The Adventures of Systems Boy!

Just wanted to quickly post that the complaint I had about Mobile Safari's browser cache being pointless appears to have been a bug.




And, happily, that bug has been fixed in the 1.1.4 update.

Yay!

Labels: Applications, Hardware, Internet, iPhone

I don't monitor my traffic, but I don't think I have a really heavy readership. Every now and then I have a minor hit, but for the most part we're pretty hardcore systems administration around here. It takes a very special kind of geek to follow exploits such as Tiger Lab Migration, Three Platforms, One Server or External Network Unification.

Truly special.

But all of a sudden I started getting comments on an old article from just over a year ago. Seems the Mac OS X 10.5.2 update causes a similar problem to one in the 10.4.9 update — network slowdowns due to bad delayed ack values, or some such — and MacFixit has linked to the old post. Neato! I feel popular!

Anyway... Hi, MacFixit folks!

Labels: Internet, TheBlog

I love my iPhone. It is increasingly important to me for getting things done. I use it for everything: appointments, reminders, fact-checking, contacts, text, entertainment and, of course, as a telephone. It's boosted my productivity immensely, yet made my life easier and better in so many ways. I'm not sure how many products I can say that about.

Nevertheless, I have one persistent gripe when it comes to the iPhone, one thing that just pisses me off and confounds me every time I encounter it: Mobile Safari's cache is simply too small, to the point where it almost seems pointless to have cache at all. Case in point: I open a web page. It gets cached. I open a new window, and a new page in that new window. It too gets cached. Unfortunately, this new cache invariably wipes out the previously cached page, so that when I navigate back to the other window, the first page has to reload. And, just for the record, these are mostly text-based blogs, sometimes with a picture or two. It doesn't always go down this way, but more often than not it does. This defeats the usefulness of both cache and the multi-page interface available in the browser. I'm not sure what the point is.

I'm sure the browser cache equation rides a fine line between usefulness and unnecessary disc overuse. But for anyone who uses the Edge network on any kind of regular basis, I think they've got that balance wrong. And I can't help wondering why they don't give us a setting — just like in any other desktop browser — for cache size, within a sensible range, of course. Or, if not that, simply make the default a bit larger. The current one is pointlessly small.

UPDATE:
Fixed!

Labels: Applications, Hardware, Internet, iPhone

I'm not sure why, but the concept of the WYSIWYG HTML editor has really taken a beating. The most recent comment I've heard comes from Shawn Blanc's review of MarsEdit, an offline blog editing product. Shawn says that:

"In all my experience with WYSIWYG editors I have found them a clumsy enemy of fine web typography."

This, apparently, is the major rationale for what seems to be the prevailing notion in the web development community that WYSIWYG HTML editors are an inherently bad idea. The logic seems to go something like: every time I edit my web page in a WYSIWYG editor, the experience is a bad one, therefore the concept of WYSIWYG HTML editors is flawed from the get-go; real designers only ever edit raw HTML. (Though I might point out that I have yet to see or read of a single example of a WYSIWYG editor creating terrible HTML code in a very long time, at least when it comes to fairly simple HTML pages, which most blog pages are. But I'm getting ahead of myself.)

Comments like the following also make it sound like if I'm not editing raw text, I'm just a big pansy-ass wuss:

"I suspect most of you are at least a bit HTML savvy and prefer the use of monospace type and a HTML editor anyway. But for those who are getting weak in the knees at the thought of having to type your own HTML relax."

Now, I'm not a web developer by any stretch of the imagination, but my experience with WYSIWYG editors — even web-based ones — has been largely positive. And, though I'm fairly comfortable looking at HTML code (and actually enjoy looking at other types of code), I never, ever want to edit it if I can at all avoid it. It's a completely unnecessary distraction from what I'm here to do: write. I'd much rather work on something that more closely resembles the finished product and not have it cluttered up with code. It's not that I'm scared of the code, it's that I'm annoyed by it.

For my personal web pages I have always used Dreamweaver. And while the user experience offered by that app is not always the most intuitive or Mac-like, it's always far preferable to me than using a text editor. For my blog pages — which are all formatted exactly the same way as per the Blogger style sheets I've set up — I use the Blogger-supplied online WYSIWYG editor. As much as I like the idea of working on my blog offline, I do not use MarsEdit or any other such client. And the reason is because of their lack of WYSIWYG.


John Gruber also supports the use of MarsEdit and its ilk:

"My best argument for using MarsEdit (or any desktop weblog editor) instead of a web-based interface is that it’s like using a desktop email client instead of webmail."

That's a great argument, except that it's a bit flawed: A desktop email client adds features and ease-of-use to the email experience. MarsEdit, on the other hand, removes a major feature that, for me anyway, greatly hinders ease-of use. It's far less aggravating to me to use a web-based WYSIWYG editor than it is to use a desktop-based code editor. To follow Gruber's analogy, using MarsEdit is like using a desktop mail client that only shows you the code in which your email is written. MarsEdit hinders ease-of-use by making me look at code when I really don't need to. All I need are some very simple markup commands and basic text editing. I really can't see any reason not to use WYSIWYG, particularly when it comes to editing blogs.

But this is not to completely disparage MarsEdit. That's not my intention at all. It sounds like a great product, really, and MarsEdit's author, Daniel Jalkut even acknowledges the need for WYSIWYG in his product and is planning it for a future release. Awesome. I may even buy and use MarsEdit when that day comes.

My point is that the WYSIWYG HTML editor is a great idea that someone needs to get on and do right. I believe its time has come. Over the past few years I've watched a series of HTML editors hit the market. The latest are either completely template-based — like Apple's iWeb, which lacks any ability to examine the code when it's necessary to do so, which is a big problem — or completely code-based — like, well, all the others. In between is a gaping chasm. The giant WYSIWYG hole. CSS editors, too, seem to be plagued by this lack of WYSIWYG. So I always find myself using Dreamweaver in the end, for lack of a better replacement. I suspect I'm not alone.

Again, I can't help wondering if there's a faulty rationale at work here. Do software authors think that, because their WYSIWYG editor experiences have been bad ones, the basic idea is also bad? Or entirely too difficult to build? Or unprofitable? Because I think that, in the same way that beautiful, affordable image editors are springing up to challenge Adobe's dominance with Photoshop, WYSIWYG HTML editors could have great appeal. I've been marginally on the lookout for one for years, and I write web pages only occasionally. And the best I've found, frankly, is Dreamweaver, which is good but not great, and very expensive.

Or is it possible that it's just machismo? (God, I hope not. Is there anything worse than macho geeks?) It is possible that developers think that WYSIWYG just isn't cool? That real web developers would scoff at such a product? Seriously, why is it that Coda, an absolutely beautiful app that does, like, everything under the sun, lacks the basic WYSIWYG found in all web-based editors? (Yes, I would totally buy Coda if it had WYSIWYG. Without a doubt.)

Guys, all I can say is, you're missing a big opportunity here.

Labels: Applications, Interface, Internet, TheBlog

I recently wondered aloud about the benefits of MacFUSE-supplied ssh access in a web development environment. A reader asked for a follow-up in the comments to that post, so I thought I'd just do a quickie today.

After writing the article, I tried out MacFUSE and the sshfs extension to that bundle. This combo facilitates the mounting of ssh-enabled computers directly on the Mac OS Desktop via a bundled GUI app, foregoing the need for an FTP client application. It was our hope that this would provide a more intuitive and user-friendly experience for our web developers. Unfortunately, in my experience there were bugs: the ssh filesystems often hung or had trouble mounting, often requiring a logout or restart to get things back to normal. (Mind you, this was over a month ago, in Mac OS X 10.4.something-or-other and God-knows-what version of MacFUSE and sshfs.) Also, from a user-simplification standpoint I felt that adding yet another application to the mix (the sshfs GUI app for mounting shares) didn't really do all that much to simplify things. In fact, in some ways, it complicated matters as it is not standard practice anywhere as yet.

That said, I really like the idea of mounting any sort of network share in the Finder. It's what's done in every aspect of our filesharing lives except web development, for some reason (that reason mainly being that Apple, inexplicably, still has not implemented this capability into the Finder.) As I mentioned in the original article, there are styles of development that take place outside the lab that are inherently different from what can happen inside a lab. The use of MAMP, for instance, is not friendly to a shared, multi-user environment, but is perfectly suited to a lone user on a single computer. So, again, I wonder aloud, do we provide a different way of working inside the lab than outside? A completely different workflow?

Ultimately, my answer will mostly be yes, I think. We provide it. We provide it right alongside the sorts of workflows that are common in the industry today. We provide both. We show students. We show teachers. And hopefully, someday, down the line, this will become the standard way of developing for the web. Until then we leave the old ways in place; they are not mutually exclusive.

My concern with MacFUSE and sshfs right now is stability. Because the product requires kernel extensions, and because I saw bugs in my limited testing, I am reluctant to put this on our machines. I can, however, use NFS from within our lab to provide a testing ground for the same sort of behavior that MacFUSE provides (i.e. ssh servers on the Desktop). And this will actually fit in nicely with the way we mount other shares in the lab as well (more nicely than the sshfs GUI, in particular). I will most likely implement this over the summer, however, as there's not enough time in the semester for it to really have much impact. Also, things will probably change a bit with the arrival of Leopard to the lab, and I don't see much point in making folks learn it twice.

Again, external development can be handled differently. So I may recommend, for advanced users, the use of MacFUSE outside the lab if they really end up digging the Desktop web development experience.

That's my take at this point on MacFUSE and web development. Hope it's useful to someone.

Labels: Applications, Internet, Lab, Server

I'm not a web programmer by any means. But a component of the department I work in deals with the web from an artistic standpoint, and a subset of that group does, in fact, do programming. We have web programming classes.

Recently, one of the teachers of one of those classes made the charge that our approach to web programming is old and outmoded. Whether this is true or not is not really the issue. I've been looking for new ways to think about the systems end of that workflow because, well, that's my job, and because it's an inherently interesting challenge to me. How can we make our web development environment more user-friendly?

One general suggestion has been to make the experience more "OS-like." And one step in this direction is to have the web server mount on the Desktop, allowing the developer to work on her site as if it were local. That is, rather than firing up one of the popular SFTP clients and transferring files back and forth from the local machine to the server, the developer could mount her site — or actually, the share her site lives on — directly on the local filesystem. I have two options here: MacFUSE and NFS. I'm testing both currently. So far I've had a couple minor hiccups with MacFUSE's sshfs.app, but it looks to be a fairly smart and user-friendly implementation that web developers here might benefit from. And the NFS approach would work well also, though only from inside the network.

I'm curious what other Lab Admins are doing with regards to web development in their environments. How have you facilitated ease-of-use for a process that's inherently complicated? Or have you? Also, I'm curious if anyone is using MacFUSE — specifically the sshfs component — and what experiences you might have had with it, either positive or negative.

If any of you fine readers have any thoughts on this I would really love to hear them. I've been querying students, staff and faculty for ideas, but haven't come up with much. Maybe things here are perfect, but somehow I doubt it. And, as always, I really just want to make things better.

Please sound off in the comments if you're so inclined.

Labels: Applications, Internet, Lab, Server

The term "sea change" has been extremely popular of late. I'm not sure why. I have a sneaking suspicion that the universe of online Mac journalism is highly incestuous. (I feel dirty.) But stranger still, the word "rejigger" has popped up, in one form or another, in no fewer than three articles or blogs, today alone, each related to Leopard.

And that is why rejigger is today's Word of the Day.

Okay kids. Give it a rest now.

Labels: Humor, Internet, Leopard, Rants

Two hallelujah items today: First, Google Mail now supports IMAP. This is great news for us POP haters, particularity to the extent that we love ourselves some serious GMail. As of this writing, GMail's IMAP capabilities aren't available to everyone, but should be in the next few days. According to Google:

Don't fret if you don't see "IMAP Access" yet under the Settings menu. We're rolling it out to everyone over the next few days.

Second, the hideous Leopard Dock will now, apparently, be optional. And what's awesome is that the attractive replacement actually looks to be an improvement over the current, Tiger Dock, at least from my aesthetic perspective.

Neat-O!




At least that's what being reported as of today, two days before Leopard's actual release. We'll see how it actually goes. Either way, I'm happy.

Labels: Internet, Leopard, MacOSX

I promise this won't become a link list blog, but damn if this isn't a great critique of some of Apple's recent policies and practices:
iPhone & iPod: contain or disengage?

G'wan then... Get readin'!

Labels: Applications, Hardware, Internet, Systems

As a Systems Administrator in an art department, one of the key facets of my job, I realize more and more, is creating the best possible experience for our users. This is a goal I share with many people and companies, among them Apple Inc. So I find myself thinking about things like interface design, and how to continue refining and simplifying our systems and our facility, and I look to the industry for insight into that process. Apple's products have always been an inspiration to me in this regard. There is also the occasional pundit-supplied brilliant insight into this concept. This week there were two, and I wanted to point to them specifically.

The first article is from John Gruber/Daring Fireball and talks about why the iPhone lacks copy/paste functionality. It's great writing: clear, concise, the kind of analysis I wish I could write. It's spot-on too, and it highlights a great example of Apple leaving out functions at least partly for simplicity's sake. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in interface analysis:
Clipboard and Text Selection : iPhone :: Arrow Keys : Original Macintosh

The second article is by John Siracusa, over at Ars Technica, and is perhaps more related to the things I deal with on this blog. It's about why Apple largely ignores the enterprise market:
Stuck on the Enterpsise

Anyone interested in creating great end-user experience in software development, hardware development, systems administration, web design, lab administration, or, hell, anywhere else for that matter, should look at what Apple does. And anyone who wants to read really well written, thoughtful analysis of that endeavor should check out these writers. They're both really good.

Labels: Internet, Systems

Universal recently announced that they — like a handful of other major record companies — would begin offering DRM-free music for download at a number of online stores. But not on iTunes. It's a strange and controversial decision, and probably represents Universal's best efforts to gain some control over the online music market, which, from everything I've ever read, is currently dominated by iTunes. The tech world is, of course, up in arms over Universal's decision. But I find all this hullabaloo strange.

Ken Fisher, at Ars Technica, writes:

I know I've run across a few Universal albums I would have bought but then reconsidered, thinking, "This will be DRM-free soon." Foolish? Maybe, but DRM-free products are clearly superior, and it looks like music fans in general believe that to be the case.

Yes, Ken. Without a doubt that was indeed unbelievably foolish. You see, Ken, and anyone else out there who cares about this sort of thing and happens to be listening, which, come to think of it, is probably about six people at this point, there's a perfectly reasonable alternative to DRMed downloads that's been available for over 25 years: Buy the fucking CD! Yes, you can still buy CDs. You can even buy them online. And guess what? They're completely, 100% DRM-free. Not only that, they're better quality, they often include song lyrics and nifty graphics, and you don't ever have to worry about making a backup.

I find it strange that people are fighting so hard for DRM-free music online when the option to buy a CD has existed for years. Do DRM-free online music purchases offer certain conveniences? Sure. Immediate gratification, for one. But that's about it. In fact, the major advantage of DRM-free music will probably go to the music companies, they're just too stupid to realize it: increases in online sales over physical sales, which, since online music requires zero manufacturing costs, will be a huge gain for them.

So what are you fighting for? Essentially, you're fighting for the record companies to make more money so that your digital musical lifestyle can be slightly more convenient and instantly gratifying. Stop it. Please. It's stupid and I'm tired of reading about it. The solution is really quite simple. If you've forgotten, I'll say it one more time: Buy the fucking CD!

Ah, yes. I do feel better.

Labels: Internet, Rants

Internet communications involve a vast multitude of tiny but complex transactions all working together in a concerted effort to transmit and receive various kinds of data. We all know this. But at no time has this fact been more evident to me than during my visit to my mother's backwoods home in Maryland, where the AT&T cellular service on my iPhone has ranged from intermittent to nonexistent. From time to time, however, I can get a connection just long enough to fire off an SMS, but using any other service that requires the Edge network is like watching the internet in slow motion. Surfing is a non-option. And sending email takes significantly longer in this slowed-down world of spotty service. But I found it surprising initially that SMS is able to get through where mail cannot. My first impression would be to assume that both would go about at about the same speed — both consist primarily of text data and are fairly lightweight. But email is clearly the more complex transaction, requiring the contacting of and authentication to mail servers and often the exchange of said data over secure channels. I'm not sure how SMS works, but it's something much, much simpler and more direct. And when everything is going in super slow motion these differences become painfully apparent.

This trip was to be the ultimate test of my iPhone's capabilities: could I survive a weekend at my mothers without a laptop, using only the iPhone instead? Would it hold up on the train as an entertainment device for the two-and-a-half hour trip? Would it function adequately as an internet appliance for light surfing and emailing? Would it work as a telephone?

Surprisingly, it worked well enough in every capacity but this last one: I could not use my iPhone as a cell phone at my mother's. I eventually discovered that, when laid flat on its back, the iPhone was able to generally maintain a connection to the AT&T network, so SMS, email and surfing were possible though the latter two were often painfully slow. Still, they were good enough to get me through the weekend. Where the iPhone fell down was as a cell phone. As soon as I'd lift it to my ear (sometimes sooner) it would drop any call I might be attempting.

This is a major disappointment. I was expecting the other functions of the phone to be limited, but I was pretty sure I'd be able to use it as a phone most places in the U.S. It worked plenty well in the Adirondacks. But at my mother's house (the phone seems to get healthy reception a few blocks away) I simply can't use my cell phone anymore. This was never a problem with Sprint. Indeed my folks have used Sprint without issue for years here.

Moving to AT&T was a calculated risk. One that, at least in this case, did not pay off. At this point I can only hope that either the iPhone's reception somehow gets significantly more stable in the vertical position in remote areas, or that AT&T's service eventually broadens to encompass the greater Annapolis area. Until then I'll be stuck on Sprint for the holidays.

So, in conclusion: the iPhone does actually replace my laptop as a portable internet and media device for short trips; unfortunately, it doesn't replace my cell phone. And that just blows.

This post written on my iPhone

Labels: Internet, iPhone, Systems

Apologies if you've recently posted a comment on this blog, and had not heard back from me (I try to respond to all comments whenever I can). Seems that my Gmail account for receiving comment alerts began flagging them as spam. Seems the address for comment alerts was also not among my contacts. Seems odd to me, though, that two Google-made products would suddenly butt heads like that. Seems like they should know better.

Anyway, I'm back on track with comments again, and I've just posted a bunch of responses. So if you were looking for one, check for it. It should be there.

Labels: Internet, TheBlog

It's funny. I just read Ars Technica's exhaustive-as-usual iPhone review, and in the conclusion they write:

It's clear to us that the iPhone wasn't meant, at the outset anyway, as a smartphone for smartphone people (who typically end up being business people). Instead, the iPhone was meant as a smartphone for everyone else: average people who, until now, had no reason or motivation to get a BlackBerry or something similar that may have been more difficult to use and had way too many features for the average phone user.

Why is this funny? Because the Ars crew and I completely disagree when it comes to the things we love and hate most about the iPhone. Particularly Safari — it's their "home run," but my least favorite part. This discrepancy is primarily a matter of perspective. I am a typical, non-smartphone using cell phone user. Or at least that's where I'm coming from. I'm used to surfing the web on a computer and using a phone as a phone and contact device. So everything that improves upon the telephone experience is a boon for me, but I never surfed on my phone anyway, and compared to my computer the iPhone just can't stack up. Smartphone users, on the other hand, have been frustrated by this crippled, mobile version of the web on their phones for years, so the iPhone's version of the web is a huge boon for them.

What's amazing, though, is that in the end we both come out fairly pleased with the device on the whole. Ars gives it an 8 out of 10. I'd give it a 9. But overall there is enough good about the iPhone to please both the cell phone crowd and the smartphone crowd. Now that's what I call balance!

If you really want a thorough review, I highly recommend the one at Ars.

Labels: Internet, iPhone

I still have no time to post, but I did want to squeeze in a quickie regarding yesterday's WWDC news (or lack thereof).

Labels: Internet, Rants

So the other day I was searching the term "Risso's dolphins" on Google. Something I'd read had referenced them, and I was curious what they looked like. So I type "Risso's dolphins" into that ever-familiar Google search field, and this is what I get back:



Uh, yeah. I did mean "Risso's dolphins." That's why I typed, "Risso's dolphins."

Seriously, Google, you're losin' it, man. Maybe you should see a doctor.

Labels: Humor, Internet

I still don't have time to write anything coherent. So, in lieu of — and as a tip of the hat to — my inability to do so, I give you this:
They didn't study

Via Scribd.

Oh my god that's hilarious.

Labels: Humor, Internet, TheBlog

I'm in a rotten mood lately. It's my time of year. Sorry for all the ranting and swearing. Keep your kids away for the next couple of weeks.

Right, then.

I've always been baffled by the use of the "Start" page or "Enter" page at the front of some websites. I mean, really, what's the point of these things? If I didn't want to start or enter the site, I wouldn't have gone there in the first place. And, technically, I've already "entered" the site simply by navigating to it. So, I've always asked myself, why the extra step?


Today I think I figured out the answer. The Enter page signals something subtle but immensely important: You are about to be fucked up the ass. When you click the Enter button, a series of things is about to happen. First, a new window will pop up. This new window will be of a size, position and aspect ratio of the site author's choosing, i.e. not of your choosing and probably as gigantic as possible. The URL bar, bookmark bar, tab bar and anything else you might rely on for browsing the web will be disabled. And this new, probably gigantic window will most likely be populated with... nothing, at least for the first few seconds, save for a "progress" bar (really, is this progress?), which is a sure sign that, yes, you've just been anally reamed. Congratulations.


Eventually, the Flash will load and you'll be browsing the site in no time, and, like some sort of alien abduction, you'll have absolutely no memory of this violation. Next time you see that Enter button, you'll go right ahead and click it like nothing ever happened. And then later you'll scratch your head and wonder where all the rectal bleeding is coming from.

So this post is a warning to all you forgetful folks out there. If you see a Start or Enter page for a site, just remember: It's a trap! Don't click it! No good can come of it.

Someday you'll thank me.

Labels: Internet, Rants

del.icio.us has suddenly, and for no apparent reason, begun sorting my bookmarks in reverse order. Of course the sort order always seemed completely arbitrary and impossible to configure anyway, but still I got very used to clicking things in that certain, screwy order. And now it's backwards.

Um... What The Fuck?... I'm irked.

Anyone know a way to sort del.icio.us bookmarks in some logical order, once and for all? Please. I'm begging.

Labels: Internet, Rants

I've been using the latest version of Firefox and I'm happy to report that it does indeed rock. I have no intention of switching to anything else as my primary browser for the foreseeable future. Firefox gives me nearly everything I desire from a browser with just a few tweaks from the out-of-the box configuration.

Why Firefox?
Firefox gets raves for its extensibility. This is what most users cite as the reason to use Firefox, the thing that makes it special. And it's true, Firefox functionality can be augmented out the wazoo with hundreds of extensions. This is amazingly cool, but I have to say, it's not primarily why I use Firefox. The main reason I use Firefox is because it works with everything. Every site I read can be loaded properly in Firefox, and every feature of those sites works as it should. Case in point: the Blogger site I use to manage this blog uses an in-browser WYSIWYG HTML editor that does not work in Safari. In fact, there have been quite a few content management sites that just don't work for me in Safari — parts of Joomla, device managers, and the like — making Safari a non-option for me at this point. So for sheer reliability, compatibility and functionality I choose Firefox. Everything else is icing on the cake, of which there is plenty.

Among the features I've come to rely on in Firefox, movable tabs ranks at the top. I'm not sure why this is so handy, but it's often just really great to be able to organize tabs in a sensible order, particularly if you're bookmarking them as a group (another feature lacking in Safari at present). I also really enjoy being able to close any tab by clicking it with the scroll-wheel button on my mouse. This is an immensely handy feature that I miss when I'm using any other browser. Lastly, I love that Firefox can remember and auto-fill username fields while not needing to remember passwords; it handles them separately, which I really prefer to the all-or-nothing approach of other browsers. But these are version 1.5 features. Firefox 2.0 continues this great experience and adds some more fantastic features.

New Features
Probably the best thing about version 2 is the spell-check feature. Firefox now can spell-check text entered into text fields. (Finally!) Misspelled words are underlined in dotted red and can be right-clicked for a list of suggested corrections, or can be added to the Firefox dictionary (which is separate from the Apple dictionary). This is probably the one thing I missed in Firefox after switching from Safari, so I'm pretty happy about it. (Incidentally, the Camino beta also offers spell-checking, but lacks the correction functions. Frankly, I'm not sure why they even bothered.)

Another great new feature: Firefox can remember your last set of open tabs when you close the browser, and can automatically open them on next launch (Under Preferences->Main->Startup->When Firefox Starts choose "Show my windows and tabs from last time"). There's also a "Recently Closed Tabs" entry in the History menu in case you accidentally close something. This is all integrated into a crash-proof mechanism that will remember your browser state should the application crash, and get you right back where you were if it does. I've seen this feature in action. It works. In fact, if you want to see for yourself, force quit your Firefox session. On next launch you'll get this dialog:



Hit "Restore Session" and you'll get all your tabs and windows back. Cool!

Finally, this latest incarnation of Firefox seems a bit peppier than the last. Not that I really need my browser to scream, but the little boost is nice after using speedier products like Safari and Camino. Firefox 2 also looks a bit better and seems to render text more nicely, with fewer glitches and artifacts, particularly in places like text entry fields, giving it much more Mac-like polish than ever before. These differences are subtle and hard to describe, but Firefox 2 definitely feels more like a Mac app than any previous incarnation.

Tweaks
Firefox's appearance still isn't perfect. In fact, while I admit I initially liked the "Visual Refresh" touted in the new version, I gradually came to hate it. Yes, hate. I find the new controls are just plain ugly and far too garish for day-to-day use.



I much prefer any other browser's look, but my favorite is Safari, which has the simplest and least obtrusive control bar of them all, which is what I like. This is where Firefox's extensibility comes in handy. This browser can use themes, and there are a bunch to choose from. And of course, there are a bunch that mimic the look of Safari. My personal favorites come from Arronax's takebacktheweb.org. Currently I'm using the UNO theme (sans UNO).



I'm also using Neal Lee's optimized Firefox build with aqua form widgets from BeatnikPad to enhance the appearance of things like checkboxes and pull-down menus.

The only extension I use is Google's Google Browser Sync. It keeps a copy of your browser state — bookmarks, cookies, last open tabs and windows, saved passwords and history, or any combination thereof — on a Google server, so that when you open Firefox on another computer, everything gets synced up and remains consistent from machine-to-machine. It's a godsend. And it's compatible with Firefox 2.0. In fact, one of the nice things about Google Browser Sync is that it always seems to remain compatible through browser updates. I've never had to update the extension. The other thing about Google Browser Sync is that it's only made for Firefox. It's certain functions and features like this, specific to Firefox, that keep me coming back to this application for all my browser needs. Firefox does it all and more.

I've been a fairly happy camper when it comes to Firefox for a little over a year now. And I'm an even happier camper with the new version. The improvements are subtle in this release. But they're important. And, wonderfully, they've left everything good about previous versions in place.

Labels: Applications, Internet