What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
130 Comments
- HaloZero, on 09/13/2008, -1/+79Dude, no integrated email client. Just use gmail damn't.
- StormyAaron, on 09/13/2008, -0/+65The problem is that they want Firefox and Chrome to be like IE, each other, Opera, the iPhone, and more. Basically making Chrome and Firefox clones of every other browser, in place of uniqueness, the omibar for example I quite like the search bar as it does not go blank after I open a new tab allowing me to search for something that I saw on one web page then put it in to the search bar, (Copy and past doesn't always work for me).
Though a code over-hall for Firefox and Firefox for mobile are not bad ideas. - DotNetWill, on 09/13/2008, -4/+66"Take Chrome's kernel," Chrome doesn't have a kernel it's app FFS. OSes have kernels not apps. I'm so tired of tech journalists not having an acutally clue about tech!
- scy1192, on 09/13/2008, -1/+50Summary:
Chrome: Copy and Paste Firefox's code
Firefox: Copy and Paste Opera's code - inactive, on 09/13/2008, -0/+37"5. Put Chrome in Android" - idiots, the Android browser is based on Webkit, just like Chrome.
- wisam, on 09/14/2008, -0/+31I stopped reading after "compatibility with Firefox add-ons in Chrome" and the call for themes.
Edit: It's getting even worse I as I read on. He wants Thunderbird with Firefox. Go get Seamonkey and leave the browser alone. - TripinVA, on 09/14/2008, -1/+29This whole article reeks of someone who doesn't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
E-mail built into Firefox? Um, hello, I'd like to introduce you to Mozilla, WHERE FIREFOX CAME FROM.
Chrome in android? Why? Webkit's already going to be in Android, trying to shove a Windows app into it for no good reason makes no sense.
I wanted to beat my head against a wall when it said "App Store." Who in hell would buy addons to their browser? It's a browser! You install apps on a computer or a phone, not inside a browser.
*deep breath* I need to go to my happy place... - Waskonator, on 09/13/2008, -1/+26YES. WE GET IT.
You learned how to copy+paste today.
I really am happy for you. Now, if you would kindly take your new found skill, and go back to 4chan where they dont care if you recycle the same ***** every thread, the world will be much happier with your existance. Well, rather indifferent actually.
***** - eatingcrow, on 09/14/2008, -0/+22I only want 1 thing from Firefox or Chrome. 90% market share so I can forget about having to hack around IE.
- pauls88, on 09/14/2008, -0/+1910 things YOU would like to see in Firefox and Chrome
- localcelebrity, on 09/14/2008, -0/+19these are almost all terrible suggestions that miss the points of both of these browsers and or / are redundant. I feel like the writer is way less informed than they act.
- apophenic, on 09/14/2008, -0/+18FTcomments:
>We want compatibility with Firefox add-ons in Chrome.
And I want a 747, my own island, and a pony, but guess what? It ain't happening! Google would have to implement XUL in Webkit, and then emulate/create various gecko-specific APIs.
>Code overhaul: We know, every application gets heavier
>with each revision, but Mozilla seriously needs to think
>about overhauling its base code.
Mozilla *is* overhauling it's code. Did you ever look at the changelog for gecko 1.9? Have you looked at the plans for Mozilla/Gecko 2.0?
>Take Chrome's kernel,
you mean the rendering engine?
>especially the memory and process management
taking just those might be harder than swapping Gecko for Webkit
>and make it oversee everything that's happening. Isolate
>each tab in its own process, protect tabs from affecting
>each other and assign UI high priority so that it's
>always responsive.
There are darn good reasons why Mozilla hasn't done this. A multiprocess browser is really, really hard to do right.
Please take the time to check Planet Mozilla, you will see some blog posts explaining why Mozilla has made the choices it has.
>2. Email client: Can we get a lightweight Thunderbird as
>part of the package?
Ok, I know this is hard but try to think back to the 1998-2002 era. Remember the Mozilla Suite? Firefox was created specifically to get away from a monolithic suite. Anyway, if you want a mail app to go with firefox, just install thunderbird. They integrate very well with each other. And if you want a monolithic app that much, use SeaMonkey. It is the original Mozilla Suite, renamed. SeaMonkey 1.1.x is the current stable release, and is based on Gecko 1.8.1 (FF 2). The SeaMonkey 2.0 pre-alpha is actually rather stable, and very usable (posting with it right now). When 2.0 is done it should be based on gecko 1.9.1 (FF 3.1), have very good FF extension compatibility (it has some compatibly now, eg noscript and adblock plus), and it should have the FF3 awesomebar.
>3. Omnibar:
SeaMonkey has it, FF may get it
>4. Firefox for mobile phones: Why is this taking so long?
Because programming is hard and all things Mozilla were not originally designed for constrained resources.
>5. Re-think tabs:
That kind of stuff belongs in extensions, until and unless it becomes overwhelmingly popular. - JohnnyQwest, on 09/13/2008, -3/+18How about the ability for Chrome to play videos? That would be an ideal situation right there. Is this happening to anyone else or just me?
- P373Y, on 09/13/2008, -0/+14https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/622 ...
- Runningflame570, on 09/14/2008, -1/+14I know that anything Firefox or Chrome gets Dugg but the article is *****. Their arguments more or less amount to make Firefox into Chrome and Chrome into Firefox. Oh and tack on extra things like an email client, nevermind the fact that fewer and fewer are finding a use for an actual email program.
Some are already in there like #3 for Firefox..it already IS a combination address/search bar you ***** moronic twits. - iofthestorm, on 09/14/2008, -2/+15Seriously, this list sucks but that one takes the prize for being the most useless. That defeats the whole purpose of Firefox and Thunderbird existing. If you want an email client built in use Seamonkey.
- konforce, on 09/14/2008, -0/+9What a stupid article written by somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about. Don't suggest that somebody "overhaul" their code if you aren't an excellent programmer with a detailed understanding of the codebase. And don't make claims like, "It cannot be that hard to do ______" when you couldn't even write a program that counts to ten.
Chrome doesn't need to be Firefox. Firefox doesn't need to be Opera. If there are going to be different browsers, then they might as well have different strengths and weaknesses. You cannot make a browser that is super duper fast and impossible to crash, but able to be extended by thousands of mediocre hackers and programmers. A browser that might be excellent on the desktop, may have no business running on a mobile phone. And so on. - ScottMcIntyre, on 09/13/2008, -0/+9I'm still waiting to try Chrome- I'm just coming to terms with the functionality of Firefox. Perhaps, I'll be convinced soon.
- iofthestorm, on 09/14/2008, -0/+9In fact, I have a feeling it is going to share a lot of features with Chrome. JS performance is much more significant on platforms with limited processing power, such as smartphones.
- alexgg, on 09/14/2008, -0/+8Firefox's add-ons rely heavily on Gecko. Chrome is built on Webkit. He's a total moron for even writing that. Really, he has no idea of what he is talking about.
- mjm65, on 09/14/2008, -0/+7It is not Chrome's fault, Adobe Flash sucks. Try reinstalling flash. I did that when i had the 2 second error and that fixed it.
- essjay, on 09/14/2008, -0/+6You absolutely hit the nail on the head. I love the way that the FireFox address bar works the way it does, it gives me confidence in knowing what's happening. The Google Chrome one does not. And if I want to search in FireFox, then it's command-k instead of command-l.
And please, don't take the misguided tab implementation from IE. - HonoredMule, on 09/14/2008, -0/+6Yes, and the streamlining is still an ongoing process which Mozilla is handling just fine. I don't get why they get ragged on so much over memory/cpu usage when they are steadily improving so much on both. Seriously, what reasonably possible rate of improvement would satisfy these people?
- Whaines, on 09/14/2008, -0/+5Dude, that would lock us in an infinite loop.
- RobotBuddha, on 09/13/2008, -0/+5I've heard a lot of complaints about it from other people. Oddly, youtube seems to work OK for me with chrome and I'm running it in virtualbox. No love for the video tag though.
- brieeyeball, on 09/14/2008, -0/+5Chrome does this already.
Just drag a tab away from the the tab bar and it becomes it's own window.
Drag a window into another windows tab bar and it becomes a tab within that window. - Whaines, on 09/14/2008, -0/+4unusable*
Sorry, that was painful to look at. - scy1192, on 09/13/2008, -1/+5link to old Digg: http://digg.com/technology
- MarkusX, on 09/13/2008, -0/+4Does the Adobe Flash Player work better in Chrome?
I'm a die hard Firefox fan, but the only thing that bother's me with firefox, is how bad the Adobe Flash Player plugin works in it.
I know everybody is just shifting he responsibility to somebody else. Many say that's Adobe's fault, the should programm better, other's say that it's a problem with Firefox (I'm still using FF2) being such a ressource hog, if used for a long time (which I have to admit is true).
I just have this problem, that many other's have: If Firefox runs for a long time and has accumulated a lot of RAM (300 MB or more is not unusual) than the Flash movies i.e. Youtube videos play for 2 seconds and then stall.
Does this work better in Chrome?
If not this should be added to the list to both browsers, seriously! - MarkusX, on 09/14/2008, -0/+4Only if Opera is also copy and Pasting Chrome's code. ;-))
- nads, on 09/14/2008, -0/+4How about a toolbar button for privacyincognito mode for the tab you're on rather than a whole new window loading up.
- Rally603, on 09/14/2008, -0/+4The player is often laggy or unresponsive entirely in Chrome, but that's something I attribute more to Adobe.
- Pr0v0st, on 09/14/2008, -0/+4You can turn on the home button in the options.
- WarpDigger1492, on 09/14/2008, -1/+5Personally,Chrome should just get more security and themes, and thats it.
Seriously, Chrome really is for doing internet browsing really quickly. We don't need to turn it into Firefox.
If we try to do that, it'll turn into Opera; very fast when it came out, then it was weighed down by all the add-ons etc.
Any self-respecting geek does not want Google spying on every single site you go on to... - rheaume, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3"Youtube videos play for 2 seconds and then stall."
heh, i thought it was my comp - rkiga, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3chrome seems to have some major problems with the flash plugin. i haven't used chrome with more than 12 or so tabs open, but the plugin takes constant CPU cycles so it can't be better.
going from FF2 to FF3 seemed to make it much WORSE. if i have too many tabs open, specifically ones with lots of flash objects, then YT only plays for 2 seconds. i updated my hosts file and cleared out any addons i didn't need and it seemed to help a lot. i still restart FF often, but i had 45 tabs open earlier today (now down to 6) and YT still played. ctrl-shift-delete to clear the history / cache / closed tabs seems to help a lot too. as bad as it may be, i think staying with FF2 is what i would do if i hadn't already changed. - Karmavs, on 09/14/2008, -1/+4One could say that, but it wouldn’t make that true.
Chrome isn’t handling the hardware; it isn’t even directly managing its processes. An operating system cannot require another operating system to run. - omjeremy, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3An "App Store" for Chrome is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Why must people always relate things to Apple? Look at Firefox. It has a place for addons. It's not called a freakin' app store. App Store implys that you'll have to buy something too. Anyone who buys something for their browser is a tool. The only browser worth buying is Opera Mobile, because nothing really compares to it on the WinCE platform.
- Whaines, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3I'd like to see you use the Awesome bar.
Everyone should like it. - pkcs11, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3I really hate the "Ten things we want to see in " articles. Particularly in beta products: typically they point out 10 obviously missing features or ask for 8 missing features/characters and demand 2 relatively unrealistic features/characters.
Often times the ten things were copy/pasted right from existing "Ten Things" articles.
*yawn* for this article - jedsmith, on 09/14/2008, -2/+5E-mail I sent to the managing editor of "TG Daily":
Hello,
I would like to address several factual problems in Christian Zibreg's article titled, "10 things we would like to see in Firefox and Chrome". I think it would be very wise to issue a correction or retraction on this article, as dozens of Digg readers have already begun to point these problems out.
I feel that the author of this article did very little factual research in preparing it, and made some demands of browser writers that cannot be met. It also displays an incredible lack of connection with the technical community on the part of the author, and instead sounds like imaginary daydreaming by someone not very grounded in software design. The best way to handle these is probably point-by-point:
CHROME:
(1) Browser add-ons, compatibility with Firefox add-ons in Chrome: this is impossible. The two browsers use a completely different model of interfacing with the host operating system, and extensions for Firefox will never work with Chrome. This is due to an early design decision by Google, and is very unlikely to change.
(2) Themes for Chrome: this will not happen either, as Google has said (even in their comic book outlining the release of the browser) that the focus is not on the browser, but on the content. "The browser should be transparent" is the philosophy behind Chrome's design, and they are not about to change that by allowing themes unless a serious design change is in order. Themes call attention to the user interface.
(3) App Store for Chrome: What would we buy?
(4) Security and privacy in Chrome: This is highly unnecessary, since tabs are sandboxed and not allowed to interact with the operating system. A problem in one tab is not going to affect anything else in the system, and Google has been quite clear that when malware is detected in Chrome the tab will display as a "sad tab" (which Mr. Zibreg requests here).
(5) Chrome and Android: Two separate projects. This is repeated over and over again by Google. Android has different goals than Chrome. This is where the factual inaccuracies begin to become quite obvious for the reader.
FIREFOX:
(1) Code overhaul: Agreed that the code base is large (has the author ever seen it?) but the majority lies in the rendering engine, Gecko, and things like XPCOM (which are overused). Deleting the codebase and starting over is not going to aid this, however, it's going to cause problems already solved to creep back in. Mozilla from the start has been resistant to rewrites...a large portion of Firefox is still Seamonkey.
(2) E-mail client built in: A debatable idea.
(3) Omnibar in Firefox: It exists already, in Firefox 3, and is called the Awesomebar. The Omnibar improves a little bit on the Awesomebar, but not by much. Type more than one word in the address bar in Firefox ALREADY and it will Google search for you.
(4) Firefox for iPhone and other mobile phones: Firefox is completely and unabashedly wrong for mobile devices unless they have the resources of a PC. This will likely never happen. As for the iPhone, Apple has repeatedly stated that alternative browsers will not be allowed on the App Store, leaving illegal jailbreaking the only alternative to running Firefox on the phone. Again, lack of factual research on the author's part -- Firefox on iPhone will never, ever happen.
(5) I will give him this one.
In summary, this is a very poor article, and demonstrates technical ignorance on the part of your publication. I feel like this should be corrected somewhat.
Thank you for your time,
Jed Smith
jed@jedsmith.org - pixmaker2, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3there is too many "10 things" on the internet. top ten this and that.
- cosmicr, on 09/14/2008, -1/+4*overhaul
- init100, on 09/14/2008, -0/+3"Not everyone likes it."
Those that dislike it are Luddites. - bioncinola, on 09/14/2008, -0/+2all ridiculous suggestions
all suggestions were just FLUFF
frankly -- just get a browser that has tabs, works blindingly fast and thats IT. nothing else needed. Oh and make sure it fits on a 1.44 meg floppy. DONE. - jgzman, on 09/14/2008, -1/+3It's something that (most of us) are seeing in Chrome and/or Firefox
- xavyre, on 09/14/2008, -0/+2The Firefox reasons all FAIL. Buried.
- moocow1452, on 09/14/2008, -1/+3Outside of Youtube, the player is sometimes inusible for flash streaming that Firefox has no problem with.
- po43292, on 09/14/2008, -2/+4I'm loving Chrome, no going back to FF or IE for me for now. And it's still Beta.
- stealthspc, on 09/14/2008, -0/+2We already had this topic earlier.
Repost = Burried -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is