Firefox 3.0 Makes Leap Forward 401
Kurtz'sKompund writes "Mozilla has announced that Firefox 3.0 has passed a major milestone! The Places feature has been added to the alpha client slated for release next week. Places is a complete re-work of the bookmarking and history browser functions. It was at one point slated for Firefox 2.0, but will instead see release in Mozilla's next major version. '"We enabled the Places implementation of bookmarks on the trunk," said the Places team in a post to the Mozilla developer center blog. "Although there is still much to be done, this is an important milestone for us." Firefox 3.0 alpha 5 is scheduled to launch June 1. Because Places uses the open-source SQLite database engine to store and retrieve bookmarks and history entries, it's incompatible with earlier Firefox editions' bookmarks. Alpha users must convert their existing entries, Mozilla developers said."
When? (Score:0, Insightful)
Thank God! (Score:2, Insightful)
Mork is dead... thank the gods.
Leap? (Score:2, Insightful)
[1]: Obligatory "Look at the size of that thing!" quote.
Regards,
--
*Art
Stop bitching, you noobs. (Score:5, Insightful)
All posts resembling the pattern “why don't they fix this problem instead!?” are off the mark, irrelevant, and just plain whiny. Just because some new feature is being added does not mean your pet peeve is going completely ignored. There is more than one person working on this thing, and as remarkable as it may seem, many software development tasks can be done in parallel! Imagine that: doing more than one thing at once on a project!
Firefox became a hog (Score:4, Insightful)
And, to the dorks complaining of feature bloat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Adding new features is not automatically a bad thing. It does not intrinsically slow down a program or make it cumbersome. Of course, these are two possible side-effects, but are not always certain. With good practices and architecture, new features are a boon, not a bust. Also, think of all the things the computer on your desktop does right now. Would you rather it have the functionality of a machine from a few decades ago because people complained that expanding its usefulness was counter-productive? Let products evolve, let engineers innovate, and let the process for coping with the consequences work.
I cannot believe some of the mundane topics Slashbots will harp on these days. Get over it and try adding some useful dialogue to the stories instead of bitching about things you do not understand or understand only as a result of experience with one particular vendor in Redmond.
Felt the same about tabs (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't judge it before i try it for a while.
Why Do We Need This? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) If this is correct, disappointing that the devs called the bookmarks file places.sqlite instead of bookmarks.sqlite so people know where the bookmarks are if you want to move them. Am I correct?
2) Is this new file now no longer human readable the way bookmarks.html?
3) Someone please tell me how this makes my life better as a normal Firefox user? Sure sounds like change for change sake to me...
Far from what people want... (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding a whole new bookmarks system is nice, but does the user-base need it ? Or at least does it need it more than it needs a stable and fast browser ? I honnestly don't think so, and I'm sad seeing Firefox going farther and farther from it's initial goals as an Open Source project
Re:memory leak FUD #3 .. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't complain about the problem because honestly, I don't mind closing Firefox out every other day or so to free up the memory, but I do complain about people who deny it's a problem because it doesn't happen to them.
Re:Who uses local bookmarks anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all well and good, but what do you do on the day that del.icio.us inevitable goes offline, perhaps forever? OK, maybe it won't, but do you really want to trust all your data to a remote service that basically operates at their own whim?
Re:Stop bitching, you noobs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Know what the difference is? When they spend money on fighting copyright violations, we spend money in order to support big media (ask yourself the last time the FBI got involved in the violation of the copyrights of an individual without money) whereas when we spend money on fighting violent crime, we spend money in order to make life safer for everyone including the people running big media and thus profiting from it.
Firefox development doesn't cost me anything. That's the difference.
Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank you! (Score:1, Insightful)
No-one should ever have a good idea, because implementing it might cause some discomfort for you. Do you have any idea how much you sound like a little whiny kid with ecsessive entitlement syndrome?
As far as the GAIM bit goes, that's just general GNOME shit of removing possibly confusing features (where possibly confusing means possibly capable of confusing your senile grandma whose dementia has gotten to the point she doesn't remember the previous minute most of the time).
Re:When? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:moderators: Parent is not a troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to hear what projects these are. I have been considering SQLite for a project and would like to know any possible problems.
Re:So how long... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So how long... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When? (Score:2, Insightful)
But, you probably meant to say "Using a database for bookmarks would require me to learn something trivial about a different (and more functional) way of storing information so that I can continue to play with my toys the (arcane) way I am used to". Or something like that.
Seriously, I hear you. I've sometimes been glad that the Bookmarks were in text files. I could do 'stuff' to them. But, it sounds like there are still going to be ways to get to the information. Maybe slightly more involved than popping open vi or notepad, but very doable. And a small price to pay for functionality, performance, features, etc.
Try to not be a luddite, eh?
Re:When? (Score:4, Insightful)
There may be a fix (I think I know what you mean with the in-memory caching), but I'm not going to do that because when in forums, I will often jump back several pages, and I don't need or want them reloading just going back or forward. Besides, if I have to look up a method to do it, then it's not something that I'm likely to want to be sending my parents through, and that's an important point, especially since they have much older, slower systems than do I.
Re:When? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how "light" this is, it really sounds like feature creep to me.
Regardless of how you feel, sqlite ( or BDB) will be faster than trying to parse text files or xml files for the amount of config settings in Firefox.
It's a good idea.
Re:When? (Score:3, Insightful)
I referred here to the way that Firefox handles memory, which may include leaks but also may include unnecessarily holding onto memory long after it's practically needed. There's little reason to hold onto the last ten tabs closed per window, plus their entire contents. Even if that's seen as a necessary feature, at that point it's best not to hold onto cached information, and it should simply be a list of links, which even with expanded information shouldn't hold cost more than a megabyte. Disabling holding onto that memory should not require an extension or an about:config change; I should be able to find it in the Options dialog box, which AFAICT does not have any such options.
I have no problem with a browser holding onto memory in the currently open tabs. That's behavior I expect in all browsers to a certain extent.