What are you talking about? Firefox 3 actually uses less memory than Firefox 2 and it runs really well.

It may use less memory, I just find it is getting bloated looking.

FF rules,no matter what version!

So why would I, as a user of Opera consider to switch to firefox? I have it installed, so I was running it once in a while, but just couldn't find the reason. Answer appreciated from the people who are not using FF as only theirs second browser after IE. Everything is better than IE.

For any reason that you can imagine:it's more stable,it has more extensions,plugins,in one word it has more everything than Opera,it's more secure,it's open source,you can do anything with it and based on my expirience is faster then any other browser,it has better support etc.

You may be right about the stability. Open source is a good argument against evil software lik MS, but Opera is just pure good, i don't mind the closeness since I am not a web developer. Why do you think FF is more secure, Opera has the best available encryption AFAIK (256bit). And, my experience is usually what guys from Opera say - fastest browser, but there is not too much difference from other good browsers(IE excluded). My chief requirement for the browser is functionality: This is where from my experience Opera just blows competition away. It had tabbed browsing before FF was born, mouse gestures, quick selection of the top 9 sites, easy content manipulation/filtration, and a very good irc and email client to name some stuff.

Now, I know barebone FF is not so cool until you add extensions, so I am wondering what functionality advantages of FF should make me forget about any other browser? (And i don't find particularly interesting having weather report plugin in my browser). For now stability seems to me like the only major advantage of FF (but, heck, I'm using Opera beta, so I am probably to blame ;-) )

Oh yeah, pozdrav za Rijecke Linuksase!

Well,I find that the beauty is in that you can configure and add to your browser what ever you want,and you can add whatever you were talking about to the firefox.I have tried Opera few times and it always crashed.

Pozdrav i svim Linuxsasima u Beogradu.

Anyway I hope that the spirit of the open source will find his way to more and more people!

One of the biggest advantages of Open Source software is that you can change stuff if you want to tweak it. An obvious example in Firefox is that you can edit existing addons or even write you own.

There are some VERY good addons that I think make Firefox a better choice than Opera. However, your mileage will vary depending on your preferences/needs. One that I definitely encourage people to check out is Session Manager. It is really useful if you are, for instance, doing online research and you have tons of tabs open. You can simply save the session and then later you can open everything right where you left off. I have about eight different sessions like that saved right now.

Another useful addon for security purposes is NoScript, which basically gives you very fine control of javascript, flash, etc on websites.

I listen to music a lot so I really like the FoxyTunes addon.

There are addons that allow you to theme your browser and websites, addons that give shortcuts for forum usage, and many many more. If you explore the addons site you will see why a lot of people choose Firefox- there are so many ways to make it your own.

However, I think Opera is more ideal in embedded systems, but Firefox 3 may change that very quickly. I disagree very strongly with the statement that "barebones FF is not cool" and this is even more apparent in the Firefox 3. It is just that Firefox is so much better after you add extensions/themes to make it your own.

Well, all the things you mentioned are also a part of Opera. Sessions, themes, all kinds of customisatinos are an idea fromm a long time ago (i would say Opera 6 or 7). In Opera that functionality which is an extra for FF is smoothly integrated. Opera is in my opinion an excellent design, almost like an organical extension of my body for browsing :-) . Now, for FF it stands that its source is available so you can modify it to your purpouses, but this is another issue. And where there are plugins in FF there are Widgets in Opera (the one thing Opera borrowed from FF). I was just comparing the current FF version on Debian and Opera and couldn't find anything in FF what is not in Opera in terms of what i fell as important for a web-browser. So i thought I ask the question here. but, hey if its good for you its good for you.

Honestly, it astounds me that the competition hasn't been as swift at replicating Epiphany's handling of bookmarks. If Camino on OS X treated bookmarks the same way, I'd venture to call it my perfect web browser for casual use (i.e. perfect browser for activities that don't require the web developer toolbar) on any platform. I used to think bookmarks were a waste of time until I used Epiphany. Now that I run a Mac, I just miss Epiphany.

Epiphany ... 32 votes ... 2.14% ... Glad to see I'm still running well ahead of the curve when it comes to choosing the best over the most popular.

Im Voting Konqueror This year, its getting better, I enjoy setting up my ToolBars & plugins.Especially whats on offer in your toolbars. It just needs a Duplicate Bookmark Warning added & it would nearly be Complete.
Good stuff KDE.
Its the first time I never had to think about which Browser to pick & Why.
I think if more people used & played around with setting up their Toolbar etc They would appreciate Konqueror more.
Everything is just a Click away

What does everybody here think about the Firefox / Iceweasel thing? It seems in the large that people think the renaming of Debian's version to Iceweasel is silly, but I find myself more believing that the Mozilla project is being silly for not allowing patched versions to be distributed. I can see the desire to protect your name, but come on. The only scenario it really protects is somebody using a version of Firefox that a distribution has broken by patching it to death and thinking that Firefox as a whole is what sucks. But if that user would try the official Mozilla version, they would see that it's not Mozilla's fault. True, patching has historically caused some problems (the XMMS people seem to complain some about people reporting bugs that are actually from patches not the original source), but I think by and large we can agree that when a distribution patches something [Ubuntu does it like crazy, for example] the end result is better. And isn't that part of what being free and open is all about? So anyway, it's pretty clear where I come out on this. More power to you, Iceweasel!

As a slackware user, I can't really agree.
The most annoying part is when the feature coming from a patch is considered mainstream. I've recently had this problem (and Patrick too) because audacious or some related component would not compile because it required libmad to carry a .pc (pkgconfig) file which in fact is not in the main distribution. It seems some distribution(s) has(ve) added a pkgconfig file and then software developpers thought it was official.
http://lfs.cict.fr/blfs/view/6.2.0-r...ia/libmad.html

I have to say I really don't like having patches applied behind my back. Something I like is the former kde approach for qt (note that src2pkg does the same) : have the source and the patches separated, and only apply the patches (automatically) when they're needed. As a consequence, everybody knows what is patch and what is not, it is also easier for the developper to incorporate patches, it is also much cleaner and I would say respectful.

Well, that's just a difference between Slackware and Debian (Debian is more automated; though I personally automate(script) my slack box as well).
I don't agree with your patches argument though.
Most Debian patches come from official Mozilla cvs and security sources (Iceweasel is build with the Mozilla sources and not the GNU ones).
As for the Debian specific ones, they were needed for a few reasons, the two biggest ones being:

1. Mozilla's main focus is on MS Windows:
Best example was their extension manager, it was build with only Windows in mind and horribly broken for Unix systems, Debian actually fixed that(well, most of it). Their lack of equal GNU/Linux, *BSD... support was really starting to show.

2. Platform specific, Debian supports more platforms than Mozilla does.

Thing is, in a real (free)Open Source business model, you should simply be allowed to do both.
A huge part of Mozilla's success is thanks to its open source model and GNU/Linux. Being less free makes it less attractive for FOSS distributors.

Mozilla just isn't compatible with the Debian Social Contract (the OSS definition is fully based on it as well).

The only other options would have been:
*dropping the DFSG
*dumping firefox in non-free or a non-supported repo (that doesn't sound perfect either).

Stripping the non-free parts was IMO the best thing.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Mozilla.
They're one the biggest FOSS contributors and deserve all respect for that, however ... , they're absolutely wrong in this case.
If I would have to pick a non-free browser, it will be (and still is) Opera for me. Mozilla's open model is the the only reason why I use it (instead of the IMHO at least as good Opera browser).