Mozilla Firefox 2 Alpha 1 Available 327
Mini-Geek writes "Code-named Bon Echo, the first Alpha of Firefox 2.0 is now officially available. You can download it at ftp.mozilla.org. From the article: 'Here are some new features in Bon Echo Alpha 1 that require feedback: Changes to tabbed browsing behavior, New data storage layer for bookmarks and history (using SQLlite), Extended search plugin format, Updates to the extension system to provide enhanced security and to allow for easier localization of extensions, Support for SVG text using svg:textPath'"
But... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
SQLite (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't used SQLite, can anyone with experience using it please comment?
Re:SQLite (Score:5, Informative)
"SQL" engines tend to evoke images of hulking software packages like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle, but those things do an awful lot more than the typical desktop app needs, and the SQLite engine is much, much simpler in order to meet that lesser demand.
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Will it support adding metadata to the bookmarks a la spotlight so that I can finally rid myself of the limiting hierarchical organisation I have now?
Re:SQLite (Score:2, Informative)
The website says 250KiB fully configured. That is tolerable, i think.
Re:SQLite (Score:4, Informative)
We do? Funny, I've been running FF since the 0.8 days (Phoenix) and have never had any memory issue. In fact, I've never had any issue other than one mini-crash which forced me to use a default profile until I pulled up my old one. Further, I've installed FF on several different systems, including W98, and not one of those systems has ever had a memory issue.
Looking at the FF boards it appears the issue is not so much with FF but the multitude of extensions that people think they need to install.
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
The issues appear when you use more than one major app on the machine on a regular basis. They're not too bad now, but they were horrible several years back, and it's not just becuase machines have more RAM.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=firefox+%22wo rking+set%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= [google.com]
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:5, Interesting)
I've noticed that web pages that refresh themselves cause a run-away memory situation. Specifically the win32 MRTG package from open innovations [openinnovations.com] causes FF to use huge amounts of memory. It auto refreshes graphs I think every 10 seconds. If I leave a graph up on screen and leave for the weekend, FF will be using 1.8 GB memory when I come back on Monday. I've been unable to find out if this is a known problem or not, so I've not submitted this as a bug.
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:5, Informative)
There's a few problems that can cause leaks in FF itself which have been fixed in the main trunk. Almost all of those fixes are supposed to be included in 2.0.
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SQLite (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't know what I'm talking about, the Hosts file lines in Windows\system32\Drivers\etc\
think of it as a blacklist.
Windows won't allow those sites to connect to you, thus, No ADS!
If you are thinking, golly, that's alot of typing, my hosts file is 421k. You can copy paste from others off the internet.
that's one less process, smaller footprint, and speeds up browsing somewhat, as the ad connections aren't made so the crap isn't loaded.
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:4, Informative)
The memory usage problems have been related to the image cache. (I've heard that this is often caused by an old version of the adblock extension)
Using SQLite to store profile information will probably have little impact the memory usage problems people see.
Re:SQLite (Score:3)
I don't think embedding a database will noticably impact memory usage. The most noticable change will be that your bookmarks, cache, and other parts of your profile will not be corrupted or lost nearly as easily. The dataloss problems SQLite will fix are much more severe than the memory problems some people expereience with Firefox. Firefox is using too much memory? Just restart. Firefox lost your bookmarks? Tough sh*t!
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
Re:SQLite (Score:2)
SQL Bookmarks- overkill and overcomplex (Score:2)
Granted that SQLite has a small footprint
Re:SQLite (Score:3, Informative)
So, this will make all the data that Firefox stores accesable to others, and hopefully all the mork-related bugs will just disapear.
Re:SQLite (Score:5, Informative)
Combine a scripting language for end-user forms, and you've got everything MS Access wishes it could be.
Get Hipp. Get SQLite.
Re:OT: Your sig (Score:2)
But [E] can also be expressed as force times distance, i.e. Newton-meters, which when divided by distance obviously returns a measurement of force.
In other words, your equation is wrong :)
Looks like you were wrong, Mr. Smarty Pants.
Re:OT: Your sig (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still just an alpha though.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Yes, this one is officially released so they get *two* days of hype about an alpha release.
Re:Really? (Score:2)
Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:5, Funny)
Back then we didn't have no "Alphas". We had semi-stable code snapshots called "Milestones" and we liked it that way!
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:2)
The defense rests.
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:2)
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:2)
You inferred incorrectly. I was merely a user of Mozilla who wanted an alternative to Netscape 4 and IE for Solaris. (The latter of which didn't work, but DID screw up my CDE profile.) I wanted to contribute back the binaries from my nightly build (since the project didn't have anyone doing it at the time), but my machine was owned by my work. I simply didn't feel comfortable donating resources that weren't mine to give.
Re:Getting a Firefox Alpha (Score:2)
What's this about a web browser?
I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:2)
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:2)
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need a database for sorting algorithms (think gnu sort), but what this will almost certainly do is complicate backup and transfer of bookmarks. I really can't understand what is wrong with a simple text file. Do they not see all the issues Microsoft has because of their registry format??? This is NOT a speed or sorting issue. (I could care less about the history, but don't think that will help anyone other than some possible edge cases there either.)
This will also almost certainly kill any chance of reusage of bookmark data by other programs - which could be a really inovative area if the barrier to entry is kept low. They need to read the Art of Unix Programming [faqs.org].
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:2)
I wonder if there is a password on the database. If not it could lead to bookmark injection attacks from other programs you install (that could also happen with the bookmarks.html file) like happens with IE. I think this is a great opportunity to create a bookmarks file that can't be altered unless you type in a password. Perhaps the SQLite password can be set during install and altered from within Firefox's preferences. It could be a keyring password that also gives you access to your saved site passwords, sort of like Opera and Konqueror.
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:4, Informative)
Yes I read the arguments against this is in AUP, but Firefox is an application that runs completely counter to most of what's in there. Firefox is never going to be a Unix application following the advice in AUP. It wants to be an operating sytem(or platform if you prefer), and not just an application.
Re:I hope they don't change the tabs too much (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all. SQLite is extremely easy to use -- it has bindings for major scripting languages, and trivial queries can be run on the command line. I use the Python bindings in a number of my minor scripts, and it has frequently resulted in a massive performance improvement (as opposed to using flatfiles and writing the data-munging and analysis code myself).
Database vs Mork (Score:3, Interesting)
That's all? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's all? (Score:5, Informative)
SVG support (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SVG support (Score:2)
I was looking to see what you could do with SVG. Honest.
Re:SVG support (Score:2)
Re:SVG support (Score:2)
So Far So Good .... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So Far So Good .... (Score:2)
Other than that, similar interface but the tabs organize themselves now. Also, the ACID2 test doesn't render properly.
Re:So Far So Good .... (Score:3, Informative)
Kind of . . . it's disabled all of my extensions, even when I start FF instead of Bon Echo.
what's really new? (Score:3, Informative)
I read something about they were trying to optimize the renderengine, so it could support cairo and have hardware acceleration... no promises was made, but they expected it to be in 2.0 (correct me if I'm wrong).
I guess the more comprehensive changelog (which isn't available yet) will reveal some more interesting changes - perhaps some nice performance enhancements?
Re:what's really new? (Score:2)
Re:what's really new? (Score:3, Interesting)
ACID 2 (Score:4, Informative)
I don't personally think that the ACID 2 test is the be-all end-all test, but I know the question will be asked, hence the post.
Re:ACID 2 (Score:2)
Re:ACID 2 (Score:2)
Re:ACID 2 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ACID 2 (Score:2)
Gecko version (Score:3, Informative)
Almost:
1.5 uses 1.8.0, 1.5.0.1 uses 1.8.0.1, 1.5.0.2 will use 1.8.0.2, etc.
2.0 will use 1.8.1.
3.0 will use 1.9.
Re:ACID 2 (Score:2)
The more common
"Oh yeah, but does it run Linux?"
And the answer is:
In Soviet Russia, Firefox 2.0 alpha runs Linux!
Re:ACID 2 (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, the important question for a browser is can it render the kind of HTML you are likely to find on the net well. That includes broken, incorrect HTML. This idea that "well if all broswers mandidated good HTML, sites would fix it" is bunk. People are lazy, they make mistakes, sites will have broken code. The ability to render that well is an asset, just like it's an asset to be able to render complex code that uses cutting edge HTML features.
So I don't really care how FF ends up working on the Acid test, what I care about is pages looking good when viewed with it, which they do in almost all cases.
XForms support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:XForms support? (Score:2)
Because the use of XForms that I have in mind requires that no additional plugins or other software installs are required for the user. I can require the browser, but it has to be a vanilla install. Think non-technical users with pretty much non-existant IT support.
Firefox 2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Firefox 2 (Score:2)
Why shouldn't people write valid HTML code? It's not that difficult to correct the bugs. I admit that say designing a WAP version for mobile phones may be beyond some sites but valid HTML should work just as well on any OS (short of bugs in the program the person is using to view it).
It's when websites deliberately tie you down to IE that it annoys me (although generally it's IE/Firefox these days). It's also a search engine issue as they don't like being served different pages based on the user agent to "normal visitors". Hence why we have so much spam in Google. Firefox has got a momentum of its own - and Microsoft is on the wane.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Worth the jump in major numbering? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm definitely not seeing that here with Bon Echo.
Not that this is a bad thing -- heck, I'm as much against featuritis as the next guy. But frankly I see less change here than from 1.0 to the Deer Park alphas.
IMHO the #1 thing the guys should have focused on for the 2.0 release was to make Firefox a XULRunner application.
libstdc++ (Score:2, Informative)
FF Extensions Contest (Score:2, Interesting)
Getting FF Extensions To Work (Score:2)
I find it very strange that the winners of the recently posted FF Extensions contest do not work.
The usual reason for extensions "not working" is that the extension creators usually specify a maximum compatible version in the manifest. Quite often this is something like 1.5.*, as this is (was) the latest series for some time now. Naturally, this would exclude 2.0.
Try opening up the XPI file in your ZIP program, and change the maximum supported version in the INSTALL.RDF file, and see if the extension works. In most cases it does.
Re:Getting FF Extensions To Work (Score:2)
Portable version just posted (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cybernetnews.com/?p=417 [cybernetnews.com]
How soon to version 3.0? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this good or bad? I think Firefox will end up becoming bloated and bug ridden just like IE if they keep up this kind of product update cycle. Firefox 1.5 hasn't even been out for 6 months and they are previewing version 2.0.
While I do think that some open source projects move a long at a pace that make snails impatient, I have found that this quick turnaround for FireFox versions isn't beneficial in the long run. I have found there to be more problems in each new version, and I have stopped using Thunderbird for several problems that haven't been addressed yet (such as opening up the wrong email when you click on a header).
I think Mozilla should slow down a bit, or at least go back to the
Re:How soon to version 3.0? (Score:2)
Re:How soon to version 3.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How soon to version 3.0? (Score:2)
Re:How soon to version 3.0? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How soon to version 3.0? (Score:2)
This particular bug has several 100's of comments but people just can't decide on which of perfect, advanced hypersolutions to pick and as result not even a very simple and basic one exists.
Same as with Autosave in Gimp. People can't agree how should the Autosave work, in regards of filetypes, multiple projects, diskspace conservation, performance, accessiblity, security etc etc and as result Gimp has no autosave at all and if it crashes, all your work is lost. (despite it was planned to be included in 1.3, and now it's nearing 2.4!)
Some things are just 'not perfect enough to be included' and preferred to be left out instead of included in non-perfect form.
Browser dreams (Score:4, Interesting)
I envision a web browser which is the browser equivalent of Linux; a collection of simple programs performing very specific and narrowly defined tasks, all working through clean APIs or protocols. The HTML rendering being split off entirely, the javascript in its own library, image rendering separate, cookie management, security features, history management, bookmarks display, etc. Ideally, the various parts would be so simple that the barriers to development would be lowered drastically resulting in the organic rise of alternatives in the various segments; imagine having a flamewar over which js rendering plugin/library were better!
Extensions are not the solution by far. The functionality decentralization necessary to realize the vision of a browser like this far exceeds what the design idea behind extensions was.
Firefox will never be this. The only thing I've seen which might be salvaged into some sort of semblance of this vision is Kazehakaze, though that remains to be seen (I'm not sure you can even hotswap html rendering in Kazhakaze; I've never managed to keep it from crashing for long enough to test).
Screenshots (Score:4, Informative)
My favourite bug... (Score:5, Funny)
Bug 9458 [mozilla.org] (referrer block for links from slash), "Implement inline-block in layout" hast its 7th birthday coming up.
For those who want multiple versions of Firefox (Score:3, Informative)
Running multiple Firefox versions concurrently
http://www.jeroencoumans.nl/journal/multiple-fire
Re:Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (Score:2)
It almost works, but not quite unfortunatly, A couple of lines are out of place.
Still, it is far closer than say Internet Explorer 6.
Re:Will Firefox 2.0 support the latest standards? (Score:4, Funny)
It will not. 2.0 is about non-rendering features.
Because of the huge changes going on in the Gecko rendering engine the Gecko team needs more time to work on it. 3.0 with the new Cairo-based Gecko 1.9 is scheduled for Q1 2007. See the Mozilla Wiki for more information [mozilla.org].
Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (Score:2)
Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (Score:2)
Re:Tabbed browser update complaint (Score:2)
Re:Javascript debugger? (Score:2)
Re:So basically ... (Score:2, Insightful)
If by Microsoft-esque you mean that version 1 has the features to keep 99% of the user base happy, you're absolutely right.
As far as the "average user" is concerned, what features is Firefox actually missing right now? It renders webpages, keeps bookmarks, has tabs and stores webpage passwords. That's enough for the vast majority of the world's users.
But would you prefer that the development team declare victory and stop coding? The Firefox team could stop development today and Joe User would be happily surfing with Firefox version 1 for many years to come. Any new developments are going to be for that last 1% category, because everyone else is happy.