Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bug Firefox Mozilla Programming Software

Firefox 4, A Huge Pile of Bugs 481

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the software-is-hard dept.
surveyork writes "Firefox 4.0 beta 9 (AKA 'a huge pile of awesome') was released on January 14, 2011. Firefox 4's release schedule includes a beta 10 and a release candidate before the final launch in late February. However, one wonders if this schedule won't slip again, since there are still more than 100 'hardblocker' bugs, more than 60 bugs affecting Panorama alone and 10 bugs affecting the just-introduced Tabs-on-Titlebar. Some long-standing bugs won't be fixed in time for Firefox 4 final either (example, example). Many startup bugs are currently pending, although Firefox 4 starts much faster than Firefox 3.6. As a side note, it's unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test, despite this being a very popular demand amongst Firefox enthusiasts. Perhaps we'll have to wait until Firefox 4.1 to have this 'huge pile of bugs' (mostly) fixed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 4, A Huge Pile of Bugs

Comments Filter:
  • Why not wait? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bsDaemon (87307) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:44AM (#34926560)

    I'd rather them wait to make 4.0 stable than release crap and hope to have it done by 4.1. I mean, c'mon, who do they think they are? KDE? But seriously, I was using the FF4 beta for a while and it was pretty slick, and faster than the last stable release. However, it had lots of issues, such as the flash plugin container freezing or crashing constantly. The new features in FF4 did warm me up to trying Chrome though, and I may have become converted despite being late to the party on that one.

    • by Pojut (1027544)

      Indeed! When I did my most recent reformat, I decided to give Chrome a try, since I had never even used it. I'm definitely a convert, now...Chrome is INSANELY fast.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GooberToo (74388)

        People seem to assume that Firefox has become insanely slow over the years but forget that they are actively using a number of plugins for Firefox which slows things down - such as Ad Block. They then go and test alternate browsers, forgetting that their alternative isn't doing the same thing or sometimes, isn't even possible to do the same thing and yet get the feeling that things are way faster than before. Unfortunately, many people don't realize they are actually doing a seat of the pants, apples to ora

    • Re:Why not wait? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by God'sDuck (837829) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:15AM (#34926880)

      Beta 9 is more stable than previous releases, and about even with Firefox 3 in my opinion. And that's what counts -- whatever they may say about the NUMBER of outstanding bugs, it's only the bugs that hit a typical user on a typical day that matter for the perceived stability of a program. With a few more weeks of spit and polish, Firefox 4 should be even with the competition in terms of daily stability. The fact the Mozilla advertises its bug list more than, say, IE9 should not make people think its known bug list is longer than IE9's.

      • by Ltap (1572175)
        I agree. I think one of the fallacies is that people are comparing FF4 (major, new release with tons of features (and tons of "features") that will have problems) with FF3.6 (mature and stable, but slow and not very fully-featured). Features that are just appearing in FF4 and are miles ahead of other browsers might be dismissed now, but will be powerful incentives down the road. The fact that FF4 is introducing a large number of new features without a major performance slowdown (supposedly) should be recogn
      • by Omestes (471991)

        Beta 9 is more stable than previous releases, and about even with Firefox 3 in my opinion.

        My experiences differ from yours. Perhaps I'm just cursed, though. I installed 4 beta 9, and while it was stable in the "does not crash every 3 seconds way" it was pretty nasty feeling. The full interface lagged to hell, this persisted even when I downloaded the latest daily Minefield. After going through some bouts of extension hell (no CSlite?, grrr...), things got a little better, tabs would actually load in und

        • by darrylo (97569)

          My experiences are even worse than yours. FF4b9 crashes on me right at startup. I assume that one of the (few) extensions is causing this, but I'm too lazy to go into safe mode and debug it. It is a beta, after all, and so I'll just wait for the next beta (I did let FF send off, oh, maybe 20 crash reports).

          In the meantime, I'll stick with pale moon [palemoon.org], which is a version of FF3.6.X highly optimized for modern processors and Windows. It runs significantly faster than regular FF, since it doesn't have to s

    • by Xest (935314)

      Agreed, Firefox has been on a horrible decline since version 2.0, the last thing they need to do is continue that trend.

      Nowadays I find it slower than it's competitors, and I find it less stable, every once in a while it just crashes. It also seems to have horrendous memory leak issues, if I leave it running overnight it's not unusual to find it chewing up 2gb of RAM in the morning and I've even seen it edge pretty close to 4gb on one occasion. Even IE never does any of these things for me nowadays.

      The best

    • by diegocg (1680514)

      Calm down, nobody is saying that you will have to wait to 4.1 to have a stable release. The summary is just speculating (wildly) about it.

    • by Urza9814 (883915)

      Huh. Flash kills my Chrome all the time, but my flash performance or Firefox 4b9 has been incredible. Flash actually WORKS now! And on Linux! It's a friggin' miracle!

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      Just to give my totally random opinion on FF4, I'm mostly ok with it apart from 2 things.

      1) The lack of a status bar. You either love it or hate it, I hate it. I have a high resolution and I want functionality more than about 10px extra real estate.
      2) The default theme. WTF? It's ugly black-and-white, the FF3 theme is a million times nicer and more colourful. The first thing I'll have to do with any FF4 install is go grab a decent theme.

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      I went the opposite way, I liked the chrome interface but jumped back to ff4 now that it has a similar space saving design. Chrome's internal architecture does not seem to allow script blocking per source domain like firefox's noscript.
  • I'm using the Second Beta release, and I've not noticed any problems with the browser, or email, or newsgroups, or composer. Opera 11 is also stable. May be time for a switch? (Just a thought.)

    • by Spad (470073)

      I've been running the Seamonkey nightlies since they announced 2.1 Alpha and I've barely had any issues at all outside of a couple of plugins that took a while to update their version support. There was a minor issue for a couple of weeks where the browser would hang on startup for ~10 seconds, as well as a weird one with the Dell DRAC5 web interface not working properly and obviously Flash is as shit as on any platform, but otherwise it's been a smooth ride.

  • by Shin-LaC (1333529) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:46AM (#34926582)
    What's important to browser developers is getting the upper hand in their constant pissing contest over Javascript execution speed. Nothing else matters. NOTHING.
    • by _xeno_ (155264) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:54AM (#34926642) Homepage Journal

      Oh, man, isn't that the case.

      When I tried the new beta, the first thing that happened was that it popped up a "welcome" page touting how fast the new beta was.

      Then it froze long enough to get Windows to mark it (Not Responding) in the title bar. (I reenabled the menu while using an earlier beta so I guess I'm missing out on "tabs in title bar." Somehow, I don't care.)

      To their credit, it doesn't always do this, but it does it enough to be annoying. I don't care how fast Firefox can run JavaScript - really all I care about is that running JavaScript doesn't make the browser completely non-responsive.

    • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:01AM (#34926718) Homepage

      Javascript speed is a strange thing to compete so fiercely on. I don't want to calculate fast fourier transforms in my browser.

      Heavy DOM manipulation, and the subsequent redraw is where browsers really hit the wall. Opera seemed to be fastest last time I benchmarked.

      • by Eskarel (565631)

        There's a reason those benchmarks are in there, it's because google wrote those benchmarks and only google bothered optimizing for them. If you actually run your browser through the benchmark you'll find it probably competes fairly well except on the crazy why in the hell would I do this with javascript test, which is where it falls down and google wins.

      • by swb (14022)

        I'm not a web developer, but isn't DOM manipulation, Ajax, etc dependent on Javascript execution?

        I also notice that some web pages (ie, Facebook, NY Times) are very Javascript heavy. On the iPad, for example, these sites are much slower to interact with than other sites less Javascript heavy.

        I find it less/not noticeable on a real PC, but more and more people use complex web apps heavy on Javascrpt I think it becomes more critical to have fast Javascript.

    • Maybe I'm just remarkably tolerant of buggy software, but I've been using Firefox 4 as my only browser since beta 1 and I haven't had any complaints once I set the UI up the way I like it. It crashes once or twice a week but who cares? When I start it back up all my tabs are still open and I've lost is a few seconds of time.
    • by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @11:32AM (#34927838)

      Lets look at OPs list.

      there are still more than 100 "hardblocker" bugs, more than 60 bugs affecting Panorama alone and 10 bugs affecting the just-introduced Tabs-on-Titlebar

      So, in other words, Firefox 4 will be buggy because it wont ship until those bugs are fixed. Makes sense-- wait, what?

      Some long-standing bugs wont' be fixed in time for Firefox 4 final either

      So its a super buggy version of firefox, and shouldnt be shipped because there are bugs that had been present for a long time, and are still present (flash stealing keyboard focus, etc).

      Many startup bugs are currently pending, although Firefox 4 starts much faster than Firefox 3.6

      So they made major inroads, but theyre not "good enough" yet.

      unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test,

      ....Which, AFAIK isnt really that important as firefox 4 scores a respectable 97 out of 100 (firefox 4 beta 9), and its an artificial test anyways testing how well a browsers CSS breaks. However, I will note the bug's assignee: "Nobody; OK to take it and work on it"-- so if someone feels its worth the extra bragging rights they can fix those last 3 issues in a pointless test?

      Perhaps we'll have to wait until Firefox 4.1 to have this "huge pile of bugs" (mostly) fixed."

      This is perhaps the dumbest article criticizing a new firefox release ever. Firefox 3, yes, I can understand awesome bar pissed some people off. But firefox 4 brings tons of improvements, and even from reading the summary you get the impression that it has fewER bugs than prior versions; and yet the submitter seems unsatisfied that bugs yet remain. Perhaps you can point us to a major, complex project such as an HTML interpreter that ISNT a "huge pile of bugs"? Couldnt I label Linux a "huge pile of bugs"? Perhaps Linus should stop shipping kernels until all problems are solved, or perhaps revert to using 2.6.37.0.0.1 to denote the fact that there are still many bugs in there. Perhaps we should put the pressure on for him to get on it and release a new kernel absent all these bugs.

      Its like submitter feels entitled to a pristine bug free experience. Firefox 4 doubtless took a phenomenal number of man hours to make as much progress as it did; perhaps some gratitude for what a phenomenally high quality piece of volunteer effort it is, rather than whining about bugs that remain open, would be in order.

      • by RebelWebmaster (628941) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @12:22PM (#34928456)
        The best part about the Acid3 complaints are that Firefox' missing 3 points are for SVG Fonts, which are becoming optional for support in SVG 2.0 anyway. And yet people are fixated on those 3 points as if they are some giant indictment of Firefox' slipping standards support. My question is whether Hixie will eventually change Acid3 to reflect the change in status since it doesn't seem right to have a standards compliance test that faults browser vendors for not supporting optional parts of a specification. Doesn't exactly seem fair to me. Maybe Acid3.1?
  • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:47AM (#34926588)

    ...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

    I guess in the true OSS way I'll have to fork the project and add my own. ;)

    (yes yes, sarcasm. probably best to spell it out ahead of time, because what slashdot post isn't complete these days without a plethora of disclaimers and qualifiers)

    The necessary qualifier to ensure my criticism of open source software doesn't earn me a minus 1: I like open source.
    The necessary disclaimer that forking FF is silly: I am well aware that third party extensions for FF4 exist that add status bar function.

    • by Spad (470073) <slashdot @ s p a d . c o.uk> on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:56AM (#34926670) Homepage

      The way Firefox is going, they might as well just ship wget with addon functionality and tell everyone to write their own extensions if they want "extra" features like a GUI or mouse support.

    • by Shining Celebi (853093) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:42AM (#34927214) Homepage

      ...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

      No, torn between the people that demand that all Firefox features be reduced to addons and the people who want everything in their browser, they gave in to the addon people and made it an addon [mozilla.org] if you need the old status bar back.

      At this point, Mozilla can't win no matter what they do. If they take features away and put them in addons, the people who want everything (like me :) ) complain. If they add features in, the people who want all the features they in particular don't need to be addons complain. They're in a no-win situation. They put an incredible focus on performance, and people ignore it. Firefox 4 doesn't just have a new, much faster Javascript engine - there's DOM performance improvements, the startup improvements mentioned in the summary, and the UI in general is much smoother and quicker. But it doesn't matter, because my $PET_PROBLEM_X exists. I don't understand why other browsers aren't held to the same standard. Chrome, for me, is missing tons of features and crashes all the time. It's still a decent browser, and I don't spend all day on Slashdot railing against it.

      That said, there is a really annoying bug in Beta 9 - some of my tabs, after I close them, still exist in the ether somewhere and the Awesomebar wants to "switch to tab" when I go to that URL, and there's no tab to switch to, making me press alt+enter to open a new tab.

      But I'm pretty confident that and the other major blockers will be fixed by the final release, whenever it comes out. Firefox 4 is still a major improvement over 3.6 even with those bugs, and despite my personal pet peeves like tabs-in-titlebar.

      • by tjwhaynes (114792)

        That said, there is a really annoying bug in Beta 9 - some of my tabs, after I close them, still exist in the ether somewhere and the Awesomebar wants to "switch to tab" when I go to that URL, and there's no tab to switch to, making me press alt+enter to open a new tab.

        Check the new Panorama feature to see if it has eaten your tabs.

      • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @11:03AM (#34927464)

        In my experience then, the performance enhancements just aren't being felt. In real world use, I can't say that Firefox or Safari is "faster" - they both perform adequately in terms of speed.

        I'm not sitting at my desk thinking "I wish this browser would just be faster!" at this stage of the game - all the browsers I have tried have been pretty good in recent years. What does affect me are large swings in usability that make a browser annoying to use - like the removal of the status bar, or whatever bug has been added to Webkit that causes the hyper annoying "no paste" in some slashdot comment boxes on Safari.

        Performance matters to an extent, but I think it's been turned into a "my browser is 30 ms faster!" pissing contest now that the "my browser scores higher on Acid!" stuff has died down a little.

        I agree that they're (FF devs) stuck between the proverbial Dwane Johnson and a hard place; a big complaint was feature bloat, so they stripped features, but that argument falls down a little when something like Pandora is rolled in as a primary feature and something as simple and useful as the status bar is taken out. Not all people like Pandora, so they can disable it. Not all people *don't* like a status bar... but you have to go third party extension to get it back.

        I wonder if the ultimate goal of the FF project should be a "roll your own" - a core, barebones browser that has a whole list of features available, and you just checkbox the ones you want at download (or install) time, or go for a few pre-defined profiles.

    • by bunratty (545641)

      they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

      No they didn't. Read Where did my status bar go? How to customize Firefox 4s UI [fligtar.com].

      • by jo_ham (604554) <joham999&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @11:06AM (#34927512)

        As you may notice, from your own link, you need a third party extension to bring the status bar back, as I mentioned in my post originally; necessary because YES they did take away the option to have the status bar.

        Using third party extensions to put back functionality that you removed is the very definition of "took away the option". If the option still existed, as it does in FF 3.6, then this third party extension would not be necessary.

        You can try and justify the decision with a handwavy "oh, you can get a plugin" but that really isn't the point.

  • by h00manist (800926) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:47AM (#34926592) Journal
    I love open source and firefox, I feel sad when I hear there are problems, but writing tight code is indeed challenging for anyone. The plugin compatibility in particular seem to present a challenge. Still using it and recommending it though. Chrome may be open source too, but big-corporation-sponsored open source frequently becomes something else later on in life. I think open source needs to start pushing a pledges [wikipedia.org] model of funding, the totally-free or ad-sponsored models don't fit for all cases.
    • by diegocg (1680514)

      They don't need that. Firefox has more than enought money to fund itself. In 2009, Mozilla had 104 millions [mozilla.org] in revenue. Expenses were 61$ million.

      • by Desler (1608317)

        Oh which the majority of that is from Google's money. Thus making it the same "big-corporation-sponsored open source" he seems to be railing against.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      I think open source needs to start pushing a pledges model of funding, the totally-free or ad-sponsored models don't fit for all cases.

      Of all the open source projects that can claim lack of money is the source of their woes, Firefox must be one of the least worthy after perhaps the kernel and a few dual licensed projects. Through the Google deal they have been in a far better position than almost every other open source project that has had minimal impact on Google development, if they trip this up they have no one else to blame.

  • When these values are sufficiently close, it's time to recognize that something is very deeply wrong with your code base. Or your programmers are monkeys, but the former case is most likely. Start over.
    • This type of thing is inevitable when you have a huge codebase, in any project. But starting over is a path to disaster - there might be 10,000 outstanding bugs in the current Firefox codebase, but there are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of fixed bugs in it too, and a restart tosses more good than bad.

      Think of Netscape, they were the king of the browser market. They did a clean restart, and it took them so long to create anything useful that Netscape never recovered.

      Firefox might need improve
      • by Desler (1608317)

        Think of Netscape, they were the king of the browser market. They did a clean restart, and it took them so long to create anything useful that Netscape never recovered.

        Well that and the fact that the version of Netscape that was out at the time they started that rewrite was buggy and crappy.

    • by BZ (40346)

      "bugs" includes new features in this case; every single change to the code is a "bug" in Bugzilla.

      So when your rate of incoming new bugs matches your fix rate that might just mean that people are asking for lots of shiny (css3 3d transforms? css3 flexbox? etc, etc).

    • by tjwhaynes (114792) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:54AM (#34927346)

      You clearly have never worked on a large software product.

      During development of a product, you will see new bug rates go much higher than fixed bug rates. This imbalance will continue until you stop adding new features and focus purely on stabilization and product delivery. Firefox 4.0 beta 9 is still landing features (some of which have been baking for a long time in separate branches) so their bug rates look pretty sane to me. All products ship with known bugs - you just try to trim the list down to things that users are highly unlikely to see.

      For web browsers, crash bugs are the most dangerous. They may represent routes through the code where bad pointers are being consumed and these can potentially lead to remote exploits. All reproducible crash bugs should be fixed as soon as possible.

      Having browsed through the outstanding bug list for Firefox 4.0 and looked at the planned schedule (late February release), it looks reasonable. If some of the new features lead to a burst of new defects, I suspect that date will move out or features will get blacklists (like the WebGL/ Hardware acceleration blacklists for Linux)

  • I've been using Chrome for the last two weeks and it's been great. Adblock Plus and Mouse Gestures were really the only two extensions I needed, and they're in there. Oh, and Firebug, but the built-in Inspector thing almost outdoes it. (Ctrl-Shift-I)

    I don't like that they refuse to implement clickSelectsAll as an option for the address bar (instead relying on the user pressing Ctrl-L), but it's not enough to cause me to switch back.

    • Firebug is far more comprehensive. The "built-in Inspector thing" suffices, but it can't hold a candle to firebug
    • I switched to Chrome recently as well. I don't see myself going back to Firefox for a long time. I understand that they're well respected around here for being one of the early open source works to make serious in-roads on the desktop but it really is time to let it go.
  • by EricTheRed (5613) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @09:49AM (#34926606) Homepage

    I've been running FireFox 4 Beta for some time, however sadly it updated itself to the latest version yesterday and since then it's been virtually unusable.

    Anything running Javascript or Flash produce either blank screens (sometimes just by scrolling the page) or even the window title bar flashes (which it is as I type this).

    4.0b9 is definitely a regression - I want 4.0b8 back...

    • The rendering issues on OS X were known bugs and were in the release notes for 4.0b9. You are using beta software and there are bound to be bugs. It is fixed in their repo, and you can run Minefield (nightly builds) if you want to get the fix.
      • by EricTheRed (5613)

        The rendering issues on OS X were known bugs and were in the release notes for 4.0b9. You are using beta software and there are bound to be bugs. It is fixed in their repo, and you can run Minefield (nightly builds) if you want to get the fix.

        I know I'm running beta - thats actually why I'm running it.

        However not seen the release notes as I was not given a choice - it was upgraded automatically from 4.0b8...

    • by God'sDuck (837829)

      I have the blank page bug too -- moving the window causes the page to display. Silly workaround, but I'm sticking with the betas.

  • I wish that would have been left as an extension. Why couldn't it have been one? It's a power user feature, and now there are tons of bugs to fix because of it.

  • The "killer feature" of Firefox, at least for me, is Live Bookmarks. I subscribe to nearly a hundred webcomics, and Live Bookmarks is my favorite way to read them. I've tried other systems, but they just don't feel right.

    However, ever since Firefox 3.x, there's been a massive bug. Firefox will literally stop responding while it updates Live Bookmarks. Normally, if you have just a handful, it's barely noticeable. But when you have as many as I do, it means Firefox takes about 5 minutes to start up, about t
    • I used to use Live Bookmarks once. However I find the nearly useless since I have to open each feed individually and remember what was in there before to see if there are updates. Now I use Google Reader, which is not only cross-browser, but shows all my feeds in one spot, and only shows me unread new items.
  • No shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glwtta (532858) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:00AM (#34926706) Homepage
    So, a beta version of a major new release has a lot of bugs? You don't say.
    • I was thinking that... glory fades.. mundi?
    • Re:No shit (Score:4, Informative)

      by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:38AM (#34927172)
      You act as if it's the first beta. This is the 9th beta release for a project that was supposed to be released in November. For reference, Alpha 1 was released in Feb 2010, almost an entire year ago. So yes, bugs in beta are expected, but eventually you start looking like an 8 year old who can't graduate first grade.
  • Generally, Beta is when a product is mostly feature complete, and bugs are being fixed prior to release. Now, if you accept this, then the Firefox 4 beta cycle has been more like a late Alpha release since new features were being added from beta version to beta version. From this, is it any wonder there are still bugs in beta 9? The speed improvements in beta 9 clearly are not the result of fixing bugs or removing test code, so I wouldn't be too worried about the bugs we are seeing right now.

  • Is this a new tradition? First KDE, now Firefox: release a "4.0" version that's intentionally not feature-complete and loaded with bugs so that the user community can start fixing it?
    • by erroneus (253617)

      Maybe this is not just the Microsoft 4.0 curse? Version 4.0 of nearly everything seems to suck. I wonder why that seems to be? Anyone remember DOS 3.3 versus DOS 4.0? I do... aye carumba!

    • No, it is an old tradition. The number four is considered unlucky [wikipedia.org] because in some languages it sounds like the word for death. I am surprised that this version number doesn't get skipped more often. Actually, in computers it would be better to skip version 1.0 since that is often the most buggy release. If you are going to write some new software, go straight to version 2.0 (or version 3.0 for Microsoft).

  • Firefox developers just don't care about SVG fonts because they think they are useless. And most people seem to agree with them.

    • by Desler (1608317)

      And yet if were the IE team to say the same thing Microsoft would be being constantly trashed claiming that they're ignoring standards. Oh how double standards are fun.

      • Re:No ACID3 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Shining Celebi (853093) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:34AM (#34927108) Homepage

        And yet if were the IE team to say the same thing Microsoft would be being constantly trashed claiming that they're ignoring standards. Oh how double standards are fun.

        Except SVG Fonts are going to be an optional part of the SVG standard, because the standards committee recognizes they are unimportant. This is because superior alternatives exist (WOFF). This is why Mozilla chose not to implement SVG Fonts. Despite all the FUD in the summary (what is with the anti-Firefox FUD in stories lately, anyway?), the vast majority of Firefox users are not crying out for Firefox to pass a meaningless, arbitrary, and outdated acid test. SVG Fonts are what keeps Firefox from passing the test. There is no benefit to adding that feature except to pass the Acid3 test.

      • by bunratty (545641)
        Considering that Internet Explorer has been lagging in support for basic features behind Firefox, Safari, and Opera for many years, I don't think there's a double standard. If Microsoft finally catches up with IE9, there's going to be rejoicing, not complaining.
    • by Spad (470073)

      That's the thing about standards, you're not supposed to skip bits of them just because you don't think they're important.

      • Re:No ACID3 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BZ (40346) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @11:01AM (#34927442)

        This part of the standard is being errataed to be optional.

        And yes, people skip parts of standards all the time if they don't think they're important, especially when the standard was created for a totally different use case (in particular, SVG as originally written was basically created to not be used with HTML and not be used on the web; there were nods to both but they were not the primary use case). How many zip decompressors actually allow multiple copies of the same file to be present in the archive and look at the index to see which one to extract? How many just grab whatever they find?

        You may also want to read http://dbaron.org/log/2004-06#e20040609a [dbaron.org] and http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a [dbaron.org] for some of the history here...

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:19AM (#34926918) Homepage

    I find that to be disappointing and unexpected. Keep in mind that I do not know what it takes to create a browser or what is involved in passing the Acid3 test. I just know that Firefox has a strong and loyal user base who are not interested in using another browser. I am one of them.

    Is SVG fonts the only thing that keeps FF4 at less-than 100%? If so, I am less concerned -- SVG fonts is a good idea, but I would be more interested in other things as I have not seen SVG fonts in use anywhere. (I know, it's a chicken or egg thing.) That said, I love SVG. It's an awesome technology. Not long ago, I was planning a project that will enable me to generate SVG output based on the contents of a database... in this case, a floor layout for my office and the location of all resources and people where output can be filtered or limited based on report criteria. (The project is on the back burner for now, but the fact that SVG is an XML document format makes generating this sort of output amazingly possible.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bunratty (545641)
      SVG fonts are the only thing keeping Firefox 4 from getting a 100% score on Acid3. I'm not sure if Firefox 4 passes the performance aspect, although it's probably close. I think also Firefox 4 shows a favicon in the URL bar even when it's returned with a 404 error, and if so, it doesn't fully pass the rendering aspect. In any case, it's so close to passing Acid3 that web developers and users would hardly notice the difference, aside from web developers not being able to use SVG fonts. But since WOFF fonts s
  • Longest standing bug (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VincenzoRomano (881055) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @10:28AM (#34927044) Homepage Journal
    This very one [mozilla.org] is 12 years old (yes, you read right), it's huting HTML4 compliance (HTML5 is not a standard yet) and is also affecting all known opensource browsers.
    Eyecandies first, stuff that matters maybe.
  • Let me fix that for you:

    As a side note, it's unlikely that Firefox 4 final will pass the Acid3 test, despite this being a very popular demand amongst silly people who don't understand web development.

    The Acid tests are demos, not unit tests of HTML compliance. I would rather see real progress in areas where FF is truly weak (like, say, the crappy SVG renderer) than worry about those last three pips on Acid3.

  • by Theovon (109752) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @12:50PM (#34928856)

    I've reported dozens of Firefox bugs over the years. Although I'm primarily a chip designer, I have studied usability (HCI, etc.), and I have a background in testing as well. I know about making intuitive systems, and I've been trained to be more objective about it, rather than just complaining about what I don't like. When I report Firefox bugs, they may get ignored because they're understaffed, but I've never had one tell me flat out that I was wrong. I HAVE had Chrome devs just tell me I'm wrong. Does working for Google automatically make you arrogant?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @03:24PM (#34930936)

      Having about 30 Google or ex-Google employees in my friends or friends of friends circle and having talked with probably 40 or more at various parties and other events over the years I can say that it's about a 75-85% arrogance rate. Some worse than others. I believe the culture helps promote it. Generally the ones who aren't raging assholes are the ones who arrived there after spending some time in other parts of the industry or advanced academia (PhD work or professorial). The kids who went there right out of undergrad are the worst since Google does a great job of sheltering them from the real world. At this point if I meet anyone who's under 27 or so and has worked at Google for a while I assume any conversation will be unproductive unless I agree 100% with what they're saying. I'll be pleasantly surprised if this isn't the case.

      On the plus side, the people I know who've escaped the clutches of Google often display a very serious drop in arrogance levels within a year or so.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...