Places Feature Cut From Firefox 2 394
segphault writes "Apparently, the new bookmark and history system (called 'Places') scheduled for inclusion in Firefox 2 has been removed from the roadmap and disabled in the builds. An article at Ars Technica discusses some of the implications: 'Since Firefox 2 (and all alpha builds from here on out) will use the conventional bookmark system, those of you that have been using Firefox 2 alphas (the Gecko 1.8 branch) will have to export your bookmarks to HTML in order to preserve them. As a Firefox user and a software developer, I am personally very disappointed with the removal of this innovative feature.'" Update: 05/01 01:16 GMT by Z : Ars link updated.
Re:Hey, Mozilla pulled a Microsoft! (Score:0, Insightful)
Firefox has the wrong focus (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox is no longer about doing the right thing. It's now all about one-upping Microsoft at their own stupid game, and the users are suffering for it. Open Source developers, apparently, are no more ammune to this competition attitude than the proprietary vendors. There is no longer anything special about Firefox. What's more, they suffer from the syndrome many open source projects suffer from, which is that they prefer to work on the "interesting" bits, rather than spending time adding some polish to make things work WELL.
yes, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Disappointing but not unusual (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people have compared this to features removed from Vista. Really bad analogy. The motivation behind the two projects are very very different. And so far, this is but one project.
From a rough understanding of these situations, you just have to assume that it wouldn't be made 'good enough' for the next release and keep it on schedule. There might be some differences of opinion about which is more important -- the quality of the release if it is on time, and the timliness of the release with all of the intended features. I don't have any particular leaning in this instance. However, I am rather happy with the Firefox that I run now, so I'm in no hurry to upgrade to Firefox 2.
I think perhaps it would be interesting to simply put it to a vote and let the community decide. Which is more important: The inclusion of this feature or a release made on schedule.
Re:Firefox has the wrong focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Differentiation (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe a better example for the
Why do the 2.0 release? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to Software Engineering (Score:3, Insightful)
Date-driven development (Score:3, Insightful)
From the announcement [google.com]:
From Ben Goodger's weblog [mozillazine.org]:
So which is it? You can hardly drop a feature to meet your release date target while still claiming that you aren't driven by release dates.
I've felt for a while that Firefox's development has suffered and taken a back seat to marketing, and every so often, something like this happens to reinforce that belief. When faced with the choice between finishing a feature and releasing on a certain day, I believe most other open-source projects would choose to finish the feature. Whatever happened to "release it when it's ready"?
Re:Date-driven development (Score:3, Insightful)
I've felt for a while that Firefox's development has suffered and taken a back seat to marketing, and every so often, something like this happens to reinforce that belief. When faced with the choice between finishing a feature and releasing on a certain day, I believe most other open-source projects would choose to finish the feature. Whatever happened to "release it when it's ready"?
Well, that depends on how much it has slipped. If you want something that doesn't ship until it's "perfect", you're looking at Debian stable which take ages to get things out the door. I think applications should try to have a regular release schedule, but unlike commercial software: If it's not done, don't ship a buggy mess - push it back to next release. I don't mean that you should be completely fixed when it comes to dates (e.g. next Ubuntu release was pushed back 6 weeks) but don't let it grow stale. Yes, that will mean you have some lackluster releases, but ship it as you go along. From a marketing perspective I'm not sure if you should call it 2.0 or 1.6 but it is time for another release.
Re:Parent isn't shouldn't be marked redundant! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Differentiation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what are we missing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me start by quoting... (Score:5, Insightful)
All I want, and I'm betting so do a great deal of other people who work with the web, is a browser that follows the standards for HTML, XHTML, CSS 1 & 2 (maybe even 3), Javascript, and DOM.
Extra features are nice, yes, but the top priority should be putting out a browser that follows the standards, first and foremost.
What good are extensions and themes and fancy bookmarking tools if the core program for seeing information on the web cannot render pages which have been correctly created?
Re:Let me start by quoting... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, what reasonably complex system is available in several standard-compliant implementations? There are deviations from even some of the fairly basic RFCs if we start looking at odd (or not so odd) cases. Some of them even make sense. Welcome to the life of writing code (even when it isn't Turing complete).
Re:So what are we missing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing, really, just that it's harder to parse. Just that now, you need to fire up your XML parser if you want to extract information out of it. In SQLite, you can bind to it and do a SELECT whatever FROM bookmarks WHERE ...; and don't need to parse anything. Just like all SQL queries.
Another thing is that there's a big handful of file formats used to store configuration data. Bookmarks XML isn't used in any other situation, and in addition to that the profile directory has various plain text formats, Mork, BerkleyDB, RDF, JavaScript...
I guess you need to file a feature request that asks bookmarks to be shown at startup... though I guess they will be thinking of that anyway =)
FIX THE DAMN MEMORY LEAKS ALREADY (Score:4, Insightful)
Memory leaks are unforgivable.
Re:Differentiation (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion that's not really an improvement. I prefer having the close button on the side like it is now, because that way it's always in the same place, instead of having to find which tab is active and then home in on a new place for the close button each time I have to close a tab.
Re:Differentiation (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:Not just Firefox (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, you can still build a system like you could back then. The only thing that has change is what "non-tech oriented" distributions have decided to include by default. You can still install WindowMaker (or my new fav, XFCE) and have that fast, light system again. So what exactly are you complaing about?
-matthew
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
One mis-click on a tab (which is very common when managing a dozen or so tabs) and you've just closed an important page with no confirmation dialog.
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335453 [gnome.org] for the current gnome-terminal fiasco.
Just don't do it.
Re:Differentiation (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate visible differentiation. It's disruptive. Especially change for the sake of change, I can live with it if it actually improves something. Once I've figured out how to do stuff, where the menus are, what the shortcuts are, maybe customize the toolbar a little to get the functions I actually use up there, I resent it when the developers mess with it just to say "hey, look at what we can do, aren't we cool!". Then I spend a few hours figuring out how to put as much as possible back to the arrangement it was in before.
Maybe I'm an anomaly. Or just an old fart. I rarely change the GUI from the default unless it's to make some feature easier to use. And if I do make those changes, I want them to carry over to the upgraded version. The only software I use skins with is where the default eyesore verges on unusable (for some reason, media players tend to fall into this camp). Just give me the improvements under the hood, please.
Re:Not just Firefox (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad URL (Score:5, Insightful)
It really bugs me just how often I have to sit and wait for my browser to contact 5 different ad and stat sites when viewing some web sites - slashdot being one of the big offenders.
I have no problem with you providing (tasteful and discreet) ads, I have no problem with you collecting stats. I do have a problem with having to wait for that to happen, when I could be reading your site.
NO CLOSE ON TABS! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to copy a good idea from Opera instead why not make pop-up windows open as virtual sub-windows or tabs. There are existing FF extensions that do this and it's such an obvious good idea that FF would be better off using that than making some extension to add close buttons to tabs mainstream. And make the extension that suppresses loading new pages/tabs for blank pages (such as happen with some downloads) a default. I've yet to see any reason anyone would want those blank pages to appear. Oh, and the extension that opens downloads in your choice of a tab or a sidebar would be a good mainstream change if you polished it up a little.
something needed since the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me start by quoting... (Score:2, Insightful)
The standard is mostly good, but it's not 100% plausible nor feasable.
Re:Differentiation (Score:3, Insightful)
Improving the design of 'use-once' applications can be done with little impact - i.e. loan application websites, configuration wizards, etc.
Changing the layout of anything used by people on an everyday basis shouldn't be done unless there is a really good reason to do it, even if that layout it 'wrong'. People quickly adapt to dealing with wrong systems, because we mostly use systems by auto-pilot. We stop looking for the back icon and just move the mouse to where it is. Moving the icon is therefore annoying.
That's not saying we should live with bad mistakes forever, but that developers should be mindful of the cost of change. Unlike software bugs, it may be better to let GUI changes build up and address them all in one major revision, than constant small fixes. If something is clearly different this is less of an issue to be people than when it is nearly the same but there are small cognitive differences.
Joel Spolksy's short book on Interface Design also makes a couple of good points about customisable GUI - firstly, if you are a GUI designer, your job is to design usable software. If you have two options, it's your job to make a decision which one is best, rather than expecting the user to decide which one is best for them.
Secondly - a lot of people give up on GUI customisation because it's not portable. For instance if I tweak Word to completely suit me, using it on someone else's machine - particularly if they have also tweaked it in a different way - gives me a learning curve. Ditto when I upgrade machine I need to do all the tweaking again. For some people, it's worth the hassle, but for most people the inconvenience outweighs any convenience.