Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Mozilla Firefox 2 Alpha 1 Available

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the stuff-to-hack-on dept.

327

Mini-Geek writes "Code-named Bon Echo, the first Alpha of Firefox 2.0 is now officially available. You can download it at ftp.mozilla.org. From the article: 'Here are some new features in Bon Echo Alpha 1 that require feedback: Changes to tabbed browsing behavior, New data storage layer for bookmarks and history (using SQLlite), Extended search plugin format, Updates to the extension system to provide enhanced security and to allow for easier localization of extensions, Support for SVG text using svg:textPath'"

cancel ×

327 comments

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

But... (4, Insightful)

Onymous Hero (910664) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971583)

Will it use less memory than 0.x / 1.x ??

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971608)

Go test it and find out. Seriously.

Re:But... (2, Informative)

fermizhang (895395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971641)

It's a bad experience swithing between 1.5 and 2.0 a1...seriously...

Re:But... (4, Informative)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971968)

That's why it's called an alpha developer build. It's barely beginning active development. You cannot expect it to be stable. You cannot even expect it to be safe. This is not a beta or release candidate. It's meant only for testers and active developers. Use with extreme caution.

Re:But... (4, Informative)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971718)

I hope so, check out Ben Maurer's [blogspot.com] latest blog entry, near the bottom he talks a bit about this. Actually, the latest entry is quite informative about the new memory mapping features in the latest kernel.

Re:But... (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971926)

The problem described looks like Bug 259672.

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971822)

Aww, hope is so cuuute :)

Just kidding. Now instead of only crashing your machine, it'll take out every other box in a 3-hop radius.

Re:But... (3, Funny)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971924)

Yes, but you have to think in Russian for it to be efficient.

SQLite (3, Interesting)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971593)

We all know that Firefox has had (and still has) a lot of memory issues. Will embedding a database in memory help or worsen these issues?

I haven't used SQLite, can anyone with experience using it please comment?

Re:SQLite (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971633)

I believe SQLite is a flat file database system, which means it is very lightweight and simple. I suppose it's like having an Access database inside Firefox. There aren't massive overheads.

That is all just a guess, i dont know for sure

OT: Your sig (0, Redundant)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971711)

You have power divided by speed, giving dimensions of ([E]/[T])/([L]/[T]) ([E] = energy, [T] = time, [L] = length).

Reducing this, we end up with [E]/[L]. However, the dimensions of the Newton are ([M][L])/([T][T]), as the units are kgms^-2. (From F=ma, F is in N, m is in kg, a is in ms^-2)

In other words, your equation is wrong :)

Re:OT: Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971871)

Yeah, but [E] = [M][L][L]/([T][T]) (from K = mv^2/2), so the dimension of [E]/[L] is the same dimensions as Newton.

Re:OT: Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971913)

Energy per unit length is force (The integral of force dotted with an infinitessimal distance element ds is equal to Work). Or, in SI, energy is in Joules, which is equal to Newton-meters; divide by meters and you have Newtons.

Re:OT: Your sig (1)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971956)

Reducing this, we end up with [E]/[L]. However, the dimensions of the Newton are ([M][L])/([T][T]), as the units are kgms^-2. (From F=ma, F is in N, m is in kg, a is in ms^-2)

But [E] can also be expressed as force times distance, i.e. Newton-meters, which when divided by distance obviously returns a measurement of force.

In other words, your equation is wrong :)

Looks like you were wrong, Mr. Smarty Pants.

Re:OT: Your sig (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972038)

Dude, look at the speed. There is an implied flux capacitor in that equation. My memory is a little fuzzy as to if a DeLorean is implied though...

Re:SQLite (5, Informative)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971904)

You believe falsely. (Possibly you're thinking of BerkelyDB). http//sqlite.org [slashdot.org] has full disclosure, even describing the virtual machine and opcodes that drive this little ~300kb, mostly-ANSI '92 compliant wonder.

Combine a scripting language for end-user forms, and you've got everything MS Access wishes it could be.

Get Hipp. Get SQLite.

Re:SQLite (4, Informative)

G)-(ostly (960826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971645)

I forsee no problems. It's a surprisingly minimal addition to a software package, and the problems with Firefox's memory management are very likely in unrelated modules.

"SQL" engines tend to evoke images of hulking software packages like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle, but those things do an awful lot more than the typical desktop app needs, and the SQLite engine is much, much simpler in order to meet that lesser demand.

Re:SQLite (2, Informative)

LurkerML (668881) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971689)

http://www.sqlite.org/ [sqlite.org]

The website says 250KiB fully configured. That is tolerable, i think.

Re:SQLite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971946)

Yeah, and considering that they already link to about 45 other libraries, one more shouldn't be that big a deal, right?

Re:SQLite (3, Informative)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971723)

We all know that Firefox has had (and still has) a lot of memory issues.

We do? Funny, I've been running FF since the 0.8 days (Phoenix) and have never had any memory issue. In fact, I've never had any issue other than one mini-crash which forced me to use a default profile until I pulled up my old one. Further, I've installed FF on several different systems, including W98, and not one of those systems has ever had a memory issue.

Looking at the FF boards it appears the issue is not so much with FF but the multitude of extensions that people think they need to install.

Re:SQLite (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971815)

The issues appear when you use more than one major app on the machine on a regular basis. They're not too bad now, but they were horrible several years back, and it's not just becuase machines have more RAM.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=firefox+%22wo rking+set%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= [google.com]

Re:SQLite (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971855)

Same experience for me. I swear is has to do with some extension that people are running. I only run flashblock and Web developer.

Re:SQLite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971910)

Funny, I've been running FF since the 0.8 days (Phoenix)

FYI: the Phoenix days were 0.1 - 0.6, then came the Firebird days 0.7 - 0.7.1 and 0.8 was called, well go ahead and guess, yes Firefox. So next time you like to pose as an "old timer eary adopter r33t lumberjack", please check your facts first.

Re:SQLite (5, Interesting)

Jjeff1 (636051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971915)

I have firefox 1.5.0.1 on windows xp with latest adblock and filterset G updater, nothing else.

I've noticed that web pages that refresh themselves cause a run-away memory situation. Specifically the win32 MRTG package from open innovations [openinnovations.com] causes FF to use huge amounts of memory. It auto refreshes graphs I think every 10 seconds. If I leave a graph up on screen and leave for the weekend, FF will be using 1.8 GB memory when I come back on Monday. I've been unable to find out if this is a known problem or not, so I've not submitted this as a bug.

Re:SQLite (1)

dlZ (798734) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972013)

I have the same issues with one of my web mail clients. Gmail doesn't cause any serious issues (takes ages to up memory usage to anything noticable,) but one of my work based accounts, running mailEnable, will ramp up memory usage over an 8 hour period to 700+ megs. The thing is, it does it on my SUSE 10 x86_64 notebook and on another Windows XP SP2 notebook, but not on my desktop, which is also running SUSE 10 x86_64. The notebooks are just running adblock, while my desktop has that plus Grease Monkey, Forecast Fox, and a few other extensions I'm sure I'm forgetting.

Re:SQLite (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972044)

Until a recent release, FireFox could use a ton of memory if you were visiting large pages (ie, phpMyAdmin). Devs have said previously that Firefox only cahced the most recent 8 pages, however in my experience allocated memory continued indefinately and I often saw it using 500mb+

I doubt it was extensions, I only run GMail Notifier and AdBlock.

Re:SQLite (3, Informative)

bperkins (12056) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971844)

Mu.

The memory usage problems have been related to the image cache. (I've heard that this is often caused by an old version of the adblock extension)

Using SQLite to store profile information will probably have little impact the memory usage problems people see.

Re:SQLite (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971872)

All browsers have lots of memory issues. They also all have security problems, they crash under lots of different situations, have many kinds of CPU use problems, and thousands of other kinds of bugs. What else is new?

I don't think embedding a database will noticably impact memory usage. The most noticable change will be that your bookmarks, cache, and other parts of your profile will not be corrupted or lost nearly as easily. The dataloss problems SQLite will fix are much more severe than the memory problems some people expereience with Firefox. Firefox is using too much memory? Just restart. Firefox lost your bookmarks? Tough sh*t!

Re:SQLite (1)

ameoba (173803) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971964)

I have to wonder how much is gained by moving bookmarks and prefs from plain text files (HTML & JS) to SQLite's binary file format. It's not like their bits of data that need complex searches done on them.

Re:SQLite (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972058)

FWIW, I am using yesterday's trunk build and there doesn't appear to be any memory problem at all. With several Firefox windows open each with a few tabs the firefox-bin process is using 65 MB RAM. This is on Ubuntu Dapper.

Really? (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971594)

So is this any different than the Firefox 2 alpha that wasn't released yesterday?

Re:Really? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971652)

This one appears to be an officially released alpha.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

Denyer (717613) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971669)

Yeah. This isn't a dupe, which we could probably do with a tag for on the article...

It's still just an alpha though.

Re:Really? (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971709)

On this one I guess they won't get their knickers in a twist because the announcement is 'official'. Witness the comments in the last story a couple of days ago [slashdot.org] :

"Are we really about to release an alpha where adding a bookmark silently fails (330052), bookmarking all tabs doesn't work (330929), and autocomplete is useless (330125, 330126)?"

Or my personal favourite

"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."

Nice. So call it something, release it into the public (as is required by the license) and insist it doesn't exist. For a product to bear a new name means it is newly branded product, thus a nerly branded product has been released.

Of course it could be a genuine name trick or list of genuine problems, but I don't know why so many people went bitching in the previous story when the 'official release' is so soon after. Both were headlined Alpha. Cliques wanted to restrict the glory I guess.

Re:Really? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971949)

Nice. So call it something, release it into the public (as is required by the license) and insist it doesn't exist. For a product to bear a new name means it is newly branded product, thus a nerly branded product has been released.
So you would rather they not rebrand the browser until the very last patch, at which time they are completely committed to release it to the public without testing? Frankly, I don't see the point. Why not rebrand the product and allow it to be fully tested before release?

Re:Really? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971735)

So is this any different than the Firefox 2 alpha that wasn't released yesterday?

Yes, this one is officially released so they get *two* days of hype about an alpha release.

Getting a Firefox Alpha (2, Insightful)

gurutc (613652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971597)

takes me back to the good old days when it was new, fresh, and charmingly not yet seemingly perfect, but so much the best choice!

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (5, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971790)

(raises eyebrow) Getting an Alpha takes you back? Pff. I used to have a cron job that would download and compile Mozilla Nightlies every night on my Solaris box. It would automatically back up the current version just in case the new version didn't work in the morning. Every morning it was a new and wonderful experience to see how stable Mozilla would be today, if it would even run, and if there were any new features.

Back then we didn't have no "Alphas". We had semi-stable code snapshots called "Milestones" and we liked it that way! ;)

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (0, Flamebait)

gurutc (613652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971947)

Well, I'm honestly glad you didn't bleed to death while living on the edge long enough to single-handedly (I infer from your post) keeping the project alive. Really! Was my post so flammable?

But I do mean the thanks part to all the neander-geeks.

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972025)

single-handedly (I infer from your post) keeping the project alive

You inferred incorrectly. I was merely a user of Mozilla who wanted an alternative to Netscape 4 and IE for Solaris. (The latter of which didn't work, but DID screw up my CDE profile.) I wanted to contribute back the binaries from my nightly build (since the project didn't have anyone doing it at the time), but my machine was owned by my work. I simply didn't feel comfortable donating resources that weren't mine to give. :)

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (1)

gurutc (613652) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972055)

Actually, your downloads counted towards the project activity. So you did contribute through your consistent and measurable interest in the latest binaries. And I meant the thanks, take the compliment already.

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (2, Funny)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972005)

Well, back in my day we would download "Hourlies" to our abacuses and sit around wondering "WTF is the Internet?!"

Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971970)

Alphas. Wonderful machines, years ahead of their time. If only they'd succeeded, ah, *lovingly pats his ev5*

What's this about a web browser?

I hope they don't change the tabs too much (3, Interesting)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971601)

I've always wondered why bookmarks don't sort themselves by most often used to least recently. Maybe it will happen now. But the changes to tabbed browsing behaviour - hmm - I hope that means something like memory optimisation and not making it more like the tabs in Konqueror. Blech.

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971627)

Personally, I'd rather the bookmarks were sorted in alphabetical order. Hopefully moving to an SQLLite backend will enable users to set up their own ordering preferences as they see fit.

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (2, Informative)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971690)

Open Bookmarks, right click and Sort By Name

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (3, Informative)

laa (457196) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971867)

Personally, I dislike all kind of autosort behaviour like the office feature of showing only recently used commands. Many (most?) people remember the positions of items and choose before reading the actual bookamark. If the sorted in some random way (like most recently used) then each item has to be read -- and you can't assume that people with a collage degree are able to read :)

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971895)

I prefer my bookmarks sorted based upon distance from my house. It takes a while on ip2location, but at least I know that if I ever have to set a bag of poop on someone's doorstep, how far I'd have to travel.
But I can see both alphabetically and by most used being valuable. Good thing Firefox lets you manage them however you want, just not automatically.

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (4, Insightful)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971927)

You don't need a database for sorting algorithms (think gnu sort), but what this will almost certainly do is complicate backup and transfer of bookmarks. I really can't understand what is wrong with a simple text file. Do they not see all the issues Microsoft has because of their registry format??? This is NOT a speed or sorting issue. (I could care less about the history, but don't think that will help anyone other than some possible edge cases there either.)

This will also almost certainly kill any chance of reusage of bookmark data by other programs - which could be a really inovative area if the barrier to entry is kept low. They need to read the Art of Unix Programming [faqs.org] .

Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971998)

I do agree with you in spirit, but as long as they support exporting the bookmarks to a text or html format, we should be fine.

That's all? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971616)

Seriously - that's all the new features? How does that warrant a 2.0 label and not a 1.8? Firefox has been pretty innovative or good at putting great features together that Opera and Microsoft haven't done (yet), but now it seems IE7 has caught up in so many ways, but Firefox 2.0 will be just a minor, incremental update. Hell, bigger changes have gone in the post 1.0 releases. Come on...

Re:That's all? (5, Informative)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972046)

It will be much more than that when Firefox 2 actually makes it out to the world. This is a very early build and according to the Roadmap [mozilla.org] , it will be released near the third quarter of 2006. I'm guessing it will actually be a little later than that. I also found this Feature Brainstorming [mozilla.org] page, which seems to be closer to what's being planned for 2.0. I see a lot of new stuff.

SVG support (4, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971650)

I hope more browsers end up using SVG. There are some very nifty uses that can be made of it - an example of which is the porn database - http://pdatabase.dyndns.biz [dyndns.biz] (how's it going, John? :) )

Re:SVG support (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971798)

Not a very good example, since it's in closed beta.

I was looking to see what you could do with SVG. Honest.

Re:SVG support (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971837)

Indeed. Send the guy an email :)

Re:SVG support (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971975)

I'm hoping they'll have SVG animation for 2.0. For me personally, just constant rotations would do the job. There are other important things though. At least the status for animation features isn't all red any more. I suspect some of them will fall rather quickly once they have a couple done.

Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (0, Flamebait)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971661)

Now that Firefox 2.0 has begun its testing phase, I wonder will the browser be full compatible with all the very latest compatibility tests for web browsers. I remember one rather severe test (whose name escapes me) that the current Opera browser works correctly with; will the Mozilla Foundation make Firefox 2.0 pass this test also?

Re:Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (2, Informative)

lithvanguard (931238) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971692)

Acid2 Test? http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ [webstandards.org]

Re:Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (1)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971868)

I just tried the new alpha release with the test you mention.

It almost works, but not quite unfortunatly, A couple of lines are out of place.

Still, it is far closer than say Internet Explorer 6.

So Far So Good .... (3, Informative)

abhinavmodi (737782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971667)

Works fine on Windoze even after 2 hours .. No crashes or memory hogs. In addition, it is co-existent with Firefox.

Re:So Far So Good .... (1)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971756)

Using it on Linux. None of the extensions were compatible, that's okay for now. The only improvement I noticed was that sound in flash actually works now. It's nice to visit youtube.com and actually hear audio.

Other than that, similar interface but the tabs organize themselves now. Also, the ACID2 test doesn't render properly.

Re:So Far So Good .... (3, Informative)

SimonH_1978 (948155) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971762)

In addition, it is co-existent with Firefox.


Kind of . . . it's disabled all of my extensions, even when I start FF instead of Bon Echo.

what's really new? (3, Informative)

scarlac (768893) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971672)

TFA doesn't say anything about new exciting features. I wonder what made them decide it to be 2.0 alpha instead of 1.6? Was it just so that they could reach the planned milestone?
I read something about they were trying to optimize the renderengine, so it could support cairo and have hardware acceleration... no promises was made, but they expected it to be in 2.0 (correct me if I'm wrong).

I guess the more comprehensive changelog (which isn't available yet) will reveal some more interesting changes - perhaps some nice performance enhancements?

Re:what's really new? (1)

Denyer (717613) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971706)

Have a read of the list of things not working yet. There seem to have been some major changes to the underlying code.

ACID 2 (3, Informative)

Agelmar (205181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971684)

For those who are wondering - the 2.0 alpha build renders the ACID 2 test exactly the same as Mozilla 1.7.12. (http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html #top [webstandards.org] )

I don't personally think that the ACID 2 test is the be-all end-all test, but I know the question will be asked, hence the post.

Re:ACID 2 (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972016)

Grab a nightly trunk build and it's quite a bit closer to the reference rendering. I believe the trunk is what's going to be Firefox 3. It has the newer Gecko.

Re:ACID 2 (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972053)

There's a new reflow factoring branch off the trunk where the work for Acid2 is taking place.

Tabbed browser update complaint (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971691)

One complaint about the close buttons on the tabs:

The close button itself sucks. Take the one from the Firefox 1.5 Mac theme. It's much nicer.

Also, the button should be grayed out (or invisible) unless the mouse is on the tab bar.

Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (1)

evil agent (918566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971736)

Meh, I think close buttons on tabs are kinda worthless. You can close a tab by just middle-clicking it.

Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (1)

joeljkp (254783) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971845)

Not on Linux (at least not with middle-click-URLs enabled).

Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971832)

The close buttons are greyed out unless you mouse over them. I think this is really the best solution because you can close tabs without having to switch to the tab first. Although I do like the point somebody made about middle clicking them to close them, I just tend to forget about that third button.

XForms support? (2, Interesting)

VP (32928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971721)

Is there a plan to add XForms [w3.org] support to Firefox, or will they be waiting for XHTML 2.0 [w3.org] ?

Re:XForms support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971860)

Why don't you use the plugin
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/ [mozilla.org]

Re:XForms support? (1)

VP (32928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972054)

Why don't you use the plugin http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xforms/ [mozilla.org]

Because the use of XForms that I have in mind requires that no additional plugins or other software installs are required for the user. I can require the browser, but it has to be a vanilla install. Think non-technical users with pretty much non-existant IT support.

Firefox 2 (5, Insightful)

56ker (566853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971761)

I just hope that the greater prevalance of Firefox leads to a greater number of sites supporting it. I've had problems with some sites telling me my version of 1.5 needs to be upgraded to an earlier version!!! The site in question was the Comedy Channels's website. To many website designers seem to still design for IE only or use version checking to serve different pages. People should stick to writing valid HTML code that works across all browsers instead of making their websites unusuable for those who don't use IE.

Re:Firefox 2 (0, Flamebait)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971922)

> People should stick to writing valid HTML code that works across all browsers
> instead of making their websites unusuable for those who don't use IE.

They do, unless they're designing sites for money, in which case making their pages work on browsers other than IE isn't an issue, any more than making sure their programs work on operating systems other than Windows.

Frankly, and I feel I can be frank because we're all friends here, you're probably better off convincing people to use Firefox (or whatever) because it's better, than complaining that people should do extra work for no real payoff.

Re:Firefox 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971992)

problem is warped... because browsers has bugs, so you code against the specs AND the bugs, the resulting pragmatic code may break on future releases.

Version inflation (2)

Ulrich Hobelmann (861309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971763)

ok, some features most users won't even notice, and that deserves a bump to 2.0...?

Well, Slackware did it. FreeBSD did it.

Even NetBSD did it.

I'm waiting for Mac OS 11.

Worth the jump in major numbering? (2, Interesting)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971779)

I've been toying around with the new alpha, and it has some interesting additions. But heck, the changes made do not warrant a jump in major version numbering in my books. But I guess that's because I'm used to how version numbers are in the Free Software world, where a jump in a major version number usually means there was a rewrite, or ABI was broken in favour of some fundamental changes.

I'm definitely not seeing that here with Bon Echo.

Not that this is a bad thing -- heck, I'm as much against featuritis as the next guy. But frankly I see less change here than from 1.0 to the Deer Park alphas.

IMHO the #1 thing the guys should have focused on for the 2.0 release was to make Firefox a XULRunner application.

libstdc++ (2, Informative)

calzplace (253241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971784)

Note that most FC4 machines out there will need the compat-libstdc++-33 package for the libstdc++.so.5 library. Just an FYI. :-)

FF Extensions Contest (2, Interesting)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971786)

I find it very strange that the winners of the recently posted FF Extensions contest do not work. The extensions that is. I like this alpha of FF 2 but I wish I still have the extensions / Themes I had before still working.

Getting FF Extensions To Work (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971960)

I find it very strange that the winners of the recently posted FF Extensions contest do not work.

The usual reason for extensions "not working" is that the extension creators usually specify a maximum compatible version in the manifest. Quite often this is something like 1.5.*, as this is (was) the latest series for some time now. Naturally, this would exclude 2.0.

Try opening up the XPI file in your ZIP program, and change the maximum supported version in the INSTALL.RDF file, and see if the extension works. In most cases it does.

Portable version just posted (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971804)

A portable version of this build was just posted for those that want to use this with a separate profile:
http://www.cybernetnews.com/?p=417 [cybernetnews.com]

So basically ... (-1, Flamebait)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971806)

They're changing features that work great now (tabbed browsing) and adding a whole bunch of features that the vast majority of end users really don't care much about (new data storage layer for bookmarks and history, extended search plugin format, updates to the extension system to provide enhanced security and to allow for easier localization of extensions). How Microsoft-esque...

How soon to version 3.0? (3, Interesting)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971810)

I mean, Mozilla used to be slow and steady, now they are firing out updates on .5 increments.

Is this good or bad? I think Firefox will end up becoming bloated and bug ridden just like IE if they keep up this kind of product update cycle. Firefox 1.5 hasn't even been out for 6 months and they are previewing version 2.0.

While I do think that some open source projects move a long at a pace that make snails impatient, I have found that this quick turnaround for FireFox versions isn't beneficial in the long run. I have found there to be more problems in each new version, and I have stopped using Thunderbird for several problems that haven't been addressed yet (such as opening up the wrong email when you click on a header).

I think Mozilla should slow down a bit, or at least go back to the .1 version increments. If they are just trying to drive up the version number to match I.E.'s 7.0, then they will find that Firefox performs about as well as I.E. 7.0, or even less so considering it took Microsoft 10 years to get there.

Re:How soon to version 3.0? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971978)

How does what the size of the version increment deteremine how bloated or bug ridden software is? Anyway, Firefox 2 was available as a "preview" as soon as Gecko 1.8 branched off the trunk last year. The day after any stable branch is created, a new trunk build is produced that is the first preview of the next stable version. Is there some kind of problem with doing that?

Re:How soon to version 3.0? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972006)

I mainly agree with you, the incrementation goes too fast. One purely psychological thing about this is that major releases lose their impact if you keep on incrementing that fast. I mean what happened to Firefox 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4? Why jump directly to 1.5? It seems that it's to say that it's half way to 2.0, but I don't think this is a good idea

Psychological effects aside, I've been using Firefox since 0.9, and since then I have been complaining about both the memory usage (although it seems that a great part of that is considered a disableable feature, but when disabled you still have some big memory usage) and the lack of solution for reaching tabs that are out of scope (although third-party extensions such as Tab Mix Plus brought a solution to it, a Mozilla-made solution wouldn't be unwelcome)

Re:How soon to version 3.0? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972021)

So how exactly is version numbering related to the speed of development? Linux has been moving along in 0.0.1 increments for over two years now, yet most have been complaining about how much they've added to the kernel between increments. Debian's got a higher version number but I haven't seen anyone complaining about their rapid pace. Version numbering is either a) plain bookkeeping, similar to build numbers, b) some sort of interface/stability indicator or c) marketing, trying to create a perception of how fast it's evolving. I think Firefox squarely ends up on c). Announcing the first alpha 1.5 years after their last major version isn't break-neck speed to anyone except OSS geeks who're used to entire overhauls being 0.1 releases.

can middle click, open new window? (0, Redundant)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971843)

Can Firefox 2.0 have middle click to open a new window?

I use firefox 0.8 since every time I down load a new version it seems to only open new tab screens. I hate Tabs. And I don't want to left click and pull down.

Re:can middle click, open new window? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14971897)

Yes. Just use your mouse software to customize by application your mouse clicks. Or, get a mouse gestures plugin and map away.

What is Bon Echo & FF2 Alpha does not update (1)

JavaManJim (946878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971848)

What is Bon Echo anyhow? Yet another version of Firefox? Why does Firefox ignore Firefox 2 Alpha? Or is Firefox 2 Alpha now another dead armadillo with its legs in the air and flys buzzing around like Mozilla 1.7.11? I click on Firefox 2 Alpha help\check for updates and get the message "there are no new updates available".

Disgruntledly,
Jim

Browser dreams (3, Interesting)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971896)

I'm not all that enthusiastic about yet another iteration of Firefox... It's my primary browser and I do like it, but it will never be the browser that I would regard as the ultimate.

I envision a web browser which is the browser equivalent of Linux; a collection of simple programs performing very specific and narrowly defined tasks, all working through clean APIs or protocols. The HTML rendering being split off entirely, the javascript in its own library, image rendering separate, cookie management, security features, history management, bookmarks display, etc. Ideally, the various parts would be so simple that the barriers to development would be lowered drastically resulting in the organic rise of alternatives in the various segments; imagine having a flamewar over which js rendering plugin/library were better!

Extensions are not the solution by far. The functionality decentralization necessary to realize the vision of a browser like this far exceeds what the design idea behind extensions was.

Firefox will never be this. The only thing I've seen which might be salvaged into some sort of semblance of this vision is Kazehakaze, though that remains to be seen (I'm not sure you can even hotswap html rendering in Kazhakaze; I've never managed to keep it from crashing for long enough to test).

KEKE (1)

BisexualPuppy (914772) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971901)

^^ __ SLASHDOT READERS
      _- -._
    l\ -
    l JUNK / HAVE
    lFILTER_/ ._ ^^
    l _/ ._ DWARFED
    l__/._ IS% ._ ._ ._ GAY JEW
COCKSUCK ._ LAME .
ERCOCKSUC / > \ COCKS !
^^ERCO l . l
                  \/ LAME!! l
                    lLAME!! /
                      \_LAME!!_.
KOREA COCK .___.
  KEKEKE
                ^^

Screenshots (3, Informative)

MagPulse (316) | more than 8 years ago | (#14971957)

Here [osdir.com] and here [amanzi.co.nz] .

Ummm...OLD NEWS!!! (0, Flamebait)

fdiaz5583 (531839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972004)

What's with all the old news??? Slashdot reports this almost 2 days late, NY Times reports that Vista will be delayed about a week after Microsoft announces it.

My favourite bug... (4, Funny)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972012)

Bug 9458 [mozilla.org] (referrer block for links from slash), "Implement inline-block in layout" hast its 7th birthday coming up.

Not a dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14972029)

It would be informative if we could tag this with 'notdupe' or '~dupe', just to let people know it's actually out, this time.

Javascript debugger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14972043)

And still no support for the javascript debugger!

Re:Javascript debugger? (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 8 years ago | (#14972056)

The javascript debugger is an extension (it's up to the author to catch up with current releases) and as the author put it, is "officially unloved" so don't expect support from the core crew :)
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>