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!

Mozilla Roadmap Update

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the stuff-to-read dept.

Mozilla 242

wikinerd writes "According to a recent roadmap update for Mozilla, the beta 1.8 version will be unveiled this month, while in the next month a second beta will be prepared. After the Beta2, Gecko engine 1.8 will be finished and it will power Mozilla 1.8, Mozilla Firefox 1.1 and Mozilla Thunderbird 1.1. The developers will then start working on Mozilla 1.9. Here are some nice graphics depicting the roadmap."

cancel ×

242 comments

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

Hey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564866)

I got first and you didn't

I hate
slashbots
slashbots
slashbots

Re:Hey (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564901)

Bashbots are SO amusing.

What new features in 1.1? (2)

MasterOfUniverse (812371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564873)

Does anyone know what new features will be available in 1.1? I know i know, I could have RTFA..but me too lazy..

Re:What new features in 1.1? (3, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564931)

Most likely the primary feature will be the Gecko 1.8 engine. It seems to be the primary purpose for the release, and there may not be any other new features at all except maybe some scattered bugfixes.

Mozilla vs FireFox (3, Interesting)

martok (7123) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564936)

I recently started using FireFox at home and am wondering if someone would mind explaning the difference between Mozilla and FireFox. I understand they're both free software projects and are based on the same core technology. Why are there then two browsers? Is it simply a code fork?

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (3, Informative)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564985)

Firefox is a browser. Mozilla is a Browser, Email reader, usenet reader, page composer, IRC client, and a few other things.

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (1)

Kyouryuu (685884) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565008)

Mozilla is a suite of tools that includes a browser, e-mail program, web site authoring, and IRC chat. Firefox, comparatively, is just the browser component and a few UI and relatively minor functionality differences from the Mozilla suite.

If you find you need the complete suite, that's the way to go. On the other hand, if you're like others who are stuck with Outlook for one reason or another, Firefox is the better choice.

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565046)

Briefly:

Firefox is ONLY a browser while Mozilla in addition to being a development platform, is a combination of a Gecko based browser, e-mail client, a news reader and a calender program. I understand several other functionalities may be in the works.

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565053)

Mozilla is a suite of applications, an email client, a browser and an IRC client.
Firefox is basically the browser extracted. It is designed to be small, fast, and as non-bloated as possible, as opposed to Mozilla, which most people think of as a bloated mess.

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (5, Insightful)

0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565055)

Firefox is an attempt at seperating the browser component of Mozilla, and hopefully making it smaller, more portable, and more memory-efficient.

The rendering engine for both Seamonkey (the Mozilla Suite) and Firefox remains the same, the Gecko rendering engine. What differs is the UI, the functionality and large parts of the codebase.

Originally, Firefox, and Thunderbird, were scheduled to replace Seamonkey, but after some developers voiced their concerns over this, the Mozilla Foundation has decided against this move.

In short, it's not so much as code fork as it is a functionality fork. Firefox is geared towards IE/Opera/Safari users, while Seamonkey is geared towards old school Navigator/Netscape/Mozilla users.

Re:Mozilla vs FireFox (1)

Mr. Falco (856087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565108)

Firefox is just the pure browser with out the email portion. Mozilla is a suite with email and other elements. For those of us cursed with the outlook you might think about using Firefox. It's the way to go.

Re:What new features in 1.1? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564941)

The Burning Edge keeps a running ChangeLog for the next version. It's not offical, but it's still fairly accurate.

http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/releases/1.1 .html [squarefree.com]

Re:What new features in 1.1? (5, Informative)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564942)

From http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/roadmap.ht ml :

We are still working on goals for 2.0 and are drafting a PRD for its development. Some likely goals include:

* Improvements to Bookmarks/History
* Per-Site Options
* Enhancements to the Extensions system, Find Toolbar, Software Update, Search and other areas.
* Accessibility compliance
* More ... ?

(Note: placing an item on this list does not mean it will not be complete until 2.0, rather we would like to be done by 2.0, it may be implemented by 1.1, 1.5 or 2.0)

but but but... (4, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565048)

Still no SVG?!?!

Re:What new features in 1.1? (5, Informative)

davron05 (778470) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565056)

From the Unofficial Firefox 1.1 changelog [squarefree.com] :
New features
* 245392 - Installer options for where to put start menu / desktop / quick launch shortcut icons.
* 231062 - Provide Firefox MSI package.

Major improvements

* 124561 - Anonymous ftp login failure should prompt for username/password.
* 98564 - Caret overlaps the last character in textfield (if positioned after the last char).
* 151375 - Focus outline should be drawn outside of element.
* 133165 - Focus outline should include larger descendants of inline elements.
* 65917 - :active neither hierarchical nor picky about what can be activated.
* 175893 - Make XUL 's focusable.
* 20022 - :hover state not set until mouse move.
* 276588 - Rework toolkit command-line handling. You can now open local files easily from the command-line (e.g. firefox.exe README.txt), and command-line switches should do the same thing whether Firefox is running or not.
* 95227 - Make it possible to set different default font type (serif vs sans serif) for different languages.
* 16940 - [Windows] IME is now disabled for password fields.
* 151249 - [Mac] Middle click on link does nothing on Mac OS X (should open link in new tab).
* 242845 - [Mac] Firefox disk image should use .dmg internal zlib-compression, not .dmg.gz.
* 238854 - [GTK2] Changing GNOME2 theme doesn't apply until restarting Mozilla.

And yes, they are also targeting the famous Slashdot rendering bug (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2175 27). Copy&paste the link to your browser since diredt linking to bugzilla from slashdot doesn't work.

Re:What new features in 1.1? (2, Funny)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565295)

slashdot.org will be diplayed OK, if you call this a feature.

Are they saying... (4, Funny)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564875)

...that Firefox 1.0 can be improved upon?

Re:Are they saying... (4, Insightful)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564982)

They better be. Go read the support forums for firefox if you want an idea on what could be improved. Also look at how many posts there are per day. There's a lot that can be made better. Personally I'm tired of the hype. It's a good browser but until it gets better I'm sticking with mozilla.

Re:Are they saying... (1)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565028)

While I would agree that firefox is a very good browser, you have to remember that it's still software; that means that there are ALWAYS improvements to be made.

The SDLC doesn't just stop at the "ship final version" stage, you keep making improvements on it until you either a)run out of money, b) run out of users, or c) move on to a new project.

Re:Are they saying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565121)

..it's still software; that means that there are ALWAYS improvements to be made.

A textbook example

#include<stdio.h>
int main(){printf("Hello World!\n");return 0;}

Re:Are they saying... (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565067)

How about bug 217527 [mozilla.org] ?
They say it's fixed in the trunk build, but I think that it still happens to some /.ers in Firefox 1.0. It is promised to be gone by 1.1.

Re:Are they saying... (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565103)

Yes, this still happens to me if I slow down my connection a bit.
It is not just slashdot, but we are the worst affected.
Also a bit of optimisation/lower memory usage would be cool.

Re:Are they saying... (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565158)

Referer blocking - copy and paste:
https:// bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217527

REQ: block flash / show url for failed page loads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565091)

My two biggest requests:
1. allow blocking of flash (please, please, please)

2. show the url in the location bar for web pages
that fail to load

Smaller request:
3. Javascript - allow for enabling/disabling
- hide menu bar
- fixed window size
- right click disable
- resize window
- hide status bar
- hide buttons
- hide tabs
- page refresh (please, please, please)

Smaller request:
- block loading anything from a url (e.g., not just images or cookies)

Re:REQ: block flash / show url for failed page loa (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565225)

For blocking flash: flashblock.mozdev.org

First post with 1.9!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564878)

oh wait....

Microsoft! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564879)

FIRST POST!

all hail microsoft!

Re:Microsoft! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564934)

Sorry buddy, you didn't get it this time. TRY AGAIN?

Wasn't Mozilla (4, Interesting)

The Grey Clone (770110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564915)

Wasn't the Mozilla All-In-One browser supposed to be disbanded and effort placed into Firefox a while back? Are they going to continue delaying and delaying this? I tried to read the article, but it didn't seem to say. I'm curious as to how many people still use Mozilla, anyway.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564926)

They were then they changed their mind. Of course, I read that in a Slashdot comments page (several times actually, this question comes up on every Mozilla article)...

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564989)

i am glad they changed their mind, i prefer the full Mozilla suite over firefox & thunderbird, but not to knock firefox or thunderbird as they are both good products, i just prefer the integration of browser & email client, and the basic WYSIWYG HTML editor is really nice too...

-Mozilla is the God of all web browsers :^)

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564938)

I was about to say the same thing. They were supposed to end dev on the Mozilla suite quite a while back. But perhaps they are referring to the browser engine itself and not the Mozilla suite as such.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (5, Insightful)

BW_Nuprin (633386) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564963)

The Mozilla Suite may not be disbanded, but how many people even know about it anyway? Its got its little niche, but whether or not it truly "goes away" now seems irrelevant. Firefox is the focus of all the publicity, and the Suite goes on about its business on its own.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564994)

I believe companies that back up the Mozilla foundation (financially) are in favor of the Mozilla suite at a whole.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565006)

Both groups are still working. The difference is one group hypes its product while the other doesn't.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565010)

I noticed that all our website testers use it, except when they are specifically testing other browsers. I don't know specifically what part they use, but I'm guessing because of Venkman (link [mozilla.org] ) It's available on Firefox now too I guess, but they've been using moz for well before firefox was ever released.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565036)

Maybe they just can't bear the idea of the Mozilla Foundation not carrying a product called Mozilla, and they can't bear the idea of abandoning the Mozilla name altogether in a foundation whose very existence is thanks to Netscape, whose mascot was Mozilla.

Mozilla is a more versatile mascot than that weird orange fox swooshy-thingy anyway.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

markdowling (448297) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565114)

For business, Mozilla is handy as it is a direct upgrade path from Netscape 4 without the baggage of Netscape 7. Maintaining FF/TB/nvu/etc is not attractive to this base. We use Mozilla 1.7 over IMAP.

In fact some companies may ditch FF if they ditch Mozilla. We are transitioning to Notes from Moz and CorporateTime and since we are an XP shop, we have to patch IE regardless so we might well just use it. Even if it is a piece of crap.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (2, Interesting)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565115)

I'm curious as to how many people still use Mozilla, anyway.

I doubt we can know for sure but I'm sure there are quite a few, possibly even more than use Firefox. One of the reasons I stuck with Netscape when IE came out back in my Windows days was its integration of common tasks such as browsing, reading email and newsgroups, etc.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (1)

los furtive (232491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565283)

Use these statistics from W3 Schools [w3schools.com] with a grain of salt, but it looks like Mozilla makes up 4% of the browser market compared to Firefox's 19%.

Personaly I still use Mozilla because I've noticed sometimes when you bring up Firefox from the taskbar it takes 5-10 seconds before it becomes usable again. This was a problem back in 0.4/0.5 and still is a problem in 1.0. I don't think it's ever happened to me in Mozilla.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (4, Interesting)

Omniscientist (806841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565150)

I still use Mozilla, Mozilla 1.7.5 with gtk2+xft x86_64 build. The reason I use Mozilla is because all I have to do is download one program and I get the browser and an email client.

Now the reason why Mozilla Foundation is still making Mozilla is because Mozilla is aimed at vendors who will customize Mozilla to include the necessary or wanted features. We all know Mozilla has an big amount of features, many of which we never use, so the idea is that there would be some sort of vendor or someone making a distro who would customize it properly for its users/customers. Firefox is aimed at the end-user exclusively.

Re:Wasn't Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565211)

I do still use Mozilla. Why?
- Tabs doesn't leak memory like Firefoxes (cannot use, too buggy, takes couple hundred megs of ram after little browsing. I hear this from ALL persons that I recommend Firefox for)
- Integrated email client. Why download two separate apps that consume more memory?
- Composer. The Most Handy Thing Ever to write quickly HTML documents, and even composes almost 100% standard HTML.
- Chatzilla!

Mozilla Suite is much more mature & stable project than Firefox and GREAT all-in-one package. I do NOT want browser-only, I need and like other apps too.

Graphic (1)

xXunderdogXx (315464) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564919)

Is it just me or is that graphic totally unnecessary?

Re:Graphic (1, Troll)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564974)

It's just you :)

Re:Graphic (2, Interesting)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565022)

In order to attract attention from anyone not already familiar with the concept of a software roadmap, you need pretty pictures. Think corporate decision-makers, executives, rich people that want to give Mozilla some money, that sort of thing. Presenting yourself and your product professionally is important, even if it means extra useless charts and diagrams.

Composer? (5, Interesting)

slim (1652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564929)

Now we have Firefox, the only time I load up Mozilla is when I want to use Composer. It's far from perfect (that poxy <p>$lt;br> problem!) but it's a free WYSYWIG HTML editor withoout too many frills or complexities, and it throws out reasonably tidy HTML which can be cleaned up by hand much more easily than (say) Frontpage output.

So what's the future for Composer? I'd love to have it either as a standalone alongside Firefox and Thunderbird, or as an extension to Firefox.

I notice that Thunderbird contains vestiges of Composer (e.g. CSS styles for display modes no longer available)...

Re:Composer? (5, Informative)

Jack Comics (631233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564984)

Your solution is at hand. [nvu.com] NVU is a multi-platform "spin-off" of Mozilla Composer, based on the Gecko 1.7.5 engine used by the Mozilla Suite and Firefox 1.0.

Re:Composer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564988)

Composer is being redone as Nvu [nvu.com]

Re:Composer? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565014)

The stand-alone Composer is known as Nvu. It's sponsored by Linspire (of Lindows fame), which as far as I can tell is why its not on Mozilla's page. However, MozillaZine does report on it from time to time.

Homepage - http://www.nvu.com/ [nvu.com]
Download - http://www.nvu.com/download.html [nvu.com]

Re:Composer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565016)

What you are looking for is Nvu. http://www.nvu.com/ [nvu.com] It is a standalone version of composer funded by Linspire which works very well. It even works nicely as a means to write standard documents instead of using a normal word processor.

Use NVU instead (1, Redundant)

int2str (619733) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565038)

NVU [1] is a standalone version of the composer which is actively developed (probably more so than composer) and works nicely alongside Firefox.

---
[1] http://www.nvu.com [nvu.com]

NVU is a WYSIWYG editor based on Composer. (1)

Sebastian Jansson (823395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565089)

Well there is NVU [nvu.com] . That is according to their own words "A complete Web Authoring System for Linux Desktop users as well as Microsoft Windows users to rival programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver."

It's in it's third pre-release of the 1.0 beta and are based on Mozilla Composer.

But it's always better to code by hand, since you usually can't make semathically correct code in a WYSIWYG editor. (though for design some of them are usable.)

Re:NVU is a WYSIWYG editor based on Composer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565132)

Meh, last as usual. I might as well not post. :/

Re:Composer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565116)

the composer code has been used in NVu which is a stand alone HTML editor the major feature addition is a site management tool - the main backer of the Nvu project is Linspire I think that both IBM and Red Hat have also chipped in.

Re:Composer? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565117)

Have you looked at Amaya [w3.org] ?

I still find it easier to compose HTML by hand. But thanks for reminding me to keep an eye on alternatives.

Re:Composer? (1)

Kyouryuu (685884) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565143)

Check out Nvu. It takes the Mozilla Composer aspect of the suite and makes it an individual program. It also has a few UI tweaks to make it more Dreamweaver-like and better capable of handling multiple pages at once.

Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564940)

Firefox roadmap update [slashdot.org]

Good Work (0)

nberardi (199555) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564948)

I can't wait there have been a few bugs in FireFox that I hope they fix. But all in all keep up the good work guys, I am a little peaved you missed a delivery date, but I can deal.

I think the next big milestone is when /. starts rendering correctly by fixing their HTML.

The Roadmap Made Easy... (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564961)

The Map [dragonswest.com]

Wee:) (5, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564966)

They should make the gecko do the robot in the about window.

Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11564970)

Why are they still working on Mozilla? IMHO, they should stop wasting efforts on it and turn their attention to Firefox and Thunderbird. All the new features go to Firefox and Thunderbird first and there's no reason to work on Mozilla. The Mozilla code is old and they should give it a rest. It's not 1999 anymore guys, get with the times. We don't want a bloated suite when we have sleek, fast programs. You can try all you want to port new Firefox and Thunderbird features to Mozilla, but why waste the time?

If you download all of the apps anyway... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565110)

... wouldn't one centralized Mozilla suite be better to begin with?

I know a number of people who have downloaded Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird, and who are adamantly awaiting a Composer-esque stand-alone app. And yet they won't download Mozilla, citing it's "huge".

Just sayin'.

Re:If you download all of the apps anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565120)

You can use Nvu to replace the composer.

Re:If you download all of the apps anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565203)

> You can use Nvu to replace the composer.

Yes, but my point is that you're downloading FF @ somesize1 + TB @ somesize2 + SB @ somesize3 + NVU @ somesize4 = 4 apps @ (ss1+ss2+ss3+ss4 = somesizeM), and saying that it's inherently better than simply downloading a fully-integrated Mozilla @ somesizeN, where N < M.

Seems strange to me, that's all.

Re:If you download all of the apps anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565286)

But you get more features with Firefox+Thunderbird+Sunbird+Nvu than you'd ever get with old Mozilla.

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565159)

Demand. Many people still want the suite. I imagine they will stop developing the app suite when demand drops to near zero.

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (2, Informative)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565163)

Mozilla is using the NEW gecko engine and the article says that 1.8 will be final soon. How is that old? RTFA. Firefox uses mozilla's gecko engine as well.

From mozilla's FAQ:
"Mozilla (Application Suite, also known as SeaMonkey) is a complete suite of web related applications, such as a browser, a mail/news client, a chat client and much more. Firefox is just a browser, which makes it a better choice if you already have a mail client for example. Also, since Firefox is smaller than the whole Mozilla suite, it's faster and easier to use.
Note, though, that Firefox is not the standalone Mozilla browser. The user interface in Firefox differs from Mozilla in many ways. For example, Firefox has customizable toolbars."

So firefox is different than mozilla because...it has a different user interface. Firefox relies on mozilla's work on the gecko engine so to abandon mozilla is to also abandon firefox.

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565193)

But Mozilla doesn't have any of Firefox's features, like customizable toolbars or extensions, and it only has about 6 themes (compared with the 100's of Firefox themes). No one develops for Mozilla anymore, except the people backporting features from Firefox.

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565222)

Mozilla is using the NEW gecko engine and the article says that 1.8 will be final soon. How is that old? RTFA. Firefox uses mozilla's gecko engine as well.

Just because it's a new engine doesn't mean that it's better than Firefox. A new engine means just means that they're finally getting SOME of the Firefox features, with the same old Mozilla bloat.

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565264)

Hey idiot. Read again. Firefox uses the same engine that mozilla uses, you know, the one that mozilla develops? So if mozilla comes out with a new engine then that means *GASP* firefox gets a new engine! WOW!

Re:Why not dump Mozilla for Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565311)

Hey idiot. Firefox and Mozilla have two different development teams. Fucking moron. They are two different browsers! One is new, fast, and small. The other one is old, bloated, and trying to play catch-up.

I hope they improve on the Mac version (3, Interesting)

slutsker (804955) | more than 9 years ago | (#11564979)

I use Firefox for my Mac, and I have used it for a while now. However, I have found it to use up a godly amount of memory, which sometimes leads to crashes on my mere 512 MB machine. I noticed the 1.0 version was better than the 0.9 version at this, and I hope the 1.1 version is even better.

Anyway, I'm just wondering... does anyone else have these memory problems on their Mac's, or is it just me?

Re:I hope they improve on the Mac version (1)

UWC (664779) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565081)

Not a clue. I've only just gotten a Mini (haven't ordered new memory for it yet, so it's still at 256MB). I do notice a lot of hard drive swapping going on, but I've not noticed if it's worse while Firefox is running or not. Where do I find memory usage stats in OS X?

Re:I hope they improve on the Mac version (1)

MasterOfUniverse (812371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565174)

Where do I find memory usage stats in OS X?

open a new finder window->utililities->activity monitor

Re:I hope they improve on the Mac version (1)

sjonke (457707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565187)

Where do I find memory usage stats in OS X?

Run "Activity Monitor" in /Applications/Utilities/

Click the "System Memory" tab near the bottom. You can also set the Dock Icon to show memory usage if you like via the menus. Select:

Monitor -> Dock Icon -> Show Memory Usage

There are also a number of third party tools that will show such info. I like "Menu Meters". Get it from macupdate.com or versiontracker.com.

Re:I hope they improve on the Mac version (3, Informative)

Turf (244224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565218)

The memory consumption issues kept me away from firefix for a long, long time. Whether on MS XP or GNU/Linux systems, the result was always the same: after a day of heavy usage, Firefox was slow, slow, slow. Memory consumption was always higher than any other program I used. As it neared the 1.0 stage, the memory usage became better. Not ideal, but better.

Sorry I cannot corroborate your Mac usage, except state the same happens on other platforms.

Godly? (1, Offtopic)

amake (673443) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565236)

Did Firefox find Jesus or something? Perhaps you meant "ungodly [reference.com] ."

Re:I hope they improve on the Mac version (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565237)

I haven't noticed, and I only have 256MB. The only time I have problems is when I'm handling very large images (~85MB tiffs).

Graphical display issues (1, Interesting)

kryocore (629960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565004)

I'd like to see more websites displayed properly in the next releases. As much as I like Firefox, it's not my favorite when it hoses up the look/feel of a website. Even if the problems are due to the author and not the browser, end users don't care and they know IE displays it better and think of IE as a better browser. I'd like to see firefox deal with these issues in the same way so more end users switch to firefox.

Re:Graphical display issues (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565135)

> more websites displayed properly

Any examples? I'm not saying that FF displays every page perfectly (Slashdot is an example, but a fix for this has been in the development trunk for some time now), but messed-up pages are far-and-few between for me.

Re:Graphical display issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565232)

Oh yeah well here's a site that doesn't work properly in FireFox, Mr. Few-and-far-between

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com

Re:Graphical display issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565322)

Why is Windows Update an issue, when you can simply click the "Windows Update" icon in your Start menu to automagically launch IE for that one specific site? You know, that one where Microsoft deliberately blocks Firefox? The one that shows no problem with Firefox itself, but rather, a malicious gesture by Redmond?

Of course, had you actually done any investigative work, you'd know that you can still access updated via Firefox at Microsoft's critical updates download page [microsoft.com] . But investigating is probably beyond your ability.

Good troll, though.

Slashdot fix in 1.1 (3, Informative)

TechnologyX (743745) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565020)

Before anyone evens grabs the oblig. "Yeah but it still can't display Slashdot right!!oneone!1" post, the fix is in the pipeline for 1.1. And it's a race condition with Firefox, not with /.

And where does Sunbird fit into all of this ? (5, Interesting)

DARKFORCE123 (525408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565024)

I don't see Sunbird in any of those slides. We still seem to be far away from a complete Outlook replacement that is stable enough to pitch to people. I would think replacing Outlook would be a good investment of resources.

Re:And where does Sunbird fit into all of this ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565141)

Glad I'm not the only one waiting for progress on sunbird. That project has alot of potential and I've been looking for an ap like that for quite a while now.

But can it render Slashdot? (3, Insightful)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565027)

I just want to know if Firefox 1.1 will support rendering Slashdot?

Just an idea, absurd I know, but... since every OTHER site I visit works great with the fox, so maybe somebody should stop posting dupes and fix the HTML?

Yea, too absurd...

Re:But can it render Slashdot? (5, Informative)

md27 (463785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565155)

There's actually a bug in Gecko [mozilla.org] that causes the mis-render, and it's fixed in the code that will be 1.1. I saw this on the burningedge 1.1 fix list [squarefree.com] .

Safari Innards (0, Offtopic)

markmcb (855750) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565051)

Anyone know what Safari's innerworkings are like? From what I've used of it, it seems very Mozilla/Firefox'ish. Is there any relation, or is it just the path that all browsers seem to be going down?

kde (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565149)

konquerer krules in its kore!

Re:Safari Innards (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565161)

It's based on KHTML (the rendering engine for Konqueror), not gecko (mozilla rendering engine). It renders sites very similar because they are both mostly w3c standards compliant (more so than IE).

Re:Safari Innards (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565178)

Safari uses KHTML for it's rendering engine. You know about Google, right?

David Hyatt also (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565348)

David Hyatt [mozillazine.org] is also working on safari. Who was from netscape.

RH7.3 (1)

FreakBoy (70961) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565060)

How about a version of Firefox and Thunderbird that compiles/runs on Redhat 7.3?

Firefox security updates? (5, Insightful)

sjonke (457707) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565079)

The only official release of Firefox is 1.0. There are a number of outstanding security flaws in Firefox 1.0 as reported by Secunia [secunia.com] and none have been addressed yet. I don't know if there is a nightly release that fixes these flaws, but even if there is, those are not the releases that Mom and Pop download, and it is that type of user that tends to be affected most by security flaws. Doesn't the Firefox/Mozilla team need to release a version 1.0.1 that fixes these flaws sooner rather than later? Unfortunately there is no 1.0.1 on the road map, and version 1.1 is not scheduled to be released until June, if it is on time. By then the oldest unpatched flaw, from August 2004, will be 10 months old! While the severity of current flaws is nowhere near MSIE territory, the age of unpatched flaws will be getting into MSIE territory (well, somewhat, anyway.)

Re:Firefox security updates? (5, Informative)

algae (2196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565337)

I'm using FireFox 1.0, and everytime i've seen a security hole announced, an auto-updater pops up within a day or so to install the hot-fix. It's a little green arrow right under the title bar.

Firefox needs better OS X support (1)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565133)

I like Firefox, and occasionally use it in lieu of Safari on my iBook. However, it has one major shortcoming IMHO: the lack of built in functionality for the middle scroll button. Now, I know you can program it in using a driver program, but that's unsatisfactory and leaves it lacking.

I've heard promises of future compliance w/ the middle click to open a new tab, but I hope they pull through and it does happen. Until then, Firefox just can't hold its own with Safari, as the middle-click button is a feature that many users love. Instead, we have to right click + open in new tab to get a new tab [hee hee, luckily Mac OS X does support a two-button mouse!].

Re:Firefox needs better OS X support (1)

amake (673443) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565160)

Middle click support has already been added on the trunk. The next release with this fix will be 1.1.

How'd they make the pretty graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11565153)

I'd like that tool for our workplace.

roadmap to peace (1)

redKrane (672370) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565169)

As far as I'm concerned, roadmaps are only involved in directions to peace. Not software locations...

Where's the freakin' roadmap?? (4, Informative)

amake (673443) | more than 9 years ago | (#11565206)

If you wanted to see the actual roadmap itself, starting at this /. article you had to wade through not one, not two, but three intermediate sites to get to it. Thanks a lot for not putting a direct link [mozilla.org] anywhere in the article, guys.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>