Firefox 3.5 released

jelly · 2009-07-01 09:20:06

Actually i think the browser is getting lamer, now with that added feature video .... just focus on browsing and security mozilla and let features be added by extensions or just mplayer wich just works fine. Maybe i need to move to uzbl, altough that lacks features like the vimperator has

Rasi · 2009-07-01 10:18:43

jelly wrote:

Actually i think the browser is getting lamer, now with that added feature video .... just focus on browsing and security mozilla and let features be added by extensions or just mplayer wich just works fine. Maybe i need to move to uzbl, altough that lacks features like the vimperator has

Sorry, but i couldnt agree less.... <video> is html5 standard and should be supported by all browsers. apart from that the <video> tag is THE chance to get rid of flash in many cases...

Themaister · 2009-07-01 10:21:34

I think the <video> tag has a greater effect than simply making it easier for web-designers to add video to their sites, it gives more freedom to the web since you won't rely on proprietary software like flash or silverlight to show videos. MPlayer is of course a nice thing, and is more unix-like, (routing the videotag in <video> to MPlayer instead of using an internal player).

However, I think the <video> tag won't be widely used. It will take a long time before every modern browser has this support (IE probably will never support this tag because of Silverlight), and therefore, most delevelopers will most likely continue to use flash.

lardon · 2009-07-01 11:02:29

jalu wrote:

Does anybody have an idea when this will land in the repos?
I know, I know, these things take time. No rush, I'm just curious.

I think the reason these questions come back so often is that there is no information whatsoever on the expected time it will take. For very important packages like the kernel or firefox, it would be nice to have an estimation, like "we think this will take about 3 months". Of course it would just be an information, not a contract! It would help users decide if they can wait or not.

Allan · 2009-07-01 11:53:20

Time frames are useless... e.g. I guarantee firefox-3.5 will be in the repos within the next year.

lardon · 2009-07-01 12:26:00

Allan wrote:

Time frames are useless... e.g. I guarantee firefox-3.5 will be in the repos within the next year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure you have an idea of whether it will take 1 month, 3 or 6 months for firefox 3.5 to hit the repos.

Army · 2009-07-01 12:49:04

For me firefox (I use 3.6.a1pre) is even faster than uzbl and midori at sunspider benchmark

firefox-hg-pgo:
Total: 2194.8ms +/- 5.7%
uzbl:
Total: 2428.0ms +/- 2.0%
midori:
Total: 2297.8ms +/- 2.6%

SIC!

Last edited by Army (2009-07-01 12:49:30)

Pierre · 2009-07-01 13:21:29

Maybe someone should work on a PKGBUILD that does build xulrunner and firefox on x86_64.

Themaister · 2009-07-01 13:39:03

Army wrote:

For me firefox (I use 3.6.a1pre) is even faster than uzbl and midori at sunspider benchmark
firefox-hg-pgo:
Total: 2194.8ms +/- 5.7%
uzbl:
Total: 2428.0ms +/- 2.0%
midori:
Total: 2297.8ms +/- 2.6%
SIC!

What's the difference between pgo and normal? I get 1400ms btw :3 3.2GHz C2D though.

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-07-01 13:58:51

Themaister wrote:

What's the difference between pgo and normal? I get 1400ms btw :3 3.2GHz C2D though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile-gu … timization

Last edited by DevoidOfWindows (2009-07-01 14:00:17)

thayer · 2009-07-01 14:12:05

lardon wrote:

Allan wrote:
Time frames are useless... e.g. I guarantee firefox-3.5 will be in the repos within the next year.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure you have an idea of whether it will take 1 month, 3 or 6 months for firefox 3.5 to hit the repos.

You are wrong I'm afraid. Sure, one of the devs could say, "it'll probably be a week or so". However unless it was said by THE dev that actually maintains the package that statement doesn't mean much. All of the devs are volunteers and work on Arch when time permits. FF 3.5 will hit the repos once it's maintainer has the time to build, test and commit the package.

Last edited by thayer (2009-07-01 14:13:35)

Themaister · 2009-07-01 14:13:15

DevoidOfWindows wrote:

Themaister wrote:
What's the difference between pgo and normal? I get 1400ms btw :3 3.2GHz C2D though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile-gu … timization

Interesting. I'll check it out.

EDIT: I guess Firefox wasn't fast at all.

FF: 1400ms
Midori: 353ms
Opera 10: 3400ms o.O

Last edited by Themaister (2009-07-01 15:14:46)

colbert · 2009-07-01 17:50:30

Ahhh... Tab Mix Plus and All-in-one Gestures add-ons not compatible with it.... grrr two of my fav extensions

kakTuZ · 2009-07-01 18:01:25

I think youtube.com/html5 does not work because of codecs, it uses H264 but FF3.5 only supports ogg for the video tag.
See http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/14 … ith-Theora for additional links.

CaptainShanks · 2009-07-01 18:53:44

colbert wrote:

Ahhh... Tab Mix Plus and All-in-one Gestures add-ons not compatible with it.... grrr two of my fav extensions

You can always use an addon called Nightly Tester Tools to make these sorts of problems go away
http://www.oxymoronical.com/web/firefox/nightly

Once that's installed, go to your addons window and hit the Override All Compatibility button. Pretty awesome really, never really had any major issues with the program.

droog · 2009-07-01 19:01:52

colbert wrote:

Ahhh... Tab Mix Plus and All-in-one Gestures add-ons not compatible with it.... grrr two of my fav extensions

all in one gestures works, I'm sure tab mix plus does too, you have to turn off the version check for extensions to install them and most will still work.
in about:config its extensions.checkCompatabiltiy set to false.

colbert · 2009-07-01 19:20:32

Thanks dudes! Both tips are good, they are working now Although Tab Mix Plus does not work unless I go into its options, change any setting and hit apply.. but will be great for now.

Hrod beraht · 2009-07-01 19:33:51

jelly wrote:

Maybe i need to move to uzbl, altough that lacks features like the vimperator has

Ever tried Conkeror?

Last edited by Hrod beraht (2009-07-01 19:34:34)

thayer · 2009-07-01 20:03:42

Haven't looked into this too much yet, but is there an easy fix to make FF 3.5 respect my ~/.fonts.conf settings? Fonts look hella awful.

Gen2ly · 2009-07-01 21:22:10

thayer wrote:

Haven't looked into this too much yet, but is there an easy fix to make FF 3.5 respect my ~/.fonts.conf settings? Fonts look hella awful.

I believe that Firefox has it's own built in-settings on how to display fonts. At least it was that was in 2.0, haven't check for newer releases but in 3.0 when I re-installed and put on KDE and put on firefox, fonts look good. You might want to look at my-post about it:

http://linuxtidbits.wordpress.com/2008/ … rendering/

In KDE I don't set a DPI as the xorg server handles it just fine (not sure if Gnome forces a DPI). Also I remove MS fonts (as you need a special-configuration to get them to look alright) and use liberation-fonts as a replacement:

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=10860

R00KIE · 2009-07-01 23:13:24

And the devs do it once again
Firefox 3.5 as landed on x86_64

You may want to take a look at this http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic … &t=1326475 just in case some of the new behavior gets on your nerve

ozar · 2009-07-02 00:27:37

R00KIE wrote:

You may want to take a look at this http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic … &t=1326475 just in case some of the new behavior gets on your nerve

Thanks for that!

thayer · 2009-07-02 00:32:10

Gen2ly wrote:

thayer wrote:
Haven't looked into this too much yet, but is there an easy fix to make FF 3.5 respect my ~/.fonts.conf settings? Fonts look hella awful.
I believe that Firefox has it's own built in-settings on how to display fonts. At least it was that was in 2.0, haven't check for newer releases but in 3.0 when I re-installed and put on KDE and put on firefox, fonts look good. You might want to look at my-post about it:

Thanks for the info. From what I can tell FF is at least trying to load my fonts.conf because if I rename ~/.fonts.conf to something else the browser's UI and page fonts look "OK" from a technical point-of-view, albeit with anti-aliasing and full hinting (which is what I don't like). However, if I try to disable anti-aliasing and/or hinting in ~/.fonts.conf then the fonts are shite awful looking in the UI and web pages (only in FF 3.5 mind you). It's almost as if FF is forcing it's own hinting method even when Fontconfig's has been disabled. Anyway, I'll look into it when I have more time and post my solution.

Last edited by thayer (2009-07-02 00:33:08)

doorknob60 · 2009-07-02 02:33:17

I hope sites like youtube start using the <video> tags (with OGG please...already problems with different codecs stirring). Also the player needs full screen mode. But overall 3.5 is good. It feels faster, and the features are nice (although the geolocation think thinks I live 300 miles away in Seattle lol, I live in Bend...)

Ranguvar · 2009-07-02 03:06:18

Does anyone know of a way of enabling TraceMonkey on Arch64? A patch to backport, or config option?
Also posted here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic … &t=1330035

Also, most extensions work fine in Firefox 3.5 if you add 'extensions.checkCompatibility = false' in about:config. Tab Mix Plus works if you use a dev build of the next version, see their forum.

And while I am a big fan of non-patented standards, etc., Ogg Theora is... well... not good, not even decent. Compared to x264-encoded H.264, it's a step back a couple decades (two, to be exact). For the very most part, this isn't the Theora creators' fault, or the creators of its implementations, but the fault of ridiculous patents on wide-reaching algorithms, etc. that Theora had to purposely avoid. But when one considers that even MPEG-1, which is old enough to have become liberated, may be better than Theora (whose freeness is less certain)... http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=146893

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-07-02 03:17:15)

Arch Linux

#26 2009-07-01 09:20:06

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#27 2009-07-01 10:18:43

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#28 2009-07-01 10:21:34

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#29 2009-07-01 11:02:29

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#30 2009-07-01 11:53:20

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#31 2009-07-01 12:26:00

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#32 2009-07-01 12:49:04

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#33 2009-07-01 13:21:29

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#34 2009-07-01 13:39:03

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#35 2009-07-01 13:58:51

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#36 2009-07-01 14:12:05

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#37 2009-07-01 14:13:15

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#38 2009-07-01 17:50:30

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#39 2009-07-01 18:01:25

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#40 2009-07-01 18:53:44

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#41 2009-07-01 19:01:52

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#42 2009-07-01 19:20:32

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#43 2009-07-01 19:33:51

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#44 2009-07-01 20:03:42

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#45 2009-07-01 21:22:10

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#46 2009-07-01 23:13:24

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#47 2009-07-02 00:27:37

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#48 2009-07-02 00:32:10

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#49 2009-07-02 02:33:17

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

#50 2009-07-02 03:06:18

Re: Firefox 3.5 released

Board footer