Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Mozilla People Answer Firefox 2.0 Questions 55

Chris Beard was "point" on this interview, but got help writing his answers to your questions from other Mozilla and Firefox people. (Since this was sort of a "companion" interview to one we did just before it with MSIE dude Dean Hachamovitch, you might want to look at the two Q&A posts side by side and compare the way they answered.)


1) cake
by Anonymous Coward


How was the cake from MS?

Chris: It was a nice surprise actually, and we think it's great that Microsoft is taking an interest in browser development again. Of course there wasn't nearly enough of it to go around since there are thousands of people worldwide working together to make Firefox possible, but those of us at the Mountain View office made sure to enjoy it for everybody :) .

2) FireFox 2 Rendering Speed Compared to IE7
by MSTCrow5429


Dear Chris Beard, I have used Firefox since before 1.0, and one thing that Internet Explorer has always beaten FF on is rendering speed. With the release of IE7, Microsoft has made IE at least feel faster than before, and it certainly has adopted many features that made FF such a stand-out, security not withstanding. I would like to know if Mozilla has made it a priority in the past to give FF a rendering speed competitive with or faster than IE, and if we will see FF becoming competitive with or faster than IE in rendering web pages in future releases? Thanks.

Chris: Performance continues to be a high priority for us, and we test every nightly build to make sure that we're getting faster, not slower than our previous releases. We're really happy with Firefox 2, it's a very solid release with three or four times the amount of fixes and work as went into 1.5. We're hearing a lot of positive feedback about the performance of Firefox 2 as compared to Internet Explorer 7, especially on interactive web sites (even Robert Scoble recently blogged that "Firefox 2 was a LOT faster on AJAX". Zimbra, who makes a really rich web-based productivity suite also recently posted that by their internal tests, "Firefox was more than twice as fast as IE 7 and four times faster than IE 6".

But we're still looking to do better, and the next version of Gecko (the platform which is used for rendering web pages) has several improvements to our graphics infrastructure and layout engine which should continue to speed up our page rendering time. Brendan Eich recently blogged about Mozilla 2, which will contain even more improvements for performance. So yes, it's definitely something we have as a continual priority.

3) Competition
by Phroggy


What do you feel are the greatest strengths and weaknesses of Opera?

What do you feel are the greatest strengths and weaknesses of Safari?

What do you feel are the greatest strengths of IE7? (I won't ask about weaknesses...)

Chris: First of all, I just want to say that we're totally thrilled to see a revitalized ecosystem around the Web experience. That was our primary goal from the inception of Mozilla (to promote choice and innovation on the Web) and I think it's clear that users now have more choice and the Web is a much more innovative place.

Specifically and personally, I think that Opera is a great tool for fans of those really big swiss-army knives. It's an everything-in-one approach, much like the original Mozilla Suite and Seamonkey, and that totally works for some people. However, the experience can be quite overwhelming for the average Web user.

For Safari, I think they've got some excellent system integration. It's really nice that they can leverage Keychain and Address Book like they do, and of course, it's a Cocoa based application which gives it a bit of UI integration that we don't yet have. I'm a little disappointed that they're so focused on making the entire experience Apple-centric, though, and would love to see more ability for users to customize their experience and the applications they can integrate with Safari.

IE7 has taken a lot of steps forward from IE6 and it's nice to see them following along with the features introduced by Opera, Safari and Firefox -- and that have made Firefox so popular; that's a huge vindication for us, and we're flattered to be imitated. They've shipped some improvements to the standard Windows printing platform which I'm a little jealous of, but hopefully those will be part of Vista so that all Windows applications can take advantage of them, too.

4) Future?
by nine-times


What does the long-term future have in store for Firefox? Is the web browser going to become more feature rich, or is the Mozilla team going to aim at keeping Firefox very minimalist and optimized? If the former, what features do you think will help advance the user experience of the web? If the latter, how will you differentiate Firefox from its competitors and maintain the brand in absence of flashy new features?

Chris: The Firefox Charter states that our goal is to provide the most useful browser to the largest possible market while maintaining a simple interface that focuses on helping users accomplish their online tasks. That means adding the features which we think are useful for accomplishing tasks, but making sure that they're not thrust into users' faces unless they want them. We think people are doing more interactive things online these days, and are visiting more places than the average web user visited 4 or 5 years ago, so we're looking at features that help people navigate their "local web" and are also looking at providing tools for helping them act on the information they find there. If we design them right, they'll "just work" like users expect, much like we feel the Search Suggestion and Spell Checking features of Firefox 2 "just work".

5) Tackling The DOM
by x3nos


With the most recent releases of FF 2.0 and IE7 almost simultaneously, from a person who does QA for a web deliverable software company, trying to debug and locate the source of inconsistencies in the way that FF 2.0 and IE7 handles DOM - what steps is the Mozilla foundation taking to help blaze the trail for some kind of standardization in DOM? I realize that IE has its own version of DOM, but is there hope that 1) Mozilla will better respond to erratic DOM programming from those that develop for IE or that 2) Mozilla will somehow influence the Microsoft camp to come over to standards?

Chris: Compatibility with IE is something we look very seriously at (in all areas, not just the DOM API) and in the obvious cases where there's no specification (de facto or "standard") that dictates what the right thing is -- we do our best to match IE's behavior. But we also realize that trying to be bug-for-bug compatible with IE is a dead end. So, we work with the W3C and groups like the WHATWG to find the common ground and a resolution that benefits everyone. We also actively promote and encourage developing to open standards, but Microsoft's decisions in this area are obviously out of our direct control.

6) Firefox Features
by Eideewt


Firefox was created partly as an alternative to the bloated Mozilla suite. Now as Firefox matures, it too is gaining features. While all of them are fairly useful, some, such as spell check, web feed previews, and session restoration, might be better implemented as extensions. Firefox is still a fairly lightweight browser, and I appreciate Firefox 2.0's improved response speed, but I still worry that Firefox is becoming the kind of software that I hate.

How committed is the team to keeping Firefox's core as small as possible, and what, if any, features might be turned into extensions in the future?

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.


Chris: A lot of the answer for question 4 here applies as well. Our community is surprisingly conservative, and we ask ourselves a lot of tough questions about whether or not a feature is really needed and used by a majority of users before we add it into Firefox. Spellchecking is a perfect example. As more and more users move to Web-based e-mail and other types of online content creation, a feature like inline spellchecking just makes sense. For those who don't need it, it's mostly out of the way and costs them nothing in terms of usability. But when you do need it, it's there, and it helps.

We're also encouraging more and more feature development as extensions, and promoting that work through programs like Mozilla Labs, as a way of allowing us to test things out before accepting them into the main product itself.

I don't know if there's a need for "official" extensions, but we are planning on making it easier to understand which extensions have been extensively tested by the Mozilla community for performance and compatibility issues, as part of an upcoming upgrade to the Firefox add-ons site.

7) Add In Validation
by Jarhead1972


Chris;

Does FF worry that an unscrupulous add-on developer could produce what could be a click-fraud capable bot net hidden in an add-on that could be promoted and distributed by FF team? What steps are taken to prevent it given the add-ons are not signed or hosted by FF?

Chris: We've got a committed team of contributors who keep a close eye on recommended extensions distributed by Mozilla. And we continue to build out the community and tools available at addons.mozilla.org to keep up with the increasing activity and demand for Firefox add-ons. We're also working on a major revision to this site that we'll be launching soon.

8) Old Bugs
by SeaFox


Has the Mozilla team considered adopting timeframes to the resolution of bugs, no matter what the severity? I've seen bugs on Bugzilla that, while minor, have been open since before the browser was named Firefox, some without any comment besides the initial confirmation they exist. Why do issues stay unaddressed after multiple major releases?

Chris: We're always evaluating and prioritizing the most important bugs. Thousands of bugs are of next to no consequence for most users and those will be prioritized below the bugs that affect large numbers of users. Putting some timeframe on bugs would encourage bug fixing around age rather than severity or visibility and that prioritization doesn't best serve the needs of our users.

Of course, we do understand that there are some issues which, while they're not a high priority for most Firefox users, might be very important to one or a small group of users and that's why we leave these Bugzilla reports open and we encourage interested people to become a part of the Mozilla project by contributing fixes for even the lower priority issues.

9) Firefox and Macs
by chrisgeleven


When will Firefox get some much needed love on Mac OS X? The toolbars look hideous, the form widgets don't look aqua like, and there is no integration into OS X services (like the dictionary). Plus there is always a need for speed improvements.

Chris: It turns out that it's hard to find developers with rich experience in application development on Mac, but we'd be happy if any passionate open-source Slashdot Mac users want to help out! We're constantly improving our platform support and Gecko 1.9 will have support for Cocoa which will improve our form widget rendering as well as the ability to integrate with OSX services.

10) Future of Thunderbird
by Kelson


Thunderbird, as a companion to Firefox, seems to be getting the "also-ran" treatment. Releases tend to trail Firefox releases by weeks or months, and there seems to be very little promotion or marketing.

Do you expect the influx of Eudora developers to change this? Are there any plans for more coordination between Firefox and Thunderbird in terms of scheduling, marketing and promotion?

Chris: Thunderbird has achieved a solid position in the email client market, with several million active users worldwide. As you note, we're focused as an organization on Firefox but we're also starting to look and think about what modern communications should look like online. Especially as we see more and more people making the Web their primary communications medium. Thunderbird has a loyal following and has made inroads into the enterprise, so any future planning around Thunderbird will take those factors into account.

-----

Thanks to everyone for all the great questions and remember that the conversation doesn't have to end here. As an open source project you can reach us through the newsgroups and other forums, or join us in our global effort to make the Web better for everyone.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla People Answer Firefox 2.0 Questions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:05PM (#16787033)
    Look, people. The threading system is down.
    http://slashdot.org/articles/06/11/09/1534204.shtm l [slashdot.org]

    Now quit complaining...on to the Firefox q&a...
  • Why does the damn thing crash so much? I had to go back to 1.5 to get anything done. Printing seems to cause the most problems, but just browsing can cause it to crap out as well. (Lol, I think this post is in 2.0 though). My favorite is the spellchecking form fields in multiple languages!
  • Slower? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mordors9 ( 665662 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:13PM (#16787105)
    I saw the answer that they make sure it is faster not slower, but so far 2.0 feels slower than 1.5 did. I also had one crash so far when it tried to load a plugin.
  • by cloudnin ( 843721 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:17PM (#16787133)
    I used Firefox 2.0 heavily for a week and then went back to 1.5 (1.5.0.8 currently). I liked the spellcheck feature, the improved file saving options, the built in search engine ordering, and it seemed slightly more stable than 1.5. But 2.0 seemed to usually use over 2x as much RAM as 1.5, a lot of useful controls seemed to disappear from the Options menu, and for some reason javascript "new window" links all open in the same tab instead of each in different tabs as with 1.5. Even after messing with Tab Mix Plus options for a while I couldn't find a way to change this. If these problems are fixed I'd gladly reupgrade.
  • by Osrin ( 599427 ) * on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:20PM (#16787145) Homepage
    ... which is "Why is FF 2.0 so unstable on my Intel iMac?" - I don't seem to be able to surf for more than about 10 mins before the browser enters into a spinning rainbow wheel state and I have to force quit the app and restart it.
  • In hindsight, this seems like a good question considering i just finished lunch.
  • Old Bugs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joe 155 ( 937621 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:22PM (#16787163) Journal
    "Chris: We're always evaluating and prioritizing the most important bugs"

    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).

    ...One thing I would have liked him to answer is about how the money comes in (I think its from the search bar in the top right) and how the mozilla team will be using the money within the community
  • by dangerz ( 540904 ) <stuff@tildastudio[ ]et ['s.n' in gap]> on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:25PM (#16787187) Homepage
    My biggest issue with these new firefox releases is that they're straying away from what I loved so much about the browser, which is how barebones it was. When I downloaded it, I got a standard browser with nothing fancy built in. Do I want a theme? Download and install. Do I want special functionality? Download and install. Now the new one is packaged with features that imo, should be left up to plugins.

    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.
  • Is Camino and not firefox.
  • FF (Score:2, Informative)

    by certel ( 849946 )
    I like the new 2.0 browser, but it's driving me nuts that it keeps asking for a proxy user name and password. I even did NTLM fix but that didn't change anything.
  • bullshit answers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:27PM (#16787213) Journal
    IE6/7 renders quicker than FF on most pages (yes, there are a few random exceptional "AJAX" pages that he mentions) and he totally skirted question 6 regarding feature bloat, a real concern to some of us who do like a minimal functional firefox, saying "when you need the feature its there" ...
  • Chris: Compatibility with IE is something we look very seriously at (in all areas, not just the DOM API) and in the obvious cases where there's no specification (de facto or "standard") that dictates what the right thing is -- we do our best to match IE's behavior.

    Yes, because compatibility [mozilla.org] is a major concern.
  • why didn't someone ask if they test anything at all. How could so many features not work and cause it to crash completely so often if they did test it? Did they know about the problems and just release it anyway (and they call Microsoft bad) or did they just sit a monkey down at a keyboard to "thoroughly" test it?
  • "Why is FF 2.0 so unstable on my Intel iMac?"

    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)

    by brassmoknets ( 933133 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:46PM (#16787381)
    I think he's damning Opera with faint praise.

    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)

    by Stalin ( 13415 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:53PM (#16787435)
    You don't have the Mac developers to fix-up Firefox? Do you guys even talk to the Camino [caminobrowser.org] team? Even if you just borrowed Keychain support [mozilla.org] from them, Firefox would be a huge improvement on the Mac.
  • "Why is FF 2.0 so unstable on my Intel iMac?"

    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)

    by in2mind ( 988476 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:56PM (#16787483) Homepage
    I don't know if there's a need for "official" extensions, but we are planning on making it easier to understand which

    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)

    by goatpunch ( 668594 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:57PM (#16787493)
    "Why is FF 2.0 so unstable on my Intel iMac?"
    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.
  • by bahwi ( 43111 )
    File bug reports. I've had 0 problems so far, and yes, it's faster than FF 1.5 by a long shot. Just because it's broken for you doesn't mean it's broken for everyone else in the world. Not trying to be rude/offensive, but, file bug reports and help get it fixed! If you are having trouble probably someone else is having the same trouble or problems.
  • by michrech ( 468134 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @01:58PM (#16787507)
    by Pink_Ranger (1024741) Alter Relationship on Thursday November 09, @11:22AM (#16787165)

    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)
  • Of course there wasn't nearly enough of it to go around since there are thousands of people worldwide working together to make Firefox possible, but those of us at the Mountain View office made sure to enjoy it for everybody :) .

    How can you...enjoy something for someone?
  • We've got a committed team of contributors who keep a close eye on recommended extensions distributed by Mozilla.
    Betty Ford or Arkham?
  • by cbreaker ( 561297 ) on Thursday November 09, 2006 @02:37PM (#16787759) Journal
    In fact, as a general rule I find that pages pop up pretty damned fast for me; faster then IE7 for a lot of sites. I don't know where all this "it's slow" is coming from. Speed has never been a problem for me with FireFox.

    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].
  • by Anonymous Coward
    In response to everphilski's post [slashdot.org] in particular the slow rendering.

    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)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Point to specific bug fixes, talk about revamping the core engine, point to specific methods of tackling these issues... when your audience includes developers we want to hear technical answers, not PR bullshit.
  • Specifically and personally, I think that Opera is a great tool for fans of those really big swiss-army knives. It's an everything-in-one approach, much like the original Mozilla Suite and Seamonkey, and that totally works for some people. However, the experience can be quite overwhelming for the average Web user.

    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)

    by mattwarden ( 699984 )
    Seriously no questions about the ever-unresolved memory leaks?!
  • Popularity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thyamine ( 531612 ) <thyamineNO@SPAMofdragons.com> on Thursday November 09, 2006 @03:08PM (#16787987) Homepage Journal
    I have to say first, that I've not had the problems that other people seem to have. I don't have FF2 crashing on me at all, and except for the continuing memory leaks, I like it a lot. Not once have I even come close to thinking that I need to revert to any version of 1.5.

    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.
  • one thing that Internet Explorer has always beaten FF on is rendering speed.

    and

    (even Robert Scoble recently blogged that "Firefox 2 was a LOT faster on AJAX"

    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

  • 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

    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

  • I switched to FF2 in the release candidate cycle, and overall have been pretty happy with it. The spell check bit is quite nice, particularly when posting on /. (not like anybody else cares about grammar or spelling around here, but I at least like to make an effort)

    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?
  • After reading through a lot of the comments it seems people have a lot of issues with FF crashing after the upgrade to FF2. I have been using FF2 since the early betas and have only once seen a crash. I use FF extensively on both my windows and Ubuntu box and I have several plugins installed. I'm just wondering where all these crashes comes from? Is it the pages you are viewing that contain some obscure scripts or is it special plugins that makes it crash?
  • I'm really not convinced by a team of contributors keeping a "close eye on recommended extensions". I'd personally never heard of Remora ( http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Remora_Requirement s/ [mozilla.org]) before.

    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
  • by leoboiko ( 462141 ) <leoboiko AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 09, 2006 @04:24PM (#16788453) Homepage
    I can't find any info about how to change the language for spellchecking. Anyone can point me to documentation? If there's no way to use multiple dictionaries, it's useless.

    Is the spellchecking code smart enough to guess the language from HTML (attributes lang or xml:lang)?
  • "I don't know if there's a need for "official" extensions,"

    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.
  • I miss moox builds. And i whish that mozilla itself would provide optimized builds for different hhardware platforms.
  • Someone above asked about RPMs for Fedora Core. It turns out that Fedora is skipping Firefox 2 [fedoraproject.org]. They'll stick with the 1.5 updates for now, and upgrade to Firefox 3 when it's released.

    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
  • As a techie person, I happen to think that the features they added for 2.0 were extremely well-chosen. I love search engine suggestions, and it's hard to imagine anyone not finding them useful. Spellcheck is also unobtrusive and generally very useful. Some people may want a bare-bones browser and to pick through the available add-ons, but the vast majority of Firefox's audience just want a good default browsing experience. In any case, there's nothing stopping a bare-bones lover from making their own ve
  • I don't know about you people, but home come whenever ./ has these 10-question interviews, 5 of the questions are pure fluff, and the rest of them are phrased so that the intreviewee can basically just repeat platitudes, and finally, the interviewers/editors don't call BS in such cases? "How do you feel about IE7 strengths?" "I'm flattered that they copied from us" Yeah, great answer, we really care whether you're flattered or not and we weren't actually waiting for your estimate on whether this will effect
  • 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)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Thursday November 09, 2006 @07:10PM (#16789579) Homepage Journal
    You don't have the Mac developers to fix-up Firefox? Do you guys even talk to the Camino team? Even if you just borrowed Keychain support from them, Firefox would be a huge improvement on the Mac.

    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]

  • when's Thunderbird going to let you specify your From address without having to set it up in advance?

  • 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

  • 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

Recent research has tended to show that the Abominable No-Man is being replaced by the Prohibitive Procrastinator. -- C.N. Parkinson

Working...