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!

CaminoBrowser.org Launches

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the pinstripeyness dept.

Mozilla 126

Samuel Sidler writes "Introducing CaminoBrowser.org, the new Camino project site. The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures. Months of effort have gone into creating a truly excellent site. While the product pages will remain hosted at mozilla.org, our new website will be the home of the project and all support/development information as well as up-to-date news and information."

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

Slick (1, Interesting)

billybob (18401) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007510)

I agree that's a slick looking site. I didnt even know camino was still being developed :P Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need. Sorry :P

I mainly use Firefox on Windows anyways (as my main browsing experience). Good to see this baby still in development though. I remember how excited I got back in the 0.1 and 0.2 days everytime a new release came out :)

Re:Slick (1, Interesting)

ravidew (456067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007578)

Not being fortunate enough to own a G5, how does Camino stack up against Firefox: is it Firefox for the Mac?

Re:Slick (1, Troll)

penis fish (671987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007584)

No. It lacks extensions, doesn't integrate very well, and isn't near usable.

Re:Slick (1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007757)

Bro, you shoulda left out the "isn't near usable" part. You could have got more bites with that Troll.

Re:Slick (2, Interesting)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007614)

I would think Firefox would be Firefox for the Mac. It is very nice, though, primarily because it's a lot lighter on the usage of system resources.

Re:Slick (1, Troll)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007656)

No, but many Mac users don't want Firefox for the Mac. Even if it behaved well and fit in with the theme of the OS, which it doesn't.

Re:Slick (1)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007684)

Now, where do you get that idea? My Firefox runs great, and looks right at home among my X11 apps and terminal windows ;) Seriously, though, Firefox does work for Mac. It runs a tad faster than Safari, and has compatability with nearly all plugins that are supposedly Windows-only. I mean, really, I don't see anything at all wrong with it.

Re:Slick (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007753)

Oh, I agree. There's nothing really wrong with it.

But that doesn't mean I want to use it as my default browser. It's just a little too buggy, and not Mac-like enough (both in appearance and in keyboard bindings).

Depending on my mood, I use either Safari or a recent Camino. Camino 0.82 doesn't work well with Google maps, so I tend to use a nightly... until I start to run into problems, then I either go to another nightly or Safari.

Re:Slick (2, Interesting)

Clock Nova (549733) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008505)

I used Camino until they removed the sidebar feature. I would much rather have my most often used bookmarks on the side of my screen than the way Safari and Camino now do it.

Re:Slick (1)

qw(name) (718245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011022)

There's nothing really wrong with it.

The only thing that's wrong with it on the Mac is the lack of support for the middle button. Middle-button-click-load-in-the-background is invaluable to me. I use it constantly while in Windows at work (Firefox).

BTW, the middle button is supported in Safari and Camino.

Re:Slick (1)

trevorcor (177535) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012149)

The patch to fix this landed just after FF 1.0 shipped -- grab a nightly build.

Re:Slick (1)

trevorcor (177535) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012047)

The 'tad faster than Safari' only applies if you have a newer Mac with lots of Mhz, unfortunately. My 500mhz G3 has a fast disk and lots of RAM, and for moderate-to-heavy desktop use can keep up with anything but a G5 for most tasks -- but the CPU-usage difference between Safari and anything Gecko-based is pronounced, just as it was between Moz and Konqueror on my K6-2 450 box 3 years ago. Gecko is a CPU-hog, and always has been.

This is more important on Macs than other platforms, I think, because it's only been in the past couple of years that Macintosh processor speeds have started to approach parity with the i386 PC world. The number of mhz-challenged Macs out there is large; they're only a few years old.

Re:Slick (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008321)

Well, I use Firefox on my Windows PC, and I love it. But using it on my Mac just didn't work out- I'm used to hitting the "backspace" button to go back, which for some reason doesn't work on the Mac. So I abandoned Firefox in favor of Safari, which does other things that bug me. It especially lacks plugins like Adblock that I have come to rely on on the other computer.

So right now I can't say there are any browsers for the Mac that I like. I remember trying Camino long ago, I'll have to download this version. Do any Firefox plugins work with Camino?

Re:Slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008641)

Personally I HATE Safari and I really hate how Camino tries to do things the "Apple way". I'm sorry but the bookmark manager is Silly. It shound't take up the current browser view window!!! It really shouldn't.

I stick with Firefox on OSX. It does everything I want the way I want... Safari well it works, just not works well enough for me...

Re:Slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009017)

So use a nightly build of Camino, where you can open it in a new window/tab.

Re:Slick (3, Interesting)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011526)

Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need.

My only problem with Safari is that it is so noticeably slower on HTTPS connections. I use a G4 at work, and any time I need to use an HTTPS connection I use Camino because Safari drags so much. It's not so noticeable at home where I have a 1.8GHz G5, but when on slower machines (including my mom's iBook), Safari just drags on secure connections.

Boo. (1)

penis fish (671987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007527)

Too bad Camino sucks. Stick with Safari.

Re:Boo. (2, Informative)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007634)

Safari, especially the version that run on 10.2, is slow as a dead dog. Camino is fast, very fast, and positively blazing compared to Safari. Ya damn troll.

Great! (1)

geekylinuxkid (831805) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007666)

I've always preferred Chimera/Camino over any other browser in OSX. It's fast, friendly and it just works. Keep up the good work.

Re:Great! (4, Funny)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007702)

I wish they still called it Chimera. Camino reminds me of the rusted-out junk heap sitting on cinderblocks in my neighbors front yard.

Re:Great! (1)

SPY_jmr1 (768281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009113)

Both are spanish. Literally, El Camino means "The Road", but like a lot of spanish words, it changes in context, and for the browser, Camino refers to "Pathfinder", which fits in nicely with the Navagator, the Explorer, and (sort of) the Conqueror and The Big F***in Lizard.(?)

Star Wars Episode II (1)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011071)

"Camino" reminds me of the name of the cloner's homeworld in Star Wars Episode II. Though I believe it's spelled "Kamino" there.

Both have milky white design lines, so...

Ok, we have clones (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007705)

can we now have some innovation? I remember reading a scientific paper, around 1999, which showed that 90% of web browser users hate "history". They use the back button, hardly ever use the forward button and get annoyed as hell when they lose an entire "forward history" because they happened to click on a link after they went "back". Every browser on the planet (probably, maybe, probably not Opera, don't flame me) still has this annoying behaviour. The paper found that the best "history" was a pictorial one that actually showed the user when and how they got to a page with a thumbnail of that page as each node in the tree. That was pretty damn cool! Unfortunately I don't have it for FireFox or any of the many clones.

That's one aspect of a web browser, there's dozens more. I kinda feel like tabs are the last real innovation for web browsers. Kinda like cup holders in cinemas. Guess I should be greatful it didn't take 30 years.

Re:Ok, we have clones (4, Insightful)

guet (525509) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009608)

Actually, I've just been looking at history for a different kind of program, and was surprised by how counter-intuitive the browser ones are when I examined them. The Safari one doesn't reflect the menu, and removes previous moves when you take a positive action and aren't at the top of the history stack.

An easy solution is to flip the history ahead of the current position and insert it before current when the user chooses a new site.

ie (where '-' is current position and the user has come back to site c from site a)

a
b
c-
d
e

when the user clicks on new site f becomes

f-
c
b
a
d
e

because the user just came to c back through b and a, so to them a and b are behind them now.
Rather than starting it again with

f-
c

As Safari does. Perhaps there are other orderings that make more sense - it'd be interesting to see how a lot of people use history, and how the current ones frustrate them - you don't have a link for that paper do you?

Re:Ok, we have clones (2, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009730)

Yeah, that's a pretty good idea! I was going to respond that there is no way I could find the paper in question but I think I did [psu.edu] :) There's a number of other papers that cover the same sort of studies that are cited on that page too.

Re:Ok, we have clones (2, Insightful)

PatSmarty (135304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010249)

Why so complicated? Dude, just timestamp every page visit and sort the menu by timestamp. Simple, consistent, effective.

Cheers!

Re:Ok, we have clones (1)

zero_offset (200586) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010574)

You mean like the Firefox History sidebar does? :)

Re:Ok, we have clones (1)

guet (525509) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010769)

I wasn't talking about the order in the menu (which is obviously usually just sorted by date), but the order of the stack of locations which is used to navigate with the back/forward buttons.

When you go back and forth it becomes more complicated to know where to insert new locations. Most browsers (including Firefox) take the easy way out and throw away all locations forward of the current location in the stack when the user clicks to go to a new site, so the stack of back options is often only a few locations deep - as compared to the menu which of course grows with the number of locations visited.

Sometimes the most intuitive solution for the user is not the simplest one to program...

Re:Ok, we have clones (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010650)

I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that browser history should be a tree, not a list, and that you should be able to navigate it graphically. At the very least, the forward button should provide a drop down list of potential destinations. Another thing that irritates me about browser history is the fact that (in most browsers I've used) opening a link in a new tab causes it not to inherit the history from the previous tab. Why can I not go back to the page I just came from when I have opened a link in a new tab and closed the old one? Sometimes I feel like beating browser developers to death with the principle of least surprise.

Re:Ok, we have clones (1)

jbtule (565639) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011555)

TrailBlazer was a proof of concept of what you were talking about. http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/macwarriors/projects/trail blazer

Re:Ok, we have clones (2, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 9 years ago | (#12013091)

Mozilla fanatics will downmod me but, Camino is not a clone. It must be installed/supported/helped instead of Firefox.

Its a native OS X application. If you use Firefox instead, you just have a windows/unix browser on OS X which is 5 years ahead of them.

E.g. Omniweb here, while I write this reply, spell check is in action. It just calls spell check framework of the system.

You wouldn't believe the "services" a mac user uses everyday. For me, a foreigner, its "one click answers" at first place.

Opera does some inventions about the stuff you mention. Their work with IBM will be in cars. A browser which you control purely by voice, voice XML etc.

Why? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007708)

What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac.

I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007736)

Speed. Speed speed speed. Camino uses a small fraction of the resources that Firefox does.

Re:Why? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008559)

So why not improve Firefox until it uses similar resources to Camino? It seems a waste to divide developers among three browsers on one platform.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007837)

(IIRC) Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

Re:Why? (0)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008294)

Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

Yeah, but...so what?

Re:Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008360)

custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.

Re:Why? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008574)

So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?

A little history. (5, Informative)

Xenex (97062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010198)

"So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?"
That's not what happened.

Camino (then Chimera) was first released in January 2002 [mozdev.org] . Firefox (then Phoenix) was first released in September 2002 [mozilla.org] , and said this about the Mac:
Where's the mac version?
There is no mac version. While Phoenix could be made to run on Mac without much trouble, we see no point in competing with Chimera. Chimera is the lightweight, standalone Mozilla browser solution for Mac OS X. We have received requests for a Mac classic version, and are considering the idea.
Not until Firebird 0.6 in May 2003 [mozilla.org] was the Mac was officially supported. If you're going to 'blame' a project for duplicating effort, don't blame Camino.

Also, an amusing aside: Dave Hyatt [mozillazine.org] started both the Chimera and Phoenix projects. Now he works fulltime at Apple on Safari [apple.com] ...

Integrated Services (5, Informative)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008012)

Camino has built in support for a lot of the system wide OS X features like Keychain, the spell checker, Address Book, most of the cocoa services, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.

Re:Integrated Services (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008608)

Does one really require a whole new browser to do these things? What about implementing support for these native services in extensions, and shipping them with the OSX port of Firefox? Or perhaps building them right into the Mac port of Firefox?

Re:Integrated Services (1)

Fuzzle (590327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008680)

They've been trying to do this for over a year now, and still no good progress. To completely redo the FFox interface in standard cocoa widgets is hard to do and keep feature parity. Anyways, I thought one purpose of OSS was to have a choice? Camino is a slim, lightweight browser that does one thing -> Browse the Web. FireFox is now an ecosystem of a program, where you can browse the web, take notes, do ftp transfers and much more.

Re:Integrated Services (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008933)

It's one thing to have choice among various OSS projects, but when you have the developers of ONE OSS group maintaining Mozilla Suite, Firefox, and Camino, it seems to me like there is a lot of work being duplicated, and one browser would end up a lot better with all developers working on it.

They say that larger programming teams don't make better products, but I have to argue that, since with good use of CVS and a good bug database, the more people you have fixing bugs the better, so long as you have good communication. And Firefox has no shortage of bugs!

What you lose (1)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009842)

Those are nice, but you lose the wonderful extensions of Firefox.

That's the real bummer that prevents me from using Camino.

ExtraPrefs offers an Adblock-a-like, which helps, but some of the other extensions that I no longer care to live without just aren't there.

Re:Integrated Services (1)

bay43270 (267213) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011012)

I just downloaded Camino, and I'm using it right now. Wheeres the freggin speal cheecker?

I had heard that to use true native components in the browser window (rather than just painting native components to the browser), there would have to be hooks added to gecko. Of course this means as soon as Camino has real native widgets in the browser, so will firefox.

Of course, that may not be true... but still... where are my red squigglies?

Re:Integrated Services (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12013061)

I believe you have to select "Check Spelling as I type" from a menu or something.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008484)

Camino's better integrated with OS X and probably fractionally lighter on the resource requirements. Integration can mean more than you think - until relatively recent nightly builds, the OS X version of Firefox didn't support the middle mouse button, for example.

OS X manages things like proxies and other network settings as part of the OS, so you can relatively easily (but not seamlessly, alas) switch from Ethernet to WLAN to modem connections just by selecting the configuration you're using from the Apple menu. Firefox doesn't pick up the proxy settings itself if you do this. Camino would.

Now, that said, Camino isn't compatable with Firefox's plug-ins, and I don't know about you but I've found it's gotten hard to browse without Adblock and Flashblock having tried them. (Hacks to add crippled functionality similar, but not really, to the two are usually quoted when I mention this, but the full blown "I want to be able to get a flash animation to start only when I click it" and "I want to be able to easily add wildcards to my ad blocking script" functionality just isn't present with these "answers.")

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008749)

Besides all the nice features that others have pointed out, the simplest reason for using Camino is that Firefox for OS X looks like crap no matter what stupid theme you try to paste on top of it.

Re:Why? (0, Redundant)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009077)

I would imagine that it would take less work to create a native front-end for Firefox than to code an entirely new browser?

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

godless dave (844089) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009984)

You imagine wrong. For one thing, dedicating part of the Firefox team to making a native OS X port would take resources away from Firefox. They are two different projects with different goals. Firefox is a multi-platform web browser. Camino is an OS X native web browser. In my case, I use Camino because it is far less likely than Firefox to crash my ancient 400 Mhz G4.

Re:Why? (0)

b-baggins (610215) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011374)

Apparently, a decision was made by the Mozilla team some time ago to build their own interface engine and slap it on the rendering engine rather than using the native interface engine for each platform and they are now slave to that initial decision.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Trurl's Machine (651488) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010454)

What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac. I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?

MacOS X has two native API's - carbon [apple.com] and cocoa [apple.com] . Carbon hardly has any virtues of its own, it's main advantage is that its relatively easy to port old, non-Unix Mac applications to Carbon, so whenever anyone has any project that has its roots still in last century, he sticks with Carbon. This is not just the case of various Mozilla-derivative projects but also of - say - Microsoft Office for MacOS. Cocoa is the "native native" API and here's where MacOS X really shines. If you use MacOS X a lot, you tend to hate Carbon and favor Cocoa because Cocoa apps offer much better overall integration with systemwide services, such as your favorite spellchecker, they generally run faster and consume less resources. Camino is Cocoa, Firefox is Carbon.

One more item (1, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007717)

The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures.

Unfortunately they forgot to upgrade the bandwidth as well.

Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets... (4, Interesting)

FlipmodePlaya (719010) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007724)

I recently stumbled upon Kazehakase [freshmeat.net] , which uses GTK+ and is available for Linux. It's in many ways a superior Gecko browser for Linux to Firefox, mostly because it avoids the drawbacks of XUL. It has mouse gestures, full text search and thumbnailed history, RSS, better tabbing (drag and drop of them, they can be displayed vertically, etc.), and I believe some sort of benefit for Japanses speakers. Despite their limited development base, I really think Firefox's platform-specific alternatives (including Camino and K-Meleon) are superior to it.

Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009446)

It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009766)

It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

Huh, weird.

It's just I've never heard of anyone having an attitude quite like that. That is, if Firefox demanded a bunch of crazy shared libraries that all had to be installed, that would blow. But like many applications like it, as well as all the Moz apps that you download from their site, they've got it all linked in there. And they have for years. Just like Netscape before it. *shrug*

I mean, if I'm worried an app will have a bunch of dependencies I try to install it. If it complains about not having libfoo-2.1.4-24 and I have libfoo-2.1.4-39 and a bunch of others, I may reconsider. But why hestiate? The only way to find out is to try it.

Re:Speaking of Gecko Browsers Using Native Widgets (1)

tooth (111958) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010005)

Hardest thing I found when using firefox on gnu/linux (Ubuntu for those playing at home) was getting Java to work. And this was just because I didn't know where to install it and changing bash_profile etc. It took about 2 minutes to find this out and get it working.

I was initially disapointed as I had become lazy running the fox under win32 and the "click here to install this plugin" goodness.

Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten better (0)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007767)

I was extremely annoyed by Camino's old tabbing system arbitrarily refusing to display more than 15 tabs. (a year or two ago, someone complained that tabs didn't look nice when they got really closely packed, and one of the developers decided to 'fix' things by pulling a number out of his hat, and simply ignoring any attempts to open more tabs than that)

Now that I can load up my morning webcomics with a single click again, I may actually switch back from safari to Camino.

Also, Safari & Firefox don't let you cmd-click items in menus to create new tabs, like you can in the windows version of firefox. And it seems Camino supports this too now, cool.

The graphics could use a bit of updating to match Panther's version of pinstripes, but otherwise this looks very cool.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007877)

Hmm...Actually, it looks like Camino and mac-Firefox will let you cmd-click items in menus to create new tabs, but both still won't let you middle-click on menu items to do the same thing. Oh well, there's allways room for improvement.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (1)

murphj (321112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008078)

Middle click works in Camino. It doesn't work in Firefox.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008504)

Does in the nightly builds.

(Running "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041222 Firefox/1.0+" here)

The next point release of Firefox should support it "officially."

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008239)

Tab behavior in Safari is totally user-configurable.

Camino would be my browser of choice if Safari did not exist, but it does, so it's not.

Still, I pity Windows users, who have access to neither of these superior browsers. Firefox does okay in a pinch, but IE6 is gawd-awful.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008454)

I think part of the reason for the limitation was speed. I opened up a bug complaining that Camino (then Chimera) was incredibly slow when opening up a large number of tabs; turned out to be an issue with variable width tabs (ie: trying to fit as much text as possible on the tab bar by having the tabs be different widths).

Part of the fix was to limit the number of tabs accessible within a single window. I protested this, but nobody listened. Glad that that limitation is gone now.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008750)

IIRC, they'd allready switched to fixed-width tabs somewhat before they put that limit on the number of tabs per window.

Re:Wow, Camino's interface has really gotten bette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008858)

Nope - it happened at the same time.

How do I know? I wrote the fixed-width tab code, then bitched when the guy that checked it in added a "max tab per page" constant.

Well... (1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007791)

Not trying to troll here but they should update the damn browser before they try to update the web site. 0.8.2 has been out since freakin December!

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008927)

Yeah, that makes sense. Because the non-coders who were responsible for creating the web page should just sit around and twiddle their thumbs rather than help out in the ways that they can.

Camino's neat, but... (0)

Mr. Cancelled (572486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007808)

...It's awful hard to live up to the standards set by Firefox & Safari on the Mac!

I'm a Firefox diehard, but I find myself still launching Safari on occassion, either due to a neccesaiity (For instance, I don't fee; that DEVONthinks applescripts integrate as well with Firefox as they do with Safari), or just out of the "Wow, it feels so 'lightweight'" feeling that it brings to the table. And this is Firefox we're talking about here! It ain't no slouch when it comes to speed.

In fact, until v1 of Firefox came out, Safari was my number one browser when on the Mac (which is basically any non-work related computer time). But since v1 hit the streets, and especially since the (newish) Saferfox theme came out, Firefox is my browser of choice, just like it is under Linux & Windows.

The reason? The plugins! If Safari supported Firefox's plugins, I would be in a major dillemma(sp?) about which to use.

But this thread's about Camino, and the whole point I started out to make was that Camino's always felt like it was somehow a couple of versions, feature-wise, and stability-wise, behind Safari and Firefox. It is slick, but it's not as feature laden as Firefox, and the last release I used wasn't able to use Firefox's plugins. I hope that changes soon.

Hopefully this new site signals a more active development cycle for Camino. It's goals are to basically convert Firefox/Moz over to a more polished "native app" like look n' feel, which I think would/will be a great thing, if they can accomplish it.

On the other hand, if Safari follows KDE's lead (Safari's still based off Konqueror/KDE code, I believe), and ports the Moz rendering engine for use with Safari, they could, in theory at least, also make Firefox's plugins work also...

Suffice it say that Camino has its work cut out for it! Give me Firefox, the Adblocker, and Tabclick extensions, as well as the aforementioned Safefox theme, and it'll take something revolutionary to make me consider switching. After all, if I need something a little more Native app-like, I can always fall back on Safari! 8)=

Re:Camino's neat, but... (2, Informative)

gitana (756955) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008358)

The reason? The plugins! If Safari supported Firefox's plugins, I would be in a major dillemma(sp?) about which to use.

Agreed, one nice addition to camino functionality is the the extended preferences found here http://www.nada.de/mac/camino/cep.html [www.nada.de]

The ExtraPrefs include a highly effective CSS based ad-blocking system, as well as features such as the ability to customize search engines, spoof your browser type, image control, window reuse etc.

One nice thing about Camino tabs are their low profile - they do not seem to use as much screen real-estate as say the Safari tabs.

All in all Camino needs quite a bit of work but I think that it is poised to be a very good browser for the Mac.

Re:Camino's neat, but... (3, Insightful)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008898)

On the other hand, if Safari follows KDE's lead (Safari's still based off Konqueror/KDE code, I believe), and ports the Moz rendering engine for use with Safari, they could, in theory at least, also make Firefox's plugins work also...
The abundance of extensions for Firefox is in no small part thanks to the way the interface was handled (XUL.) Most of them would be useless in Safari even if it used Gecko, just like Camino can't currently use Firefox extensions either. To make them usable you'd have to adopt both the front-end and back-end of Firefox. And if you're going to do that, you might as well just use Firefox itself.

Re:Camino's neat, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009002)

But this thread's about Camino, and the whole point I started out to make was that Camino's always felt like it was somehow a couple of versions, feature-wise, and stability-wise, behind Safari and Firefox.

Always, eh? Even back before Safari and Firefox existed, when Camino (Chimera) did?

It's goals are to basically convert Firefox/Moz over to a more polished "native app" like look n' feel, which I think would/will be a great thing, if they can accomplish it.

Again, not really, since it pre-dated Firefox. Its goal is/was to make a Mac browser that wasn't as god-awfully complex as Mozilla was, and that integrated with the OS. It's more accurate to say that Firefox started out as an attempt to make a Windows (for it was not cross-platform back in the day) browser like Camino was for the Mac.

Camino has never been intended to be a Mac version of Firefox, it's just that Firefox happens to share some of the goals of the Camino project (but not others, since cross-platform similarity is always at odds with true navite look-and-feel).

Re:Camino's neat, but... (2, Informative)

samuelsidler (53864) | more than 9 years ago | (#12013081)

Unfortunately, you need to understand that Camino and Safari can *never* support Firefox extensions. Firefox extensions are written in XUL while both Camino and Safari use the native Cocoa environment. For this reason, you'll never get your extensions.

On the other hand, the latest nightly builds of Camino support user-defined pref panels making the addition of new features very easy and completely configurable. If you're willing to write it, all those extensions can become pref panels.

Firefox doesn't cut it (4, Insightful)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007828)

For a mac, firefox just doesn't cut it. I really love the extensions but i'm willing to live without them to have the power of the wheel mouse and other such useful things. Camino uses a nice native cocoa interface which makes a big difference in usability.

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (1)

lucas teh geek (714343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008013)

ill give you the interface, but exactly whats wrong with the way the mousewheel works? scrolls fine for me... unless you actually mean middle click, which is broken in the latest stable, but fixed in the trunk nightlies (of which im running a build with my own tweaks; ie. maximizing works the windows way. whats the point in a 128px gap on the right?)

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008274)

Scroll-wheels in OS X change focus with the mouse-cursor. This behavior extends to any app which is developed properly for OS X with the Cocoa toolkit. Most other apps (especially those ported from Windows or Linux) fail to behave this way, you have to click on something first before you can count on the wheel scrolling it. Using TextEdit on Windows drives me mad for this very reason. When I get home to my Mac, I want things to "Just Work."

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008800)

Then there's the fact that Firefox interprets horizontal scroll-wheel movement as going back and forward through history, because of course this what the user expects rather than scrolling horizontally.

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (2, Informative)

lucas teh geek (714343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009685)

about:config
mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.action = 0
mousewheel.horizscroll.withnokey.numlines = 0

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12009853)

The scrollwheel works this way on Linux too regardless of what toolkit you use. Why Apple choosed to put this behaviour in a toolkit is beyond me though.

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008388)

the gap on the right is so you can see at least some of your desktop icons, and can get to finder with one click on the desktop. not as useful today as it used to be, but i still prefer this behavior over the windows way of applications taking over my entire screen

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (1)

Fuzzle (590327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008701)

This isn't flamebait. This is a valid and common concern amongst Mac users who look for interface consistency throughout their applications.

Re:Firefox doesn't cut it (4, Informative)

dimator (71399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12010083)

There's at least one extension that works pretty well under Camino, and once I installed it, Camino became a lot more responsive on my old-ish iBook. It's flashblock [macosxhints.com] , and since I hate pretty much all flash, especially all the ads, this has been a great addition.

extentions! extentions! extentions! (2)

lucas teh geek (714343) | more than 9 years ago | (#12007994)

A new webpage is great but until the browser supports extentions its no good to me. browsing without adblock (amongst others) just doesnt feel like browsing anymore. why would one use camino over safari anyhow? exentions are the main reason i use firefox over safari; remove that from the equation and im not sure it would take much to make me swap

Re:extentions! extentions! extentions! (1)

dn15 (735502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008926)

I use Safari a lot myself, but one possible reason for favoring Camino is good old fashioned principle. All else being equal, some people simply would rather use software that is totally open-source (even though Safari itself is partly open, thanks to KTML/WebKit.)

Re:extentions! extentions! extentions! (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009872)

The underlying libraries on OS X is still closed source so no matter how you flip the coin everything you run is part closed source.

Cool website! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008025)

Hopefully a new version of Camino will look this cool. I still like Camino most besides Safari, but lately I've been avoiding it because I hate to get attached to a piece of defunct software. Seriously, I thought Camino development was abandoned a while back, since it seems like it's been at 0.82 for friggin' ever. Now I can start using it again!

Why Camino over Firefox? Camino is faster, uses fewer system resources, and has a beautiful Cocoa front end, meaning that it's GUI and widgets are all Aqua goodness. When I use Firefox, I feel like I'm on a Windows box, and that's not why I bought a Mac.

Thanks to all the Camino developers out there, they rock! I wish all the resources that went to Firefox for Mac were concentrated on Camino instead. Downloading a nightly as I type this to see what's up.

Camino: It's FAST! (1)

BobWeiner (83404) | more than 9 years ago | (#12008094)

Just downloaded 0.8.2 - first things first - glad to see that development is still ongoing with this browser. I had given it up for dead, though 0.8 was never deleted from my HD.

I toggle between Firefox and Safari for the most part, but the one thing I love about Camino is it's speed. Firefox, by comparison, feels bloated - and Safari feels slow.

I'm very anxious to see Camino hit the 1.0 milestone. Kudos to the developers.

Woohoo! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008594)

God knows the best part about any browser is how good it's website is! Woohoo!

Mozilla power, Mac style... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12008741)

Mozilla power, Mac style, Lossy JPEG compression. Could it get any better?

Nice, but I still prefer Firefox (1)

deep square leg (703399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009054)

Camino looks better and renders faster, for sure. But the reason I use Firefox rather than Safari is the extension system, so it's still my browser of choice.

The three minute test... (4, Interesting)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009120)

I've had Camino 0.8 on my PB for a bit... it's been relegated to my 3rd browser, though. It's not a bad browser by any means.

Camino:
+Nicer tabs
+Better scrolling
+Better integration
-No Mozilla extensions. :-(
-So no way to block Flash or images natively
+Much better preference panel
+Pretty close functionality to Safari.
+Fastest of the three, it seems.

Firefox:
-A little glitchy at times
+Very good extensions support
+Works mostly the same as Firefox on other platforms
-Integration with OSX not so good, nor is it supposed to be.
-Slow at times.

Safari:
+Just works
-No way to block annoying Flash popups

Safari works for most things, Firefox works for the rest, and Camino sort of just ends up out there in case the first two don't work.

Re:The three minute test... (2, Informative)

Nastard (124180) | more than 9 years ago | (#12011765)

I'm replying to you, but really, this is for everyone who complains about no flash/popup/ad/whatever blocking in Safari, as well as lack of serious tab control.

Saft [softpedia.com]

PithHelmet [culater.net]

Yes, they cost money. Yes, they are worth it. No, I don't care if Firefox can do this for free.

Re:The three minute test... (2, Informative)

sootman (158191) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012978)

>Safari:
>-No way to block annoying Flash popups

It won't fix everything, but a custom /etc/hosts file like this one [mvps.org] will kill a lot of ads, including lots of Flash. Takes a bit of work on OS X--you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s' and actually *be* root before you add their hosts file to yours. Not sure why, but once it's working, it's great.

Check this on the Mozillazine forums (2, Informative)

SPY_jmr1 (768281) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009125)

For everyone who thinks Camino is speedy versus Firefox and Safari, you should search the mozillazine forums for arch optimized nightlys of it... The closest comparation I can make is when the roadrunner goes "Beep-Beep" and leaves the coyote in the dust. :P

Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any better? (1)

Cpyder (57655) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009577)

Yes. They could have started by not ruining their nice design by using Jpegs [caminobrowser.org] for text.
That aside it's a very nice site for a very nice browser.

Re:Mozilla Power, Mac Style. Could it get any bett (1)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012941)

That's a header, with special text that needs to look a certain way. It's a perfectly justifiable use of a graphic for text. A great many well designed sites do this, including A List Apart and Zeldman.com.

choice for old Macs (2, Informative)

BibelBiber (557179) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009740)

This browser is certainly the best choice if you have Panther on something like an iBook 500 with just about 400MB Ram. Safari tends to be slow, FF doesn't scroll well and is too heavy for my system (and doesn't feel right under OS X) So Camino does really do a nice job. And if you feel that 0.8.2 is too old, why not use a nightly. They work perfectly most of the time.

Still sticking with Safari... (1)

plj (673710) | more than 9 years ago | (#12009965)

...and I've stated the reason before [slashdot.org] .

Why it has to be so hard to implement this kind of basic functionality? There are at least three bugs in Camino's Bugzilla that are related to this.

No support for PAC (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012247)

AFAICS (and I've just tried) Camino still doesn't support automated proxy configurations, eg load a .pac file from the Network preferences.

Works with Safari and Mozilla but nothing else so far.

On my OS X machines: Safari, Camino, FireFox (1)

singularity (2031) | more than 9 years ago | (#12012889)

I have three browsers on my machine, Safari, Camino, and Firefox. I use them in that order.

I would like to use FireFox more often, but the hideous Windows interface is unbearable. I can deal with it for a couple of sites every now and then than are broken under the other two, but that is about it.

Camino is a great start, but does not offer the full features of the other two browsers. It would be unusable for day to day use, I think (I am sure there are people that use it day in and day out, but for me it is simply too limited).

Safari does most of what a browser should. It is far from complete (PithHelmet goes a far way to improve that, at least in the filtering category), but it looks good and works well 99.9% of the time.

I would like nothing more than to see the day when Camino is feature-complete and a worthy alternative to Safari.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?