Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 Released

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the download-and-help-out dept.

Mozilla 267

Anonymous Cow writes "Almost a month after the release of Firefox 1.5 beta 1, the second beta of Firefox 1.5 has been released. Firefox 1.5b2 can be downloaded from Mozilla.org. A changelog outlining the changes in this release is also available. The official announcement is over at MozillaZine." From the announcement: " This release does not contain any major new features since Beta 1. Improvements to automated update system, Web site rendering and performance, along with several security fixes are included in this release. Beta 1 users that want to help test software update, should wait for the automatic update to be triggered sometime in the next few days. The incremental update from Beta 1 to Beta 2 is 700K bytes."

cancel ×

267 comments

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

FP? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738393)

-STW

Once again (0, Troll)

zegebbers (751020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738406)

If there are security updates, the software update should notify the user ASAP. Not everybody checks a news site that would mention FF updates.

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738429)

Again, no. They give some people a chance at downloading the entire thing and then allow an incremental upgrade for those who already have it. Give the Mozilla foundation a few million dollars for more bandwidth/servers and I'm sure they could do both at the same time, but as it is right now...

Re:Once again (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738433)

If there are security updates, the software update should notify the user ASAP. Not everybody checks a news site that would mention FF updates.

1.5beta2 is not a security update -- it's a preview of the next major release. Not stable yet (well, unless you compare it to IE/AOL Netscape/...) and not considered to be fit for the general public.
It's a release for developers and adventureous users.

MOD PARENT DOWN --- FLAMEBAIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13739039)

(well, unless you compare it to IE/AOL Netscape/...)

Just had to thow a jab in there didn't you.

IE 7 is an awsome product. Fuck IE6 is fine.

I personally hate tabs so the biggest plus of FireFox is worthless to me.

Plugings seem to work much better with IE for me.

How about you do a point to point comparisson to tell me how Firefox is more stable then IE.

(Disclaimer I know WTF I am doing so security is not a concern when your browser is configured correctly)

Re:Once again (1)

UlfJack (868219) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738447)

However, if everybody starts update at the same time, the update-site will go down and thus, noone will be able to get the update. Of course, you could build a bittorrent client into firefox...

Re:Once again (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738604)

Looks like it's already happening...

Re:Once again (1, Redundant)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738638)

Note to self: use the preview button, dammit!

Moztorrent [mozdev.org]

Re:Once again (1)

75th Trombone (581309) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738529)

In addition to what this reply's older siblings have said, I reckon they want to test the delta-update system. I haven't tried the beta myself, but I think 1.5's auto-update is supposed to be a self-patcher, rather than a self-complete-redownloader.

Nice. (3, Interesting)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738408)

Can anybody remind me what the name of the extension is that lets you use your other extensions? I can't stand that it won't let you use them by default until they've been updated.

Re:Nice. (5, Informative)

Associate (317603) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738438)

Re:Nice. (1)

rahlquist (558509) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738570)

Awesome. One of FF best features is its extensions, its worst is they break with every update until the authors fix them.

Re:Nice. (3, Interesting)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738595)

I've had luck unzipping the extension, changing the version number in the XML file and re-zipping.

Re:Nice. (1)

Val314 (219766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738728)

breaking the extentsions with a new release is the only way. (or would you prefer breaking the whole browser by enabling an extension that doesnt work with this release?)

Re:Nice. (5, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738517)

I only had three come up as not working (GreaseMonkey, Google and FoxyTunes). All three worked fine when I went into the install.rdf in my profile directory for each one and set the max-version to 1.4+

It took about thirty seconds total. I don't have any GreaseMonkey scripts installed right now but Google Toolbar and FoxyTunes both seem to work fine.

Greasemonkey for Deer Park (1)

mavenguy (126559) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738805)

Versions of Greasemonkey in the 0.5.x series (including the current, stable release) will not work in Deer Park, nor will any future 0.5 release. Support for GM in DP is being developed in versions 0.6.x, which is now in beta. This is discussed here [blogspot.com] . It includes a link to the current beta (0.6.2 as of this writing).

I installed this beta this morning, and, so far, the only problem I encountered was that, when I close some tabs, a JavaScript alert pops up with a diagnostic message. I'm not sure if this is a real error or just being used by the Greasemonkey development team to monitor some condition that might be handled without effect in a future, offical release of 0.6. There do not seem to be any harmful effects after dismissing the alert; the tab gets removed and FireFox can continue to be used as normal.

Re:Nice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738603)

Its called Nightly Tester Tools

no mention of my favorite bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738417)

When opening one pikture of a pretti gurl in one Tab: I Kin't rilly go to another tab while I wait for the first pikture to show up. Some sort of lag thang...

Re:no mention of my favorite bug (4, Funny)

Associate (317603) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738516)

Wipe your other hand off and type with both hands.

I've heard that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738424)

it's beta than the last version 8-|

magnet and ed2k links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738439)

As slashdot doesn't support those (AFAIK), you'll have to edit out the spaces yourself:

magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:M2BVB25HHX25S7KILXV2YWVB6U 2W56RQ.OQRSV5PTLIP6PVQJDUPK2ZYFNCQR6PINCYJRHKQ&dn= Firefox%20Setup%201.5%20Beta%202.exe
ed2k://|file|Firefox%20Setup%201.5%20Beta%202.exe| 5214072|0b8daabfad80f416b988d9168991a8ed|/

If there's a nice way to post magnets and ed2k links here, please let me know.

I installed it without any problems (some extensions broke again, but that's normal).

Copy & Paste sorted? (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738440)

1.5 suffers from some serious C&P bug in windows where it won't let me use the clipboard under various circumstances.

anyone know if its been rectified?

Re:Copy & Paste sorted? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738547)

You could just switch to linux and fix a lot of other bugs at the same time...

Re:Copy & Paste sorted? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738679)

Yes, because Linux is well known for its excellent clipboard support.

Re:Copy & Paste sorted? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738556)

Yes, noticed the fix with the first b-2 code that appeared on the nightly branch builds a few days ago.

So what's new (4, Interesting)

Cardinal Biggles (6685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738446)

Forgive my ignorance. I have not yet looked into what Firefox 1.5 is all about.

Why no 1.1 - 1.4 ? What's the major-but-not-major-enough-for-a-2.0 newness in this?

The changelog only lists the changes from Beta 1 to Beta 2 which is not very informative.

Re:So what's new (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738488)

Yeah, I'm a regular FF v1.0.7 user - do I "upgrade" or not?

Re:So what's new (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738500)

The obvious answer: It's a beta. So if you want to test it and don't mind a few bugs, random crashes, etc. then you might want to try it. If you need something that's solid and stable enough for everyday browsing, continue to use the 1.0.x series.

Re:So what's new (1)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738693)

So if you want to test it and don't mind a few bugs, random crashes, etc. then you might want to try it.

Indeed, I do not mind a few bugs, and crashes to test FF and prvide feedback... but I have yet to see any with daily use of the 1.5 beta 1.

The only big problem I see is memory consumption, lots of memory consumption. FF is a pig when it comes to RAM, slowing down my system unless I restart the beast about once every 24 hours or so. Other then that I pretty happy with it.

Re:So what's new (3, Insightful)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738507)

Yeah, I'm a regular FF v1.0.7 user - do I "upgrade" or not?

No. Well, it depends. You might want to test 1.5 to support development, or because it's got features (eg. SVG) which 1.0.7 doesn't have. But if none of these appeal - stick with what you've got.

Incidentally, I'm using 1.5b1, and it seems to work well. But I'm a serial upgrader ;-)

Re:So what's new (1)

willisachimp (732995) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738739)

Very little has changed, tbh, but I'd heartily recommend it anyway.

About a month ago, the 1.x version i was running was being somewhat flakey, when I read an entry from a firefox developer's blog, saying he'd been using the 1.5 beta for some time now, and he found it much quicker and more stable than the 1.x release.

So I switched over, and have been using it constantly, and it hasn't crashed on me once. It rules :)

W.

Re:So what's new (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738501)

The most significant change is to update the gecko engine from 1.4 to a newer version (1.7 I think).

Re:So what's new (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738598)

Try scrolling down to the bottom of the change log. It includes a link to the change log for the previous version.

Re:So what's new (2, Informative)

Cally (10873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738636)

Personally speaking, I find the automatic updates rocks like a Japanese death metal group doing a Peel session. The beta checks for updates daily, and picks up a new nightly build every day as far as I can see... my Firefox install is never more than 24 hours old. Suck it up, Microsoft ;)

Re:So what's new (0)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738663)

Why no 1.1 - 1.4 ? What's the major-but-not-major-enough-for-a-2.0 newness in this?

They've taken out the ads but not changed the browser itself.

Re:So what's new (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738668)

The biggest thing I noticed versus 1.0.7 is its no longer a steaming pile of crap. 1.0.6 worked beautifully, but .7 constantly crashed, bogged down badly on large pages, and was sluggish in general.

1.5 is snappy, is using less memory and miracle of miracles, I've got almost an hour without it crashing.

I'm sure there are actual feature differences, but thats enough of a reason for me to be happy with the upgrade.

Re:So what's new (1)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738712)

That's certainly not my experience. I use 1.5 beta 1 at home, and 1.0.7 in the office, and I haven't really noticed much difference. I sometimes run the same copy of firefox for days and don't suffer crashes.

Re:So what's new (1)

geeber (520231) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738960)

Yeah, I have been noticing that too with 1.0.7. I have been getting lots of crashes lately. This was never a problem with 1.0.6 or earlier. It's almost like I am running IE or something.

Re:So what's new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738978)

Have to assume that you are suffering from "Corrupted Profile Syndrome", which has plauged Mozilla since the early days. 1.07 may be bloated and sluggish, but no more so than any other release of FF.

Re:So what's new (5, Informative)

richwklein (767820) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738921)

Originally this was suppose to be a 1.1 release, but since there had been almost a year worth of development on the Gecko rendering engine between 1.0 and this release, they decided to bump the version to 1.5. They've also included a lot more features than originally planned for. Such as the new software update.

Wait a minute.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738451)

Does it run in my browser?

Flash fixed? (5, Interesting)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738459)

Could anybody using this please tell me if they've fixed the (currently non-working) ability to disable all Flash? In IE, I just uninstall the Active X control. In Firefox, you can disable it, but it doesn't work. I certainly hope that they're fixing bugs before adding more features...

Re:Flash fixed? (4, Informative)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738484)

You're looking for Flashblock [mozdev.org] .

Re:Flash fixed? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738777)

You know, an extension system that can fix it isn't an excuse for a feature not working properly.

Re:Flash fixed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13739080)

FlashBlock is better than completely disabling Flash, it allows you to selectively view Flash, but blocks it from loading otherwise.

I actually don't use FlashBlock, but use a modification to userContent.css [floppymoose.com] which does the same thing but works without the need to install any extension. I haven't actually tested that in 1.5, so I don't know if it'll help or not.

Re:Flash fixed? (1)

Monoman (8745) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738831)

Once you go *Block you will never go bock. :-)

Flashblock, AdblockPlus (with Filterset.g and updater), Foxylicous, etc make it THE browser for me. The only thing I really miss from Opera is "paste and go".

Re:Flash fixed? (1)

Crayon Kid (700279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13739009)

The only thing I really miss from Opera is "paste and go".

While not exactly identical, here are a couple of suggestions for Firefox:

1) Control-L will select the address in the location bar. Just paste to replace it, then push Enter or Go.

2) Install the Diggler extension. It adds a button for the toolbar which you can use to quickly erase it. This way you can rely more on the mouse.

3) In Linux, if you activate middlemouse.contentLoadURL and middlemouse.paste in about:config, you can simply select an URL (a la mIRC) then middle click on a page and it goes to it. There's also middlemouse.openNewWindow if you want it.

Firefox Plugin Management (2, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738732)

Firefox plugins (not Addins..) are the hidden automatic way to handle extra file extensions, and are similar to ActiveX plugins for IE.
You can remove the flash plugin fully without resorting to letting the Flash load and then hiding it from the DOM model (as flashblock does - i hate the "flash" flicker it does and would rather a broken box appeared instead, i never ever want or need flash...)

Plugins are listed in firefox by browsing to about:plugins
(a very nice report actually)

If you open about:config and change the setting "plugin.expose_full_path" to true, you can see where each plugin is located for removal.

To remove a plugin, you must delete it, or move it into a new folder.

I just removed the files:
NPSWF32.dll
flashplayer.xpt

All flash now comes up with the green jigsaw "click here to download the plugin" and doesn't even attempt to load.

Hope this helps :)

Plugins list and info: http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]

Uninstalling Plugins help page: http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/faqs/uninstall.html [mozdev.org]

Just wait a couple more hours. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738473)

Beta 3 should be out with the security fixes in just a couple of hours.

Re:Just wait a couple more hours. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738593)

ba doom tish!

Killing Karma... (5, Insightful)

DoubleDangerClub (855480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738476)

I have a topic to debate, Standards.
If Firefox does get "Standards" in place, what really makes them good at all? This point is not made out of ignorance, but true question.
Firefox proposes that everyone adhere to the Standards of the W3, but say Safari and IE decide, "Ok, let's do it." Then what really sets any of them apart (other than Safari being Mac only)?
Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.
And furthermore, not even FF adheres only to the standards, as outlined in the paragraph that speaks of the w3 (do a find for 'w3') ---> Standards? [mozilla.org]

My favorite quote on there is: "Keep in mind that this is not yet part of any W3C or other official standard. At this time it is necessary to bend the rules in order to have full keyboard accessibility."
But isn't this what MS did long ago to make the better browser experience over NS?

Anyway, I don't mean to trash on FF at all, but I just wonder, who really wants the Standards implemented (I actually do), and then what happens after that? How do we get better dev tools and code to use in our web-apps (the w3 doesn't seem on top of new tech)?

Re:Killing Karma... (2, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738512)

Users (at least of Windows) are not so concerned about standards - web developers are. The fewer differences between browsers, the less work they have to do and the more "advanced" parts of the specs they can use. Web developers write the standards, not users, so they obviously would stand to benefit the most.

Personally, I think users were best off in the Netscape 4.x days when there was healthy competition in the browsers, and none of this fancy flash/pop-up/floating box crap. The web was all about content (or lack thereof). Ah, well, the almighty dollar...

Re:Killing Karma... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738519)

I believe the issue was not that MS added features where no standards existed or even extended a standard but rather they ignored existing standards in favor of doing it their own way.

Re:Killing Karma... (3, Insightful)

X_Bones (93097) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738537)

The "Web standards" you're talking about would allow any (standards-compliant) browser to render any page in the exact same way. No more JavaScript hacks, no more broken CSS implementations. It's more for Web developers than actual end users, though of course end-users would benefit from not having to use a certain browser for a certain site.

What would then differentiate Web browsers from one another would be their interface and feature set; e.g., some would have tabbed browsing while some wouldn't, some would offer BitTorrent integration, some wouldn't, etc.

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738838)

What "web standards" do popular AJAX applications use? I don't recall ever running GMail or Google Maps through a JavaScript validator. They're all JavaScript hacks, and people love them.

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

cloudreader (801693) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738958)

The browser can support any number of programming languages/scripts/technologies like javascript,vbscript,AJAX,FLASH,applet,activex .....etc.

But the point is
*If the resulting rendered HTML code follows standard, then the browser should render it according to the standard*

for example in gmail or google maps, new data is brought from the server using xmlhttp and inserted into a place using DOM manipulation, but as far as the resulting HTML is standard, the page should be also rendered according to standard.

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738969)

ECMA-262 [ecma-international.org] (ECMAScript Language Specification).

The XMLHttpRequest [w3schools.com] class that fashionable web applications use is not a standard, but it is pretty simple; it looks like the only difference between using it in IE and Mozilla/KHTML is how you create an instance of it.

Re:Killing Karma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738982)

> The "Web standards" you're talking about would allow any (standards-compliant) browser to render any page in the exact same way.

HTML (even with CSS) isn't designed to be rendered in One Correct Way, there are many valid ways to render the same code. If you want your design to look the same everywhere use PDF instead of abusing HTML.

Re:Killing Karma... (2, Informative)

csirac (574795) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738574)

Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.


"money and resources" aren't everything. MS can't afford to make radical changes in IE, in fact they've absolutely struggled to make _ANY_ changes at all compared to FF which has ejoyed a fairly nimble development process so far. I will speculate that the reasons include: a crusty code-base which hasn't seen much work since the Netscape war (compared to the Everything Is New (tm) enthusiasm FF developers seem to have), and a fear that any real change will break things in new and horrible ways (crusty code tends to be like this - if IE is "secure" it's only because it has stagnated so much; touching it significantly may result in a whole slew of new holes to plug).

My favorite quote on there is: "Keep in mind that this is not yet part of any W3C or other official standard. At this time it is necessary to bend the rules in order to have full keyboard accessibility."
But isn't this what MS did long ago to make the better browser experience over NS?


Both sides were guilty of making up and/or bastardising standards. Most people are angry at MS's "abuse" of standards to achieve standardised functionality in a non-standard way. What you've just described there from the Mozilla page seems to be a new feature that has no standard to go by.

Anyway, I don't mean to trash on FF at all, but I just wonder, who really wants the Standards implemented (I actually do), and then what happens after that? How do we get better dev tools and code to use in our web-apps (the w3 doesn't seem on top of new tech)?


The w3 and other standards bodies for that matter, aren't perfect. For example I've read plenty of threads about SVG (Scaled Vector Graphics) to get the impression that some standards are written before the technology they describe is even useful let alone implemented... standards writers require collaboration with implementors and users (or at least, an understanding of the users). But it does depend on which standards body you're talking about... they're all guilty of something, it seems (ITU, IETF, etc).

Re:Killing Karma... (2, Informative)

esme (17526) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738626)

Because if it just comes down to a secure and fast browser, MS has much more money and resources to make this come true than FF, I believe, let me know where I'm wrong.

IE is insecure mostly because of Microsoft's philosophy, not because of development resources. Public statements and publicity stunts to the contrary, Microsoft is more interested in building and maintaining their monopoly, adding new features, etc. than providing a secure browser (or OS, for that matter).

And furthermore, not even FF adheres only to the standards, as outlined in the paragraph that speaks of the w3

First, the whole standards process assumes that, in addition to supporting the standards, implementors will also support non-standard new features. These new features are supposed to be tried out in practice, and then submitted to the next version of the standard when all the kinks are worked out. When there are multiple implementations, and one of them gets picked for the standard, you're supposed to implement the new version.

Microsoft's problem isn't that they added non-standard features. Their problem is that they used non-standard features to tie web pages to IE, and failed to fix broken or incomplete implementations of standards. This combined with IE's massive market share made a lot of people develop non-standard websites that only worked with IE.

-esme

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

Iriel (810009) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738667)

Here's how the Standards issue can work for FF whether everyone adheres to them or not (in my opinion anyway):

True, FF isn't a truly standards compliant browser, but it's damn close compared to the alternatives at the time that it was really popularized. At the time Firefox was booming, Opera was still a commercial product, and Safari still is (with the price tag of a mac computer: ouch!), IE was/is hideously broken, and FF was the closest thing most users could get to standards compliance for free. Not to mention that FF helped become a nice standard browser for Linux desktops instead of worrying about the 30 million others that someone could choose from.

But FF wasn't and isn't still only about standards. It's also about extensibility. They have more to their popularity than just standards, because if that was the driving goal, then everyone would obviously switch to Opera (because that's closer to passing Acid2 than FF) or just buy a mac for Safari2 (please pick up on my sarcasm here ^_^).

Lastly, when it comes to what the W3C finally gets around to approving as a standard: that's just a complex issue. Honestly, if something can stay on someone's desk at W3C long enough as a candidate, it usually becomes a standard, if for nothing else but the fact that the status of 'W3C release candidate' is usually enough to get people using a good technology. If it takes them 5 years to say no, all they have to do is look out the window to realize that the rest of the world has been using it while the W3C was looking over the specs! No, I know it really isn't that haphazard, but there are ways to develope with new technologies without breaking the currently set standards. It's not easy, but it can be done.

But that's just my opinion.

Re:Killing Karma... (5, Insightful)

i23098 (723616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738714)

If Firefox does get "Standards" in place, what really makes them good at all?

If televison makers could adhere to a standard so one could see any thing broadcasted in any tv then what's the point of having several tv makers?

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738719)

My favorite quote on there is: "Keep in mind that this is not yet part of any W3C or other official standard. At this time it is necessary to bend the rules in order to have full keyboard accessibility." But isn't this what MS did long ago to make the better browser experience over NS?

Implementing something that isn't in any standard is one thing - an analogous thing with IE would perhaps be introducing activex (which is rightly trashed for the security holes it creates, but no one blames MS for its non-standardness). Not implementing the standard properly or implementing it incompletely (e.g. MS-Java, IE's broken CSS, transparent PNGs), or redoing something for which there is a perfectly good standard (did this happen with javascript? I can't remember), is something different, and it's the latter that's a problem.

and then what happens after that? How do we get better dev tools and code to use in our web-apps (the w3 doesn't seem on top of new tech)?

It's perfectly alright to introduce something that there isn't a standard for - if it succeeds, it will be adopted as a standard, and if it fails, it will just disappear. However, I don't think the web needs new standards - it's fine for what it's meant to do, other things would be better done via plugins or new protocols than kludging them into the web's standards.

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738740)

The standards are always expanding. New approved and proposed features and technologies are being proposed to the standards committees. A browser like Firefox, which is under constant development and unafraid to test new features, will always be a better, more advanced web platform for developers and tech-savvy users. The dynamic, open attitude of Apple's Safari team also results in that app being a cutting edge browser. The two are different, though; Safari is more focused on the best possible user experience, while Firefox gives you great flexibility with its extensions.

IE, on the other hand, is produced by a sluggish software bureaucracy known to let its flagship browser go years for a time without improvement. Even if Microsoft tries to follow web standards, IE 7 a year from now will be a less complete browser than Firefox or Safari are today.

We will never reach a point with any browser where we have all the web standards implemented and there's nothing more to be done.

Re:Killing Karma... (1)

DoubleDangerClub (855480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738760)

"We will never reach a point with any browser where we have all the web standards implemented and there's nothing more to be done."

Which I think is sad, but also true. It would be a dev dream come true.

Re:Killing Karma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738801)

The difference between the CSS extensions "-moz-border-radius" in FF and "filter" in IE is that the first one is correct according to the W3. [w3.org]

Re:Killing Karma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738841)

My favorite quote on there is: ...

  I used to say you must be perfect when dealing with the standards, but there are just a lot of situations where the W3C just hasn't defined anything. Take a file input field. Say you want to change the style to have a border of 1, or change the width. IE actually seems to make the best decisions in this case. Firefox has various disaster rendering scenarios depending upon what OS it's on. The W3C has always been behind on developments and where the web is going. When they don't define something, it's up to the browser. Often times that can come back and bite you in the ass when the W3C comes back and says "Okay NOW we decided, and it's different than what you did". It sucks, but that's the nature of a standards body.

List of improvements in Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738487)

Re:List of improvements in Firefox 1.5 Beta 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738536)

Well done, you managed to copy a link from the article summary.

Feature request (-1, Offtopic)

Hard_Code (49548) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738515)

Yes, this is the wrong place to post this but I'm going to do it anyway.

Since pre-1.0, Firefox has had a bug whereby sometimes typing in the search field completely locks up the machine (I believe by spiking the CPU). I believe this happens on both Windows and Linux, although I am mostly using a Windows desktop so notice it more there. I can't seem to find some criteria to reproduce it. It seems random. It locks the machine (all applications unresponsive as well as OS control sequences) for about 5-15 seconds at a time.

As for a feature request, I tend to be very strict about cookies, which unfortunately means that I am forced to endlessly click through "do you want this cookie?" "huh?" "how about now?" "how about this cookie?" "you wanna cookie?" dialogs. It would be really cool if these could be queued to some docked pane which allowed the site to load asynchronously. Unless a site is doing something really funky with frames or javascript, it shouldn't expect to immediately receive a cookie it just sent, so in the majority of cases I don't think these requests actually have to be acknowledged before the page is rendered (or simply block any pending pages - in the case of no frameset, say, 95% of the time - this will mean totally asynchronous rendering).

Re:Feature request (1)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738577)

It's gotta be firefox/mozilla *plus* some setting or other program on your computer??? I've used firefox/mozilla since pre 1.0 days as well, on laptops and desktops under RedHat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandrake, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows XP and have never experienced that behaviour. I'm certainly not saying it's not happening to you, but there's more to it that just 'Firefox' itself, otherwise I think I'd have seen it. That's also not to say FF/Moz don't have bugs, or even bugs that crash the system, but I've never experienced that, and I've not met others who mentioned that bug either.

Re:Feature request (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738632)

I tend to be very strict about cookies

Why? If it's such a big deal to you, just use Privoxy and be done with it. Personally, I think it's a non-issue.

Re:Feature request (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738741)

Completely agree about the Cookie Manager, it is way too annoying.

"The site foo.com wants to set a cookie. You already have 3 cookies from this site." -- WTF exactly is the point of this dialog? Is there really anyone who is sitting there rejecting cookies on a one-by-one basis?

Or, "The site foo.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" "The site bar.yahoo.com wants to set a cookie" -- IE's approach of allow/deny cookies on the TLD is good enough here.

I also would love to see an async approach that you outlined, but imagine it would be difficult with javascript, etc. Maybe FF could just temporarily accept the cookies until the user makes a decision on them.

Re:Feature request (1)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 8 years ago | (#13739026)

"rejecting cookies on a one-by-one basis"

I do. It maybe annoying at first but after a week almost all of the sites you visit have been set to ignore or allow. It's not a tinfoil hat thing... I just don't want to help advertising companies. I just wish there was a quick way to change it from the main browser window if the page won't load w/o cookies. Ditto for AdBlock.

Incremental Update (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738520)

Has anybodys automatic incremental update feature started working yet? When its ready, it will be one of the best features of 1.5 .

How does it handle people skipping patches? In windows, hardly anybody has the same combination of XP/IE because of all the different overlapping patches.

My mind reading captcha for this post is unstable. I'm starting to think its deliberate (or they only have a small dictionary with always relevant words like Monopoly in them)

Re:Incremental Update (3, Interesting)

dumdumdum (764232) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738540)

Yes incremental update does actually work. If you skip an update or 2, at the time of update it will download all those incremental updates on after the other. If the total size of updates is greate than some specified value it will download the full update

Crahes...alot (1, Insightful)

SethEaston (920552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738546)

I am web applications developer and just for the heck of it I tried our app on the Beta 1.5 release just last week...and it kept crashing, over and over and over. I cleared the cache, ended the process tree, restarted, all to no avail. I think the internal memory structures are somehow getting corrupted. We use lots of JavaScript and images, so there is alot in the client-side memory. When I switched back to the stable version, it stopped crashing.

Does anyone remember how in the old Netscape 6/7, you could tweak the memory and the disk cache? That's something I've missed since Firefox has been out. I think that would've helped in debugging the crashes.

Re:Crahes...alot (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738562)

Does anyone remember how in the old Netscape 6/7, you could tweak the memory and the disk cache?

FWIW, you can at least disable in-memory cacheing:
go to about:config
Search for "cache"
Set "browser.cache.memory.enable" to false

Re:Crahes...alot (2, Informative)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738585)

Funny old world innit: I've had the beta on my laptop for about a month and it's been working fine even when kludged to run adblock, forecastfox and googlebar. The only weird thing I found was that typing an apostrophe would sometimes fire up the find (CTRL-F) feature.

Re:Crahes...alot (1)

Antifuse (651387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738724)

This isn't new... I've been seeing this problem since 1.0.

Re:Crahes...alot (1)

SethEaston (920552) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738869)

Would someone please tell me how commenting on a user *experience* with a product mods it down as 'troll'? So in /. you can't say ANYTHING negative without being modded down to Hades?

Re:Crahes...alot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13739025)

Well, duh, it's still in beta, it's bound to have bugs. Instead of whining about it here, go to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] and tell them the steps that you went through that lead to the crash. Just some advice before going over there, don't just whine about it like you did over here, otherwise they will just simply write you off and do absolutely nothing about it and/or tell you "You have access to the source code, why don't you go in and fix the bug yourself"

They've got to sort this out before the final (5, Interesting)

tritonic (801760) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738651)

I'm looking forward to the new version as much as anyone, but I do have some concerns about the amount of unfixed bugs in the codebase. How does a bug like Bug 115174 get overlooked for three and a half years? A quote from the comments:

...the form may be being sumbitted again when "Save Page As, HTML Only" is selected. What really concerns me about this is that, on a less smart web page, a user's payment may be submitted twice, when all the user wanted to do was save a copy of the payment receipt. This is more than just annoyance, it could cause people's checks to bounce unexpectedly.


I know this has happened to several people (me included - luckily I managed to cancel the transaction in time). Surely the mozilla guys have a responsibility to fix this one...?

Re:They've got to sort this out before the final (1)

seweso (842331) | more than 8 years ago | (#13739092)

Websites should account for pages which are send in twice, because when you refresh the page or go back and forward the page is also resend to the server.

Memory hog? (5, Interesting)

Antifuse (651387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738695)

Have they at least fixed the problem where if you use Windows FF in a "one window" mode (tabbed browsing, all new windows in new tabs instead) and leave it open for a couple days, the memory never seems to get released? That's my only real quibble with Firefox (and it doesn't prevent me from using it, I just have to shut down FFox every morning when I get to work and restart it). It's kinda concerning to have one tab open, look into process explorer and see the FF is using 180mb of RAM.

If 1.5b1 is any indication... (4, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | more than 8 years ago | (#13739015)

The memory issue seems to be improved, but not fixed. I upgraded from 1.0.2 to the nightly builds and most recently to 1.5b1. I use FF on Mac, Win, Linux, and Solaris. Performance of 1.5b1 is a bit better than 1.0.2 and memory usage is a bit better as well. With 1.0.2, leaving FF running with several tabs as you describe will easilly eat hundreds of MB after a few days of running. With 1.5b1 it's down to about 100 MB. Still too much, but slightly better.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I am hoping 2.0 will once and for all make the memory and CPU usage a good 33% lighter.

Re:If 1.5b1 is any indication... (1)

Antifuse (651387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13739091)

God I hope so... it seems as though when you open tabs and close them, those tabs are just hanging around somewhere in the background... Phantom tabs!! :)

newsreader? (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738763)

Is Mozilla's usnet news reader being updated at all? I'm still using the "suite." They still have it on their website, but I can't tell if the browser is kept up to date with firefox, and if the newsreader is updated at all.

Re:newsreader? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738875)

Is Mozilla's usnet news reader being updated at all?

Yeah, the Mozilla Corpor^WFoundation has made it a policy to allow the suite to wither and die. Fortunately the Seamonkey folks will take over and update it, including the newsreader. So I guess you could wait until Seamonkey comes out of alpha [mozilla.org] or just use the bloated, overrated Thunderbird instead.

Source code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13738783)

Why isn't the source tarball [mozilla.org] available? I'd rather compile my own to avoid SVG bloat and to turn on spatial navigation [mozilla.org] .

Automatic update, in a few days? (2, Interesting)

amrust (686727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738848)

I just now tried to force a manual update (using Beta 1 now), and it won't update. Why would waiting for the incrimental automatic update to kick in work in a few days, if asking manually right now will not?

Maybe they don't have the Beta 2 on the server that autoupdate looks at, or something. Probably to avoid congestion?

Re:Automatic update, in a few days? (1)

chrisnewbie (708349) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738961)

They are victim of their own success!

I guess they will have more and more people complaining about mozilla since it's a widespread browser now.

Re:Automatic update, in a few days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13739017)

The update doesn't seem to be turned on just yet.

When it is live, and you setup 1.5b1 on Linux using the installer (rather than unpacking the tar.gz), you'll be getting a 7.6MB update rather than the 700KB one. This is a known bug.

Bug-specific (4, Funny)

dmccarty (152630) | more than 8 years ago | (#13738883)

Does anyone know what this bug means or what it solves?

New extension developer features: 310976 - Treat 1.5.* as 1.5.infinity.

(In this case, "inifinity" is 2,147,483,647 ;-)

Also, my favorite bug:

Linux-specific bugs: 287523 - [GTK] Insensitive (disabled) check/radio buttons can't be distinguished in some GTK themes.

I DON'T USE RADIO BUTTONS YOU INSENSITIVE, uh, oh wait nevermind.

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>