Written by bert.ubuntu the 25 Apr 10 at 13:26.

In the same message box Firefox should present a button where the user can click to have firefox kill its old process and remove the locks (.lock/.parentlock) and finally openning a new window.

It could include a message like "You may lose some information etc."

This would save a lot of time for everyone (including the developers) while the problem is not properly fixed.

In the same message box Firefox should present a button where the user can click to have firefox kill its old process and remove the locks (.lock/.parentlock) and finally openning a new window. It could include a message like "You may lose some information etc." This would save a lot of time for everyone (including the developers) while the problem is not properly fixed.

Written by yzarc the 26 Apr 10 at 12:56.

to make kill in the current opened instance of FF, probably crashed.

to make kill in the current opened instance of FF, probably crashed.

Written by Magnes the 26 Apr 10 at 13:05.

The message appears also when you try to start new Firefox a few seconds after closing another before it closed completely. While displaying the message Firefox could monitor the system checking if the other Firefox is still running and if not - close the message and start itself.

The message appears also when you try to start new Firefox a few seconds after closing another before it closed completely. While displaying the message Firefox could monitor the system checking if the other Firefox is still running and if not - close the message and start itself.

Written by erlendoos the 30 Apr 10 at 22:01.

Only one instance of firefox can be active? Even with functionality like tabs I still have multiple windows of firefox open.

In my humble oppinion, adding buttons to a dialog that I don't want to see at all makes no point.

Only one instance of firefox can be active? Even with functionality like tabs I still have multiple windows of firefox open. In my humble oppinion, adding buttons to a dialog that I don't want to see at all makes no point.

Written by Liso22 the 2 May 10 at 17:38.

I have heard a lot of strange solutions here but never so many together.

Why should we add options to a window we don't want to see at all? and why would your computer waste resources on running firefox twice??, both things are completely illogical. And why would there be a message saying "you may lose information", what you'll probably lose is already impossible to recover so it's already lost from the moment the problem arose, there is no way to open the window again and sooner or later the firefox process will have to be killed.

If the user want to run firefox, just make the computer do whatever it has to run it and for god's sake do it silently.

I have heard a lot of strange solutions here but never so many together. Why should we add options to a window we don't want to see at all? and why would your computer waste resources on running firefox twice??, both things are completely illogical. And why would there be a message saying "you may lose information", what you'll probably lose is already impossible to recover so it's already lost from the moment the problem arose, there is no way to open the window again and sooner or later the firefox process will have to be killed. If the user want to run firefox, just make the computer do whatever it has to run it and for god's sake do it silently.

Written by natureflow the 17 Oct 10 at 07:18.

The new firefox instance should wait until the old firefox instance is closed and then simply continue to start. Don't bother me with that dialog.

The new firefox instance should wait until the old firefox instance is closed and then simply continue to start. Don't bother me with that dialog.

Written by cousteau the 8 Dec 08 at 17:30.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #16342 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #16342 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by BlackLukes the 22 Apr 08 at 20:16.

Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #7432 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution. Thanks!

<i>Ubuntu Brainstorm was updated in January 2009. Since the idea #7432 was submitted before this update, its rationale and solution are not separated. Please vote accordingly, and if you have the necessary rights, please separate the rationale from the solution.</i><br /> Thanks!

Written by duststorm the 27 Feb 10 at 22:45.

A possible solution could be to make the icons small by default, and maybe disable the bookmarks toolbar by default.
Also the status bar at the bottom could be hidden, but most users would probably at least want an indicator when a page is loading (I know I would). A solution like the Fission plugin could be used (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1951?collection_uuid=f6ffe01f-8 ed1-eb77-2543-cfbf0220e7ed)
Maybe this idea can be extended with different ways of accessing the bookmarks, history, downloads and other aspects of the browser.

The browser could be offered as a separate package in the repository.
I do, however, not know what consequences such a repackage will have, for example whether Firefox branding can still be used. Also I don't know whether including plugins by default is an acceptable solution, although Ubuntu ships Firefox with an Ubuntu modifications plugin so maybe this could be a good approach. Using plugins would also keep the browser code (and thus the Firefox branding) intact.

I hope this idea will lead to some discussion. Some screenshots could also make things clearer, I might add these when this idea gains popularity.

A possible solution could be to make the icons small by default, and maybe disable the bookmarks toolbar by default. Also the status bar at the bottom could be hidden, but most users would probably at least want an indicator when a page is loading (I know I would). A solution like the Fission plugin could be used (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1951?collection_uuid=f6ffe01f-8ed1-eb77-2543-cfbf0220e7ed) Maybe this idea can be extended with different ways of accessing the bookmarks, history, downloads and other aspects of the browser. The browser could be offered as a separate package in the repository. I do, however, not know what consequences such a repackage will have, for example whether Firefox branding can still be used. Also I don't know whether including plugins by default is an acceptable solution, although Ubuntu ships Firefox with an Ubuntu modifications plugin so maybe this could be a good approach. Using plugins would also keep the browser code (and thus the Firefox branding) intact. I hope this idea will lead to some discussion. Some screenshots could also make things clearer, I might add these when this idea gains popularity.

Written by The_Great_Bunghole the 3 Mar 10 at 08:16.

Why just have Firefox (very bloated) installed by default? Why not give the choice to use a browser with a smaller footprint & more compact interface?

Just saying... :)

Why just have Firefox (very bloated) installed by default? Why not give the choice to use a browser with a smaller footprint & more compact interface? Just saying... :)

Written by lootic the 5 Mar 10 at 20:43.

Netbooks are in general weaker, midori is really light weight and can be configured so that its bars take very little space. Its perfect for smaller comps. chromium 4 tabs
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r22s-QfbvnY
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&source=hp&q=ubuntu&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&m eta=&aq=f&oq=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23827/
)
about 120MB

midori same 4 tabs

about 50MB

Though midori is more glitchy for some and uses more processor power from what ive noticed.

Netbooks are in general weaker, midori is really light weight and can be configured so that its bars take very little space. Its perfect for smaller comps. chromium 4 tabs ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r22s-QfbvnY http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&source=hp&q=ubuntu&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=&aq=f&oq= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system) http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/23827/ ) about 120MB midori same 4 tabs about 50MB Though midori is more glitchy for some and uses more processor power from what ive noticed.

Written by ArtemZ the 8 Mar 10 at 05:03.

Why not better add free and opensource chromium browser as option alternative? Its lightweight, really opensource instead of Chrome and handy on netbooks

Why not better add free and opensource chromium browser as option alternative? Its lightweight, really opensource instead of Chrome and handy on netbooks

Written by timnwells the 19 May 09 at 02:58.

If I have gnome-phone-manager configured, have tel: and sms: links call or sms via my mobile device. Allow skype: functionality for those using skype, do the same for pidgin. Have map: links pull up open street maps or google maps.

Why should I have less functionality on my pc than I do on my mobile device.

If I have gnome-phone-manager configured, have tel: and sms: links call or sms via my mobile device. Allow skype: functionality for those using skype, do the same for pidgin. Have map: links pull up open street maps or google maps. Why should I have less functionality on my pc than I do on my mobile device.

Written by fedsotto the 14 Jan 09 at 15:17.

I think that, in the same way that other applications do, firefox should support saving files on the network and that the dialog to save the file should also show your network places (previously bookmarked).

For example, you can compare the save as dialog of open office with the one shown by firefox. The former shows your network places, while the latter does not.

I think that, in the same way that other applications do, firefox should support saving files on the network and that the dialog to save the file should also show your network places (previously bookmarked). For example, you can compare the save as dialog of open office with the one shown by firefox. The former shows your network places, while the latter does not.

Written by jpka the 15 Jan 09 at 02:21.

This problem exist not only in Firefox.
I suggest an unified solution which is 1) simple; 2) nice; 3) not required to modify any existing and future user applications.
Remote folders can be mounted for example as /home/user/Network/server/share folder or so.
Please see http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11613/
If it's be implemented, there never be strange smb:// or ftp:// or network:/// links or so, which confusing many software.

This problem exist not only in Firefox. I suggest an unified solution which is 1) simple; 2) nice; 3) not required to modify any existing and future user applications. Remote folders can be mounted for example as /home/user/Network/server/share folder or so. Please see http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11613/ If it's be implemented, there never be strange smb:// or ftp:// or network:/// links or so, which confusing many software.

Written by Tweenk the 21 Jan 09 at 01:28.

To make Firefox able to save to remote places, XULRunner needs to use GIO for file handling. It already uses GTK widgets which depend on GIO, so it should be doable.

To make Firefox able to save to remote places, XULRunner needs to use GIO for file handling. It already uses GTK widgets which depend on GIO, so it should be doable.

Written by Levo75 the 24 Apr 09 at 08:26.

Whenever you click upload on any website, lets say flicker, or tinypic.com, you get a mini filebrowser to select your image. Going through a picturefolder of your vacation pictures for example usually don't have very clear names, like DSC001,DSC002 etc... Other than that you can see a miniscule thumbnail which is pretty much useless.

Give us a choice to see either large thumbnails or file lists.

Whenever you click upload on any website, lets say flicker, or tinypic.com, you get a mini filebrowser to select your image. Going through a picturefolder of your vacation pictures for example usually don't have very clear names, like DSC001,DSC002 etc... Other than that you can see a miniscule thumbnail which is pretty much useless. Give us a choice to see either large thumbnails or file lists.

Written by gforster the 19 May 09 at 23:54.

If there were a slider at the bottome of all filebrowser windows (inclduding those in the web brower), one could choose the size of the thumbnails quite easily. The slider would act like the one in OpenOfffice.org Writer. Either way, the one-thumbnail-at-a-time is almost useless.

If there were a slider at the bottome of all filebrowser windows (inclduding those in the web brower), one could choose the size of the thumbnails quite easily. The slider would act like the one in OpenOfffice.org Writer. Either way, the one-thumbnail-at-a-time is almost useless.

Written by Doenietwil the 9 Jun 10 at 16:14.

Build it so it can be used in browsers or other programs. Maybe you could even make an customizable icon.

Build it so it can be used in browsers or other programs. Maybe you could even make an customizable icon.

Written by lvxferre the 12 Jun 10 at 10:39.

Fast scrolling is a nice feature to have, even if redundant with PageUp and PageDown scrolling.

But middle-button click is already used in Linux environments to quickly paste the selected text.

So, let user choose between one or another behaviour in System > Preferences > Mouse.

Fast scrolling is a nice feature to have, even if redundant with PageUp and PageDown scrolling. But middle-button click is already used in Linux environments to quickly paste the selected text. So, let user choose between one or another behaviour in System > Preferences > Mouse.

Written by truth14ful the 1 Jul 10 at 22:06.

For a laptop's trackpad, if it has a scrollbar on the side, you should be able to double-click it and either paste quickly or use a scroll hook (depending on #2)

For a laptop's trackpad, if it has a scrollbar on the side, you should be able to double-click it and either paste quickly or use a scroll hook (depending on #2)

Written by benoyanthony the 7 Jul 10 at 11:51.

We need to implement feature which while mouse left click + scroll is rolled it should start fast scrolling inside window.

We need to implement feature which while mouse left click + scroll is rolled it should start fast scrolling inside window.

Written by Hawke the 22 Oct 09 at 02:21.

Ideally, there should be no user choice here. Ubuntu should choose one plugin that works with the selected media type and prompt the user to install it. If no plugin always works, the best one should be enhanced so that it does.

Ideally, there should be no user choice here. Ubuntu should choose one plugin that works with the selected media type and prompt the user to install it. If no plugin always works, the best one should be enhanced so that it does.

Written by Hawke the 22 Oct 09 at 02:27.

There should be some way to easily choose which plugin to use after the fact. Figuring out which one is currently in use, which package it’s in, removing it, restarting the browser, and going through the plugin installation wizard again is too much of a hassle.

And when multiple plugins are installed, there’s no (easy?) way to choose which one will actually be used for a particular media type.

There should be some way to easily choose which plugin to use after the fact. Figuring out which one is currently in use, which package it’s in, removing it, restarting the browser, and going through the plugin installation wizard again is too much of a hassle. And when multiple plugins are installed, there’s no (easy?) way to choose which one will actually be used for a particular media type.

Written by stoffel the 24 Oct 09 at 14:54.

There are plans to add support for user ratings to the Software Center ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter ).

I think it would be a good idea to also add support for these ratings in the browser plugin choice dialog, for instance by showing a certain number of stars next to each plugin.

In this way it will be easy for users to make a better plugin choice.

There are plans to add support for user ratings to the Software Center ( https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter ). I think it would be a good idea to also add support for these ratings in the browser plugin choice dialog, for instance by showing a certain number of stars next to each plugin. In this way it will be easy for users to make a better plugin choice.

Written by nha the 21 May 10 at 08:10.

Obviously, a quick and perfectly fine fix for the user is to just change their homepage.

I don't know how the agreement with Google works, but my guess is that it would be in Canonical's best interest to adjust the start page in such a way that users are not "forced" to change their homepage to something else.

The search results that one gets by searching in the Ubuntu Start Page bar should be the same as what one would get by going to www.google.com (which redirects to your country-specific site by default) and searching for the search term there.

Obviously, a quick and perfectly fine fix for the user is to just change their homepage. I don't know how the agreement with Google works, but my guess is that it would be in Canonical's best interest to adjust the start page in such a way that users are not "forced" to change their homepage to something else. The search results that one gets by searching in the Ubuntu Start Page bar should be the same as what one would get by going to www.google.com (which redirects to your country-specific site by default) and searching for the search term there.

Written by bruno9779 the 25 May 10 at 21:07.

By making the Ubuntu start page just a skin to the normal google page the problem would be completely bypassed.

And there would be another major advantage: I don't use Ubuntu Start page because I cannot log into my google account from there, so I just remove it, also if I really like the new styling a lot.

By making the Ubuntu start page just a skin to the normal google page the problem would be completely bypassed. And there would be another major advantage: I don't use Ubuntu Start page because I cannot log into my google account from there, so I just remove it, also if I really like the new styling a lot.

Written by wenex the 31 May 10 at 18:18.

but i remove it because i have a quick launch and i try to search with an other (a cooperation with wwf)

but i remove it because i have a quick launch and i try to search with an other (a cooperation with wwf)