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 4 Beta 1 Shines On HTML5

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the acknowledge-over-repeat dept.

Firefox 256

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner takes a first look at Firefox 4 Beta 1 and sees several noteworthy HTML5 integrations that bring Firefox 4 'that much closer to taking over everything on the desktop.' Beyond the Chrome-like UI, Firefox 4 adds several new features that 'open up new opportunities for AJAX and JavaScript programmers to add more razzle-dazzle and catch up with Adobe Flash, Adobe AIR, Microsoft Silverlight, and other plug-ins,' Wayner writes. 'Firefox 4 also adds an implementation of the Websockets API, a tool for enabling the browser and the server to pass data back and forth as needed, making it unnecessary for the browser to keep asking the server if there's anything new to report.'"

cancel ×

256 comments

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

Peter Wayner (3, Funny)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844062)

He's living in a cloud if he thinks it's going to ``take over everything on the desktop.''

Re:Peter Wayner (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844148)

I left a cloud on your mom's desktop last night.

Re:Peter Wayner (3, Funny)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844270)

hey-oh! [instantrimshot.com]

Re:Peter Wayner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844242)

Did the Peter really write "razzle-dazzle"?

And good thing about that web sockets API. I don't know why web browser makers didn't think bfore about the need to pass data back and forth between them and the server.

Obligatory King Of The Hill paraphrased quote (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844376)

Prepare your PC for razzle-dazzle!!

.

Re:Obligatory King Of The Hill paraphrased quote (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844534)

Prepare your PC for razzle-dazzle!! .

I don't think you know what obligatory means.

Re:Peter Wayner (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844430)

Because the hypertext transfer protocol was designed to transfer hypertext documents. It was not designed to be a remote application protocol.

Re:Peter Wayner (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845248)

Yep, and web browsers are supposed to render web pages, not MathML and XPath and SVG, but try telling that to the Gecko devs.

Re:Peter Wayner (1)

Anaerin (905998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844466)

Isn't it called XMLHTTPRequest (ca. 2000)? Or, if you want to go even older-school, frames (ca. 1998), or HTTP Server Push (ca. 1996, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_technology#HTTP_server_push [wikipedia.org] )

Not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844798)

I read the wiki. It sounds like a kludge to accomplish what is really being done in HTML 5.
The first method sounds like the reason some pages I visit always show that the page is never done downloading. The server keeps the socket open as if it was going to still transmit data. At some point, this connection must timeout. The other 2 methods aren't adopted by all browsers, which is why we need HTML 5.
HTML 5 - To finally be able to to write something as simple as a chat program in HTML & JavaScript only without Polling.

Re:Peter Wayner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844886)

No. Web Sockets was added specifically to address the shortcomings of XMLHTTPRequest.

(That wouldn't have taken you long to find out if you tried, but I guess you were too busy telling Slashdot how much smarter than everyone else you are.)

Re:Peter Wayner (0)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845182)

No. Web Sockets was added specifically to address the shortcomings of XMLHTTPRequest.

(That wouldn't have taken you long to find out if you tried, but I guess you were too busy telling Slashdot how much smarter than everyone else you are.)

And hopefully wont create a lot more when a certain web browser improperly (if at all) supports it, or uses it as a tool to push people to .NET instead (Embrace, Extend... yeah, you know the rest).

Every time some new advance comes out for the web, I get scared something like that will happen, that, at the least, will make any web developer's life a nightmare. So far, Microsoft has not let me down.

Re:Peter Wayner (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844288)

Famous last words.

Well no... okay okay okay... I see what you're saying, there's no way Firefox could possibly take over EVERYTHING on the desktop, there are many things that operate outside of applications.

However, for what most people use a computer for, a web browser does most of it. Email? Who here has an email address and check it using their favourite browser. I know I've got a hotmail and a gmail. Surfing the web? Thats a given. Aside from games, what do most people do on computers? Word processing, spreadsheets, there is some work-y kind of stuff. But more and more stuff is being moved to the cloud (for better or worse, its happening). Eventually, it might reach a point where its standard to have your documents backed up online in a service like Google Docs, and then before you know it your word processor is an Addon or plugin bundled into Firefox.

Firefox has that flexibility in it that allows for more customization, which is one of the areas Internet Explorer lacks most (I'll compare it to IE since IE has a lot of market share). It also has that community behind it, in a way that
1)That there are a lot of people who use it, just for the sake of not being stuck to IE
2)There are a lot of people who develop for it, just because its the most popular alternative out there
3) There are a lot of people who use it, and provide useful feedback to those who develop for it.

All in all, even if you don't always like the course Firefox takes (some people complain its getty bogged down), its at least in the most healthy environment imaginable to change. IE, being in that tough spot of "All these businesses use Internet Explorer, we better not screw up" doesn't have the ability to try things out as much as Firefox does.

So - all in all, don't be surprised if the browser thats best suited for new standards (if Firefox beats IE at HTML5) ends up gaining a lot of momentum in this technological shift we're seeing lately.

Have I missed any? (2, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844078)

::grumble grumble:: Memory leak
::grumble grumble:: Bloated
::grumble grumble:: Not nearly as good as it once was
::grumble grumble:: Most development money comes from Google
::grumble grumble:: Not as good as Gecko/Opera/Safari/Chrome/etc

Re:Have I missed any? (3, Interesting)

silverkniveshotmail. (713965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844162)

::grumble grumble:: Memory leak
::grumble grumble:: Bloated
::grumble grumble:: Not nearly as good as it once was
::grumble grumble:: Most development money comes from Google
::grumble grumble:: Not as good as Gecko/Opera/Safari/Chrome/etc

Plugins?

Re:Have I missed any? (2, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844188)

Plugins?

Why do you refer to Flash in plural?

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844500)

Because Flash it also comes in Adblock configuration, which is handy for when you want to disable the default configuration.

Re:Have I missed any? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844184)

Have you tried this beta? For me, memory usage has gone down tremendously over previous versions.

Re:Have I missed any? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844416)

You can also view memory usage in detail by putting this into the location bar:

about:memory

Re:Have I missed any? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844204)

::grumble grumble:: Not as good as Gecko/Opera/Safari/Chrome/etc

Gecko is the rendering engine of Firefox.

Re:Have I missed any? (3, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844230)

That's a weird way to spell "woosh"...

Re:Have I missed any? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844210)

::grumble grumble:: Most development money comes from Google

what the fuck has that got to do with anything?

Re:Have I missed any? (0, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844250)

I have no idea, ask the people that cite it as a reason Firefox sucks.

In case you missed it (which you apparently did), I was poking fun at people who find Firefox so abhorrent that a piece of software borders on offending them.

Re:Have I missed any? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844286)

I have no idea, ask the people that cite it as a reason Firefox sucks.

In case you missed it (which you apparently did), I was poking fun at people who find Firefox so abhorrent that a piece of software borders on offending them.

Well I've yet to see money from Google being used as a reason to avoid Firefox ... if anything that sort of money backed support (yet still open source) is reason to flock to Firefox.

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844428)

I have seen it. Here on /. too.

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845002)

IE offends me. Would you poke fun at me for it?

Re:Have I missed any? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844256)

Ask the folks that grumble about it. The parent is innocently preempting their grumbling.

Why Google matters (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844604)

what the fuck has that got to do with anything?

Something like 83% of Moz's funding comes from Google. There's nothing much to suggest that Moz is ready for the day when Google pulls the plug.

Re:Have I missed any? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844336)

::grumble grumble:: Memory leak
::grumble grumble:: Bloated
::grumble grumble:: Not nearly as good as it once was
::grumble grumble:: Most development money comes from Google
::grumble grumble:: Not as good as Gecko/Opera/Safari/Chrome/etc

::grumble grumble:: still not available as a suppository

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844358)

rabble rabble rabble.

rabble!

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844390)

For me it would be;
New tabs opening right next to the current tab
Tabs on top now!? *grumble grumble hissyfit grumble rant on /.*

Re:Have I missed any? (3, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844520)

Both of which can be disabled using about:config settings.

Re:Have I missed any? (0, Redundant)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844772)

Get off my lawn!

:-P

Re:Have I missed any? (1, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844420)

::grumble grumble:: fixing a fucking FACEBOOK flaw instead of focusing on security.

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844902)

Yes, there is ONE PERSON working on Firefox, and when he has to take the time out of the day to fix Facebook, nothing else gets done!

Re:Have I missed any? (3, Funny)

lennier (44736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845080)

And you should see what happens when he has to harvest his Farmville.

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844490)

I believe you left out ::grumble grumble:: bugzilla is no help, everyone still ignores me

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844660)

I believe you left out ::grumble grumble:: bugzilla is no help, everyone still ignores me

WORKSFORME

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845118)

WONTFIX|INVALID

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844690)

You missed: ::grumble grumble:: Crashy

Beta 4 crashes any time I right click on a link
It crashes any time I load a new plugin
It crashes any time I open a new tab

Re:Have I missed any? (1)

blazerw (47739) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844782)

It crashes...

Wow! For me, Firefox never crashes. Even on Windows.

Firefox needs better support for security tokens. (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844172)

Firefox needs to have better built in support for Ironkey, smartcards and security tokens. So we can once and for all switch away from passwords.

If Firefox actually supports security tokens, it's not very intuitive.

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844298)

"Tools" -> "Options" -> "Advanced" -> "Encryption" -> "Security Devices".

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (4, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844546)

You mean "Edit" -> "Preferences" -> "Advanced" -> "Encryption" -> "Security Devices".

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844572)

No, he doesn't. He means what he said, regardless of the fact that *nix firefox has a different menu layout.

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844342)

Firefox needs to have better built in support for Ironkey, smartcards and security tokens. So we can once and for all switch away from passwords.

If Firefox actually supports security tokens, it's not very intuitive.

Well, it does [opensc-project.org] .

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844370)

It does, you just need a library for working with your token, and of course that token has to work at the driver level with your OS, but yea in general it works pretty well, certificates can be stored on the device and they can be retrieved from it when a specific website requests authentication.

Re:Firefox needs better support for security token (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844794)

Firefox fully supports PKCS#11 as it always has. Pretty much any PKCS#11 module can be used and there are tons of them for just about every security device in existence.

Does what to HTML 5? (-1, Flamebait)

linebackn (131821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844180)

Firefox 4 Beta 1 Shits On HTML5. Oh, wait, that would be Internet Explorer.

At any rate, lets all change the standards again, so all those old computers that can't run anything later than Firefox 2 have to be shipped off to some foreign dump where they leak poisonous chemicals in to the drinking water.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (5, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844206)

At any rate, lets all change the standards again, so all those old computers that can't run anything later than Firefox 2 have to be shipped off to some foreign dump where they leak poisonous chemicals in to the drinking water.

It's the American way.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844348)

I love this country as much as the next patriotic guy...and love means being able to view things honestly. Face it: as a country, we throw out a MASSIVE amount of stuff.

Come on, mods: if you can't be honest about yourself, what can you be honest about? Shut off Olbermann and Beck, accept what our country is, and just deal with it. Seriously.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844582)

I love this country as much as the next patriotic guy...and love means being able to view things honestly.

Er, I don't think this is an issue of whether or not you're "patriotic enough." I think you're overlooking that a lot of other countries also through stuff out, like Great Britain. And in China, they throw it out, it just gets thrown out in their country next to their cities [guardian.co.uk] . When you snidely comment "It's the American way" you kind of omit that it's also the way of many other countries.

So one of the big problems is that we try to treat garbage and pollution from a capitalistic perspective. We may give countries or pay to have countries take our garbage under the understanding that it's being recycled. But more often than not it is just dumped or the precious metals are harvested in very environmentally damaging ways. And this is a problem with a world wide capitalism similar to how the mafia ruined parts of New Jersey with illegal dumping of NYC's garbage. It's corruption. China shows that a corrupt socialist system exhibits the same environmental problems on their local level. And when we feed that corruption and turn a blind eye then, yes, it is also our problem.

Face it: as a country, we throw out a MASSIVE amount of stuff.

This is true. It's also true that stuff we buy (from both inside our country and from the outside) are designed to be disposable. Your toaster breaks. Do you A) bring it to the repairman down the street and pay $50 to get it repaired by a skilled technician or B) go to Wal-Mart and buy your next $12 toaster? If we do A we're stupid and cannot manage our money. If we do B then you're criticizing us and calling it the American way. So what's an average citizen to do?

Come on, mods: if you can't be honest about yourself, what can you be honest about? Shut off Olbermann and Beck, accept what our country is, and just deal with it. Seriously.

Do you think it's the moderators that desire this situation? That want this situation? Do you think it's Olbermann and Beck that promote this situation? The entire world is part of the problem. The fact that everyone on Earth consumes products and produces waste that will be around longer than their flesh is a potential problem as our population increases. This happens in every country, not just the United States. Your criticisms are strangely specific. Jon Stewart supports this just as much as Glenn Beck. It is a universal problem of pollution and disposal yet you turn it into an American responsibility. Why is that?

Do you really think that if Americans stopped doing it, the problem would magically disappear because the disposal of the electronics in Japan goes through some magical Fern Gully process?

Sorry to go to such an offtopic response but I cannot understand why this blame is placed on Americans. As to the topic of HTML 5 affecting this pollution, attacking some standard far down the chain does not make nearly as much sense as instituting government regulations to make computers more recyclable without hindering them too much. If you perceive what you say to be "the American way" to be a problem than it's obvious our current system has not adapted to regulate itself.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (0, Troll)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844762)

My original post ("The American Way") was intended as a joke...a true joke, but still just a joke. That being said, given the -1 mod it reached, I figured I offended someone...so I figured I would be a dick, because you should never be offended when someone states the truth. "The American Way" doesn't mean no one else does it, it simply means that we do it. In no way did I mean or imply otherwise.

For the record, I wouldn't have bought a $12 toaster in the first place...that's one of the reasons why it broke ;-)

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845196)

As much as I think eldavojohn is often the jerk, he's really right on this comment.

I just hope that we can nano-harvest the dumping grounds someday.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844816)

So why not update the OS to something that will run the later firefox?

OS upgradees don't cost me anything.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (3, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844264)

Yes, lets all live in 1999, so that you can continue to use your shitfest of a computer.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844314)

oh noes a fast moving industry is moving fast once again. whatever shall we do.

Re:Does what to HTML 5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844352)

My 1939 Studebaker can't keep up with the speed of traffic on interstate highways so everyone else should have to slow down.

Its too bad the UI got messed up (5, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844296)

Mozilla and Google have got this one WRONG:

Merging the address and search fields is a big drawback. It further confuses people about what a URL is, and it encourages them and others (esp. advertisers) to give directions to web sites as if the keywords == addresses. (Hey, like AOL!)

If this trend continues, we'll have shenanigans and lawsuits claiming that "squatters" are using keywords on their pages that "belong to us". It will open another "IP" can of worms.

Encouraging people to rely on keywords also opens them up to phishing big time. It's like having them clean their teeth with their enema: Very semantically dirty!

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1)

Haffner (1349071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844386)

You can't deny its convenience - plus, Firefox is not a default browser on any OS run by people who can't make that distinction.

Then again, to play devil's advocate it is nice being able to see the terms you searched for in the same page. Plus, it also doubles as a way to save a string of text without opening up anything else.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844448)

well, no, actually, that's a good thing.

URIs have become cumbersome. Making the net content-addressable is a big efficiency measure.

You can still give out a key that will only map to you, and return a URI that is clearly you. Or at least as clearly as happens now when someone does a Google search.

But now you're not constrained to identifying yourself with some bogus fqdn with a limiting TLD stuck on it.

As for Phishing, banks have moved to authentication systems that use graphics on the page to tell you that the password-entry box you're looking at is legit. If you don't see your predetermined secret glyph, you don't enter your password. And the glyph isn't sent until your browser and the server are connected by SSL, so it can't be sniffed and hacked into a phishing site. And it isn't sent unless your browser already has a cookie identifying it as having been validated previously, using a secret-question protocol. If you deleted the cookie, you go through the secret-question routine again.

Short of adding more layers of such things, or using in-person pre-validated biometrics over secure links, you're not getting much more security than that on the internet. Using simple, recognizable URIs won't help you, and really, just invites social engineering based on URIs that look almost legit.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844636)

Uh, the method you described does almost nothing to stop phishing. Doing a man-in-the-middle on it is trivial, so really all it does it is require the phisher to handle each bank separately... which they probably have to do anyway in order to make their sites look the same. The only trip-off to the user would be an extra security question being asked, which no one will notice because banks randomly ask those security questions anyway.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845148)

Mod this AC up.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (4, Insightful)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844544)

Your posts defines two distinct categories: URLs and Search Terms. Most people don't think about those things as separate ideas. They're just means of telling the internet to show a website.

The key distinction between a URL and a search term is that URLs are hard to remember and prone to typos. Search terms are far easier (and tend to be helpful even if you spell them wrong). why would I want to type in "http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/" when I can just type in "krugman [google.com] " (or "krugrman [google.com] ") and get my daily Keynesian economic analysis that way.

For the browser, the URL and the search term are completely distinct. For an engineer or a software programmer, it's clear why they would have separate fields for entry of one or the other.

But for a user (even a technically savvy user) semantic cleanliness doesn't make any sense and causes more problems than benefits.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844562)

All is good as long as I can disable search from the toolbar.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844578)

While I agree with you in principle, the sad truth is, most people cannot navigate the Web without Google. Nobody remembers URLs anymore. Nobody even uses their browser's bookmarks feature anymore. People just use Google for everything and anything.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844686)

Yea, and it'll also reduce the incentive for people to squat and typo-squat domain names.

I'm frankly tired of all that crap: if ICANN wants to deal with the rampant squatting, I'll start supporting "address bar for addresses only" thinking. Until then, I'd rather google hijack me to a meaningful result than accidentally direct myself to some damn squatter site.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (2, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844750)

Grandma doesn't care what a URL is, only that she can get to the sites she needs. If Firefox 4 is intuitive to her, then it doesn't owe me any apology.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845004)

Your grandma should use a device designed for her age then. Stop thinking PC usage based on grandmas anymore. That's not 90s. Current generation is growing with computers, and they should be intelligent enough to know and grasp the basics of computing.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845204)

heh, i think you miss the point, firefox 4 *is designed for her age*

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (4, Interesting)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845020)

Firefox started as the browser that wasn't for your grandma. It had rough edges, pages didn't always display properly, but it was fast and tabbed an light weight with an installer in the single digits. This is how it grew it's user base, Trying to shoehorn it into the browser for grandma is retarded (Chrome already is better for that, by a good margin). Fuck your grandma, I don't want to use the best browser for your grandma. Our requirements are completely different. I want Firefox to be the best browser for me. I want separate url and search fields because I know exactly what I am trying to accomplish. If I want to stick some search terms through google I will, if I want to go to slashdot.com instead of slashdot.org I had a specific reason. I want the url bar to make a best effort at turning what I entered into a working url with as little guessing as possible and run with it.

Let chrome be the browser for grandma, they have the resources and the marketing power behind them. Leave Firefox pure to the roots it came from, and focus on technical aspects. If people want to change the ui, the wonderful extension system lets them do just that.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844930)

Couldn't agree more. There is no need to engineer in favor of computer illiteracy.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32845100)

Firefox 4 still has separate address and search fields.

Re:Its too bad the UI got messed up (2, Insightful)

theswimmingbird (1746180) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845200)

Definitely. I love having them separate. Besides, even my netbook has a resolution of 1366x768. Who needs an address bar that's over a thousand pixels wide? I mean, really. So much of their efforts go into optimizing screen space usage, but I feel that a unified bar that's mostly blank really defeats this purpose.

new opportunities for AJAX (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844316)

Great, more client side slow down.

No, not trolling, i just long for the old days where the processing was done on the server side, and all you needed was a tiny client.

Re:new opportunities for AJAX (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844492)

Hmm. Have ten million users doing the same ten million calculations each on different data on the sever, or have the ten million users download their data and do the calculations on their own machine...which one will complete faster?

Server-side scripting is a massive bottleneck if the page has any complexity at all.

What you should be complaining about is the disastrous state of the code sent to the client side. Most of it is painfully bad.

Re:new opportunities for AJAX (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844542)

These days however, clients are about as fast as their servers (if not faster) and servers have thousands of requests to handle. Most recent clients should be able to handle it. However, I wish that more developers also developed a site that would still work without JS however for simpler clients. There are simple ways to do that, to submit information, just use standard forms and AJAX those up. Same goes for menu's - they should be workable without a mouse (no 'hover' functionality) and use CSS instead of JS (where JS can add effects). At least more developers shy away from Flash to develop those extra's.

Actually, if a developer would develop their site to be usable for blind people, then we would be a great deal further (as those blind people can't see what JS does).

Re:new opportunities for AJAX (1)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844914)

JavaScript is not the problem for blind users, there is WAI-ARIA for that. The newest crop of screen readers can deal just fine with Ajax sites, provided they're wired correctly.

Also, I think the leap from the lightest mobile device to the heaviest desktop user is too big. You have to split your UI into a few key segments and optimize each. If you try to make a single UI fit all purposes, you end up fitting no purpose exactly right, and spend a lot more effort than when building a few dedicated UI's.

Sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844320)

If nothing proves that the Internet is primarily used by furries, it's that most of the Web called for the blood of Gates for getting his icky human cooties all over their desktop and it wasn't 'just' a browser, as it should be.

But that mythical 'fire' fox? Feel free to yiff all over my entire desktop. What a great idea!

Re:Sure... (4, Funny)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844458)

FireFox, IceWeasel, ThunderBird, Breezy Badger, Snow Leopard.

Just accept the entire technology industry is run by furries.

Re:Sure... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844618)

It's too late to take the blue pill now. You have to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Re:Sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844906)

I don't wanna enter that hole.....

Horray Websockets! (4, Informative)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844350)

As a javascript developer I'd simply like to applaud this addition from the HTML5 spec. Simulating the effect with Web Workers wasn't cutting it.

Re:Horray Websockets! (2, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844834)

As a developer, sysadmin and end user I would like to tell you that HTTP is not for this there are other ports than 80 and the web browser is not a virtual machine.

Firefox 4 didn't catch up in canvas speed (5, Interesting)

dionyziz (736817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844616)

Interestingly, Firefox compares poorly to other browsers when it comes to heavy rendering in "canvas". Here's a demo I made that allows measuring the speed of rendering in FPS (frames per second).

http://dionyziz.kamibu.com/3d/heli/

Chrome 6: 31 FPS
Opera 10.60: 46 FPS
Safari 5.0: 25 FPS; visually poor results
Internet Explorer 9: 19 FPS
Firefox 4.0 Beta 1: 19 FPS

Re:Firefox 4 didn't catch up in canvas speed (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844890)

I get about 25-30 FPS in the Firefox beta 1 (32-bit version) under Linux.

I get about the same as you in Chrome and Opera (64-bit versions, also Linux).

Re:Firefox 4 didn't catch up in canvas speed (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844928)

I forgot to mention that I get about 10-18 FPS in Firefox 3.6 (32-bit) on Linux and it's visibly choppy and blah. Firefox 4 may not be at the top but it seems better than Firefox 3.

Re:Firefox 4 didn't catch up in canvas speed (1)

dionyziz (736817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845106)

I'm using Windows 7. As far as I know, Firefox uses different rendering techniques on different operating systems, so that may be a cause.

On Windows 7 (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845158)

It is supposed to use Direct2D, just like IE9. I don't know if it does yet or if it is enabled by default, but that is one of the big features. If that is available (which means any Windows Vista or 7 system with WDDM 1.1 hardware) it be able to make sure of it. That should accelerate the heavy hitting rendering, as well as make for smoother scaling and text (at least if it also uses DirectWrite).

I haven't looked in to if it will use similar acceleration on other platforms, where available.

Re:On Windows 7 (1)

dionyziz (736817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845188)

Actually, Internet Explorer 9 has a similarly poor performance, as you can see from my measurements. Opera seems to be winning so far, and by a wide margin.

Still WAY behind Opera (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844634)

Firefox4 is still a million miles beyond Opera...

Slower? (-1, Flamebait)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844646)

Is it even slower than Firefox 3.5? Because 3.5 is still too fast; I need a slower, more bloated, less responsive browser.

Re:Firefox Speed (0)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844948)

seems to be ever decreasing in a constant spiral with each new version. Its already getting slow enough that I don't use it for certain websites (which are admittedly badly written). I play a web-based game a friend of mine has written. After issuing a few orders in it, Firefox just stops working. His HTML is likely crappy and his PHP doubly so, but there is no excuse for it, when I can open the same website up in Safari and it works fine. I want to use FF but I am being driven away from it by the decrepit speed it operates at much of the time.

Re:Firefox Speed (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845230)

so use something else, that's why web standards exist :)

Fischer Price Crap (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844712)

If I cannot find a way to turn this fischer price, rounded edge, combine everything into one place crap off.. I will go back to IE. Yes, it sucks.. yes, it is insecure. I will still do it to keep my browser from looking like mac crap. We are ADULTS.. give us a non fischer price option!

desktop as a document? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844792)

Browsers are designed and implemented to display documents, not to be as interactive as normal desktop apps, sure we try to cross that bridge with all the tricks and yet the browsers are just too slow for using as good desktop apps. They render and re-render to get the layout right the way the designers wanted it, but while recalculating all of those layouts and all of the elements that come in later, scripts that execute after the html is parsed and dom is created and css are applied and then re-rendering it to fit things right yet again.... browsers are just not good for replacing desktop apps. So that's where java applets come in (I guess for some it's flash/silverlight...)

Re:desktop as a document? (4, Insightful)

jsebrech (525647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845014)

You do realize that flash internally manages a display object hierarchy not unlike the DOM? There isn't much difference between writing apps in flex/flash and writing apps in javascript with something like ExtJS toolkit. All rich app frameworks I know, on any platform, use the HTML-like approach of having an element hierarchy and a set of layout rules that are constantly re-calculated.

HTML may be ill-suited to rich app development, but so is everything else. Win32 and X11 are both truly horrible API's, arguably much worse than HTML+JS+CSS, but combined they hold the majority share of native apps.

And by the way, the browsers of today are designed for rich applications. They have been for a few years now. Cars were originally designed to make it up to a brisk walking pace at best. Things change.

Re:desktop as a document? (2, Funny)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845134)

Things change.

Heresy!

Catch up with silverlight? (1)

xmorg (718633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845172)

How the heck do you "catch up"? Its like saying adds Apple IIe support. Better written as Adds support for legacy plugins like Silverlight

Acid test still not 100/100? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845184)

The article doesn't say so but another one (http://digitizor.com/2010/06/30/review-of-firefox-4-0-beta-1-for-linux/) when googling the question reveals that Firefox 4.0 beta scores 97/100. This is less than perfect which is currently achieved by other browsers. I have to wonder what the issue is. While 97/100 is better than the 94/100 of the current version 3.6.6, I have to wonder why it hasn't targeted 100/100 for this release.

Perhaps someone in the know will have something interesting to reveal on the subject. Could it be that Mozilla's efforts are more honest while those who score 100/100 have merely been "studying for the test?" (In the past we have seen where graphics card drivers were optimized to score high on certain benchmark tests instead of scoring high in general. This is what I would call "studying for the test" instead of mastering the material.) In the case of MSIE, we understand Microsoft's motivation to remain "broken by design" but this doesn't apply to Firefox so their less than 100/100 defies explanation in my mind at the moment.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?