Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:21 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones A new version of Mozilla's popular Firefox Web browser is ready for download with improved security and memory use as the tiny company takes a stab at Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer. The program's creators told Reuters on Thursday that the privately-held company's trial version of Firefox 3 browser is ready for the masses to use after months of development.
Order by: Score:
June?
by Liquidator on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:28 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

If it's ready for prime-time, why do we have to wait til June?

Reply Score: 3

RE: June?
by sbergman27 on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:40 UTC in reply to "June?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If it's ready for prime-time, why do we have to wait til June?

While it may be of release Kuality, apparently they do not feel that it is yet of release quality. ;-)

Edited 2008-03-21 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: June?
by robinh on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE: June?"
robinh Member since:
2006-12-19

Oh puh-leeze! Put your Klaws away!

Reply Score: 1

RE: June?
by Korbinus on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:05 UTC in reply to "June?"
Korbinus Member since:
2008-03-18

If it's ready for prime-time, why do we have to wait til June?


They are creating the buzz for making the release a success while they are fixing the last bugs, I suppose.

I am currently FF 3b4. It's is fast and very stable, so I think it will be successful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: June?
by umccullough on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: June?"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"If it's ready for prime-time, why do we have to wait til June?


They are creating the buzz for making the release a success while they are fixing the last bugs, I suppose.
"

There's also this little thing they do where they try to get all the localized versions built and tested, and all the various platforms built and tested before they do the official launch... or at least, that's my impression.

Edit: nevermind - i see they've already built all the localized versions ;)

Edited 2008-03-21 23:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: June?
by tomcat on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE: June?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

They are creating the buzz for making the release a success while they are fixing the last bugs, I suppose.


In other words, it's not ready for prime time. Fix the bugs ... and then you're ready.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: June?
by dagw on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: June?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

If you're going to wait until every last bug is fixed you'll never be ready. At some point you simply have to call it good enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE: June?
by Oliver on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:17 UTC in reply to "June?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Because of marketing. Fault tolerance is the virus from Redmond.

Reply Score: 2

RE: June?
by WorknMan on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:47 UTC in reply to "June?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Yeah, I like this:

As of Thursday afternoon, the Web site still stated: "We do not recommend that anyone other than developers and testers download the Firefox 3 beta 4 milestone release. It is intended for testing purposes only."

But they said that as they concluded their fourth round of tweaking their software, they determined it was ready for prime


If it's ready for prime time, then release the final version already. Otherwise, it's still just for developers and testers.

Personally, I'm waiting for 3.01 .. they should have most of the kinks worked out by then ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: June?
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE: June?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

If it's ready for prime time, then release the final version already. Otherwise, it's still just for developers and testers.


The article was not very clear. I believe that what it is trying to say is that FF3 is ready for everyday use by web developers who want to familiarize themselves with the new browser without a lot of pain. FF3 is still only on the "Developers" page at mozilla.com, and that is where the changed description of FF3's status will be. There is no link to it from the front page *except* through the "developers" link.

One problem that I have noted that many projects face is how to attract an appropriate number of testers for the final phases of development and release QA. Some seem to think that people will "just know" when to become testers. Some chant "The latest mightlies are awesome!" throughout the entire development cycle. Some do alpha/beta sequences. Others resort to elaborate deceptions, releasing a "X.0" release which is really a beta, followed by an X.1 release which is intended to be the real release. This change of description regarding the status of FF3 is simply another way to send a message that the software, in it's current state, will likely not eat your children, and that it might be a good time to try it out.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: June?
by daedliusswartz on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE: June?"
RE[3]: June?
by lemur2 on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: June?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Personally, I'm waiting for 3.01 .. they should have most of the kinks worked out by then ;)


Uh, this is open source.. there are no kinks, remember?
"

I don't think you have got that quite correct.

It is not the case that there are NO kinks in open source browsers, but rather just that they have far less kinks than in IE (and more functionality and standards compliance as well, but that observation is off the main point here).

Reply Score: 5

RE: June?
by FreakyT on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:09 UTC in reply to "June?"
FreakyT Member since:
2005-07-17

I've been using Beta 4 since it came out, and it's been really unstable for me; it crashes over twice a day.

Reply Score: 1

RE: June?
by Michael on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 00:46 UTC in reply to "June?"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

I suspect they're saying this to nudge Extension developers into updating their extensions ready for the launch. Until now, FF3's been a changing too rapidly. Why bother updating your extension when the next nightly could break it? This sends out a signal that it's safe to develop for FF3 now. They want that because they want to have lots of sexy extensions to boast about when it's released.

Reply Score: 2

Se-ku-ree-tee
by pysiak on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:04 UTC
pysiak
Member since:
2008-01-01

Firefox is great and all but all the time we read things like: "Additions boost security..."

As usual, this will have to be proven, not stated. I mean after reading "improved security" in every article about a new browser that has been comming up for a few years now, we'd have to feel so secure we shouldn't be even able to handle it ;-)

And yet, Bruce Schneier still says the state of security isn't getting any better. I guess he doesn't use firefox... or he's right :-D

Reply Score: 2

RE: Se-ku-ree-tee
by lemur2 on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:27 UTC in reply to "Se-ku-ree-tee"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Firefox is great and all but all the time we read things like: "Additions boost security..."

As usual, this will have to be proven, not stated. I mean after reading "improved security" in every article about a new browser that has been comming up for a few years now, we'd have to feel so secure we shouldn't be even able to handle it ;-)

And yet, Bruce Schneier still says the state of security isn't getting any better. I guess he doesn't use firefox... or he's right :-D


This is only partly correct.

It is possible to add a feature that by itself can be said to add to security, compared to the same browser compiled without that feature.

Anti-phishing provisions is one such feature that comes to mind.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Se-ku-ree-tee
by tomcat on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Se-ku-ree-tee"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

This is only partly correct.

It is possible to add a feature that by itself can be said to add to security, compared to the same browser compiled without that feature.

Anti-phishing provisions is one such feature that comes to mind.


Not true. Every bit of code that you add to a product increases the potential attack surface. The anti-phishing provisions are intended to prevent a particular problem; however, besides addressing that problem, they may open you up to other problems (ie. buffer overflows, privilege escalations, and so on).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Se-ku-ree-tee
by Ford Prefect on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Se-ku-ree-tee"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Your statement doesn't disprove his'.

There are several kinds of security threads. If a feature is added to help on a specific thread (like phising), this adds to the overall security of the product usage.

It could be that this additional code opens security holes in other regards, but this is not mandatory.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Se-ku-ree-tee
by tomcat on Wed 26th Mar 2008 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Se-ku-ree-tee"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

There are several kinds of security threads. If a feature is added to help on a specific thread (like phising), this adds to the overall security of the product usage.

It could be that this additional code opens security holes in other regards, but this is not mandatory.


I never said it was mandatory. What I said was that that more code increases the attack surface. Which means a higher probability of vulnerability.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Se-ku-ree-tee
by 1c3d0g on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 13:52 UTC in reply to "Se-ku-ree-tee"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Flash news for ya: nothing that's connected to a network is 100% secure, no matter how hard you try. That doesn't mean we shouldn't close the most obvious security holes, but if you want true security, disconnect now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Se-ku-ree-tee
by pysiak on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Se-ku-ree-tee"
pysiak Member since:
2008-01-01

Yeah, of course. But just look at how security is treated by columnists:
"... and it's more secure too!"

I mean how can you tell ? Say, we fixed 10 security bugs or loopholes, but how do you know that there isn't a new bug exploitable in a more disastrous way?

Note that security is often more about human behaviour than bugs. Probably people are now more aware of privacy issues that should be handled by themselves, not software. I've seen disputes that social community portal is BAD because you get all the people's data on a platter. But wait, who did post the actual data?

So bragging about security when there's much to be tested and proven seems just like a marketing thing.

Of course if I were a developer I'd say we're more secure, because we've introduced anty-phising, prezeroed allocation, and so on. But you shouldn't blindly belive that: yap, now, i'm secure, coz, dudes on the web say so.

Cheers!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Se-ku-ree-tee
by rmtatum on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Se-ku-ree-tee"
rmtatum Member since:
2005-07-09

Flash news for ya: nothing that's connected to a network is 100% secure, no matter how hard you try. That doesn't mean we shouldn't close the most obvious security holes, but if you want true security, disconnect now.


Even if it's disconnected, it's still not "100 %" secure. People can still find ways to access the hardware.

Reply Score: 3

v Mozilla just panics
by markus on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:22 UTC
RE: Mozilla just panics
by Beta on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:46 UTC in reply to "Mozilla just panics"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Panic? They’ve been planning the release to be some time this summer for the previous 6 months.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Mozilla just panics
by markus on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Mozilla just panics"
Did they fix the SmoothText crash bug?
by Quietleaf on Fri 21st Mar 2008 23:51 UTC
Quietleaf
Member since:
2005-11-11

Because if they didn't, then some Windows 2000 users will be very disappointed.

Reply Score: 0

beta impressions
by buff on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 00:59 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I downloaded the nightly build and it looks like some decent work went into Firefox 3. The memory usage appears to be much better. It is running about 50% below Firefox 2. It looks like a Kool release. It is pretty amazing how eight years later XUL appears to work well using native widgets now. I guess good things can take awhile.

I can see how XULRunner is ready for desktop widgets and such. I saw in Fedora 9 builds recently the inclusion of XULRunner. I look forward to seeing how Redhat will integrate this. I have always liked the speed at which a GUI application can be strung together with XUL and some javascript. Now that the performance is decent it seems like XUL desktop applications are ready for serious development.

Edited 2008-03-22 01:05 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: beta impressions
by dimosd on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 11:05 UTC in reply to "beta impressions"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

Thanks for the "mini review"

I'm glad I modded you up before losing my right by posting a comment.

Reply Score: 2

Downloads for Linux distro's?
by RHCE07 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:04 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

Is the download available for RedHat or Fedora yet?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Downloads for Linux distro's?
by Lunitik on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:25 UTC in reply to "Downloads for Linux distro's?"
Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

It is in Rawhide... and will be part of Fedora 9...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Downloads for Linux distro's?
by gilboa on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 18:47 UTC in reply to "Downloads for Linux distro's?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Is the download available for RedHat or Fedora yet?


Yes. AFAIR FF3 has replaced FF2 in rawhide shortly after the F8 fork and was a part of Fedora 9 Alpha release.
Other then that, unless something really bad happens, FF3 will be included in RedHat's next RHEL update (5.2).

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

Wow, How old is the author of that article?
by BSDfan on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:13 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

Clearly the person who wrote that article is a grade schooler... or at least is friends with one.

I definitely "laughed out loud". ;)

Reply Score: 1

Just installed it on Fedora8
by RHCE07 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:24 UTC
RHCE07
Member since:
2007-12-08

I think it is EXCELLENT even tho it is beta it is an big improvement and a lot of new features.


Thumbs up!

:)

Reply Score: 2

FF3/Epiphany memory impressions
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 01:57 UTC in reply to "Just installed it on Fedora8"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I've been browsing around for a bit taking care to go exactly the same places and do exactly the same things in FF3 and Epiphany 2.20.2, based on FF2. Observing resident - shared memory at each step, I'd say they are neck and neck. Using about 35MB each, they don't vary from each other by more than a MB or two. Of course, Epiphany is 64 bit and the available binary for FF3 is 32 bit. So I'd say, based upon this informal test, that Epiphany still has the edge. Epiphany in Fedora 9 should be based upon FF3. I'm looking forward to seeing its numbers.

Reply Score: 3

RE: FF3/Epiphany memory impressions
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:48 UTC in reply to "FF3/Epiphany memory impressions"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

Just to clear it up, Epiphany isn't based on Firefox at all, it doesn't include XUL support for example. It just uses the same rendering engine as Firefox, Gecko.

Also interesting, Epiphany will soon have complete support for the WebKit rendering engine.

Reply Score: 2

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

It's still got a way to go before it's ready for more than prime time testing. Beta 4 crashed a lot for me. The nightly builds have been more stable.

In the last two weeks of nightly builds, they introduced a bug that causes it to loop infinitely on Mac OS X when clicking on the Help menu, of all things.

I haven't seen any add-ons that work with it yet, but I hope that they're supported well since I could be using another browser without them.

Reply Score: 2

Major text issues
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:42 UTC
thewolf
Member since:
2007-12-27

There are still some very major issues with Gecko 1.9, take for example this page of preformatted text: http://pastie.org/167277

Now try to select a chunk of that text, notice that the white space from the beginning of each line randomly moves to another position. This isn't the only occurrence of this bug either, there are many issues with text randomly moving around the page.

I've not been able to find a bug report for this mind you, since Bugzilla can be a real PITA to search, does anyone know of one?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Major text issues
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:56 UTC in reply to "Major text issues"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I do not see this behavior.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Major text issues
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Major text issues"
thewolf Member since:
2007-12-27

What system are you on? I'm on:

Fedora 8 using Gecko/2008032104 Minefield/3.0b5pre

It's possible the bug is OS specific, but I have run into it many times since the very first beta.

Edited 2008-03-22 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Major text issues
by sbergman27 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Major text issues"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

What system are you on? I'm on:

Fedora 8, of course. ;-)

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9b4) Gecko/2008030318 Firefox/3.0b4

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Major text issues
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Major text issues"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Overall, the new version has some nice features, and although I haven't used it much, it does seem snappier to use than its predecessors. On the other hand, I've seen some braindead "features" and changes in this release. One, the so-called "AwesomeBar," is anything but, and needs to be put somewhere in the browser as an option to turn OFF and revert back to the tried-and-true, predictable, and accurate behavior we've come to expect over the last ten-plus years of Web browsing.

And I don't mean get an extension: this is something that has been a part of browsers since day one, it was only now that Mozilla decided to go and **** it up with some sloppy Microsoft-like "haha, we THINK we know what you want, and we're going to tell you, whether you like it or not, no matter how inaccurate our algorithm is!" Besides, OldBar doesn't even work *exactly* like previous Firefox versions of the bar, it still uses the same wretched algorithm. Add in the bold page title, and it's a PITA to navigate this new bar menu. Really, it's just downright obnoxious.

Second is the Back and Forward buttons. And no, I'm not talking about the ugly big back button and the smaller forward button which just look and feel out of place (although if I were still using Windows and had to put up with that crap, I would certainly be). I'm used to there being two drop-down menus, one beside both Back and Forward. Click the one beside back, and you get *only* the previous pages in history. Click the one beside the forward button and you get only the pages you visited after the current page, nothing more. Now, there's only one pulldown menu--and you get a list of *both* previous and later viewed pages. That's just confusing, and a change for the worse IMO.

Its performance improvements and ability to keep the font size of each site separately, on the other hand, are extremely welcome improvements.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Major text issues
by bosco_bearbank on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 12:31 UTC in reply to "Major text issues"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

There are still some very major issues with Gecko 1.9, take for example this page of preformatted text: http://pastie.org/167277

Now try to select a chunk of that text, notice that the white space from the beginning of each line randomly moves to another position.


Latest Fedora update (firefox-3.0-0.45.cvs20080317.fc9) selects text properly for me

Reply Score: 1

Comment by thewolf
by thewolf on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 03:08 UTC
thewolf
Member since:
2007-12-27

Well, I just grabbed a newer nightly build and it seems to be fixed, quite odd, but definitely a relief.

Edit: I'm a tard and can't even reply to the right message.

Edited 2008-03-22 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Its needs to be released
by cyclops on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 12:19 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

It definitely needs some kind of release. With any major release there is always a showstopper that has slipped though the net ;) .

http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/

I noticed that Vista SP1 has been released, but is not rolled out, ans judging by personal experience its simply not ready to be rolled out through update. I'm not saying its Microsoft fault. I think its a good method, of identifying show stoppers early.

I do think they need to release this simply because its simply a massive improvement over Firefox 2.x. I think its time for a "pre-release" or a "spring edition"

Reply Score: 1

v Then why am I STILL using IE?!?
by chaosvoyager on Sat 22nd Mar 2008 15:07 UTC
RE: Then why am I STILL using IE?!?
by lemur2 on Sun 23rd Mar 2008 10:03 UTC in reply to "Then why am I STILL using IE?!?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I swear, first thing I attempted to use Firefox 3b4 for was to edit the welcome page on one of my Google Groups. It worked slightly better than FF 3b2 in that it at least rendered the controls, but still didn't work properly.

So here I am, using IE to edit my Google Group.

So ready for Prime Time? Not sure.


Your issue is with the Google Groups editing page, not with Firefox.

Reply Score: 3

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't be silly, the problem "must" be with Firefox, in the same way that Linux sucks because it will not run Dreamweaver

Reply Score: 2