Firefox 4 Will Push Edges of Browser Definition

Chris Blanc writes "Mozilla Lab's push is to blur the edges of the browser, to make it both more tightly integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services. So extended, the browser becomes an even more powerful and pervasive platform for all kinds of applications. 'Beard wants the new online/offline, browser/service to be more intelligent on behalf of its users. Early examples of this intelligence include the "awesome bar," which is what Mozilla calls the new smart address bar in Firefox 3. It offers users smart URL suggestions as they type based on Web searches and their prior Web browsing history. He's looking to extend on this with a "linguistic user interface" that lets users type plain English commands into the browser bar. Beard pointed me towards Quicksilver and Enso as products he's cribbing from.'"

"Blur the edges of the browser"

[Raineer (1002750)]

Cleartype fonts will clear that right up.

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[monkeyboythom (796957)]

Welcome timetravelers to the world of 1996!

Funny..will they talk about about running applications from a browser window...and will they then tout pay-per-services through a web-based subscription model? And yes, why use Microsoft, when a thin OS client is all that will be needed when Netscape...oops...Mozilla runs everything from a browser.

Gee, I bet they'll next try to sell me on Savings & Loans created funds to house all my Dot.com gains!

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[Clete2 (823221)]

Kiss the original reason for Firefox's invention goodbye. "Now introducing Firefox 4! Now with added bloat!"

That said, I'm using Firefox 3 Beta 4 and it's less bloaty (memory footprint wise) than Firefox 2.

Re:"Blur the edges of the browser"

[hairyfeet (841228)]

Not to mention that a browser,which is the single biggest source of viruses and exploits,really shouldn't be more tightly integrated into the OS it's running on.The fact that IE is tightly integrated is the reason I have it blocked at the firewall on all my machines and am using Firefox in the first place.But at least with Open Source if Firefox royally bones it there will be Seamonkey,Kmeleon,or some other fork pop up that uses the Gecko engine without doing something stupid like tightly integrating with the host.Now if I could just get Noscript and Adblock running in Kmeleon I'd have what Firefox was supposed to be originally:a fast lightweight and nicely customized browser that gives me the web MY way.But this is just my opinion,YMMV.

I hope they implement this as plugins

[pembo13 (770295)]

Because I would like my browser to interact with my machine as little as possible && and I am not at all into social networking.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[calebt3 (1098475)]

Ditto. Integration with the OS is the last thing I want. That's exactly what gets IE into so much trouble.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

I honestly don't want Firefox integrating too much with Ubuntu or other Linux installs. Now while Firefox is a great browser (I usually prefer it) recently it has gotten very popular and is now more of a target for malware, while most malware doesn't target Linux, if Firefox has a flaw in all versions, it would make just adding a Linux binary to the malware to make it affect Linux, and that is something I would rather not ever have to deal with.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[FunkyELF (609131)]

Unless that Linux binary also exploits some service running as root the worst that can happen is an "rm -rf ~"
Running arbitrary code on a Windows machine is worse since you can't play minesweeper without being an administrator.
Not to downplay deleting your home directory, that would suck...I'm just saying its still not as bad.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[moranar (632206)]

I'm appalled at how people downplay the effect of rm -rf ~ . A Linux install can be reinstalled in a couple hours, but the important documents people have usually aren't backed up at all, and are therefore much more valuable than the contents of /usr or /etc.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[cheater512 (783349)]

But on Linux, backing everything up is far simpler than windows.
cp -rf ~ /backup does the job.

Compare it to Windows where data is everywhere and its impossible to back up everything properly.

Anyway most malware wants to make the maker cash, not be disruptive.

Admittedly, no I do not backup. :P

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[MrNaz (730548)]

I'm appalled at how after 10 years of dealing with regular every day users, just how recalcitrant open source nerds are in failing to recognise basic behavioural patterns that just won't change.

I agree, not backing up is stupid. But as an IT admin, ensuring all of my users' data is safe is my job. It'd be like a security firm hired to manage a company's building security saying "dumb staff, if they aren't second dan black belt karate masters with a 9mm tucked into their belt I have no sympathy if they get mugged in the lobby".

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[Per Wigren (5315)]

"If you didn't back it up, it wasn't that important in the first place, right?"

Is that what you say to your dad/mom/daughter/son/best friend/grandma when they come to you in tears because they just lost three years of photos or cubase masters?

It's true that they should had backed up the data, but it's just evil to put it in their mouth that the data was somehow unimportant for them. Just like if wake up late, risk your life in panic trying to get to work faster than it's possible, arrive 10 minutes late and then hear "I see that you don't care about your job, right?". Or to make a car analogy: If you didn't wear your seat belt, your life wasn't that important in the first place, right?

Repeat after me: People are humans. Humans error.

Not everybody have computers as their hobby like you and I. In 2008 people a LOT of people have their whole lives on their computer with no back up what so ever, but somehow I really think it's more the fault of the makers of operating systems and sellers of computer systems. Just like Windows pop up warnings saying "your antivirus is not updated", it should say "Your home folder doesn't seem to have a backup. In case of a hardware failure or a virus you may lose all your data. Do you want to back up now?". Power users like you and I can turn the warnings off and implement our own rdiff or Git backed scheme and others (and lazy power users) can use the better-than-nothing built-in system, but at least they will no longer be unaware of the problem and they can keep using computers for what they were meant for: Being lazy.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[dvice_null (981029)]

The summary does sound quite bad, but if you read the article, it sounds actually much better.

"At the moment, these are two separate projects Mozilla is running to push out the edges of the browser: Prism and Weave."

"Prism
Prism is Mozilla's shot at busting apps out of the browser. Part of the Prism project is making the browsing core available to apps developers so they can build products like Zimbra Desktop (review) that are essentially Web apps, but that don't look like it. "

"Weave
Weave extends the browser in the other direction: Not toward the desktop, but instead into the Internet. Mozilla wants an individual's browsing experience to stay with them no matter what machine they are on."

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

"Weave extends the browser in the other direction: Not toward the desktop, but instead into the Internet. Mozilla wants an individual's browsing experience to stay with them no matter what machine they are on."

Screw that! My employer doesn't need to know I read slashfiction or what kind of porn I browse at home. Now, the porn I browse at work, that's different!

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[iONiUM (530420)]

You're not the "average" user. You know how I know?
a) you're on slashdot
b) you used && in your comment, perhaps by mistake
c) "I am not at all into social networking."

On the plus side you definitely belong here!

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[Tumbleweed (3706)]

&& and I am not at all into social networking.

And if you keep using programming terminology like '&&' instead of 'and', YOU NEVER WILL BE.

Re:I hope they implement this as plugins

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Personally I'll wait to see if Firefox3 doesn't consume 700MB of memory after being open for three days before I think about buying into the idea that the Mozilla foundation should be pushing any envelopes.

I've been using Beta 3 and now 4 on windows at work(*) for several weeks now, and after a leaving it open for a week it will usually consume ~75MB of memory. I have seen it peak at about 130MB when in heavy use. But nowhere near the 300+MB I would get doing the same with FF2.

(*) I have beta 3 on Ubuntu at home, but I've never checked the memory usage because even though I run the same apps at home, I've never had any memory problems on Ubuntu.

is it just me?

[Ecobady (1253790)]

I really dont want mozilla suggesting anything in my address bar

Re:is it just me?

[dvice_null (981029)]

Usually these features can be disabled quite easily from the about:config.

Re:is it just me?

[jellomizer (103300)]

Oh yea it is easy type about:config (like that is a common way to change preferences in application of the 21 centory) Then hunt down for some feature name that is probable more reference to a Varable Name and less of what it actually does and then figure out what the value should be... A piece of Cake, I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.

Re:is it just me?

[at_slashdot (674436)]

I have no Idea why people say Open Source Software is hard to use.

I have no idea either, open source is a just way to develop programs, I see no connection between this and the complexity of programs or their user-friendliness, I bet there are many tic-tac-toe programs that are open sourced... I can write a shitty program with close source or open source alike. If it's open source at least there's a chance that somebody else can fix it.

Re:is it just me?

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

Oh, yeah, sure. I'm going to go and... read, whatchamacallit .. *instructions about how to do the thing that I want to do.

Not likely. Firefox doesn't behave how I like by default because it's, um, open source software I guess.

-PseudoJello

Re:is it just me?

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

gp is right...You shouldn't have to look up instructions on how to change a basic setting. It irritates the hell out of me when FF does crap like this. You can add an "Advanced Configuration Options" button that will provide this sort of functionality without forcing the user to remember a piece of command syntax.

Re:is it just me?

[g-to-the-o-to-the-g (705721)]

Actually, in this case they can't. I personally HATE the new "awesomebar", it really sucks. Luckily, there is a way out [mozilla.org].

I'm really hoping Mozilla does not take Firefox in the direction of "wow new features!" that actually reduce functionality.

Re:is it just me?

[soliptic (665417)]

That way out doesn't look like it would be any use to me. From the comments:

Would it be possible to add an option to give the same search behaviour that the old address bar gave? i.e. Just search based on the beginning of the URL, not searching against sub-strings within the entire URL and title.

This is what bothers me, not the presentation.

The current autocomplete matching behaviour suits me perfectly. I press "l", I get "last.fm/user/myusername" suggested. Which is what I want. Because it's the most common site I visit beginning with "l". Which is why I frickin' pressed "l", goddamnit! Not because four weeks ago I once visited a page with <title>Little random thing I have no intention of visiting again</title> !! Ditto "f" for facebook, "e" for "en.wikipedia.org", and of course "s" for slashdot... etc etc.

With almost every single one of the short list of daily / most-visited URLs (not even just sites, but specific URLs), "initial letter, down arrow, enter" gets me straight there.

Of course, sometimes this isn't enough. My two most visited forums both begin with "d". Big deal. It's not a chore to type two letters, down arrow, enter.

It is a chore to have the autocomplete search space vastly increased with a bunch of crap, whereby simple mathematics dictates the S/N ratio will be worse and the matching will get worse. I mean, ffs - it's been standard SEO policy to have lengthy <title> tags and lengthy URLs, containing the maximum possible number of keywords and keyphrases, for years. One or two letter autocomplete terms will be guaranteed to match almost every page in my history.

Now, people will say, "great, you're a geeky power user who remembers wikipedia will autocomplete from "e" for "en.", but a normal person would type "wiki"..." In that regard I don't really mind that they're monkeying about with this. I am not wanting to be that stereotypical slashdotter who presumes his own habits are the be-all and end-all, if something works perfectly for him then god forbid millions of people should dare to differ, etc.

In that spirit, whilst I can see what this post [slashdot.org] is getting at, I wouldn't give a damn if changing this back was in about:config. In my experience, every time I've needed to delve into about:config it was something where I felt, "fine, fair enough, that's the sort of geekism where anyone caring enough to change it will be cool with googling the about:config tweak".

But from what I gather, it's not even possible to change this with about:config. Which makes me want to reach for the :mad: smilies I would have available on the more frivolous boards I frequent.

Active Desktop?

[Hatta (162192)]

Didn't we try this 10 years ago, and it sucked? I want more separation between my browser and OS, not less.

This is all wrong!!!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Surely Firefox is going in the wrong direction! IMHO, blurring the edges of the browser should be the job of the Window Manager.

I'll get my coat..

Beard...

[Naughty Bob (1004174)]

From his picture in TFA, Chris Beard, VP of Labs for Mozilla, has no beard, despite his high-up position within the open source movement.

Does open source play by ZZ-top rules now?

Oh please DON'T

[snarfies (115214)]

I don't WANT the edges pushed. I just want a browser, really. I just want to look at web pages, maybe even post to the occasional online forum (like Slashdot). I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources and take two minutes to fire up. I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser. Please, just let Firefox be that and make a new program to do all that other crap.

Seriously

[joppinkaru (1254112)]

I don't WANT the edges pushed. I just want a browser, really. I just want to look at web pages, maybe even post to the occasional online forum (like Slashdot). I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources and take two minutes to fire up. I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser. Please, just let Firefox be that and make a new program to do all that other crap.

What other Windows Vista features can I expect in Firefox 4?

Re:Oh please DON'T

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources...I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser

You obviously haven't read the standards. Honestly, they're so complex they scream "bloat" at the top of their lungs.

Translation

[Xeth (614132)]

We're not going to fix the memory leaks.

(Seriously though, I love Firefox. But please remember why it was spun-off from Mozilla in the first place...)

Frightful?

[Gay for Linux (942545)]

Anyone else find the security aspect of this a bit frightful? They want a database which will track our browsing habits, constant updates to the Mozilla servers, and integration with the OS?

Firefox starts to sound like the next big brother.

Re:Frightful?

[garett_spencley (193892)]

Actually the first thing that I thought after reading the summary was that FF4 was going to be Internet Explorer.

I think everyone else hit the nail on the head. We originally used Phoenix because it WASN'T these things. It was a light, simple, fast, usable browser. Now they're talking about integrating it with the OS ... isn't that something we've been complaining about with regards to IE for the last 10 years ?

SeaMonkey

[DoktorSeven (628331)]

Odd that Firefox was spun off from Mozilla because Mozilla was too bloated and heavy, and now we're back around where Firefox is going to be (is?) the bloated one -- and the new Mozilla, SeaMonkey, is actually light and simple compared to Firefox.

So I've switched to SeaMonkey. So long, Firefox. I've used you since the early days when you were known as Phoenix. I shan't be using you any more, given the direction you're heading.
 

Penultimate stage of the browser life cycle

[Bovius (1243040)]

Lemme break it down for you:

• Gestation: Initial release of totally awesome browser is developed.
• Infancy: A few people start using the browser and see how totally awesome it is. Word spreads.
• Childhood: User base grows explosively. People start complaining that totally awesome browser doesn't have feature X.
• Adolescence: More and more features get tacked on to browser. Side effects of bloat become noticable. Users start to ask for a lite version.
• Maturity: Browser starts performing tasks entirely unrelated to web browsing. Browser becomes hefty and clumsy (FireFox is somewhere in this stage)
• Entrenchment: Browser has enough of a user base to establish its own nonstandard rules for web content, essentially branching the web. Alienation and hostility ensue.
• Death:: User base dwindles becuase the browser doesn't play nice with the rest of the world anymore.

Those of us who think the new vision is a bad thing aren't necessarily curmudgeons who don't want anything to change. We know a lot of very specific things about how we want to interact with a computer, and we don't want the same organization that produces our web browser of choice to dictate the rest of that interaction. It doesn't really matter whether they get it right or not.

Firefox development should fork

[MyDixieWrecked (548719)]

The whole original premise of Firefox was that it was lightweight, fast, and actually worked. Because of this, I think they should keep the firefox brand as-is... make it smaller, faster and more lightweight, but no reason to go fill it up with these features.

I think they should fork development into a new product. Basically going in the direction that they are discussing with version 4. These features look like they could be a great idea. A lot of really progressive and great things look stupid on paper, but once you see them and use them, they can surprise you, at times.

Personally, I think they need to make firefox even moreminimalistic. Something that will have the absolute smallest memory footprint after being launched and be snappy and responsive. Modern websites have a TON of code ([x]html/css/javascript) and graphics so it's understandable that the footprint would grow when you have 30 tabs open; but on slower hardware such as the eeepc or older laptops, I'd like the browser to not impact the system quite as much in the memory department.

It's EMACS all over again.

[serviscope_minor (664417)]

Firefox will be a great OS. The only thing it lacks is a decent browser.

What we need is the browser equivalent of vi [the-little...d-girl.org]. And it actually exists. How wierd is that?

Weave is a good idea, but dangerous

[lpangelrob (714473)]

I like the idea of Weave. I log into 3 different Firefox browsers each day. None have the same bookmarks or history. My last attempt at synchronizing them over the internet resulted in Google deleting the vast majority of my bookmarks. I wasn't about to try that again. That said, I really don't want my cookies, passwords or favorites ending up on a desktop in Thailand unauthorized, for any reason whatsoever.

I also like Prism. I know people like to complain about the bloat of Firefox. It's not like FF has been getting any slower. In fact, through the last 3 beta versions of FF3, it's been getting faster, and the memory usage has actually gone down. What's the big deal?

The primary roadblock at this point is network access. Sometimes I don't have network access on my MacBook, depending where I am (Alaska comes to mind). The ability to continue working on web-based applications, absent of a network, is tantalizing, to say the least. Imagine writing a whole bunch of emails on Gmail, and synchronizing once you get network access. (Like all the stability of Outlook (ha!) and all the continuous service updates of Gmail, rolled into one.)

Re:Weave is a good idea, but dangerous

[bkr1_2k (237627)]

You can do that with a standard pop email client using gmail now. Why should it be built into the browser functionality?

"more tightly integrated"

[Zakabog (603757)]

Mozilla Lab's push is to blur the edges of the browser, to make it both more tightly integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services.

So what they're saying is, "We're cloning internet explorer"?

Doesn't Firefox already use up enough memory? Currently Firefox is running on my computer using up nearly 800MB of RAM. I have 3 tabs open and none of them are doing anything intense. I'm glad my computer has 2 gigs of RAM but I bought that for Photoshop not Firefox...

What is it with everyone and HTTP / XML?

[shish (588640)]

It seems that the world is moving back to a thin client setup; but instead of a client having a network connection to a server, its communication is via several abstraction and generic transport layers (HTTP / AJAX); instead of using a relevant protocol, everything is translated into XML-based RPC; and instead of using a useful widget set, everyone is bastardising HTML (eg, the hundreds of javascript-based calendar widgets; when all GUI toolkits I know of have one built in).

Is it just me, or is this hideously inefficient, ugly, and Wrong(tm)?

Didn't Microsoft already try this?

[Itchyeyes (908311)]

integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services

So Firefox 4 is going to have Active X?

Jumped the shark

[Quattro Vezina (714892)]

Tagged with "jumpedtheshark".

A web browser should be a web browser, goddammit.

The Mozilla Foundation is the single biggest thing hurting Firefox. The MoFo has already turned Firefox into proprietary software. Seriously, Firefox isn't as free as you think, all while falsely claiming Firefox is open-source. They commit extortion against people who make custom icons, and they've announced that no one is allowed to distribute Firefox without MoFo signing off on it. Debian and the FSF want nothing to do with them, and for good reason.

I have much less of a problem with Opera. Opera doesn't hide the fact that they're not free at all. It's a closed-source browser that admits it. The Mozilla Foundation lacks that honesty.

Not to mention performance: Firefox is a giant memory leak, while Opera just keeps chugging along. Then again, Opera has managed to piss me off with 9.50...I hate how 9.50 totally locks up my computer and makes my hard drive grind for 30 seconds flat every time I type a URL into the address bar.

Huh? Why?!

[neowolf (173735)]

They really need to just work on having the fastest and most standards-compliant Web browser available. That is what people want and expect from Firefox.

Microsoft has been trying to "blur the lines" of their browser for years, and look at the mess that's ended up being. Once you start blurring the lines and hooking more and more into the operating system- you create security and reliability risks. Firefox is popular now because it is more standards compliant than IE 7 (and probably IE 8) and is considerably safer and more reliable. Why ruin a good thing?

Re:Sounds Scarry.

[TubeSteak (669689)]

At this point, I'd take a browser with half the awesome and none of the bloat.

Maybe FireFox needs a "lite" version.

Re:AwesomeBar

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

I vote we tag this awesome article "AWESOMEBAR"

Until now, I just thought the AwesomeBar was what Chuck Norris ate for breakfast!

Re:AwesomeBar

[geekoid (135745)]

Nope
the Awesome Bar is what Chuck Norris shits out every morning.

Re:Some recommended commands

[Yvan256 (722131)]

Score: 5, Confused

Re:Some recommended commands

[FredFredrickson (1177871)]

There are no nutrients in [rock]. Dragon kills you. You are dead. [Restart?]