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!

Phoenix 0.3 Is Out

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the no-no-phoenix-0.3-is-in dept.

Mozilla 433

David Tansey writes "The Mozilla-based stripped down browser has now reached binary release 0.3. They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions. The point is to work against the 'monolitic' mozilla trunk and make a browser, not a suite. I've noticed that it now uses considerably less memory than Mozilla uses and loads faster. Check it out here."

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

moderate (5, Insightful)

10 Speed (519184) | about 12 years ago | (#4459850)

if only I could moderate the guys doing this...a browser that only browses, small, lean and fast. Such a great idea...(+5 sensible)

Re:moderate (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460058)

you fucknozzle!

You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account. Posts without proper registration are posted as Anonymous Coward

Kick ass (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459853)

Just waiting for a FreeBSD now

Re:Kick ass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459959)

Never going to happen. BSD is dead.

Re:Kick ass (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459994)

Um, freebsd can run linux binaries, so you shouldn't have any trouble with it now..

Soon there will be nothing left (3, Funny)

StefMeister (219044) | about 12 years ago | (#4459856)


The Mozilla-based stripped down browser has now reached binary release 0.3. They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions.


If they continue like this, there will be nothing left by 0.5 :)

Re:Soon there will be nothing left (5, Insightful)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | about 12 years ago | (#4459971)

They are ripping out all the mail and news functions, composer functions, and IRC functions.

There's a bit more to it then that. They are also recoding a lot of the browser interface, for speed enhancement, but also to bring new functionality. Configurable toolbars, for one. A pop-up blocking whitelist, opposed to blocking pop-ups from every site in Mozilla. An extensions manager, just click to install the extension you like (mousegestures, prefbar...no uninstall yet). It's a browser worth watching, IMHO.

Re:Soon there will be nothing left (2, Insightful)

RayOfLight (266465) | about 12 years ago | (#4460095)

I just hope that nice things such as a pop-up blocking whitelist will be backported to Mozilla ...

And in related news. (0, Offtopic)

coryboehne (244614) | about 12 years ago | (#4460073)

I have just released my new operating system based up the very same mindset, I beleve that I have created the fastest loading, lowest bloat OS ever released, it's completely open source. As a matter of a fact, you already have it on your computer and you just don't know it,

{just log in as root, then go to your / directory and simply type in the command rm -rf * }

This will activate my new operating system, also as required here is a full source code dump {""} that's it, nothing more is necessary, be the first to join the future of computing. :)

Good move (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459858)

None of that other shit belongs in a web browser.

Is it worth it? (5, Interesting)

NightRain (144349) | about 12 years ago | (#4459859)

I don't know. Personally I've never had a problem with Mozilla's load or rendering speed. I mean it could be a smaller install, but I haven't bothered with Phoenix as a seperate, if admittedly smaller installer, doesn't seem worth the hassle Ray

Re:Is it worth it? (2)

90XDoubleSide (522791) | about 12 years ago | (#4459878)

"If you think Mozilla's current UI is acceptable, then you are clearly not the target audience for Phoenix." -David Hyatt

Re:Is it worth it? (3, Insightful)

NightRain (144349) | about 12 years ago | (#4459996)

Yeah, fair enough, I'm not the target audience. But my point is it doesn't render any faster that I've been able to see, and only really has a noticeable difference in load times. But you load the browser once, and that's it. I don't see the issue over a couple of seconds. So what IS the selling point? I mean 90% of the people that use it will have Mozilla installed anyway, so it doesn't save download bandwidth or the like. I guess I just don't see why it's compelling enough to bother with. If I'm missing something obvious, I welcome the correction.

Ray

Re:Is it worth it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460075)

What you are missing is that Mozilla/Netscape 6 has been 'out there' for more than year and hasn't even hit a 1% marketshare.

Therefore, back to the drawing board before Ted Turner fires all of their asses.

Definitely worth it! (1)

ites (600337) | about 12 years ago | (#4459935)

On my webgear tablet, Mozilla takes ~30 seconds to load and start.
The current alternative - Netscape 4.7 - is to ugly to work with.
I'm very eager to try Phoenix.
Perhaps I'll try to build an OpenOffice/Lite.
Just for text documents.

Re:Is it worth it? (2, Interesting)

Exotabe (601787) | about 12 years ago | (#4460015)

Well, what jumps out at me is that, already, Phoenix is taking up 2/3 of the memory that Mozilla does. I just installed the 0.3 release, and it resides in 90M of RAM as opposed to ~140M for Mozilla.

While I like/use some of the extras that Mozilla incorporates, I'm going to be keeping an eye on the progress of Phoenix, because I definitely don't need all of them. The concept of a lightweight browser with the power of Mozilla and more configurability options has a lot of appeal to myself and presumably others. As far as the rendering speed, I don't suspect there would be a noticable difference for anyone, unless they were strapped for RAM. Phoenix is built on the Mozilla core, so both browsers would logically both incorporate the Gecko engine for rendering.

My only other suggestion would be to read the release notes [mozilla.org] for 0.3, they might shed some insight as to why the Phoenix people are doing what they're doing.

Re:Is it worth it? (2)

dytin (517293) | about 12 years ago | (#4460039)

Well, what jumps out at me is that, already, Phoenix is taking up 2/3 of the memory that Mozilla does. I just installed the 0.3 release, and it resides in 90M of RAM as opposed to ~140M for Mozilla.

140 M of RAM?!? What are you doing that brings your RAM usage to that high? I am currently using Moz with 5 open tabs and the mail/news reader open, and I am only using 37M of RAM...

Re:Is it worth it? (1)

Exotabe (601787) | about 12 years ago | (#4460064)

You tell me and we'll both know :)

Actually, I've wondered if something's amiss more than a few times, but I've got 512M and not enough time to spend figuring out where it's going right now. Interestingly enough, I still have time to post on /., go figure.

At any rate, the memory ratio between the two is probably right, even if the numbers themselves are horribly skewed.

Interaction, not Merging (5, Insightful)

e8johan (605347) | about 12 years ago | (#4459860)

Great work! I think that this is the direction to move - lots of small(?) apps, one for each purpose. What is needed is a smart way of letting applications interact (DCOP anyone?), instead of merging them into huge projects.

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

Re:Interaction, not Merging (3, Interesting)

nemesisj (305482) | about 12 years ago | (#4459961)

You know what's ironic - that's the way Microsoft has been doing things with their internet tools: chat, email, and browser are all separate, lightweight apps (outlook express, msn messenger and IE) that don't need each other but work well together. Then you've got Mozilla chugging around. I used Phoenix and I love it - its really fast and seems stable. Good work guys.

Re:Interaction, not Merging (2)

e8johan (605347) | about 12 years ago | (#4460080)

I actually said "smart way of letting applications interact", i.e. not OLE, ActiveX or any other M$ way of doing it. I have been developing and debugging OCXs this summer and I hate it!

Re:Interaction, not Merging (5, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 12 years ago | (#4459983)

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

And is still continued today ... the difference? The components are no longer split along process lines and don't communicate using pipes and stdin/stdout. They use the fantastically more powerful mechanisms of XPCOM/CORBA etc.

I've seen this a lot. Out comes a new GNOME/KDE release, people moan and say "What happened to the unix philosophy of small tools?" They are alive and kicking, but those tools have now transcended the arbitrary limitations of text streams.

I've even seen this in reference to Emacs! People kick Emacs for its bloat, but at least if you get XEmacs everything is modular and packaged. You just pick the functionality you want right off. It's all componentized along lisp functions.

Why do people think modularity stops at the command line? It's alive and well, especially in Linux which has to be the most modular OS in history.

It should be noted that DCOP is hardly an advanced rpc protocol. In particular, it's tied to Qt, and is text based (iirc). Something like CORBA is better, but unfortunately is much harder to setup and understand. Hopefully some day somebody will build an object model that doesn't suck.

And as a side note, at least on Windows, Mozilla has been just as fast as IE for ages now. Using QuickStart makes startup instant, although here at work I never bothered switching it on as it starts quickly enough for me anyway. Pheonix is worth more as a test bed for experimental UI design that a "light" browser, as it'll end up becoming heavy as time goes on anyway.

Re:Interaction, not Merging (4, Insightful)

stilborne (85590) | about 12 years ago | (#4460023)

dcop is not tied to Qt. there is a C implementation of dcop that has nary a trace of Qt in it distributed with kdelibs.

and while you are correct that DCOP is fairly simple and less featureful than something like CORBA (which, given the context for DCOP isn't necessarily a bad thing), it can and does send/recv binary data

Re:Interaction, not Merging (-1, Flamebait)

caluml (551744) | about 12 years ago | (#4460050)

Using QuickStart makes startup instant,

??

What Quickstart?
Oh, right, you must be one of those people that says theey love Linux but still run Windows all the time. Come on people, start telling your wives/bosses that you're going to do away with Windows.
PS. This is not a troll.

simple distributed objects have been here a while (2)

pHDNgell (410691) | about 12 years ago | (#4460059)

NeXTSTEP has awesome distributed object support that lives on in OS X. Distributed objects in objective C using the foundation framework (which I believe is implemented in gnustep as well) is incredibly simple, yet still plenty flexible. Whether you're talking across threads, processes, or the Internet, sending messages (i.e. making method calls) on distributed objects is almost indistinguishable from sending messages to other objects. In fact, a method was added to NSObject to tell you whether or not the object you're working with is being accessed as a distributed object.

Java RMI isn't too bad, but anyone who implements (or even works on) any type of distributed object system without doing distributed object work in the NeXT foundation kit is at a disadvantage, in my opinion.

Re:Interaction, not Merging (5, Interesting)

Dog and Pony (521538) | about 12 years ago | (#4460072)

And as a side note, at least on Windows, Mozilla has been just as fast as IE for ages now. Using QuickStart makes startup instant, although here at work I never bothered switching it on as it starts quickly enough for me anyway.

On *what* Windows I ask? As I always do, as I've used Mozilla for quite some time (exclusively for mail, together with others for browsing), on several boxes, and never seen this happen.

Face it people, Mozilla can never be as fast as IE, partly because IE cheats, and partly because, well the Mozilla UI is slow-rendered. The latter could probably be "fixed", but probably not as long as the otherwise great XUL is used - the win is extremely flexible GUI instead. I tend to think that it is worth the slower UI. But don't say it is as fast as heavily optimized win32 GUI. Duh.

It also gets swapped out long time before memory is full, and boy has it got trouble getting back out of there... is this more Windows cheating? It might be. Don't know. It doesn't hang though... just goes for a very long walk before it comes back.

QuickStart helps. Not more, not less. It helps. No instant starts there, even on my AMD XP 1800 with 512 MB meory and nothing else running, IE beats it easily. IE beats it easily on every machine I've tried, ranging from 300 Mhz to around 1500 Mhz, with memory varying from 128-512 MB most oftenly.

So what is this magic machine that makes Mozilla as fast as IE? What Windows? Oh, maybe it is 3.1 on an old 386? That would probably make it hard to tell the difference...

Now, instead of running around pretending as if our favourite browser is already as fast and as good as the competition, how about we open our eyes and make that happen for real instead?

Maybe that would make "normal" people take us seriously, for starters. They don't when they clearly see the lies.

Now there's a new idea.... (2)

Dog and Pony (521538) | about 12 years ago | (#4460090)

This was actually the original UNIX philosopy, lots of small tools interacting to achieve something complex. Let us bring this idea to the desktop and create the most flexible, powerful, easy-to-use desktop ever seen.

You mean like Windows from Microsoft? ;-)

Lots and lots of pretty lightweight applications that integrate easily, you can send email from your texteditor via outlook express, or go to a link in your email via IE...

Well, no, I'm no great fan either. But it had to be pointed out.

This system also allows for more security holes and bigger impacts when security is compromised. That has to be taken into consideration.

But I *like* those functions... (5, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about 12 years ago | (#4459861)

I can see why many people would prefer to get Mozilla's browser apart from all the other junk. But the fact is, I *like* the email client, and web page composer. So I'll keep using the full Mozilla release.

On the other hand, the IRC client could disappear for all I care, and if dumping it would lose some of the bloat, I'd be all for it. Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (4, Interesting)

e8johan (605347) | about 12 years ago | (#4459902)

Why not having all those functions in separate applications that can be automatically embedded into Mozilla if wanted/needed and otherwise leave them out.

I'd say that all this integration makes we want to go back to text mode only. Apps should have one purpose (for example browsing) otherwise they end up being bloated gigants.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (5, Insightful)

Graymalkin (13732) | about 12 years ago | (#4459974)

You'd have more of a point if Mozilla wasn't already a huge framework of code. The parts of the Mozilla that make it a browser, mail client, or IRC client are very small compared to the rest of the Mozilla system. If you want just a browser load up Opera or Athena. Complaining about Mozilla being bloated is silly. It is an entire application framework, not merely a web browser app with a mail client.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460012)

Mozilla sucks because they are trying to sell "an entire application framework" to people who just want to browse the web.

If anyone wants an application framework there's about a 100 better supported and documented ones other than the one from AOL.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (2)

e8johan (605347) | about 12 years ago | (#4460089)

I'm not complaining, I'm trying to encourage the development direction in the mentioned project. The original posting complains about not having all features in the downscaled version. He can use Mozilla then, everyone is free to make their choice!

Re:But I *like* those functions... (5, Informative)

Longinus (601448) | about 12 years ago | (#4459903)

Minotaur [mozilla.org] is being developed as a Phoenix-style replacement for Mozilla Mail and News, except with the same UI as Mozilla. Eventually, Thunderbird [mozillazine.org] will be developed from Minotaur, only with a Phoenix based UI.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (2)

90XDoubleSide (522791) | about 12 years ago | (#4459922)

But why would it not be better if every component of Mozilla was a completely seperate application? Then you could have Phoenix or Konqueror or Lynx as your default browser and still use any other mozilla.org applications that you like. You would also be free of the bloated UI inherent in suites that are so tightly integrated and which have so many components as Mozilla, not to mention making it massively easier to control the codebase, isolate problems, and dedicate manpower where it is needed most (hint: making a major alternative web browser is currently more relevant to the internet community than building the 47th open source IRC client, or a pitiful web design app).

Netscape jumped on the suite bandwagon; now that that fad is over, why can't they get off?

Re:But I *like* those functions... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459995)

Netscape jumped on the suite bandwagon; now that that fad is over, why can't they get off?

Netscape INVENTED the suite bandwagon, which is why they couldn't get themselves off it for Mozilla.

Microsoft never had the audacity to think that Outlook Express had to run in the same process space as IE anyway, and neither did anyone else. But for some bogo-strategic reason, Netscape just had to cram it all into one big process and ignore your system-wide URL handler prefs. Having 1 borked page take down all 9 other browser windows AND your mail wasn't too bright, and lots of folks said so early on (here and elsewhere).

Re:But I *like* those functions... (4, Insightful)

ProfessorPuke (318074) | about 12 years ago | (#4459937)

Have you tried Phoenix? It seems that you're not quite sure what it is. I use Debian, and it's mozilla packages are broken up into separate mozilla-browser and mozilla-mailnews components that can be installed independently.

Yet, I'm running Phoenix right now (after it was introduced to /. last week). Its much more (less?) than the mozilla browser by itself. I'm not clear on the technical details (it runs too well for me to need to dig into it), but they've apparently sacrified flexibility and over-abundant options for speed/compactness. There's no preference option to install new GUI themes, for instance, so possibly lots of XUL stuff has been simplified/eliminated. Also things like download manager & password manager have been removed, at least for now.

Re:But I *like* those functions... (2)

Wonko42 (29194) | about 12 years ago | (#4459954)

Maybe the Mozilla dev team should consider making their product more modular, so components can be excluded.

Looks like you've missed the fact that this is exactly the point behind Phoenix.

Will it be reliable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459956)

My main demand is that the goddamn thing works. I've been using various Crapzilla releases for the last six months on Windows and it actually makes IE and Mickysoft products look like the safe reliable option. Maybe BillG has built in some [if Mozilla then Hang] code into the service packs or something.

Can anyone explain how Mozilla running on NT 2000 or XP Pro OSs can totally hang the OS just surfing the Web? Hang so totally that even the software power off buttons no longer respond. I mean these are supposed to be rock hard server OSs! I know this is as much a problem with 2000/XP but still it is the only piece of software we run that is capable of doing this.

Nowadays there are just too many sites that don't work with Mozilla, in fact there are too many sites that don't seem to work with any browser - largely run by big megabuck corps.

Sorry about the rant, I will persist with Mozilla but will not be rolling it out to the desktops I run yet.

David

good idea and (4, Insightful)

i_luv_linux (569860) | about 12 years ago | (#4459862)

Getting rid of unrelated stuff may help, but I believe they should also get rid of that skinnable interface thing. It just makes everything slower. I don't think that people give any importance to skins on their browsers. It is certainly not a plus at all, but it is a negative because it makes the browser a little bit more unresponsive because it redraws every detail there.

Re:good idea and (2)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | about 12 years ago | (#4459926)

IMO, applications should look like the host OS or they should go the hell away.

per-application skinning is the scurge of our time! (I think a lot of blame can be leveled directly at WinAMP for this)

Re:good idea and (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459985)

Go back to squabble you greasy haired boob!

Re:good idea and (5, Insightful)

TheAJofOZ (215260) | about 12 years ago | (#4459988)

Agreed, wholeheartedly. I got into a discussion/argument with a Mozilla developer over the benefits of native widgits, versus rolling your own when OpenOffice first came out (it started as a discussion on whether OpenOffice should use native widgets or not).

My prediction then was that Mozilla would have no chance on Mac OS if it didn't use native widgets nor would it be looked upon too kindly by Windows users. I was right. Chimera (Mozilla using native widgets) is about as popular as Mozilla on OS X and it's only at 0.5.

Developers, pay heed! You must use native widgets or you are doomed to look bad everywhere! You can't just create a skin and expect it to look and feel right.

Oh and yes, I agree WinAMP should be shot for starting that craze (though otherwise it's not a bad MP3 player).

Re:good idea and (2)

dytin (517293) | about 12 years ago | (#4460082)

Sure, maybe you don't like skins, but I do. I LIKE WinAMP's ability to change its skin. That way it is different than every other app that I run, and it allows me to be at least a little bit unique, and allows me to make my computer feel like my own. Perhaps the compromise for Moz would be to have a theme that would use native widgets. That way, if you wanted to change the theme you could, but you also could use the native look as well.

Re:good idea and (1)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | about 12 years ago | (#4459931)

Hrmpff.. you've obviously never tried Phoenix. With the skinnable thingy. Fast as hell, period.
Shit, I've been trolled, HTH HAND...

Re:good idea and (1)

powerlinekid (442532) | about 12 years ago | (#4460032)

No seriously... the lag in mozilla/phoenix is probably because of the non-native interface stuff. You can rip out as much as you want but on high-end systems it doesn't seem to make a difference. The interface is the bottle-neck.

Re:good idea and (1)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | about 12 years ago | (#4460069)

I've seen every release of Phoenix, and it flies. No lagging, just a bit of a wait before it's loaded. And I'm even using it on NT4.0 for heavens sake :)

Re:good idea and (2)

XorNand (517466) | about 12 years ago | (#4460031)


I agree, to a point, on the skinning trend. But really, what harm is there in having that option? I use Winamp with it's default interface. But hey, I've goofed around with a couple of the skins. If a person is willing to put up with a more sluggish response so they can have have more eye candy, more power to them.

I'm willing to bet money that a lot of the next generation interface break-throughs will be spun from a really cool skin created by a designer who otherwise never would have been involved with software development.

Re:good idea and (2, Insightful)

i_luv_linux (569860) | about 12 years ago | (#4460065)

WinAmp thing is a totally different issue. WinAmp is about entertaining people. You look at it and while the music is playing the skin looks cool. But on the internet, you don't really care about your browser's skin. Why do we have full screen mode in the browsers if the skin issue was that important. Full screen idea undermines the claim that skin is important. Obviously people don't want to see the skin of the browser. While I am reading slashdot I don't remember really how my browser looks like, and I don't care about it.

Re:good idea and (1)

King of the World (212739) | about 12 years ago | (#4460084)

Yay! Another "Mozilla/Phoenix skins make it slow" post without evidence or statistics or anything. I think the moon makes my cheese swell, and other people have posted it too, so it's as good as fact.

No one complains that Microsoft Office uses non-native toolkits. People see an interface, and they see that it looks different, so they superficially blame what the the pretty designs and skins they see.

Look, you have no evidence that it's the skinning makes Mozilla/Phoenix slow, or that in principle using space for another toolkit as done by so many applications is somehow uniquely wrong for M/P.

You don't deserve that rating because you're not informative. Your post lacks anything tangible, and just repeats the party-line.

Re:good idea and (1)

bgarland (10594) | about 12 years ago | (#4460096)

Yeah, but if there was no skinning I wouldn't be able to get away with using Mozilla at work. We have a strict policy of not installing extra software on the PCs here. But I installed Mozilla with the IE skin and IE icon pack and the boss can't tell the difference when he walks by!

I also like that I can install Mozilla without having to be the admin too. :)

Ben

FIRST NON HOMOSEXUAL POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459863)

lusers... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459865)

1st pr0st...columbo jumbo mumbo, fe fi fo fumbo...

Finally! (3, Interesting)

Erazmus (145656) | about 12 years ago | (#4459867)

Finally something that I can run on my Tuxscreen [tuxscreen.net] telephone. Great job guys!

Flighty (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459868)

From the ashes of Mozilla Phoenix has risen.

Low verse High systems... (2, Informative)

powerlinekid (442532) | about 12 years ago | (#4459871)

I haven't tried phoenix on anything less than a dual pIII (1 gig) with a gig of memory so how much more responsive is it? On my systems (the one above and a 2 gig p4 with a gig of memory) mozilla started and runs just as fast as phoenix.

Re:Low verse High systems... (3, Informative)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | about 12 years ago | (#4459940)

turn off Mozillas Quicklaunch memory resident stuff, then start them both (sequentially).

Phoenix starts as fast as IE does, click *beat* open browser window (and IE is (mostly?) memory resident)

on this AthlonXP @ 1.6Ghz with a gig of ram and a WD1200JB (WinXP SP1), Mozilla OTOH takes like 8 seconds from click to browsable window unless quicklaunch is running.

Re:Low verse High systems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459955)

I tried it on a p1 100mhz w/ 32mb ram, is that low end enough for you? i had to switch back to IE on that machine and live with the pop ups, more than one winodw of phoenix .2 just crashed the entire machine

wow (3, Interesting)

g4dget (579145) | about 12 years ago | (#4459877)

And it's "only" a 10Mbyte download. However, I have to say, it does seem more responsive than Mozilla.

Re:wow (5, Informative)

bogie (31020) | about 12 years ago | (#4459936)

Actually its 7.0MB on windows and 9.1MB on Linux.

The size will also be getting smaller as time goes on and they rip out more of the uneeded stuff.

Mozilla-based stripped down browser (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459879)

I hope they didn't trim the Mozilla lizard's balls. I wouldn't want to use a browser with a neutered mascot, however lean the actual browser might be.

Phoenix is cool and all... (5, Insightful)

Longinus (601448) | about 12 years ago | (#4459882)

...but I hardly think we need to a new story notifying us of every new release (especially in these early alpha stages of binary only stuff). This is the forth Phoenix story (1 [slashdot.org] , 2 [slashdot.org] , 3 [slashdot.org] , including a repeat) since its release, so how about we give it a break until a big milestone is hit?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all... (0)

areguan (578670) | about 12 years ago | (#4459947)

but what about all those sysadmins out thier who rely on /. for bug fix notices?

Re:Phoenix is cool and all... (2, Interesting)

abiogenesis (124320) | about 12 years ago | (#4460027)

From the Phoenix FAQ [mozilla.org] :

1. What can I do to help?

We need all the distribution we can get. Tell your family. Tell your friends. Tell your coworkers. If you're a student, get it distributed at your college. Submit a story to Slashdot and other news sites about the release. Make some noise on your blog. Spread the word!

Re:Phoenix is cool and all... (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 12 years ago | (#4460056)

- Phoenix is neither in alpha, nor beta stages AFAIK. Note it just says "Phoenix 0.3". I could be wrong here though if I missed anything saying it was alpha/beta.

- Phoenix doesn't follow the Microsoft/AOL-style version inflation. If it would, we would have version 3.0 final by now. Bug fixing and polish will start in the next version. See also the roadmap [mozilla.org] .

Heathens! (5, Funny)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | about 12 years ago | (#4459887)

The point is to work against the 'monolitic' mozilla trunk and make a browser, not a suite.

My God. You mean they want to make an app that does one job only, and does it well? But that's so... so... Unix! I thought we were supposed to be making everything the same as Windows. I mean, IE has chat and email and... oh, wait. Nevermind.

Re:Heathens! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459908)

Anthony, stop reading Slashdot and hire someone for that PHP position already. ;)

K-Meleon (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459894)

The K-Meleon browser for Windows is a Gecko-based browser that uses native Windows widgets and GUI elements.

It has not seen an official update in almost a year, however there has been a quietly released (as in, not even mentioned on the front page) beta build, which you can grab here [sf.net] .

It adds new things, including support for 'layers, which is basically the name they've given to tabs.

If you're interested with trying new browser and use Windows, you may want to give it a look.

-- Anonymous Hero

Agreed (2)

popeyethesailor (325796) | about 12 years ago | (#4460003)

This beta build kicks ass. It is faster than every other browser I have used(possible exception of Opera for a few pages). The quick launch option rocks.

The layers part needs a bit of work though, I would prefer if they implement regular tabs, with keyboard shortcuts for everything.

And the size of the browser kit is just 4.5 MB ! Phoenix is great, but Kmeleon would be the way to go for Windows users.

About time (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459895)

It was due out Oct 8, but they delayed it so mozilla 1.2beta will "not suck" Does anyone know whether there are plans to keep the core code of mozilla and phoenix about the same? or will the part roads?

This bug says it all... (2, Funny)

Christopher_G_Lewis (260977) | about 12 years ago | (#4459896)

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171082

BugZilla won't allow direct links from Slashdot. Wonder why :-)

suck it bitches (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4459897)

suck it down [goatse.cx]

Monolith (3, Insightful)

yellowcord (607995) | about 12 years ago | (#4459913)

Whats up with the monolithic Mozilla anyway? My understanding is that the UNIX philosophy is/was supposed to be to design programs to do one thing well. Admittedly Mozilla (Netscape) is aimed primarily at windows users but why is it that Mozilla has all that crap? Mail (and Address book) I can understand, but Composer and IRC Chat? Come on now. Why don't the core group work on a stand alone browser instead of having to wait for Galeon and Phoenix to catch up?

Re:Monolith (3, Interesting)

BZ (40346) | about 12 years ago | (#4459969)

The core group is not working on IRC Chat or Composer (except insofar as textareas need to work). IRC Chat was initially done by one person and is now maintained by three people or so.

That's how open source software works. Someone wanted an IRC client? They wrote one. If that's what they want to spend their time on, who's to stop them?

Re:Monolith (1)

yellowcord (607995) | about 12 years ago | (#4459998)

Fair enough, but why not have "just" a browser and then have Mozilla Platinum or something? Or as an alternative a module based system as suggested by WizardofWestmarch (or whoever thought of it first). Either would be a damn good idea.

Re:Monolith (1)

heideggier (548677) | about 12 years ago | (#4460076)

isn't that what phoenix is?

Re:Monolith (5, Informative)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 12 years ago | (#4460008)

Will people please stop bitching about this? If you don't want mail/irc/composer installed then use the net installer and uncheck the boxes. Moz is very componentized, and it will not install them. Don't expect huge reductions in download time or massive increases in speed however - all that stuff is load on demand anyway, so it only slows down your machine when you actually use them.

Opera or Phoenix? (2, Interesting)

Alex711 (585263) | about 12 years ago | (#4459914)

I run a moderate system (Athlon 850 w/ 256 megs of RAM) and I notice a HUGE discrepency in browser load times (esp. mozilla and IE vs Phoeniz and Opera). I initially switched from IE to Mozilla, then to Phoenix, and then tried Opera which has been lightning fast. It appears this version of phoenix may be as fast as Opera (which was infinitely faster than the very nimble phoenix 0.2), though Im not sure.

I think I am going to try this version of phoenix out a bit more and weigh it against Opera to see which is better.

Any comments on which you like better, is faster?

Re:Opera or Phoenix? (5, Informative)

'The '.$L3mm1ng (584224) | about 12 years ago | (#4460070)

From a webdesigner point of view: *please* use Phoenix or any other Gecko based browser. Opera is a nightmare for webdesigners. Especially when using *gasp* DHTML, which can actually be useful.

The next big Opera release may change this, since it will be a complete rewrite with better DOM support in mind. But as of now, Opera sux in this regard.

Who cares? (5, Funny)

The_Shadows (255371) | about 12 years ago | (#4459917)

I mean, all that happened was version 0.2 died and was reborn as 0.3.

What the hell else do you expect from a Phoenix?

Fast but..... (2, Redundant)

igor_p (263951) | about 12 years ago | (#4459928)

It needs better cookie managment...I couldn't check the "accept cookies from the originating site only box" plus there is no option to prompt when you get a cookie. I didn't see any plans in the release notes to add this either.

It's a cool,fast,slim browser and it runs on windows, but I think I'll stick with galeon on linux for now.

The goodness that is Phoenix (3, Insightful)

WizardofWestmarch (614827) | about 12 years ago | (#4459932)

First of all it I agree... they do seem to be overcovering phoenix a bit here... after all anyone who is interested will have tried it during the .2 release or whatever (I know I did) and phoenix already comes with a bookmark for the development page so it's not that hard to check for updates. On Phoenix itself... I'm still running an old p2 300 (need.... new... hardware....) and I know compared to IE6 it runs like a dream. Even on .2/.3 it's a lot less crash prone (I've had 1 or 2 but this early on I expect at least a few) but it's so much more responsive, and it doesn't eat up all my system resources (using IE I used to drop to as low as 2% over a few days [with 416 megs of RAM mind you) now I live around the 40-50% or higher range. On the people saying you like Mozilla's other stuff, targetted at .5 (IIRC) they are going to also release a seperate, integrateable module based on the mozilla mail client, and probably other modules at other milestones. Their goal really does seem to be an extensible browser where you have it be what YOU want it to be and nothing else...

still todo (5, Informative)

carpe_noctem (457178) | about 12 years ago | (#4459945)

I can think of at least one major feature of mozilla that should get the axe in phoenix right away -- the sidebar. When I first messed around with Netscape 6 (before discovering the joys of mozilla), the very first thing I discovered was how obnoxious the damn sidebar is.
The sidebar does nothing for the user, provides very little mobility, and noticably crunches away on memory and processing power when being utilized. If the phoenix team really wants to win over browser afficionados (which I believe is the target market here), they would be well advised to remove this feature from mozilla as well as some of the other "fluff" features released with mozilla.

Re:still todo (1)

Sn4xx0r (613157) | about 12 years ago | (#4459990)

The sidebar does nothing for the user

The sidebar is AFAIK the only way to get to your bookmarks in the same window, when browsing fullscreen (F11). You can show/hide the sidebar with F9. Undoubtedly you'll get some more replies from others explaining the usefulness of the sidebar :)

Re:still todo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460006)

Well, the Sidebar is the last original thing that Netscape Communications Corp dreamed up (back in 1997 or so), so they probably feel rather attached to it.

Re:still todo (1)

Zathruss (451471) | about 12 years ago | (#4460047)

I don't know what you're talking about. There hasn't been a sidebar in Phoenix since at least 0.1 ...

Re:still todo (1)

heideggier (548677) | about 12 years ago | (#4460062)

I think that you can turn that off dude, although some people seem to love it, btw I think IE has a side bar as well so, while everyone is entitled to their opinion, what are you compaining about?

Phoenix rocks (3, Informative)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about 12 years ago | (#4459946)

I've used Phoenix quite extensively for the last month. Put simply, it rocks! It's really fast - faster than IE at least by my perception. Phoenix for Windows and for Linux are both equally good I found.
Great job, people.

blah blah, woof woof (2)

J4 (449) | about 12 years ago | (#4459948)

More responsive or not, it's still a good idea.
_I_ certainly don't use the mail or IRC parts of mozilla (Ok I rarely do IRC and mainly use
konq/kmail, but use mozilla as a fallback for troublesome websites.) but if I wanted an integrated kitchen sink app, I'd use emacs.
--
Vim rox

*sigh* (4, Interesting)

jukal (523582) | about 12 years ago | (#4459977)

just last week I had a look in the old browser collection. The binary size for Mosaic 0.4 (wintel) was 677 280 bytes. Netscape 1.0 is still around 800 000 bytes. 2.0 was 2.5 megabytes. Quite reasonable. Now, Netscape 2.0 was very mature browser at that time - and it's main goal was not the minimize the bytesize or memory footprint. It's nice to see that there is now serious effort to go back down. Infact, we would be much better of if the browser evolution had been frozen some 3-4 years ago and restarted now that we have this magic XML. (Magic XML, which could make things more efficient, just if most XML things would not be bloated). Same thing happens with everything, feature war - forget brains at home - redesign something elegant - feature war on the new invention - redesign realize that everything is fucked up. *sigh, what a bad day :) *

Re:*sigh* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460022)

% ls -l /usr/bin/mozilla
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4979 May 13 18:28 /usr/bin/mozilla

Re:*sigh* (3, Funny)

jukal (523582) | about 12 years ago | (#4460041)

> % ls -l /usr/bin/mozilla > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4979 May 13 18:28 /usr/bin/mozilla

Do you mean to say that you need nearly 5000 bytes of shell script just to be able to launch the browser? :)) Ok, admitted, > 120 lines of it is just comments, which I guess, is a good thing :)

block images from this server (5, Informative)

roalt (534265) | about 12 years ago | (#4460005)

By right-clicking on an image, you can select "block images from this server" and further images will not be loaded from this site, saving you annoying advertisements and download-times.

I managed to replace the slashdot advertisements inside a story with blank space, but removing the top-banner page will also remove all your other slashdot graphics. Maybe phoenix can include a feature that blocks images from a URL containing the text "adlog.pl" ?

Re:block images from this server (5, Informative)

horza (87255) | about 12 years ago | (#4460085)

By right-clicking on an image, you can select "block images from this server" and further images will not be loaded from this site, saving you annoying advertisements and download-times.

I would love to be able to try out this feature, unfortunately using Privoxy [privoxy.org] I've not been able to see any banner ads to block. Also blocks the banner ad at the top of /. without removing all the other graphics. Deals with tracking cookies for you too. Highly recommended.

Phillip.

no good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460025)

The installer is still pretty big.

The interface is still slow and awful.

Using it right now (5, Interesting)

Selanit (192811) | about 12 years ago | (#4460040)

. . . and I love it. It's great. I've tried similar projects before -- K-Meleon under Windows, Galeon under Linux -- and neither of them worked as well for me as Phoenix. Besides, K-Meleon's development seems to have stalled, and Galeon requires about a zillion different gnome things before it'll compile, not to mention the whole Mozilla codebase as well.

The ability to customize the interface *easily* is killer. I like having my Home button on the main toolbar, thank you, and getting it there in Mozilla is a serious pain, and requires 1) substituting a whole new theme, or 2) doing some XUL hacking. With Phoenix, you right click, select "Customize," and then you can drag and drop toolbar elements from the available selection. Absolutely terrific.

Oh! And the plugin installation stuff WORKS now. I never could get Java to work in Mozilla without manually copying files around (under windows) or making symlinks (under linux). With Phoenix, it just downloaded, installed itself, and started working. No user intervention required.

That said, it's not perfect. First off, there are a lot of features enabled by default that you can't disable because the preferences menu has been gutted. For example, I prefer to turn off the Password Manager . . . but I can't, unless I feel like opening up the preferences.js file and altering the preferences settings manually. Hopefully this will be remedied in later versions; on general principles, you should retain preferences settings for each feature.

I'm having a hard time coming up with other objections to it. But I'm sure I'll find some. And then I'll submit bugs to Bugzilla. Go you all and do likewise!

why not opera6.1 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4460054)

qt static opera =4.6M
phoenix 0.3 =9M !=not completely horseshit
opera is faster than phoenix
so why not opera ??
opera is the beeeeeeeeeeeeeeest brower on earth!!!
qt3 is much more better than gtk2

Phoenix / Thunderbird (Minotaur) (5, Informative)

denisb (411264) | about 12 years ago | (#4460055)

Just to clarify the confusion with the projects:

Thunderbird is the new name of the Minotaur project. Unlike what some said, they are thus one, and will fill the same function as Phoenix for the mail part.

Eventually we will have two very capable clients, Phoenix for browsing, and Thunderbird for Mail. This will make advocacy easier too, some people complain they cannot run Mozilla on their older Windoze boxen. Well they can run Phoenix and Thunderbird ! I measured Phoenix memory usage compared to Mozilla and Opera (all with about 6-7 tabs open, the same URLs in all three), and Phoenix was really close to Opera, about 10M less than Mozilla.. YMMV of course with different pages etc, but it is slimmer indeed.

Re:Phoenix / Thunderbird (Minotaur) (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | about 12 years ago | (#4460094)

Thunderbird is the new name of the Minotaur project. Unlike what some said, they are thus one, and will fill the same function as Phoenix for the mail part.

Hmm... I wonder what IE would be if following this naming convention... Mammon? :-)

Testing it out now (1, Troll)

phunhippy (86447) | about 12 years ago | (#4460086)

Well this is my first time using it.. I just downloaded the win32 binary and it seems ok.. they weren't kidding when they said its just a browser.. seems spiffy enuff to... just wish microsoft would let others use the API to display files and folders.. oh wait.. a different file browser would nearly defeat them in their eyes :)

here's what browser needs to me to use it (1)

mrpuffypants (444598) | about 12 years ago | (#4460091)

hey, I love phoenix...small compact, browser that works good, but there is one feature that I STILL don't understand why it isn't implemented:

correcting a URL when I accidentally type in www,cnn,com instead of www.cnn.com

how hard it it to see the damn commas and change them to periods?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?