MozillaZine

Camino 0.8 Released

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004

Mike Pinkerton writes: "Camino version 0.8 was released tonight. In addition to performance, stability, and rendering improvements inherited from Mozilla 1.7, Camino 0.8 adds a Google Search bar in the toolbar; a more-compact download manager; an entirely rewritten bookmark system, capable of importing Safari, IE, and Mozilla bookmarks, with Rendezvous and Address Book integration and multi-level undo support; session history on back/forward buttons; greatly improved cookie management; and many more changes.

"Since the last release of Camino, the following upgrades have been made to the underlying Gecko engine, and are now available in Camino: incremental, type-ahead find in the content area, automatic size-to-fit for image images larger than the viewable content area and numerous performance and web page rendering enhancements, XSLT support, as well as a large number of bug-fixes."

Grab the release from the FTP site and check out the release notes for more information on what's new.


#1 w00t

by Jonny_R

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

w00t - first post

great job guys!

#2 The latest?

by mlefevre

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 4:28 PM

Reply to this message

What's all this publicity about Camino... Firefox is the latest from Mozilla (or so mozilla.org's home page claims...)

#3 Re: The latest?

by Gnu

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

Among other things, Camino is developed from the ground up with the Mac-native Cocoa interface, in a similar vein to Galeon for GTK and K-Meleon for Win32.

#4 Re: Re: The latest?

by mlefevre

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 5:31 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry... unmarked sarcasm.

I know what Camino is, I'm just pointing out that the mozilla.org are marketing Firefox hard, and Camino, Thunderbird and the suite get hardly a mention.

Asa's blog post at <http://weblogs.mozillazin…/asa/archives/005806.html> has the Camino press release that wasn't :)

#8 Re: Re: Re: The latest?

by Gnu

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 9:03 PM

Reply to this message

Right over my head. Wasn't paying the least bit of attention.

I'd be inclined to agree, especially in the case of the suite -- I love Firefox to death, but the suite is a finished product ready-to-go for end-users and corporate installations. Firefox is still beta, no matter how you look at it.

#5 hahaha...

by gigsvoo

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 6:04 PM

Reply to this message

They are some different flavor of the same brand of product...Diet Coke, Coke and Vanilla Coke.

#6 For us sad non-Mac users...

by mikemarco

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 6:20 PM

Reply to this message

...anyone have any screenshots?

I've been drooling over a PowerBook, but alas, my tight post-collegiate budget doesn't allow for one. So I'll have to admire Camino from a distance. *sigh*

(Firefox, meanwhile, rocks my Linux/Windows world.)

#12 Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by buff

Thursday June 24th, 2004 7:34 AM

Reply to this message

Your tight post-collegiate budget might actually be helping you. Possibly you would be better off with a cheap Intel laptop fitted with Fedora or Mandrake linux. I put Fedora 2 on my Toshiba laptop and it is in many ways better and more powerful than a macintosh with a much lower price. Just because it is all glitzy and sexy looking doesn't necesarily make it more useful. Appearances can be deceiving...

#13 Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by arielb

Thursday June 24th, 2004 7:48 AM

Reply to this message

yeah I'm sure MS office and Photoshop run great on fedora

#17 Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by buff

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:41 AM

Reply to this message

I use Open Office 1.1 and Gimp 2.0 for image editing and exchange images/docs with web designers all the time. I haven't run into any problems yet. Ah, if only the general public was more aware of these free options instead of being MS one-source conditioned. Alas...perhaps over time this realization will take hold and spread.

#19 Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by sdkaneda

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:51 AM

Reply to this message

A lot of people don't think the GIMP can hold a candle to Photoshop. Lousy GUI, filters and other operations take forever, etc.

#20 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by buff

Thursday June 24th, 2004 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

The Gimp 2.0 is much, much better than the original version. I use layers, filters and image correction to process all my digital photos. You have to keep in mind different OS's are better for different reasons. If you absolutely had to have Photoshop and digital film editing than Linux would probably be a poor choice. If you are more of a web developer/programmer and use files produced by a design team then Linux makes a good choice since you could take advantage of numerous development tools that Linux comes with. Right now I am using Fedora linux core 2 with a nightly build of Mozilla Firefox with the GTK2 options and I have smooth, antialiased fonts that looks better than Firefox running under Windows XP, in my opinion.

#22 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users..

by sdkaneda

Thursday June 24th, 2004 10:07 AM

Reply to this message

Wanna post or link someone else's screenshot? I'd like to see how smooth the antialiasing is. Some antialiasing schemes make the text unacceptably blurry..

And does the GIMP 2.0 support Lab color mode?

#24 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac use

by Plutor

Thursday June 24th, 2004 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

<http://plutor.org/temp/gimp-2.0.png> (600K 1600x1200 PNG, sorry)

#32 Gimp 2

by leafdigital

Friday June 25th, 2004 2:05 AM

Reply to this message

I don't know if it supports LAB colour or not but Gimp 2 is indeed a *huge* improvement over the previous version. It's now sort of barely acceptable in terms of UI, with the only remaining unbelievably stupid thing being the way every single image operation (e.g. changing brightness/contrast in a dialog) counts as changing the currently selected 'tool'.

It's no competition for Photoshop but it definitely shows promise - if there's a Gimp 3 then maybe we'll be talking. In the meantime, basically if you don't want to spend hundreds of pounds on an image editor, and you're willing to live with a slightly clunky interface, it's definitely an excellent option; well done to the Gimp team.

--sam

#34 Re: Gimp 2

by brokenvoice

Friday June 25th, 2004 7:22 AM

Reply to this message

The things I find most braindead about the GIMP are the ridiculous keyboard shortcuts. You can't expect to woo professionals from the industry standard applications by ignoring the standard ways to do things. The GIMP is great for what it is and v2 is relatively awesome (relative to v1.x, that is), but what it is isn't a replacement for photoshop.

#31 Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by arielb

Thursday June 24th, 2004 8:48 PM

Reply to this message

you know what? I downloaded Gimp for windows-I'm not a photoshopper but if I can get a power photo app for free then that's great!

#33 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by buff

Friday June 25th, 2004 5:23 AM

Reply to this message

That's great that you are using it. Gimp 2 for Windows is like a hidden jewel. Not many people know about it. I put it on all the computers at work and a lot of people have started using it. Open source is just so damn cool. It might not be as fancy as Photoshop but it is very useful for quick photo editing.

#38 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users..

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Thursday July 1st, 2004 4:36 AM

Reply to this message

I used to create new Gimp users by refusing to allow bootleg installs of Photoshop (no purchase without a business case). "You can use this instead ... the interface is unspeakably bad, but the functions are all there ..."

#25 Re: Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by seasleepy <seasleepy@yahoo.com>

Thursday June 24th, 2004 11:27 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, they do. ;) <http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice> (Not taking sides in the OS whatever, just pointing that out.)

On topic, hooray for Camino. All the Mac users I know are very particular about things being properly Apple-style, and it's great that I can point them to something that fits in with their systems so well.

#35 Re: Re: For us sad non-Mac users...

by mikemarco

Friday June 25th, 2004 1:09 PM

Reply to this message

I already run a dual-boot Debian (unstable) and Windows XP system. I've found that Linux in general still isn't a solid choice as a desktop operating system just yet. Granted, this isn't entirely the fault of Linux--I'm sure hardware compatibility would be tons better if manufacturers paid more attention to it (read: took it more seriously). It would also be nice if laptop manufacturers implemented ACPI in some standard way so that power management would work right. Hell, it's spotty even in Windows sometimes. But little things like software installation should be a little less intimidating for end users. I like that I can install software on Windows by just running a setup utility--or just by dragging and dropping a single icon on Macs in some cases. Thankfully I have the apt-get system at my fingertips, which is a huge improvement over the dependency hell of RPM. But it's still not entirely intuitive to the typical end-user. (I'm of the opinion that end users should never have to touch the root account, ever.) I've seen Linux make solid gains in the desktop arena over the past few years. I don't think it's gotten to the point where it's truly a viable competitor in that arena, but I'm keeping the faith.

Apple has gone to great lengths to provide a user-centered experience (this is the intention anyway; I can't say for certain that they succeed 100% of the time), and it shows. For the most part, stuff just works, no need to fiddle with settings all day. And there's a consistency to the Mac user experience that you just can't get running Windows or Linux. (Note how much more often Mac users cry foul if they're handed an application that isn't "Mac-like" enough. Easy examples: Word 6 and earlier versions of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox.) But if you're a compulsive tweaker like I am, there's always a Terminal application that reminds you that all this eye candy is riding on top of a BSD-dervied Mach kernel. Simplicity, reliability, power, and looks--all in one package that actually doesn't cost much more than a high-quality PC. Unfortunately, I can't rationalize my choice of a PowerBook beyond what I've said here, other than to say that it's one gorgeous piece of hardware. Not too many computers will get you the attention of the opposite sex (or the same sex, however you swing).

Meanwhile, I'm ok with my Dell systems. They do what they're designed to do without too much fuss, and I really can't complain.

#7 screenshots

by sizemoresr

Wednesday June 23rd, 2004 7:58 PM

Reply to this message

#9 what font is that?

by pcabellor

Thursday June 24th, 2004 6:23 AM

Reply to this message

Trivial question: What's that font MacOS seems to use as default? It look awfully better than Tmes New Roman. Are there free/open source alternatives similar to it?

#10 Re: what font is that?

by MillenniumX

Thursday June 24th, 2004 6:51 AM

Reply to this message

Are you talking about the Camino site or the one Firefox is using?

The Firefox site uses the default font, which on Macs is Lucida Grande. It's worth noting that LG is one of those fonts that looks much better in high resolutions or with good anti-aliasing; it's not a very nice font at the relatively low resolution of an un-antialiased screen.

The Camino site doesn't actually use the default font; I think it uses Optima. Another nice font in its own right.

My personal favorite, though, is Marty Pfeiffer's Nu Sans. It's not cheap ($12 shareware for the set of four, including Bold, Italic, and Bold-Italic versions), but it's just about the only font that I'd pay that kind of a shareware fee for. The Web looks like it was made for this thing. Seriously. They offer a demo (just the plain version; you can of course set it to Bold and Italic normally but without the hinting it doesn't look quite as good), so try it out. <http://www.scootergraphics.com/nusans/>

#11 Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Mac browser?

by an0n1m0us

Thursday June 24th, 2004 7:20 AM

Reply to this message

I have been reading MozillaZine for a while not and Camino keeps popping up. Why does it get any attention when there is Firefox for Mac? Too many choices is classic open source *nix overkill that confuses the end user IMHO.

#14 Re: Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Mac browse

by DGall

Thursday June 24th, 2004 8:58 AM

Reply to this message

Obviously, you are not a Mac user. If you were then you would know why Camino is needed and why Firefox for Mac fails at being a great Mac browser.

#15 Re: Re: Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Mac br

by awcole72

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

<rant>"Obviously, you are not a Mac user" just pisses me off. What a completely pompus, elitist, holier than thou answer to a perfectly valid question. Not to mention that you didn't bother to answer the question. Rrrrrrrrr!!!!</rant>

So, I'm a mac user and I have no idea why I should switch from Firefox. I'm not a programmer and have no idea why I should care about the native cocoa interface.

Honestly, I really am interested. I'd be willing to switch, I just don't know what the differences between Firefox and Camino are.

#16 Re: Re: Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Mac br

by awcole72

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

<rant>"Obviously, you are not a Mac user" just pisses me off. What a completely pompus, elitist, holier than thou answer to a perfectly valid question. Not to mention that you didn't bother to answer the question. Rrrrrrrrr!!!!</rant>

So, I'm a mac user and I have no idea why I should switch from Firefox. I'm not a programmer and have no idea why I should care about the native cocoa interface.

Honestly, I really am interested. I'd be willing to switch, I just don't know what the differences between Firefox and Camino are.

#18 Re: Re: Re: Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Ma

by DGall

Thursday June 24th, 2004 9:46 AM

Reply to this message

I didn't mean it in a Mac supremacy sort of way. I just meant that if you work in the Mac environment you would know well the shortcomings of FF for Mac. You would know that FF for Mac isn't quite up to speed with FF for Windows. And you could see that Camino and its native OS X goodness have a purpose and place. Sorry if it sounded rude.

#28 Re: Re: Re: Why bother with a 2nd Mozilla-based Mac br

by jelwell

Thursday June 24th, 2004 4:26 PM

Reply to this message

Gotta help out the mac user here. Let's ignore, of course, that firefox was created as the windows answer to camino.

The reason a mac person would use Camino over Firefox is the same reason why XUL initially failed. Users want the look and feel of native widgets. And it really wasn't until XUL could inherit the operating systems look and feel that it was successful. If you can understand that, then ask yourself why would you accept a simulation when you can have the real thing? The benefits may not be apparent, since you can't see what you're missing, not until Apple adds some new feature to their native widgets and Camino inherits the new changes for free and Firefox is left having to implement a new simulation.

All of that aside, going forward what is really going to decide whether you use Camino or Firefox is which browser is being developed more. Seeing how the Mozilla Foundation has limited funds and Camino is a pet project it's entirely likely that Firefox will surpass (if it hasn't already) the feature set of Camino (while still maintaining the wanted simplicity).

Joseph Elwell.

#21 what ARE the differences, anyway?

by sdkaneda

Thursday June 24th, 2004 10:04 AM

Reply to this message

..between camino and firefox, apart from the nuances and idiosyncracies that make mac apps 'feel' like mac apps?

#23 Re: what ARE the differences, anyway?

by DGall

Thursday June 24th, 2004 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

For me, its the superior bookmark manager; the download manager is a real spacesaver, the native toolbar; the fact that it is what you would expect a mac app to feel like, look like and respond and work like; and the speed (fast, IMO, than FF for Mac).

#26 Re: what ARE the differences, anyway?

by Gnu

Thursday June 24th, 2004 1:33 PM

Reply to this message

Apple fanatics are understandably a bit more religious about UI integrity than most. Windows, GNOME, and KDE are already ugly out of the box, so UI issues aren't given nearly as much notice. That's likely why Camino is still considered relatively important to Mozilla, even with Firebird shaping up nicely. Mac users are more apt to look at something with a non-native GUI and jump to the conclusion that it's yet another shoddy Windows or GTK port (which is often justified) and not give it half the chance. In Mozilla's case, they have Safari to compete with, which is no small task to some.

#27 Re: Re: what ARE the differences, anyway?

by Morpheus_

Thursday June 24th, 2004 4:01 PM

Reply to this message

I wouldn't say that it's just that we're more religious; FF has had and still has some UI flaws that can make it really annoying and not even close to on par with its Windows counterpart. I look forward to using FF for Mac, but not until 1.0mac is done. I could list bugs but its probably easier to just look at my vote list: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…amp;user=dancej%40rpi.edu>

Most prominently are Middle-clicking (yes, we can't middle click on *anything* to open a new tab--bug 159986) and cmd-enter/cmd-shift-enter (220589) for .com and .org completion respectively.

It has gotten better, but for now, Camino is better, so that's what I use.

#30 Re: Re: Re: what ARE the differences, anyway?

by Gnu

Thursday June 24th, 2004 8:07 PM

Reply to this message

It's probably a mixed blessing that the final firefox 1.0 release under OS-X will be released some time after the other platforms; it's at least somewhat encouraging that they're taking the UI issues seriously enough to ensure everyone that they WILL be solved in the near future, yet not stall overall development on all platforms in the process.

I don't have access to MacOS anymore as I used to, but I'm planning on procuring some hardware again soon and I'd like some browser parity across all of the platforms I use at home. No middle-clicking? Yikes, that alone is enough to steer me clear for a while.

Is there any word on where Camino might go once the Firefox UI is mature?

#29 Re: Re: what ARE the differences, anyway?

by Morpheus_

Thursday June 24th, 2004 4:54 PM

Reply to this message

I wouldn't say that it's just that we're more religious; FF has had and still has some UI flaws that can make it really annoying and not even close to on par with its Windows counterpart. I look forward to using FF for Mac, but not until 1.0mac is done. I could list bugs but its probably easier to just look at my vote list: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…amp;user=dancej%40rpi.edu>

Most prominently are Middle-clicking (yes, we can't middle click on *anything* to open a new tab--bug 159986) and cmd-enter/cmd-shift-enter (220589) for .com and .org completion respectively.

It has gotten better, but for now, Camino is better, so that's what I use.

#36 Ad blocking?

by ankh

Saturday June 26th, 2004 9:15 AM

Reply to this message

I've stayed with FF because of AdBlock -- is there anything comparable I've missed that works for Camino?

(Now using Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Firefox/0.9 (MMx) with AdBlock 0.5d2 Build 37)

#37 Re: Ad blocking?

by jbzoller <JBZoller@Mac.com>

Saturday June 26th, 2004 10:01 AM

Reply to this message

"comparable"? No.

"pretty good"? Yes... using the same userContent.css file recommended for Fx users does a great job for Cm as well.

The one I use is <http://homepage.mac.com/j…downloads/userContent.css> or you can just get the latest original from <http://texturizer.net/firefox/adblock.html> and customize it yourself. Not the same as having a CM module that says "block ads from..." but with a good uC.css file, that feature is moot anyways.

Long live Camino!