Firefox 6 Ships Next Week, 8 Blocks Sneaky Add-Ons 247
CWmike writes "Mozilla is on track to release Firefox 6 next week, according to notes posted on the company's website. 'On track with a few bugs still remaining. No concerns for Tuesday,' the notes stated. Firefox 6 includes several noticeable changes, including highlighting domain names in the address bar — both Chrome and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 do something similar by boldfacing domain names — and reducing startup time when users rely on Panorama, the browser's multi-tab organizer. Meanwhile, Mozilla said this week that starting with Firefox 8, Mozilla will automatically block browser add-ons until users approve them, which should put an end to sneaky installs."
Great (Score:2)
I'm really looking forward to this.
"highlighting domain names in the address bar"!! (Score:2)
So am I... This one change could make the web twice as safe for most users (and I'm tired of explaining to them which part of the URL is the domain name).
Re:Great (Score:2)
I like the addon blocking feature but now I gotta go through all this repo-changing bullshit AGAIN to upgrade my Linux machines? I'm thinking of just using the .deb installers, it's looking like using repos isn't worth it for Firefox at this point...
Happy FF8 user here (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm using FF8 alphas on the Nightly channel, which is part of the Moziila PPA in Ubuntu. It's fantastic. It uses way less memory and is way faster. It's also way stabler than nightlies were when I was running Moziila nightlies in 2001, and they were pretty good even then. The only downside is extensions that haven't caught up. If you're clear for those, I heartily recommend it.
unHappy FF user here (Score:5, Informative)
The only downside is extensions
I've been loving Firefox for years, but this fast release schedule is driving me nuts. Every time a new "major" version comes out now, at least one or two of my extensions break. The first one to go (on FF4) was Ubiquity, which still isn't fixed, and the stupid thing about that is Ubiquity is a Mozilla Labs extension. It's pretty sad when their own damn extensions can't even keep up, let alone 3rd party stuff.
So, back to your point about extensions being the only downside, honestly, do we use Firefox for any other reason? I could have ditched FF for Chrome or even IE9 (shudder) but it's the extensions that make Firefox so awesome, and that's what's suffering the most with this bullshit release schedule.
Re:unHappy FF user here (Score:2)
Re:unHappy FF user here (Score:3)
Re:unHappy FF user here (Score:2)
Re:unHappy FF user here (Score:2)
Many of the extensions I use in FF are now available on Chrome, but I am coming round to the idea that extensions are not necessarily the best way to get what I want. The main aim of Chrome is to load and run web apps as fast as possible. In Firefox I use the Brief RSS reader add-on, but Chrome is meant to use RSS reading web apps like Google Reader.
I tried Google Reader a while back and preferred Brief. Similarly I tried Gmail and preferred Thunderbird. Now I have switched to Reader and Gmail because despite losing some customisability the advantage of having everything synced when I use them at work and at home outweighs the minor changes to my workflow.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Just installed it. Works fine, and I guess it is faster. One obscure addon doesn't work, but all the others work fine when forced to run.
And the program icon is much nicer looking, too. That fox was getting old.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
And the program icon is much nicer looking, too. That fox was getting old.
Erm, are you referring to the 'nightly' icon? You realize that when this FF8 is a final release, it will be branded with the fox icon, right?
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
I'm sure there'll be a new nightly version to upgrade to at that point. Probably with a triple-digit version number. But anyway, I wasn't all that serious.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:4, Informative)
Haha, so it seems like they decided to get rid of the initial "http://" in displayed urls as well as the trailing / on root urls. That is, if you're on the regular Slashdot home page, the full string displayed in the url bar is just slashdot.org. Copy-and-paste it somewhere and you still get http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org], though. Other protocols (including https) still include the protocol part.
Here's the associated ticket: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665580 [mozilla.org]
There will be many flame wars over this when Firefox 8 is more widely distributed.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:3)
From https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=665580#c19 [mozilla.org]:
For all users who don't need/like it:
about:config -> browser.urlbar.trimURLs = false
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
There will be many flame wars over this when Firefox 8 is more widely distributed.
Chrome does that, and I haven't seen any flamewars.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong.
But I haven't seen any epic flamewars about Chrome's url/search bar, either. Probably because people consciously switch to Chrome/Chromium because they want all that stuff.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
It uses way less memory and is way faster.
The Windows version still has massive memory leaks. Before switching to Chrome for Windows and Linux...Firefox was lagging and not responding every 7-10 seconds...then catching up when it decided to do something. Thought it was my cable modem & squirrel eaten coax...but after getting Chrome...doesn't happen at all. Have used Firefox for years...but nothing this buggy needs to be allowed out into the open. Even IE8/9 doesn't pull this garbage.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Same here - 3.x or bust... Firebug REALLY hates 4+ (Score:2)
Re:Same here - 3.x or bust... Firebug REALLY hates (Score:2)
Sorry guys - I hate the idea of Chrome as much as any privacy lover would, and I love certain addons (Adblock/NoScript/Firebug/etc.), but as a web dev FF4+ just isn't cutting it. Unless one of these new version fix those issues, I have to leave FF behind. It's now wasting my time on the job.
Fortunately...I found many of the same addons for Chrome that I was using in FF. Don't get me wrong...have been using and am used to FF...but when I have to wait for my quad-core to catch up to whatever I'm doing in FF...something had to give...so went with Chrome and the problems went away.
Whenever I read that FF gets their act together and it starts acting like Chrome/Opera/IE...I will start using it again.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Pardon my ignorance, but WTF is FF8?
All I could google was final fantasy 8.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Yes, that's right. The Mozilla Corporation has done a deal with Square Enix to use old versions of Final Fantasy for browser alpha testing.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2, Funny)
Since I've never played Final Fantay, 'FF' will do fine for 'Firefox'.
Meanwhile, I'd like to suggest 'FU' for 'Anonymous Coward'.
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Re:Happy FF8 user here (Score:2)
Take a chill-pill. They're only going to ask whether or not you want to install a plugin - that's all.
I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:3)
FireFox7, aka FinalFantasy7, will have a huge step forward dealing with memory. FF6 doesn't have such nice awaited features. I'll skip #6.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you skip version 6, or are they going to pull another asshole "Firefox 5 is EOLed because v6 is out" like they did to Firefox 4?
Or do you mean you're sticking with Firefox 3.6? Because that seems like a good idea these days, at least until they figure out that their "rapidly release schedule" isn't actually helping anything and is just ensuring that no one gives a shit about new Firefox releases any more.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser. With FF6, that means Google's only going to support FF4, FF5 and FF6. FF3.6 won't work with Google Apps and other stuff anymore (seriously, I tried using G+ with FF3.5, and it demanded I upgrade - supported browsers are 3.6, 4 and 5 then).
And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI? FF5 screwed up the tab bar if you have a bunch of tabs and close them right->left since the now-rightmost tab doesn't scroll right - your mouse just has an empty space.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:3)
Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser. With FF6, that means Google's only going to support FF4, FF5 and FF6. FF3.6 won't work with Google Apps and other stuff anymore (seriously, I tried using G+ with FF3.5, and it demanded I upgrade - supported browsers are 3.6, 4 and 5 then).
Well, shit, because I still have a PowerPC Mac on my desk. It's stuck with Firefox 3.6 because they dropped PowerPC support in Firefox 4. So I guess that means it's time to move over to Safari for it. I suppose I can't complain too much on that one, but it's annoying having a perfectly functional Mac that's going to get warehoused because no one will compile software for it any more. Actually it's Apple dropping support for Mac OS X 10.5 that will force the issue: as soon as an unpatched security issue is found, IT will force me to disconnect it and it will become useless. (And since I have it explicitly to run Mac-only software, Linux isn't an option to extend its life.)
And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI? FF5 screwed up the tab bar if you have a bunch of tabs and close them right->left since the now-rightmost tab doesn't scroll right - your mouse just has an empty space.
That's another feature half-assed copied from Chrome. When you close a tab in Chrome, the tabs don't rearrange until the mouse leaves the tab bar. It's useful because an accidental double-click won't close a tab you didn't mean to close.
In Firefox 5, they just don't scroll over to fill the right most space until the mouse leaves the tab bar, but otherwise rearrange themselves. So a double-click will kill two tabs.
I don't think I'd mind Firefox copying features from Chrome if they didn't continuously half-ass them and turn a feature that's useful in Chrome into just a pure annoyance by missing out on why Chrome does something or how they make it work.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:3, Informative)
Well, shit, because I still have a PowerPC Mac on my desk. It's stuck with Firefox 3.6 because they dropped PowerPC support in Firefox 4.
Firefox is being kept alive on PowerPC:
http://code.google.com/p/tenfourfox/ [google.com]
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an extension called User Agent Switcher. Setting it to mimic a recent version of Firefox causes problems for some reason, but if you set it to mimic a recent version of Opera, suddenly everything works just fine. (Disclaimer: I haven't tested this with every single feature of every single Google service in existence; but it works with everything that I *have* tried.)
Twitter no longer works with Firefox 2 as of about a week ago (ever since they made the Big Stupid Change that puts acres of whitespace between adjascent tweets), but I haven't managed to find a browser that the new version *does* work with (and, being a web developer, I have like fifteen different browsers installed for testing; you'd think they could manage to support at least of them, but no), so phooey on Twitter.
> And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI?
When pigs fly, I think. As near as I can tell, user expectations got changed over from something that Firefox wanted to meet to something that Firefox specifically wants to break, sometime around version 1.5. The gratuitous UI changes were minor at first (little things like the first round of changes to how bookmarks work), but the growth rate of their significance appears to be geometric: if rearranging the order of the standard buttons (back, forward, reload, stop -- not that the stop button in Firefox has EVER worked correctly) wasn't new and interesting enough for you, hold on to your seat, because in version three we're completely altering how the location bar works, and then version four changes the whole top of the browser window around so much you won't even recognize it.
Soon we'll be doing away with the tired old "back button" concept, ranking the pages in your history by their *popularity* (as determined by other users), and presenting them visually as part of Panorama. Also, "scrolling down" will be replaced with "zooming in", which you can do with multi-touch trackpad gestures, and manually-created bookmarks will be phased out in favor of assigning ratings (one, two, three, four, or five stars) to the items in your history, which informs your search results when you use the Awesomeness Bar. The bookmarks toolbar will obviously be going away, and also bookmark keywords, and the tab bar will be merged into the Awesomeness bar as well, so instead of having a bar of tabs that you can switch to, you can just use the Awesomeness Bar to search through your open tabs just like you would search through your history.
(Am I just being stupidly absurd? If you'd told me in 2000 about all the changes in Firefox 3, 4, and 5, I'd have said you were being stupidly absurd. I mean, really, getting rid of the menu bar? Putting the home button clear over to the right of the search box? Integrating bookmarks with history? No browser maker could EVER think those would be good ideas. Oh, wait. They did.)
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
Me, I don't care. I only care that my browser is 100% open source regardless of UI (well, within reason. But so far nothing every truly annoyed me).
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
and presenting them visually as part of Panorama.
The comments on this article are actually the first I've ever heard of Panorama. Now what does that say about this "feature"?
Oh yes, I actually tried it. It took all of 10 seconds to convince me to remove that button from the tab bar again.
Sometimes, a product simply is mature. There's no point in adding bells&whistles just because you can. I would rather prefer they finish HTML5, CSS3 and SVG support and other standards implementations.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
I can't fathom what Mozilla are thinking either. Google have a clear goal with Chrome: make access to pages as fast as possible. Chrome does that very well. Firefox, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any direction other than to fuck up its user's workflow as much as possible with each release because "disruptive" is a popular buzzword at the moment.
Changing the UI affects add-on developers too. When the status bar went away any add-on which put an icon down there instantly broke and a few of the ones I use have not been updated. I had to install another add-on to allow placing the task bar icons at the top over the tab bar. Add-ons are the reason I stick with FF, but Chrome is fast catching up.
The new plan seems to be:
1. Piss off users
2. Piss off add-on developers
3. ???
4. Profit!
Home Button (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but the last time I remember using the home button was in Netscape 3. Nowadays I just resume to whatever state I left the browser in.
The concept of a "home page" is obsolete since at least ten years.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2, Insightful)
Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser.
If Google jumps off a cliff should Firefox jump too?
This is what the current crop of Firefox devs believe:
1. Google Chrome is the best browser in the world. It is much better than Firefox has ever been or probably ever will be. If we are really, really lucky and work very, very hard maybe someday we could make Firefox just as good as Chrome. To improve Firefox all we have to do is copy everything Google does.
2. Even MSIE is better than Firefox. Let's copy that browser too insofar as it doesn't interfere with copying Google.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
Can you skip version 6, or are they going to pull another asshole "Firefox 5 is EOLed because v6 is out" like they did to Firefox 4?
Chrome and Firefox only support a single stable version at a time. Every time a new version of Chrome or Firefox comes out, future security fixes apply only to that version - there are no further updates to previous versions.
So you can skip a version of Chrome or Firefox, but you will be running a browser that isn't getting security updates. It would just be for 6 weeks, but I wouldn't risk it.
If you don't like that, your other options are the slower release schedules of IE, Opera and Safari.
Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (Score:2)
How long can we keep using v3.6.x without it being outdated and having security issues?
Since I am a SeaMonkey user, I stuck with v2.0.14 and haven't upgraded to v2.1+.
more broken add-ons. (Score:2)
Great, another rounds of broken add-ons.
Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rather they add some easy way to let users install addons that say, "Does not support Firefox x.x". They can put a big disclaimer/warning/alert to make sure the user knows what they are doing, but with the Firefox rapid release schedule I am tired of having my addons break because of version string issues.
One example is the Stylish addon. I am using the Firefox 6 beta in Ubuntu 11.10 alpha and Stylish refuses to install due to the version string. The addon info says it supports Firefox 3.6 - 6.0a2 (key part being "6.0.a2"). That tells me that it should work in later alpha/beta version 6 builds.
Firefox really needs to address the issue of how addons determine whether or not they are out-of-date. The browser version is no longer a useful metric for that.
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:3, Informative)
can't enjoy that (Score:2)
Firefox has jumped the shark, "upgrade or die". fuck you, Mozilla Corporation.
Re:can't enjoy that (Score:2)
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:3)
This is just a reporter and not a thorough one at that. But the original poster also pointed out FF needs good UI for letting old addons run.
Despite it's name, Add-on Compatibility Reporter also allows you to disable add-on version checking using a reasonable UI.
If you think about it for a minute, disabling version checking is a requirement, as it would be impossible for you to check if an add-on still works with the new version of Firefox if the add-on was disabled because of version checking.
Google Toolbar still doesn't officially support Firefox 5, but works just fine with version checking turned off. Since Google applications only support 3 versions of the browser, when Firefox 7 releases in about 3 months, it will then be impossible to find any version of Firefox that supports every Google product.
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:2)
Actually, some addons will still not load even with compatibility reporter enabled. The Cooliris addon, for example, simply displays "This addon is not compatible with ". Amusingly, it still gives you the option to report that it still works (despite the fact that Firefox/Aurora/Nightly have forcibly disabled it).
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:3)
New in Firefox 6: All extensions that work with FF 6 will have a heuristic for later versions of FF to determine whether or not the extension is compatible.
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:2)
MOD UP! Most insightful post in thread.
FF is ONLY valuable because of add-ons. Otherwise a faster browser like Chrome or Opera is preferable.
Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (Score:2)
http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_8404047_turn-off-addons-compatibility-firefox.html [ehow.co.uk]
AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (Score:2)
Exactly how are they going to block that? Anything FireFox has access to, so would an (admin-level) installer.
Unless they're taking a signature from the add-on and some information unique to the user profile and generating a hash/code or that, and keep the hashing algorithm secret somehow?
Re:AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (Score:3)
While a malware author won't think twice about hacking around such a measure, a "legitimate" company will if they think doing so will create an opportunity for a competitor to give them bad press.
Re:AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (Score:2)
No, what they're going to do is change how add-on registration works in each release, and release a new version every week. This should confuse the hell out of the malware authors, and isn't actually any more work for the firefox maintainers than the current release schedule, which is almost as frequent...
Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose it's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to Firefox development for the past several years, but for fuck's sake, listen to your users and stop with the version number inflation!
Seriously, what makes this a Firefox 6 and not a Firefox 4.2? What new features does it add? Apparently the only really "stand-out" feature is graying out anything that isn't the domain name in the useless-bar. I mean, Awesome Bar.
(Seriously, I like the concept, but I've had quite a few instances this past week where instead of finding "the page I was just on five minutes ago" it does something like "page 3 of this article you read two months ago" with no hint of the URL I'd opened literally ten times already that day. Awesome. Here's an idea, can Firefox try and fix it to make it useful? Like sort based on number of times a page was viewed, counting reloads, so that typing the URL to a forum doesn't find page 2, 3, 4, and 5, but never page 1 because I don't click on the page 1 link enough, I just reload the forum?)
But back to the version number issue - quick, how many people know what version number Chrome is up to off the top of their head? Anyone?
How many people using Firefox 5 here have literally forgotten that they're using Firefox 5, because the last really major update was Firefox 4? I still think of it as "Firefox 4" because it looks identical, and have to be reminded that they've inflated the version number for no useful reason.
Seriously, stop blindly aping Chrome! If you're going to copy something Chrome does, try and understand it! For example, take removing the status bar. Chrome will expand the little URL popup that replaced the status bar if you continue hovering a link. Firefox 4 and 5 don't. And for some reason they randomly switch between left-aligning it and right-aligning the popup. And for fuck's sake, why don't you just expand the popup to fill the entire horizontal width of the window?! I've got the room to display the entire URL! Why doesn't Firefox bother doing so?!
But kudos for aping (poorly) the feature in IE 9 that warns when third party addons have been installed and gives you the option of not using them. It's nice to know that you're going to go ahead and do that after crying about how it's impossible to do, even after IE had launched with that feature.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
I suppose it's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to Firefox development for the past several years, but for fuck's sake, listen to your users and stop with the version number inflation!
A few stories under this is a story about Chrome 14. I am sure the comments there are saying the same thing. But can we move on already?
Yes, Chrome and Firefox release a major version every 6 weeks. Chrome and Firefox raise the major version number every such time. And here on Slashdot people complain about those browsers doing it. But the vast majority of Chrome and Firefox users just use the browser, and don't care.
If you don't like what Chrome and Firefox are doing, feel free to use another browser. Opera is good too.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
you argument that version number is of no consequence has no merit, this is major fucking-over of the users by major open source project.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you just write a whole essay on an arbitrary and meaningless version number?
It may be arbitrary and meaningless now but it didn't use to be.
It used to be that a move from Major->Major meant that there would be large changes and there's a good chance addons would break. Changes to minor versions might break addons, and patches shouldn't.
Now, who the fuck knows? The number's meaningless. No one cares about Chrome's version number, because it's meaningless.
Firefox's version number used to convey information, and now it doesn't. They've taken something useful and made it useless.
I actually just scrolled up and read your line bashing the AwesomeBar. Great. How many years has it been now? And you still don't understand how it's used or why it's useful?
Really? It's supposed to find infrequently read sites? Or sites that you've only read once? Because before it finds Slashdot, it finds some random article I read months ago.
Before it finds a website that I had repeatedly had to go back to over the course of a day, it found page 2 of some article I read a month ago. Actually, it found several random articles that had nothing to do with the site I was trying to pull up. Enough that scrolling through the entire list meant that, despite the fact I'd opened it, say, five times already, it wasn't on the list. At all.
And I can guarantee you the thing with me trying to reopen a forum only to find that the Awesome bar found nothing but either page 2 or beyond and random threads on the forum happened. Despite the fact that I'd bookmarked the forum. I thought that was supposed to promote it to the top of the search, but apparently not.
Of course, I wouldn't need to reopen it if Firefox hadn't randomly decided not to restore my tabs, but that's a different issue...
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:3)
I won't disagree on the version inflation, but I've no idea how you manage to pull off the rest.
At this point, I only need to type "a" to get Wolfram|Alpha as my first link, which is exactly what I want it to do. The bar works perfectly well for all other links I might need. Likewise, I've never had trouble with restoring and FF only very rarely crashes, 99% of the time because of Flash.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
Chrome's version numbers are mostly irrelevant because they a) don't keep breaking the UI and b) designed a reasonably stable extension API so that doesn't break your add-ons every release.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
Spoken like a guy that doesn't mind repeating history. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.
If we assume all new changes are good ones, and all new versions are backwards compatible with whatever came before, then we wouldn't care what version we are on now. Except they aren't, so we do. If a site, or an app is know to work with one version, then every change means regression testing to see if the new one works too. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If you are of the Programmer Full Employment mindset that says everyone should always rework their code constantly to be compatible with every other change and interface that is out there, then I get your point of view. Lots of work for everyone. If you are like everyone else that only wants change when it takes them somewhere useful, this is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.
And oh by the way, does every change work out to be a good one, even for the appiclation that made it? No, it doesn't. Sometimes it is a smart thing to back out of a change. And keeping close track of that, so the users will know what the hell to expect, is a good thing for the users. Assuming you care about the users. Which I know is an old school thing falling out of fashion. But since I'm one of them, I like it.
Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (Score:2)
Don't assume that.
Assume that all new versions should be compatible except for specific announced incompatibilities. Also assume that all new versions are not compatible where you stand to lose anything of value until you've tested them.
Something to watch out for (new submenu) (Score:4, Informative)
In case you missed it, Web Console in FF5+ is like the console in Firebug when you have it set to enter JS commands at the bottom of the pane. But the difference is, Web Console is always available. It's not a plug-in like Firebug. So it's something you can count on, even if you upgrade and Firebug breaks in the new version.
Re:Something to watch out for (new submenu) (Score:2)
I've always used Right Click > View Page Source anyway, since it's more iframe-friendly.
Another upgrade? (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and the Federal Student Aid site (FAFSA.gov) only supports Firefox 3.5 and 3.6, one of which is no longer supported by FF and the other of which will also soon be not supported.
Re:Another upgrade? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another upgrade? (Score:3)
Or just hold down the left mouse button on the back/forward buttons for a bit and it'll show the history just the same...
np: Death Cab For Cutie - Unobstructed Views (Codes And Keys)
Firefox has been abandoned (Score:3)
Firefox 3.6.19 forever! I am now treating Firefox like an abandoned application. Google developers have now taken over. It may still be the best current browser due to its useful extensions, but it is like a bad copy of Chrome and imho inferior to Firefox 3.6.19 in most ways.
If I had to choose between Chrome and Firefox 4+, I really don't know what I would choose. Despite the horrible interface and all the badly implemented Chrome-ness Firefox 4+ still has unique functionality in the form of extensions like NoScript, Adblock Plus, and Scrapbook. They contain functionality that I just cannot live without and I haven't seen 100% replicated in any other browser. So I would probably be forced to stick with Firefox 4+ even though I prefer Chrome, Opera, and even MSIE in terms of the interface and usability etc.
Sure Chrome has NotScript, but it just doesn't work very well compared to NoScript. It's not a viable replacement. I ended up using the built in javascript whitelisting functionality which was a huge PITA. It was like going back to IE4 when I had to manually add sites to security zones by actually typing in the URLs.
If it some point a critical security flaw is found in Firefox 3.6.19 complete with exploits in the wild I may reluctantly migrate to Opera. Or maybe by that time someone will have forked Firefox 3.6.19 to at least apply security fixes as needed.
As of today Firefox 3.6.19 is still downloadable for Windows and Mac OS X and is available as a binary in the repositories of both of the Linux distros I use: ArchLinux and TinyCore.
Some thoughts on Firefox (Score:2)
I'm not totally opposed to the fast development cycle but I think Mozilla could step down the version numbering pace a few notches. e.g. release a new update every 6 weeks, but call it Firefox N.x+1 or N.x.y+1 instead of Firefox N+1 (Firefox 5 would be 4.1 and 6 would be 4.2). Push up the "big version" once each year or so.
Some fellow commenters have said it above: Mozilla don't listen to their users and ignore the obvious (e.g. huge memory consumption/memory leaks). Memory usage is better in Fx 7 and 8 thanks to the Memshrink project by Nicholas Nethercorte. However, they keep finding more and more leaks/inefficiencies. Some of them are caused by new features, some of them have been present for a long time, even with bugs filed about them. I hope they get their act together soon.
Another major rev? (Score:2)
What, are they doing a major rev every couple of months now to catch up to IE's 9?
Anyone else here having memories of the Slackware/RedHat/Debian version wars of the 1990s?
Why did it take them this long? (Score:2)
Why did it take the developers this long to realize that people may not want a bunch a crap added to Firefox without their permission? Blocking the addition of features without express consent of the user should have been the default setting from the very beginning.
Re:yikes, another version jump? (Score:4, Funny)
First 4, then very quickly Firefox 5 and now version 6? Where is the consistency?
The consistency is that they are only incrementing the version number by '1' each time. Just be glad they didn't decide to use prime numbers or a Fibonacci sequence.
Re:yikes, another version jump? (Score:3)
Really? You're actually trying to make an argument using product names as version numbers? You do realize that all those operating systems have actual version numbers, right?
3.11, 4.0.950, 5.0.2195, and 6.1.7600 respectively.
Re:A bit slow, aren't we? (Score:2)
Version 1337 for the win?
Re:A bit slow, aren't we? (Score:2)
Well, they have established a committee with which to take feedback. I mean, what more could they possibly do? I mean it's not like they can't just stop giving new releases stupid version numbers without forming up a committee.
Re:They can't block sneaky add-ons (Score:3)
They can't block "evil" addons like that, sure, but they can block "well behaved" addons that install as part of some other software.
Take the Skype addon, for example. In IE9, IE will ask you if you want to enable it the first time IE9 runs. Firefox provides no mechanism for that, and instead just blindly runs it.
This will tell you "hey, there's a new addon, do you want to use it?" and then you can opt out.
You're right that "sneaky" addons that decide to play evil will be able to get around it. But given that the way Firefox currently works, all "system-level" addons are "sneaky," this is still a good fix.
Re:Mozilla gets funding from memory manufacturers (Score:2)
I run a PAE kernel and found out the 4GB process limit can come in handy when FF goes apeshit. :)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
I'm also using Comodo and I'm using it all the time now for the last 6 months.
I'd been a FF user since beta 1.0 days. I've grown sick and tired of memory problems and bells and whistles with FF.
It took me a few weeks to really get used to Chrome but its a much better experience.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Anyway I run chrome, firefox (and IE sometimes), and chrome uses a lot of memory too - the difference is chrome tends to have multiple processes, so you don't see one big fat process, but you get multiple processes which add up to about the same thing. But it's easier to free up memory with chrome - since if you close one chrome process, the memory is freed up by the OS, none of that "I hope Firefox starts freeing up some memory before I have to kill the entire browser".
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Nobody's saying it *leaks* memory. It just uses tons of it, especially on javascript- and video-heavy sites, and hangs inexplicably for seconds at a time. Loading up some giant images or only running 15 tabs isn't going to do much of anything in any browser.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's really worrisome, because it seems to be part of a much larger trend, that of FOSS software in general going downhill, and basically self-destructing.
Just look at the situation with Linux desktops, where both Ubuntu (by far the most popular distro) and Gnome have decided to abandon their users in an attempt to woo ADHD teenagers who do nothing but play games and browse Facebook. The other big desktop, KDE, hasn't gone the dumb-down route like those, but it hasn't really improved much in 10 years either, pursuing a radical rewrite which doesn't seem to have really improved the user experience or improved reliability or performance, but instead offers memory-hungry features of questionable value, namely desktop search and indexing.
The mainstay for Linux/Unix graphics, the X Window System, is also being abandoned in favor of a system that doesn't have network transparency the way X does, eliminating one of the giant features that makes X so great. X is full of legacy cruft and really did need a rewrite to get good performance on modern hardware, but the Wayland people have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in dropping one of the most useful features of X, so pretty soon Linux users won't be able to run applications remotely any more, they'll have to do it like Windows users, using RDP, VNC, etc. where an entire desktop session has to be started up and logged into on the remote computer and opened in a new window. No longer will sysadmins be able to open multiple apps from multiple servers and have them all display on one screen together.
Now Firefox seems to be driving off a cliff too. Before long, we're going to have MS dominant on the desktop again, even though the "desktop" may be decreasingly popular in the home and mainly used in workplaces and for a small number of power users, developers, etc.; and Apple and other consumer device makers dominant for consumer/home markets, making tablets and smartphones that "the masses" use to access the internet.
It's quite sad, because Linux and FOSS had a lot of momentum there for a while, and seemed to be making great progress. But instead of just being happy with that, and trying to get all the important applications and infrastructure to a certain level of maturity and then just going into maintenance mode and encouraging the devs work on other projects to fill in other gaps that exist in the FOSS landscape, the developers just couldn't leave well enough alone, and had to keep reinventing the wheel over and over again, much like their proprietary counterparts where companies want to keep adding more and more features (bloat) so they can convince users to keep paying for regular "upgrades". Obviously, it's not like this with all FOSS projects; the kernel just keeps evolving and adding more drivers (which is a never-ending task with new hardware constantly coming out), openssh hasn't changed significantly in ages, nor has the bash shell, my favorite monitoring program gkrellm doesn't seem to have anyone trying to revamp it over and over, etc. But the big projects just can't seem to help themselves.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
It seems to me very much like Wayland is simple by virtue of making all the hard parts Someone Else's Problem. Want network transparency? Someone else will write an application to send individual windows over the network, and figure out a way of dealing with the fact that Wayland apps require OpenGL ES which doesn't run very fast in software and isn't designed to run over RDP. Of course, every application will have to add seperate code paths for it because Wayland uses the DRI device interface directly with no abstraction layer over the top - the developers don't care about network transparency and don't want to have to do any work to support it. Want to run your Wayland apps on anything except Linux with a modern KMS driver? Someone else will write Wayland replacements for the other platforms (because we can't be bothered dealing with bloat like portability and abstraction). Want to run them on graphics hardware that doesn't support OpenGL ES 2.0? Someone else will write fast software emulation.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
I'm very skeptical. With things like this, major features such as this generally need to be designed it at the beginning, they can't just be bolted on after-the-fact and expected to work well. Even if it's not implemented until later, it needs to be designed into the specification from the start. It's like designing a human launch system like STS or Ares and not bothering to design in the return trip until later.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Sounds good in theory. Anyone here an expert on this sort of thing who could chime in?
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
Thanks for the reply.
I think the big question that regular Linux users have is: how is my current ability to do "ssh -X" going to change when Wayland takes over? Right now, with any X application (which is pretty much every Unix graphical app), I can run applications remotely, these days usually over ssh for security. I don't have to worry about whether the application was written to do this or not, as every X application has this ability.
When Wayland becomes the default, how will this change? Will I be able to ssh -X into 10 machines and run 10 apps simultaneously, all showing their windows on my current desktop screen? From what I'm reading, the answer is either "no", "maybe it'll be done later", "it'll be up to each application" (which means it won't be done), etc. What's the real answer? There's a lot of serious Linux users, especially sysadmins and developers, who rely on this ability every day.
Now, if you can use some other more-efficient protocol like NX or whatever to improve network performance, that'd certainly be great, esp. if you could make the system support multiple protocols (perhaps negotiating which protocol to use, depending on which ones are installed on each end).
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:2)
What a mistake! Firefox 5 hasn't improved at all. The memory leaks are still there, and they're far worse now. I used it for a couple of hours, and its memory use was over 7 GB. Luckily, I've got 16 GB, so 7 GB wasn't that painful. Still, it was totally unacceptable for a web browser to ever use that much memory. The performance pales in comparison to Chrome, Safari, and even IE. It felt slow, while the others feel fast and responsive.
I notice you didn't mention konqueror. Does that mean you use (64bit) Windows? There is no 64bit windows version of FF5. Maybe you saw 7MB of RAM used and were confused? IIRC, a 32bit app can't address 7GB of RAM no matter how many bits the OS supports.
Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (Score:3)
I'm always suprised when I see reports like this because on my computer (4GB RAM, Ubuntu 10.04 or Windows 7 Home Premium), Firefox and Chrome are pretty comparable memory-wise and Chrome is slightly faster, but only by a little. I very rarely have more than 10 tabs open, mostly documentation type stuff, not to many images or flash, and I've never seen a browser take up more than a couple hundred megs of memory. I'm definitly not calling bullshit on anyone who says this, but what I am wondering is if Firefox is just holding on to the memory to speed itself up and will it give the memory back if another program needs it. It's like in Linux, where if you just look at a simple graph on the memory your system is using it will always be around 90%, but if you investigate a little deeper in to the issue you'll see that most of that is being used as cache. It's very possible Firefox could be doing something similar.
Even with only 4GB of memory, I find I really have to go out of my way to start hitting the swap. If you have 16GB of memory, and the amout Firefox is taking isn't really hurting anything else, why not just let it have it? All it's going to do is make for a faster experience. The real question is what happens when Firefox's allocated memory starts getting in the way of other programs, it would be interesting to see some experiments testing that out because according to Mozilla themselves say they have most of the major memory leaks fixed.
Other issues could be poorly written plug-ins and bulky websites. I know there are a few plug-ins that allow you to manually clear out the memory Firefox is using, and can provide some more data on what exactly is being used.
Re:memory leak .. (Score:2)
Re:Firefox 24 (Score:2)
And am I the only one who has had issues with FF5 hanging CONSTANTLY?
I used to have 2 instances of FF3 and 4 open, one instance was 5 tabs of normal stuff, and the other instance was 12-15 tabs of flash pr0n (yeah, my dick has A.D.D. too) and it NEVER crashed....
Now with FF5, I open Facebarf, Gmail, and Stumbleupon, and it crashes like a college kid after a coke binge....
Re:Firefox will be dead by mid-2012. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Firefox will be dead by mid-2012. (Score:2)
It's doubtful that Firefox will be relevant much beyond mid-2012. It's already sliding into irrelevancy. It is becoming the XFree86 of the browser world.
I don't think that's really a valid analogy. XFree86 became irrelevant because it was forked. Most of the devs moved to the fork, leaving the old version to one or two guys who refused to give up, the fork was rapidly improved, all the distros switched to the fork, and now no one remembers the original project much. Of course, X.org is about to be abandoned too in favor of Wayland, but that's another issue.
Firefox hasn't been forked, to my knowledge, and if it has somewhere there's obviously no fork of it gaining in popularity over FF itself. Some other browsers may becoming more popular, but they're either not open-source, or in the case of Chromium, are basically under the control of a single for-profit corporation.
Re:hurryupandwait (Score:2)
> Or get on a periodic release schedule and stick to it.
That's exactly what's going on. The release schedule is "one release every 6 weeks". The lag time between 4 and 5 was a bit longer than that because that's when the schedule switch happened.
You're going to have to give up on that 90-day thing, because the releases are coming every 42 days....