6905422
story
Comments: 252 +- Technology: Happy 5th Birthday To Firefox on Monday November 09, @11:12AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmozilla.gif); width:80px; height:64px;
mozilla
halfEvilTech writes "Five years ago today, Mozilla released Firefox 1.0. Ars celebrates the occasion by taking a trip back in time to revisit our classic coverage of the original release." For fun, we dug up the oldest Slashdot Firefox story, which was a Firebird story proclaiming yet another name change from Feb '04. At least this name change stuck.
Related Stories
Wake up and smell the coffee.
-- Ann Landers
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
A cake is in order (Score:5, Funny)
I think Microsoft should send them a cake to celebrate.
Re:A cake is in order (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:A cake is in order (Score:4, Insightful)
I was going to say something like, "thanks for beginning as a faster and better alternative but ending up just as bloated and crappy as we are" cake.
Parent
Re:A cake is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
A "Thanks for trying but we are still #1" cake?
More like "thanks for raising the bar and forcing us to improve". I have long argued that the role of OSS isn't necessarily to take over the world but to make it a better place by doing things better for free than most companies do for profit. (Sort of like the NDP party in Canada, they'll never run the country because every time they have a good idea the Liberals take it, implement it and claim it as their own.)
Parent
Re:A cake is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
More like "thanks for raising the bar and forcing us to improve".
This!
I remember in the days of Windows 3.1, it seemed like a big deal that you could change IP address on Linux without rebooting. Once a few thousand geeks realised there was nothing inherent about the PC platform that prevented things like this, and memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking etc., there was a strong market incentive for Windows to improve.
I don't think Windows would be as good as it is today if it weren't for competition from Linux. I'm sure MSIE would be far, far worse if it weren't for Firefox. (Yes, yes, OK, Opera. But for years Opera cost money.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember in the days of Windows 3.1, it seemed like a big deal that you could change IP address on Linux without rebooting.
I remember being in a meeting with a bunch of windows people... guys were talking about changing IP addresses on WfW.. not being familiar with Windows (but familiar with TCP/IP on Unix and Unix-like systems) I asked "why on earth do you need to reboot just to change an IP address?"... everybody in the room turned to look at me like I had grown an extra arm out of the top of my head.
I couldn't believe it when they told me that Windows needed a reboot for that. It *still* boggles my mind.
Re:A cake is in order (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh, I can tell you why Internet Explorer has any market share at all - because there's millions and millions of corporate PCs where it is too much trouble to get anything else installed. I end up using it on a regular basis for no particular other reason than it's there. Just like my #1 most used graphics application at work is MS Paint to crop screenshots, doesn't mean it competes with Photoshop or really anything at all, just that it works good enough you don't get anything else installed. Even corporate intranets are starting to figure out it's not 2001 anymore, but there's still not a big return on switching or offering multiple alternatives...
Parent
Re:A cake is in order (Score:4, Interesting)
FYI - If you're using Paint to crop photos, Paint.net is a free program that does much better resizing, cropping, saving in different formats, and a lot else (although the rest may not matter to you).
I don't do much with images besides crop and resize, but I still strongly prefer Paint.net to Paint.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there are mandates: Our internal corporate web site FORCES you to use IE for much of its content, for two reasons. Internally developed web apps are only tested on IE, because the beancounters won't give IT the budget to test and certify on anything else, nor will they give tech support even the meager extra money to handle the calls where they say to Firefox users, "What part of 'Only supported on IE' didn't you understand?". External apps (benefits, etc.) may or may not be supported on browsers oth
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A cake is in order (Score:4, Funny)
lol! elrous0 strikes again with his knowledge of yesteryear's pop culture references
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These comments remind me of this video (where Mac and PC get poisoned with a cake):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mg6wrYCT9Q [youtube.com]
Re:A cake is in order (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a trap! ;)
Honestly, I remember that one and thought it was nice of them. :)
They also did it again for Firefox 3.
http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/06/17/ie-sends-mozilla-a-new-cake-for-firefox-3/ [openbuddha.com]
Re:A cake is in order (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which piece of bloat would you remove first?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesomebar.
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Informative)
You can disable it entirely (the functionality not just the look) in FF3.5, so what exactly is your problem with me using it?
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:4, Interesting)
I spent a lot of time learning how to disable it as much as possible in firefox 3.0. It was a huge time-sink, and I still didn't succeed in disabling it entirely. So that in itself is a problem: there is functionality that a lot of people wanted to disable, and hated so much that they were willing to work hard to disable it, but they couldn't disable it. This reminds me of the situation with IE on Windows. A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.
Are you saying that as of firefox 3.5 it is now possible (which it wasn't in 3.0) to easily and completely disable the awesome bar? If so then (a) please tell me how to do it, and (b) the fact that it's such a well-kept secret how to remove it shows that there is a problem with loading this much bloat into the browser.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a) preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing
b) It's not a well-kept secret it's just some people prefer to bitch about stuff rather than bother looking
A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.
No i think people that remove IE from windows are idiots, if you don't like some functionality don't use it, removing it from the OS to save 100MB on a 7GB install is a waste of time.
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Informative)
Gecko's memory usage now is less than it was in the early 2000s in many cases. So this particular program is actually using less memory than it was in the early 2000s. Since just the shared libraries for it are bigger than 32MB (uncompressed, on some OSes, etc), it's hard to see how it could fit in 32MB of RAM...
If your question is why there are these big shared libraries, the answer is that it's trying to do too much. The SVG1.1 spec is about 800 pages last I checked. And this is not because it goes into excruciating detail or anything. The CSS2.1 spec is about 300 pages (and while it's better on the detail, it's not perfect). You just end up with a huge gob of code to handle all those behaviors the huge specs require.
How much memory do you think a web browser handling modern web standards should take up? How does that number stack up against existing web browsers?
There's also the data set. People think nothing of sending hundreds of kilobytes of JS per page to the browser (last I checked, cnn.com has upwards of 500KB of JS just linked directly from the page; who knows whether they load more?). People think nothing of sending large amounts of graphics, etc.
Which brings us to the last point: programs are bigger because they _can_ be. If you have to fit into 32MB of RAM, then you can't just decode a 3000px by 3000px image into memory (it's be 4 * 3000 * 3000 bytes, or 36MB). You do it piece by piece and forget the pieces after painting them, or something. You don't even cache decoded smaller images, since it's so easy for that to fill up memory. If you feel like you have more ram to work with, you might make the space/performance tradeoff of keeping the decoded image in memory instead of decoding on every paint...
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which piece of bloat would you remove first?
I am sure that many will say "the awesome bar". I don't. In fact, I use it so much that I think that I could now live without bookmarks.
YMMV, of course.
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:4, Informative)
1. Most of the Web needs JS now. Without it, you get a niche browser most people won't use.
2. An awful lot of FF is written in JS.
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe I'm making this point, but here goes...
As a web developer I actually appreciate the bloat. The average user does not have patience to look for extensions that fill in the core features that other browsers offer. Without the "bloat", those users would have likely stayed with IE, Microsoft would have no motivation to improve, and we'd likely be stuck developing for something much closer to IE6... ugh...
So for me, bloat is forgivable -- I'm just happy we're finally at a spot where web standards are taking hold. It's hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend they're losing so much ground.
Happy Birthday, Firefox =)
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of being a small, simple browser that just did one thing well; Firefox has become way too bloated and indeed the plans for the future seem to impart it with a ribbon-like interface and more nonsensical things. Doesn't sound too good for a nice well-loved product.
The original goal was to make a browser that was just a browser, not a suite of browsing, mail, newsgroups...
Firefox is still that. This is why the Thunderbird project was started, and is still going, for that matter.
It was intented to be a project that did a browser, and did a browser well. It wasn't about making minimalist barebones features everywhere. There are other browsers for even leaner feature sets.
Parent
Re:Original Firefox goals forgotten... (Score:5, Informative)
GP is confused due to this sort of news [pcpro.co.uk]. Parent is correct [mozilla.com] in that there will be no such interface.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Firefox has certainly got bigger over the years (though of course not bigger than its ancestor Mozilla), but it has also grown in the features it provides. If it had stayed at the minimal functional level it had at the earliest levels of its development, everybody would be whining that it doesn't offer enough features.
We can't have it both ways. If we want more features, then we have to accept that they will take more cod
Obligitory memory joke (Score:4, Funny)
5 years old? It's getting on a bit and I imagine its memory is starting to suffer a bit. You could almost go as far as to say that it's memory might start leaking soon.
cookies are delicious delicacies (Score:3, Interesting)
Been using it since one of the early Phoenix versions (0.4 probably) in late 2002. It has come a long way, certainly, though not everything is good, as everyone's posts about "bloat" show. Still, I much prefer it over any other browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was running Linux from 1995 on. No IE on Linux.
The addons deserve the real praise (Score:5, Insightful)
So bloated... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So bloated... (Score:5, Funny)
bad feature bloat
Emacs
You broke my sarcasm meter. Thanks.
Parent
...All together now! (Score:3, Funny)
Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes
Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes
Hippo Birdie, dear Firefox
Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes
No one else sang.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No one else sang.
Yet it still managed to be out of tune.
- RG>
Re:...All together now! (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't want to get fined $150k.
Parent
Comments about bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of all things, why should a *web browser* be a memory pig?
Because people want it to be. People want the browser to not only remember the browser history of 10 tabs 20-deep, but to cache it in RAM as well, so that the Forward and Back buttons feel responsive and the hard drive is not thrashing all the time. Since each of these pages has all the bloat of JavaScript, CSS or even Flash, it adds up. (And of course you can reconfigure Firefox to a small footprint if you want...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course... Here is from my home system — the two instances belong to my (very) significant other and myself:
...
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
4954 i 10 47 0 1798M 637M ucond 2 0:00 9.47% firefox-bi
48498 mi 11 45 0 1150M 810M ucond 3 0:00 13.09% firefox-bi
Three times more windows/tabs — or simply more visits to something "heavy" (like Google
5 Years (Score:5, Interesting)
NY Times Ad (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone using Lynx? (Score:5, Funny)
Just curious to know if I'm alone. As the web has gotten more bloated (not just firefox), I find I use lynx more for quick, routine checking of websites. And you can script it.
I like firefox a lot, but sometimes Lynx is better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why use lynx? Why not use something that renders a little more nicely, like elinks or w3m? There's even image support if you want it. There's also dillo, which is graphical, but still really fast as it doesn't support things like javascript. I can't think of any reason to use lynx anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this got modded "funny." A lot of my Linux interaction is command-line only, and elinks is a life-saver. On occasion, e.g. when the only documentation for a package is in HTML, the console-mode browser is almost indispensable.
5 years now? Seems longer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been using Firefox since Phoenix 0.5 (December 2002 iirc, almost seven years now) and I have to say, the community process and the extensions make Firefox what it is.
Yes, these days there's another open source browser on the block (Chrome) and it too is very good. But it's great to have Mozilla and Firefox around because you can be sure that Mozilla will look after users' interests far more than Google or Microsoft will. If nothing else, it keeps the others honest.
So congratulations Firefox, and here's to five more years!
When ever Firefox is mentioned on slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:When ever Firefox is mentioned on slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Microsoft's open source cake recipe just for Moz.. (Score:4, Funny)
One marthlow of flour
Two wigguns salt
Four bloggerts of sugar
1/10th bloggert salt
1/2 poind MS strychnine (add more for extra flavor)
Beat, stir, bake at 20 degrees (Microsoft degrees) for one MS minute
Dump honey on it for frosting.
Enjoy!
Parent