Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Exploring Firefox Extensions 484

Gary writes "If you haven't made the switch to Mozilla Firefox it may be because you aren't aware of the great benefits Firefox has over IE. Flexbeta has posted a nice HOWTO guide on Firefox extensions; my favorite is the Target Alert extension which displays a small graphic next to links that are not web pages. For example a mailto: link will display a small envelope, a link to a PDF file will display a small Adobe icon, etc."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exploring Firefox Extensions

Comments Filter:
  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @08:53AM (#10167922)
    I haven't switched [from Konqueror], and will not switch anytime soon because I find that: -

    1: Mozilla Firefox had terrible fonts on Linux. I know there is the possibility of using one compiled with xft. But where is it? Whenever a new release is announced, the version producing those bad fonts is what I find.

    2: I find that it is slower than Konqueror on most sites. My only use of Mozilla Firefox is on Gmail. I wonder why Google will not support Konqueror yet.

    3: Firefox keeps some important passwords long after I have logged out of my online baking site. It is not the problem of the site but Firefox. I have confirmed this.

    Please note that I am no expert in these matters. I just download stuff and use it as such.

    Cb..

  • by cloudless.net ( 629916 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @08:54AM (#10167930) Homepage
    I am quite interested in how the Mozilla team decide what goes into the browser, and what should be left as an extension. Many built-in features of Firefox can actually made made as an extension instead, which could make the browser more lightweight and start up faster. Yes it would require the user to download more extensions, and I think it could be solved by providing extension packs with several useful extensions put into one easy-to-install package.
  • by alphan ( 774661 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @08:57AM (#10167946) Homepage
    I wouldn't bet on it.

    1)Most of firefox is in XUL/javascript, meaning XUL+javascript+chrome can be very powerful.

    2) There are binary extensions,

    The moral of the story is: Don't install anything you don't know/trust.

  • by Threni ( 635302 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:06AM (#10168003)
    > I just don't think a novice user could handle changing that.

    Novices shouldn't be using pre v1.0 software. It's not done yet.

    > it has been something thats bugged me from day one.

    So ask for your money back.
  • by drmancini ( 712059 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:26AM (#10168130) Homepage
    Maybe you should be aware of the fact, that Firefox is still pre 1.0 ... so you shouldn't vote against it based on such bugs...
  • by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:32AM (#10168158) Journal
    You miss the damn point. Firefox and other browsers are trying to take market share from IE, not the other way around, so it's far more important that new Firefox users can successfully import settings from IE than the other way around.

    I would have thought that that much would be obvious to even the most fanatical Firefox/Mozilla user.

    The bottom line is that a key tool used to help migrate users from IE to Firefox doesn't always work, so that's a clear minus point against Firefox. If the first thing that you try do when moving to Firefox from IE causes crash after crash wouldn't that curb your enthusiasm for carrying on with the transition? After all, switching to any new piece of software is often a leap of faith, and it's hard to make that leap successfully if you find a brick wall in your way.

    You might not see things that way, and these things might not bother you, but that doesn't make them any less frustrating to others.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:37AM (#10168187) Homepage Journal
    Just because something moves to v1.0 does it magically become stable, feature rich, simple and user friendly?

    Anyway, I must be confused.
    Internet explorer is dire, so thousands of geeks start running wildly in the Firefox direction, shouting from the rooftops about this alternative, only to discover now that Threni says we shouldn't use it.

    On the mozilla site itself, they say it can be used as a primary browser, but don't rely on it for mission critical stuff.

    No software is ever complete.
    Every piece of software has problems, bugs and niggles, I asked a group of people who were likely to know the answer :)
  • by lucas teh geek ( 714343 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:38AM (#10168197)
    >I just don't think a novice user could handle changing that.
    I just don't think it would occur to a novice user that its something they could change. heck, most novice users dont even know how to change their homepage unless a website pops up and asks to do it for them
  • by Bagels ( 676159 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:53AM (#10168287)
    Mostly to avoid bandwidth problems - if someone starts reading an article and decides that he/she doesn't like it or isn't interested, the site hasn't already served up the entire article to them (usually just a fourth or a sixth). Also, it gives them an opportunity to flash different ads at you on every page. Finally, if you're in the middle of the article, it makes it harder for you to back out (which is a pain for you, but marketing people would love it).
  • by byolinux ( 535260 ) * on Monday September 06, 2004 @09:58AM (#10168321) Journal
    On the mozilla site itself, they say it can be used as a primary browser, but don't rely on it for mission critical stuff.

    The web is mission critical?

    Relying on a public infastructure full of infected and unpatched computers operated by people who didn't realise they needed to install things on their computers to make them keep working? Ouch.
  • by Crayon Kid ( 700279 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:15AM (#10168434)

    I introduced my step-daughter's girl friend to Firefox when she was complaining about all the pop-ups in IE, but after about 5 minutes she switched back to IE. The only reason: In IE you can copy an image to the clip buffer and paste it into Photoshop or some other graphic program (she was grabbing pictures to make her Livejournal icons), but in Firefox (and Mozilla) you have to save the image and then open it in Photoshop as an extra step. Evidently managing all those little files was more effort to her than dismissing all the popups.

    Here's how a non-techie person thinks: "Damn, I can't do that thing I used to do in this Firefox. Back to Explorer, because there the thing works and I'm used to it already."

    No, thoughts like "perhaps there's a trick or a setting to do this thing in Firefox" will not cross their mind. They're not stupid, it's just not obvious to them that (or how) computer applications' functionality can be altered by the user.

  • by ioslipstream ( 245671 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:20AM (#10168463)
    So.... novices would be better off using a browser that is highly susceptible to hijacking?

    I'm not trying to troll here, but c'mon, novices are just fine. Firefox has great functionality out of the box, same as IE.

    They both get the job done... for a novice.
  • by Threni ( 635302 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:29AM (#10168516)
    > Just because something moves to v1.0 does it magically become stable, feature
    > rich, simple and user friendly?

    No - rather, it won't be released at v1.0 or above until it IS stable and more user friendly.
  • by obtuse ( 79208 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#10168553) Journal
    Uninstalling user-installed software? That's unforgivable. Too bad. I used to think Flash was annoying. I guess it's not just flash that sucks, but all of Macromedia.

    Here's a rule of thumb: How much can you afford to annoy your customers? That's exactly how much flash you want to inflict on visitors to your site.

    What proportion of people sit through a flash movie, versus the number who click "skip intro?" I've asked that question a lot, and never gotten an answer. Web developers aren't tracking it. They aren't about to point out that an expensive feature only drives customers away. Nobody is actually looking at those statistics. These irritating time wasters are just put up without any concern for whether they are an asset or a liability.

    Only a few people are so dumb that they are impressed with an online movie that they didn't choose to watch. "Ooh! Looky! Stuff on the screen is MOVING!" Maybe those people are the ideal targets for marketing.
  • by CamTarn ( 751785 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:36AM (#10168570) Homepage Journal
    Thing is ... in Mozilla, if I remember right, the option to change image looping to once-only *was* actually in the options dialogue. I think the Firefox designers took a policy decision that Mozilla's prefs dialogue was too crowded, so Firefox options would be limited to things which most users would regularly want to change.

    In one way it's a step in the right direction - Open Source projects are often criticised for having too many options without enough organisation. However, I prefer the approach of other projects - instead of removing the options altogether, have a switch you can use to show or hide 'advanced user' options, which novice users wouldn't need to use.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @10:56AM (#10168709) Homepage Journal
    I think we're all gettin our knickers in a twist. I read all the comments here, and your right in a way about beta software, but firefox is essentially feature rich and practically complete.

    Us geeks have been heralding Firefox as the second coming and telling everyone we can to download and use it. Your the first person I have seen that has actually put into words that maybe we shouldn't be saying this.

    To me, the version number is irrelivent, I will use any software and gladly recommend the stuff that does the required job.

    Firefox fulfills its job with flying colors, but such is life that nothing is absolutely perfect (my original config niggle).

    I would rather a novice used this almost finished piece of software than carry on polluting the web with an insecure browser.
  • by Mant ( 578427 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @11:06AM (#10168775) Homepage

    Getting way off topic here but...

    You never, ever use a racial slur, even just to repeat the words of others.

    You may never, but the rest of the world is generally aware of something called "context". If the poster was using it as an insult, it would be bad. They weren't though.

    Tell me, do you get offended when one black person calls another "nigger" not as an insult? Or even themselves? Or if someone repeated such a conversation to you? It is quite common for minority groups to take insulting terms and reclaim them.

    The poster could have used asterisks or put N-word, but it was horrible to use the word itself!

    Surely it is the concept of slavery and discrimination that is horrible, not the word in a context of a non-insult? If someone wrote "n****r", from context your brain is just going to subsitiute "nigger" anyway. Asteriks and euphamisms are pointless, either you completely obscure what you are trying to say, so why say it, or everyone know what you are saying, so why hide it?

    If you are really that easily offended (and not just trolling as I suspect) then I suggest you avoid Slashdot, and webforums in general, and definately stay clear of usenet.

  • Money back? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Etone ( 627948 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @12:03PM (#10169182)
    >> it has been something thats bugged me from day one.
    >So ask for your money back.

    Yeah, and since IE came to me free of charge too, I guess I can't complain about that either, huh?

    It's this kind of "the-software-was-free-so-love-it-or-else" attitude that impedes FOSS progress. Making something free doesn't make it bulletproof or impervious to critique.

    -E-
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @12:14PM (#10169266) Homepage Journal
    Leaving options in the about:config area is no better than using ini files years ago, its good that they are there, and now I know they are there I can have a look and change whatever I need.

    Whilst I am picking up on one single option that relates to the way I want to use it, there are likely 100s of other hidden options which could be useful to others. These same options won't effect 99% of users, and your right, you can't design a system expecting everyone to use every option.

    Actually discovering the about:config screen even existed was as much an eye opener as fixing my specific problem itself.

    I notice from other replies on this subject that the full mozilla suite includes these options, would it have been *that* difficult to leave an "Advanced options" button or tab on the firefox options screen? All it would do is fire up the about:config screen in a new window.
    This entire thread would have been totally redundent if it was there.

    I realise I may sound pretty condescending in my posts, and make no apologies for it, I am merely trying to be clearly understood in what I say.
  • by Shinglor ( 714132 ) <luke DOT shingles AT gmail DOT com> on Monday September 06, 2004 @12:41PM (#10169437)

    If you haven't made the switch to Mozilla Firefox it may be because you aren't aware of the great benefits Firefox has over IE

    Or because you use Opera, Safari, Mozilla, Konqueror, Camino or OmniWeb. IE and Firefox are not the only two browsers out there.

  • by drsquare ( 530038 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @12:58PM (#10169558)
    Seems to be a common pattern when advocating OSS software:

    "Don't use that shitty commercial software, use this superior OSS alternative!"
    "OK. Wait, it doesn't even have these simple fixtures..."
    "Well, it's not 1.0 yet, you shouldn't be using it!"

    Or:

    "Don't use that shitty commercial software, use this superior OSS alternative!"
    "OK. Wait, it's broken and buggy..."
    "You didn't pay anything for it so fix it yourself!"

    If software shouldn't be used by the masses then stop advocating it to the masses. If you're going to argue that Firefox is sub 1.0 and shouldn't be used, don't complain when sites are incompatible with it or when people at work force you to use IE instead.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 06, 2004 @01:05PM (#10169596)
    -1, Asshat
  • I like how I have everything set up in Firefox. All of my favorite extensions, rss feeds, booksmarks, etc. Is there an easy way to back this all up? I'd also like to configure a single install package that install all of the extensions I want. Possibly by saving the extension files in subfolders?
  • by darkwhite ( 139802 ) on Monday September 06, 2004 @03:21PM (#10170451)
    Hey smartass, not all HTTP traffic has to go over the web. Many HTTP servers and clients are perfectly mature enough to perform mission-critical tasks in non-embedded, human-interface applications over controlled networks.
  • Re:Tabs (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 06, 2004 @04:31PM (#10170938)
    Linkification looks ok, but I like the "Super Drag and Go" extension.

    If I want to browse a plain-text link, I highlight it and drag it (anywhere on the page) and it opens in a new tab.

    If I drag a regular link, same thing (I have middle-click set to open a link in background, but have dragging configured to open it in the foreground)

    If I drag an image, it downloads it.

    If I drag regular text, it does a google search on it... this last one especially is VERY useful. :D

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...