can either begrudgingly learn to use it more efficiently, switch to another browser, or continue being annoyed by it. Your call.)

Why not switch? (4, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362124)

I honestly don't mean this as a troll. I just don't understand something here.

If application compatibility is an issue for you, why not ditch apple's proprietary device and buy one of the many Android devices? Or if you're a *nix user, an n900?

I'm truly baffled by the iPhone's continued popularity amongst my fellow engineers.

Re:Why not switch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362392)

All I use is Wifi, so I'm talking an ipod Touch instead of an iPhone, but on newegg:

An iPod touch is $199.
An n900 is $499.
An unlocked Droid Milestone is $499.

Re:Why not switch? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362422)

Some of us want a phone that 'just works' and looks polished and well thought out. We don't buy it to hack it.

You can say what you will about the iphone, but at least it does what it does well. Do I miss some features? Yes. Would I buy another one? Don't know, I may take a chance on an alternative, but at this point in time, using an iphone vs an android phone is a noticeable user experience difference. Android is less polished, more rough corners, less fluid, less thought out.

It will catch up. But not yet.

Re:Why not switch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362724)

Apple is the new monster cables. Don't believe me? Look at the adjectives you use to describe your iphone.

Re:Why not switch? (2, Interesting)

babyrat (314371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362734)

Have you used an Incredible? I switched from a 3G and have not noticed any user experience deficiencies. In fact when it comes to things like sharing photos via email/mms/social networking sites, it is way ahead.

Re:Why not switch? (2, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362806)

Some of us want a phone that 'just works' and looks polished and well thought out. We don't buy it to hack it.

You can say what you will about the iphone, but at least it does what it does well. Do I miss some features? Yes. Would I buy another one? Don't know, I may take a chance on an alternative, but at this point in time, using an iphone vs an android phone is a noticeable user experience difference. Android is less polished, more rough corners, less fluid, less thought out.

It will catch up. But not yet.

I hear this over and over again, but finally having used an iPhone a few weeks ago, I disagree. First, it's unstable. I personally witnessed two unexplained reboots and a hard lockup that required reflashing (over the course of one week of heavy usage). When I asked the owner what the deal was, he said: "Ah, it's been a while since I've reset." Say what?

Not all apps maintain their state (lack of multitasking aside). I left one application (think it was maps, but I forget) to get an address, and when I went back, I lost the buffer I had been typing in. Had to retype the entire thing. What is this, 2003?

The entire thing seems designed around tethering to a computer with iTunes. I spent two weeks in the US recently without my laptop - n900 only. Anything that can be done on the device can be done without a PC... even flashing.

Speaking of..flash... still no flash in the web browser! Feature? I guess. But one of the things it does well, apparently, is web browsing. After using my n900 for the past 4 months, Safari feels like a toy. Especially on that low-res screen.

I don't know; I didn't see any polish that was significantly better than my friend's Nexus running 2.1. And frankly I find the Maemo UI much more usable.

In my opinion, I think both devices have such a lead on the iPhone it's unlikely that it will ever catch up.

Re:Why not switch? (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363280)

Speaking of..flash... still no flash in the web browser! Feature? I guess.

What you recommend that the author of, say, Homestar Runner use instead of Flash?

Why the iPhone? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362196)

Considering that the iPhone is limited to AT&T (the network I hate most) and is completely closed, why not Android? Android is open source and on many different networks.

I wish I could get FireFox on my i776, it has perhaps the worst browser I've ever seen (OpenWave). Maybe they designed it to be bad, so it wouldn't be used much, since it's Boost Mobile and has unlimited everything for a $50/month flat fee with no contract.

I'm getting tired of hearing about the iPhone. Come on, Mozilla, get with the program -- ANDROID!

Re:Why the iPhone? (2, Informative)

BHearsum (325814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362248)

Because the full featured Firefox browser is coming to Android.

http://blog.vlad1.com/2010/02/02/android-progress-more-pixels-edition/ [vlad1.com]

Re:Why the iPhone? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363018)

I hope I can get an Android phone that will work on Boost then. Not holding my breath, though. I looked into tethering it with my netbook, and found out that tethering is against their terms of service. They don't want TOO MUCH "unlimited" service, apparently.

Re:Why the iPhone? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362314)

I think you can rest assured that Motorola did their best when designing your phone.

Re:Why the iPhone? (1)

notjosh (1632271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32364118)

To be fair, you're putting forth a very American view. As an Australian, I've taken my (legitimately, from the factory) unlocked phone onto several networks across the globe. Including T-Mobile (because AT&T refused to let me on without a 2 year contract while travelling)

If you're not happy with AT&T, then go somewhere else. Easy. Plenty of others will happily taken your money. It's nothing to do with the iPhone device, it's about your choice as a consumer.

A Firefox Browser on My iPhone Would Be AWESOME (1, Insightful)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362234)

...as long as it comes equipped with AdBlock.

Oh Boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32362244)

Access to everything in our Firefox browser except the ability to actually browse with it.

What would make this news ... (4, Interesting)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362510)

This is not news. Mozilla is free to put as many apps as they want on the iPhone so long as they follow Apple's rules. Unfortunately, Apple won't tell us what those rules are, but we have a pretty good idea that you can't say anything bad about Apple or powerful people, and you can't compete with any Apple technologies or strategic plans (e.g. what Google Voice did). So, it would be news if Mozilla puts Firefox on the iPhone without stripping out their HTML5 Ogg support since Apple has a financial interest in H264. If Mozilla gets Firefox on the iPhone by agreeing to tailor Firefox to Apple's wishes (e.g. strip out Ogg or anything else that Apple doesn't like) then that would be a total sellout on Mozilla's part.

Re:What would make this news ... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363000)

f Mozilla gets Firefox on the iPhone by agreeing to tailor Firefox to Apple's wishes (e.g. strip out Ogg or anything else that Apple doesn't like) then that would be a total sellout on Mozilla's part.

Mozilla can get Firefox on the iPhone the same way Opera did, by following the rules. No interpreted code, which probably means a complete rewrite of the Firefox architecture. Mind you, there are apps to play Ogg on the iPhone, so I doubt that would be an objection. Apple doesn't seem to have any problem with Ogg in general, they just want to use a hardware optimized format as much as possible for defaults.

Apple has a financial interest in H264

You should probably do some more research. Apple makes little or nothing in H.264 licensing. They're a very minor patent holder in the pool. It's not in any way significant compared to the money they make selling more iPhones and iPods.

Opera on Android: been there, done that. (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362514)

Opera Mini (5 beta, available from the market) can make use of Opera Link, keeping bookmarks and co. in sync through all desktop and mobile instances configured for the same user.

In addition to what Fx and Fx Home do, it also includes a fast rendering engine, better UI, snappier JavaScript, a better developer console, an awesomer bar and a bunch of other stuff. With alternatives like Chrome and Opera, when can we finally put that XULly abomination to rest?

No (2, Informative)

netsharc (195805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362654)

From their Wiki [mozilla.org] :

Does this mean Firefox will be available on the iPhone?
No. We do not have plans to ship the full Firefox browser for the iPhone. Due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution, we cannot provide users the full Firefox browsing experience on the iPhone. For details, see Mobile/Platforms.

Reading is so passé, why have YouTube if you have to read? 3-step instruction? Don't read, listen to some nerd with dweeby voice ramble about it for 10 minutes on YouTube!

One thing about the walled garden... (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32362972)

It makes even the smallest advances in technology major breakthroughs on a platform...

It better stop hogging memory first... (2, Informative)

pbhogan (976384) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363024)

If they intend to bring FireFox to the iPhone, they've got to get a handle on it's memory gobbling first. It has gotten better over the last while, but leave FF open for any length of time and you suddenly have several hundred megabytes of RAM chewed up, especially on OS X where it stays resident even if you close all tabs.

Fennac? (1)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32363296)

I figured iPhone would already have Firefox's Fennac browser that the Droid has. It's a little slow, but nice.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?