Published at LXer:

Mozilla launches its first open-source browser release in the post-Brendan Eich era.

Read More...

people really SHOULD read the comments on slash dot
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/04...ox-29-redesign

Not good .....

Judging by some of the things said (such as not being able to see the page title because of not having a title bar) it may depend in what environment you're running it on. Under my window-manager of choice which still operates on the traditional X11 model of server provided window decorations, it's not a problem, but I'd be annoyed too if this wasn't visible.

Like anything new, it'll take some getting used to. But I'm adaptable, aren't you?
P.S.
Found this when I was browsing reddit:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...themerestorer/

I guess it depends on the circumstances. I loved the old classic Opera Browser, but I had absolutely no intention of adapting to the new one which is a completely different animal and has none of the features that made the old one so appealing to me; so when Opera ruined it I adapted back to firefox.

Personally, I like the new ff29 UI on linux, but I don't care for what I see in the screenshot of the windows version posted on arstechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...more-chrome-y/

To my mind, the page title is an important part of the presentation of the content and deserves to be shown in more than the few words that can be squeezed onto the couple of inches that the tabs handle will allow, and without it, it just seems wrong. But, as above, not a problem for me as I still see it in the Window's title-bar on linux.

the title bar can be turned back on
but
the new UI is well
LOOKS a heck a lot like "Internet Explorer "

And if i wanted to use IE
i would be using a Microsoft os and browser

I can't wait to give it a try. The bookmark situation has been a sore point with me for a while. I also like the look of that new menu thing they added that has icons and text: this is important because some icons still manage to be amiguous, while text alone often isn't enough conveyance. I'm sure I'll get to try it all out in Debian 9! ...

Everyone in the comments sure seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill wrt the minor UI changes.

Indeed, but that's slashdot for you. So far I like it, and as John says that the title bar can be turned back on in Windows too, I don't see what the fuss is about. But then, I didn't get all the fuss about the missing gnome 3 shutdown menu either.

Eh. The Gnome 3 thing jumps the gap from being an estethic choice to one of usability. If the usability problem was solved (Hint: even Apple and MS end up including all of the shutdown options), then it would make sense for Gnome to jump too. But that's not what happened, so it's just some odd change that makes Gnome a little funkier to use.

Back in the Windows 2000 days, I got into the habit of hitting ctrl-alt-delete, and using the lock-screen, logout, shutdown and suspend options from the pop-up it produced. If I remember rightly, Gnome 3 Shell also presented a similar choice when you gave it the vulcan nerve pinch, which is why I thought all the fuss was over-blown. Not to mention the fact that pressing the physical power button on the hardware would generate an acpi power event and trigger a clean shutdown on most well-built distros.

I agree that it would have been better for gnome 3 to have kept the menu option, purely for the comfort of the folks who were expecting to find it there, but given that there were two other ways to shutdown not counting a "shutdown -h now" from the command-line, or logging out and shutting down from the gdm, I thought the amount of fuss the choice to omit it generated was insane.

Having said that, Gnome's, stubborn refusal to add the option back in despite the repeated calls from its users to do so, was equally insane, though they eventually saw the light.