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 5 Details: Sharing, Home Tab, PDF Viewer

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the competition-doing-its-job dept.

Firefox 453

An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 4 may be still new, but Firefox 5 is already being prepared by Mozilla. At least the UI features have been laid out by the Mozilla team — there are nine new features in total. There are some features that are replicating Chrome functionality (tab multi-select or an integrated PDF viewer that will also extend to other file formats), but there are completely new features such as tab web apps, an identity manager a home tab that replaces the home button as well as a social sharing feature that is integrated in the URL bar and enables users to post directly to their Facebook and Twitter pages."

cancel ×

453 comments

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

change (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701228)

I do not like it.

pdf (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701238)

It's bad enough I always have to yank out PDF-in-browser add-ins and settings, now I'll have to do it even more with Firefox having a built in viewer. Why does anyone want an in-browser PDF viewer?

Re:pdf (5, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701296)

I want an in-browser PDF viewer, because to me PDFs I find online are just an alternative to an HTML page with the same information. That's not what PDFs are supposed to be for, but many web developers use them as such.

A built-in viewer would likely load much faster than an external plugin, too. So why does anyone not want an in-browser PDF viewer?

Re:pdf (5, Insightful)

cicho (45472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701632)

I don't, because it will either be an Adobe plugin, hence slow and a memory hog, or it will be written from scratch, hence not fully compatible and probably slow as well. Add to the mix all the potential security issues with active content in PDF documents. I disable all of it in Adobe Reader, now I'll have to disable it in Firefox as well.

PDFs should be treated like executables or archive files - saved to disk.

Other than that, I really don't understand why Firefox has to be aping Chrome instead of going its own way. What's wrong with the top-level menu that it had to be replaced with a single, hierarchical menu that's always harder to navigate? What was wrong with the well-established, intuitive tabbed interface metaphor, which Chrome managed to break so badly by disconnecting the tabs from their content?

And really, websites will be putting items on the tab context menus? Advertisers are already salivating. Good luck finding the "Close tab" command among fifty links to commercials.

Re:pdf (2)

MBCook (132727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701810)

PDFs honestly aren't that bad, and for some things (longer documents, like papers) they are quite good. The problem is Adobe. It's slow, bloated, insecure, a resource hog, and crashy.

Preview on OS X is fantastic. When I had a Windows computer at work I used Foxit. I've never had a problem with either one not being able to open something. On Linux, whatever the default installed on my computer is (some KDE application, I think) works fine.

My guess is that most people hate PDFs because they are associated with Adobe Reader. That's not necessary. There is a world where PDFs aren't bad.

Re:pdf (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701298)

What happened to a small light fast secure browser? Everyone seems to think the browser needs to replace all desktop applications.

Hope this impresses the investors but I will be shopping elsewhere if they keep this up.

Re:pdf (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701352)

A built-in PDF viewer does not make a browser any slower. If you aren't viewing a PDF, then the browser will not be using that piece of code.

As for security, well, in fact, that is the entire reason Google (and, presumably, Mozilla) is putting a PDF viewer within their browser. They can use techniques like sandboxing and gain better control over what the viewer can and cannot do. When you use Adobe's external plug-in, both you, as the user, and the browser developers are at the mercy of another company.

You are correct about the size - it will make the browser (on disk) slightly larger. But, I don't see what that is a problem.

Re:pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701478)

Open a PDF in a new tab and the whole browser will slow to a crawl until you downloaded the whole PDF. Almost impossible to change tab while it's loading/rendering.

Opening in an external viewer don't creates that problem.

Re:pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701746)

Blame the implementation, not the idea.

Re:pdf (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701836)

Not that Adobe doesn't have enough on its shame-plate at the moment; but the fact that browser makers are rolling their own PDF viewers(or, at very least, putting adobe provided ones on a much shorter leash than generic plugins are given, as with Chrome's integration of Flash, also an Adobe product) really should give their software engineering guys pause. As should the fact that "(pdf warning)" is considered a standard element of internet politeness when linking to things...

FFS, Postscript was designed back when the raster image processor had to live in firmware and run on a 12MHz m68k. PDF (c. 1993) was supposed to be the lessons-learned variant of postscript (1984) with a bit less of the turing-completeness and better suitability as a static document format.

On modern hardware, PDFs should fucking fly. And, in renderers not produced by Adobe, they often render about as quickly as web pages do(particularly if said web pages are gimped by excessive javascript or slow adservers...) Acrobat, though, just keeps on sucking, even as Adobe continues to add random security-flawed features that make it harder to rely on 3rd party alternatives to render the stuff that Adobe authoring tools put out...

Re:pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701358)

Well, good riddance. Try not to let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Adobe probably wants it (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701312)

Honestly it makes no sense to integrate PDF. It makes far more sense to integrate IRC, AOM/IM, or something like this but honestly, this is just commercial bloat. What we really want is just a browser that wont crash, that wont open our computer up to hackers, that that will load tube sites and have the latest scripting and html features.

Re:pdf (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701322)

Whats wrong with an in-build PDF Viewer? Would you rather prefer opening your PDF using an external app? Or are you one of those that never open PDFs, in which case this would not affect you at all?

Re:pdf (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701754)

Yes. I'd rather have an external app. Mostly because adobe seems to think that 'active' elements inside pdf's are a brilliant plan. This just makes malware injections that much easier.

Re:pdf (4, Insightful)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701786)

For me, yes, I would rather have an external app. Specifically, I want PDFs to download and NOT open automatically. I want them to go to my downloads folder and I will open them at my own discretion. If I want to open it instantly after downloading, I can use the browser's download manager to open it with an extra click.

Why, you ask? Because I am one of those who still feels that PDFs are not fit for human consumption [useit.com] . Outside of pre-press and raster image printing work, PDF is a terrible file format. In their lust to own as much of the computing market as possible, Adobe has pushed PDF well beyond its original, intended use and into areas that are better served by plain text, RTF or HTML pages. Hell, I loathe the Word .doc format, but I find it preferable to PDF.

The link above gives more reasons for why I don't want to deal with PDFs unless I have to. And that article is eight years old; things have only gotten worse since. I sure don't want them loading automatically in my browser.

Re:pdf (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701334)

Because then users don't feel the need to install Adobe Reader when all they want to do is view PDFs in the browser.

Re:pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701374)

Why does anyone want an in-browser PDF viewer?

Because most Windows users would otherwise be using Adobe Reader, whose Mozilla plugin is a terrible piece of software that will just as often hang the entire browser as render PDFs. Most people are not going to install a different PDF viewer, so providing a built-in viewer makes using the browser a better experience for them.

Most people on Slashdot will just install a better PDF reader, but Google and Mozilla make browsers that cater to the average user, not to us.

Re:pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701384)

Why does anyone want an in-browser PDF viewer?

given the amount of hassle that acrobat reader gives me when launched from firefox, I DO!

Re:pdf (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701720)

I know people that have switched from chrome to FF just because the chrome pdf viewer was too annoying. Although I have to give some props to Google, their builtin PDF viewer is the first one I've seen that actually renders PDFs at the same quality as Adobe.

Oh well.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701240)

Firefox was good but its turning into a gimmicky bloat-fest. What was wrong with
having a simple to use browser designed for desktop PCs?

Opera is the only option left unless you want to sell your soul to corporate USA.

And which of these can't be extensions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701250)

Perhaps PDF viewer and home tab? The others sure seem like extension functionality. I don't use Facebook or Twitter, so why do I need them crapping up my browsing experience?

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701354)

Because Firefox is quickly finding itself irrelevant in the modern age where Joe User is no longer the geek and no longer the geek's friends/family. Joe User is now Joe Anybody. And Joe Anybody tends to want want everything pre-chewed for them with the need for choice reduced to a minimum. Joe Anybody -likes- that you can't customize facebook like you can your own site or e.g. MySpace because it means everybody's page looks just like yours and you know exactly how to use it. This extends to cellphones with the iPhone being the penultimate example. Customization? Fuck customization. Your iPhone is just like any other iPhone and you'll love it. And people do. Even developers do - they no longer have to worry about user customizations having an impact on their app, and because the user is used to not customizing, their own app doesn't need customization options.

Rely on the host OS to play back video in a video tag? Heck no. that just means that platform A will differ from platform B in subtle and unpredictable ways. OS platform? Fuck OS platform. Your browser is the new platform. And that means that instead of a home page, you'll now have a home tab. Your home tab will be what the masses want it to be, and you'll love it.

Downloading extensions for functionality the masses want is counterproductive to all of these notions, especially if you end up with half a dozen different extensions that all do the same thing in subtly different ways.

The only difference between FireFox and Chrome is that FireFox will at least still let you, the simple user, change things if you want to. That won't last much longer either. They'll do what so many other projects do: point out that the source is available and if you -really- want to customize anything, have at it.

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701484)

I still don't understand why they can't just create themed "add-on packs" or even pre-instlaled add-ons that can be removed by the informed end user.

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (1)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701530)

This extends to cellphones with the iPhone being the penultimate example.

OK, Mr. smart guy, then what's the ultimate example? Android? BlackBerry? Something else?

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701718)

'dumb phones', Mr. not-so-smart guy.

At least the iPhone still lets you stick 'apps' on there. Plenty of phones out there that won't let you customize squat - from the operator logo always being on-screen whether you like it or not to the clock display always being in 12 hour format even if you'd like to have 24 hour format.

The only reason the iPhone is the 'penultimate example' is because people are reasonably aware of its existence. I'm sure there's an actual penultimate in terms of a natural progression from dumb phone to smart phone; perhaps the dumb phones that let you install Java applets. But they're rarely heralded as examples.

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701798)

The website will basically put a html or some other format page available to firefox which it will use to create the menus when you visit the site. Twitter will only crap up your browser when you visit it. Kinda like now, only it will be more integrated.

Re:And which of these can't be extensions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701858)

Home tab can be done as extensions too. The PDF reader would be a plugin, like the many that already exist.

Social network users are obviously too stupid to install an extension or create their own bookmarks. The question is; At what point are mozilla going to fully dumb the web browser down to that level, remove the network functionality and just display random inane shit for these retards to gawp at?

Enligsh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701284)

English is hard. :-\

MP3 movies.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701290)

In-browser preview: Firefox will also get an integrated PDF viewer (like Chrome) and will extend this capability to more popular file formats, including MP3.

So I'll be able to watch MP3 movies on Linux without having to buy the codec?

Giggity.

Mozilla is selling out (4, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701292)

Facebook? Twitter? Since when did Mozilla integrate commercial websites into their browser? Since integrating the Google search engine? Since AOL? This is why Netscape and Mozilla were originally kept separate. To keep the commercial bloat in the Netscape browser and allow the community to use Mozilla.

Re:Mozilla is selling out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701544)

They integrated Google at first, but then they integrated the other engines as well. Facebook, twitter and others are just icebreakers, more will follow.

Re:Mozilla is selling out (1, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701676)

Well its something people use. I'm pretty sure adding new sites will be as simple as adding search engines to the bar.

The amount of people who use those services is large enough that this integration will be seen as a good thing by many, and if you're not interested - turn it off.

Re:Mozilla is selling out (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701680)

What? Netscape and Mozilla were originally kept separate because Netscape was dying and wanted free development but didn't want to relinquish the valuable "Netscape" name. Mozilla and Netscape were almost identical except for the branding. Mozilla was also huge and massively bloated. This bloat was the reason why a splinter offshoot, Firefox, was created. Firefox became so popular that it overtook the Mozilla suite. And, of course, Netscape just died.

So while sveltness is a wonderful goal, we are talking about a foundation named after a 50 story radioactive japanese mega-monster.

your ALL idots! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701306)

Tea Party ferever!

Tea Party politics best!

stupid (2)

ludomancer (921940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701314)

They think this versioning method is a good thing? I read the headline and only thought "5, already? omfg, I'm done with this stupid browser".

I know that's probably biased, and knee-jerky, subjective and immature, but that doesn't change that it's probably a lot of peoples thoughts on the matter.

It's stupid how a number can make you or break your opinion of a product, and even stupider that their change had the opposite affect on me (negative impression, etc)

Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (0)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701344)

The awesome bar and all this commercial stupidity has to go. Whoever is in charge of Firefox right now sucks.

It made sense to go from Mozilla to Firefox, but from Firefox to this mess? This is Netscape all over again.

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (4, Interesting)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701404)

Ok, seriously: why do so many people harp on the "awesomebar"? I'm beginning to think it's just a strawman for some strange repulsion to Firefox, brought on by something else entirely.

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701416)

Ok, seriously: why do so many people harp on the "awesomebar"? I'm beginning to think it's just a strawman for some strange repulsion to Firefox, brought on by something else entirely.

The God button would be cooler right?

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (4, Insightful)

subreality (157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701510)

I think it's because of the hubris of calling it "awesome". Some people were bound to not like it, but being told it's awesome when you don't like it makes them feel like it's being forced on them by completely out of touch developers.

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701748)

Well, that sounds reasonable. In a stupid way.

(Why yes, I do think the Awesomebar is a good feature.)

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (3, Insightful)

basotl (808388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701624)

I dunno... I like the awesomebar.

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701686)

They're worried that someone looking over their shoulder as they navigate will see their porn.

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701774)

There's a lot to be said for using the privacy mode...

Re:Firefox5 would be fine if it's a major advance (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701652)

It does seem like time for a Firefox lean and mean version. They've been bloating up Firefox for some time now and at times it shows.

Re:stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701576)

"5, already? omfg, I'm done with this stupid browser".

As opposed to Chrome 11? Opera 11? IE 9?

Re:stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701846)

But in a few years we'll be on Chrome 99 and Firefox 94, just imagine how much better they'll be! /sarcasm

DAMMIT, NO NO NO. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701316)

Too far.

The awesomebar drove me nuts, but I could get an addon to handle it. The PDF viewer I am unhappy with, but I will assume their team is competent enough to sandbox it correctly. But the first day I see a DoS or remote exploit against it, that browser is getting uninstalled for good.

If there's no way to disable the facebook and twitter plugins...it will never be installed to start with.

Oh Mozilla...you've become... netscape navigator or iexplorer/outlook.

Unless--anyone out there that can recommend an appropriately minimalistic fork of it?

Meh ... (3)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701320)

I hope someone will be annoyed enough to start a fork which removes this gimmicky crap but keeps the security fixes.

A security and functionality oriented fork (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701376)

We need a security and functionality oriented fork ASAP. Performance matters also.

Nobody asked for changes to the interface. The interface to Firefox was never broken and nobody complained about it.

Nobody asked for the "awesome bar" or whatever the hell that is. If it improves productivity then fine, tabs make sense, but the majority of this shit is just gimmicks. Integrating the cloud makes sense but not when it's specifically "facebook" and "twitter", but to allow anyone to select anything and make it completely transparent and open. They are going commercial in a really bad sell out kind of way, and you can tell the developers I said it.

Re:A security and functionality oriented fork (0)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701528)

> Integrating the cloud makes sense but not when it's
> specifically "facebook" and "twitter"

The article gives those as examples; it doesn't say that the functionality is restricted to those. Do you have a source that says it does, or did you just jump to conclusions based on your preconceptions and the desire to vent?

Re:A security and functionality oriented fork (0)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701550)

"Nobody asked for changes to the interface. The interface to Firefox was never broken and nobody complained about it."

Interesting. Care to qualify that statement?

Re:Meh ... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701390)

I hope someone will be annoyed enough to start a fork which removes this gimmicky crap but keeps the security fixes.

You don't see no-more-reliance-on-the-Adobe-PDFViewer as a security fix?

Re:Meh ... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701546)

There are already plenty of other document readers out there. Why reinvent the wheel if they can just endorse an alternate reader and team up with those developers?
The different available plugins for Flash, Java and so on aren't that different if you think about it.

Re:Meh ... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701394)

So, basically do to Firefox what Firefox (as Phoenix) did to Mozilla? Fork to go back to basics?

Re:Meh ... (3)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701432)

So, basically do to Firefox what Firefox (as Phoenix) did to Mozilla? Fork to go back to basics?

Exactly. Even if it takes a while to go back to the basics, it has to be done.

Re:Meh ... (3, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701508)

Hell, if they want to cram more and more non-core crap into the browser why not do something similar to Eclipse, where you download either the basic version or purpose-based packages which already include the necessary plugins/items? After all, the add-on system exists for a reason.

Re:Meh ... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701570)

They never said back to basics with the Phoenix project, they said user oriented browser (Rather than the developer festival kitchen sink that was the suite). Dumping xpfe for what became the xul toolkit meant that the first versions were also pretty basic.

Really? (1)

genrader (563784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701330)

I just upgraded from 3.6 to Firefox 4. I cannot stand it. The UI is very counter-intuitive and I find that it takes longer to access things with the elimination of the File/EditView etc toolbar. I'm about to have to find another browser.

Re:Really? (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701380)

With just two clicks on the navigation bar, you can re-enable the "File/Edit" etc toolbar and place tabs under the navigation bar.

Google and others are set out to destroy Firefox (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701392)

Most of the programmers working on the project are from companies like Google who don't know what they are doing.

It was one thing when AOL worked on it, but the quality of the development has gone down. We need an open source browser on the market.

I admit, I'm using Chrome right now because Chrome is better, and I'm not upgrading to Firefox4 because 3.6 is better. They should have kept the option to use the 3.6 interface or just extended it, than go completely alien.

Re:Google and others are set out to destroy Firefo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701788)

They should have kept the option to use the 3.6 interface or just extended it, than go completely alien.

They have. Right-click toolbar, uncheck "tabs on top" and check "menu bar". Done.

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701410)

Try clicking the Firefox button you find so annoying, move over to options, then check "Menu Bar." Voila, your File/Edit/View etc toolbar. Choice is great, isn't it?

One feature of Firefux 5 Not mentioned (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701336)

Steals memory and crashes in record time. So while this will be the most secure browser it won't be fucking functional at all. Of course the fucktarded shitdot sheeple wil defend their prefcious firefux as it is communist open sores as they are nothing more than a bunch of stupd fucktards who should go an collectively slit their fucking wrists while worshipping their communist idol Richard Stallman (HEy great name Richard Stallman=RMS Titanic and he will sink like the fucking ititanic).

GO AHEAD FUCKING FLAME AWAY
OR WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED
MODPOINTS FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE OR BETTER YET GO
SLIT YOUR FUCKING WRISTS
FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

Re:One feature of Firefux 5 Not mentioned (0)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701660)

I wonder why he posts if he despises Slashdot so much...

Identity management (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701362)

> Identity management: ... keep you signed in to websites via an integrated identity manager and even support multiple sign-ons at the same time.

IIRC this feature was requested by someone in the US Army ?

No, by Google's Ninja's (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701408)

Google's Ninja's have infiltrated Firefox and are ruining it. Sabotage style.

Re:Identity management (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701440)

You mean it wasn't requested by by XSS hackers and phishers? :)

OK folks, time to jump ship (1)

asvravi (1236558) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701406)

Going down the drain despite everyone's best efforts and intentions. Except for identity management and PDF viewing (why should webpages be limited to HTML??), nothing else makes an ounce of sense in a supposedly light weight browser. Here is hoping Chromium or Chrome catch up on the extensions and sync scene soon.

Re:OK folks, time to jump ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701458)

You cite two heavy-weight features (identity management and PDF viewing), and then say none of the other features make sense. Then you hope that Chrome catches up on two more very heavy weight features - extensions and sync. Pardon me, but you just spewed enough idiocy for a whole week.

Re:OK folks, time to jump ship (1)

burni2 (1643061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701536)

Well Google has Chrome and ChromeOS, Mozilla has FirefoxOS with Version 5, Browser and Operating System All-in-One

Think of Just a Browser as your interface to your computer ..

http://foxos.desktop.resolutionres_id/ [foxos.desk...utionresid] "1080p"&output=DisplayPort&action=change
http://foxos.filesystem.recycleactionrestorefile/ [foxos.file...estorefile] "reallydirty_porn_I_tried_to_hide_from_my_girlfriend.jpg"

http-get blah security .. who cares Mozilla of course not.

The "Sharing, Home Tab, PDF Viewer " sounds to me like a feature list of some Linux Distros

Re:OK folks, time to jump ship (2)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701580)

If you want a lightweight browser, Chromium is an even worse choice. Get something like Konquerer. Way lighter, and they are implementing a few (necessary) addons like userscripting.

Re:OK folks, time to jump ship (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701684)

Google Chrome already syncs to your Google profile, and has done so for quite some time before FF4 came out with the sync option. I don't know that much about the add-ons/extensions, I don't use many on either platform, and those that I do are usually supplied by the parent company (eg. Google Mail-Calendar-Reader Checker extensions).

If only Google gave me more choice in customizing the UI (such as returning the http:/// [http] prefix into the address bar, that really pissed me off), it would be the perfect browser for me.

Argh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701426)

It's not because Chrome is a overhyped piece of shit whose only valuable feature is its JS engine that other browsers should take a shit along the way wherever the google guys decided to take one.

5 Already? Set your feet back on earth please.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701430)

Firefox 4 is just out and there is people already jerking off about Firefox 5?

Mod me as troll, but honestly: you are sick. Go get a life..

Or shall this become an overly successful TV series: Desperate Nerds.

Re:5 Already? Set your feet back on earth please.. (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701560)

I've been using 4 for over 6 months :-/ Firefox 5 is going to be out in a few months. And some of these features will be implemented in the nightlies soon.

Chrome Lite with leaks (4, Insightful)

slyborg (524607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701470)

Why not just take the Chromium tree and figure out how to run Firefox extensions on there and just call that Firefox? Would save time and have much better memory use and performance. Firefox is basically converging on a Chrome clone with slightly worse performance and some dumb UI hacks that will end up largely unused/abandoned (like Panorama).

Isn't all this what the extension ecosystem is for? Why would a team that already is overwhelmed by the task of testing its product incorporate MORE features to test? My main issue with Firefox right now is not a lack of Facebook integration (-_-) but the obvious memory leakage in the released FF 4 with AdBlock/NoScript, which was present through the entire last half of the beta cycle.

Mozilla has really wandered off the reservation here. I want a solid, fast browser that supports the great extensions that Mozilla didn't write, and continues to support developments in the core web standards space. If I want Chrome or Flock, I'll just download those, seriously.

Re:Chrome Lite with leaks (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701548)

> and figure out how to run Firefox extensions on there

How much work do you estimate this to be, exactly? Chances are, your estimate is low.

> have much better memory use and performance.

Firefox has better performance and memory use than Chrome in many cases. It's worse in others. Both browsers are improving.

How would having only one implementation be better for consumers than two competing ones?

Re:Chrome Lite with leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701860)

Panorama is really great. I can group tabs depending on activities and save them when I close the browser. Then the next time when I open my browser I can jump right away to the set of tabs I want. It also removes completely the need to use multiple windows, which BTW comes as a nice thing now that no major OS has any decent default support for working with multiple windows of the same app (Mac OS has the shitty dock, and the taskbar's default behavior in Win7 is to imitate the hell out of the stupid dock). It's also not intrusive and looks cool.

Don't care (1)

Hell0W0rld (1315765) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701504)

As long as Seamonkey is there I'm fine.

A fast, customizable browser with a nice UI.

People always bitched about Seamonkey being a bloated FF with bad Add-on-support. Now it feels like that the Seamonkey is the browser the FF should be.

guaranteed to be uninstalled by corps (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701524)

You can forget Firefox in a corporate enviroment if it contains facebook and other US websites

the thing cant even integrate into a GPO, go open gpedit.msc and see the hundreds of customisation options for MSIE but there are none for Firefox

so yeah keep adding the fluff and whatever flavour of the month billion dollar US corps websites and see that uninstall button get used more
i dont wont to go back to MSIE but it seems Mozilla are giving us no choice.

How about fixing memory leaks first? (5, Insightful)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701534)

Are they trying to drive me to Chrome? I don't want any of that crap.

They need to fix the massive memory leaks. I don't need any features. Spending a year making it more robust.

Right now with 4 simple tabs open(Win7-64), FF4 is consuming 650 MBs. I have to restart it every hour or two as it just keeps growing and growing.

It is my favorite browser for features, but the memory leaks are ridiculous (note the Windows build seems to leak more than Linux/Mac builds from what I read).

If FF5 adds a bunch of lame features and doesn't fix the fundamentals, I am gone.

PS: From the time I typed 650MB above till I previewed and ready to submit, FF4 memory usage as increased to 725 MB...

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701614)

Always with the leak-accusations. I've had FF4 open all day on the same OS-version and it's consuming ~180MB acc. to Task Manager. Isn't it more likely that you're having a problem with some sort of plugin?

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701648)

What Add-ons and plugins are you using?

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701672)

PS: From the time I typed 650MB above till I previewed and ready to submit, FF4 memory usage as increased to 725 MB...

Do you type slow or does FF use memory fast?

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701678)

It's because of exactly what you're describing combined with a broken file association system (long after I removed FoxIt PDF reader because it wasn't working, Firefox was, inexplicably, still trying to launch it), that I moved all of my business and personal machines to Chrome last week. Adblock for Chrome works better, everything renders faster and better, and we've had no crashes or memory leaks. Bye bye, Firefox, hello, Chrome!

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701696)

I don't really have any leaks to be honest.

What I found however is that since I've been using firefox for years now, the plugins which are from the time when every site needed a video plugin, are still there. Go to about:addons, find the plugins tab and rip out anything which you don't need. Do the same for the addons. When you've removed the junk, then see if the leak is still there.

I leave FF on constantly, and I hibernate my computer, such that in certain times it'd have been running for more than 50 hours - no leaks either.

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (4, Interesting)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701722)

I have been reading about firefox leaks for years, yet I have never seen them. I have always thought it must be a problem with some configurations, or a myth/antifirefox propaganda.

Re:How about fixing memory leaks first? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701780)

The whole reason I switched to chrome was that it fixes many of these fundamental flaws. It is a lot more like what Firefox used to be - lean and efficient. Granted, they're adding on the features as well, but at least tabs are self-contained and it doesn't suck down RAM by the hundreds of MB.

Firefox: bazaar turned to cathedral (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701542)

What happened to the slim, extensible browser? Good god. The whole point of Firefox is that it was supposed to be a slim browser that additional features could be added through extensions. Just add another interface to add features that you like but are not supported due to some shortcoming in that system. All of this is more and more features and UI changes that not everyone wants added into the browser. Add a new theme that does tabs on top, while keeping the old one for people who do not. Add a default extension to do social networking in the awesome bar. As I said in the subject: this bazaar is now a cathedral. Maybe most people like cathedrals because they are simpler for them, but do not be one while claiming that you are a bazaar.

Firefox was nice while it lasted... (4, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701556)

I'm sticking with Firefox 3.6x for as long as possible - it's very stable and runs well.

Firefox is making many of same mistakes Netscape did by trying to be everything to everyone.

On a related topic, the strong push to integrate social networking and apps into upcoming versions of the browser makes me wonder if Facebook is heavily influencing the development of Firefox these days.

Ron

How are they going to ship w/non-Free codecs? (2)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701592)

6. In-browser preview: Firefox will also get an integrated PDF viewer (like Chrome) and will extend this capability to more popular file formats, including MP3.

The PDF file format (or at least a certain subset of PDF functionality -- everyone seems to forget about that) is available for use under what I believe are royalty-free terms.

One of the biggest reasons why Mozilla was gunning for Theora (and now WebM's VP8) to be the defacto HTML5 video codec was that those codecs are believed to be distributable under FOSS licenses, without paying any royalties.

I'm sure that there are lawyers who remember the exact patents and dates better than I, but I'm pretty sure that there are patents that read on the mp3 file format that won't expire for several years. How is Mozilla going to ship with support for mp3 files without putting themselves and their users at risk of patent litigation? And if they do ship with mp3 support, does this mean that Mozilla has given up the fight for advocating for only Free/Open codecs, and is now willing to include H.264 support in Firefox and other pieces of Mozilla software?

Fuck you Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701612)

Kill Atom/RSS feed discovery, but integrate Facebook and Twitter into the address bar. Could it be made any clearer that they don't care about standards?

Facebook and Twitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701634)

If Facebook and Twitter integration gets shoved into the core browser, they've clearly lost the plot. Promotion of proprietary walled gardens is not the browser's job. Put in things people actually need, like per-site script permissions for security.

As Extensions! (4, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701646)

All new features in firefox should be implemented as extensions. That is all.

DeadFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701712)

integrated PDF viewer

I already have a way to view PDF files and I could launch xpdf automatically if that's the behaviour I wanted.

a home tab that replaces the home button

And wont that be fucking useful :roll: ? Long time Mozilla users are already using extensions to remove bloat. Someone should start a small fast browser project, they could call it phoenix and... oh wait!

a social sharing feature that is integrated in the URL bar and enables users to post directly to their Facebook and Twitter pages.

I presume there are already extensions for that?

New firefox == new shit to revert and remove.

Did We forget out history? (3, Insightful)

xiando (770382) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701726)

Once upon a time there was a browser named Mozilla, also known as Mozilla Application Suite, which grew and grew. It became a huge pile of bloat. A few developers refused the bloat started an experimental branch at Mozilla which eventually evolved into Firefox. Their goal was to create a mean lean browser without the bloat. This path was good. The new "let's throw in as much bloat as possible" path is a total scandal. I really hope some clever people take firefox 3.6.x and use that as a basis for development of their own without-the-bloat branch. I've used the Firefox browser since it was named Phoenix, and I do think it's gone downwards since a while ago. evince or okular or whatever read PDF files just fine. Having a PDF reader and a pile of dunkey dung built into my browser is not required or desired.

Time for a reboot? (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#35701772)

When Mozilla 5's codebase got too unwieldy, they rebooted it for what we now call SeaMonkey. When what would later be called SeaMonkey's codebase got too unwieldy, they rebooted it for what we now call Firefox. Is it perhaps time for another reboot?

The backend work done for FF4 is good and much appreciated, but the it sounds like the team is resting on its laurels again: it thinks the work on the basics is done. Standards support is still not where it needs to be, yet they're working on fluff like site-specific browsers. It sounds like it's time for someone to go back to the basics again: just a browser in the core, with a good extension model for people to hack all these things into for people who actually want them.

All the crap I didn't want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701794)

By the unexpected hands of Mozilla. Unfortunately people like crap so I'm sure it'd be enjoyed by the unwashed masses.

AN ENORMOUS SHIT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35701864)

I just squeezed one out. Christ it stunk. Pictures soon.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?