Miscellaneous > Applications
I'm moving back to Opera!
worker201:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 13 January 2010, 21:40 ---
--- Quote ---Mozilla was created to turn the open source Netscape code into something more useable and produce an open browser. Firefox was created to, basically, conquer the fucking world. The web was a piece of shit and the only way to make it better was with a good browser, but a good browser that WON THE FUCKIN BATTLES. It was all, as I recall, to do with marketing and it possibly turns out to be the biggest idea since keeping ownership of DOS.
--- End quote ---
How can Firefox really be considered as FOSS?
--- End quote ---
He didn't say it was open source, he said it was open. Which is enough of a difference to make your question spurious at best. The mere fact that I've seen the source code for Firefox means that it is open enough, even if it's not as redistributable as GPL stuff.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 2 January 2010, 03:25 ---Theres a lot of interesting stuff happening to it too, ie Mozilla Labs: Weave (syncing different Firefoxes and mobile Firefoxes), Jetpack (web-page format extensions, yeah click an "install" button and the extension will appear without restarting), Personas (I don't particularly fancy this feature but you have to see the appeal lots of users see, if they can simply do this and create a top-class (HUGE) website of community created themes, why not?). Soon these things and more will be a part of Firefox (all in Firefox 4 2011, Personas in Firefox 3.6 coming soon, rest can use beta-level extensions for now).
--- End quote ---
I just installed the Firefox 3.6 RC and I have to say. Personas are an AMAZING feature. I didnt think id take a fancy for this feature, but people will fall in love with this.
Also I've just looked at Jetpack. Its goal is to change how Firefox extensions work, so that extending firefox is something that anyone who can add a link to a webpage can add a button to firefox. So that its simpler and so that the concept reaches out to everyone who knows basic html and javascript. If you have a clue of javascript, and youve time to spare, I recommend installing jetpack and taking the tutorial. Fucking killer.
Heres a sample jetpack extension:
jetpack.future.import("menu");
jetpack.menu.context.page.on("img").add(function(target)({
label: "Edit Image",
icon: "http://pixlr.com/favicon.ico",
command: function(){
$.get("http://developer.pixlr.com/_script/pixlr_minified.js", function(js){
var doc = target.document;
var win = target.window;
var script = doc.createElement("script");
script.innerHTML = js;
doc.body.appendChild( script );
win.wrappedJSObject.pixlr.overlay.show({
image: target.node.src,
title: "Edited Image"
});
});
}
}));
Do you know what this does? It adds a menu item to the context menu for images "Edit Image". If you click Edit Image, the image is posted to an online image editor. Just that code. Nice. Nice.
Aloone_Jonez:
I didn't know that Firefox did not have skins, Opera has had that for years, Chrome has had that feature since day one and even IE has been skinable sine 6 but it wasn't easy to use. No doubt that skins, oh sorry Personas, have been added to compete with Chrome.
I don't know any Java and only a tiny bit of html so Jetpack won't me much use to me. It sounds like one of those wonderful geeky tools that's brilliant for programmers. Does it pose a potential security vulnerability though?
What about security? Are there any plans to do as Chrome does and load every tab as a separate process so one page crashing doesn't take the whole browser down?
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 11 January 2010, 00:31 ---
[chromium]
It's faster than Firefox apart from on some ad-infested pages which take slightly longer to load the elements then hide them and it seems to do a better job at loading IE-only sites. Best of all it's open source which will keep the FOSS fanboyz happy.
I've come to the conclusion that WebKit>Gecko, it just seems lighter, faster and the fact that most WebKit browsers pass the Acid3 test seems to suggest better standards compliance too.
--- End quote ---
I love webkit. I was developing a poker heads up display that used webkit for rendering the hud (since im a web nerd, and since people like to customise their huds, and since using web technologies for this task is so sweet), and it could do some extremely sexy things for me combined with Qt. It's plenty light for the job for sure, and I wouldnt use gecko for the same task, given the option of webkit.
But I also love gecko. I use it almost every day on my eee pc to browse all over the web and it works like a charm. Now, using firefox 3.6 and catching up with new web technologies (because I wasnt up to dat eprobably since the last time i had an involved discussion here about it), I've got to call you up on your standards support remarks.
Firefox has excellent support for html 5 video, while no other browser has any to my knowledge (unfortunately I know nothig about Chrome in particular). It also supports offline storage, downloadable fonts (does opera? please screenshot http://www.alistapart.com/d/cssatten/poen.html it should have dotted font for 'css' 'zen' and 'garden'. I think I did this test before and opera passed, but i dont know for sure ), web workers, async javascript scripts (as of 3.6), ..
these features are big strides forward for the web. Particularly open video, because the web has developed a huge dependence on Adobe Flash for this feature, and if you have the faintest idea of what the webs purpose is you know sombody needs to take back the web.
I dont think referring to an acid test for obscure futuristic css properties is a smart way to compare standards compliance: it is for those specific standards, but thats all. I get 94/100 in acid 3 on FF 3.6, but what is firefox missing? There are particular things that might take a long time to sort out so that FF perfectly meets the specification, its a rigorous bitch of a thing to implement and I'm pretty sure noone intended for it to be implemented over night, but supporting the important bits such as gradients is necessary, and firefox supports all the major new parts of css that I understand. If you can aactually shed some light on the meaning behind 94/100, please tell me what features Firefox is lacking?
Aloone_Jonez:
Opera does support downloadable fonts otherwise it would fail the Acid3 test.
It doesn't render the page you linked correctly though, the text at the bottom is horribly fucked up.
Chromium does which is surprising because I thought it didn't support downloadable fonts due to a perceived security risk. I think that applies to Chrome and Chromium is more bleeding edge but is probably less stable.
What's a hud?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version