Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 1.1 Scrapped
An Anonymous Reader writes: "The Firefox team has decided to scrap the planned 1.1 release (already in Alpha 2) and instead release the final version as 1.5 due to the significant number of bug fixes and changes. The 1.5 feature complete beta is expected next month." From the article: "We are planning for a Firefox 2.0 and 3.0, but will divide the planned work over (at this point) three major Milestones, 1.5 (September 2005), 2.0 (unscheduled) and 3.0 (unscheduled). All major development work will be done on the Mozilla trunk, and these releases will coincide with Gecko version revs."
1.1 = 11/(2*5)
These Mozilla folks need to make up their minds...
I was really looking forward to 1.1. Beta next month, and it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".
Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?
This all seems like semantics to me. If their planning a beta release ni a month and a half, how were they gonna squeeze 1.1 in anyway? Either way, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want 2 browsers on my machine.
can i have it?
One small keystroke for a man, one giant leap forward for verison obscurity.
"Firefox 1.1 renamed"?
Anyone else notice that Firefox 2.0 is codenamed "The Ocho"?
I was running 1.0.4 and just happened to notice the mozilla.org slashblurb about a new version. I checked and the new version was 1.0.6 which had major security updates, yet when I did Tools->Options->Advanced->Software update nothing was found (and this is simply a manual way to trigger the normal update mechanism). If the update software can't find a new version with major security updates then what good is it?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I'm just glad we are out of the 0.X realm. That was really hurting Firefox's street cred to be below 1.0 --- I'm for the rapid growth of Firefox's version number. We gotta catch up IE7 and Opera 8.
:
--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !
Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
can anyone just tell me, plain and simple, when MozillaBird 2.8 is coming out?
So they pick a different number for the next widely-available and publicly-distributed version of the browser. Slashdot has sensational headline, with the late movie still starting at 10pm.
In truth, it's only a new name, and I've got used to that from MoFo...
There isnt any logic behind version numbers, that's why they're making news out of stuff like this.
As far as i'm concerned, I don't really care about what version number my browser is, as long as it's the latest, and it doesn't start with IE.
Interesting to see that FF has to play catcup on the version number game.
Are people really that silly to think that the (soon to be released) IE7.0 is almost 6 versions "ahead" of FF?
I guess this is a sacrifice we need to make to get some of the mum&dad market.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Steal Microsoft's thunder and release it right after IE 7. :)
What does your Credit Report look like?
Please, say it's so!
I've lost two FireFox potential converts over this issue just this week.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Seems like a silly vanity decision. If the changes are not big enough for a 2.0 just make it 1.1.
Especially a piece of software that in its 1.x.x run so far hasn't even done a .1 change.
This will only confuse people. "Oh No! I missed versions 1.1-1.4!"
I think this is a good move and bumping the version numbers will help differentiate it better than a really minor point release. There is no reason that open source software should follow really miserly versioning while commercial software keeps bumping version numbers big time to increase upgrades.
This space for rent.
Steal Microsoft's thunder and release it right after IE 7. :)
Even better, release it right after IE 7 and say it's the bug fix for IE 7.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"No see I'm version 1.1. Before me was 2.5, 3.4, and 4.2. Its a long story involving a time machine and version numbers."
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I am really looking forward to this upcomming release. Maybe the "It's not M$ so its not as good" people in my office will actually open their eyes to better software. (I belive that the only reason that they still use M$ is because that can set it on "auto-pilot" and just sit back)
I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
It now looks like what was 1.1 will be 1.5, what was 1.5 will be 2.0 and what was 2.0 will be 3.0
This makes some sense, a lot more work on what was 1.1 has taken place (mainly on the automatic update and enterprise deployment side) so it warrants a 1.5 designation.
Whether 2.0 and 3.0 will be significantly different then we won't know until the time but as long as the product is good people will use it. I used it back in the 0.x days (before it was even called Firefox) and it still beat IE and the Mozilla suite in many ways. So whatever version numbering scheme they use is fine by me.
I've spent the morning reading WONTFIX bugs on the Firefox text zoom issue. I'm feeling down on the browser just now.
There is no good option for making text zoom permanent if you have bad eyes. You can kludge by zooming default fonts and then disabling everything else in CSS.
The people working on Firefox are not interested in fixing this because "text zoom breaks page layouts." The fix that they've decided on, which may or may not come someday, is a page zoom feature that zooms everything. (Raise your hand if you love sideways scrolling.)
I am amazed at the lack of consideration for people with bad eyes -- it's not a small number of people either. Mozilla composer bends over backwards to enforce alt tags for images, but when it comes to usability nobody cares.
Maybe we'll start to see some consideration of this sort of thing once the average age of open source coders hits 50 and they find themselves having to squint more often.
Firefox 1.1 Scrapped - It's all Microsoft's fault!!
...they stopped new development on Firefox altogether and got Thunderbird a little more stable. Oh.....and they need to get that lightning calendar integration working, too. Then I could actually think about moving my organization over...
This space intentionally left blank.
Do you think they'll have Firefox 7.0 ready for Longhorn?
I'm switching back to IE or the AOL Explorer if this keeps up.
Will fix on CVS :P
The timing of this seems very unfortunate. With 1.1, we were likely only a month or so away from having real, native SVG support in a major browser - and likely *before* IE7 was released. That might have given SVG a chance to be noticed for real by the public in a way that hasn't happened yet; maybe even enough to put pressure on the IE team to actually implement it themselves.
With the new delays, there's every chance that the IE7 betas will be out before SVG has a chance to become noticed by the general public. That just seems... unfortunate.
This is more amusing than 99.9% (3*3*3*37/2*2*2*5*5*5) of all the trolls out there. I generally dislike trolls, but this guy is unique, and worth of at least a short-term boost in karma.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
They should make launch.yahoo.com use valid HTML, just like all good music sites do.
Are the memory leaks fixed now?
Do you think they'll have Firefox 7.0 ready for Longhorn?
Sorry for my dyslexia, but did you say "Do you think they'll have Longhorn ready for Firefox 7.0"?
Heheh... Gotta love HG2G references.
.01 bump in version number.
I personally am glad that they're naming the version according to how big of an improvement it is.
Trillian used to be the same, but they cerulean studios realized they were doing it wrong, releasing huge versions with a
besides that newer versions tend to have a higher number.
Dont forget the wonderful "beta" qualifier which totally throws what you said to the wind.
Beta 1.0->2.0->3.0->....16.0->1.0!
Does slashdot suddenly have something against Mozilla / Firefox? This reminds me of the "Mozilla suite discontinued" and the "Thunderbird (some version) canceled" stories. These could EASILY be re-worded to put a more positive spin on it.
How about: Firefox leaps ahead to 1.5!
Going on to describe: The vast number of improvements to Firefox has warranted a larger version increase, skipping over 1.1 the next release will be 1.5...
Similarly the previous stories could have been "Mozilla.org focuses exclusively on Firefox" and "Thunderbird flies ahead to version (number)".
Of course it didn't help the previous two were copied out of context from Mozillazine articles. Hmm... I don't see anything about this at all on Mozillazine yet.
Anyway Slashdot should be trying to help Mozilla.org and Firefox, not trying to sensationalize every change.
Having worked in a corporate infrastrucuture for far too long, I have to sadly say, that the biggest enterprise drawback to the use of FireFox is the lack of a Admin kit, that would allow you to customize which extensions you push out with Firefox.
It would also be nice to have an MSI based installer for easy deployments via exisiting application deployment engines (AD, SMS, Zenworks, etc) and the ability to customize the broser via Group Policy.
I know all of these only apply to the Windows world, but I think these kind of things would help Firefox in the long run.
The Future of Firefox
On July 19th, 2005 with 396 comments
sebFlyte writes "As Firefox moves swiftly towards 1.1 and Internet Explorer keeps trundling towards IE7, ZDNet UK has an interesting set of articles about..."
Swiftly!!!!!!!
-AC
Is there any plan to start merging the most popular extensions into the browser itself ?
I've noticed the biggest complaint people have with upgrades is that they render their extensions/themes incompatible.
Also, it must be a pain for the extension authors to maintain extensions across so many different releases.
If something is exteremely popular, maybe it should be part of the browser to begin with. Especially since so many people want it.
Doing so will mitigate the upgrade issues, and they'll end up with a more functional browser.
Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug?
Why would it be Firefox's job to provide a workaround for Yahoo's bad browser-detection routine?
They are wasting too much time with these realeses.
Making a RC, plus follow bugs, plus addons reviews, translate everything, etc
It can be much better if they make a few betas or RC that will be quite tested by advanced users.
I'd like to point out that many of the problems now found with FireFox came about when smart script kiddies and coders found out that Java is a useful way to screw up someone's computer. Same thing with Flash.
My recommendation for the Mozilla development team is to include the support for Java and Flash within their program, BUT disable it by default, and force users to enable it when they want to. I know this sounds screwed up, but to many degrees this wil make FireFox even safer, as most users are unaware that FireFox can potentially be just as vulnerable.
One of the people I do side work for called me a couple of weeks ago, and told me she was having problems with FF. I went over to her place, and found out she had gone past my disabling Java and installing FlashBlock. She removed Flashblock (having played many flash games and gotten addicted to them) and her gmail wouldn't function the way she wanted it to with Java disabled. Of course, needless to say, she visited some site that installed some stuff thru Firefox thanks to Java. She was riddled with worms and trojans. It was so bad i had to wipe her computer clean, to her chagrin. I told her "If you try to work around my own security measures that I implement on my own system to keep my system secure, you're bound to run into problems." It took about ten hours of explaining to her and demonstrating on her laptop (boy, she hated that) how Java can screw her system up, as well as Flash. It took me less than ten minutes to use flash to riddle the laptop with spyware. She's learned her lesson (after wiping out both her harddrives) and now she won't dare get around any security I implement.
The trick here, is to educate people on what's real and what's not. Sitting around doing nothing about it but griping is not going to help, it's only going to exacerbate the problem. People need to constantly and continually educate those with less knowledge, otherwise we're going to trap ourselves into allowing the uneducated masses make the bigger decisions for us.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I don't think FF developers are making "news" out of this, rather someone just stumbled across this page and said, "WTF! No version 1.1?? Unleash the /. masses!!"
Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?
No, Firefox 1.5 will be Firefox 5.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I understand having odd systems for compilers/kernels because you stream.. but this is a webbrowser... how many people have more than 1 copy of firefox installed?
Just increment the fucking revision count and be done with.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Who modded this interesting?
The problem is with Yahoo--not Firefox. Yahoo uses an amazingly shitty browser detection system that lets old Netscape browsers through but still doesn't recognize Firefox.
"I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
Does anyone remember that java went from 1.4.2 to java 5? Or that sun 5.8 solaris really was something like solaris 8? I may be wrong here but I'm fairly sure that companies do this all the time. Versions sadly don't have any relavance to the product and its abilities. Anyone really notice a "big" difference between Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003. To me, it seems like they changed the icons and called it a new product (OK 2003 can recover from crashes...granted and Outlook2003 can remotely access Exchange via proxy settings) but other than that its just marketing saying...now would be a good time to a new version. Most companies jumped from 2000 to 2003 but I know almost no one who went to XP...don't know how I ended up here starting off with sun, but you get the idea, companies and developers will often pick version numbers unrelated to how the product evolved since the last release.
This was explained about 200 times in yesterday's daily Firefox article.
I gave you a full answer yesterday.1 16785
1 14118
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=13
Not to mention you posted the same comment
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=13
These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
I feel I should point out that if you're running Windows, one of FF's abilities is to zoom the text or enlarge it simply by holding down ctrl and scrolling the mouse wheel (if you have one) to make text larger or smaller. It's not permanent, but it's alot simpler than having to use some additional plugin to make it work. It only takes a mere moment to get the text to the size you want.
I haven't tested this on my Linux box, as it's primarily in command-line mode for about 95% of the time I'm using it.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What does a version number change have to do with fixing a website?
Wait, you're right. Maybe this also means they'll wash my car and mow my lawn. It's about time, too.
I thought that the problem was that Firefox does not use ActiveX. I read somewhere the work arounds that you can do to get Firefox to support ActiveX and also to report itself as a different browser, but it wasn't worth the effort.
Is this a jump to appease the version-number junkies? to jump 1/2 a version number closer to IE7 or Opera 8? What is this for, because regardless of how many bugfixes they've thrown in (yeah yeah, and changes, too) it wont warrant a leap to Firefox 1.5 - coming from a self-confessed version-number chaser (posting from a Deer Park Alpha nightly I downloaded hours ago) this just smacks of WinAmp's jump from 3 to 5 just to sound like they'd 'advanced'. What happened to the old system?
(*).*.* is for rewrites or when the software reaches a seriously major milestone.
*.(*).* is for major bugfixes and changes, like this release will have.
*.*.(*) is for minor bugfixes.
Now I understand the logic of PHBs preferring 'Firefox 1.5' to 'Firefox 1.1.34g' or whatever, but it's sad to see the the old system of version numbers for categorisation seems to have descended into a battle of "look, we have teh numborz!!!". Why not just call it Firefox 9 and get one over on MS and Opera in the number stakes?
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
because if the browser doesn't work with Yahoo, it is the browser that gets deleted.
How bout include a user-customizable per-url or per-server based version spoofing system?
For example, when u go to launch.yahoo.com, firefox will spoof netscape 7, when u go to all other sites, it will run default.
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
Reminds me of when someone told me we could not release with a 0.4 version number; we agreed to prefix with 1. for everything a customer would ever see but keep the other for internal use.
Then one of those days where something has to be done asap, I had to create some docs in my work dir and forgot about the number. Trying to explain that 0.5 was bleeding edge wasn't simple...
Firefox is not free either, because I must buy hardware to run it on.
But it is closer to free than the alternatives:
No security fixes are in Firefox 1.0.6.
From Mozilla Firefox 1.0.6 Release Notes:
Firefox 1.0.6 is a stability update. We recommend that users upgrade to this latest version.
Here's what's new in Firefox 1.0.6:
* Restore API compatibility for extensions and web applications that did not work in Firefox 1.0.5.
I have a better idea. Why don't we just call it version 22.0 to begin with. Hey, that's wonderful! I think I'll submit a new slashdot article which discusses my stupid naming decision. Great.
-b
myselfmusic
You must be a developer. Guess what, Mr. End User doesn't care that its Yahoo's problem, the alignment of the stars, or a fluctuation in the space-time continuum.
All Mr. End User cares about is that launch.yahoo.com WORKS in IE, but NOT in Firefox. Hence, it becomes a Firefox problem.
If the prevaling attitude of 'its an IE compatibility problem' wasn't avoided by lots of the neat plug-ins and hard work of Mozilla & others, we wouldn't have this great free browser to use.
For example, when u go to launch.yahoo.com, firefox will spoof netscape 7
By "old Netscape" they mean Netscape 4.x.
Download Netscape 8 and choose to use the IE engine on launch.yahoo.com.
Alternatively, download Mozilla Deer Park Alpha 2 and install the latest CVS nightly build of the SpoofUserAgentExtension 0.1.2b with Yahoo Unblocking extension (codename "oohaY!") 0.0.1a.
Firefox: So easy to use, no wonder it's #1.
For more information, click here.
AFAIK current exploits exist only for the MS Java VM. So installing the Sun Java VM would secure the system against current exploits.
So your friend could have both, a secure PC and Java. As far as I am aware, Suns Java VM had extremely few exploits so far.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You must be a developer. Guess what, Mr. End User doesn't care that its Yahoo's problem, the alignment of the stars, or a fluctuation in the space-time continuum.
...
All Mr. End User cares about is that launch.yahoo.com WORKS in IE, but NOT in Firefox. Hence, it becomes a Firefox problem.
You're absolutely correct. I was talking with my sister in Santa Barbara last night, and she didn't even know what BROWSER she was using
All the end users care about is:
does it work?
not
why doesn't it work?
Our competition is MSFT, not us geeks.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sign that man up as an editor! ;)
Currently a lot of free software is freely downloadable at no cost, but it seems eventually as more and more people use it that the actual infrastructure cost to provide "free downloads" will have to change. You already see it with all the "please donate" links on various "free software" pages. When it's a small single digits worth of people getting new releases and updates it is already expensive. This is roughly now. Who pays for this once half a billion people (some random very large number) all need some new version of whatever?
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?application=firefox&id=593
Osho
I want to see Acid2 compliance.
I understand that Acid2 is not the be-all and end-all of CSS testing. However, I think it's difficult to deny that it is an important benchmark, and Firefox is seriously behind the pack. WebCore, KHTML, and Opera have already managed this in their development code (with the WebCore and KHTML engines already available to the public), and iCab has a compliant release version already. No news yet on IE7, but at this rate Gecko faces a real chance of being dead last to get Acid2 compliance among the major browser engines. That's just sad.
Again, I understand that Acid2 is not the be-all and end-all of CSS compliance testing. In fact, as test cases go, it's not even all that great. However, it's difficult to deny its importance as a benchmark, and the Gecko crew is getting some pretty serious egg on its face here.
It's not my intent to bash Firefox. I'm an avid Firefox fan on Mac, Windows, and Linux alike. I think it gets a lot of things right. But I also think that in this case, they're getting their priorities wrong.
because if the browser doesn't work with Yahoo, it is the browser that gets deleted.
Sad, but true. I lost two possible FireFox converts over this just this week alone. They just want to play music, and they don't care why it doesn't work.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This one really bothers me. Sometimes I'm on a network behind a firewall and want a browser to the outside world. I ssh to a linux machine with outside access. I start up firefox on the remote machine. Sometimes the firefox app will run on the remote machine, and through X and ssh it will be displayed on the local machine (desired behavior). However, sometimes when I enter the command on the remote machine the firefox app will run and be displayed on the local machine- no help at all. .doc file. Guess what can happen, openoffice will open the .doc file and display it on the remote machine!!
Worst of all though is the following: suppose that the firefox app is running on the remote machine as desired, display is local, and I click on a link to something like a
Really a royal pain, wish they would fix the remote usage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
wouldn't render under the Opera version I downloaded just last weekend.
real users won't even bother to do this - they'll just use IE - and we all know that.
again, we're dealing with real user expectations, not geek expectations, and they won't try to fix it, they'll just replace it with IE.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Apparently some Sun project manangers are involved in FireFox development now. You just wait, we're making the move from 1.1 to 1.5 now but thats not all they have planned. The next release will be 1.6 but we'll call it 6.0 because higher=better.
Ever tried to get the damned tiny stuff in Eclipse to become readable? Changing the default text size is impossible.
My fave is the co-worker giving me a bad time about running win98 at less than max res (four years and two jobs ago...). At max res all the icons and their print was simply unreadable.
"at 30, please report for renewal. We'll fix your eyes"
Ugh.
If you use Play launch firefox extension (with mplayer and mplayerplug-in), launch.yahoo.com works just fine. Heck, it works just fine on linux for me.
p ?application=firefox&id=593
... thanks!
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.ph
Thanks, I'll see if I can get that working tonight.
First useful advice I've seen on this issue
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why didn't the /.ers make a big stink about the break that 1.0.5 did?
These are NOT popups.
http://dhtml-menu.com/menu-demos/demo347.html
A tutorial on how they are made.
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/
We need to control scripts.
I know there is a javascript extension but it's a hassle. Noscript 1.0.9 .
We can just say they pulled a Slackware....
...then they can leapfrog everyone else!
I actually mis-read it as "Firefox Scrapped", hah.
and it wouldn't suprise me if it was, but as it is not scrapped maybe the 1.1 scrapping is a good thing, like fixing the all the bloat that makes firefox still take over 100MiB. I mean really, what is that all about? for something that has to parse then render and rape your system of so many resources is just rediculous.. the other gripe is why don't firefox, thunderbird & sunbird share libraries? I know the latter is "supposed" to be sorted in later releases but maybe that will be scrapped too. b0ll0x.
I've been using Deer Park alpha 1 for awhile, and it is a great upgrade. Significant speed increase. Pages using AJAX, like GMail, really show a big difference in responsiveness. I actually installed it on my home computer, because Firefox was being very unstable for my wife. She only has one extension installed (User Agent Switcher) but it still became very unstable with about five crashes per week. Deer Park has had zero crashes with the same extension installed, despite its alpha-1 status. I look forward to the feature complete beta. Hopefully its extra features won't slow it down.
They're just trying to get Mr. Gates excited.
I can see Bill now, sitting at his computer and googling for the latest news. Seeing the headline "Firefox 1.1 Scrapped", he jumps up and shrieks with Joy, "Steve! Steve! They've given up! Hoo-hoo!"
And then they all go out for a beer.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
they're trying to catch up, aren't they...
In a front wheel driver, magnifies understeer, hurting cornering balance and abilities. Needs to be tuned to car aerodynamics, or just adds drag for no reason.
Aside from the fact that no real performance cars should have the disc/drum combo (too difficult to modulate 2 separate braking curves) the paint retards head transfer, increasing brake fade.
Exhaust performance is about tuning, not size. If your pipe is too wide, it doesn't scavenge right, increasing backpressure, lowering engine performance. You need the right size, airflow speed is critical here
kicks up too many interior reflections. there's a reason racing cars are all flat black inside.
probably some others, but that's my rant for the day.
because it allows people to easily install software on your system without your knowledge. That is how all the adware and spyware companies stay in businesses, because the bulk of web users still use the Free IE, which is free of any decent security, not free as in beer or speech.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I am willing to wait for 1.5, provided they fix the WONTFIX bugs about rendering web pages properly so I can help switch my brother and other IE users away from their webgames in IE to webgames in Firefox.
Apparently rendering web pages properly is not a priority, but adding extra AOL-Like features that cause more bugs are a priority? Well at least they do have a priority to fix security holes and make the browser more stable.
Yet, WTF? I thought that the last version of Mozilla would be the last one to be developed, and now the major changes will be in the Mozilla browser? Did they have their fingers crossed or something when they posted that?
Will the OSX version of Firefox be Cocoa based?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
No time travel involved, just PHBs.
For the bored: 1.1 and 1.2 were both spec'd with separate feature sets that really weren't dependent on each other. As PHBs are wont to do, they futzed with the specs endlessly, and then decided to deliver 1.1 feature set later than the 1.2 feature set.
Of course, any rational human being would either not name the feature set "1.1" until it's about to go out the door, or rename 1.2 to 1.1 as the politic^H^H^H^H^H^H^H scheduling changed.
But: PHB.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Just ditch numbers altogether and use some two-letter abbreviation, like Adobe and Macromedia did with their CS and MX lines of software. Mozilla FireFox WB (web browser)
They could always download the Yahoo music engine.
I can see planning a version 2.0, but a version 3.0? Why dont you just take what you want to put in 3.0 and put it into 2.0? It's not like they're losing sales by not upgrading!
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
If you really like banging your head against a wall... Try suggesting that there is an urgent need for a cross-platform, open-source, DRM solution that is acceptable to the major content providers.
Im really getting confused, someone explain this to me. 1.1 was scraped and named to 1.5, but how then am I viewing this in 1.6?!?!
I had the same problem like the grandparent post.
Makes one wonder how they can claim availability of fixes when they aren't really available.
just installed deer park alpha 2 yesterday.
now you're able to click-drag-reorder tabs.
i find it even faster than alpha 1,
and alpha 1 is already significantly faster than regular firefox.
now if only they can resolve the annoyance that the menu bar height getting bigger then you move your personal bookmarks up top along side with it. only happens in linux, not windows...
my blog
Adblock will fix those..
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Wow, so there are 900k users now...
Strictly though, isn't it bad developers that are at fault. I mean, it is fair to bash MS over a lot of things including the fact that they haven't updated IE at all in years, but much of the time, when a website fails to work in Firefox, it's because it hasn't been properly tested! And *not* because MS have somehow managed to control the minds of the web devs!!
Unfortunately, there a skip loads of sites with problems. A recent one I found was the Honda (UK) website. It mostly works (it's mostly flash based!) but there is a feature where you can compare Honda's cars with those of their competitors.... but this doesn't work due to flaky JavaScript.
It would be nice if they made that one of the priorities.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Someone could write an extension that makes launch work in firefox, couldn't they? Someone wrote a script to make the videos play in xbox media center, so it's not impossible to make something that makes it work in other non-IE/non-Windows stuff.
Doesn't matter what it's called as long as I can copy and paste extensions from one user's profile to another. I heard that would have been in 1.1.
Someone could write an extension that makes launch work in firefox, couldn't they? Someone wrote a script to make the videos play in xbox media center, so it's not impossible to make something that makes it work in other non-IE/non-Windows stuff.
I'm using it on a laptop with WinXP and FireFox/Opera and was hoping to not use IE at all.
Someone posted an extension, but I'm not sure if it's Linux - will try that and see - either way if it does work, it should be in the FAQ, not Obscured By Omission like MSFT does.
Will in Seattle
They do indeed. It is a full download right now, not a binary diff.
Sheesh. And I thought the jump from Vistapro 1 to Vistapro 3 was a big deal...
If it works with old versions of netscape, it should work with new ones. It depends on the browser tag that is sent. "Old netscape" is irrelevant to my comment.
Slackware Linux did that a while back---jumped three versions ahead, because people were wondering when they going to upgrade to version 7 of Linux.
They also plan a branding exercise. So "Firefox 2.0" will also be called "Mozilla Firefox 2".
So we have three confusing and only weakly linked naming schemes. All this for a browser? Come on, folks, this is a browser, not rocket science. Will there be any significant new features? "Improvements to bookmarks and history", one of four goals stated at the end of the aforementioned page, isn't exactly a radical new thing, is it? Sure, Firefox has that extension scheme, and that's nice, but all the bluster about versions strikes me as being like a wheel spinning in mud.
Is there a science to version numbers? Or are they just chosen willy nilly?
If it works with old versions of netscape, it should work with new ones. It depends on the browser tag that is sent.
By "browser tag" I'll assume you mean a User-agent string. In that case, IE 4 through 6 sends Mozilla/4 and MSIE. Netscape Communicator 4 sends Mozilla/4 without MSIE. Newer Gecko-based browsers send Mozilla/5 and Gecko/. I'm guessing that Launch looks for Mozilla/4 and/or other things that showed up in Netscape Communicator 4.x's User-agent string.
Dont think so. try the link first. I have adblock.
If they're pushing the release or upgrading the version number, it would be nice to have more minor UI bugs squashed. Adding features is great, but some of these glitches make the program look amature and have been around an embarassingly long time.
8
... for over four years!
Here's one of my favorites:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7682
(you'll need to cut'n paste and remove the space since bugzilla doesn't like slashdot links)
Arrows always showing on a long bookmarks menu, even when you at the top or bottom of the list.
By the time FF 2.0 comes out, it will probably require a Full Re-Install of the OS plus the full re-install of the FF application. Learn to write a freaking patch all ready. Seems like the FF team is rapidly going from cool to fool in less then a year (yeah, lets put out a release with no QA and then put out a fix a week later - that really showing those MS chaps how to do it).
According to Asa: Acid2 is not on the list of requirements for the next major Firefox release [... but] one of our Gecko experts [says] Asa, I think it's safe to promise that the next major Firefox release after [that] will pass Acid2 :-)
Internet Explorer is already at version 7! John Doe likes to think that the program with the higher version is the one that is better. So FireFox will do what a lot of companies do and just cut corners in order to get to the higher versions. 1.1? 1.5. 1.6? 4.0.
"...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
Hello Ocho!
Nice plugin. Too bad it doesn't do the 768 kbps video.
LUCIEEE...!!!!
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
I did. The DHTML "popup" worked until I blocked it's script using adblock
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can't factorize it into prime numbers. I wonder, though, how many prime numbers are there in the first 900000 natural numbers?
Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
Crap. It's twice as slow as a couple versions ago, and plugins no longer work at all.