6A) Re:Firefox Features
by diamondsw
As an add on to that question, since you can distribute extensions with the installer, why not just make these "official" extensions rather than building them into the app? Then people could easily switch them off or substitute third party ones (think tab management).
You've created a great extension management system, yet aren't using it yourselves.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
OT: Before anymore complaints... (Score:5, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/11/09/1534204.sht
Now quit complaining...on to the Firefox q&a...
How about this.... (Score:2)
Slower? (Score:3, Interesting)
My biggest problems with 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
He wasn't asked the most important Q... (Score:5, Interesting)
We should have asked what type of cake was sent... (Score:1)
Old Bugs (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree with this, working purely on time might make some stats look better, but security is by far the most important thing. It is also worth noting that people will put up with the odd clitch which might be caused by a bug, but not full blown security flaws which should have been fixed (I'm talking, obviously, about the non-MS IE users) might cause some people to look to Opera,epiphany or hell even Dillo (it is REALLY fast).
My biggest issues.. (Score:4, Insightful)
They could just offer 2 builds for download. One for Mom and Dad that had the most popular plugins and a theme pre-installed, and one for the techie people that want a barebones efficient browser.
At this rate, Firefox is just turning into a non-popular IE.
The answer to 9 (Score:1)
FF (Score:2, Informative)
bullshit answers (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, the things they say (Score:2)
Yes, because compatibility [mozilla.org] is a major concern.
why didn't someone ask... (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I had this problem on an Intel Macbook Pro, it was fixed by ensuring that Firefox runs under Rosetta, rather that running the Intel binary. Right click (Ctrl-click) on firefox, and it's right there in the properties.
I believe the crashing was caused by a non-Intel version of Shockwave being installed (Adobe seems to think this is plausible [adobe.com]), but I suppose other plugins could be to blame. Disabling shockwave would probably have worked too.
Damning Opera (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'suite' aspect of Opera is really unnoticeable if you're not looking for it. Integrated bittorrent irc + m2 Mail client are nice but really inobtrusive. It's not like Opera is a behemoth download
I'm no Opera fanboy, in fact I switched to Firefox from Opera a couple of years back, but primarily for the extensions - pederick's webdeveloper / adblock / bugmenot are indispensable. Since then, most extensions I have installed are to emulate some of the Opera features - stop&reload / gestures / paste+go.
What Firefox is not even close to Opera on is speed, especially relative to memory footprint. The 'quick' back+forward that is enabled with the 'not-a-memory-leak' cache in FF is a really poor second to Opera's handling.
And the feature I see wanted most by ex-Opera users is the full-page zoom. Implemented so it is incredibly quick, and totally reliable. The new IE7 zoom, and any of the Zooming extensions for FF are really pale imitations of this.
Add to this the tab flexibility gained from a proper MDI, the free-as-in-beer for desktop, and countless other minor features, all they really need is one more and I'd be straight back there...
Compatibility with Firefox Extensions
Mac integration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I had this problem on an Intel Macbook Pro, it was fixed by ensuring that Firefox runs under Rosetta, rather that running the Intel binary. Right click (Ctrl-click) on firefox, and it's right there in the properties.
I believe the crashing was caused by a non-Intel version of Shockwave being installed (Adobe seems to think this is plausible [adobe.com]), but I suppose other plugins could be to blame. Disabling Shockwave would probably have worked too.
Offcial Extensions (Score:5, Insightful)
There definitely is a need for OFFICIAL EXTENSIONS ,considering that most of firefox's crashes,high CPU usage that users report are caused by faulty/buggy extensions rather than the browser per se.
Re: Problems on iMac (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the crashing was caused by a non-Intel version of Shockwave being installed (Adobe seems to think this is plausible [adobe.com]), but I suppose other plugins could be to blame. Disabling Shockwave would probably have worked too.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox as Samba browser?! -- NEVER! (Score:5, Insightful)
Will FireFox ever be able browse a SAMBA network?
P.S. I'm new to SAMBA.
This is something I hope NEVER comes to Firefox. It's not needed, not even a little bit. If it *must* come to Firefox, I hope it is in the form of a plugin, so I can keep it OUT of my PC. Windows already has a perfectly good smb share browser built in, as does OSX. In linux, both kde and gnome have more than a few (plus, I'm sure something like linneighborhood would work fine in other DE's)
What, no cake? (Score:1)
How can you...enjoy something for someone?
Clarification requested (Score:2, Funny)
Firefox isn't slow for me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe ya'll are using Pentium II 333Mhz boxes or something. From where I stand, IE7 might load a page in 1.23 seconds, versus Firefox in 1.26. Or the other way around.
As for the extra features, I like the spell check a lot, it's not bloat and it just works. The minimalist crowd is always very loud when it comes to bare-bones. Weighing in at less then 6MB for download, Firefox is still one of the more lightweight applications out there. If you want really bare-bones, I'd suggest looking here: http://lynx.isc.org/ [isc.org].
Re: bullshit answers (Score:1, Insightful)
Every time I see these type of questions and the inevitable indignant reaction I really have to wonder what sort of answer was expected. What answer would you be happy with? What more can you say than "Yes it's an issue, we have made some progress recently, and were going to keep working on it"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't buy this swiss army analogy. (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree with this. With a Swiss Army knife, you can't get at the blade because the spoon, compass, screwdriver, and leather-punch-thingie are in the way. That's not the case in Opera at all.
Memory Leaks (Score:1, Interesting)
Popularity (Score:4, Insightful)
As for bloat, I understand what everyone is saying, but I think they're doing a good job of balancing all the issues. They obviously want to make it useful to the common user, and that means including some of the features that make it competitive like spell checker and such. Mom or Dad or John Doe User don't want to have to customize it. They don't want to have to determine which version to download. The moment they have to start 'figuring it out' they're just going to give up and use IE because it's there.
We just had an article here that said users don't want to wait 4 seconds for a page to load, how long do you think they're going to spend on Firefox decisions? I can't even convince some of the other computer consultants I work with that Firefox is worth their time. Now I could see making a download available that's stripped down and barebones, but making it the non-default download. Something that all us geeks _would_ spend time looking for. But I think the guys who work on Firefox are doing a good job at keeping us happy, as well as trying to show all the rest of the user base that they have a great application.
Firefox slow? (Score:1)
and
Heck yes Firefox is faster with AJAX. I have a page that gets a 60K JSON object and Firefox 1.5 processes it so much faster and cheaper than IE7 even does. Maybe Firefox renders slower, I dunno, I haven't noticed, but when it comes to executing Javascript Firefox wins hands-down. I can't wait until I get Firefox 2 on my work PC so that I can see i
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you consider that one of the worst Firefox security problems [slashdot.org] ever was a Greasemonkey [mozdev.org] flaw rather than a browser flaw.
Now, I'm a big fan of Greasemonkey and I doubt that any OFFICIAL EXTENSIONS mechanism would have prevented this particular security flaw, but the fact that something like this is possible does illustrate that some
My annoyances (Score:2)
Still, my biggest annoyance is that - despite having "New pages should be opened in:" set to "new window", some crap keeps popping up in new tabs. I don't want it in a tab, I've clearly indicated that, and it worked with FF1.5. What happened?
FF2 Crashes? (Score:1)
7) Add In Validation - "Remora" (Score:2, Interesting)
There's really no way to verify an extension without walking through the source, and even then it's not impossible to obfuscate something nasty. And any extension that uses XMLHttpRequest can download its own code.
There are a lot of extensions at https://addons.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org], some of them quasi-commercial, and th
Spellchecking is monolingual? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the spellchecking code smart enough to guess the language from HTML (attributes lang or xml:lang)?
I know (Score:1)
Yes, you need them.
I think the session saver is the greatest extension ever but it's an added step in the firefox conversion to have to explain the session saving aspects to a new user.
If it had just stayed as an extension I could have disabled it during the install and my promise of "just like IE but no virus" would have been more accurate.
Optimized Builds (Score:1)
Firefox 2 RPMs and Fedora Core Linux (Score:2)
This may prove to be a bit of a problem, though, since Firefox 1.5 is only being supported through April 2007 [mozillazine.org], and Firefox 3 isn't scheduled to be released until May. Fedora Core 7 doesn't have a release schedule yet, but based on past trends it'll probably be next summer, giving them plenty of time to pull in Firefox 3.
Thi
Re:My biggest issues.. (Score:1)
What a waste... (Score:1)
Opera a Swiss army knife? (Score:1)
When he describes Opera as a "Swiss army knife" he makes it sound like it's chock-a-block full of useless tools that hog memory and CPU whether you want them or not. Yet I find that Opera uses far less memory-intensive and certainly no more CPU-intensive than Firefox. It also starts up faster, renders pages faster, and "feels" lighter and more single-purpose than Firefox despite its other capabilities. In short, it has all the things that made me switch to Firefox way back when. Thunderbird seems to be movi
Re: Mac integration (Score:3, Interesting)
Josh Aas [mozillazine.org] is a Camino developer who has crossed over to working on Mac integration for Firefox, as well as the shared codebase used by both browsers. Not surprisingly, a lot of the interesting stuff missed Firefox 2 and is going into Firefox 3.
Parent [slashdot.org]
Just one thunderbird question (Score:2)
What's wrong with FF's speed? (Score:2)
I keep seeing a number of people bitching about FF's speed. As far as I'm concerned, FF's browsing speed is about the same as IE's and its Javascript speed leaves IE for dead when changing page content dynamically.
For example, try the Javascript code below on a page with the two multiple-select list controls also below (I'd post the whole page but the /. lameness filter doesn't like it)...
With 2,000 items in the list on my machine FF 2.0 completes a move of all items from one list box to the other in 0.63
Security: Firefox versus [insert] (Score:1)
With all of the security issues associated with browsers today, you would think a group of developers would go out of their way to create the most secure environment possible. Mozilla, in my opinion, should use a proactive security model for Firefox. There are general changes concerning how the browser interacts with the OS that have opportunity to enhance security greatly. By working on security in Firefox independently and exclusively is sure to bring your user base to you Mozilla (I hope your reading thi