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)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?
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.
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
Then again, I'm not really complaining about it. All the available extensions out there have got to be giving the Mozilla development team more to consider for the next stable releases. Consider, also, that the other (major) alternatives are broken and commercial (IE and Opera). Not that the latter is bad, but for such a fantastic browser to be completely free and have a wide range of extendability is something that must be accounted for. Then again, if they've already changed the release schedule once, who's to say that they won't do it in our favor in the near future? All this talk of new features makes me want to start coding...
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
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?
Not that I use it, but I feel I must point out that IE is free. Isnt that kind of why opera gets crushed? It's a commercial software package squashed between an awesome free package that you need to download, and a sub-par package that likely comes with your computer. P.S. I dont use opera either.
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.
Free as in must pay for Windows to legally use it!
They scrapped their UNIX versions ages ago (yes they used to support Solaris and IRIX) and the Mac version when Safari was released.
...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.
Will fix on CVS :P
That's okay. Those people are too busy looking for Windows 96-97.
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.
The worst part of the tragedy of Microsoft's domination is the illusion that components like IE are actually free. I hate to break it to you, but you know the plastic toys inside cereal boxes that said "Free Whiz Bang Balloon Racer", well it wasn't free, and neither is Internet Explorer.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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"?
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.
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.
it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".
They must be planning to profit somehow.
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?
Internet Explorer is free about like it is free for me to have sex with my wife. Sure, no money changes hands for the act, but believe me, getting the package the sex is "bundled" with is very expensive.... Way too many diamonds, not enough pearl necklaces....
I am happy with Firefox. I do not think that I would ever pay for a browser however, even if it was really great. I guess we have all been conditioned to want free browsers....
Your browser is NOT Microsoft Internet Explorer. Close this window and re-open.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
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! --
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)
> Internet Explorer is free about like it is free for me to have sex with my wife.
If your only other option is one involving open sores, then I suggest you stop griping...
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.
Or windows 4-94 for that matter.
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.
I'm still waiting for the killer app that will make people stop misusing the word killer app. I imagine it will be a 60foot high monster with frikin laser beams on its head.
because if the browser doesn't work with Yahoo, it is the browser that gets deleted.
How the hell can you use JAVA to install something? There shouldn't be any way to get out of the sandbox, and if there is that's a major security issue that SUN should be made aware of ASAP. Not sure how Flash could be used either since I've never seen a bullitin about Flash remote code vulnerabilities.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Firefox is not free either, because I must buy hardware to run it on.
But it is closer to free than the alternatives:
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.
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.
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.
"I could however see sevearl situations where someone would genuinely need Windows for something... like... i dont know, does jedi knight dark forces 2 run under wine?"
a me_id=2367
Yes.
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/games/view.mhtml?g
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
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 .
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
No, you don't.
You can run it on borrowed hardware, or on any hardware you can get for free.
Plus, firefox is free as in freedom, meaning lots of things aside from costs.
So instead of being patient with the available plugins and enjoying the other features of FireFox, you're going to move to another browser that doesn't have these plugins to begin with and therefore will never be 'fixed', since they don't exist?
Unfortunately I'm having trouble with your logic here.
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Perhaps its just my system, but I've been actually less
happy as the version numbers went up. I've found it to be
less responsive, more likely to either crash or time out
on connections, and just in general act flakey. And the
memory use can become excessive. (what is it doing with
125Mb of memory?)
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.
It's 1.0.6, not 1.6. Check your Help > About Mozilla Firefox.
blog & fiction: jd87
Maybe these are the editors' troll accounts?
Fuck it