Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Handhelds Mozilla

Firefox Mobile Reaches 1.0 198

Majix writes "Firefox Mobile, the mobile browser developed by Mozilla based on the same engine as in the recently released Firefox 3.6, has finally hit version 1.0. The first device to be officially supported is the Nokia N900. With a long list of features, Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date. Highlights include the familiar Awesome Bar, Weave Sync for sharing your browser state between your PC and mobile, and of course tabbed browsing and Firefox add-ons. With the Nokia 900 and Firefox Mobile 1.0, even Flash content including the normal YouTube site is working, showing that a mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Mobile Reaches 1.0

Comments Filter:
  • One device? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:23PM (#30965594)

    They released version 1.0 and that's all they support? A whole one device?

    More development needed methinks.

  • ??? Ok then... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:31PM (#30965654)

    "Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date."

    Perhaps if you ignore Opera, Safari and Netfront.. Otherwise, from what I have seen, it mostly sucks pretty bad...

  • Symbian (Score:3, Insightful)

    by heffrey ( 229704 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:39PM (#30965696)

    Why select a minority platform with no devices? Surely someone sane would develop for S60 and perhaps iPhone first (perhaps because Safari probably quite entrenched with iPhone users).

  • Re:Symbian (Score:3, Insightful)

    by barzok ( 26681 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:52PM (#30965790)

    Doesn't Apple still prohibit 3rd-party web browsers on iPhone because they would directly compete with software offered by Apple?

  • Re:Symbian (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:53PM (#30965794)

    It would never be allowed on the iPhone. Apple prohibits any apps that complete with their offerings. So no browsers other than Safari. That being said, why didn't they target blackberry first?

  • by Lifyre ( 960576 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:54PM (#30965806)

    And he answered the GGP's question.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @05:59PM (#30965844) Journal
    Not so much the OS as the app store. Apple won't allow apps that can run code, or apps that duplicate existing functionality. A browser does both. Porting it to run on the iPhone wouldn't be too hard, but then only people using jailbroken phones could use it.
  • Re:"even flash"? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by __aaaaxm1522 ( 121860 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @06:12PM (#30965924)

    I've had Flash on my N800 for years too. And I hate it. Incredibly slow. This is one of the reasons why Apple is doing the right thing by dropping Flash in their browser. I mean, what's the point? Having a web page that renders well and quickly except for blue boxes, or having "flash support" that results in your browser slowing to a crawl on all but the most "lightweight" flash pages?

  • You fail... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30, 2010 @06:13PM (#30965926)

    Um, you're confusing Opera Mini with Opera Mobile, which is a full browser.

  • Re:"even flash"? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30, 2010 @06:19PM (#30965980)

    The points are that flash is the most common way to deliver video content, which my N800 generally plays fine, and that I only load the flash I want to load, so I have more flexibility to view more pages by having flash support than by not having it. Not having it is not an advantage, because I don't load "flash crap", just things I actually want to use or see.

    Apple did not do the right thing, I'm afraid. The right thing would be to give the user the *choice*. Hate flash? Fine, don't use it. Want flash? Fine, use it. Best of both worlds.

  • Re:Highlights? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31, 2010 @01:58AM (#30968406)

    The awesome bar is not awesome. It's shit.

    But those who like it will never agree with those who don't. The biggest problem was that such a major change to the browser was forced on all users - support for FF2 was dropped when 3 came out (or shortly afterwards). There are some workarounds and an extension that tries to bring back the sensible functionality, but it's still not the same.

    The awful bar should have been an extension. Even if Mozilla felt it had to be with the browser, if it were an extension it could be removed properly.

    I think NoScript is pretty awesome (well, I don't - I am just using the same stupid word you did. NS is a good idea, and massively increases security, and reduces annoyances). Should NoScript type functionality should be built into the browser? How would you like it if there was a major change in functionality when you already know how to use a tool, a tool that worked fine in the first place?

    I really wish there were a fork of FF that trimmed it back down to being close to its original aim: to be a sleek, fast, browser with an extension system to add functionality.....

    The awesome bar is so bad that I still haven't upgraded any installs of FF to v3 (and distros that come with FF3 have had it replaced with 2). I have even been using Seamonkey, as that hasn't been ruined to chase the clueless IE users. Yes, that is why FF is being dumbed down, to pander to fuckwits who don't know (and are so anti-intellectual that they refuse to read documentation) that the browser already had searchable bookmarks, and searchable history.

    It is funny how people justify the awful bar being good for everyone, because of their specific need. I'm sure all users need the awful bar in case they need to access the same server, but on a different port. It saves them a few key strokes, and for the hunter-peckers this is good.

  • Re:One device? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quenda ( 644621 ) on Sunday January 31, 2010 @02:52AM (#30968586)

    Actually, it is worse. They support the one and only mobile phone which does not need it.
    The N900 already has an excellent mozilla-based web browser in MicroB. Fennec is very slow in comparison, and unlike to get much acceptance in it's current form.
    (what the n900 needs is a half-decent maps program, or a better mail client, or jave-ME, ... not another browser.)

  • Re:Highlights? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 31, 2010 @12:53PM (#30971170)

    Actually, its incredibly fucking useful.

    No, it is not. It is totally redundant, as (almost) all the functionality it provides was already in the browser, if you know how to use the browser.

    To access history through the address bar is quicker and convenient than having to navigate through a ton of history.

    The history was searchable pre-FF3, and it could be viewed in a few different ways. And a simple ctrl-h will bring up the history, and put the cursor in the search box. So there is no navigating through tons of history.

    Admittedly the history being in a crappy little sidebar sucks, Seamokey's history is better, as it presents a different window with columns of information.

    Do people really go trawling through their history so frequently that having that function available in the address bar is necessary? I doubt it.

    The thing I don't get is even if you don't like it, don't fucking use it.

    That's the point: you can't not fucking use it. You can try, but even with additional software, and option fiddling, things are still fucked up.

    Besides, it adds chubbiness to the browser, and is a major symptom of Mozilla's destruction of the philosophy of FF. FF is just an IE alternative these days, and barely better (it is the extensions that make the product better).

    It doesn't exactly get in the way and cause problems.

    Now that is the biggest issue, it does. It's not clear, it's slower than the simple address bar. It presents lots of information, maybe even opening up opportunities for attack. It also presents irrelevant info: the bar doesn't know if you want bookmarks, history, a search, or if you are entering a new URL, so it does everything at once!

    The awful bar is all about Mozilla ruining FF, and making it into what is basically a proprietary product (99.9999%+ of all users can't program, so to them it might as well be closed source). FF is just an IE competitor, not the best product technology will allow. The addition of the search box directly in the UI with FF2 shows this: the address bar could already by used for searching, but Mozilla (funded mainly by Google) added a redundant search box, right in the user's face, which benefits Google's business more than the user. The UI gets complicated by an additional box, but Google get their brand sitting in the user's eye-line for their whole browsing session.

    The awful barf (lol, gonna leave that typo) is clearly Mozilla trying to make the browser appealing to IE-type users, the ones who will bitch about the line of rubbish (aka, a URL) purely because of their ignorance. Software should not be dumbed down, and generally FLOSS doesn't get dumbed down unless it is being user to chase the mass-market.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.