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!

Nine Reasons To Skip Firefox 2.0

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the rough-around-the-edges dept.

606

grandgator writes, "Hyped by a good deal of fanfare, outfitted with some new features, and now available for download, Firefox 2.0 has already passed 2 million downloads in less than 24 hours. However, a growing number of users are reporting bugs, widening memory leaks, unexpected instability, poor compatibility, and an overall experience that is inferior to that offered by prior versions of the browser. Expanding on these ideas, this list compiles nine reasons why it might be a good idea to stick with 1.5 until the debut of 3.0, skipping the "poorly badged" 2.0 release completely." OK, maybe it's 10 reasons. An anonymous reader writes, "SecurityFocus reports an unpatched highly critical vulnerability in Firefox 2.0. This defect has been known since June 2006 but no patch has yet been made available. The developers claimed to have fixed the problem in 1.5.0.5 according to Secunia, but the problem still exists in 2.0 according to SecurityFocus (and I have witnessed the crash personally). If security is the main reason users should switch to Firefox, how do we explain known vulnerabilities remaining unpatched across major releases?"
Update: 10/30 12:57 GMT by KD : Jesse Ruderman wrote in with this correction. "The article claims that Firefox 2 shipped with a known security hole This is incorrect; the hole is fixed in both Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Firefox 2. The source of the confusion is that the original version of this report demonstrated two crash bugs, one of which was a security hole and the other of which was just a too-much-recursion crash. The security hole has been fixed but we're still trying to figure out the best way to fix the too-much-recursion crash. The report has been updated to clear up the confusion."

cancel ×

606 comments

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

Firefox is a piece of shit (1, Flamebait)

tehdely (690619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629472)

Bantown has exposed 30 vulnerabilities in Firefox. It is not suitable for use even by children, as they may be exposed to MySpace.

Re:Firefox is a piece of shit (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629714)

you humored me.

Re:Firefox is a piece of shit (1)

pile0nades (962661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629782)

That was a hoax.

Sad Co-incidence (2, Funny)

TheShadowHawk (789754) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629478)

A pity as Firefox 2.0 just crashed on me. I was wondering what the hell was going on and I just refreshed slashdot to see this very story.
:(
I still trust it more than IE of course, but do wish as we get newer versions that the stability does continue to improve.
I'm sure they can do it and I still have faith.

Re:Sad Co-incidence (3, Informative)

r.muk (96998) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629628)

I find Firefox a huge resource hog on my P4, taking away ever increasing amounts of memory in what are probably leaks.

I use Mozilla and am very happy with it.

Do volunteers care about tracking down memory leak (2, Informative)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629482)

It's not always the most glamorous part of coding an app, but it needs to be done.
Personally, I haven't upgraded (and I won't until everything - esp. my extensions - "just work").. and reports like this suggest that this may be the prudent action.

Re:Do volunteers care about tracking down memory l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629502)

It's seriously seems to be getting worse and worse with each apt-get upgrade for me. I've been using Firefox 2.0 for a while now with Edgy, but while I was searching for... well I'll be honest, mass amounts of porno with about 50 tabs open, my system has slowed to a crawl about 10 times more often then it did with 1.50.

Re:Do volunteers care about tracking down memory l (2, Informative)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629530)

I upgraded and was pleasantly surprised to find that of the 14 or so extensions that I use, only about 3 were "incompatible" with the new version - not nearly as bad as I had thought.

That said, I've had it freeze a couple of times on me (however the session-restore worked, and put me right back where I left-off when it started up again). Javascript is still a major stumbling block - it's really damn slow. Aside from fixing bugs, hopefully they put a lot of emphasis on optimizing their JS engine, as it really is sluggish on sites that use a lot of it (Digg and the like).

N.

Re:Do volunteers care about tracking down memory l (3, Insightful)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629580)

For me, when it comes to extensions, one (incompatibility) is too many. Each of the ~14 I have serves a purpose - and I'd rather not go without the functionality provided. (With extensions like ad-block being one of the main reasons I switched to FF in the first place, and why I doubt I'll move back over to IE7).

Re:Do volunteers care about tracking down memory l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629798)

I upgraded. After 4 days, it's only sucking up ~140MB of memory. Not perfect, but it's MUCH better than the ~230MB of memory suckage I experienced from version 1.5.

Re:Do volunteers care about tracking down memory l (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629906)

agreed i am using the swiftfox build on edgy and emmory usage and responsive is noticeably better, IMO.

The 9 Reasons (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629484)

1) The new theme is too bulky, inconsistent on different platforms, and inferior to the highly refined and very user friendly theme of 1.5 (this is despite late efforts by Mozilla to spruce up the icon set and improve consistency)

2) Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based) and a potential privacy problem. The privacy issues are raised because Firefox 2.0 Antiphishing Features employ an engine previously released by Google, which has been shown to potentially cause privacy risks.

3) The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features

4) There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions of Firefox. While this can, to some degree, be expected, the loss of this huge user contributed extension base is a non-trivial problem with Firefox 2.0, and could be a deal breaker for some people all by itself

5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox

6) There are reported problems with the CSS engine in Firefox 2.0, affecting various websites, and making certain features unavailable to surfers. Notable among these is a continued problem with certain aspects of Yahoo! mail

7) Reports indicate that episodes of random freezing during use are worse with the 2.0 version, though a cause has not yet been isolated

8) Numerous users have reported that the History bar is buggy, and that in some instances - for unknown reasons - will not display recent items when the history menu is opened as a side panel

9) RSS feed handling has taken a step backwards, and is inferior to that of IE7.

Re:The 9 Reasons (3, Insightful)

SnprBoB86 (576143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629516)

Re: #4

The backwards compatability woes indicate that, much like Windows, Firefox will slow to evolve because it is a victim of it's own success.

I think it's the opposite. (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629882)

Er wouldn't they indicate that it's evolving quickly because they're happily breaking compatibility in the name of development? I think these are two entirely different sets of circumstance.

Re:The 9 Reasons (0, Troll)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629598)

1). The theme: so he doesn't like the theme. That's why themes were invented for, go grab one which you like. Crap.

2). Weak antiphishing: there was none before, now he's complaining it's weak. Get lost.

3). Confusing Options dialog: hell, have you ever really gone through IE's Tools->Internet options ? Thought so. Anyway, it's really hard to spot well designed dialogs these days. Not a reason for not using the browser. Crap.

4). Compatible extensions: man, people need some time for updating their extensions, but they are quick, e.g. all my extensions have been upgraded in a few days. But, if you're willing, in most cases you can fix them on your own.

5). Memory leak: I often run Firefoxes for a whole week long. Yes, you read that correctly. I often just leave important links open when I leave work, then I login back from home and continue useing it, then again tomorrow from work, and so on. After a week it often eats up around half a gigs of memory, true. But really, how many of you do such things ?

6). CSS with Yahoo: well, if it's such a problem for him, I can understand. For me, I don't give a frack. And in fact, when someone raises non-IE-related CSS-problems, all I can do is laugh.

7). Freezes: yes, they occur. But hello, restore session. I don't say it's no problem, I'm saying it's no reason not to switch.

8). Buggy history: sometimes occurs, true.

9). RSS: also true, I hope RSS reading will become better (well, that should be easy, given) soon.

All in all, useless site, mostly useless points, definitely useless advice.

Re:The 9 Reasons (1)

Anal Cock (1016533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629674)

Exactly. And with regards to RSS, I think it's improved. I don't see how it can have deteriorated. There's now a feed preview instead of just showing a generic XML document. It's not brilliant, but it's OK... If you want more features, get Sage [mozilla.org] or something...

Re:The 9 Reasons (3, Insightful)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629678)

I'm agreeing with you here... and going on with some rants of my own.

What I don't get is ever time a new version of FF comes out, you get people bitching that there extensions are not compatible. The extension compatibility issues have nothing to do with the Firefox developers, its the extension developers that have not timely released there code, bitch at them.

Bad analogy time.

You own a 1995 Ford car that you've installed custom bucket seats in. You purchase a 2006 Ford of the same model. The passenger compartment has been redesigned in the mean time, and your custom seats will not fit in the new car. In this case do you think that bitching at Ford is going to do a damn bit of good? Get new seats. If no one makes seats that fit the model yet, you'll have to wait or make your own.

Re:The 9 Reasons (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629726)

What I don't get is ever time a new version of FF comes out, you get people bitching that there extensions are not compatible. The extension compatibility issues have nothing to do with the Firefox developers, its the extension developers that have not timely released there code, bitch at them.

Exactly. This has been the case back to 1.0 (and probably before). Every time a minor revision comes out there are broken extensions. You can see this in the extension browser where they have to specify the versions the extension is compatible with. I imagine the API has shifted a lot in 1.x and there's no reason why 2.0 would be any different.

I used to run Firefox for over a month (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629728)

That was back when it was decently stable. I'd have a few dozen windows open. I'd repeatedly open and close windows.

Now, with the 1.5 release, things aren't so nice. I started using tabs only because I thought that would help with memory usage and stability, but it seems not. I'll typically have a half dozen windows open, each with a half dozen tabs. Well, that's because of the crashes. I'd be up to 10 windows with 10 tabs each if the browser didn't keep crashing.

Right now my 1.5 release has been running for 13 days. It's about to crash I think. One of the windows is acting funny. I abandoned that window, leaving it open on one of my many virtual desktops. From experience, I know that firefox will crash if I mess with that window. ("funny" being: new tabs wind up as windows with the controls missing rather than as tabs) I think the previous run crashed after 6 days, judging from how long my X server has been running.

So you say 2.0 is actually worse? How much worse?

Re:I used to run Firefox for over a month (1)

Xeriar (456730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629854)

I've had... one sorta crash so far - the tab locked up and I was forced to close the tab, on a page loading a messy java applet.

Otherwise, I've been running the same instance of Firefox since 2.0 was released. There is some leaklike behavior, but for the most part, as I close and reopen tabs a lot... right now I'm only using ~160 mb. Probably more than it should, but it's not nearly as bad as I saw previous releases get, so I'm assuming there has been some improvement in this area.

Re:The 9 Reasons (5, Insightful)

Antiocheian (859870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629742)

1). The theme: so he doesn't like the theme. That's why themes were invented for, go grab one which you like. Crap.

No, it's not crap. This will be an important reason for many people to avoid 2.0

Yes, there are themes and I immediately installed one of them after I set up Firefox. But you can't ask this from the user base Firefox is aiming at.

3). Confusing Options dialog: hell, have you ever really gone through IE's Tools->Internet options ? Thought so. Anyway, it's really hard to spot well designed dialogs these days. Not a reason for not using the browser. Crap.

It seems you agree on his point and yet call it crap. The options dialog DOES suck. And yes, it's really easy to spot well designed option dialogs, take a look at Microsoft Office.

4). Compatible extensions: man, people need some time for updating their extensions, but they are quick, e.g. all my extensions have been upgraded in a few days. But, if you're willing, in most cases you can fix them on your own.

The cited article is about reasons for NOT upgrading from the good and working 1.5.x. Indeed my most needed extension is not working with 2.0 yet. His objection is solid, yours lacks in more aspects than style.

7). Freezes: yes, they occur. But hello, restore session. I don't say it's no problem, I'm saying it's no reason not to switch.

So you say that it's ok to upgrade to a buggy new version. I really don't think you are entitled to an opinion on Slashdot.

Re:The 9 Reasons (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629806)

And yes, it's really easy to spot well designed option dialogs, take a look at Microsoft Office.

::SPLORF::

Damn! You owe me a new keyboard.

Re:The 9 Reasons (3, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629776)

Heh, I love the way you dismiss #1 as not being a reason to not use FF, then dismiss #6 as you don't personally use Yahoo! mail.

You also seem to misunderstand #2 - the complaint will be that a weak security measure may well be worse than none at all, as users may come to rely on what is in fact insufficient protection. Imagine a situation in which the filter catches say 70% of malicious sites. If people come to rely on it ("Hey, FF doesn't say this site is bad, so it must be good!") they'll be in more danger than if they were careful about what they did on-line. You're also ignoring the privacy issue he mentions, although I don't know enough about that to comment (never having used Google's toolbar).

#5 - how many of us do such things? I do for one. I imagine that most working people simply don't bother to shut down their work PC; in my case, I'd waste too much time restarting all my apps and getting back to where I was the day before. I often see FF's memory usage exceed a couple of hundred meg. It is getting better (for me at least) though, and I'm having to restart it less and less with each new release.

Personally, I see freezes as being one of the main reasons not to switch. Sure, there's restore session, great. Does it restore the text of the email/post/whatever that I was typing? No, of course not. I can certainly see that being a problem if FF freezes/crashes for you a lot.

Compatible extensions: man, people need some time for updating their extensions, but they are quick, e.g. all my extensions have been upgraded in a few days.Compatible extensions: man, people need some time for updating their extensions, but they are quick, e.g. all my extensions have been upgraded in a few days.

The RCs were available for months. I don't know if there were any changes between them that affected extensions (although given that they were RCs, there shouldn't have been), but there really aren't many excuses for authors not having updated their extensions yet, if they're still actively maintaining them. Note that this is not a criticism of FF, but if an extension you consider important hasn't been updated, why would you switch?

Re:The 9 Reasons (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629788)

Too bad there's not a moderation rating for "Apologist".

Re:The 9 Reasons (5, Insightful)

xoyoyo (949672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629868)

>> 2). Weak antiphishing: there was none before, now he's complaining it's weak. Get lost.

Weak antiphishing is worse than no antiphishing. If a user gets used to seeing antiphishing messages pop up every time they do something stupid, then when one doesn't appear they're going to assume everything is okay.

This might be acceptable if you were talking about a tiny percentage of transactions, but Firefox can't guarantee that.

The Firefox phishing protection is host based, which means that someone has to submit a site and then it has to be verified before being added to a database. Worse, connection to the live blacklist is optional, so you may be browsing with an antique blacklist.

All that will happen is that the scammers will spread their phishing sites more widely: there are hordes of compromised PCs out there, you can't track them all.

A heuristic approach would be better: at the moment all the phishing mail I get seems to use a hole in php. Better surely to have mandatorily updated list of rules in the antiphishing engine:

Alert if apparent domain in #text of tag does not match href attribute
Alert if URL contains a space
Alert if URL is IP address with no dots

&c&c

My 3 Reasons (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629826)

  1. It works for me (no random locks, important extensions all work)
  2. It seems snappier
  3. I already installed it and it's not causing problems so why revert

how-how... (1)

ezh (707373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629492)

> how do we explain known vulnerabilities remaining unpatched across major releases?

just read some comments of a release manager in mozilla's bugzilla - "This is not a major issue, WON'T FIX in current release". Next bug! :-(

Re:how-how... (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629672)

I heard that though the crash is still there, the vulnerability is not. While I'm disappointed by some of the bugs that remain between releases, I'm skeptical that they would knowingly leave a critical security hole in for over 4 months. The only valid recourse for anybody who doesn't like the bugs is to either fix them, write a better browser altogether, or switch browsers, but good luck finding a better browser.

Re:how-how... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629730)

I haven't heard that this is a security hole. From what I've read it only causes browser crashes. Does anyone have any evidence that this is actually a security issue?

no wonder IE7 team sent a cake to Mozilla... (2, Funny)

ezh (707373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629506)

no wonder IE7 team sent a cake to Mozilla foundation a la "from Redmond with love"... See it here if you have not already: http://fredericiana.com/2006/10/24/from-redmond-wi th-love/ [fredericiana.com]

memory (2, Funny)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629508)

The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation.

So, does that mean that 640K won't be enough memory then?

Meh (1)

mushadv (909107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629518)

There are really only three or four issues that actually affect users of previous versions. Many use a theme other than the default, and I can't really see how the preferences dialog is any more confusing. Not to say that those three or four issues aren't important, though I haven't experienced the much maligned memory leakage or crashing myself. These just seem too trifling to actually warrant skipping a version.

Re:Meh (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629562)

I don't much like the new tab format, the functionality is fine, but the loss of that little X on the right side has annoyed me somewhat. I do think the preference window has become less logical and more difficult to find relevant options. It used to have a "downloads" tab, now it's in "general", the proxy settings took me a while to find. I'm no expert but I don't think things are really where they should be. I think 1.5 had it better in that regard.

Re:Meh (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629720)

That one bit is the only complaint I have at the moment. In the old days, you could just click on that x without moving a pixel to close a bunch of tabs you no longer want. But no! Me no likey!

If they had a little box to check that would make it go to 1.x standards, I'd be mostly pretty darn happy, and I expect that there is probably an extension that will do that, if there isn't one already. I do like the built in spell check, though. Pretty swanky.

Re:Meh (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629844)

I know its just personal preference, but I always had the "Tabs Mix Plus" extension installed in the 1.5.x branch, mostly to add the close tab buttons (it also had a "save session" feature, me-thinks they incorporated that extension into the 2.0 main code. My reason that its better to have close-tab buttons on each tab is that in the old 1.5.x system with the one close button on the side, you would have to select the tab you wanted, then move your mouse across back across the screen to hit close (and it got even more annoying with like 5 tabs open)...

Joy, attention whore blog... (0)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629520)

Let's see now:

The new theme is too bulky, inconsistent on different platforms, and inferior to the highly refined and very user friendly theme of 1.5 (this is despite late efforts by Mozilla to spruce up the icon set and improve consistency)

I agree but you can download new themes or even the old FF theme, so wtf would this stop you from using FF 2.0?

Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based)

Why does this matter, it wasn't in FF 1.5 so why would its existence even if it's not great be a drawback?

The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features

I've found that to have always been the case, long live google and about:config.

There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions of Firefox. While this can, to some degree, be expected, the loss of this huge user contributed extension base is a non-trivial problem with Firefox 2.0, and could be a deal breaker for some people all by itself

Nightly tester tools and the author seems to not understand that extensions are very often (always?) open source. Anyone can unpack and fix extensions if needed. Hell all my extensions work once I disabled compatibility.

The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox

It's not a memory leak in the sense of doing nothing increasing memory usage so that inaccurate. Second of all it exists, probably worse even, in 1.5 so why the fuck would it stop someone from upgrading? Has the author so run out of ideas as to list any and all faults of FF?

Notable among these is a continued problem with certain aspects of Yahoo! mail

Continued as in it existed in 1.5? LEt me repeat my point again: "wtf is this a reason to not upgrade, you already have the problem with the current version."

# Reports indicate that episodes of random freezing during use are worse with the 2.0 version, though a cause has not yet been isolated
# Numerous users have reported that the History bar is buggy, and that in some instances - for unknown reasons - will not display recent items when the history menu is opened as a side panel


FF has lots of fun rare bugs which does not mean everyone or even many people will get them. Just make a backup of your profile folder beforehand and downgrade if you are unlucky enough to get such bugs.

Re:Joy, attention whore blog... (1)

Cd-MaN83 (1019752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629668)

The parent is 100% right. It's sad that this kind of attention whoring and flat out wrong stories make it to slashdot. So let's take the points one by one:
  • The new theme is too bulky, inconsistent on different platforms, and inferior to the highly refined and very user friendly theme of 1.5 (this is despite late efforts by Mozilla to spruce up the icon set and improve consistency) - You're joking, right? The top one reason why you don't use FF 2.0 is because of the theme? And just to clarify: there were no major, radical changes in the look, they swapped just some icons.
  • Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based) and a potential privacy problem. The privacy issues are raised because Firefox 2.0 Antiphishing Features employ an engine previously released by Google, which has been shown to potentially cause privacy risks. - Now this is flat out wrong. If you look in your settings you'll see that there are two possibilities - download a list periodically and check against that (which is no privacy risk whatsoever and is the default one selected!) and check for each page with google (which is the alternative and by default not selected!). I agree that a blacklist based approach is not 100% perfect, but it's better than nothing.
  • The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features - my guess is that you didn't look in it at all since you would have seen the options for phising check (see the previuos point). And again it's 95% the same as in 1.5
  • There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions of Firefox. While this can, to some degree, be expected, the loss of this huge user contributed extension base is a non-trivial problem with Firefox 2.0, and could be a deal breaker for some people all by itself - propaganda with not supporting facts! What percentage of the extension is incompatible? I guess you don't know! How many extensions didn't work for you after you upgraded? You don't say! Have you upgraded at all and checked this things for yourself or are you just talking BS to get slashdotted? My experience is that out of the 17 extensions 3 were incompatible, however they are not essential and probably will be upgraded in the next few days (I could force them manually to load, but I'm lazy). In fact I've just checked and one of the extension is already updated, which makes 2 out 17!
  • The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox - Any proof? I use the leak watcher extension for FF and since I've upgraded it found no leaks at all (it used to pup-up every couple of minutes in the old version).
  • There are reported problems with the CSS engine in Firefox 2.0, affecting various websites, and making certain features unavailable to surfers. Notable among these is a continued problem with certain aspects of Yahoo! mail - What problems? FF 2.0 is one of the most compatible browsers out there. Of course that those "IE only" websites with proprietary non-standard stuff don't work but neither did they in previous versions. And I use Yahoo Mail daily (the new beta non the less) and it works just fine.
  • Reports indicate that episodes of random freezing during use are worse with the 2.0 version, though a cause has not yet been isolated - it doesn't freeze for the 99% of the users and hopefully it will be fixed for the 1% (which should make bugreports on bugzilla)
  • Numerous users have reported that the History bar is buggy, and that in some instances - for unknown reasons - will not display recent items when the history menu is opened as a side panel - again, see the previous reply. Also the forum the link is going lists exactly ONE person complaining and the others trying to help him, which by no means counts as numerous users.
  • RSS feed handling has taken a step backwards, and is inferior to that of IE7. - Exactly in which way? Giving no specifics is great for attention grabbing but does not add anything positive to the discussion. And btw, the fact that now I can add my feeds directly to Google Reader from FF 2.0 is great and by no means a step backwards.

Re:Joy, attention whore blog... (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629834)

Wow, you'd think someone insulted Linux or something...

Re:Joy, attention whore blog... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629772)

Nightly tester tools and the author seems to not understand that extensions are very often (always?) open source. Anyone can unpack and fix extensions if needed. Hell all my extensions work once I disabled compatibility.

Yeah! Screw anyone who doesn't want to fix the source code for their extensions by hand!

It's not a memory leak in the sense of doing nothing increasing memory usage so that inaccurate. Second of all it exists, probably worse even, in 1.5 so why the fuck would it stop someone from upgrading? Has the author so run out of ideas as to list any and all faults of FF?

Yeah! What's the big deal about not fixing a little memory leak before releasing a new version? And really, screw anyone who doesn't have enough RAM to deal with it!

[Yahoo mail problem] Continued as in it existed in 1.5? LEt me repeat my point again: "wtf is this a reason to not upgrade, you already have the problem with the current version."

I know, right? And anyone who uses Yahoo mail shouldn't even be on a computer. I mean really, web-based clients are for fools and children. The Firefox team shouldn't bother with this, there can't be more than like 100 people in their userbase using Yahoo Mail and crap like that!

[random freezing/buggy history bar] FF has lots of fun rare bugs which does not mean everyone or even many people will get them. Just make a backup of your profile folder beforehand and downgrade if you are unlucky enough to get such bugs.

See this part is where you're wrong. If those stupid idiots think there's something wrong with FF, screw 'em! It's open source, that doesn't mean it writes itself! Anyone with any kind of problem with FF who doesn't write a patch is just being irresponsible. Open source means that _everyone_ contributes. Except for those stupid people using web-based e-mail clients! OMG there's just no understanding those CRAZIES! lololololol

Seriously, I just wanted you to hear what you sound like.

Re:Joy, attention whore blog... (1)

AngelofDeath-02 (550129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629820)

I think the important question is "Why upgrade?"

Re:Joy, attention whore blog... (1)

plierhead (570797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629852)

It's not a memory leak in the sense of doing nothing increasing memory usage so that inaccurate. Second of all it exists, probably worse even, in 1.5 so why the fuck would it stop someone from upgrading? Has the author so run out of ideas as to list any and all faults of FF?

Whooaaa, dial the defensiveness back a few degrees there, fanatical FF fanboy!

There is no legal definition of "memory leak" but I think most people would agree that, if it steadily increases memory consumption while the user is doing more or less the same thing, then that is a memory leak. I'm just doing my thing and its using more and more memory - memory leak.

My impression (3, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629532)

The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open for long periods of time. Before when you close your browser you had to open your tabs again and get it in the same configuration, now it goes to being the same as before immidiately.
So even if some leaks remain, the problems they cause are reduced.

Re:My impression (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629560)

So users should change their behavior to suit firefox flaws?

Re:My impression (1)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629600)

Why not, I've changed my behavior to suit Internet Explorer flaws (avoiding active X, constant virus scanning, etc...). Users only define there software experience if they are developers, or the developers listen to there users.

Re:My impression (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629604)

I think the point was that many people do change their behavior, and it balances out those flaws on its own.

Re:My impression (1)

LauraW (662560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629586)

The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open

To be fair, you could do that in FireFox 1.5 using the Tab Mix Plus [mozilla.org] extension. It works very well.

Back to the topic of the article: I've upgraded to FireFox 2.0 on my XP box at home (and next week I'll upgrade my Linux box at work). I haven't noticed any ill effects from the upgrade. I haven't noticed any major differences, for that matter, other than no longer needing Tab Mix Plus because most of its functionality is built into 2.0.

Re:My impression (1)

BoldAndBusted (679561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629610)

Of course, you don't need FF 2.0 to do that. Anyone who has been using Tab Mix Plus [mozilla.org] has had these features (and a few more) for a while now. And there's a bunch more extensions that fly in the same flock, just search Firefox Add Ons [mozilla.org] and live it up, without upgrading.

Re:My impression (1)

Cato (8296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629722)

It's a lot cleaner and more reliable to have all the tab-session-saving functionality built into the browser - I used Tab Mix Plus and it was generally OK, but would frequently not restore all my tabs, and sometimes forget all of them. I now have a couple of very simple tab extensions in Firefox 2, one to let me duplicate a tab and the other to open new tabs immediately to the right of the current tab.

Re:My impression (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629704)

The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open for long periods of time. Before when you close your browser you had to open your tabs again and get it in the same configuration, now it goes to being the same as before immidiately.

I'm running a fresh install of Ubuntu Edgy here, with Firefox 2.0. The feature you mention doesn't work, sadly; I filed a bug [launchpad.net] . Of course, this could be some freak issue with my particular installation (although it is a clean install from 48 hours ago), or with Edgy, and not Mozilla's fault.

Re:My impression (1)

PlasticArmyMan (967433) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629736)

The hack that I use, in 1.5, is have Crash Recovery as an extension and then close the Firefox process if I want to save. :)

doesn't do the job (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629774)

Besides being SLOW, restarting isn't going to place multiple windows on numerous virtual desktops.

I have virtual desktops containing browser windows which contain tabs. That's 3 levels with which I organize things. It may be 5 desktops times 2 browsers times 8 tabs, for a total of around 80 tabs.

No, I don't want to restart that, even if I can.

Re:My impression (2, Informative)

MK_CSGuy (953563) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629862)

The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open
If you want that out of the box and don't like v2 you should try Opera [opera.com] - it has been a standard there for years now.

the proof-of-concept... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629550)

..vulnerability [coredump.cx] reported by Security Focus doesn't seem to be effecting Firefox 2 on my machine..

Re:the proof-of-concept... (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629588)

An exploit that effects a web browser, not THAT would be impressive ;)

Re:the proof-of-concept... (1)

pile0nades (962661) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629846)

Crashed my FF2 here.

I've switched back to 1.5.0.7 (2, Interesting)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629566)

I didn't switch because of security problems, but because of the attempts to foist session management onto all of us and because the Tab Killer plugin which I use to eradicate all record of tabs from Firefox doesn't work in 2.0 yet.

Why can't the Moz developers make a simple Tabs On/Off switch in the Options Panel, and the same for session management. I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.

One final rant, why did they move the proxy settings panel from the front of Options to somewhere buried again. Not that IE is a great browser, but they don't jumble the preferences UI around every release. For an IT department that supports over 20000 users on a university network, trying to figure out which version of a browser they're running just to find their proxy settings is painful.

Re:I've switched back to 1.5.0.7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629602)

I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.


Yeah, coz, you know, that optional behavior can't easily be altered or disabled from Opera's preferences panel. Oh no, wait, it can...which is why it's referred to as an "optional behavior".

I use Firefox, I use Opera, and I sometimes use IE. Since these applications are just tools I have a choice about using or not, I don't post to websites trying to slag off one or the other. That's because I'm not a fucking idiot.

Re:I've switched back to 1.5.0.7 (3, Informative)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629616)

> I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.

Then use the simple switch they provide to make it not do that.
You didn't look very hard - the very first dropdown on the first panel of the options dialogue has the option you're looking for.

In all honesty (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629828)

that was a tertiary concern, the tabs and my other plug-ins were the major reason for switching back. If they had worked, I would have stayed with 2.0 and hunted deeper to get rid of a small annoyance.

BTW, according to the Find Updates button, the six plugins I run that are incompatible with 2.0 still have no updates for them.

Re:I've switched back to 1.5.0.7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629630)

I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts.

Tools -> Options -> Main -> "When Firefox starts" -> Switch it to "show home page"

As for the network connection settings, I'm sure you could find it if you looked for it. Hint: It's under Advanced, with a big Network tab.

Please, I don't know, actually USE the browser before complaining about it.

Don't like 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629570)

So far, I really hate a couple of features:

* When the number of tabs increases more than 5 or 6, new tabs are not visible only by clicking a tiny arrow to the right of the tab bar.
* The colour indicating currently active tab is only slightly different from the colour of the inactive toolbar, making me strain my eyes trying to figure out which tab is currently active.

Thanks, but no thanks, I'm sticking with 1.5........

Re:Don't like 2.0 (2, Informative)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629620)

When the number of tabs increases more than 5 or 6, new tabs are not visible only by clicking a tiny arrow to the right of the tab bar.

Yeah, annoying me too. But, this is not IE, so there's a way to change: go to about:config and change browser.tabs.tabMinWidth. You're welcome :)

Re:Don't like 2.0 (1)

PlasticArmyMan (967433) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629740)

The *primary* reason I've downgraded back to 1.5 is because my favourite extension superT hasn't been upgraded for it. That's about it. I don't have any other problems, but I'll wait until I know it's safe to upgrade because it's painful browsing without that extension.

Re:Don't like 2.0 (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629818)

so there's a way to change: go to about:config and change browser.tabs.tabMinWidth

That's one of the few things I dislike about FF - so many useful options hidden in the completely undocumented about:config. I know opinions differ on the subject, but I personally don't think that I should have to search the web to work out how to configure an application I'm using. Would it have killed them to include a readme for it with the browser, or even a (context-sensitive?) help tool within about:config itself? (Yeah, I know, open source, do it yourself; if only I had the time)

i did skip firefox 2 (1)

kungfujesus (969971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629572)

i'm using a firefox 3.0 nightly build, and i love it

Slashdotted (1)

wrackedmind (902061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629574)

Looks like the server has already barfed.

I think firefox 2.0 is great though myself. The spellcheck alone was worth the update to me. It is just as functional as the last one so far for me. I am not really a browser power user though, so perhaps it is dysfunctional for those types.

Firefox to internet: (5, Insightful)

sporkme (983186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629578)

Firefox to internet:
If you are for any reason dissatisfied with your Firefox experience, we will gladly refund your money.


There will, of course, be growing pains. TFA highlights a known security bug, and points out that the memory leak has found its way into Firefox 2. CSS is initially seeing some compatibility hickups. There is always room for improvement. I began using Firefox 2 a few hours after the actual release. I was surprised to see an article complaining.

The other points of the article are matters of preference and wishful thinking.
-"I don't like the theme." ORLY well how is that IE theme support working out for you?
-"The anti phishing is weak!" ---compared to what? The antiphishing in 1.5?
-"Extensions did not automagically compatible-ize themselves!" OOOOHHH, well let me switch to that other browser that inherently supports third-party code. Perhaps we have overlooked the ".0" in the release version number. Third parties will have to adapt to meet the changes as Mozilla works to meet them. This does constitute a reason to potentially delay switching if extensions are absolutely necessary for your casual web usage.
-"I don't understand the options screen!" BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! This can't be serious.
-"I don't like the RSS thingy! IE does it better!" Where was it again that RSS originated? Was that Redmond? While IE's RSS Just Works (TM) there are clearly many custom options for this feature with Firefox, and unimaginable numbers of extensions are to follow.

So why delay switching to 2.0? Because 1.5 is just fine. Not because 2.0 is broken. Comparing a .0 release to an established release, and to Internet Explorer, is just pretty laughable where I am sitting. I have not experienced a single crash or bug, but then I have not exactly been trying to break it. Overall, I am quite impressed and look forward to seeing where this release takes the community.

Re:Firefox to internet: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629810)

I really don't know why Parent was modded flamebait. (S)he gives valid points. Mod the fucking article Flamebait.

FF 3.0 (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629896)

There will, of course, be growing pains

Yup. Open Source products usually get decent by V3.0 or 3.1

Falling Behind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629582)

Safari with PithHelmet and Saft has had most of these features and a lot more for a while now, I didn't realize how far Firefox had lagged behind. I wonder if IE is going to overtake Firefox once again too, hopefully they get their shit together.

IceWeasel (1)

Jastiv (958017) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629590)

Maybe I will just switch to IceWeasel when it comes out.

I admit I never really liked some of the features in FireFox anyway, such as the the automatic download to desktop.

Re:IceWeasel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629618)

Why are you so called "nerds" so damn lazy??
Just go TELL it to ask you where to download files to. It's a 6 second job.

Re:IceWeasel (1)

Hikaru79 (832891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629622)

I'm honestly not trying to insult you or anything, so if you were being sarcastic, I apologize, but just in case, it is possible to make it so that Firefox doesn't automatically download to desktop. Its somwhere in the Preferences, just check "Ask me where to save downloaded files every time". :)

I say (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629592)

stick with seamonkey!

Re:I say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629768)

Lets see Slashdot mood...
IE6 began craping out and all the porn sites began to abuse us with the shotgun blast of pop-up windows..
"See we told you all along IE users it was a crap browser"
FF to the save with tabs and actual working pop-up blocker, thank you ...
FF neat upgrades but leaky as vietnamese whore...
Opera has been doing this awhile
Tab wars of 05, "I survived"
Still no fixes to leak; its not a bug damnit its a feature.
Oh wait it is a bug
Interesting extensions coming out that helped out
Oh wait these 1.5.0X upgrades are killing my extensions a few days; no hastle
Oh wait now the advertisers know how to make pop-ups on FF but not that bad; phewwww
IE7 is beta and boy are they ever doomed---no they're not stop exaggerating---no it sucks
You want securtiy get Seamonkey--wait whats seamonkey---no nevermind Opera has it right now
So we got a fox and a sea monkey; what kind of zoo is this Mozilla place running?
IE7 IS HERE - Jusk Kidding --- Now it is here offically--- grrr.....mmmm....grumble....
Hey Microsoft got it right this time; not all of it though but its better than nothing
FF2 RELEASED!!! hooorayyy--- hey it looks the same.....

FF 2 locks on me constantly (1)

Ozy311 (846876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629652)

I really hope it can be fixed, but on my MacBookPro and my PC, FF2 locks and I have to restart it by killing the process. I've tried removing all my plugins and even deleted my profile and started fresh. I get random locks on both my win32 and osx versions which rules out the OS. I have faith they will resolve the issues, but maybe they released it too soon?

Re:FF 2 locks on me constantly (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629690)

I installed yesterday, three crashes in the first hour and a few lock ups, I started using Safari, the performance was that bad. No sign of the memory leak though on my ancient T-book. Can't stand tabs, so I switched 'em off anyway and FF2 crashed while writing this :( Most of my mac using buddies use Opera...

Re:FF 2 locks on me constantly (1)

steeviant (677315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629778)

I get random locks on both my win32 and osx versions which rules out the OS.

It must be that crappy Intel hardware then. :D

I've been using FF2 fairly intensely since it was released and have found it to be better in pretty much every respect than 1.5. (Apart from making it harder to disable that useless "go" button, which is strangely no longer a toolbar button in FF2 - hint: go to about:config and look for browser.urlbar.hideGoButton).

Re:FF 2 locks on me constantly (1)

Ozy311 (846876) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629802)

My PC is AMD nForce4, not Intel, and it also locks on my buddies PC and MacBookPro. Its not the hardware. Way to generalize though!

Direction (2, Interesting)

ballwall (629887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629670)

I love firefox, but I question where they are going. If you look at the blog post every 3rd entry is complaining about memory issues or bloat. Now here comes FF 2.0, with more features, but these seem to only exacerbate the problems. Firefox's original claim to fame was "Not being IE". It didn't have ActiveX, supported tabs, and was super speedy. Firefox gained popularity because it was a viable option when people went looking for a replacement to IE. But that was the catch, people were looking for a replacement.

Now I find myself getting more and more frustrated with Firefox's bloat, and looking for a replacement for it. (I have way too many greasemonkey scripts to make the switch lightly).

The memory issue is huge for those with less than a gig of ram. The fast back/forward switching is nice, but not if it ends up getting paged out. Yes, users can turn it off in about:config, is that viable? And while the developers keep complaining about extensions being the culprit, it seems like some work there on the garbage collector is in order, or at least isolating and counting usage by each extension to show users which is causing the problem. (Instead of forcing each user to manually disable them until they happen upon the one that's causing the issue).

All of these new 2.0 features have an audience, and should probably even be included in the installer. But why aren't they extensions? Is there some technical reason my browser should have the overhead of a spellchecker if I don't want it? And finally, why aren't they solutioning what the users are asking for?

Seamonkey's not that bad (1)

jesterzog (189797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629856)

Firefox's original claim to fame was "Not being IE". It didn't have ActiveX, supported tabs, and was super speedy.

I agree with most of what you've said, but not quite with this. The way I remember things, Firefox's original claim to fame, at least among geeks, was not being Mozilla, as in Mozilla Seamonkey [mozilla.org] . In other words, it was Mozilla with all the extra flab cut out. Just a browser. No mail client, no composer, no newsreader, no built in IRC chat client, etc etc. This made it much faster loading, and eventually more comparable with Internet Explorer as a drop-in replacement.

It's still just a browser, but since then it seems to have been becoming a somewhat more heavy duty browser trying to meet everyone's needs, without necessarily doing everything brilliantly. The irony for me is that Mozilla Seamonkey can still be installed in modules to some extent, so it's actually possible to install just the browser. (Well, the browser seems to come with the Composer in my debian package, I'm not sure if that's standard.) I haven't done any extensive benchmarks, but anecdotally it does often feel more cut down to me than Firefox does. To be honest, it feels more stable and I almost prefer it over Firefox.

The full Mozilla Seamonkey suite seems to have been forgotten in all the Firefox hype, but the only thing that's putting me off using it more often is that it doesn't seem to have a very reliable extension handling interface. That is, I can install an extension from an XPI file, but there's not actually an extension management interface in the front end UI that I could find. Perhaps this is a good thing, because it diversity of so many third party extensions of varying quality seems to be one of the big complications of Firefox stability.

Defending Firefox isn't helping Firefox (5, Insightful)

coobird (960609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629676)

It seems like quite a few people are out defending Firefox, but that's actually a disservice for Firefox.

What it really comes down to is to make Firefox into a browser that can convince the other 80+% of the users to switch. Saying "oh but, Firefox did it first!" or "you can just change x setting to make it better if you like" is irrelevant because when it comes down to it, it's whether the average users think it's better than the other browser. Making excuses for issues that even be perceived as problems doesn't help Firefox.

I like Firefox and upgraded to 2.0 on Tuesday, but it's not really the opinion of the Firefox crowd that really matters, it's the users still using Internet Explorer, the crowd that Firefox is really going after.

Notepad (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629680)

I'm tempted to start browsing with notepad & just imagining what the HTML would produce.
Safer, AND I wouldn't have any problems finding what I like on the porn sites.

2.0 freezes up several times a day (3, Informative)

Sanity (1431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629686)

I desperately want to use 2.0 as my primary browser, I find its form spellchecker invaluable for websites such as this one, but I too have found that it freezes up and must be force-quit several times a day on my Mac, enough to make me stick with 1.5 despite 2.0's features.

Sounds to me like Mozilla really need to get their act together, especially given the revenue they are supposed to be generating through Google, there isn't really an excuse for this.

Re:2.0 freezes up several times a day (1)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629842)

I'm surprised to read that so many people are having problems. Then again, /. has thousands of readers, and a "FireFox Problem" story is going to get some responses, so...

Anyways, I haven't run into a single problem with it yet, and this is on three machines; One at work, two at home. I find it to be faster and more usable than 1.5. All the plugins that I use work fine, too (then again, I only use three). Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones.

if this story is about IE7... (1)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629710)

imagine the reaction of slashdotters...

3 reasons why i will be useing ff 2.0 (1)

2fakeu (443153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629748)

1. it never crashed on any of 3 pc i used since i've installed ff 2.0 one day after the release,
2. it's much more responsive (especially in linux) than any ff was before,
3. the theme looks flashy and i like it!

No problems here... (1)

SniperClops (776236) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629794)

I have been using it since it was released and have had no problems.

It may not be a good browser, but.... (1, Insightful)

Casandro (751346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629796)

Firefox may not really be a good browser, I mean there are some programming errors in it, probably even lots of them and I don't know if there will ever be a error-free version of it, but look at the alternatives. (I do not claim this list is complete)
There we have the Internet Explorer. It only runs on various versions of Windows. It has an unpatched security flaw since 1998 (http://www.ccc.de/activex/) which the vendor doesn't even think of closing.
Then there's Opera, a nice standard conform browser. Unfortunately it doesn't come with it's source-code, so even if you buy it, you probably can just throw away your license when you buy a new computer. If you don't buy it, you'll get adware with all the consequences.
Of course there are also other alternatives like Dillo. Small, _FAST_, but without any CSS support.

So essentially you need to choose your poison. Firefox just seems to be a moderately good browser, but they finally need to clean up the code.

Re:It may not be a good browser, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629876)

Opera hasn't had ads since it went free months ago.

Re:It may not be a good browser, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629878)

Where have you been the last year? Opera for desktop is free (as in beer), and even before that the license was pretty pragmatic (not tied to hardware).

Re:It may not be a good browser, but.... (5, Informative)

spectral (158121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629888)

Opera fanboy alert: Opera doesn't have ad supported mode anymore. Yes, that's right. It's free (cost), even though not free (speech)

Why I use FF2.0 (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629814)

I don't have these random crashy problems nor care about how much memory it takes up. All my extensions work - after changing several install.rdf files' maximum version to support 2.0. It's the extension developers fault, not Firefox's. Haven't had any problems with websites not working. I like the spellchecker, microsummaries, new theme, the search bar changes (Add so-and-so search, rearrange, autosuggest) I've been using 2.0 since beta 1. I like it.

Works fine for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16629816)

I've been using V2 since Beta1, compiling the source on my Gentoo box, and I'm very happy with it.

All this 'V2 isn't ready' stuff smacks of Astroturfing to me, especially as the *new* Internet Exploder is
about to be released ... whatever

I'm staying with V2, rock on FireFox!

Mac Right Click (1)

MrChom (609572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629838)

The single WORST decision on any level in this iteration of Firefox has to be the removal of the right click from the mouse button being held down on the Mac. That's seriously going to confuse people, I mean, doesn't every website tell apple users to hold down the mouse button over a graphic to get the context menu?

Oh it can be re-implemented but I had to rummage around in about:config to find the thing and, due to the failure of the release notes to MENTION this had been removed, even submitted a bug report on the topic. I know it's a small thing....but it's always the little things that matter with an application as big as a web browser!

You mean IE7, right? (1)

km790816 (78280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629840)

Open Source Software buggy? With security problems? Shipped with known issues before it's ready?

That's impossible. Only big, evil, money-grubbing, corporations do that.

I mean, you could easily misspell IE7 as Firefox. The letters are right next to each other on the keyboard.

(Yes, I really like flame. It's a sickness. I need help.)

OMG! Firefox just ate my child! (1)

geekwithsoul (860466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629866)

And other similar needlessly and pointlessly inflammatory posts -- people, the anecdotal experience of others should not be used as the basis for any decision making process. And how this whole item is supposed to be news should be up for debate as well -- what are the editors of /. still pissed off about the Firefox pre-posting availability story? Here's an idea, load the same three pages in tabs in the latest browsers of your choice -- personally I've done this with IE7, Opera 9.02, and Firefox 2.0. My own example is my Google personalized home page, this /. story, and timeanddate.com. Now Firefox takes up ~45M, IE takes up ~55K, and Opera takes up ~48M. Now I won't say Firefox is better and IE sucks (though that is, of course, true) -- without knowing every theme, plug-in, and add-on, as well as the configuration of each of those installations, the above numbers are meaningless. If you're happy with Firefox, great, if you're not, too bad, and I hope you enjoy running something else - there's a lot of great choice. HOWEVER, PLEASE QUIT POSTING YOUR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCES AND EXPERIENCES AS NEWS APPROPRIATE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO ACT ON!!!!

The Cake (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 7 years ago | (#16629874)

Looks like the IE7 team probably downloaded & used Firefox 2.0 RC2 before they sent
the Firefox team the cake [slashdot.org] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?