Windows only
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Sep 13, 2010 6:35 PM EDT |
Sad to hear we - the Linux (and BSD?) users - are left in the cold again. IE9 comes with hardware acceleration, so now Mozilla has to come with HW-acc for Windows as well? Where are the times Mozilla was leading? Today, seems like they're following. You only have to follow arewefastyet.com to see. |
| caitlyn Sep 13, 2010 7:32 PM EDT |
@Hans: Last week we got the news that there won't be a 64-bit Linux release of Firefox 4.0. It seems Mozilla is following Adobe's lead in not supporting 64-bit Linux. Some distro developers have talked about compiling Firefox 4 from source to allow them continue offering it in their distro. More likely is that Firefox will be replaced by Chrome, Opera, Midori, Kazehakase, Epiphany, Konqueror, etc... as the primary browser in a lot of distributions. Firefox is already losing ground to Chrome in the browser wars. Linux and BSD users have been among the most fiercely loyal Firefox users. That will now change and that can't bode well for Mozilla. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 13, 2010 7:41 PM EDT |
I assumed that most if not all Linux distributions already compiled their own FF packages. |
| hkwint Sep 13, 2010 7:42 PM EDT |
Sad, because it's probably the best "open source" browser. Chromium isn't too bad either, except lacking some features compared to Chrome. Konqueror will probably become better now it's based on Webkit. For me, recent disappointments in both Firefox and Kontact make Opera an interesting all-in-one alternative. OK, I went from Opera to Firefox/Kontact because I rather use 'open source' software (even better, free software), but if Opera treats Linux like a first class citizen and Mozilla doesn't, well, then it's easy. |
| caitlyn Sep 13, 2010 7:46 PM EDT |
@Steven: Actually, many if not most simply package the Mozilla-provided binaries. That is a much easier way to do it, of course. @Hans: I am finding Midori (also based on webkit) to be more and more to my liking. |
| azerthoth Sep 13, 2010 10:16 PM EDT |
There is nothing that FF does that requires the extra registers anyway is there? |
| caitlyn Sep 13, 2010 11:17 PM EDT |
Perhaps not, but... not all 64 bit distros automatically include 32 bit libraries. |
| gus3 Sep 13, 2010 11:50 PM EDT |
Maybe Slackware64 will include a native build in -current. And maybe the Firefox people will get a clue before that time comes. |
| caitlyn Sep 14, 2010 12:24 AM EDT |
@gus3: Well, if it does (and one can only hope it does) then SalixOS will eventually have a 64-bit build as well. I think this isn't that big a deal in one respect: there are plenty of good alternative browsers out there right now. If Firefox leaves a void others will fill it nicely. |
| DrDubious Sep 14, 2010 11:52 AM EDT |
Mozilla seems to be treating Linux as a second-class citizen for a while now. Although the "no hardware acceleration on Linux" thing seems to be more or less untrue (i.e. there IS supposed to be hardware acceleration for Linux - I got the impression that Linux will have better hardware acceleration than the Mac version will, at least initially), Mozilla seems to be increasingly moving into the "Windows" world, with everything else more of an afterthought. I think this'll kill off the remaining momentum of innovation there. We (Linux users) may be a smaller population, but we're disproportionately likely to contribute in some way (actual development, bug-reporting, testing, etc.) vs. the more passive "consumer"-oriented populations. The pace of "innovative" releases has been slowing pretty badly lately (from what I can see, at least), and new releases seem to take longer and longer to get out. I'm getting pretty tired of the stalling I'm seeing on Linux firefox 3.6.x lately, and am getting tired of waiting for 4.0 (which I'm holding some hope will resolve the issue). Now that chromium seems to have functionality close to Firefox's adblock+, if I can find an equivalent to foxyproxy for it I may end up switching. |
| caitlyn Sep 14, 2010 1:55 PM EDT |
My main interest in Firefox is that it works seamlessly with tor and privoxy if I don't want to be identified or data mined somewhere. Yes, that slows down browsing, and no, I don't use it everywhere (i.e.: I don't use it with LXer.com) but I like having it available. If someone has a nice how-to for {browser X} + tor that works as well I'd love to see it. After all, Firefox still has the occasional random lock up that other browsers are blissfully not featuring. 3.6.9 seems to be better so far but I am not holding my breath. |
| caitlyn Sep 16, 2010 3:19 PM EDT |
In case you haven't heard yet there is a 64-bit Adobe Flash client beta for Linux again. So, as of right now, it appears that Mozilla is less Linux friendly than Adobe. |
| Koriel Sep 17, 2010 5:49 PM EDT |
I have a vested interest in Foxyproxy on Firefox as I created and sell this app called SelekTOR which can be found here http://www.caledoniacomputers.com/?page_id=63 (please note this is a blatant advert for my own app avoid if you don't like), the Linux version is free by the way if anyone is interested although it is not open source. It basically allows you to easily select Tor exit nodes and maintain a link to the best one in a user specified country, my main use of it in conjunction with Firefox and Foxyproxy is to circumvent location blocks on sites like BBC iplayer. I intend to integrate Privoxy ruleset support as soon as i get time as this should allow me to use Chrome without the need for Foxyproxy and Firefox and getting rid of Firefox from the equation is my current goal. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!