For example, they've disabled custom stylesheets in recent releases despite a clear indication that people were sharing themes, they have very old bugs that don't get resolved (like the stupid white flashes on dark themes), major accessibility issues.
Generally they try to appeal and prioritize regular users (which is fine) but go out of their way to make decisions that ignore power users and not even provide alternatives intentionally.
Finally and the most frustrating part is they don't value feedback. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/ is a joke and a waste of time. The most starred issues are often closed to the public when it reaches a certain level and users are asked to submit a new bug again if the old one is not fixed. This means that if there is still a bug, you have to wait months before other users experience it, find the time to search for the bug and star it, reach enough stars to get attention and then get a response. Bugs are often miscategorized and the wrong team has it in its backlog. It's a mess.
There isn't a feature in Chromium or Google Chrome that Firefox doesn't deliver.
Take it from a serious chrome user and extension developer for several years, switch to Firefox if you want to tweak anything that bothers you easily without having to change the damn source code.
Multi-process browsing. It is incredibly annoying when my entire browser locks up because one of the fifty tabs I have open is doing something stupid. That never happened in several years of using Chrome, and it happens several times a day in Firefox.
I have to re-start Firefox every 48 hours or else its resource consumption starts affecting the overall system. This is my primary issue with current Firefox versions, although I am aware that I'm an n-sigma outlier.
Intrestingly, however, the Firefox team has been greatly improving memory management, so that currently, even with my completely pathological browser session, Firefox remains usable for 48 hours with 900 tabs open.
Additionally, the history-tracking of the browser is good enough and my google-fu sufficient so I can find anything I need that I've previously visited.
Keeping my tabs lean makes me much happier!
Then once the browser is restarted it only loads the tabs you actually click on. A kind of tab lazy loading. I wish Chrome had that feature.
The Page Alarm/Tab Snooze extensions are also good for snoozing tabs for say a month until you need them again http://superuser.com/a/533498/7018
I'm sure you've tried them with your browsing habits, but just to make sure.
You can track the E10s team's progress through their weekly meeting notes:
Overall, a crash is not really that dramatic. The browser restarts, all tabs are still there and only load if you click them, you can use Lazarus to auto-save all form inputs and not lose a single point of data and it resumes at the exact position in seconds (no need to scroll either).
Just add NoScript and block the sites where developers can't write decent JS.
>> it happens several times a day in Firefox
If it happens frequently regardless of the sites you're visiting then it must be extensions or hardware acceleration or plugins. i.e a configuration problem and not a FF one
That's true, but with like 8-or-so cores I don't really care or even notice that much (if I notice some tab is eating a lot of CPU power, I just go into the task-manager and kill it, until I need it, at which point I reload it.) No disruption to my browsing experience happens. In firefox, I'll have to close the tab, possibly restart the browser, et cetera.
> The browser restarts, all tabs are still there and only load if you click them
I haven't really used firefox for a while now, but it used to lose tabs occasionally for me. I hope that's fixed nowadays.
Doing one process per tab, which is what Chrome does, comes at a very steep cost in increased memory usage. If you compare a Chrome and Firefox instance holding 20 or 30 tabs, the memory consumption is going to be dramatically different.
Bill McCloskey did a nice writeup on this back in December: http://billmccloskey.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/multiprocess-f...
His article explains how you can try out the experimental multi-process support in Firefox, but that it works differently to Chrome's. I think Chrome's way of doing it wastes a lot of system resources and that we need to be more clever about how we spend a user's system resources.
The Stylish extension works fine for me http://userstyles.org/
In chrome, because of the limitations of the extensions API, it doesn't cover chrome pages, developer tools or source view. If you pick a dark background in Stylish and visit a site with a white background, you will see flashes of light because the extension takes over after the document was created and chrome stylesheet was applied.
Check out http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1373 for more details
At least in my experience.
Applescript support. This prevents me from using Firefox.
tell application "Firefox"
set pb to the clipboard
tell application "System Events"
keystroke "l" using command down
keystroke "c" using command down
set page_url to the clipboard
set the clipboard to pb
It's a bit of a hassle, but for simple things like 'get url of current tab', 'open new tab', 'switch to tab x', etc, it's reasonably simple and can be scripted.
On this ubuntu machine, "the ability to have a bunch of tabs displaying pdfs open at once" is a really big selling point for chrome.
But it's never felt very good on the Mac to me, and it still doesn't. Here's a few early thoughts on this release, from the perspective of a happy Safari user, w/ a pretty (nit-)picky eye.
* Separate address and search bars is old-fashioned. As a user, I don't want to have to make this distinction, and it's hard to imagine most users-on-street wouldn't find this confusing
* The address bar is square edged while the search bar is round edged, which is displeasingly visually. (I realize this is because there's a convention of "search bars are rounded," but the inconsistency remains.)
* Tapping the hamburger menu on the far right, it appears with a combined drop-and-fade-in effect, and then disappears instantly.
This is jarring on the Mac, because it is exactly the opposite of native menu behavior, which is to appear instantly, and disappear with a fade. (I also believe the native behavior makes more sense: when you're tapping a menu, you want to do something, so you don't want to be slowed down by an animation -- just show the menu.)
(Addition of a hamburger bar on the far right at all is suspicious; often it's a UI "dumping ground")
* The "what's new" slideshow that appears at the bottom of the screen has to be controlled by clicking small <- or -> arrows, instead of just scrolling, which feels very outmoded
* The scroller applies a fade effect to incoming content, but only to the text, not the image, which is jarring.
* Multi-touch swipe to go back/forward shows no feedback! (Safari does this best, where the whole page slides away, revealing what's underneath; Chrome does a half-assed thing with arrows fading in, which isn't nearly as nice, but at least better than no feedback.)
Pretty nitpicky, I know, but I recently read an article trumpeting this release of Firefox's incredible attention to detail.
On the Mac at least, I think it still falls short.
As a user, I want separate edit bars for separate functions. I don't want Google know everything I type (or mistype) in the address bar. When I type foobar in the address bar please give me anything that returned the web server at foobar or give me an error if there is no foobar or the foobar have no web server. If I want to search foobar then I will type it in the search bar by myself.
Reconfirmed this for my Google accounts and in fact it is not storing search history. Ofcourse Google may be tracking it on their end, but I assume very few services don't track, so that's a non-issue (at least for me).
For anyone who wants to check, the url is:
...or at least it's that they claim.
EDIT: "they" being Google. http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-...
I know that they are supposed not to misuse this information, but I would feel much better if they didn't receive it at all.
I also use ctrl-L and ctrl-K for navigating and searching, respectively, and I've found the way Chrome handles ctrl-K by focusing on the navigation bar and filling it with a '?' lacking. For instance, it clears my last query, where I often refine queries after quickly inspecting the results I got first time around. The requirement of having a '?' in front of search queries is also annoying, since it hinders a lot of keyboard shortcuts. Most notably, if I change my mind, Ctrl-A doesn't allow me to restart typing a query without manually inserting the '?' again.
I've taken to changing my Chrome search engine to "https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&complete=0", which does disable the autocomplete behavior, but also appears to give a slightly older version of the search page.
Obviously the proper next step would be to switch to DuckDuckGo.
What's so complicated?
My final point, letting users decide would be the best option here, and Firefox did exactly this! I managed to reconfigure it into a single address-bar working as search bar too, except search engine auto-completion.
In regards to the whole tinfoil hat comments about Google knowing everything you type, well I hate to burst your bubble but they probably already know everything about you, including but not limited too your inability to spell duck right.
I can't remember the last time I used Firefox intentionally. Chrome replaced it long ago.
As a web dev, I find myself more annoyed at the anomalies of Gecko everyday. I fix more Gecko related bugs than IE11 bugs, and that just feels wrong.
I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, but I have to say based on recent experience that if it wasn't for Chrome, I'd be using IE11 on a PC and Safari on a Mac. Firefox just feels too kludgy every time I use it.
Gecko and Trident are very good in comparison. Google needs a better QA process, especially after forking Webkit.
The only thing that bothers me with Firefox beside some UI is the single process model.
Exactly how I like it, I HATE getting search results when I make a type-o, or try to go to an internal site and forget to specify http://
I use this all the time, small thing but it's awesome! I'm pretty sure it exists in other browsers as well though.
ctrl(cmd)+l to focus omnibar, alt(shift)+enter to open results in a new tab
Turns the address bar into an ACTUAL address bar.
(Hope I didn't forget any.)
See answer 1, manually set your DNS server in wifi Advances page.
Like the chap above your comment, I absolutely despise having the Firefox differentiation because my habit is to click the address bar and then depending on whether I have realised the mistake before/after hitting enter it's: (1) "S&%^ I have clicked the wrong one, <tab>" (2) "FFS I didn't want http://byron burger locations"
unless you make more gTLD typos than your search queries, the mechanism works great.
Use the customizer. People complain when they change and complain when they don't
> The address bar is square edged while the search bar is round edged, which is displeasingly visually. (I realize this is because there's a convention of "search bars are rounded," but the inconsistency remains.)
Maybe this is just the Mac version. On Linux they both have about a 3px border radius.
>Tapping the hamburger menu on the far right, it appears with a combined drop-and-fade-in effect, and then disappears instantly.
Sounds like a bug, not happening on linux though.
>The scroller applies a fade effect to incoming content, but only to the text, not the image, which is jarring.
Is this only on the slide show or something? That's not really much to complain about. I see web pages with different designs all over the internet.
I have multi touch swipe set up for other things, but that sounds like something that needs work.
> Use the customizer.
Most users-on-street don't want to customise either.
Edit: The moderation on this is baffling. Does anyone genuinely believe users want to customise to achieve reasonable defaults?
HN should ban new users from moderating for a year.
Most users on the street aren't on the hacker news forum. Also if you are going to play the "most users on the street" game, then most users on the street aren't going to install a browser that didn't come with the OS.
I don't think anyone said they were.
> then most users on the street aren't going to install a browser that didn't come with the OS.
That's true. So it's even more important to retain them by having sensible defaults.
Not really. What is wrong with having a product that caters to a power user, or a niche group? Why does everything have to be dumbed-down for the "user on the street"? If you want dumbed-down then use the browser that came with your OS. If want something that isn't dumbed-down then you most likely have the know-how to customize your toolbar.
Firefox is a browser for everyone. It focuses on freedom and privacy. The browser that came with your OS most likely does not. There is no minimum level of technical expertise required. The UX is designed to be simple.
Agreed, but nobody in the thread is debating whether people know to customise a tool bar in a web browser.
The only thing that has been questioned is whether most people want to customise a browser to achieve defaults they find reasonable.
What's sensible about mixing three things (location, history and internet-search) into one location?
In Chrome I can't find anything in my history because the browser starts searching the internet instead. It's a horribly frustrating user-experience.
Which you cannot even customize. In Firefox you can customize the behaviour. I know which browser I prefer.
You actually need quite a bit of karma (maybe 500?) on Hacker News before you can downvote things, so anybody downvoting you can't be that new of a user.
IME, you can earn a lot of karma quickly with links. I'd say 1/3 of my karma came from links, and initially that's what pushed me over the top. So they're most likely not new users, but anyone with a month of submissions could have crossed that threshold. It makes me wonder if the two karmas, and the features that get enabled, should be separate things.
- the documentation and character support issues can be 'bugs'
- defaults that fit most users are good
- reminding someone being personal of the HN guidelines
...get moderated up, then down to -3 or -4, then back up to 1 again.
Noticing the folk in the conversation there's lots of newish accounts, and some are replying before they've actually read what they're replying to. Downmods for 'I disagree' are more popular now as well.
I'm just responding to a comment saying 'customise it'. if the simplicity argument is true, then 'customise it' is not an appropriate suggestion.
The simplicity argument, of course, could not be true, since simplicity may threaten safety in this particular implementation.
Since we're talking about one person's preference rather than the results of a user study, that hardly seems relevant.
They might find your position unreasonable, and your absolutism not contributing to the discussion.
It's absolutely not given that Chrome's behaviour is the "reasonable" default.
I can't imagine that most users-on-street would want or benefit from separate address and search fields either.
> Separate address and search bars is old-fashioned.
> As a user, I don't want to have to make this
> distinction, and it's hard to imagine most
> users-on-street wouldn't find this confusing
As you type into the search bar, autocomplete queries are sent to the search provider. This happens even if your intention was not to search, but just to enter URL manually.
In simpler terms: you are telling Google what sites you are visiting even when you don't use Google.
(AndrewDucker mentions this on this thread too, but his comment emphasises the UI aspect, whereas I think the privacy aspect needs to be stressed).
I have around 30 set up, from Wikipedia (w) to Google Image Search (gis), etc.
As power users, we tend to ignore the power of default settings. Their values have to be chosen carefully because only a small part of the public are even aware of them.
Several commenters here seem to imply that they shouldn't be the ones personalising their browsers. Turns out it's the other way around: they are the ones who know how to personalise it, whereas defaults should be about users who don't know how to do it.
Given the new gTLDs, I'm thankful that Firefox still has a separate search box. Say I'm want to know about the "asdfg.cat" file that showed up on my system. If I put that into the URL bar and hit enter, it's going to say "Oh, I know what .cat is, it's the TLD for Catalan related websites. Let's go to asdfg.cat!"
Same goes for things like "mail.app", which had conventionally referred to Apple's mail client on OS X. I have no idea if they'll end up owning that domain or if someone else will. And either way, I didn't want to end up on the web site if I was trying to search for it.
Mainly I don't like that it buries the fact that searching is a separate action and that you can pick what you're doing. And I think it's even more of a problem for inexperienced users, because to them the program is saying "Doing this action will randomly either search or go to some webpage, and you don't understand which will happen."
I also like keeping the search provider dropdown. It calls attention to the fact that you don't have to use google (and I don't). Google obviously has motives to prefer burying this in right click, but I think it fits Mozilla's agenda to leave it as a very visible setting.
i never use ? or quotes, because in 99.9% cases the search is very different from an address, and it's easy to tell which is being proposed. I also love having search recommendation for 5% searches where i am not sure of exact wording.
and yes, it's more of a power user feature, which is why i like it.
I use the address bar primarily (in FF) but the search bar is useful as a "scratch pad" for storing details I want to see briefly. It's certainly an edge case.
Chrome is almost unusable for me because I can no longer type the names of internal websites and have them come up. That single change in its behavior drives me back to Firefox.
Even fewer keystrokes.
If you type in the search bar then it automcompletes by sending all of your keystrokes to your search provider. If you type in the address bar then it autocompletes by using your history.
These are two very different use cases, and I appreciate the ability to search my history without notifying google of the name of internal servers.
The big reason I really like this is that the address bar is local to the tab, and the search box is window. If you have a topic you want to dive into on another tab, you can safely transcribe information from multiple current tabs and then create a new tab with the search. Especially when some of the information is in the current url.
Customize: rip it out, install foobar(1) addon and/or use search keywords for search engines
This is how it works on ChromeOS too. It even has a nice black and white effect on the previous page until it's fully loaded.
umm... I don't know if this works on mac too, but at least in the windows Firefox, you actually CAN use the address bar as a search bar. So why two bars? well the search bar also lets you CHOOSE your search engine, unlike Chrome which hardwires you to google. Yes yes, you might say but why would i want to search anywhere else? Well just like you hate having to actually GO to google to search on google, people hate going to wikipedia or wolfram alpha or ask.com etc etc before searching there. So it lets them query their engine of choice right from the bar. Oh and depending on your version, the address bar automatically searches on the engine selected in the search bar.
Now since you are a fairly old user of FF, i don't really understand the need to tell you all this, ut i just felt your nitpick about the searchbar saw this "feature" as a "design flaw"
If you need to access it, command-k is your friend.
1. The rounded tabs are simply ugly, and remind me of web design from a decade ago. It's also weird how they go from square to round on rollover. Poor design choice in my opinion.
2. It's far more difficult to find the active tab now. For comparison, the old style (http://static.filehorse.com/screenshots/browsers-and-plugins...). In the new version, I have to scan the toolbar to find the active tab based on the rounded or square edges. It's a lot easier the old way to find a bright active tab on darker, faded out inactive tabs. That's UX 101. It doesn't stop there, the entire toolbar, tabs, search, etc, blends together in a blob of light grey and white right now. Very little distinction between anything.
3. I never liked the orange Firefox button in the top left, it always seemed out of place and forced. Replacing it with an icon and menu is fine, but that icon should be on the left, before the first tab. The menu opening to a grid of icons is also awful. How it transitions to the right when you click something like 'History' is extremely bizarre. I have no idea why they tried to reinvent the wheel here, a typical list menu that everyone is familiar with would work best. That's great you can customize it, but 9/10 people will never use that feature, so it's a step backwards for them.
Overall, I see it as a change for the worse. It's not rocket science here, and nailing down a proper browser interface should be a walk in the park. We're talking about some tabs and a toolbar, there's no excuse for it to be anything but perfect after more than a decade. I'm 100% confident I could knock out a better design, that would be better received by people in a weekend. They have some nice features and design choices, but they got it 90% there, and keep tripping over polishing the remaining 10%.
Edit: Fixed typo as pointed below. :D Thanks for nitpicking the nitpicking. :)
I think it worked out for the best -- Firefox is an excellent name and brand. It's hard now to imagine it being something else!
Either that or you have an addon installed that is using a huge amount of memory.
Even on startup it isn't that better compared to chrome.
Chrome 11 extensions 1 tab: ~300MB
FF 2 extensions 1 tab: ~200MB
It's not FF 29, it's 28 - but I doubt the memory management improved much in 29.
But to be fair, it's a lot better now than it used to be.
But FF is definitely uses more memory than chrome and with few other resource hungry applications running it becomes practically unusable on my low end laptop.
On my 512MB Raspberry Pi, this used to be FF's greatest strenth. Unfortunately the latest versions are getting nearly as bad as chrome. I wish Mozilla would focus on their strengths and put more resources back into their memshrink project.
When Chrome started to get fat, it was great to have a lightweight alternative like Firefox. But lately even Firefox has been causing my 1GB netbook to thrash. I hate to have to junk a perfectly good machine that is only used for email and browsing just because of software bloat. After doing a factory restore, it looks like that or a lightweight Linux distro(while losing flash and HW accel) are my only options.
There are many memory usage improvements made in firefox that don't appear explicitly in the areweslimyet tests, and there are many others, like better memory usage reporting accuracy and new features that do, thus the apparent increase in memory usage throughout the latest versions that you pointed.
Monopoly? Before Firefox/Firebird there was Netscape Navigator, which was to be the "Mosaic killer" (hence "Mozilla").
IE was never the only browser around, even on Windows.
What you're missing is that many, many sites were only developed for IE, and only worked at all in IE. No, not "graceful degradation," not "progressive enhancement," that all came a decade later: if you were not using IE, the sites were very broken, even unusable - and nobody cared: after all, Just Use IE Like All The Normal People Do, right?
This bug makes Firefox useless to me and has been around for over 5 years!
This is the third one I'm aware of that is a basic usability thing. Others include a complete failure to browse to sites that present a duplicate SSL certificate, and an odd breakage that results in downloads getting half completed but the UI saying they're complete anyways.
But the default has to be to show the search bar because of contracts they have with search partners, I believe.
As I write this, the story is about one hour old, there are 118 other comments and the top voted comment - the top voted comment - is criticism by someone who doesn't use Firefox. The comment is totally without technical analysis of why Firefox does what it does nor does it mention anything that FireFox gets right. The only positive thing the author says involves dragging out some tired anti-microsoft trope.
That's the problem when stories have this sort of velocity. The quality of comments goes down to the point where "It doesn't try to be an Apple product" is what collects the most upvotes. It's little more than trolling for defenses of FireFox and Safari fan upvotes.
Why are you messing with everything, Mozilla? Why are you breaking the UI metaphor? With the tabs on the top, all the elements under it are made to appear a part of that tab. There's no reason that I can see for the tabs to be on top. It doesn't look pretty, it takes extra pixels to render the smooth curve where the tab meets the next bar. Even if I'm insane and it's the same width, it still looks awful.
I've got five HD screens, and everyone is taking the tablet friendly, ergonomic approach. I want consistency. Please stop breaking everything. You're the last good browser, Firefox. Don't ruin it.
Please bring back: tabs on bottom, the permanent forward button, the refresh button, the bottom bar anchor, and the separate back button.
BTW, the refresh button is in the 'menu config', you can drag it to the old place. The stop button and other 'classic' buttons are gone. Meaningless 'browser.tabs.onTop' prepares you for your transition to Chrome.
FF is so frustrating and disappointing. I'm not angry, just sad.
I don't remember any change in the UI in the last two years that was not copying what Chrome does.
So "improve" may be right, but hardly "reinvent".
I was thinking for a second the whole UI might get a shake up, or rather, there would be innovative useful functions, that would set the browser apart.
The bookmark and history managers are still pretty aweful. Some of the UI has been polished, but certainly not all.
The refresh button irritates me, because for some reason it feels smaller.
I feel the whole tab placement is a little moot, as it should follow the OSs style. Quite why we haven't good tab management/redesign/overhaul in modern window managers/desktops yet is beyond me.
Personally I'd rather a tool menu. And a location/search bar, a bookmark manager, and a browser pane. All pretty much separate.
Text input would be a nice centralised overlay/popup as and when needed, which I could make huge or small. In other words help with web forms. Android's Chrome browser kind of does that. In opera I used to be able to float the address bar, but it lost it's 'awesome' qualities - autocomplete etc.
It's OS/UX territory, why reinvent controls and the way we interact with each application? The overall UX ends up feeling like a right hodge-podge.
But to be fair, with Australis, the whole "widgets" thing is new, and I really like how Firefox and add-ons can both use it in the same way.
Thank you! This has been driving me crazy. I like my toolbar controls to look like:
back | forward | home | stop | refresh
Yes I know all of the keyboard shortcuts, but I still like to mouse around when applicable and don't want to have to use precision to focus on 1 tiny 8 pixel refresh button on my 28" monitor.
Forward button appears after you click the back button. It is only shown when it could be used.
This and many other improvements reduce visual noise based on analysis of how frequently people used different pieces of browser chrome.
The Start menu seems to overlap any maximized application when small icons are enabled, but I guess that's slightly worse without the status bar.
You can re-add the title bar permanently by going to Customize and clicking Title Bar in the bottom left corner.
The main reason why I use Status-4-Evar is because when I hover over a link I don't want that link to pop-over the page content, which is what Chrome did first, then Firefox copied like sheep. It's distracting, like a tiny little pop-over in the corner of your eye.
I like having URLs show in a status bar separate to the main web window. It's out of the way, and I just like having my web browser framed by an interface. Is that so wrong?
What's so bad about a status bar? Why is there this idea that everyone wants the full screen web?
First Mozilla forces their CEO to resign, now they're being the soup nazi over the status bar which has been with browsers since day one of web browsers. You call that progress? I call it chopping down an old tree that nobody wanted chopped down.
EDIT: Found this to restore just the addon bar: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/the-addon-bar...
Yet another feature copied from Opera....
Get this addon:
Activate the "Bottombar Toolbar" by right clicking somewhere on the top space where the bars are.
Now you have a small bar down there. Open the new funky customization menue and drag the "Statustext"-Element down there.
The only problem is that you'll find your Start-Button above the text...
Somehow I find myself installing even more Add-Ons with every major UI "improvisation" to keep a useful UI. I wish it would be the other way around where you got standard and customized from there.
I spent several hours debugging this. Chiefly the culprit turned out to be "Default Full Zoom Level" extension.
However, during the debugging process, I did a binary search through prefs.js looking for the problem. If I removed this line:
Classic Theme Restorer probably wasn't the problem. Probably the problem only showed up because that was the first restart post-upgrade (to enable the extension).
The status bar IMO should have more things e.g. download status, but the browsers chose not go to that direction. OK, then remove the statusbar and put the link-direction in the location bar instead during the hover.
From my perspective, Firefox is working hard to drive me away, by removing its distinguishing features that make it different from Chrome.
I can't say I agree with all of their choices, but I'm running 29 right now and I don't feel like any functionality or customizability is lost from the last version. If you're not looking for the defaults you can change pretty much everything you want with a few add-ons and about 10 minutes or so of configuration.
If I were to maximize Sublime on Windows, Linux, or OS X (green button), you still have the chrome from the windowing system and the OS's menu bars.
Also, the parent comment makes no claim Apple invented anything, he/she is just drawing a comparison people would be familiar with. Frankly, it's more than a little annoying to me that you have to distract from the topic to make completely non-constructive dig at a company you seem to dislike and completely miss the point of the comparison in doing so.
Why did Apple make a Full Screen feature in their operating system? Minimalism and simplicity.
Why does Firefox have a fullscreen option? Because most browsers had that option and it's a useful feature once in a while. Not a compelling reference.
They had them well before full screen on OS X became a "thing".
Your reply misses the point that the original comparison was flawed. It was like saying "A bit like why Apple added ASLR" or "A bit like why Apple added CUPS". They invented neither and were first to market with neither.
I don't use sublime, but on Linux (Ubuntu GNOME) when you full screen an app the window decorations are hidden and so are the status/window menus.
Edit: before you downvote, please explain why??
Ubuntu "Fullscreen": http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EnulBlkjTEM/Tzo7Fo3l3uI/AAAAAAAAHw...
OS X Fullscreen: http://www3.pcmag.com/media/images/237835-iphoto-11-albums-i...
Is this built in to the stock ubuntu releases? If so, what version?
I'm using Firefox with the borders set off right now. This gives me a window with no external chrome (no border, no titlebar, no buttons, no scroll area) but set with the standard KDE application bar (which I keep at the bottom a la Win95).
Indeed before Firefox ditched the menubar I used an app to get the same effect pinching a lot of real-estate back (titlebar, menubar, buttonbar). It's interesting that things have moved this way, though not surprising.
Not sure about the Unity interface as I have limited experience with it.
Yes, if you maximize. However if you go fullscreen (F11) the chrome disappears.
But yeah, apple is far away from having invented it
I wonder why you can't just add new blank bars, at either the top or bottom, to fill up to your heart's content with that same Customize mode. That would undo most of the need for things like Status-4-Evar.
This hasn't changed in version 29, by the way. 'Customize' in version 28 also let you juggle controls around any of the menu, navigation, bookmarks or add-on bars pretty generically. In fact, for all the fanfare about how revolutionary a change this new UI is, the only real functional difference in it I can see between 28 and 29 is the removal of the add-on bar, ie. the only one of the bars whose fixed position happened to be at the bottom, rather than the top.
(Of course I don't really believe that this release is specifically intended to troll people who like having some controls at the bottom of their screen, but I must admit that if you did want to do that, then this would be a good way to do it. I'm sticking with 28 until Status-4-Evar catches up. Also thanks for the suggestion of the "Addon Bar" extension elsewhere in the thread, seen and noted.)
I know there's a use case for using seperate windows to group tabs by topic, but I don't like having that organization forced on me.
Also, I don't use a tiling window manager, but they tend to have their own ways of dealing with large numbers of windows, I hear.
(Or admit that the notification that the author is not verified is meaningless)
edit: Also, on my install, the version there makes Firefox 29 lock up when I click on options. But my profile is pretty ancient.
About bloody time. Does anyone know why that wasn't the case from the get-go?
Between having to write thread-safe code and custom JS exposure, the overhead could be significant. This has now been greatly improved through the use of automatically generated WebIDL bindings, although C++ is still used and threading issues do have to be dealt with (usually by remoting a runnable to the main thread), so worker versions of an API still aren't free.
New Web APIs implemented by the platform team should usually be designed from the ground-up for worker exposure and have worker support land soon-after or at the same time as the main-thread support. Experimental APIs related to Firefox OS and developed by Firefox OS Gaia teams are more likely to be prototypes implemented in JS for rapid prototyping and will need another rev before they can be exposed to workers. This last bit frequently happens as part of an effort to standardize the API informed by the prototype.
Links for context:
We ended up writing a goofy little console.log() replacement that sent messages back to the main UI thread for processing and logging, but that kind of thunking is a might-bit janky.
On a related note, transferable objects are handled a bit differently between IE, FF, and Chrome. Some are a bit stricter than others.