Firefox 2.0 [Archive] - Ubuntu Forums

ejos

June 6th, 2006, 07:46 PM

zachtib

June 6th, 2006, 07:49 PM

It's supposed to be out late Q2/early Q3 2006. That would probably be too far into the cycle to be added into an Ubuntu release. But, this is Edgy we're talking about so I'm almost sure it'll be in there.

yeah, there's no way they're going to release a distro with a flagship program like FF a major version # behind.

my guess is the edgy repos will open up with Firefox 2.0 Alphas, in order to hammer out problems with FF2.

ejos

June 6th, 2006, 08:10 PM

That's exactly what I was thinking. The alphas aren't even that bad either.

asjdfwejqrfjcvm msz34rq33

June 6th, 2006, 09:26 PM

But Breezy didn't have Firefox 1.5 even though Firefox was released a while before Breezy.

zachtib

June 6th, 2006, 09:34 PM

really? i thought 1.5 came out after breezy?

still, with edgy being the bleeding edge ubuntu, id expect ff2

ejos

June 6th, 2006, 09:36 PM

But Breezy didn't have Firefox 1.5 even though Firefox was released a while before Breezy.
Firefox 1.5 was released after Breezy. Firefox 1.5: November 29, 2005. Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy Badger: October 13, 2005. Anyways it should be in there especially because the main goal of Edgy is to put some new experimental stuff out there.

asjdfwejqrfjcvm msz34rq33

June 6th, 2006, 10:29 PM

Firefox 1.5 was released after Breezy. Firefox 1.5: November 29, 2005. Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy Badger: October 13, 2005. Anyways it should be in there especially because the main goal of Edgy is to put some new experimental stuff out there.Ok, I guess I was wrong.(Wow, that dosen't happen very often.):roll:

Chris03

June 6th, 2006, 10:30 PM

I'm hoping for a Firefox 2.0 also. I want to install Edgy this time instead of just waiting for test releases and it would make it a lot more fun :)

Chuck_Strut

June 7th, 2006, 05:44 AM

The latest is not always the greatest but
I would like to see Firefox become completly Open Source.

pochu

June 7th, 2006, 06:21 AM

I would like to see Firefox become completly Open Source.

What do you mean with that? I can't understand you. Isn't Firefox open source?

newen

June 7th, 2006, 07:14 AM

Will Firefox 2.0 eventually use GTK for widgets?

MadMan2k

June 7th, 2006, 08:02 AM

Will Firefox 2.0 eventually use GTK for widgets?
no, this would require cairo enabled gecko(1.9), but firefox 2.0 will still use gecko 1.8. (like firefox 1.5)
http://www.madman2k.net/comments/33/

bruce89

June 7th, 2006, 08:19 AM

Why do Mozilla insist on stupid version numbering, i.e. going up in 0.5's?
Will Firefox 2.0 eventually use GTK for widgets?
Epiphany already does!

bluenova

June 7th, 2006, 08:24 AM

Epiphany already does!
I thought I read somewhere that Epiphany was going to be the default browser for Edgy not firefox.

Tails

June 7th, 2006, 08:28 AM

Will Firefox 2.0 eventually use GTK for widgets?

nah, dun think so, cos, FF also need to availabel for Windows... unless Mozilla include the GTK+ for windows in FF, otherwise, I dun think they will use GTK+.... and GTK+ in Windows is pretty buggy anyway.. ;)

bruce89

June 7th, 2006, 08:38 AM

I thought I read somewhere that Epiphany was going to be the default browser for Edgy not firefox.
They're thinking about it, see my sig.

kiddo

June 7th, 2006, 08:52 AM

Wait wait wait, there seems to be a big mess here:

- why do you think Firefox is not fully open sourced?
- epiphany default for edgy? I would definitely be happy, but I've kinda given up on ubuntu people being convinced to use it as default
- epiphany does not use gtk widgets in dapper. Mind provinding me a screenshot, bug report, roadmap or mailing list thread so I can know about it? I thought it was not coming for a while, so if I can get my dirty paws on epiphany+gtk, I'll do anything.
- bruce89 was not really writing in leet, just difficult-to-read-language. But you could have asked a little bit more politely :|

Tails

June 7th, 2006, 10:32 AM

By the way, English is the language we us in these forums, not some bad excuse for leet.

sorry for off-topic....

well, if you don't know what leet mean... here is a wiki for you....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

and my post are in English anyway..... but they are in SMS language...

and here is a wiki for it if you want to look...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_language

but as kiddo points out, it may be difficult to read for some people... I will apologize about it, and I will try to make sure I don't use my habbit again... :)

bruce89

June 7th, 2006, 12:11 PM

Well sorry, I was a bit harsh.

rcarring

June 7th, 2006, 12:29 PM

I haven't tried Epiphany yet. Seems that no-one wants to touch Mozilla/SeaMonkey with a barge pole, Firefox is popular, is supported, but its buggy as well. Plus a whole heap of other things that have been complained about.

I did think though, that Epiphany was a gnomish browser rather than kdeish.

JamesNorris

June 7th, 2006, 02:56 PM

Which is a real shame, because seamonkey used to be default in almost every linux distro, and now it's nowhere...

And seamonkey is a really great suite!!

chipmonk

June 7th, 2006, 03:31 PM

Epiphany, while somewhat good, is _too_ simple. I read around arguments in Ubuntu wiki for and against Epiphany, and while I agree on most points there, I still feel that Epiphany as default browser would be step backwards. Even Internet Explorer allows more user customization.

For example, only way to configure gestures (as far as I know, I haven't used Epiphany that much as it really didn't suit my needs) would be by editing text xml. While most average users wouldn't need either gestures nor to edit them, some of them are bound to be familiar with some different gesture scheme, which they would like to use. Galeon (while it is also quite limited any many respects) at least allowed _some_ customization through menus.

While Epiphany would probably be easy to use for those who are very new to computers at general, I think it's simplicy underestimates skills and abilities of average userbase of Ubuntu. I do understand, that long term goal is of course to spread userbase, but still...

Just my 5 cents

---
Chipmonk

Lord Illidan

June 7th, 2006, 03:41 PM

Seamonkey is really good. I like it, faster than firefox, even!

I am already using firefox 2 in windows. Bon Echo is good...though so far, not a revolutionary release.

chipmonk

June 7th, 2006, 03:47 PM

Shapierian

June 7th, 2006, 06:20 PM

Will Firefox 2.0 eventually use GTK for widgets?

Firefox technically uses GTK widgets already. On X11 its toolkit is implemented on top of GTK.

$ ldd /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin | grep gtk
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0xb7c6d000)

MadMan2k

June 7th, 2006, 06:36 PM

could somone read what I write please?
we're talking about native gtk form widgets[1], which currently neither epiphany nor firefox offer.

[1] http://www.madman2k.net/comments/33/

Shapierian

June 7th, 2006, 06:49 PM

could somone read what I write please?
we're talking about native gtk form widgets[1], which currently neither epiphany nor firefox offer.

[1] http://www.madman2k.net/comments/33/

Newen never mentioned form widgets, that seems to be your spin on it. In fact, the word form doesn't even occur in this thread until your most recent post.

OneWingedAngel

June 7th, 2006, 06:57 PM

Actually, Seamonkey (and old Mozilla Suite) both seems to run with lesser memory usage and with greater speed than Firefox on my machine. That lesser memory usage especially makes me wonder, as I understand that original point of Firefox was to be lighter browser.. :)

That's exactly why I switched to Epiphany.

I don't know what's happened to Firefox. Back around 0.6/0.7 it was a huge improvement over full Mozilla, but it just kept getting progressively huger and slower :(

MadMan2k

June 8th, 2006, 05:03 AM

Newen never mentioned form widgets, that seems to be your spin on it. In fact, the word form doesn't even occur in this thread until your most recent post.
I thought this was obvious, since XUL(firefox interface) already uses native GTK widgets...

newen

June 8th, 2006, 05:29 AM

I thought this was obvious, since XUL(firefox interface) already uses native GTK widgets...

Yes, that's obviously what I meant: I asked about form widgets. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough.

bruce89

June 8th, 2006, 05:33 AM

Form widgets in GTK+ would be nice.

rcarring

June 8th, 2006, 09:30 AM

I am running Epiphany right now, it reminds me a lot of IE5.1.3 for the Mac.

bruce89

June 8th, 2006, 09:33 AM

I am running Epiphany right now, it reminds me a lot of IE5.1.3 for the Mac.
Except it renders sites properly!

rcarring

June 8th, 2006, 10:02 AM

Yep, have to agree there.

I wonder how many people use safari instead of camino?

OneWingedAngel

July 3rd, 2006, 07:22 PM

Yep, have to agree there.

I wonder how many people use safari instead of camino?

What about Shiira (http://hmdt-web.net/shiira/en)? (Webcore-based but much nicer than Safari)

FredB

July 4th, 2006, 05:34 AM

Yep, have to agree there.

I wonder how many people use safari instead of camino?

95% of mac users ? ;)

Safari follow the same way that IE does : be installed by default.

Anyway, Safari is far better than IE :)

And for firefox 2 : beta 1 freeze code = july 5 ; release = july 11.

leech

July 4th, 2006, 08:17 AM

I could be wrong about this, but http://blog.vlad1.com/archives/2006/04/05/102/ basically states that all future Firefox builds for linux will be built with Cairo/GTK2 which I believe also covers the HTML forms. This was said back at the beginning of April, so hopefully that means Firefox 2.0 will have this built in. From what I saw just now with a little searching was that Gecko 1.9 is going to be introducing better SVG support in Firefox/mozilla. But I think Firefox 2.0 for Linux and Windows should have the Cairo stuff built in (here's to hoping.)

Leech

MadMan2k

July 4th, 2006, 10:25 AM

no firefox 2.0 will be using gecko 1.8 just like firefox 1.5, which has no cairo support.
your link refers to the nightly(ff3) builds.

FredB

July 4th, 2006, 10:30 AM

Yes. Cairo-GTK2 build are trunk ones, not 1.8.1 branch.

Trunk => Firefox 3.0
1.8.1 => Firefox 2.0

matid

July 4th, 2006, 11:16 AM

I'm afraid even though current trunk builds use cairo by default (--enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk2) they still lack native gtk widgets. Forms still look the same ;(

David A Knight

July 4th, 2006, 06:21 PM

I thought this was obvious, since XUL(firefox interface) already uses native GTK widgets...

I'm afraid you are mistaken, they mimic the look of GTK widgets, they are however not native GTK widgets, they do not behave the same, just look at submenu behaviour to see this.

http://www.kimmccall.org/navigation/index.html is a site from back when GTK was going through this behaviour. XUL just doesn't act the same as GTK does now, hence it can't possibly be using GTK widgets.

Senori

July 4th, 2006, 06:48 PM

I'm afraid even though current trunk builds use cairo by default (--enable-default-toolkit=cairo-gtk2) they still lack native gtk widgets. Forms still look the same ;(
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2006/04/gnome_themes_in_html.html

FredB

July 6th, 2006, 01:30 PM

Well. Firefox trunks are like edgy, a little rough ;)

Let's Firefox 2.0 beta 1 be released before talking of freifox 3.0 !

ShiningHolden

July 10th, 2006, 11:28 AM

bruce89

July 10th, 2006, 01:51 PM

Firefox should be included, defintley, but what about Swiftfox?

If Ubuntu is trying to deliver to the user, and by results, Swiftfox is proven faster, why not include Firefox, and Swiftfox...

And Epiphany because it is faster in other cases?
Not enough room on the disk for all three, but I would like to see Epiphany. Doesn't really matter if it isn't default, but I prefer it.

What is so good about FF2.0 except from the colossally bumped version number?