Username or EmailPassword
Ubuntu != Linux
Integrating FF into Gnome on Linux is all very well. Two points come to mind
1) Is this integration being fed back into the relevant products code base?
2) What about KDE, XFCE etc?
There is a whole world of difference between making the sources (& thus the changes made) available than actually and pro-actively submitting the changes into the core project.
It is the latter I'm interested in.
If they are doing it then great, fine, fantastic. It is however all to easy to skip this bit.
If you don't want to contribute back to the original project, and the license doesn't force you to (few do), then you don't have to. You are not even forced to improve the software at all.
However, if you do make and distribute changes but don't try to merge them upstream, you are not doing anything wrong, but you are also not being a good citizen either. You are taking what upstream gives you, but you are only making the improvements available to your sub-community.
Expecting upstream developers to go around looking for stuff to integrate is just like saying "we take your stuff for free, but if you want our improvements you get off your ass and come get them". Doesn't sound nice, does it?
I like how Android took the linux kernel and replaced everything else with the apache license. It may very well be the future of linux (at least in the mobile space) as it sidesteps GTK+/QT, KDE/GNOME and all the other fighting between thousands of linux distros.
Nobody is morally forced to contribute back, neither companies nor individuals, having or not having the skill to do it. Those are ideas that you and others are trying to read in what I originally wrote. Not contributing back is just fine, as long as the license allows it.
I'm saying that if you do publish your changes but can't be bothered to push those changes upstream, then upstream developers also have no obligation to go around wasting the time they have to, you know, actually develop, searching for stuff that you could easily bring to their attention.
Implying that all the burden should be on upstream developers, and that it's their interest to incorporate your changes because you don't want to spend 10 minutes writing an email and creating a patch _is_ bad practice. They are not your servants.
I don't follow the cult of Stallman, far from it. If you don't want to contribute, fine. But if you try to push all the work to those that are creating, for free and in their spare time, the stuff you use, that's freeloading.
Trying it right now, but the quality of the previews left much to be desired when you compare them with IE8. Edited 2009-10-31 00:04 UTC
Chrome 3 already supports jump lists although I'm not sure if it supports the new download progress indicator in the status bar icon as well (I'd have to boot into 7 for that and I'm too lazy to do that right now). If you count Chrome as a major application than technically it predates Firefox with its 7 integration. Chrome definitely does not support this tab preview feature like IE8.
Firefox will feature full Windows 7 integration with 3.7. The missing features that didn't make it for 3.6 (jump lists, progress indicator, DirectWrite support, new Glass theme) are already in the pipeline.
Very interesting link. Thanks for posting.
Linux theme changes for 3.7 and 4.0 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/3.7_and_4.0_Theme_and_UI_R...
Also, the Windows 7 integration adds the download progress in the task bar button like IE does. Actually surprised they managed to do this so quickly, OS integration issues usually take ages to go in.
In 3.5.3 you can already see the download progressing in the taskbar icon.
The roadmap must be out of date as neither the keychain nor the dictionary integration are present in the first beta. As far as I know the roadmap was conceived before Mozilla decided to switch to a fast iterative release schedule so these kind of features probably slipped to a later release. I'm surprised though that nobody has done anything about those butt-ugly Windows 95 dropdown lists which have plagued the OS X version of Firefox for years, especially since the managed to make the Windows counterparts look native.
I dont understand what "drop down lists" you are referring to? Firefox on OS X looks good to me, other than that the default theme is horrible IMHO.
This theme should be the default look IMHO;
Also, smooth scrolling in firefox is a joke compared to safari. I wonder if that is because of OpenCL?
I'm fine with that as long as they keep the 'small icons' option to disabled the integrated back/forward button and I can get the bookmarks-toolbar out of the way. I'm used to as small and as little as possible buttons since Netscape communicator and I'd love to keep it that way. ;-)
Firefox is not the first "high-profile" application to embrace Windows 7 Superbar. Apple had already done it long back, with iTunes 9 and Safari 4. http://www.beingmanan.com/wp/2009/09/apple-embraces-windows-7-super...
Don't you mean Aza Raskin instead of Andy Razkin?
They have already added KDE4 file dialogue integration. You can see a video of it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyp5bX_NV6k
I think other distros will implement it soon, hopefully.
I've been saying for a long time that Firefox is basically a Windows-only browser. And this just strengthens my convictions. Sure, there are versions of Firefox for other platforms, but their integration is lousy compared to the Windows counterpart.
The two main things that bother me about Firefox on the Mac, for instance, are CPU usage and interference with power management. Given the same idle state (no animated images, no flash, blocked ads), Safari will use 0-1% CPU, while Firefox will use 5-15% (depending on how many documents are open). Also, there is a bug in Firefox that's been known for YEARS that prevents a Mac from going to sleep after a period of inactivity. Both of these are hostile to notebook users especially, wasting energy and shortening battery time.
It just amazes me how QUICK they are to add features for Windows but how totally disinterested they are in every other platform. On the one hand, they want to come off as though they're all about Free Software and multi-platform. But when it comes down to looking at their actions, it's clear that all they care about is displacing IE on Windows. That's is. Everything else is merely tolerated.
Sadly, I tend to agree. It took them forever to change the form buttons to match the GTK theme that you're running under Linux.
But in their defense, Windows still does take up 90% of all workstations.
At this point, I just think it'd be sweet if Firefox would be ported to my Amiga 4000. But unfortunately I think it'd eat too much memory!
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. I think the problem goes even further somewhere shortly after the mozilla -> firefox transition the mozilla guys just forgot who where the users who initially adopted them and advocated them. More and more "advanced" features were taken away and development concentrated more and more on Windows only. My prime example for not thinking about their advanced users is the reply-to-list bug in thunderbird (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45715). It took 9 (!) years to implement this behaviour which I think is essential for people using thunderbird to regularly read mailing lists. I got so fed up with this bug that I stopped using thunderbird. The discussion in the comments is quite enlightening.
Similarly now with firefox I find that it has been regressing on linux for quite some time. I see regular freezes and slowness. And I don't see a willingness by the developers to address these problems, because it works on windows. I haven't found a browser which I like enough to replace firefox yet (mainly due to some extensions), but I imagine that I'll be moving away from firefox pretty soon.
I posted earlier about Firefox vs the new Webkit based Epiphany. But I neglected to provide any actual metrics.
So here we are. Epiphany 2.28 gets a 100 in ACID3 and looks right. Firefox 3.5.3 gets a 93 and doesn't.
Opening the browser and going to google.com results in a 48 MB res - shared for Firefox, and 17 MB for the new Epiphany. All the claims of improvement, and Firefox is still a slovenly memory hog.
What is Mozilla Corp *doing* with that $70 million a year, or whatever, that they get from Google? Not building a better browser for Linux, obviously. I'd suggest doing without whatever extension is holding you back and throwing your weight behind a project that cares, for the greater good of Linux browsers.
TEST COMPARISON FROM TO DETAILS
** TOTAL **: 5.14x as fast 1908.6ms +/- 2.1% 371.4ms +/- 0.8% significant
3d: 4.36x as fast 221.6ms +/- 0.5% 50.8ms +/- 1.1% significant
cube: 6.11x as fast 74.6ms +/- 0.9% 12.2ms +/- 4.6% significant
morph: 3.13x as fast 77.0ms +/- 0.0% 24.6ms +/- 2.8% significant
raytrace: 5.00x as fast 70.0ms +/- 1.3% 14.0ms +/- 0.0% significant
access: 9.27x as fast 294.8ms +/- 4.6% 31.8ms +/- 1.7% significant
binary-trees: 7.95x as fast 31.8ms +/- 1.7% 4.0ms +/- 0.0% significant
fannkuch: 9.24x as fast 116.4ms +/- 4.1% 12.6ms +/- 5.4% significant
nbody: 12.5x as fast 112.2ms +/- 4.5% 9.0ms +/- 0.0% significant
nsieve: 5.55x as fast 34.4ms +/- 18.5% 6.2ms +/- 9.0% significant
bitops: 13.0x as fast 233.6ms +/- 4.8% 18.0ms +/- 4.9% significant
3bit-bits-in-byte: 12.5x as fast 30.0ms +/- 0.0% 2.4ms +/- 28.4% significant
bits-in-byte: 9.17x as fast 55.0ms +/- 0.0% 6.0ms +/- 0.0% significant
bitwise-and: 23.9x as fast 91.0ms +/- 12.0% 3.8ms +/- 14.6% significant
nsieve-bits: 9.93x as fast 57.6ms +/- 1.2% 5.8ms +/- 9.6% significant
controlflow: 9.29x as fast 26.0ms +/- 0.0% 2.8ms +/- 19.9% significant
recursive: 9.29x as fast 26.0ms +/- 0.0% 2.8ms +/- 19.9% significant
crypto: 6.15x as fast 108.2ms +/- 0.5% 17.6ms +/- 6.3% significant
aes: 4.45x as fast 43.6ms +/- 1.6% 9.8ms +/- 5.7% significant
md5: 7.38x as fast 31.0ms +/- 0.0% 4.2ms +/- 13.2% significant
sha1: 9.33x as fast 33.6ms +/- 2.0% 3.6ms +/- 18.9% significant
date: 2.26x as fast 153.4ms +/- 0.4% 67.8ms +/- 2.4% significant
format-tofte: 2.49x as fast 68.2ms +/- 1.5% 27.4ms +/- 4.1% significant
format-xparb: 2.11x as fast 85.2ms +/- 1.2% 40.4ms +/- 1.7% significant
math: 6.30x as fast 209.2ms +/- 1.4% 33.2ms +/- 4.1% significant
cordic: 10.2x as fast 77.4ms +/- 0.9% 7.6ms +/- 9.0% significant
partial-sums: 4.98x as fast 95.6ms +/- 3.5% 19.2ms +/- 2.9% significant
spectral-norm: 5.66x as fast 36.2ms +/- 1.5% 6.4ms +/- 10.6% significant
regexp: 13.4x as fast 206.0ms +/- 10.6% 15.4ms +/- 7.2% significant
dna: 13.4x as fast 206.0ms +/- 10.6% 15.4ms +/- 7.2% significant
string: 3.40x as fast 455.8ms +/- 1.4% 134.0ms +/- 1.3% significant
base64: 3.00x as fast 37.8ms +/- 2.8% 12.6ms +/- 5.4% significant
fasta: 3.83x as fast 97.4ms +/- 1.5% 25.4ms +/- 2.7% significant
tagcloud: 3.67x as fast 105.6ms +/- 2.4% 28.8ms +/- 1.9% significant
unpack-code: 3.74x as fast 154.0ms +/- 2.4% 41.2ms +/- 2.5% significant
validate-input: 2.35x as fast 61.0ms +/- 4.3% 26.0ms +/- 3.4% significant Edited 2009-11-01 00:22 UTC
This is the link which describes the path Firefox wants to take visually for all platforms up to version 4.0 (take it as community service ;-):
This site seems to be updated more regularly as well.
what the hell is that. their roadmap transforms the firefox gui into the chrome gui.
are they trying to trick themselves (or us?) into thinking they actually came up with this?
it isn't a coincidence that firefox 3.7 smoothly mutates the gui halfway to chrome, and 4.0 goes the other half. these changes are distributed well enough to ease current users into the new interface without a culture shock.
it is hackish to not cite chrome as their source of inspiration.
And the problem is? If Chrome UI is superior, they better copy it.
firefox was a nice small powerless FOSS project just like every other until google realized it was so superior to the alternatives that they would pay firefox hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure there was a good way to use google and the internet.
google has its own browser now and all the people at mozilla who had their big managerial pockets lined are looking to claw their way up the cliff of despair from the pits of death. as soon as google chrome came out they knew their meal tickets were coming to a stop.
not only is firefox not innovating, they're pandering. they think that by doing as much as possible the way the master likes, they'll get some more drops of milk to lap.
the problem it is f--king impolite
Title says it all. I just read that the last remaining Windows 7 feature was pulled after the beta was released due to serious problems with the current implementation which can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time (and without further beta exposition).