Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Firefox 2.0 Alpha Peeking Out (Or Not)

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the take-a-walk-on-the-wild-side dept.

216

anadgouda writes "Mozilla Firefox 2.0 alpha is released. The links for download were not available directly on Mozilla.com website. Being Alpha, all features might not work and most of the plugins might not be compatible." Reading thru the comments, it appears there's some disparity as to whether or not this is actually just a naming scheme that they use; but let me reiterate that there has been no official announcement from Mozilla, so take with a giant grain of salt. Some good screenshots at OSdir.

cancel ×

216 comments

I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (4, Informative)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956052)

Okay, seemingly little to no information about what comprises the new Firefox. For those who also might be curious, I have found these features [mozilla.org] described in a Firefox 2 Roadmap, but don't know if and how many of these made it to the new release.

Anyone else have any links to release notes?, what's new in FF 2?

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (2, Informative)

phillips321 (955784) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956058)

Don't rush to upgrade guys, remember, there will be alot of problems with your extensions until they are upgraded to be compatible with the new release.

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (5, Informative)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956060)

No it is NOT released.

See Asa Dotzler's blog post [mozillazine.org]

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (0, Offtopic)

MyShinyMetalAss (788814) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956139)

There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

And then there is you.

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (2, Funny)

Bozzio (183974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956291)

That's the joke.

from audience: You suck, McBain!

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956196)

Yes, it IS released.

/posting using FF 2.0 alpha. pwn3dz!

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (-1, Offtopic)

drfloyd5 (958149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956385)

@dolphinling, It's 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Unless of course you count those who think they do. ;) Then you might have 11.

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (1)

poeidon1 (767457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956070)

well then! wait for the offical release.

Re:I'd consider alpha if I knew new features. (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956138)

Unless you're fairly deeply involved in QA (i.e. you have a Bugzilla account and plan to report bugs you find), just skip alpha versions and stick with a stable release. Wait until the beta or a release candidate is out much later this year.

Looking forward to it (-1, Offtopic)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956057)

I spend more computer time in my browser than anywhere else, and Firefox is intuitive, easy to use and very stable. At least with an open source project you know they're not going to go crazy adding features to please the marketing droids.

Re:Looking forward to it (0, Flamebait)

(TK)Dessimat0r (668222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956071)

Are you a fucking Linux user? Firefox is NOT stable.

Re:Looking forward to it (1)

_Hiro_ (151911) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956255)

Well, if it's not stable for you, could you list the bugs and issues you're having?

Either here or in the Firefox Bugzilla would be great, and don't forget your TPS cover sheet!

Re:Looking forward to it (3, Funny)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956101)

Karma whore +99999

Re:Looking forward to it (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956142)

Who's idea do you think the Ping [rc3.org] attribute is ?

Re:Looking forward to it (3, Funny)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956188)

Re:Looking forward to it (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956393)

Wow, some links from the article *I* linked to.

They still don't explain WHOSE idea the Ping attribute was, or offer a compelling reason for its inclusion, particularly as it is something you can already do with onclick, as I mentioned here [slashdot.org]

W3 is a LOT of organisations : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List [w3.org]

Re:Looking forward to it (2, Insightful)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956235)

At least with an open source project you know they're not going to go crazy adding features to please the marketing droids.



what about google and firefox being in same bed?

doesnt mozilla bend over backwards over googles millions? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/11/053924 5 [slashdot.org]

oh and last i checked google are making billions from marketing :)

so to put the 2 together

THEY ARE going crazy adding features to please the marketing droids

Just like Emacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956361)

Just like Emacs...a nice clean text editor. It doesn't have crazy features like the ability to play tetris, check your email, manage your calander, etc. etc.

Mozilla.com (0, Flamebait)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956059)

Mozilla is now definately *com*mercial. Now, just guess why the hell so much people will donate to help them paying adverts on NY Times. It begin by "Idi" and ends with "iots".

idiiots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956098)

I have one for you:

"bad" and "speller"

and this is my first post on /.

Re:idiiots? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956136)

I have in mind a word that begins with "in" and ends with "on" --- it's not "inon"; it's "information"
I also have in mind a word that begins with "informat" and ends with "formation" --- it's not "informatformation", it's "information".
I hope that illustrates what "begins" and "ends" mean.

NOT released. (4, Informative)

Myen (734499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956063)

Mozilla Firefox 2.0 alpha NOT released.

The nightlies are now branded 2.0 alpha because... well, for some odd reason they like to brand their CVS builds before things get released, to make sure the act of rebranding breaks nothing. IIRC that actually hit them way back and they got scared.

Firefox 2.0 will be considered released when you see it on www.mozilla.org / www.mozilla.com / irc.mozilla.org

Re:NOT released. (5, Informative)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956079)

What's sad is the "article" links to tinderbox builds, not even the official nightly development builds!

People really should not submit articles if they have no clue what they're talking about.

Re:NOT released. (4, Insightful)

osgeek (239988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956155)

People are going to be idiots... you would hope to see better from the editors, though.

Re:NOT released. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956350)

Well, the editors are people too ;-)

Re:NOT released. (1)

netkid91 (915818) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956374)

CmdrTaco is human? No way?!

It's NOT released yet! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956064)

Quote from Asa Dotler's blog [mozillazine.org] :
 
  When we make a new release, we'll say so. Please don't report new releases because someone checks in a change to the user agent or similar. If we're actaully doing a release, we'll announce it. Thanks.

But isn't this all open source? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956366)

Isn't this all a community written thing? Can't someone just take all the source-code and say "It's released"? This is my version of the released Firefox.

Mozilla.org isn't holding any code back are they? I thought everything was out in the open...everything had to be released as it's being worked on and anyone can contribute and re-write anything they want with the source.

So how can they say "When WE make a new release, WE'LL say so"? I mean, who are they to say anything on what happens to this open code?

I'm not trying to be a troll here or start anything, but obviously I'm VERY uninformed about how this all works.

Re:But isn't this all open source? (3, Informative)

Bohiti (315707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956442)

It's called quality assurance. There needs to be someone in charge to avoid the scenario you describe: someone takes a buggy pre-alpha nightly, and distributes it as "Firefox 2.0".

That would obviously be devastating for the project. I'm glad Mozilla.org is in charge, albeit the only thing really preventing the previous scenario is community respect.

Re:But isn't this all open source? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956449)

Isn't this all a community written thing? Can't someone just take all the source-code and say "It's released"? This is my version of the released Firefox.

First off, the source code is there. But claiming it is a release (as in Mozilla.org's) when it is not is just misinformation. A minimum of honesty in advertising would say you've made your own fork of Firefox.

Secondly, you don't need to give out source unless you give out binaries. So you could (though this is only realistic on smaller projects or those controlled by one company) say "When we make a new release, we'll release the source". I think Apple did that with their Safari browser.

Third, the GPL doesn't change trademark law. You can take the code, but you can't release under the same trademarked name. You can make a clone like CentOS is of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, but you can't release under the name itself.

So when YOU make a release YOU'LL say so (presumably under another name, since Firefox is trademarked). It only gets stupid when other people is making release statements on behalf of someone else.

Re:But isn't this all open source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956468)

All the code is out in the open, but that's not everything. In particular, the Firefox name and logo are trademarks.

So there's nothing stopping anyone grabbing the source, changing the name and releasing it. But then it'd be Fred's Acmebrowser 1.0 alpha rather than Mozilla Firefox.

Also, people can change anything they want in their own copy of the code, and release it however they want. But the copy of the source code held by the Mozilla folks is controlled, and they don't have to let just anyone change things.

As it happens, Mozilla (like lots of open source projects) is quite open about lots of things. But it's only the source code that's made open by the license.

Missing like Bueller (1)

fatduck (961824) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956065)

No undo close tab? Say it isn't so!

Re:Missing like Bueller (4, Informative)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956164)

Tab Mix Plus [garyr.net] is an extension that has the "Undo Close Tab" feature, as well as many other useful ones. (The extension's page on the mozilla site is here [mozilla.org] .)
If you want only Undo Close Tab, that feature is also available in an extension called (what else?) undoclosetab [mozilla.org] .

Re:Missing like Bueller (1)

luder (923306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956337)

You can also use SessionSaver [mozilla.org] . To restore a tab, go to Tools and select SnapBack Tab.

Re:Missing like Bueller (1)

Misagon (1135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956394)

I don't use tabs. I open lots of multiple windows that I "shade" in WindowMaker, so I have to wish for an "undo close window" option.

Window shading has the feature that there is always enough space for the whole title. I can also group pages/windows together.

Features and more from the status meeting (4, Informative)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956068)

I was looking for the same thing as you, documentation about the features. You provided an interesting link, here's another one from the latest status meeting [mozilla.org] which includes the features, but a lot more :-)

Re:Features and more from the status meeting (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956209)

Thanks for that. Here's a feature from that link I really like: Undo Close Tab. I can't think of how many times I've accidentally closed a tab and wished I could get it back.

Re:Features and more from the status meeting (1)

Medieval_Gnome (250212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956501)

I believe this [mozilla.org] might be what you're looking for. It also recovers your session in the case of a crash (either browser or OS)

Linux is a Minix clone (2, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956069)

Where's the link?

Where would we be today if Linus came along and said, "Well guys, I'm working on a Minix clone and it's going to be totally k-rad, and I'll keep the development open to anyone who wants to help out, but you can't download it anywhere. Sry, kthxbye!" ?

Not that the Firefox team is all that willing to let anyone just start developing the core stuff, but note the nick and try not to concentrate on that.

Re:Linux is a Minix clone (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956107)

There is no link because, as plenty of people have pointed out, it's NOT released yet.

However, if you do want to develop it, the entire sources (trunk and many branches) are available through CVS, see the DevMo page on the subject [mozilla.org] .

Re:Linux is a Minix clone (0, Offtopic)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956182)

There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

And what is the third type? :p

OK, OK... I get the joke. :)

Is this the present or the past? (1)

illtron (722358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956077)

"Mozilla Firefox 2.0 alpha is released. The links for download were not available directly on Mozilla.com website. Being Alpha, all features might not work and most of the plugins might not be compatible."
This is about half a step above gibberish.

Great job pushing out Bon Echo (2, Interesting)

suman28 (558822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956085)

I tried it on my computer. I didn't see any significant changes, and as others have pointed out, there was not much information on what exactly went into this release, but great job in making advancements.

Re:Great job pushing out Bon Echo (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956165)

Obviously you didn't actually try it. The entire bookmarks and history systems have been rewritten, backend and frontend. Tabs have changed slightly to improve UE for new users. Plenty of other things have changed as well. That's not "no significant changes".

Why? (1)

stubear (130454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956108)

Why does each version of Firefox break plug-in and theme compatibility? I can maybe forgive SOME plug-ins but all of them? and THEMES!?!? WTF? There are plug-ins I used to use that ar still not compatible with 1.5. This is a MAJOR flaw with Firefox in my opinion. If you're going to tout the expandibility of Firefox as a major feature then youneed to make sure there's going to be at the very leat backwards compatibility for most plug-ins.

Re:Why? (1)

CockMonster (886033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956118)

Poor design by not future-proofing code?

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956119)

this is probably because the themes/plugins themselves contain the version of firefox they should work for, and if the creator of the plugin does not set it higher than the current version, it will not work on the next. Usually they don't break, but because of this information, they won't even be started.

having developed extensions for FF... (5, Informative)

Alphager (957739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956149)

.. i can tell you that there is one thing that "breaks" most extensions: In the extension, you can specify a maximum version number under which the extension works. Normally, the extension developer sets it to a version he has personally tested (the actual release). Whit each version-bump, he retests and changes just the maximum version-number. If you want to do it yourself: get into the manifesto of the extension and search for this String "1.5" and replace 1.5 with a higher number.

Re:having developed extensions for FF... (1)

Myen (734499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956227)

Specifically, search for the XML tag "maxVersion" in the http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf# [mozilla.org] namespace (usually written as <em:maxVersion>).

Or just get Nightly Tester Tools.

(Not linking because, AFAIK, his server was badly slashdotted last time it was mentioned in a comment. If you really want to, Google.)

Re:having developed extensions for FF... (1)

Alphager (957739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956471)

thanks for posting that, Slashcode ate the tag.

Re:Why? (1, Informative)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956185)

To be sure that they will work, you need to compile your extensions against the Mozilla source tree from which you compiled Firefox. That is not a limitation of any specific technology; rather, it is a limitation of mathematics. You have no more business expecting an extension compiled against 1.0.8 to work with anything except 1.0.8, than you have expecting that a CD will play on a cassette walkman.

Now, if the extensions won't compile against the new source tree, you may need to patch them. Perhaps a variable or function has changed its name. Or a function might require an extra parameter. Read the changelog and get hacking, if you can't wait for your favourite extensions developer to do so.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956257)

That would be the case... if Firefox extensions needed to be compiled. Which they don't.

Extensions are programmed in Javascript and XUL, and for some advanced ones, XBL. They don't need to be recompiled, because they don't need to be compiled in the first place. The fraction of a percent that have more demanding interaction with the host system don't even necessarily need to be recompiled, depending on how they hook in to the mozilla code.

You'd be right for other programs, but that's not how Mozilla works.

Re:Why? (2, Informative)

Myen (734499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956258)

Actually, the overwhelming majority of extensions are not even compiled. They're pure XUL/JS/CSS/RDF. The maxVersion arc mentioned in the sibling is the reason. It's used to guard against the browser internals changing under them - and yes, pretty much most of the things you can usefully change are considered browser internals. :( Then there's also the things randomly being ripped out (cf. the bookmarks and history going away and being replaced by "Places")

And as long as you do no use frozen interfaces (including defining MOZ_STRICT_API, not defining MOZ_INTERNAL_API, and linking against XPCOM glue), it should work fine most of the time. It's just that, depending on what you want to do, that might not be possible ;)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956276)

WTF are you smoking? There's no reason to expect an extension from 1.0.8 to not work. The version string that blocks about 99% of extensions on newer releases is a retarded feature. Nothing technical stops extensions from working except for a bit of over zealous design.

Re:Why? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956461)

That is not a limitation of any specific technology; rather, it is a limitation of mathematics. You have no more business expecting an extension compiled against 1.0.8 to work with anything except 1.0.8, than you have expecting that a CD will play on a cassette walkman.

Oh really?

Perhaps then you can explain how programs written for *DOS* continue to work under XP without recompilation. Or how modern programs come with one exe, and not different ones for 95, 95osr2, 98, 98se, ME, NT3.5, NT4, 2K, XP, XP SP2, and 2003. Or how most binaries that ran on the IBM S/390 in 1970 or whatever still run on IBM's zServers today.

It is CERTAINLY possible to make an ABI so that plug-ins could be compiled once and work for at least long periods of time. Might not be worth it, but it's certainly possible.

Second, when you download a FF extension, do you see links for EVERY VERSION of Firefox? No! If I go to the Flashblock page [mozdev.org] , I have to choose between the 1.0 and 1.5 series browsers, but that's it. I don't have to choose between the release for 1.0.7 and 1.0.8. That alone pretty much destroys your theory.

Third is what others have already said about why it works with FF in reality.

Re:Why? (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956292)

Some of your extensions will continue to work properly in new versions. Others will not. That gives you a choice:

  1. Disable them all
  2. Let them all keep running and have some of them work, and have others break the browser entirely because they interact poorly with new features

Which do you choose?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956483)

I choose 2.

Some _might_ work, and thats better than not even getting the chance to try.

Its assumptions like yours that lead to the frustration being shown here. Basically - dont take my decisions to do something stupid away from me, i might just know better than you! It might break, it might not, you dont know any better than me.

Why not compromise; disable them on first notice, but allow them to re-enable ("are you REALLY sure? no.. really - you might break something!")

side note; "just hack the source and recompile" really isnt a decent answer for a mature product reaching a diversity of userbase.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956348)

Themes don't work because buttons get added/removed and the themes start to render incorrectly. There isn't much you can do about that.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956445)

No see, you're missing the beauty of open source. We answer to no one...who needs backwards compatibity? That's for people who PAY for software.

This is why OSS is doomed to fail in the long run.

Opera alternatives... (2, Informative)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956116)

Opera 8.5: http://www.opera.com/download/ [opera.com]

Opera 9 Technology Preview 2: http://labs.opera.com/ [opera.com]
Weekly builds of Opera 9 TP2: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/ [opera.com]
Changelog for Opera 9 TP2: http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/w90p2.html [opera.com]

Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (5, Insightful)

urdak (457938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956122)

I can't believe that after Firefox actually implemented tabbed browsing *well*, people insist on ruining it in the name of "progress".

The fact that firefox has just one "x" button that closes the current tab, rather then a close button per tab, is a *feature*, not a bug. Users of Lotus Notes, like myself, are all too familiar with what happens when each tab has a close button: you often click on the wrong one, and destroy the wrong tab! With Firefox 1.5's single tab close button, you can never accidentally close any tab: you can only close the tab you are now seeing.

So I hope that if the "improvement" of having many close buttons makes it to FireFox 2, it will at least be configurable, so that users made miserable by the new feature could at least disable it.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (2, Interesting)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956159)

For people who insist on needing an 'X' per tab: middle click on the tab closes it as well. And usually fairly quicker than clicking the 'X' because it works anywhere on the tab.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956170)

Well, the best solution is to have both options and then let the user decide on which to use, which is exactly what Opera does.

Tools > Preferences > General > Pages > Show close button on each tab.

Personally, I have a close button on each tab. And, in Opera, if I do accidentally close pages that I still wanted to use then restoring them is easy: either a couple of mouse clicks or a keyboard shortcut later and your pages are restored, with their repective browsing histories intact.

Just one of the myriad of reasons to love Opera.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956317)

It's not the best solution to have 10000 useless options to choose from. At least not in the GUI. I think opera is cluttered, And I wouldn't want firefox that way.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956180)

Well it won't be so much of a pain, once the "Undo Close Tab" feature is implemented. IIRC, it should be a part of Fx 2.0 (not sure though).

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956184)

I'm with you.

I had the close on every tab through TabMix and I quickly turned it off, though with 'Undo Close Tab' the risk it mitigated.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956211)

I never use that button, I just click the tabs with my mousewheel. Just like I open new tabs from links by clicking the mousewheel. Webbrowsing has never been as easy.

And yes, I hate the "close button in every tab"-idea, it's annoying, and disruptive in the IE7 Beta.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956336)

Am I the only one that finds clicking the mousewheel to be a stupid way of middle clicking. It's right up there with pushing on the control sticks in XBox/PS2 as a button. It's hard to push these buttons without having the scroll wheel/joystick move. Most people aren't even aware you can use these as buttons. I think if you're going to have a third button on the mouse, it should be a real button.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (2, Informative)

fritzk3 (883083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956228)

You can also close a tab by right-clicking on it, and choosing "Close Tab." This works even if the tab that you want to close is not the one you're viewing.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

diogenesx (580716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956252)

There is already an extension that adds a close button to each tab. Even it they made that design standard, I'm sure someone can write another extension to change it back to a single close tab button.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (4, Informative)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956265)

IE7 Beta 2 solves this by showing the close button in the tab, but only for the currently open tab - I'd say this is the second best solution after having the option on the preferences (which I haven't checked if IE has).

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (3, Informative)

arekq (651007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956322)

In Firefox trunk, the close button appears on every tab when there're only a few tabs. It appears only on the active tab when there're lots of tabs.

Personally, I still prefer the behaviour in Firefox 1.5, where there's only one close button on the right. It's more efficient when I need to close multiple tabs. (aim, click, click, click vs. aim, click, aim, click, aim, click)

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956434)

If you're really looking for speed, don't even bother reaching for the mouse. Control-W works quite well for closing tabs.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

Myen (734499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956279)

I believe (not certain on this) they may be considering just showing it on the active tab instead (though there's appearently problems with tab positions jumping around in that case).

I also believe Tab Mix Plus might have an option to disable this. I know Too Many Tabs does (I currently have that installed); unfortunately the version I have randomly causes JS errors when opening/closing tabs, and I haven't managed to track it down enough to be useful to the author.

Alternatively, just try setting the browser.tabs.tabClipWidth pref really, really small.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956285)

Yeah, a "feature" like this should be able to be turned off, as all the extra close buttons take up extra space on my screen that I don't need. Also, Even with it on, I'd want an "unclose" tab feature, so that you can open a tab back up if you accidentally close it.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956352)

Having the close button on the tab is easier for new users. Having it where it was is easier for experienced users. A decision had to be made one way or the other, and it was made to favor new users, who probably wouldn't be able to find how to change it (or even know to change it), instead of the experienced users who will know how to change it.

FWIW, I hate it, too. But the reasoning behind it is solid, so I understand I'll just have to deal until someone makes an extension.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956500)

instead of the experienced users who will know how to change it.

We will? Do you mean that it'll be hidden away inside about:config somewhere?

another reason to go with opera (1)

monkbent (856056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956417)

By default there is a trashbox that saves the content of all closed tabs. Close the wrong one? Not a problem - just click on it in the trashbox, and it is restored along with its full history (and it's not a memory problem either, as Opera actually uncerstands the idea of a small footprint).

One other Opera tab feature is what always keeps me coming back - when you close the tab you are in, you revert to the last tab you were viewing instead of the tab next door. This fits my surfing pattern perfectly (which is to open relevant links in the background, read them, then return to the main page). For me, it's the killer feature of Opera. Maybe it's available as an extension, but that alone with so many other small things keep me here (and Opera 9 has fixed any rendering problems I had been having).

Also remove the "close other tabs" context menu (1)

wysiwia (932559) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956470)

I always use the context menu to close a tab with the mouse, yet I have to be carefully to not choose the "close other tabs". Besides the "close" in the contect menu should be the very first command.

O. Wyss

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956481)

I'm with you.
However, the Deer Park Alpha 2 (19 march nightly) *does* have a close button for every tab. And yes, it's annoying.

Re:Please don't ruin tabbed browsing... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956510)

Or install one of the gestures plugins and use right-click mouse-wiggle to close a tab. I miss it when I have to work on other computers.

Advantages? (1)

zaguar (881743) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956154)

Are there any advantages to upgrading? On the down-side, I can see

1: Losing compatibility with extensions
2: Losing stability/higher memory usage (come to think of it, this isn't really a change)
3: Bugs galore - possible security issues?

So, is there any reason for anyone to use this until a release candidate comes out?

Re:Advantages? (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956193)

There are two reasons I can think of:

1. Mozilla puts the release out so users can report bugs. Unless you already have a Bugzilla account, I suggest you wait until a release candidate is out.
2. If Firefox 1.5.0.1 is crashing so often or leaking memory so badly for you that you need to restart Firefox every day or so, you might want to try 2.0 Alpha to see if it fixes your problems. Of course, if it doesn't you should report the problem (see #1).

End users generally should not be downloading alphas because of the downsides you mention.

Re:Advantages? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956261)

Reasons? Yes, just a few.

1) You're helping Mozilla.org find bugs.
2) Because you can.

Re:Advantages? (1)

mlefevre (67954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956272)

There's reason for some people to use it - otherwise who is going to find and fix the bugs, or make the extensions compatible?

But for most users, there is no good reason for them to switch. This will be (it's not actually released yet) a release aimed at developers. In particular, for developers who want to try out the new bookmarks/history back-end stuff.

I certainly can't think of a good reason for posting on slashdot about an alpha release that's not even released yet...

Re:Advantages? (2, Informative)

grand_it (949276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956335)

1: Losing compatibility with extensions
2: Losing stability/higher memory usage (come to think of it, this isn't really a change)
3: Bugs galore - possible security issues?

Repeat after me:

1 Compatibility issues are *normal* in alpha software. That's what they release it for: to find problems.

2 You *shall not* evaluate stability, performance nor memory usage in an Alpha stage software. Jeez, it has debugging code in it!

3 You *shall not* install Alpha or Beta software in a production environment, or on machines whose security might be at risk.

Karma whoring wikipedia entry about developement stages here [wikipedia.org] .

Do people even know what "alpha" release means? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956171)

Alpha means that there are missing or partially implemented features that are planned for the final release.

Beta means it's fully implemented and feature complete but may contain bugs or need tweaking.

Sheesh... And the 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 release numbering that so many open-source projects are using is totally retarded. Hell, I saw some project the other day that was a x.x.x+1 release that was API incompatible with the previous release! Morons. Nobody does versioning correctly and they tack on extra dot versions because they are improperly managing releases.

Portable Firefox 2.0 Alpha (2, Informative)

thedude13 (457454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956178)

There's a "portable" version available here:

http://www.cybernetnews.com/?p=411 [cybernetnews.com]

Definitely a plus b/c it let's you avoid dealing w/profile incompatibilites/conversion between the different versions of firefox and instead stores it in the directory with the portable firefox program

MNG, Javascript 2.0 (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956181)

What I would like to see in 2.x is some MNG support. It's about time people moved away from animated GIFs as the situation is rapidly getting out of hand. On some forums, animated sig images can be up to 500KB in size. There's demand for a better animated standard, and why MNG support was dropped from Firefox 1.5 is beyond me.

Also, Javascript needs an overhaul. If XUL is ever going to take off, it can't rely on a language that doesn't even have a "class" keyword or equivilent.

It would be nice if the Mozilla foundation took it upon itself once more, to drag the rest of teh industry, kicking and screaming, into the future.

Re:MNG, Javascript 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956320)

JavaScript doesn't need a class keyword or equivalent. It is already a full OO language, it just happens to be very much unlike C++.

Re:MNG, Javascript 2.0 (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956433)

Javascript 2 is being worked on [mozillazine.org] . (You may want to look around more, that's just the first thing I found.)

MNG wasn't "dropped" from Firefox 1.5, it was never even planned on being included. It hasn't been included in Mozilla since (IIRC) Mozilla 1.3, years ago. However, I was looking at it just yesterday, and the code is getting constantly smaller and better, so hopefully it will be included in Firefox 3.0 (planned, IIRC, for around a year from now).

Experimental build (2, Informative)

gerbalblaste (882682) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956187)

So far the only distinctive feature of this is that it breaks extensions and will not load book marks.
As far as i can tell this gentleman went looking through the firefox ftp site and stumbled upon this. Its a Tinderbox build. meaning its increadably unstable and is just a starting point for further code development.

Editors, do your job! (2, Insightful)

dmbtech (790450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956201)

You MUST wait for an official announcment before announcing all over the media (/.) than an alpha has been released when it really hasn't. I really suggest you change that announcment editors and say something like update "Not really released". You can't just go reading a blog and think that is news. People, DO YOUR RESEARCH!! Alpha 1 HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED!

No Quicktime plugin for Linux! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956220)

I got an opportunity to try the latest Firefox (1.5.0.1) with the Tomahawk Desktop [tomahawkcomputers.com] . For those who are wondering what is Tomahawk Desktop, it's an Apple like Multimedia Linux OS for desktops and laptops.

I have noted the Firefox is called Deer Park! Is there a name change again?

I further noted I cannot browse http://www.apple.com/aperture/ [apple.com] because there is no Quicktime plugin for Firefox on Linux. It seems Apple doesn't release a Quicktime plugin for Linux, like no iTunes for Linux. Can this issue be resolved at least with the Firefox 2.0? Is Quicktime a closed specification? Why doesn't Mozilla Foundation officially ask the specification from Apple rather than waiting forever? Is there a solution already under way to fix this issue?

Re:No Quicktime plugin for Linux! (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956351)

It would be easier to get everybody to stop releasing quicktime content than to get Apple to release a quicktime player for Linux/Unix. In the meantime you can install Mplayer plugin [sourceforge.net] .

"all features might not work" !?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956231)

Being Alpha, all features might not work
That would be a pretty horrible alpha, if none of the features are working. Surely you mean "not all features may work".

Also
and most of the plugins might not be compatible.
Don't you mean to say that "SOME of the plugins might not be compatible"?

Since 2.0 is still build from the same branch as 1.5, as far as i've been following the Firefox/Gecko developments no deeply rooted changes were made to the way plugins are handled, so i don't expect you'll be experiencing any problems in THAT department.

Re:"all features might not work" !?! (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956506)

That would be a pretty horrible alpha, if none of the features are working.

It would. But that's not what the sentence says. Read again:

Being Alpha, all features might not work


In other words, all features have a chance of not working. Or every feature has a chance of not working.

I'll agree that it's awkward wording, but you're trying to be pedantic to the point of being wrong.

Don't you mean to say that "SOME of the plugins might not be compatible"?

Hey, (s)he could have written "ALL of the plugins might not be compatible" and still been fine even if all plugins worked.

Wow, quite the fuss... (2, Informative)

Zitchas (713512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956323)

Now, I'd expect this amount of excitement over, say, a BETA release, but for an Alpha? Why bother? I like checking out new things and having the latest and greatest, but I think I'll wait for one that the developers at least hope will be functional enough to release. I'm not a developer, I don't need to be digging out a Tinderbox version to satisfy my needs.

Oh, and for informational purpsoses:

Firefox = official public release

DeerPark = developer's copies, optimized and/or individualized bulids, and all those other builds that aren't the official issued-for-the-general-public builds. Which, it would stand to reason, would include all the alpha and beta builds.

Nightly from 19 march says "Deer Park Alpha 2" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14956392)

I'm running the nightly from 19 march, and it says "Deer Park Alpha 2". So, am I running this unreleased alpha 2.0 version?

Anyway, it runs OK (well enough to post this comment), but has crashed on my once already today, however, this was when clicking on a link on a site that firefox 1.5 simply wouldn't accept (didn't do anything when clicking on the link).

Also, the cursor is sometimes one place more to the left than it should be, a bit annoying when posting this story:)

(Oh, and windows warned, "This software may harm your computer", but then again, it always says that).

Move along please (1)

Madcowz (904786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14956477)

A news story about an Alpha version which doesn't even exist.

Cor, that's entertainment!

/Mad
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...