Firefox 3.5

[Goeroeboeroe]

Re: Firefox 3.5

My first thought about Arora was the opposite: nice, maybe I can start testing again. I stopped testing sites on Konqueror because there were so many problems with the standard, in combination with the small amount of users. If Arora is more standard compliant I'll certainly start testing again.

[undoIT]

Re: Firefox 3.5

My first thought about Arora was the opposite: nice, maybe I can start testing again. I stopped testing sites on Konqueror because there were so many problems with the standard, in combination with the small amount of users. If Arora is more standard compliant I'll certainly start testing again.

Yeah. Konqueror is good for FTP and that's about it imo.

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Just for fun:
http://ubuntumanual.org/comment/reply/197

[lmilano]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Yeah. Konqueror is good for FTP and that's about it imo.

I also like its fish:/ protocol a lot (browse a remote computer over secure shell)

[DanteAshton]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Talking about Firefox...what work, if any, is being used to intergrate it? I know there are addons to make it use Oxygen icons and to partially use the notification system...It'd be nice if it used the notificiation windows instead of a download window...

It'd also be really nice if the damn thing could communicate with KMail as well :/

[DeathKitten]

Re: Firefox 3.5

It'd also be really nice if the damn thing could communicate with KMail as well :/

A quick jaunt over to Google yielded many results, the first three I shall provide below. I haven't tried any of these myself, as I am a Gmail b*tch user, but if all three fail you, I will be a sad Panda.

http://www.ubuntugeek.com/howto-setu...for-kmail.html
http://opensource.weblogsinc.com/200...ox-with-kmail/
http://lists.kde.org/?t=110961589200001&r=1&w=2

[tomp01]

Re: Firefox 3.5

My first thought about Arora was the opposite: nice, maybe I can start testing again. I stopped testing sites on Konqueror because there were so many problems with the standard, in combination with the small amount of users. If Arora is more standard compliant I'll certainly start testing again.

I just downloaded and tested it against Acid Test 3, it got 100%

[lmilano]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Does Konqueror pass the Acid3, probably so. The issues is, perhaps, not as much about standards compliance, as it is about "real world robustness". It seems as Safari was exposed to a large userbase and got lots of fixes in webKit.

If arora can pickup mozilla plugins such as java and mostly flash seamlessly, it will be an excellent light browser. Firefox still gets the lead due to the extensions, which add lots of functionality on demand.

[tomp01]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Does Konqueror pass the Acid3, probably so. The issues is, perhaps, not as much about standards compliance, as it is about "real world robustness". It seems as Safari was exposed to a large userbase and got lots of fixes in webKit.

If arora can pickup mozilla plugins such as java and mostly flash seamlessly, it will be an excellent light browser. Firefox still gets the lead due to the extensions, which add lots of functionality on demand.

I couldn't agree more but I was intrigued so I thought I'd give it a try, Flash works as I tried it with YouTube.

[Fintan]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Try this and compare;
http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspide...sunspider.html

[Rog131]

Re: Firefox 3.5

About the Ubuntu Firefox

> Slashdot: Ubuntus-New-Firefox-Is-Watching-You

that the extension's other purposes were 'collecting the usage data' and 'generating revenue.' Since this extension installs by itself and offers no warning about potential privacy violations, quite a few people (myself included) feel pretty unhappy. The only way to opt out is to disable the extension manually via Tools > Add-ons."

More:

> bug 402767: multisearch CSE breaks l18n+setfocus+images+cached+I'm feeling lucky functionality and "violates user trust"

> New Firefox Add-on

[aged hippy]

Re: Firefox 3.5

Thank You for that, Rog.

It makes me glad i'm still using 3.0.9. 8)

I'm not going to 'pin' the version.... i'll nail the bugger.

[kjjjjshab]

Re: Firefox 3.5

...
It makes me glad i'm still using 3.0.9. 8)

I'm not going to 'pin' the version.... i'll nail the bugger.

FF is up to 3.0.13 on my standard repo install... no need to pin a 3.0.x version in JJ since FF doesn't update to 3.5 by default (that is my experience).

[dibl]

Re: Firefox 3.5

FF 3.5 is still in the Debian "experimental" repo, atm. Those who like to guess about such things are guessing that it is a month away from release to Sid. If that is true, then it will be FF 3.5 for the Karmic release in October.

I have installed 3.5 on both my sidux and my Kubuntu 9.10 systems -- it seems to work just fine on both systems. I'm going to remove the offending extension on Kubuntu, just because. That is a canonical add-on -- it doesn't exist on the basic FF 3.5 that is in the Debian repo, which is what I have on sidux.

The explanation for this experiment by Alexander Sack strikes me as eminently reasonable -- after all, what is Alpha software for, if not to learn how users will react to a changed feature?

[aged hippy]

Re: Firefox 3.5

... an update to my previous post, Firefox is 3.0.9 on Mepis 8, it's 3.0.13 here on Kubuntu Hardy.

8)