Firefox 8.0 Beta Available 305
An anonymous reader tips news that Mozilla has released the beta version of Firefox 8, only a few days after going live with the final version of Firefox 7. According to the announcement, the big changes this time around include the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine, more versatility in restoring tabs on startup, and improved user control over add-ons. "Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on, Firefox will disable the add-on until the user has explicitly opted in, giving users better control over their Web experience."
Im confused (Score:4, Funny)
Is 'firefox' a browser or a unit of currency in Italy?
Eastern Wallaroo (Score:2)
in Italy currency is currently Euro
So is a subspecies of the Eastern Wallaroo [wikipedia.org].
are you kidding me? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was just about to point out that I had to revert to Firefox 5.X because Firefox 6 broke a web site I need.
Then I read this:
the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine,
and I'm seriously wondering why I don't run Opera or Chrome.
Oh, right. FoxyProxy is the reason why I don't run Opera or Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are people switching TO Opera? I'm in the process of abandoning it. It used to be an amazing browser, way ahead of the curve. But all its interesting features have been copied by everybody else by now, and too many websites just don't work well in Opera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it still has a large number of uncopied features (like a mail client) which I've simply become used to having around.
Not having mail client is actually one of my major reason in adopting firefox, and abandoning netscape
Re: (Score:2)
and I'm seriously wondering why I don't run Opera or Chrome.
Have you checked out Chrome's release schedule? You get new versions weekly (more or less). The last updates were 18th and 21st of September (three days between them, tada!)
The only difference is that Firefox uses simple, consecutive integers and Chrome's version numbers look more like IP addresses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that I run nightly and I have not encounter any problems? What are those things that were fucked in the last release ?
Re: (Score:2)
Extensions. They invalidate them every major revision and they've been revising on a schedule where many of these plugins aren't keeping up. It was much better when there were point releases that didn't break the extensions, but now they're broken every 3 months and the vendors can't keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an extension for that.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api [mozilla.org]
Everything I used that worked in FF7 still works for me in FF8. Even one that hasn't been updated since FF6.
After installing the Add-on Compatibility Reporter, your incompatible extensions will become enabled for you to test whether they still work with the version of Firefox or Thunderbird that you're using. If you notice that one of your add-ons doesn't seem to be working the same way it did
Re: (Score:2)
is that a closed source extension or an open-source one ?
If it is a commercial extension I understand you but if it is a open-source one, you should patch it, or request a patch on the dev list....
Re: (Score:2)
eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Sudde
Re: (Score:2)
Bug fixes and security patches can come out days apart, but it is six weeks between release numbers for Chrome.
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The really sad thing? The other week, the latest release of Firefox 6 decided that it wanted to intermittently crash my Nvidia drivers. Until I figured out I could fix this by disabling the hardware acceleration option (which has absolutely zero impact on performance anyway), I was coming to the conclusion that rather than Opera or Chrome, if I was going to switch, it would be to IE. Having not used it for years, I was pretty shocked at how much it had improved in the interim.
That said, I think there's some deep part of me that would just find it hard to trust IE.
But yes, Firefox has long since passed the point where a new version meant "oooh, new features" and reached the point where it means "oh god, what have they broken or ruined this time?"
Re: (Score:3)
If Firefox is able to crash your Nvidia drivers, it's the drivers - or possibly the Windows graphics subsystem - that are fucked, not Firefox.
I know this is irrelevant to you as the user, but we're on /.
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
An API that is accessible to userspace code and can crash the system, or otherwise significantly affect all processes running on it, is unacceptable. "Undefined behavior" that crashes the calling process only is okay. "Undefined behavior" that crashes the driver in the kernel is not.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably want to get new drivers. If a userland piece of software is able to "crash your drivers", sounds like most of the blame goes to nVidia.
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Informative)
I developed the exact same problem with my ATI drivers after updating to Calalyst 11.7. Blue Screens of Death after watching exactly 3 YouTube videos under Adobe Flash.
I disabled hardware acceleration in Flash and now the system is perfectly stable.
I'm still using Firefox 3.6.x
So, either Flash is the culprit, or there's something wrong with trying to use "hardware acceleration" (of what?) through the overlay that Firefox is using. Does Opera/Chrome/IE have similar problems? I've just accepted that Flash itself was the problem, and haven't tested any other browsers.
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Informative)
Is there a bug on file on this? We try really hard to not break websites, obviously; if we broke something without realizing it we would _really_ like to know.
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea which problem you're talking about, so I don't know whether it's fixed.... I personally don't work on the guts of text layout, so you'll have to help me out here by pointing to a bug report.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that obvious, apparently! I do watch incoming core bug reports and haven't seen one about this.
Thanks for the mozillazine link; I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=690806 [mozilla.org] on this.
And you're very much welcome!
Re:are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried switching from FF3 to FF6 recently. I did not like it at all.
Currently been running Chrome for a few days, it's OK, but has some irritating issues (for me).
Will try Opera next week.
Then IE.
Then I will give up and move to some deserted island and avoid modern browsers for ever.
Safari was pretty good until 5.1 (Score:2)
Now it sucks up processor and memory faster than Firefox using some "Safari Web Content" process.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm right there with you. I'm sticking with FF3.6.x until end of life then off to Opera it is. I could care less about rapid release but the UI issues make FF4+ more of an annoyance than anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could always go back to the older browsers. You can still download Phoenix 0.5 (aka pre-firefox firefox) right here [mozilla.org], and Firefox 1.0 here [oldapps.com]. Im pretty sure you will discover that its a case of "the grass is always greener", though.
And of course, theres always lynx.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something that makes me wonder as well. The only reason I still use FF (3.6 in my case) is add-ons.
If Opera supported FF add-ons, or had alternatives for all my current add-ons, I'd switch now and never look back.
Re: (Score:2)
and yes i wrote yagoo. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think he's complaining about the fact that there are search engine choices, but rather that the biggest new feature in a major version update is "you can use twitter as the default search engine." I mean, seriously, this is Mozilla saying, "We broke all your
Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
With Firefox releasing betas/alphas and new releases every few weeks, why are we covering this? Can't we just have the ever six week release story and maybe another one if they do something innovative?
Chrome is on version 15 but I don't see a story here every number change.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it gives Slashdot a way to garner page hits from the inevitable Firefox hatefest.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a shame, as a couple of years ago firefox was a slashdot baby that everyone loved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to press the keys with your finger. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They broke home/end too?
(3.6 user here, clueless to what broke in FF since 4.x).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in version 8 they can add support for Page Up and Page Down. It's not working for me on version 7 right now.
It seems to have disappeared somewhere between 3.6 and 7.0. I guess it was a confusing feature so they had to remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Works fine on my Mac.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people still have to complain about the version number, so they up vote this stuff. It's important to them, because they want people to switch to Chrome.
Oh yeah, Chrome versions are worse and its released more often, but that's beyond the point. The point is to bash, flame, troll, the competition. That's what people like.
And then again, that's why this story is up voted.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. FF release builds are barely news worthy at this point. A new beta most certainly is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are young geeks out there that still care about messing with betas and don't know everything about all the topics Slashdot *has* posted in the PAST.
When I was a first year undergrad, just getting to learn Slashdot, I remember reading about the beta (maybe alpha) here. I downloaded it, installed it, and followed every single beta release after that. I installed it on other peoples' computers. There were other beta programs announced and I tried those, too. I watched the BetaNews feed in hopes o
Re: (Score:2)
Can't we just have the ever six week release story
How about we skip that step altogether and start ignoring these "major" releases. I mean, whooptidoo I can use twitter as a search engine. That's major release worthy.
one if they do something innovative?
Only if it hasn't been done before...
The only thing making Firefox still relevant for me is the extensions. And quite frankly, that's on the decline too.
Nightly builds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No need, Nightly happily updates itself whenever it finds a newer version.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that there's no point to building it yourself, when they're doing it anyway (and giving you an auto-upgrade path.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nightly builds (Score:4, Funny)
Third Party Addons... (Score:4, Interesting)
Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on
I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?
IE: Windows Media Player Plugin
Re: (Score:2)
Think Flash....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on
I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?
IE: Windows Media Player Plugin
Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.
Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.
However, they're tal
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.
The toolbars were always extensions, and removable-- unless they were installed in a system-wide fashion, in which case you need to manually remove them from the firefox program folder.
However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.).
Addons is a parent category that includes Extensions (Adblock and the rest) and Plugins (flash, etc). You can see this when you go to the firefox menu-- the "addons" entry takes you to a list of extensions and plugins. The "get addons" is referring to the fact that all extensions are, in fact, addons. Think "square is a re
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
(if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).
Flash is a plugin. This is for addons. They're not the same. Specifically, no websites depend on the latter to work.
Re: (Score:2)
So if my initial interpretation was correct (same as yours- this is for extensions not plugins), that won't be a problem; if his interpretation is correct (keeping in mind that he challenged mine - plugins/extensions are under the addons umbrella, both appear in the addon manager, etc.) it would be.
I guess the only way to find out wi
What third-party addons? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They have a new add-on update thing for exactly this reason.
Previously, all add-ons were marked "incompatible" by default on a major version change and authors needed to test their add-on and explicitly mark it as OK for it to work. This caused the painful loss of add-ons during major updates that you mention.
The new system scans the source code for every add-on automatically and flags as compatible all those which don't touch parts of firefox which have changed. As a result, as long as the author of th
Re: (Score:2)
Allright, allright, I think I just need to add my experience: that since FireFox 5, updates have never broken ANY of my plugins. The list of plugins I use is below. I don't know what plugins are affected but all this ranting on Slashdot may just be symptomatic of this being Slashdot and nerds using weird hacked together plugins that scratch a particular itch and are realistically speaking, fringe. Can you name any popular plugins that have been broken since the recent high speed updates? You know what, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
wow (Score:2)
oh wow. twitter as a search engine? you sure it doesn't warrant an even BIGGER version number? like say 15? it's a major enhancement to the search bar after all
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't we just round it up to an even Firefox 2147483648?
Microsoft must be sick of this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they become smaller and smaller
Re: (Score:2)
This is, of course, the REAL reason theyve moved to rapid release.
This is like losing my tools while trying to work! (Score:3)
""Users will receive a one-time notification" (Score:2)
Oh Christ. Cue 100+ support calls.
Wow guys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.
Re:___ firefox (Score:5, Funny)
Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.
We'll know for sure, when they release 9.0 Beta next week.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I use nightly too and everything is working fine, seems*1 faster than chrome and most importantly not a google spy.
1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....
Re: (Score:3)
1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....
What!? You mean that "Classic Scheme benchmarks, translated to JavaScript by Florian Loitsch's Scheme2Js compiler" [googlecode.com] don't capture the use cases of modern websites?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They've just using the major number for what the minor number used to mean.
Very stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're wasting your breath. You might as well ask people to stop making "First Post!" or say "Gobal warming? it's freezing outside!" every time there's a cold day.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rol
Re: (Score:2)
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As opposed to what...? Everybody having the exact same version as you since the updates became automated and invisible?
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to goal post that shifts every other day, and any of these days may break your desired functionality.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that they have a dot in the middle suggests that they have some structure; that the number in front of the dot is more significant than the one after the dot. Why call it 8.0 when it's just a meaningless number? And why is mine called 7.0.1 instead of 7 or 7.1 or 8?
In fact, why not just use build numbers? Just give me Firefox 7136 and I'll admit that it's just a number with no implication of meaning or structure.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder at what point the people who support this nonsense will stop trying to reverse the tide by spitting at it. People DO care about the version number, no matter if the ivory tower planners think they should or not.
Re: (Score:3)
It's supposed to signify something. That's the whole point of having a major and minor (and build) number.
<something big changed and may require config changes>.<something relatively minor has changed and I should just be able to keep working>
I have no idea what the purpose of this whole versioning/rapid release scheme is... but from my vantage point it looks very silly.
The version number is a red herring (Score:2)
It's just a number.
No, it's not. It's also a mostly-automatic change in the software that people are running, and that is a much more significant concern.
Re: (Score:2)
... wait for "Firefox Ack(n+1)" to experience significant changes from version Ack(n)?
Um, Ackermann's Function takes two parameters.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Or in case of proper firefox releases, 3.6.23. The last number was for minor crap like this release, middle number was for minor and major features, and first number was for very big changes.
Good thing 3.6 is still supported. Someone at mozilla foundation still has a shred of sanity left.
Re: (Score:2)
I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.
8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party
Re: (Score:2)
If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI [secunia.com] to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.
You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I sup
Re: (Score:2)
Any day now I'm expecting they'll go versionless like HTML 5 did ( http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5 [whatwg.org] ).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for Firefox 23, so it will be the same version as emacs. I'm guessing it will be released around Christmas.
So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.
Which does not display it's version number so prominently, but otherwise uses the same development schedule and version numbering.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.
that has the same 6 weeks release cycle, news about Firefox are very good troll magnets
Re: (Score:2)
Pft are you kidding? I have a bet that we'll see Firefox 15 by Halloween. At the rate we're going we might just see it. I'm kinda ticked at the stupidity of this though. I mean what's the point of actually using versions especially if you need to file bug reports if the user can't submit a bug report for the browser they're using outside of "10" or "23" or whatever else?
Bah. I'm looking at chrome as well. The only thing stopping me is the lack of something like noscript.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably went from stable FF6 to stable FF7.
This announcement is about the new beta version. Since FF7 is now stable, the new beta is FF8.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a beta, not a release.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.gnu.org/s/emacs/ [gnu.org]
The current stable release is 23.3. To obtain it, visit the obtaining section.
It's already out.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 7 is a better browser than Firefox 4 was.
But Firefox 4 sucked, which is why most of us have stuck to 3.6. Perhaps by Firefox 15 it will be a suitable replacement by 3.6, particularly if they've given in and started supporting stable releases again.