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, A Huge Pile of Bugs

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the software-is-hard dept.

Bug 481

surveyork writes "Firefox 4.0 beta 9 (AKA 'a huge pile of awesome') was released on January 14, 2011. Firefox 4's release schedule includes a beta 10 and a release candidate before the final launch in late February. However, one wonders if this schedule won't slip again, since there are still more than 100 'hardblocker' bugs, more than 60 bugs affecting Panorama alone and 10 bugs affecting the just-introduced Tabs-on-Titlebar. Some long-standing bugs won't be fixed in time for Firefox 4 final either (example, example). Many startup bugs are currently pending, although Firefox 4 starts much faster than Firefox 3.6. As a side note, it's unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test, despite this being a very popular demand amongst Firefox enthusiasts. Perhaps we'll have to wait until Firefox 4.1 to have this 'huge pile of bugs' (mostly) fixed."

cancel ×

481 comments

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

You can link to Bugzilla now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926534)

They used to ban Slashdot referrals because of the heavy traffic. Guess a Slashdoting ain't what it used to be.

Re:You can link to Bugzilla now? (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926590)

Guess a Slashdoting ain't what it used to be.

Is anything?

http + p2p mix (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926632)

They used to ban Slashdot referrals because of the heavy traffic. Guess a Slashdoting ain't what it used to be.

That's insane, that too-much-popularity would become undesirable. We desperately need some different new kind of HTTP server that's decentralized, combined with P2P. Maybe IPV6 will allow adding a plugin serving from browser cache while you're on the site or something. I've looked for projects like these and found several, but none ever caught on.

Re:http + p2p mix (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927020)

The problem is bugzilla is written in Perl as a CGI, it's horribly inefficient. Just the 5 second availability check from my F5 cluster had a single core VM running on an x5670 Xeon pegged at ~80% CPU usage. We had to change the check to pulling one of the static help files in order to quiet down the obscene CPU usage which means we are only checking the Apache module not the entire stack.

Re:You can link to Bugzilla now? (1)

ZeRu (1486391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926992)

Or somebody eventually told them that average Slashdot user knows how to disable HTTP referrers.

Re:You can link to Bugzilla now? (4, Funny)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927028)

You would, too, if you had "more bugs than a bait shop".

Sorry, I've been rewatching the original Tron. I couldn't help it.

Opera (0)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926542)

In the mean time, use Opera 11...

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926616)

What for? The shittiest NPAPI implementation ever?

Re:Opera (1)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926658)

I really want to but i can't till they have an extension for form recovery.

Why not wait? (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926560)

I'd rather them wait to make 4.0 stable than release crap and hope to have it done by 4.1. I mean, c'mon, who do they think they are? KDE? But seriously, I was using the FF4 beta for a while and it was pretty slick, and faster than the last stable release. However, it had lots of issues, such as the flash plugin container freezing or crashing constantly. The new features in FF4 did warm me up to trying Chrome though, and I may have become converted despite being late to the party on that one.

Re:Why not wait? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926732)

Indeed! When I did my most recent reformat, I decided to give Chrome a try, since I had never even used it. I'm definitely a convert, now...Chrome is INSANELY fast.

Re:Why not wait? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926888)

Uh huh, not according to this:

Top ten browsers [toptenreviews.com]

And isn't there some privacy-enhanced version of chrome out there, that doesn't spy on you constantly?

Re:Why not wait? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927112)

I don't care what benchmarks say...the butt-dyno (eye-dyno?) tells me that it works much faster than Firefox. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter to me...it feels faster, and that's what I care about.

Re:Why not wait? (4, Insightful)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926880)

Beta 9 is more stable than previous releases, and about even with Firefox 3 in my opinion. And that's what counts -- whatever they may say about the NUMBER of outstanding bugs, it's only the bugs that hit a typical user on a typical day that matter for the perceived stability of a program. With a few more weeks of spit and polish, Firefox 4 should be even with the competition in terms of daily stability. The fact the Mozilla advertises its bug list more than, say, IE9 should not make people think its known bug list is longer than IE9's.

Re:Why not wait? (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926950)

Agreed, Firefox has been on a horrible decline since version 2.0, the last thing they need to do is continue that trend.

Nowadays I find it slower than it's competitors, and I find it less stable, every once in a while it just crashes. It also seems to have horrendous memory leak issues, if I leave it running overnight it's not unusual to find it chewing up 2gb of RAM in the morning and I've even seen it edge pretty close to 4gb on one occasion. Even IE never does any of these things for me nowadays.

The best thing they can do is take their time and produce a release that's of the quality of 2.0 because if they release yet another release that's yet another step back in terms of stability and performance then they're really going to start reversing their trend towards being the number one browser globally.

Re:Why not wait? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927086)

If a lot of their bugs are considered blockers, which seems to be the case, it means they don't want to release prematurely. They will make Firefox 4 stable by the time it is released, unless Mozilla suddenly changes their policies. By the tone of this summary, I'm surprised it didn't end with the statement "With all these bugs, perhaps Firefox users should consider switching to Chrome, Safari, or Opera."

Re:Why not wait? (2)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927110)

Calm down, nobody is saying that you will have to wait to 4.1 to have a stable release. The summary is just speculating (wildly) about it.

Mozilla Seamonkey works (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926576)

I'm using the Second Beta release, and I've not noticed any problems with the browser, or email, or newsgroups, or composer. Opera 11 is also stable. May be time for a switch? (Just a thought.)

Re:Mozilla Seamonkey works (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926652)

I've been running the Seamonkey nightlies since they announced 2.1 Alpha and I've barely had any issues at all outside of a couple of plugins that took a while to update their version support. There was a minor issue for a couple of weeks where the browser would hang on startup for ~10 seconds, as well as a weird one with the Dell DRAC5 web interface not working properly and obviously Flash is as shit as on any platform, but otherwise it's been a smooth ride.

Re:Mozilla Seamonkey works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927188)

This is about FIREFOX 4, not SeaMonkey ...

Who cares about bugs? (4, Insightful)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926582)

What's important to browser developers is getting the upper hand in their constant pissing contest over Javascript execution speed. Nothing else matters. NOTHING.

Re:Who cares about bugs? (3, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926642)

Oh, man, isn't that the case.

When I tried the new beta, the first thing that happened was that it popped up a "welcome" page touting how fast the new beta was.

Then it froze long enough to get Windows to mark it (Not Responding) in the title bar. (I reenabled the menu while using an earlier beta so I guess I'm missing out on "tabs in title bar." Somehow, I don't care.)

To their credit, it doesn't always do this, but it does it enough to be annoying. I don't care how fast Firefox can run JavaScript - really all I care about is that running JavaScript doesn't make the browser completely non-responsive.

Re:Who cares about bugs? (3, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926718)

Javascript speed is a strange thing to compete so fiercely on. I don't want to calculate fast fourier transforms in my browser.

Heavy DOM manipulation, and the subsequent redraw is where browsers really hit the wall. Opera seemed to be fastest last time I benchmarked.

Re:Who cares about bugs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926896)

Javascript speed is a strange thing to compete so fiercely on. I don't want to calculate fast fourier transforms in my browser.

When the Web 2.0 cloudscope space is universal, everything will run in your browser. Javascript execution speed is therefore the most important thing to worry about, because it can take a long time to emulate a proper GUI with Javascript and an HTML5 Canvas, and that's the last thing you want when you're writing a 500 page thesis in Google Docs.

Re:Who cares about bugs? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926940)

That's not true, they've removed the status bar and the menus and a bunch of right click options.

Re:Who cares about bugs? (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927238)

Maybe I'm just remarkably tolerant of buggy software, but I've been using Firefox 4 as my only browser since beta 1 and I haven't had any complaints once I set the UI up the way I like it. It crashes once or twice a week but who cares? When I start it back up all my tabs are still open and I've lost is a few seconds of time.

In the spirit of more "freedom" for their users... (2, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926588)

...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

I guess in the true OSS way I'll have to fork the project and add my own. ;)

(yes yes, sarcasm. probably best to spell it out ahead of time, because what slashdot post isn't complete these days without a plethora of disclaimers and qualifiers)

The necessary qualifier to ensure my criticism of open source software doesn't earn me a minus 1: I like open source.
The necessary disclaimer that forking FF is silly: I am well aware that third party extensions for FF4 exist that add status bar function.

Re:In the spirit of more "freedom" for their users (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926670)

The way Firefox is going, they might as well just ship wget with addon functionality and tell everyone to write their own extensions if they want "extra" features like a GUI or mouse support.

Re:In the spirit of more "freedom" for their users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927098)

And -1 for taking an already bad joke and making it worse by explaining it to everyone.

Re:In the spirit of more "freedom" for their users (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927166)

I think they had no choice but to take away the status bar. After screwing around for something like NINE FREAKING YEARS they finally fixed the printing problem (some sites only print page 1 of N, etc.), so they needed some other handy way to make their users howl in rage.

Well played, Mozilla.

Re:In the spirit of more "freedom" for their users (5, Insightful)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927214)

...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

No, torn between the people that demand that all Firefox features be reduced to addons and the people who want everything in their browser, they gave in to the addon people and made it an addon [mozilla.org] if you need the old status bar back.

At this point, Mozilla can't win no matter what they do. If they take features away and put them in addons, the people who want everything (like me :) ) complain. If they add features in, the people who want all the features they in particular don't need to be addons complain. They're in a no-win situation. They put an incredible focus on performance, and people ignore it. Firefox 4 doesn't just have a new, much faster Javascript engine - there's DOM performance improvements, the startup improvements mentioned in the summary, and the UI in general is much smoother and quicker. But it doesn't matter, because my $PET_PROBLEM_X exists. I don't understand why other browsers aren't held to the same standard. Chrome, for me, is missing tons of features and crashes all the time. It's still a decent browser, and I don't spend all day on Slashdot railing against it.

That said, there is a really annoying bug in Beta 9 - some of my tabs, after I close them, still exist in the ether somewhere and the Awesomebar wants to "switch to tab" when I go to that URL, and there's no tab to switch to, making me press alt+enter to open a new tab.

But I'm pretty confident that and the other major blockers will be fixed by the final release, whenever it comes out. Firefox 4 is still a major improvement over 3.6 even with those bugs, and despite my personal pet peeves like tabs-in-titlebar.

Is there a firefox "fast and slim" release? (3, Informative)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926592)

I love open source and firefox, I feel sad when I hear there are problems, but writing tight code is indeed challenging for anyone. The plugin compatibility in particular seem to present a challenge. Still using it and recommending it though. Chrome may be open source too, but big-corporation-sponsored open source frequently becomes something else later on in life. I think open source needs to start pushing a pledges [wikipedia.org] model of funding, the totally-free or ad-sponsored models don't fit for all cases.

Re:Is there a firefox "fast and slim" release? (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926856)

They don't need that. Firefox has more than enought money to fund itself. In 2009, Mozilla had 104 millions [mozilla.org] in revenue. Expenses were 61$ million.

Re:Is there a firefox "fast and slim" release? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926954)

Oh which the majority of that is from Google's money. Thus making it the same "big-corporation-sponsored open source" he seems to be railing against.

Re:Is there a firefox "fast and slim" release? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926908)

...but writing tight code is indeed challenging for anyone.

That's because programming isn't an engineering discipline. You can call it "software engineering" all you want, but until programming develops the discipline and procedures of true engineering, coding is nothing more than an art - compostion - only with a simpler grammar.

Re:Is there a firefox "fast and slim" release? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926934)

I think open source needs to start pushing a pledges model of funding, the totally-free or ad-sponsored models don't fit for all cases.

Of all the open source projects that can claim lack of money is the source of their woes, Firefox must be one of the least worthy after perhaps the kernel and a few dual licensed projects. Through the Google deal they have been in a far better position than almost every other open source project that has had minimal impact on Google development, if they trip this up they have no one else to blame.

Rate of incoming new bugs v.s. outgoing fixed bugs (2)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926594)

When these values are sufficiently close, it's time to recognize that something is very deeply wrong with your code base. Or your programmers are monkeys, but the former case is most likely. Start over.

Re:Rate of incoming new bugs v.s. outgoing fixed b (1)

DuckDodgers (541817) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926676)

This type of thing is inevitable when you have a huge codebase, in any project. But starting over is a path to disaster - there might be 10,000 outstanding bugs in the current Firefox codebase, but there are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of fixed bugs in it too, and a restart tosses more good than bad.

Think of Netscape, they were the king of the browser market. They did a clean restart, and it took them so long to create anything useful that Netscape never recovered.

Firefox might need improvements to their development process, but they don't need to chuck all of their existing code and start over.

Re:Rate of incoming new bugs v.s. outgoing fixed b (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926968)

Think of Netscape, they were the king of the browser market. They did a clean restart, and it took them so long to create anything useful that Netscape never recovered.

Well that and the fact that the version of Netscape that was out at the time they started that rewrite was buggy and crappy.

Firefox just got slower and slower (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926598)

I've been using Chrome for the last two weeks and it's been great. Adblock Plus and Mouse Gestures were really the only two extensions I needed, and they're in there. Oh, and Firebug, but the built-in Inspector thing almost outdoes it. (Ctrl-Shift-I)

I don't like that they refuse to implement clickSelectsAll as an option for the address bar (instead relying on the user pressing Ctrl-L), but it's not enough to cause me to switch back.

Re:Firefox just got slower and slower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926690)

triple-click selects all in the address bar.

Re:Firefox just got slower and slower (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926938)

Is FF becoming the Gillette of the UI?

Re:Firefox just got slower and slower (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927246)

And why would I want to have to click three times?

Re:Firefox just got slower and slower (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926748)

Firebug is far more comprehensive. The "built-in Inspector thing" suffices, but it can't hold a candle to firebug

Re:Firefox just got slower and slower (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926916)

I switched to Chrome recently as well. I don't see myself going back to Firefox for a long time. I understand that they're well respected around here for being one of the early open source works to make serious in-roads on the desktop but it really is time to let it go.

FF4 vs. Chrome? (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926602)

Can anyone give a quick explanation of the relative pros/cons of Firefox4 vs. Chrome?

Although I find Chrome's interface a little uncomfortable (as a long-time Firefox user), I don't really know if there's a big reason to prefer one over the other. So a big delay of FF4 seems kind of irrelevant to me: I'd just use FF3 or Chrome.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926638)

The biggest thing (other than UI) is Gecko vs Webkit. Pretty much all of the main functionality is duplicated across both - ad blocking, popup blocking, other extensions etc, but there tend to be a lot more FF plugins, so if you're very plugin-happy, you may be unhappy with Chrome. I'm using Chrome as my sandboxing browser (keeps Facebook isolated from everything else I browse on the web), and it's pretty good. I used to use FF 3.6 for that, but I'm giving Chrome a go.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926766)

I'm using Chrome as my sandboxing browser (keeps Facebook isolated from everything else I browse on the web),

I use Chrome to post as Anonymous coward.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926772)

I haven't found ABP on chrome to be as good. I did switch to chrome for a while but have recently decided more privacy is good, so now I use FF with ABP, "Cookie Monster" and "Better Privacy"

It makes using the web a little more difficult at first (having to remember cookies when I actually want them) but after a few days of setup it's mostly the same, only without so many damned cookies. I also like to use ABP to block anything and everything from facebook.com and fbcdn unless I'm actually at facebook.com, so that they don't get to see absolutely everywhere I visit.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926714)

Chrome still includes the Orwelian TOS that Google owns EVERYTHING you view through it.

No, they didn't take that part out.

They really didn't.

Look for yourself.

Aside from that Chrome is a good browser, better than Firefox in some areas, worse in others, generally about the same league.

If you are any kind of creator/developer/producer avoid Chrome like the plague. Chromium is probably immune from Googles TOS, but I don't see any reason to chance it.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926930)

This is completely false. Google used their boilerplate services license in the first beta. However, they corrected that as soon as they were made aware. It was widely reported [theregister.co.uk] at the time.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (0)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926734)

Chrome has the worst browser UI on record, for FF4, Mozilla is trying to imitate them

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926924)

The UI in Chrome was one of the first things I loved about it (and also Safari prior to finding Chrome).

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (4, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926740)

Chrome is better in just about every way with the exception of extensions. There are basically two killer features that work better under Firefox than Chrome: script blocking (NoScript) and ad blocking (AdBlock Plus). There are ad blocking extensions for Chrome, but they don't work quite as well as AdBlock Plus does.

There is no real equivalent to NoScript for Chrome. There are a bunch of things that kinda provide script blocking functionality, but nothing that's anywhere near as good as NoScript.

Beyond that it's much faster and more memory efficient. It doesn't like being left open long periods of time, though. I can get away with leaving Firefox open for like a week or so, Chrome pretty much demands that you kill it and restart it every day. Not really a huge deal.

The only thing I really miss in Chrome is NoScript. The ad blocking is mostly good enough.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (4, Interesting)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926788)

Firefox is the lazy and slow loser next door that's nevertheless lovable. Chrome is rich, refined and snappy but slightly creepy. It doesn't make you wanna leave it alone with your kids.

Firefox is slower (in my case it currently hangs for roughly a minute on start-up. Keep those windows open), has better extensions and the best memory management I've ever seen in a browser (used to be a pet peeve of mine, when they still sold memory leaks as features). Chrome has some great features if you connect to the cloud to socialize your AJAX relationships or something (e.g. you can treat browser pages like apps with start menu entries and stuff - although I always have to reload many manually after launch for it to work properly). It's fast and it will always be up-to-date. That's because Google puts its update service (pray to god that that's all it does) everywhere you can fit that stuff on Windows. There's the Autostart entry, the delayed start, the service, the IE plugin, the Firefox plugin, the Opera plugin and probably a few I missed. But don't be afraid that it's gonna spy on you. Many of the bleeding edge features (Google's new app-store) only work if you log-in with your Google account so they're gonna know every thing about you anyway.

That's what I mean with slightly creepy. Your neighbor might have never given you any reason to question his integrity but if he insists on going through your trash and wants to install a camera in your bathroom you're probably gonna be suspicious.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926790)

Firefox's library of well-functioning and stable extensions (and...cough...other extensions) is larger. If you need those plug-ins, it's a no-brainer. If you plan to use the browser "stock" it really comes down to personal preference on the interface and what happens to be more stable on your system. Firefox 3 has gotten rather slow and long in the tooth, so my personal browser preference (this week) runs something like Firefox 4 beta > Opera > Chrome > Safari > Firefox 3 > wget > Internet Explorer.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (2)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926806)

The nice thing about Firefox is the ability to whitelist cookies and then have it clear anything not whitelisted on browser close. Chrome's cookie controls are still not even close to that and it's the one feature that keeps me off Chrome.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926822)

Biggest pro for Chrome: Chrome isn't in beta; FF4 is.

It'd be better to compare pros/cons for FF3.6.x to Chrome.

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927182)

Chrome 9 is. Chrome 10 is alpha (ish (I guess)).

Re:FF4 vs. Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927206)

Chrome is from Google, ergo Chrome is beta!

Latest beta is the worst (2)

EricTheRed (5613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926606)

I've been running FireFox 4 Beta for some time, however sadly it updated itself to the latest version yesterday and since then it's been virtually unusable.

Anything running Javascript or Flash produce either blank screens (sometimes just by scrolling the page) or even the window title bar flashes (which it is as I type this).

4.0b9 is definitely a regression - I want 4.0b8 back...

Re:Latest beta is the worst (1)

sinclair44 (728189) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926922)

The rendering issues on OS X were known bugs and were in the release notes for 4.0b9. You are using beta software and there are bound to be bugs. It is fixed in their repo, and you can run Minefield (nightly builds) if you want to get the fix.

Re:Latest beta is the worst (1)

EricTheRed (5613) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926980)

The rendering issues on OS X were known bugs and were in the release notes for 4.0b9. You are using beta software and there are bound to be bugs. It is fixed in their repo, and you can run Minefield (nightly builds) if you want to get the fix.

I know I'm running beta - thats actually why I'm running it.

However not seen the release notes as I was not given a choice - it was upgraded automatically from 4.0b8...

Re:Latest beta is the worst (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926946)

I have the blank page bug too -- moving the window causes the page to display. Silly workaround, but I'm sticking with the betas.

Panorama (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926608)

I wish that would have been left as an extension. Why couldn't it have been one? It's a power user feature, and now there are tons of bugs to fix because of it.

Re:Panorama (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926876)

That's a common problem with Firefox. They're adding eye candy left and right but other stuff is left untouched for years (e.g., "always perform this action" still doesn't work for file downloads served as an attachment).
Seeing how FF becomes more bloated and slower with every revision change, switching to Chrome or Opera seems more attractive with every additional usability problem in Firefox.

cmod down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926618)

time wholesome and [tuxedo.org], thing for the and easy - only their 4and...she and reports and centralized models Like I should be

Oh, Firefox.... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926650)

The "killer feature" of Firefox, at least for me, is Live Bookmarks. I subscribe to nearly a hundred webcomics, and Live Bookmarks is my favorite way to read them. I've tried other systems, but they just don't feel right.

However, ever since Firefox 3.x, there's been a massive bug. Firefox will literally stop responding while it updates Live Bookmarks. Normally, if you have just a handful, it's barely noticeable. But when you have as many as I do, it means Firefox takes about 5 minutes to start up, about twice as long as it takes Windows. And that's just unacceptable.

Because of that, I switched to Chrome for daily browsing. I only boot Firefox up once a day, for my webcomics trawl. However, I'd actually prefer to use Firefox, just because the interface feels better to me.

It's not like this is an unknown bug - it's been reported dozens of times, on almost every platform. It just seems to be ignored. If that bug gets fixed in 4.0, I'll definitely be upgrading.

Re:Oh, Firefox.... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926724)

I used to use Live Bookmarks once. However I find the nearly useless since I have to open each feed individually and remember what was in there before to see if there are updates. Now I use Google Reader, which is not only cross-browser, but shows all my feeds in one spot, and only shows me unread new items.

Re:Oh, Firefox.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926956)

However, I'd actually prefer to use Firefox, just because the interface feels better to me.

And me -- unfortunate that they're changing it to make it more like Chrome/Chromium. Chromium would (IMHO) benefit greatly from having a UI identical to firefox 3.x. The only place the Chrome style UI makes sense is on netbooks and touchscreen devices.

UI designers talk about freeing us from information overload and the argument is always "most users". The problem with this is that none of us is "most users" and design choices are being made to benefit a demographic that only exists via statistical analysis.

Mod -1 (0, Offtopic)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926654)

Flamebait.

Re:Mod -1 (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926984)

Tag it "FUD." I did. All it says is "Hey, this software has a lot of bugs in its beta. Does this mean the final release that has not been made yet is buggy?"
 
That's a Glenn Beck sort of question if I've ever heard one.

Tabs on titlebar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926686)

Panorama? Who cares? We want a usable web browser with a decent Javascript JIT engine, I don't hear complaints about the current UI or about problems managing open tabs. These "features" are things I'm going to disable anyway!

Re:Tabs on titlebar? (1)

after.fallout.34t98e (1908288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927158)

Honestly while thus far the nightlies as a whole have been pleasant (aside from a few bugs), I would have to say panorama seems very useless at the moment.

IMO the good parts of the update:
1. faster (though for me it wasn't exactly slow before)
2. swapping open in new tab and open in new window in the context menu
3. better ui for remembering passwords, requesting things like location data, site identity, ...
4. better ui for tabs window and bookmarks window

The bad parts:
1. swapping open in new tab and open in new window in the context menu (until I got used to the change)
2. moving all the status stuff into the url bar (added back with status-4-evar; something that shouldn't be necessary; though perhaps I find the need for this due to to needing it as a developer)
3. The orange button (completely unnecessary as alt shows the menu)
4. panorama still has too many bugs for me to consider trusting it
5. strong dislike of the combined refresh/stop/go button in the url bar
6. after loading a page, the star doesn't appear for bookmarking until after I click in the url bar

It works fine for me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926698)

I have been using Firefox 4 as my main browser on OSX since Beta 1 and it has been really stable for a long time now.
That said I do not think it's too much of a problem to add an extra RC2 and postpone final for a couple of weeks to iron out the last wrinkles.
The problem with Beta releases tends to be that you only get a selective fraction of your userbase to test it, RC's are less affected by this so having only one RC may be pushing it.

No shit (4, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926706)

So, a beta version of a major new release has a lot of bugs? You don't say.

Re:No shit (1)

RabbitWho (1805112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926758)

I was thinking that... glory fades.. mundi?

Re:No shit (3, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927172)

You act as if it's the first beta. This is the 9th beta release for a project that was supposed to be released in November. For reference, Alpha 1 was released in Feb 2010, almost an entire year ago. So yes, bugs in beta are expected, but eventually you start looking like an 8 year old who can't graduate first grade.

Hmm (1)

Furkan (1977076) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926736)

There's no "duplicate tab" option or what?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34926898)

Control+drag the tab.

Firefox Beta has been more like a late alpha (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926782)

Generally, Beta is when a product is mostly feature complete, and bugs are being fixed prior to release. Now, if you accept this, then the Firefox 4 beta cycle has been more like a late Alpha release since new features were being added from beta version to beta version. From this, is it any wonder there are still bugs in beta 9? The speed improvements in beta 9 clearly are not the result of fixing bugs or removing test code, so I wouldn't be too worried about the bugs we are seeing right now.

What is it with version 4? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926784)

Is this a new tradition? First KDE, now Firefox: release a "4.0" version that's intentionally not feature-complete and loaded with bugs so that the user community can start fixing it?

Re:What is it with version 4? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926932)

Maybe this is not just the Microsoft 4.0 curse? Version 4.0 of nearly everything seems to suck. I wonder why that seems to be? Anyone remember DOS 3.3 versus DOS 4.0? I do... aye carumba!

Re:What is it with version 4? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927226)

No, it is an old tradition. The number four is considered unlucky [wikipedia.org] because in some languages it sounds like the word for death. I am surprised that this version number doesn't get skipped more often. Actually, in computers it would be better to skip version 1.0 since that is often the most buggy release. If you are going to write some new software, go straight to version 2.0 (or version 3.0 for Microsoft).

No ACID3 (1)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926800)

Firefox developers just don't care about SVG fonts because they think they are useless. And most people seem to agree with them.

Re:No ACID3 (2)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927018)

And yet if were the IE team to say the same thing Microsoft would be being constantly trashed claiming that they're ignoring standards. Oh how double standards are fun.

Re:No ACID3 (3, Interesting)

Shining Celebi (853093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927108)

And yet if were the IE team to say the same thing Microsoft would be being constantly trashed claiming that they're ignoring standards. Oh how double standards are fun.

Except SVG Fonts are going to be an optional part of the SVG standard, because the standards committee recognizes they are unimportant. This is because superior alternatives exist (WOFF). This is why Mozilla chose not to implement SVG Fonts. Despite all the FUD in the summary (what is with the anti-Firefox FUD in stories lately, anyway?), the vast majority of Firefox users are not crying out for Firefox to pass a meaningless, arbitrary, and outdated acid test. SVG Fonts are what keeps Firefox from passing the test. There is no benefit to adding that feature except to pass the Acid3 test.

Re:No ACID3 (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927130)

Considering that Internet Explorer has been lagging in support for basic features behind Firefox, Safari, and Opera for many years, I don't think there's a double standard. If Microsoft finally catches up with IE9, there's going to be rejoicing, not complaining.

Re:No ACID3 (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927208)

That's the thing about standards, you're not supposed to skip bits of them just because you don't think they're important.

Made my morning (1)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926878)

Not gonna lie, Slashdot. This is pretty much my favorite article headline I've read yet. Congratulation.

Still no 100% on Acid3? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34926918)

I find that to be disappointing and unexpected. Keep in mind that I do not know what it takes to create a browser or what is involved in passing the Acid3 test. I just know that Firefox has a strong and loyal user base who are not interested in using another browser. I am one of them.

Is SVG fonts the only thing that keeps FF4 at less-than 100%? If so, I am less concerned -- SVG fonts is a good idea, but I would be more interested in other things as I have not seen SVG fonts in use anywhere. (I know, it's a chicken or egg thing.) That said, I love SVG. It's an awesome technology. Not long ago, I was planning a project that will enable me to generate SVG output based on the contents of a database... in this case, a floor layout for my office and the location of all resources and people where output can be filtered or limited based on report criteria. (The project is on the back burner for now, but the fact that SVG is an XML document format makes generating this sort of output amazingly possible.)

Re:Still no 100% on Acid3? (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927174)

SVG fonts are the only thing keeping Firefox 4 from getting a 100% score on Acid3. I'm not sure if Firefox 4 passes the performance aspect, although it's probably close. I think also Firefox 4 shows a favicon in the URL bar even when it's returned with a 404 error, and if so, it doesn't fully pass the rendering aspect. In any case, it's so close to passing Acid3 that web developers and users would hardly notice the difference, aside from web developers not being able to use SVG fonts. But since WOFF fonts seem to be superior to SVG fonts and IE9 also doesn't support SVG fonts, I don't think many web developers would use SVG fonts even if Firefox 4 supported them.

Longest standing bug (4, Interesting)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927044)

This very one [mozilla.org] is 12 years old (yes, you read right), it's huting HTML4 compliance (HTML5 is not a standard yet) and is also affecting all known opensource browsers.
Eyecandies first, stuff that matters maybe.

I am posting this from beta 9 right now (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927070)

and

Exploit heaven (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927118)

The exploit potential for FF4 b9 is worrisome. It could set them back a year of 2 in bad publicity and market share gains. I submitted a bug 5 years ago and it still hasn't been seriously looked at. (it stops FF from starting up) Just endless (... has been assigned, or has been added reports.) I won't be touching it until 4.1.

Please don't block on Acid3 (1)

szquirrel (140575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927168)

Let me fix that for you:

As a side note, it's unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test, despite this being a very popular demand amongst silly people who don't understand web development.

The Acid tests are demos, not unit tests of HTML compliance. I would rather see real progress in areas where FF is truly weak (like, say, the crappy SVG renderer) than worry about those last three pips on Acid3.

FAYT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927218)

The only reason I use Firefox is because of Find Toolbar Tweaks. I will never use Chrome since they said they will never include Find-as-you-type, and I am not upgrading to 4.x until that extension is compatible.

Unusable even without *those* bugs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34927220)

So what? Until they actually use the font settings that *every* other app (including FF3.6) manages to get right, it's unusable anyway. Horribly pixellated unaliased fonts on an LCD make your eyes bleed, but apparently it's worth spending 5 man-years making javascript 0.001% faster but not worth making something predominantly intended for reading text actually display readable text...

Biggest bug (1)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 3 years ago | (#34927232)

The biggest bug: OpenGL for GNU/Linux is still under work.

If only Mozilla dedicated to the GNU/Linux version a tenth of the effort it dedicates to the Windows version, it wouldn't be easily the slowest browser in the platform and lack such essential 4.0 features. As it stands, it has nothing to do with Google Chrome.

If all Mozilla cares for is fighting MSIE, they should drop the Linux port rather than posting an unfinished, unoptimized product.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?