Firefox and Thunderbird 1.0.6 Released

micpp writes "Only a short time after the release of version 1.0.5, Mozilla has released version 1.0.6 of both Firefox and Thunderbird . This update fixes a bug in the browser and email program which prevented some extensions from working."

Comments

So...

[Pxtl]

is there anyway to use Thunderbird's spam filter to hide spam in a newsgroup yet?

That was certainly quick

[BlackCobra43]

Three cheers for efficient open-source response to bugs.

Re:That was certainly quick

[Anonymous Coward]

[I'm not the AC of the grand-parent post]

If you need a good laugh, you could think of the fact that now Firefox releases updates to bug created by the previous update. This is close to the infamous software quality of MS or Valve.

Assessing Mozilla's practices against the worst practices existing, to avoid facing the truth, is not the sign of good times coming ahead.

Re:That was certainly quick

[daern]

> Three cheers for efficient open-source response to bugs.

Three cheers for rushing patches out quickly with proper regression testing to avoid having to re-release with bug fixes.

Perhaps people might have some understanding of why Microsoft don't release patches 2 days after someone tells them about a vulnerability. Frankly, if I was a corporate Firefox user that had started testing Firefox for deployment, I'd be a little pissed about having to start all over again with the new version.

Re:That was certainly quick

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of cheering for the response time, we should respectfully ask how the bugs slipped through in the first place.

If this situation occurred with IE no one here on /. would applaud the quick response, they would tow the line and deride MS quality.

I am no MS fan, but the playing field needs to be level.

Mirrors?

[carambola5]

Can we get a list of mirrors, please? mozilla.org is blocked at the proxy here at work. *grumble*

Automatic updater

[Xerotope]

All of these software updates are driving me nuts. Under Debian it's fine, just "apt-get upgrade" and things happen fairly seamlessly. But on my windows box, updating requires downloading a new installer for each program, in some cases uninstalling the new version, and then running each new installer. These window installers all require multiple steps, and so it's just a big hassle to stay current.

Why can't more programs these days have automatic updates? Firefox does in theory. It'll check for new updates, then download the new version and start the installer for you and then break your install. Not the updating experience I'm looking for.

Why can't software updates operate more like Eclipse's update tool? Or Sun's Java update? Or Adobe reader's? Or dare I say it, Microsofts Windows update?

And yes, I'm lazy. This is supposed to be one of the menial tasks where computers replace people.

Re:Automatic updater

[digidave]

Wow, so it'll finally be where Linux package management was in 1999? (Or earlier)

Re:Automatic updater

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo, then the spyware/adware vendors can have automatic updates for their software through the OS.

uuencode/decode. C'mon, support it.

[British]

I honestly wish you could do a "block sender" in newsgroups. Really, it would make usenet a little bit more bearable. But all the blocking features seem to be reserved for email.

I tried messing around with the rules & such for newsgroups(filters?) but they never came close to working.

What Thunderbird really needs is to support uuencode/decode. Why does only Freeagent and some freeware newsreader support this, yet is wideley used on usenet? What's the difficulty here?

If Thunderbird supported that, it could steal some users away from the ungodly complicated FreeAgent.

Re:What really irks me...

[Henry V .009]

This is the best example of the difference between the Linux/OSS philosophy and the Microsoft philosophy. Microsoft takes great care to make sure that upgrades don't break anything 95% of the time. In OSS, it's all about choice. You can configure your browser with a billion extensions, but good luck upgrading. The two philosophies are mostly incompatible.

Which is better? I don't know. I use some of each. I'm running Firefox on an XP box right now. But I use Cygwin for remote applications from a Linux box. (It would be nice if a full Gnome X-session would work across my LAN. Slow as molasses. I'd give a lot for something like Remote Desktop in Linux.)

So how did the breaking of extensiosn get past QA?

[doormat]

I'm curious as to how it got past the QA team that 1.0.5 broke a bunch of extensions. Downloading say, the 10 most popular extensions and testing them is too dificult and time consuming?

Re:Stealing Microsoft's innovations...

[ceeam]

Actually - I'd like them to have "proper" tabbed browsing "in the box" (hate to say it, but check out Opera). I mean - when "target=_blank" would open a new tab, not a window; when I can rearrange tabs; probably some "good" MDI (again, see Opera); tab groups; closed tabs history... Yes, yes, I know about "Tabbrowser Extension" but IME it breaks a bit too many things than I can allow and it is quite a bit too quirky. I wonder how IE7 will have it done? (Not that I think I ever gonna use MSIE for personal browsing - occasional bare necessity and testing my own work does not count).

Re:What really irks me...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I prefer Opera. All the extensions I'll ever need are included by default.

-AC

I use my last editor beta to edit its own source.

[Richard Steiner]

When I screw up, though, I have to use the fallback version (latest stable).

Still, it's fun to test it in this way. Eating my own dogfood and all that makes it more obvious when I decide to shoot myself in the foot, or head. :-)