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!

A New Look For Firefox

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the not-so-extreme-makeover dept.

Mozilla 416

ben writes "Regular users of Mozilla Firefox may be interested to know a new default theme is planned for 0.9 in preparation for the road to 1.0. 0.9 will also feature new improved theme and extension management, which will make it easy to make Firefox look the way you want it to."

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

Sad news ... Ronald Reagan, dead at 93 (-1, Offtopic)

Bring back the old t (784356) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350011)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi actor Ronald Reagan was found dead in his Bel Air home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his bombs, there's no denying his contributions to popular poverty. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news ... Ronald Reagan, dead at 93 (0, Offtopic)

Cold Winter Days (772398) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350122)

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Re:Sad news ... Ronald Reagan, dead at 93 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350183)

Ah, lies, lies lies - the best the left can do. Still sulking after the Soviet Union went south... pathetic...

Re:Sad news ... Ronald Reagan, dead at 93 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350223)

The Soviets went south? So where are they now? Australia?!

conservatives (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350361)

Can we add something to slashcode to auto-mod conservative shitheads like this to -1? All they ever do is bitch about taxes, whine about how liberal slashdot/the media is, and makes asses of themselves.

Let's just start modding these assholes into oblivion, and maybe they'll leave us alone and go hang out on New Republic or something.

How about... (5, Insightful)

G-funk (22712) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350021)

...They leave everything as it is, and fix the resource leak in windows? It's hard to try and convince people to switch to my browser when I have to "end process tree" the thing once a day.

Re:How about... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350042)

eh? i use FF loads and don't have to do that, ever. could it be one of your extensions or sommat?

Re:How about... (5, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350047)

Well remember the people who design themes aren't the same sort of people who can fix resource leaks!

Also have you got a bug number for this? I've not had any major problems with Mozilla or Firefox for ages.

Re:How about... (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350054)

Definitely. It looks fine at the moment, but that resource leak is the biggest annoyance. Especially when everything stops responding because Firefox running as the only application starts paging on a 512MB machine.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350154)

Especially when everything stops responding because Firefox running as the only application starts paging on a 512MB machine.

Ah, you must be running XP.

Why bother? (3, Insightful)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350072)

The important things like fixing the preferences, the weird [mozilla.org] , fatal [mozilla.org] bugs can wait! We want fun eye candy!!!

They know us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350090)

If you click on the urls posted by parent, you get:

Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled. :D

Re:Why bother? (1)

KrisCowboy (776288) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350141)

Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.

Re:Why bother? (1)

platypussrex (594064) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350258)

That's odd. I just clicked both links (using Safari) and they work just fine. AFAIK I have nothing set to hide referrer, unless Safari does that by default as I don't even see it as an option.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350411)

You have referrer turned off. ;)

Re:Why bother? (4, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350402)

I've just had a look at the bugs mentioned and they're both being worked on. Therefore it's unlikely you'll see them when 1.0 comes out. However, like I said previously, the type of person who can design a good theme is unlikely to be able to help with the other bugs

Re:How about... (1)

asdren (35537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350080)

Is this the same issue that causes it to choke on pages with many images?
Otherwise, I love Firefox for my browsing experience.

BTW, if Opera was able to get $12 million [slashdot.org] from Microsoft why can't the Mozilla folks send in some complaints to get MSNBC's This Week in Pictures [actsofvolition.com] to work with Firefox.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350295)

Just tried MSNBC This Week in Pictures under Firefox 0.8 on OS X - works fine.

Re:How about... (2, Informative)

sgarrity (262297) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350433)

Actually, a reader pointed [actsofvolition.com] out only this morning that the MSNBC This Week in Pictures feature now does work in Firefox.

Re:How about... (3, Insightful)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350105)

First of all, it is a free browser, they have no obligation to fix anything. Buy a shirt, then whine. Second, if they are having legal issues with their art, then to ensure the continued existence of their browser, or else they will have no chance to fix the bugs. On another note, I have never had any problems with the browser from Phoenix to Firefox. Are you using the nightly builds or the official release. If you are using the nightly release, be careful what you wish for.

Re:How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350233)

I do not have these problems anymore. And yay to getting rid of the current default theme.

This is why 'Open Source' projects are hamstrung.. (1, Flamebait)

FatSean (18753) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350248)

Nobody wants to do the grunt work. Everybody wants to diddle themselves over how they added some interface feature that's super cool and customizable. Sure there are those who do the hard stuff but they seem to be a minority.

ow, new design :D (0)

Elior (718065) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350024)

hehe, cool...when will 0.9 will be released ?

I liked the old look (4, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350030)

I did prefer the old look, but then again the new one hasn't been finalised yet and is still under active development (it's been checked in but not enabled yet).

Whatever the case, 0.9 will be an excellent release and well worth trying. However, please remember this release will have some major new features (better extension/theme management, migration of prefs from other browsers such as IE, Netscape and Opera) and then focus will be on polish and stability up to a successful 1.0 release.

Re:I liked the old look (5, Informative)

Conor Turton (639827) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350048)

The preferences importing from Opera works extremely well. In fact I wasn't aware it was there, installed FF 0.9 and fired it up for the first time to set it up just to find it loading up my homepage and my Opera bookmarks were all there.

A welcome suprise and it means I can get shut of my 3rd party bookmark convertor.

The new theme (1, Informative)

ptlis (772434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350041)

Here [mozillazine.org] is the thread containing screenshots of the new theme.

Re:The new theme (4, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350069)

This is not informative. That's not the new theme. The article at the top points to the thread with the discussion about the new theme.

This is a port of the Mac Pinstripe theme, although the new theme based on Pinstripe but called Winstripe (the GNOME version is called GNOMEstripe - not Linstripe!) I assume these names won't be used in the finished product though.

Anyway back on track, although Winstripe will be similar to Pinstripe the icons will look more Windows like and therefore not a total Mac lookalike.

Re:The new theme (1)

ptlis (772434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350084)

Oops, my bad, sorry.

Re:The new theme (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350094)

I have to admit a lot of people are going to make that mistake, perhaps calling it 'winstripe' in the checkins makes people think it'll be more Mac like than it really is going to be

Re:The new theme (1)

Stinking Pig (45860) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350390)

eh. Doesn't look much better/worse to me, tempest in a teapot. First thing I do with a Firefox install is install Mostly Crystal (http://www.tom-cat.com/mozilla/) and Firesomething (http://www.cosmicat.com/software/firesomething/) anyway, so I hardly care about the default theme.

As far as evangelizing new users go, screw 'em.

Thunderbird? (5, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350044)

One reason given is for consistency across platform. I agree with this, but part of the 'platform' is the other software you're likely to use with it. In my case and I suspect in many others, that means Thunderbird.

Will Thunderbird be following suite and changing default theme too?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Thunderbird? (1, Funny)

AbbyNormal (216235) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350070)

Yeah, and probably a NEW name change, just to tick people off.

Re:Thunderbird? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350118)

Thunderfox?... to keep the same animal as the browser

Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (5, Insightful)

Xshare (762241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350059)

Qute was a great Default theme. It looked great as a default theme, and really made switchers from IE feel comfortable. This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (2, Informative)

Jedbro (27646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350095)

Agreed. One of the issues was the license for the grafics, the author has stated he would be willing to change it for mozilla.org.

While the new theme isn't *bad*, it is not nearly as profesional as QUTE is, and a terrible first impression for new users who are coming off of IE.

Sad, sad, sad. Wish this could have been discussed first like in the old days (pheonix).

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

The Infamous Grimace (525297) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350266)

...and a terrible first impression for new users who are coming off of IE.

Somewhere along the South Jersey Shore...

We are preparing for the inevitable; the day when OS X dominates the desktop!
Only 97% to go!
BWAHAHAHAHA!

(tig)

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

theefer (467185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350098)

This new theme just doesnt fit in Windows or Linux... it looks good for OSX, but just not in other OSes.

I disagree. I have been using the windows version of the theme for weeks, and it's really fine. Check this screenshot [kmgerich.com] for an example.

If you really want it to look windowsish, you'd have to use those big, kitch, flashy buttons that are used in IE. No thanks, the general window interface (flashy window frames) is already ugly enough !

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350127)

IE has 2 sets of buttons.. Large (default) and Small (that I've always used).

The current Qute buttons look a lot like IE's Small buttons.

IMHO, The theme in the screenshot you give is _terrible_. I hate those "apple" style buttons.. this is a web browser I'm running under Windows here, not an iPod.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

jokell82 (536447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350343)

I hate those "apple" style buttons

Everyone keeps saying this, but I don't get it. I run OS X, and nothing on my machine looks like those buttons. I'd say they were "apple style" if they were aqua, but those are an original style that just became the default on Firebird for Mac.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (5, Insightful)

Xshare (762241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350134)

First off: That's not the new skin: This is. [cybertarp.com] Second:Exactly. You have been using this skin. You know how to change a skin. Hell, you know what a skin is. You are also a reader of slashdot. That already means that you most likely are an advanced computer user, prolly use linux at times, and etc. Most people aren't. The people who we want to convert from MSIE don't like change. They don't want to go into the skinning thing and get a new skin. It's too complicated. First impressions are also crucial, and most "new users" would see this new skin as alien to them, and they won't want to go through the trouble of changing it, and will just slump back to IE. Just my take on things.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

theefer (467185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350156)

In this case, I guess the best choice is to release Firefox with an IE theme and let power-users change themes if they feel like it ?

IE is just so horrible that both Qute and the new firefox theme are way ahead esthetically. However, if people don't want a new interface at all, would you push an IE looking default theme ?

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (2, Insightful)

Xshare (762241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350187)

I'm not. I'm pushing Qute. Qute looks perfect. It's natural to both users of IE and those who aren't. Thats what we need. Not something thats only natural to those who aren't. Hell, not something that's downright ugly and noone likes.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (1)

theefer (467185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350236)

I don't find Qute exceptional. It's good, but it could be better. I don't know if the new theme they're developping will be better, but I don't want to speculate before they've finalized it. We'll see.

Re:Definately a bad choice on the part of the devs (4, Interesting)

igrp (732252) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350125)

I agree. Most people I introduced to Mozilla were impressed by two features: the pop-up blocker and its feeling. Many remarked that it just felt "right". That's one of the biggest compliments you can pay to a UI designer: if the user doesn't feel that there's a transition period and can get started right away then you've done something right.

Personally, I'm more of an "I don't care how it looks as long as it works" guy but I agree that the Qute theme looks great and I always felt comfortable using it. I guess variety is a good thing but I'd much rather see them sort out their differences and stick with Qute.

If you want to take market share (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350068)

in the browser market, you'd be looking to take it from Internet Explorer (duh). That's Internet Explorer on Windows ... not the Mac. I think that it is important to have a default theme that makes it easy for the mums and dads to identify with (because they are not likely to change it). I think the current default theme does this and the proposed change is a mistake. But what do I know?

Re:If you want to take market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350093)

It's important not to jump the gun, though. Remember how much we all hated the name change to Firefox? And how we hated the name change to Firebird before that?

Let's wait and see what this 'modified pinstripe' looks like before slamming it, 'kay?

Re:If you want to take market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350262)

Let's wait and see what this 'modified pinstripe' looks like before slamming it, 'kay?

Nobody is slamming anything. I think it's safe to say that the new theme will look less like the IE theme than the current default (which is very close to IE's). That is entirely the point, 'kay?

Re:If you want to take market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350279)

My balls on your chin, 'kay?

mozilla optimizer (0, Offtopic)

ehmdjii (622451) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350086)

you guys should check this out:

http://www.computerbase.de/downloads/software/br ow ser/mozilla_optimizer/
(website in german, sorry)

it's an optimizer for mozilla browsers using HTTP pipelining. pages load twice as fast!

opera vs firefox? (2, Informative)

zlel (736107) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350097)

Just tried firefox this afternoon - but switched back to Opera. Am I trying the wrong thing, or does firefox not expose as may options as opera? I wanna be able to do stuff like set my default encoding, browser id, source viewer n stuff like that... without recompling of course...

Re:opera vs firefox? (2, Insightful)

pmjordan (745016) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350128)

Some people prefer FireFox, some prefer Opera. It's really a matter of opinion. I'm tempted to say that for your average end-user, FireFox is the better choice, and for many power users, installing lots of plugins is the way to go.

Personally, I agree with you, I've been a happy Opera user for years. That doesn't mean that FireFox should be more like Opera, it's just a different approach.

Re:opera vs firefox? (5, Interesting)

elFarto the 2nd (709099) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350137)

May I suggest you fire up Firefox again, and type

about:config
into the address bar and hit enter.

More options than you could shake a very large stick at

Also, Character Encoding is in the view menu.

Regards
elFarto

Re:opera vs firefox? (1)

lpret (570480) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350326)

Wow, it's good that they explain _any_ of it...

Seriously, opera allows the same "do whatever the hell you want with this software" attitude of open source, yet they keep the usability of a company that actually wants to make money. Give it a whirl and you'll be surprised.

Re:opera vs firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350159)

you need to get extensions to do such things. it was decided by the firefox developers that most prefs should be hidden so we don't scare away new users. i personally disagree with this decision but that's how it is.

Re:opera vs firefox? (1)

yusufg (3239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350167)

type about:config in the location bar if you want access to all the options. remember that firefox is designed for users not to get lost in the maze of options.

Re:opera vs firefox? (2, Informative)

Pahalial (580781) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350255)

Extensions, my friend. For example, there's a user agent switcher [texturizer.net] that you can customize. there's also a lot more on that page of course, and for the other stuff there's the about:config mentioned in another reply.

Re:opera vs firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350338)

You're right in one single point:

One can change the JAVA path in Opera on-the-fly.
That's nice if your're working with older applications as well.

And to celebrate (4, Funny)

m00nun1t (588082) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350099)

They are changing the name!

It's now known as ThunderFox.

Re:And to celebrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350217)

...You mean iFox?

Re:And to celebrate (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350265)

You should install the plugin, "firesomething" then. It changes the name, even in the referer (not the entire referer) of the browser.

Yay (4, Insightful)

W2k (540424) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350106)

This is why I like open source software development. Just look at that forum thread. Inside a company like IBM or Microsoft, a debate like this would be kept covered up out of PR fears. Open source developers more often than not do not give a shit about PR (which is a good thing), they just want to make the best possible program. They also don't have to be afraid of losing their jobs, getting their salaries lowered, or whatnot. So we get to see the nitty gritty details of intra-project disputes and arguments from the front row, even silly things like what theme ships with Firefox as the default.

Gotta love it.

Re:Yay (3, Insightful)

geeber (520231) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350259)

This forum thread was started by taking a private email and posting to a public forum without the author's permission. This is not the sort of behavior that should be celebrated, whether it is done inside a private company or in an open source community. It is a serious violation of ettiquite.

Re:Yay (0, Troll)

W2k (540424) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350316)

Oh, please. There's no such thing as private e-mail, unless by private you mean encrypted. Sending an e-mail is like sending a postcard in terms of security. If you use it for anything you need to keep secret, you make a mistake. Besides, I think it's good that things like this incident are brought out into the open. People (the Mozilla organization) shouldn't get away with being assholes in their dealings with those to whom they owe every bit of thanks, even if that means posting their "private" e-mail.

Re:Yay (1)

geeber (520231) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350406)

Well I for one consider an email that I send to an individual as a very different thing compared to a posting in a public forum.

I am not talking about security. I am well aware it is easy to snoop through un-encrypted email. The same could be said for snail mail in an addressed envelope. However, I expect the recipient of a personal communication to treat that communication with respect.

I am not trying to let the Mozilla guys off the hook; they behaved badly as well. But if someone were to post in a public forum a personal email that I sent to them, that would end any further communication.

Fuck the Mozilla devs (5, Interesting)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350109)

Sorry to sound like a prick, but some of the lead Mozilla developers have turned into incredibly unresponsive pricks that don't know how to delegate and assign authority properly. I respect their hard work immensely, but their attitude and arrogance on certain issues continues to mystify me. Look at this new theme at the top of this thread [mozillazine.org] . This is beyond atrocious. This is because the Mozilla devs don't know how to resolve differences with other people, and they REPEATEDLY have shown a complete indifference to aesthetic issues in the browser and an unwillingness to make use of the talents of the many artists out there who would be very willing to help create good splashscreens, icons and so on, a rather critical part of a mass market desktop application that we want people to adopt (in the interests of a more secure, standards-compliant web).


Yes, Arvid Axelsson, the author of the current default theme (Qute), may have a bit of an ego himself, and may have been reluctant to freely license his artwork under the same MPL terms as the Mozilla codebase. But he's a reasonable person, and he's indicated he's willing to compromise and do a Free license that works for the Mozilla team, because he wants to make sure that Firefox succeeds, and has the best, most aesthetically pleasing look and feel possible.


For God's FUCKING sake you egomaniacs (and anybody who has followed some of these discussions over the last few years knows this is true - see the splashscreen debacle in Bugzilla, the many UI layout discussions, and the naming debacles for examples), we are relying on you and the excellent browser you have created and maintained. We respect immensely all the hard work the Mozilla and Firefox core developers have done, but their lackadaisical attitude towards branding of their product (Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox?), the terrible aesthetics of the splashscreens and icon sets they keep putting back in are just unacceptable. Qute was the best thing that ever happened to Firefox and the Mozilla project - compare to the awful looking old versions of the Mozilla browser - ugh.


You are the developers and project leaders of a critical mass-market product. If there is truly an unresolvable licensing issue with the current icons and their author is unwilling to compromise, come out and tell us, and assign a group of artists or other aesthetically inclined technology professionals to consider submissions for a new default. Realize that your contributions, while critical, do not need to include drawing shitty icons or making terrible off-the-cuff aesthetic decisions that have a negative impact on the adoption of a critical product for the entire Internet's wellbeing.

Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs (4, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350171)

The problem is when you debate every little detail to death you get a browser like the Mozilla suite which progressed relatively slowly because everything was a committee decision.

Yes I do think this could have been handled a *lot* better because Arvid but a lot of work into this excellent theme and now is word will be getting a lot less attention as it'll now just be a downloadable theme on update.mozilla.org

Also as you can see from the forum thread mentioned in the original article you can see the information process wasn't the best.

However, ultimately difficult decisions have to be made and they can't satisfy everyone all of the time.

If you look at the original charter [mozilla.org] for m/b, Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox you'll see that they intended from the very beginning to have only a small group of people making the decisions.

To quote:
The size of the team working on the trunk is one of the many reasons that development on the trunk is so slow. We feel that fewer dependencies (no marketing constraints), faster innovation (no UI committees), and more freedom to experiment (no backwards compatibility requirements) will lead to a better end product.

Re:Fuck the Mozilla devs (4, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350237)

Those difficult decisions should not be made by Ben Goodger. I'm sure he's a great, stand-up guy. I've worked with engineers like him before - their code may be fabulous, but their sense of aesthetics is fundamentally broken. I support the idea of a small group *of artists and UI designers* making UI decisions, and a group with some marketing experience to make branding decisions.


I've managed plenty of software development teams before, and you just don't assign any random engineer to make important UI decisions. Some people have the talent for this and some don't. It's part aesthetics, part usability, part style. Very important stuff, and not something you learn getting a computer science degree, hacking Unix, writing HTML rendering engines and so on.

You need a bigger "but" next time (3, Interesting)

Dano (2872) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350257)

"..We respect immensely all the hard work the Mozilla and Firefox core developers have done, but.."

Read your own subject line and then tell me during which part of your response you were respectful of them and their work.

Re:You need a bigger "but" next time (4, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350318)

I've spent a lot of time on the Mozillazine forums and so have many others who've contributed code, artwork, testing and hundreds upon hundreds of hours of their time. I am talking here about the core developers from Mozilla.org who have actively displayed their arrogance repeatedly to the rest of the community. In particular, I think Ben Goodger has stood out as a tremendous prick. In fact, my original post said "Fuck Ben Goodger" in the title, but I decided it was too much of an ad hominem, when many of the others have stood up far too strongly for Goodger.


Ben Goodger is the strongest anti-advocate for Mozilla I have ever seen. There are hundreds of other developers who have contributed lots of code to the original Mozilla project and the Firefox codebase. Many of these are great people who have quietly contributed tens of thousands of hours of their work over the years to the community. And those people I respect immensely. The ones who insist on repeatedly driving rifts through and disrespecting the fabulous community of Mozilla supporters that have evangelized their product and fought for a better, more standards-compliant internet everywhere else have been done a tremendous disservice to the rest of the Internet, and I have simply lost my respect for them.

From my reading of it (4, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350350)

The Mozilla devs did the right thing and asked about having Qute freely licenced 6 months ago. They were apparently told no and have therefore taken the only reasonable course left to them, sourcing another theme.

The new theme might not be brilliant but it is a work in progress and rather importantly is freely licenced so other people will be able to tweak it over time.

Microsoft is laughing at you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350373)


marketing/branding IS EVERYTHING, and i totally agree with the parent, engineers are possibly the WORST people to be making UI choices

shame as there is a MASSIVE graphic design community (deviantart/skinz.org/k10k) you know they same guys and girls that design shit for coke,sky,mtv etc etc, and once again ego's seem to be getting in the way ALL THE TIME with open source and of course all the time this pathetic bickering continues the more Micorosft laugh as OSS looks more unprofessional each day

we have a word in uk for ego obsessed people

WANKERS

Nope (-1, Offtopic)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350123)


"Error launching browser window:no XBL binding for browser."

Woo-hoo. Really makes me want to replace (customized) IE with Firefox.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350185)

This is a known issue and is prominently displayed on their site, along with the solution.

And remember, this is version .8/.9 . There will be bugs.

~X~

Re:Nope (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350221)

Well it is a pre-release, they're working hard to make sure that this is fixed before 1.0 - I think it'll be fixed in 0.9 too once all the theme changes have landed.

More pics (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350129)

Some more pics of the new theme, from the author's website [quadrone.org] .

Shame on you Firefox Developers (1, Flamebait)

MackTK (752022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350135)

I just want to register my disgust at the behaviour and unprofesionalism of the people overseeing this project. The way they have treated the artist who contributed so much of his time is appaling.

This is almost enough to push me to another browser.

SHAME ON YOU!

Re:Shame on you Firefox Developers (0, Redundant)

aldoman (670791) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350314)

Who modded the parent flamebait? It's true.

FireFox is a good product, yes, but not so good that they can just throw people around like trash.

Already slashdotted... (2, Insightful)

Momo_CCCP (757200) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350203)

...poor forum server is screaming...
Consistency across platforms or within platforms is quite a non-issue to us KDE users : the Plastik and Keramik themes for Mozilla and Firefox are beautifully integrated in the KDE desktop, so whatever the default themes becomes, we'll still be happy.
As long as skinning is avaible, everybody should be happy.

At last! (-1, Troll)

Maljin Jolt (746064) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350204)

Mozilla with it's primitive gtk look is the only ugly app on both my kde driven desktop and fluxbox driven notebook.

So I am looking forward I could be able to make estetically acceptable look and feel for my visually eccentric fluxbox book.

Re:At last! (1)

kunudo (773239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350249)

Dude, you can skin it.

Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? (4, Funny)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350225)

Can I configure Firefox back to the sane Ok/Cancel button order?

No or Yes?

Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? (3, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350268)

That order is only in Mac/Linux builds.

The reason for it in Mac is because all apps should be that way due to the UI guidelines.

As for Linux apparently it's in the GNOME UI guidelines. However, I rarely use any other GNOME apps in Linux, most things I do are either in browser or in a terminal window - therefore the button ordering is frustrating for me when I'm in Linux because I switch between Windows and Linux more than Linux and Mac.

But technically they're doing the right thing - although ideally it'd only display in that order if you're actually using GNOME.

Re:Did they fix the Cancel/Ok buttons? (5, Informative)

marq00z (732044) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350375)

It's not a bug, it's a feature. The Cancel|OK order appears only in Linux and Mac OS X and it's done this way to be compliant with Gnome and Apple Human Interface Guidelines. If you want to have the Windows-like OK|Cancel order, just add these lines to your userChrome.css in your .firefox//xxxxxx.slt/chrome directory:
.dialog-button-box {
-moz-box-direction: reverse;
-moz-box-pack: center;
}

.dialog-button-box spacer {
display: none !important;
}

BIG ICONS.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350263)

why, ohh why, do so many oss gui apps have massive icons. Firefox is one of the noticable exceptions.

The new "pinstripe" looks like its got very big icons too (arrgghhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

I switched from mozzy to firefox cos of the icons. Thunderbird is nice, but again very big icons?

Why not spend the time getting the calender module finished. Now that WOULD be useful.

Al

And what was Firefix was for, again ?? (-1, Troll)

mritunjai (518932) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350275)

Hmm

Ok, now we'd coin another few laws-

1. "Every OSS program expands until it can do pluggable look and feel and themes"

Combine that with the existing law that "every program expands until it can read e-mail" and you got what firefox 2.0 will look like - Right, now prizes for guessing "Mozilla" :-P

Firefox was *supposed* to be a *fast* lean-and-mean browser. One reason was given that bundling IE with OS works because people are too lazy to download another browser. That gap WIDENS as the download size increases. Already Firefox is 10+ MB!!!!

RANT: Take a look at Opera 7.51 dumbwits. It does full XHTML, HTML4, plugins, *EMAIL*, spam filtering, RSS, newgroups, *IRC*, SKINS (yep, take that eye candy too!!!), tabbed browsing and STILL it is 3.5MB download. You know *that* is what thats called a "product". I'm running an ad-supported version and seriously considering buying a license.

Firefox, well, I have it installed, but won't run it even if its *free* (and I'm going to pay $30 for opera)... now go figure.

Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? (4, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350309)


Firefox was *supposed* to be a *fast* lean-and-mean browser. One reason was given that bundling IE with OS works because people are too lazy to download another browser. That gap WIDENS as the download size increases. Already Firefox is 10+ MB!!!!


Don't be such a troll. The download size for Firefox hasn't been anywhere near 10 meg (except perhaps before they stripped out all the app suite stuff).


If you look at the latest branch builds [mozilla.org] you'll see that the current download is below 5 meg on Windows.

Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350339)

Looks to me like they have it down to under 5MB for the Windows install:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fi refox/nigh tly/latest-0.9/

Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? (1)

aldoman (670791) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350391)

FireFox 0.9 will be at max a 5MB download, and probably closer to 4MB depending on how much stuff they manage to thin out.

I do however think Opera is a very good peice of work for gettin g all that in 3.5MB, put I prefer FireFox for some reason for browsing, and I have all my mail on my iBook using Apple's mail.app (I think it's great... I don't understand why it gets such a slamming).

Re:And what was Firefix was for, again ?? (1)

turnin (698827) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350430)

IE browser is part of OS, so you got the platform to extend.
When it comes to Mozilla, browser itslef is THE platform to extend and it is truly compatable across all major OSes ... so ... 10 MB.

Now, do you really want to compare with Opera?

great (1)

cratermoon (765155) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350293)

But when do we get custom sidebar tabs in PheoBirdFox? Or is that part of the "bloat" that led to the split with the core Mozilla team?

Re:great (2, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350322)

You can do so in Firefox but they're implemented differently in Firefox than the suite.

If you click on a link to add a sidebar panel then it'll ask you where you want to file a bookmark, then to open the sidebar you can look in the appropriate place in bookmarks.

This bookmark approach also means you can turn any bits of HTML into a sidebar panel. Just bookmark a page, go to properties and check "Open this bookmark in the sidebar"

Theme choice... (4, Insightful)

Epistax (544591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350297)

Now I know you can just download themes to your heart's content. I'm using a tiny theme because that's the way I like it. However there's no reason not to have several default themes to choose from at install time. I would suggest the themes be "Default", "Internet Explorer", "Netscape", "Opera" and perhaps a Macish theme. As long as it is explained that this is simply the look and feel and has no real functionality differences (explained in a calm and simple manner), things should be less scary. Previous posters are absolutely right-- the more different it looks, the more scared the user will be, even if everything is in exactly the same place.

GTK 2 (-1, Flamebait)

RickHunter (103108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350308)

A much better place to focus their efforts would be replacing GTK 2 with a sane windowing toolkit, like Qt, for the Linux port. The GTK 2 version is a piece of shit. Firefox now freezes or becomes unresponsive in situations it handled fine before - playing flash animations, for example, or loading more than one tab at once. It looks like GTK 2 required them to abandon any kind of multithreading.

Not that I'd expect anything better from such a fundamentally backwards windowing toolkit...

Re:GTK 2 (1)

stuaxp (746813) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350400)

Nah, the flash plugin has always been rubbish... QT would be fine, but what about those of us who don't want to install a whole nother set of wigets (I know that works in reverse too though) but then I'm sure lots of you KDE people have gtk2 for the gimp... if not then do a QT firefox too....

HCI anyone?? (5, Interesting)

the_true_cirrus (559825) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350320)

Why oh why do they want cross platform uniformity??

One of the most basic principles of human-computer interaction is consistency. Windows users expect to see Windows-like apps, Mac OS X ppl expect native OS X looking apps and likewise for GNOME, KDE and whatever else.

Anything that breaks that (for example an OS X app that looks and/or behaves like a Windows app goes against the user's expections. And ultimately that makes the app harder for them to use and hence less appealing.

Granted there is a lot of similarity between the various desktop environments but they do each also have their own quirks. For example OS X apps have the toolbar along the top of the screen (not part of the app window) and have that little window-resizing thing in the bottom-right corner of a window (not part of the window's border). GNOME and KDE generally have different standard back, forward, reload etc icons for buttons that all apps should use rather than their own.

If you make Firefox look the same on every platform you will be breaking such little quirks and conventions on some (possibly all) platforms and the users will suffer.

I say make a different, native looking (and feeling) theme for each major platform and ship it as the default for that platform!

As for branding - you've got the name, you've got the firefox icon - they stay the same on every platform - surely that's all that's needed.

Personally I think that's a good thing too. I for one perceive it as really annoying and intrusive when I install an app that insists on planting it's icons all over my desktop, installing a pointless system tray icon and making itself the default player/browser/whatever (eg RealPlayer or QuickTime on Windows) - it feels like I get the branding forced down my throat and that does NOT make me a happy user! Apps that don't feel the need to do that are a breath of fresh air and it would be a real shame for Firefox to go down the road of excessive branding.

Re:HCI anyone?? (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350337)

Personally I think that's a good thing too. I for one perceive it as really annoying and intrusive when I install an app that insists on planting it's icons all over my desktop


Good news is they've checked into the installer options where you'd like to place your icons on the Windows desktop so you've now got full control over this (I think you might have to do a custom install which I do anyways)

To: Mozilla Devs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350342)

Please don't end up like the XFree86 developers, and completely ruin your project. Listen to the users, just give it a try. Now that wasn't that hard now was it?

I love Firefox, without doubt the best browser yet, and it isn't even 1.0. Keep it fast and light, bloat is what made regular Mozilla suck, face it.

Caution 0.9 will break ALL your extensions (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9350422)


do not install 0.9 until (if) the extensions have been updated as it will break

once again backwards compatibility has been sacrificed (and we are not even at 1.0 yet) we had now 200+ extensions have to be updated and some have been abandoned as they worked, now they will be broken and useless

i hope all this aggro was worth it, or you might find a lot of people just give up with it and go back to IE while its got a lot of failings at least you know where you are with it and it doesn't keep breaking every month

Slashdot Rendering (2, Interesting)

md81544 (619625) | more than 10 years ago | (#9350431)

Apologies for only just vaguely being on-topic - but does anyone know what the progress is on the Slashdot rendering problem under Firefox (it gets mentioned regularly when Firefox comes up as a topic). I would have thought it would be an important fix for the Slash guys to put in, as I regularly have to refresh a page three or four times before I get any text in the main boxes. This can't help bandwidth...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?