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 to Develop Mobile Firefox

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the practice-makes-perfect dept.

Mozilla 152

Kelson writes "Mozilla has announced a new initiative to bring Mozilla to the mobile web, including a fully functional mobile version of Firefox (yes, with extensions). The focus will be part of Mozilla 2, the big revision coming after Gecko 1.9 and Firefox 3. Minimo, the previous attempt to port Mozilla to mobile platforms, is apparently dead, but 'has already provided us with valuable information about how Gecko operates in mobile environments, has helped us reduce footprint, and has given us a platform for initial experimentation in user experience.'"

cancel ×

152 comments

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

By the time.... (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 7 years ago | (#20930901)

I'll bet that at the sluggish rate Gecko development proceeds, by the time the mobile version appears, mobile devices will have almost the power of today's stationary hardware.

Slashdot's new format licks balls! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20930939)

I can't even change the threshold with this thing.

Re:Slashdot's new format licks balls! (1)

40ozFreak (823002) | about 7 years ago | (#20931023)

Sounds like a personal issue. I'm not having any problems.

I have never been a huge proponent of mobile web applications. I think phones already feel heavy and bloated with too many features, and having a memory-happy app from Gecko sitting on it isn't the direction I'd like to see.

Re:Slashdot's new format licks balls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931145)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:By the time.... (2, Funny)

Kelson (129150) | about 7 years ago | (#20931067)

I'll bet that at the sluggish rate Gecko development proceeds, by the time the mobile version appears, mobile devices will have almost the power of today's stationary hardware.

Wow! Someone who actually read the article!

Re:By the time.... (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 7 years ago | (#20931379)

FTFA:

Getting a no-compromise web experience on devices requires significant memory (>=64MB) as well as significant CPU horsepower. High end devices today are just approaching these requirements and will be commonplace soon For example, the iPhone has 128MB of DRAM and somewhere between a 400 to 600 MHz processor. It is somewhere between 10x-100x slower on scripting benchmarks than a new MacBook Pro and somewhere between 3-5x slower than an old T40 laptop on the same wifi network. But rapid improvements in mobile processors will close this gap within a few years.

I find this to be a rather shocking statement. The author is claiming that a handheld that meets the minimum requirements for a modern web browser on a desktop OS is not quite sufficient to run an embedded version? If that's really the consensus of the Mozilla developers, then my opinion is that they need to reevaluate how their approaching phone handsets. It is not a desktop platform, nor will you get the best experience by treating a handset as a desktop platform. As Apple and Opera have been showing with their embedded browsers, the interface should be designed around the phone rather than forcing the phone to be designed around the interface.

Great News!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20934177)

Mozilla is coming to mobile devices? Great!

I was always telling my friends how much I missed having my cell phone crash, or have memory leaks, or lack any kind of security. It's amazing how the FOSS community always comes through for us!

Re:By the time.... (2, Interesting)

mrslacker (1122161) | about 7 years ago | (#20932001)

Perhaps (time, not reading the article), but there's another important player here that should be blatantly obvious, but no one has mentioned. That is of course Mozilla Foundation's best friend, Google. In particular, their emphasis on mobile platforms and Gphone. Guess what browser the gphone will have. In any case, there'll be a good deal of leverage and motivation from Google to make this happen sometime soon.

Re:By the time.... (2)

larry bagina (561269) | about 7 years ago | (#20932651)

WebKit/kjs/khtml is open source (LGPL, BSD-like) and used by Apple and Nokia and will be included with Qt 4.4. Yeah, Google sends a lot of cash to the MoFo (and I think they may have contributed code as well), but they're also Apple friendly and using WebKit would probably be less work.

Re:By the time.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931501)

Don't worry emo kid, Gecko is open source. Go fix it instead.

it's a pattern of behaviour (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | about 7 years ago | (#20930927)

Mozilla has announced a new initiative to bring Mozilla to the mobile web, including a fully functional mobile version of Firefox (yes, with extensions).

The thing I like about Firefox, is it's something people can really embrace, and extend.

Re:it's a pattern of behaviour (2, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 7 years ago | (#20930963)

Hey there Bill. Wait, what are you doing with that extinguisher. No, wait, STOP, WAAAAAGGGGHH

Re:it's a pattern of behaviour (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20932227)

This is not considered classy, but I generally charged by the "pop" not the clock, choosing to invest the time it took to leave my customer satisfied. You tell me what you what me to do, and I'll tell you how much it will cost for me to come over and do that thing until you cum. My lenient attitude toward pricing was kind of a sexual honor system-sure a guy could waste hours of my time deliberately not cumming, but it didn't usually work out that way. They didn't want to be rushed, I didn't want our encounter to take forever, and we met somewhere in the middle. And for every client that went 20 minutes over the hooker's hour, there was another one that only took 10 minutes altogether, so I figured it evened out.

For the most part guys were quick and considerate; even if they wanted to stretch their dollar, the sheer novelty of the situation usually made it hard to control themselves. But every once in awhile I would come across a client who was determined to milk everything he could out of his donated C-notes. These guys would stop and pull out every time orgasm seemed imminent, sometimes announcing "Stop, I don't want to cum yet." A few times these encounters went on so long I completely ran out of steam and had to take a breather myself.

Paid sex is much more athletic than regular sex. In relationships, we've all had lazy sex; I've become the master of giving lying-down handjobs while sleepy or drunk, and in a time of real malaise a nice face-fucking can usually do the job. But when you're fucking for work, you have to bring the energy of a crazed nymphomanic to every sexual act. It's a lot like being a porn star, with the added mental energy expended trying to figure out what the client wants you to do even when he's too uncomfortable or embarrassed to tell you. You have to get yourself into positions you've only tried in yoga classes, sometimes while manufacturing an attraction and arousal that doesn't exist. In short, it's a workout, and it's exhausting.

Early into my illustrious career I met a guy named Jack who owned (or at least claimed to own) a large hotel in Midtown. We met there for a gfe session one afternoon after class. I like having sex in hotels even in real life, mostly because of the liberal use of mirrors in hotel room décor, allowing me to watch myself sucking and fucking from every angle. As someone who is insecure about her body, it's counterintuitive that I like sex in front of a mirror, but I find it's actually reassuring. I always look a lot better than I think I do.

Jack was, incidentally, the ONLY customer who ever put a condom on for oral without being asked. It was the one gentlemanly thing about him; the rest was mostly a barrage of "Suck that cock you slut"s and "Look at yourself sucking that cock, whore"s. By the time he was ready to stick it in, I had told him how much I loved his cock so many different ways I was beginning to wish I knew a second language.

Once positioned on the bed, he invited me to sit on his cock and ride him. I don't get how woman-on-top supposedly feels better for chicks; for me, it's just a sloppier version of an aerobics class. I did it so long I'd tried pretty much all my moves: leaning forward so my tits dangle in his face and riding him horizontally, sitting up and bouncing on his cock with my feet flat on the bed, and reverse cowgirl bent over so he could stare at my ass. At this point in my life, I was working out for an hour or two every day, and used to this particular kind of workout, but even so this went on long enough that I was dripping sweat and starting to lose momentum. Even more delightful, every time I slowed down Jack would slap my ass and yell something along the lines of "C'mon, FUCK." I gritted my teeth and worked through my burning quads thinking "I AM FUCKING, ASSHOLE." I signed up for sex, I ended up in spin class.

Luckily, you don't last long in this business without learning a few tricks of the trade. So, without further ado:

College Callgirl's Top Ten Tips to Get Him to Hurry the Hell Up and Cum Already

1. When tired of being on top, have him scoot over to the edge of the bed and position one leg on the floor. This way you can use the leverage to go buckwild on his dick; your porn-star speed and agility will make him shoot in no time.

2. A well-time "Fuck me Daddy" does the trick.

3. Wrap your tits around his dick and slide them up and down.

4. Deepthroat him. This requires, of course, being able to deepthroat.

5. Stick your tongue way out and lick his balls like a puppy while looking up at him.

6. Play with yourself. Theatrically, not the way you do it alone. Especially effective while sucking his dick.

7. Play with his asshole. If reception is good, stick a finger up his ass.

8. Pull his cock out of your mouth and slap it against your face and tongue. Rub your face all over his dick like a satiny pillow.

9. Beg for a facial. "Please shoot your load all over my face" is like the Da Vinci code for unlocking splooge.

10. When all else fails, I spin an elaborate scenario about the girlfriend I'm going to bring next time. Close the deal by telling him how much you want to lick his cum off her tits.

If none of this stuff gets him off, he's gay. Or on drugs.

Too Little Too Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20934061)

WebKit is picking up steam. I think Mozilla dropped the ball a long time ago when it came to mobile web browsing.

Nigzilla (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20930949)

Niggers are bad.

Re:Nigzilla (-1, Troll)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 7 years ago | (#20931183)

Niggers are bad.
so is racism

Re:Nigzilla (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931227)

so is feeding the trolls, no worries, it'll get modded into the ground

Re:Nigzilla (1, Redundant)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | about 7 years ago | (#20931347)

I know it's tempting, but try not to feed the trolls. Sadly it doesn't seem to accomplish much except encourage them.

Re:Nigzilla (0, Offtopic)

athdemo (1153305) | about 7 years ago | (#20931533)

This was moderated as off topic??

reduced footprint? (5)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#20930953)

I wish they would carry those lessons over to firefox sometime soon.

Re:reduced footprint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931303)

+1

Re:reduced footprint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20932035)

Yeah, if Mobile FF only requires 500MB of RAM to run then I can finally run it on my laptop!

Re:reduced footprint? (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about 7 years ago | (#20932287)

I'm hoping that I can run the mobile version on my desktop.

Re:reduced footprint? (3, Insightful)

JerkBoB (7130) | about 7 years ago | (#20932457)

Damn, you guys beat me to it.

I suppose it's obvious, though...

mjmac@ganymede:~$ ps axwu | grep firefox
mjmac 13089 0.9 11.3 786244 232776 ? Sl Oct09 16:47 /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin

Isn't firefox supposed to be the lightweight alternative to Mozilla? *cough*

Re:reduced footprint? (1)

ozphx (1061292) | about 7 years ago | (#20934185)

Needing three gig of RAM on my PDA should be enough for anyone....

Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20930961)

How about getting Firefox to run on the desktop for more than 3 hours at a time?

Re:Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (2, Insightful)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | about 7 years ago | (#20931197)

It's quite possible to have different people working on different things at the same time. Funky how there's been updates to fx2 while fx3 was in development, isn't it? I agree fx still needs a good bit of work, and awesomely enough it's getting it irrelevant of whether or not another related project is underway.

Re:Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931271)

"It's quite possible to have different people working on different things at the same time"

Sigh...the computing world is waiting for the open source crowd to finally grow up.

And waiting...

And waiting...

Re:Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (2, Funny)

Atti K. (1169503) | about 7 years ago | (#20933365)

It can run at least for two days. See JerkBoB's comment above. It was started on Oct 9th. It just uses a few hundred MB's of RAM :P

Re:Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (1)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 7 years ago | (#20934321)

Amen, there's nothing like coming home after a weekend and finding that on my Mac Pro, with 5GB of ram, firefox is using 4.5GBs of that :-p

Re:Why have 23 flavors when you can't do vanilla? (1)

afidel (530433) | about 7 years ago | (#20934343)

Huh? The copy of Mozilla that I'm posting this on has been open since 2.0.0.7 was release which was about a month ago. I run 13 addons that are are a mix of very popular and not so popular, and since 2.0 came out I've had very few stability problems. I still wish it did a better job of release cache memory, or at least had a GC procedure I could manually launch to free up all the ram except the currently in use parts, but that's my only real remaining complaint.

What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (4, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | about 7 years ago | (#20930993)

Is it really necessary to consult a chart to make sense of their products?

"Mozilla 2, the big revision coming after Gecko 1.9 and Firefox 3."

So 2 is after 1.9, but is also after 3. But it's Firefox 3. But the product named Mozilla, the suite, stopped at 1.7.X, and was replaced by Seamonkey 1.0, which is really Mozilla 1.8.

Anybody?

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (4, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | about 7 years ago | (#20931129)

"Firefox 3" refers to an upcoming product release that will use the "Gecko 1.9" html/web renderer. "Mozilla 2" apparently refers to the APIs and release products based on them that will be what developers focus on once current developments (FF3 and Gecko 1.9) are finished.

They could always (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 7 years ago | (#20931559)

They could always pull a Sun and jump to Mozilla 5 (I guess 4 would work fine too)

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (5, Informative)

savala (874118) | about 7 years ago | (#20931195)

Mozilla 2 == Gecko 2. Mozilla is the catchall name for the platform, with a version number equal to that of the rendering engine.

Individual products (such as Firefox, SeaMonkey, Camino, Thunderbird, etc, etc, etc) all have their own versioning scheme, as decided upon by their respective marketing people. This is the only number end-users should care about (for their own favorite product), but developers can always refer back to the gecko/mozilla version to know how these products relate to each other.

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931851)

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/2007091417 Firefox/2.0.0.7

Simple.

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (2, Informative)

Arterion (941661) | about 7 years ago | (#20932891)

The Mozilla/5.0 part is a little confusing, but I think that's a hold-over from Netscape days. But if you look you'll see rv:1.8.1.7, which is the version of Gecko, which they seem to be calling "Mozilla" in this summary.

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (1)

drew (2081) | about 7 years ago | (#20931419)

The only thing I can figure out is that they found inspiration in Sun's version numbering for Java releases, and decided that they had to do one better. Or is that 0.1?

Re:What is with the Mozilla naming conventions? (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 7 years ago | (#20931589)

Replace Gecko with the Linux kernel and Firefox/Seamonkey/Mozilla with Redhat/Ubuntu/Slackware.

Back end --> Front end. Where's the confusion here?

Phone leakage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931003)

Great, now I can have a clunky, memory leaker on my phone! weee!

great! (0, Redundant)

botkiller (181386) | about 7 years ago | (#20931019)

Sweet, now my phone can crash as much as my computer while I'm browsing the net! Before developing for mobile devices, maybe they should fix some of the gaping memory holes in FF, considering your average mobile device doesn't have 200 megs of memory to devote to FF's bloating.

Reduced footprint (4, Interesting)

jimktrains (838227) | about 7 years ago | (#20931037)

Perhapses that knowledge could allow them to reduce the footprint of the full sized version, maybe? Hopefully?

Re:Reduced footprint (3, Informative)

Vexor (947598) | about 7 years ago | (#20931075)

They have a long way to go to catch up with Opera's performance. Excellent browser for viewing sites with loads of images/video etc.

Re:Reduced footprint (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 7 years ago | (#20931257)

Perhapses that knowledge could allow them to reduce the footprint of the full sized version, maybe? Hopefully?
There seems to be a problem with Firefox's spell checker too. That should be fixed in the next release.

Re:Reduced footprint (1)

jimktrains (838227) | about 7 years ago | (#20932077)

" 'Perhapses that knowledge could allow them to reduce the footprint of the full sized version, maybe? Hopefully?'

There seems to be a problem with Firefox's spell checker too. That should be fixed in the next release."

Was that a knock at me? ispell, openoffice, and firefox all found nothing wrong with what I wrote. As for the spell checker, I find it quite useful and well designed (although there are somethings that trip it up).

Re:Reduced footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20932659)

" 'Perhapses that knowledge could allow them to reduce the footprint of the full sized version, maybe? Hopefully?'

There seems to be a problem with Firefox's spell checker too. That should be fixed in the next release."
Just because a spell checker doesn't catch a mistake doesn't mean there isn't one.

Re:Reduced footprint (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20932849)

It was the "Perhapses"

Re:Reduced footprint (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 7 years ago | (#20933201)

actually, I noticed that sometimes for whatever reason, it doesn't make it clear something isn't spelled right.

Re:Reduced footprint (3, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | about 7 years ago | (#20933349)

It's not a bug, he was just spell checking using the Gollum dictionary. The English ones don't include "perhapses".

My Precccccciooooouuuuuuusssss?

Thunderbird (1)

youthoftoday (975074) | about 7 years ago | (#20931071)

Is this what they forked Thunderbird for? To concentrate on this? Was it a trade?

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931563)

Is this what they forked Thunderbird for? To concentrate on this? Was it a trade?

To get Mobile Firefox, they traded Thunderbird, some draft picks, and a calendaring program to be named later.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

erikvcl (43470) | about 7 years ago | (#20932893)

Who knows. I can't understand those Mozilla people. They abandoned Mozilla, which had good performance and integrated e-mail for the piles-o-crap that are Firefox and Thunderbird. It's not since Gnome 1.0 that I've seen such buggy software. And not only that, but there is no integration between the two products at all. I have to manually configure Thunderbird by editing some obscure configuration to tell it that my web browser is Firefox. Thunderbird can't even open up a frigging JPEG by itself. Give me a break. If it weren't for the fact that they dropped support for Mozilla, I'd definitely go back.

The Mozilla folks have no business creating new products when they can't even get the products that they do produce right.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

nektra (886676) | about 7 years ago | (#20932995)

I think the community put a lot of trust on Mozilla foundation, and they are not following the same good ethics of foundations like Apache.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

erikvcl (43470) | about 7 years ago | (#20933859)

That's interesting. I assume you're being sarcastic... what do you mean regarding the ethics of foundations such as Apache?

I know that many slashdotters are frustrated with Firefox/Thunderbird like I am. I'm really excited to see what the open-source Eudora will look like.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | about 7 years ago | (#20934161)

And not only that, but there is no integration between the two products at all. I have to manually configure Thunderbird by editing some obscure configuration to tell it that my web browser is Firefox.

IME, that annoyance is limited to the Linux versions of Thunderbird & Firefox. They behave as you'd expect out-of-the-box on Windows & Mac OS X.

FROST @PIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931081)

Reciprocating More gay than they found out about the may well remain tops responsibility from the OpenBSD start a holy war Ink splashes across Posts. Therefore said one FrreBSD FreeBSD used to Hubbard and Mike Troubles of those *BSD but FreeBSD How is the GNAA first organization Beyond the scope of Dying' crowd - hand...don't

Wonder if it's the same as MicroB on the N800... (2, Interesting)

IANAAC (692242) | about 7 years ago | (#20931169)

I've been running MicroB on the Nokia N800 and it now handles pretty much any ajax site I throw at it. I had problems with many ajax sites using Opera 9, not to mention Minimo, but MicroB handles them nicely. Not many extensions available yet though.

Re:Wonder if it's the same as MicroB on the N800.. (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | about 7 years ago | (#20931285)

Yeah, it's Mozilla-based. Suprised it's not WebKit/KHTML (Safari, Konqueror and "Series 60 Web Browser"), given that Nokia puts it on all their S60 phones.

Re:Wonder if it's the same as MicroB on the N800.. (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 7 years ago | (#20932149)

IIRC, Nokia was the main developer behind the GTK port of WebKit, which was still a work in progress a couple of months ago when I looked at it. Maybe they've abandoned it now that MicroB has come along.

come on now (1)

urban_warrior (1001615) | about 7 years ago | (#20931191)

where's the fun in that? ms should port ie to mobile then we can all have fun trying too block pop-ups and other nasties on our cells.

Re:come on now (1)

jZnat (793348) | about 7 years ago | (#20932999)

There already is some sort of Pocket IE or something like that for Windows CE. I doubt it's related to the Windows NT version of IE in any way other than the name, though.

Re:come on now (2, Funny)

Kalriath (849904) | about 7 years ago | (#20933383)

You're referring to PIE (Pocket Internet Explorer. Tastes bad, not to be confused with Apple PIE or Apricot PIE).

Details page: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/microsoftprograms/iemobile.mspx [microsoft.com] .

It's ultra basic. No popup support, no Flash, no ... wait a minute... can I get it for Windows XP?

Already using Mozilla Browser on my N800 (4, Interesting)

c41rn (880778) | about 7 years ago | (#20931209)

Check out MicroB [maemo.org] , a mozilla-based browser for the Maemo platform on the N800. I prefer it to the default Opera-based browser that the N800 ships with. It's based on Gecko 1.9.

Re:Already using Mozilla Browser on my N800 (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | about 7 years ago | (#20931937)

MicroB kicks ass! It has full AJAX support and allows me to use google maps, google docs & spreadsheet and google rssreader on my nokia N800. I love it

What about Opera?!? (0, Offtopic)

kyshtock (608605) | about 7 years ago | (#20931261)

Probably the best beer... pardon, browser in the world!

There is an Opera mobile browser available, and it acts quite nice. And it's here already!

However, downloadable extensions might be something interesting - if they are usefull on the smallish screen.

The more, the merrier (3, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | about 7 years ago | (#20931487)

The more fully-capable mobile browsers are out there, the less we need to worry about a return to the bad old days when people designed one version of a site for Netscape and another version for Internet Explorer, then let one version bitrot. We've already seen the first rumblings of iPhone-only sites [meyerweb.com] .

A mobile web with Opera, Firefox and Safari? It'll be a lot harder to justify picking one and locking out the rest.

Re:The more, the merrier (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 7 years ago | (#20934131)

Yeah, it definitely seems like a lot of people who were the loudest "This site best viewed in Any Browser" chanters, got their iPhone and saw a chance to show off, forgetting how hypocritical they sounded going back to device-dependent design.

Re:What about Opera?!? (2, Insightful)

Arterion (941661) | about 7 years ago | (#20932981)

Extensions are, I think, the number one cited reason why Firefox users don't want to switch to Opera. It's not just a nice addition, it's a deal-breaking feature.

Re:What about Opera?!? (1)

raju1kabir (251972) | about 7 years ago | (#20933755)

There is an Opera mobile browser available, and it acts quite nice.

Not for me. The trial version expired the day after I installed it, and I've never been able to get it to work again. I did not change the clock on my phone.

If that's how well the trial works, I'm not that eager to plunk down $24 for the real thing.

what is the best broswer at the moment? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | about 7 years ago | (#20931267)

I have a cingular 8125 I use occasionally (when wifi is avail, no way I am paying mobile internet fee's) and this would be great. I have IE and Opera mobile on it, but end up mostly using IE. Opera mini was nice on my flip phone, but Opera Mobile doesn't render well at all. I have to side scroll all the time, and I can't stand side scrolling. The tabs and buttons keep it on my phone though.

Any recommendations on what the best browser avail right now is?

Re:what is the best broswer at the moment? (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | about 7 years ago | (#20931867)

I'd recommend a mix between PocketIE and opera. PocketIE does better on some pages, while Opera is better with others.

There are some PIE modifications out there that add tabs and such. Sorry that I can't give any names/links as I haven't used them in about 2 years.

Grump

Google Phone (5, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 years ago | (#20931323)

This isn't surprising considering Google's recent purchase of Mozilla, and the search giant's new focus on mobile with their Google Phone.

Odd item in Related Links (3, Funny)

Kelson (129150) | about 7 years ago | (#20931329)

Anyone else think that "Compare prices on Mozilla" is an odd choice to appear in the list of Related Links?

"Let's see, you can get it from this site for $0. But this one is offering it for $0. Or you could go over here and get it for $0, but they charge $0 for shipping. Hmm, I think I'll go with the place selling it for $29.95."

Re:Odd item in Related Links (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 7 years ago | (#20931697)

You only now noticed the "compare prices on" links that have been in ever story for years now, and that are nearly always incredibly inappropriate and hilarious?

A new name? (3, Funny)

Arghdee (813921) | about 7 years ago | (#20931365)

I suggest they call it:

MObile FirefOx

Then, we can abbreviate that to Mofo.

Re:A new name? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931387)

The Mozilla Foundation is already sometimes called MoFo, and it requires a much less retarded interpretation.

Re:A new name? (5, Funny)

butterwise (862336) | about 7 years ago | (#20931735)

I prefer FoxBile.

Minimo...was a disaster! (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 7 years ago | (#20931393)

A huge broken nightmare. Wouldn't even uninstall...

*shudders*

Re:Minimo...was a disaster! (1)

speculatrix (678524) | about 7 years ago | (#20932037)

minimo has been working fine for me on Angstrom distro for Zaurus - just as well, 'cos it's the only useful browser in the Angstrom distribution - they chose not to include any old libraries so the old opera 7 from the Sharp original distro is not compatible, nor is netfront, and konqueror sucks, and firefox segfaults!

Peer into the future (2, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 7 years ago | (#20931619)

Apple: Iphone burns up in owner's pocket, flames burn up to his neck
First slashdot post:
"Liar Liar pants on..."
...followed shortly by...
"Was he running FireFox?"
-

Is this because of the iPhone's Safari? (2, Interesting)

MSRedfox (1043112) | about 7 years ago | (#20931635)

I've used mobile versions of Opera, InternetExplorer, Minimo, and now Safari (and a few other off-brand browsers). Up until Safari, I found Opera to be the best for mobile browsing, but even it was lacking. The iPhone's Safari seems pretty good so far, still not perfect, but better then the rest. But with Safari, you're limited to using it only on the iPhone (or iPod touch). Hopefully this new development from Mozilla will offer a nice high quality mobile browser that is compatible with multiple devices. I'm looking forward to a browser war for the mobile market, its about time we got a choice of good quality browsers instead of being stuck with low grade versions that can't even render simple pages well.

Let the browsers wars start again.

Re:Is this because of the iPhone's Safari? (2, Informative)

Reverberant (303566) | about 7 years ago | (#20933259)

But with Safari, you're limited to using it only on the iPhone (or iPod touch).

Let the browsers wars start again.

True for Safari proper, but don't forget that Webkit has been ported to Symbian [nokia.com]

the best comment (1)

Catcher80 (639611) | about 7 years ago | (#20931653)

The best comment I've heard yet isn't on slashdot (not surprisingly) but from a blog by Russell Beattie [russellbeattie.com] ...

We've gone from almost no advanced mobile browsers just a few years ago, to a ton of choices. It makes you wonder if Mozilla could do something else to enhance the mobile web, rather than re-creating the wheel with yet another browser that works on the phone.

With that being said, the article also says "Mobile Firefox will arrive later (certainly not before 2008)." That's a lot of time for them to come up with a great product, but it's also enough time for the Mobile hardware industry to completely turn around. Mobile phones are the new laptops people, it's true. Well, ok not yet but real soon now. Minimo (Mozilla's *apparently* failed attempt at a mobile browser) ran like hell on my HTC Wizard (Cingular 8125) but I believe by the time Mobile Firefox is available, things like plugins will be usable. They sure aren't right now...

I'll sure never buy an iPhone, but I thank Apple for motivating everyone else.

Fix the rest of the problems first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20931903)

Anyone remember when Phoenix was supposed to be lean and mean and fast? Now we have "Firepig".

I mean, Jeez....... The focus problems, the javascript engine single threading that constantly dogs the performance, the memory leaks, the slow performance.

I still use Firefox 0.8 because the subsequent versions stink!

Documented in this thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=306595&threshold=4&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20730691 [slashdot.org]

And the Mozilla Foundation Top 20 Excuses for Not Fixing Firefox Bugs:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=195983&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=16065371 [slashdot.org]

Re:Fix the rest of the problems first (2, Informative)

webmaster404 (1148909) | about 7 years ago | (#20932117)

Have you tried FF3? It is super fast compared to FF2, which was faster then FF1. In a world where speed is everything and as Vista shows, you can always tell people to buy a new computer/ram/CPU/graphics card using 50 MB of memory really isn't that much when you get the speed and speed has historically been the reason why people used IE, it was what stopped me from going all FF back when I used Windows, because FF is so poorly optimized in the default state. And for bugs, sure they are not all fixed but its better then the alternatives, Opera which is closed source, IE which is insecure 100% of the time and doesn't run on Linux, Konquorer which is lean and fast, but lacks support and a flash plugin, and I don't like the UI of Safari, plus it doesn't work on Linux anyways. Sure there are always "alternitive" browsers like Epiphany and Galelion but they are based on Gecko and work just about the same as FF. So yes, FF isn't the greatest, but its better then the competition and I hope that the new Minimo will help optimize the rendering speed of FF, something that I really want more then code optimization for resources

Hope there will be a Firebug-like dev tool (1)

ishmalius (153450) | about 7 years ago | (#20931989)

It would be really awesome if a mobile tool gets the same kind of debugging support that currently exists with Firefox and Firebug. Nothing comparable exists in the desktop browser world. What once involved writing for IE first, then adding W3 features later, now is developing on FF/FB, and then -porting- to IE. What a wonderful change has occurred in the dev landscape.

Ever looked at /. on a WinCE mobile? (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | about 7 years ago | (#20932441)

With phones becoming more common as internet devices, you would think sites would be a bit more friendly to those sorts of devices. Yes, /. does have a 'palm' version.... but using the low bandwidth variant for normal surfing is just painful on the embedded version of IE my Cingular 8525 bundles with Windows Mobile. The low bandwidth version style sheets list the article summary...

one
word
per
line

For whatever reason, the comments render correctly on it. To think I got this phone because it *has* wifi. Argh.

So anyhow, other browser options are welcome. I know I could buy Opera for the phone, but... I'd rather buy another phone and get rid of this 'smartphone'. Free, however, is just my speed. If it renders this site correctly, I know I'll give it a whirl.

Pennywise (1)

meehawl (73285) | about 7 years ago | (#20932965)

So instead of spending a little on an excellent browser for your expensive phone, you'd rather go buy a new phone? Presumably, another expensive one. Yes, I can see how that makes sense, oh yes.

Re:Pennywise (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | about 7 years ago | (#20934231)

Well, here [multiply.com] are a few screen shots of how the OOTB browser renders /. in simple design, low bandwidth, and no icons.

While buying a new browser would fix the surfing issues, the 'smart phone' is just as deficient in other areas - email, phone, alarm, etc. It would be good money after bad. I'm done with it. Going back to a Blackberry is an easy decision for someone who is on the road as much as I am. I talked about the other issues here [multiply.com] .

Re:Ever looked at /. on a WinCE mobile? (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 7 years ago | (#20933437)

Slashdot looks just fine on my 8525, IE Mobile seems to do a good job with it anyway. See here. [toleraen.com] The crappy trial screenshot program blew it up so it looks nice and jaggy, but on the device the page looks fine to me. That's under "One Column" format btw.

Reduced memory footprint?? (4, Funny)

Em Ellel (523581) | about 7 years ago | (#20932559)

Firefox on mobile devices? Great, but where do I get 2GB of ram for my treo?

They have tries before (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#20932571)

But failed since they couldn't reduce the footprint and achieve acceptable performance.

The reason they are trying again, is that after Firefox 3 comes the time of Tamarin, the ECMAScript engine in Flash Player, which will also power the Firefox releases after 3. Spidermonkey and Tamarin is like night and day.

So, in fact, Adobe saved the day here.

time could be better spent elsewhere (1)

Exter-C (310390) | about 7 years ago | (#20932645)

I am all for open source going into new markets, I do feel that in the case of mozilla with firefox that they should really focus on resolving many of the bugs and really working on providing a rock solid, secure fast and stable "full scale" browser. Once they have finalised that work on a mobile browser.

Webkit (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20932649)

Mozilla fears Webkit. Webkit went from not interesting to the new star of the future very quickly. First the KDE project made their peace with Webkit with Trolltech announcing it'll include it in the next Qt release. Following that were people doing proof-of-concept ports of Webkit to the Gnome Mobile platform and showing that it was far less ressource intensive and faster than Mozilla or Opera on mobiles. The same could be shown for the OLPC. Following that, quite some companies recently started investing heavily in a Webkit port to Gnome.

If you now consider that both KDE and Gnome don't like Mozilla very much (because it suffers from extensive NIH), you'll realize that if Mozilla doesn't get their act together, they'll lose the Linux market to Webkit. And Linux is the next big thing in the Mobile world, so they'll also lose the mobile market. And from there it's only a short way to losing a lot of hobbyist developers, since those use Linux.

Palm OS Version Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20933051)

I'm looking forward to running this on my Palm TX! I have 5 browsers installed but none of them render as reliably as Gecko. Its strange they made Minimo for Windows devices, Palm OS is far superior and simpler.

amg (1)

operato (782224) | about 7 years ago | (#20933193)

what a lazy way of doing this. instead of making firefox work on small devices with small memory, they're just waiting for the mobile devices to have faster cpus and more memory.

when will then be now (1)

Gigadafud (413848) | about 7 years ago | (#20933613)

so how long before you are able to get this on the gphone......

mo3 0p (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20933849)

troubled OS. Now as little overhe4d people's faces is between each BSD

heh (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | about 7 years ago | (#20933979)

Maybe they should fix their spellchecker first.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?