Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 1.1 Scrapped

Posted by Zonk on from the doing-it-up-right dept.

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."

49 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. First Prime Factorization Post by 2*2*3*75011 · · Score: 3, Funny

    1.1 = 11/(2*5)

  2. Scrapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?

    1. Re:Scrapped? by mattdm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?

      If the headline had said that, the slashdot editors probably wouldn't have even looked at it in the submission queue. The more alarmist entry grabs attention better, so has a greater chance of getting published. Basically, nothing to see here, move along.

    2. Re:Scrapped? by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 4, Funny
      you must be new here. for an example of where slashdot learned headlines, see http://www.drudgereport.com/

      the method can be summed up as follows: start with a simple one-sentence summary of a story

      Firefox Changes Mandate Version Upgrade

      Because we're geeks (and slashdot needs to report "new" news everyday), add version numbers

      Firefox 1.1 Changes Mandate Version Upgrade To 1.5

      But that's too long and informative... we could try shortening and leave the details for the article:

      Firefox 1.1 Changes

      or

      Firefox 1.1 Update

      But that's not inflammatory... We need a one-word summation that will scare/startle people immediately upon reading it, but is not too far from the truth

      Firefox 1.1 Scrapped

  3. if you're gonna just throw it away... by idiotdevel · · Score: 5, Funny

    can i have it?

  4. One small keystroke for a man... by Miros · · Score: 5, Funny

    One small keystroke for a man, one giant leap forward for verison obscurity.

  5. So shouldn't the headline be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Firefox 1.1 renamed"?

  6. Dodgeball reference. by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone else notice that Firefox 2.0 is codenamed "The Ocho"?

  7. They really need to fix autoupdate by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They really need to fix autoupdate by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read the comments yesterday you would have found that mozilla does staggered updates to ease the pressure on their servers and hence the auto update feature will be working in a day or two.

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:They really need to fix autoupdate by linuxci · · Score: 5, Informative

      One of the main advantages of 1.5 is the improved update system. Everyone knows that the 1.0 one was not up to scratch that's why they spent a lot of effort improving it. Based on current nightlies I'd say they've done a good job.

    3. Re:They really need to fix autoupdate by abh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Interesting practice, but imagine the outcry that would happen if Microsoft did this...

      "What! They know there's a security problem but they only release it in some places! And auto-update doesn't work for a couple days! This is ludicrous... switch to open source!"

  8. Version Numbers by Hachey · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Version Numbers by fatted · · Score: 3, Funny
      We gotta catch up IE7 and Opera 8.
      I entirely agree! It should upgrade to Firefox 9 straight away. Not only will Firefox catch up, but surpass IE in one cunning stroke. How good are you now IE, eh, EH?
    2. Re:Version Numbers by hahiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I've modded mine out---I call it Firefox 99. It has racing stripes, speed holes, and a neon cup holder.

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
  9. Re:Logic by Miros · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Steal The Thunder and Double It by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

    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! --
  11. Re:Logic by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Funny
    besides that newer versions tend to have a higher number.

    "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?
  12. Seems to be bigger jumps by linuxci · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Can you read this? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Can you read this? by generic-man · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just get Opera. For years (as in, since their Windows 3.1 days) they've supported a zoom feature that enlarges text, graphics, and even Flash animations. They also support CSS-based modifications that, with one or two mouse clicks, render a site easily readable by anyone with bad eyes, no tolerance for Comic Sans, and/or people who disagree with the decision to render a page in 7-point grey-on-white text.

      Firefox and its army of extension developers will eventually re-implement Opera, but in the meantime the real thing is much better.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Can you read this? by linuxci · · Score: 4, Informative

      They do have a preference where you can set the minimum font size which would make things easy to read for you while not zooming text that's already big enough to read.

      Look in prefereces/options for fonts and there's a pref to set the minimum font size. It's not like it's a hidden pref or anything it's in the standard dialog

    3. Re:Can you read this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously you haven't used Opera. It does zoom both text and images, but doesn't make you scroll sideways because it wraps text on the screen. Unless you zoom in to, say, 500%. But then one word is 1000 pixels wide so you had that coming.

    4. Re:Can you read this? by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, no, it's not a better option. For those who don't need the feature, it makes the browser bloated.

      What they need is to include these crucial extensions in the installer as optional packages. The firefox installer should come with a laundry-list of important extensions nicely bundled together and thoroughly documented so that a user can either a) just get the minimum or b) make it a point to grab the tools they need. It keeps the core browser light, but it means that people with specific (but common) wants/needs don't need to go hunting around the extension page.

      Simple packs like "Usability", "Internet Explorer Familiarity", "Web Developer", "Power User", "Multinational", etc. that bundle together commonly used relevant extensions would go a long way.

  14. Re:This is all getting quite confusing... by linuxci · · Score: 4, Insightful
    IE is free


    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.

  15. Please submit a bug report. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will fix on CVS :P

  16. Re:Nonsensical change by hendridm · · Score: 5, Funny
    This will only confuse people. "Oh No! I missed versions 1.1-1.4!"

    That's okay. Those people are too busy looking for Windows 96-97.

  17. Re:This is all getting quite confusing... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, it's not free. If I want to install it on my computer in my office, I'm going to have to install Windows, and that means I'm going to have to buy a license. Instead I have Firefox running on an Ubuntu install and don't need to pay any license fee.

    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.
  18. Sorry for my dyslexia by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    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"?

  19. Slashdot should be more positive by linebackn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Slashdot should be more positive by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 3, Funny

      Slashdot uses sensationalist headlines for EVERYTHING. They're just trying to be fair...

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    2. Re:Slashdot should be more positive by smokestacklightning · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please - take the gloves off just because it's an OSS project. My personal experiences with the fox have been rapidly going downhill. I have it running on three machines right now, it's eating up 56MB, 98MB and 100+MB of system memory on each of the machines. I was hoping that they would have the resource leaks fixed in the upcoming release, but if I have to wait much longer - I am jumping ship.

      The lack of progress made since 1.0 is really dissapointing. It seems like they put everything they had into getting that release out (apparently a little hastily as my frequent crap-outs attest to) and they don't have much left.

      Oh - and don't give me that song and dance about how it's some rogue plugin causing all my headaches - two are fresh installs and the one topping out at 100MB is stripped down to just the Google toolbar plugin.

      Maybe the delay will give them time to get this release right ...

  20. Corporate deployments by plazman30 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Corporate deployments by plazman30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you roll out IE 7 to 2000 desktops with a MSI created by someone other than Microsoft? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I am not going to push out an unofficial MSI of FireFox to that many seats.

      Corporate IT is all about ass covering, and you can't cover your ass with an unofficial MSI.

    2. Re:Corporate deployments by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please, somebody mod the parent up. When a Fortune 500 company makes a major IT move, they spend months prepping for it, looking at edge cases. What if the node to which we're deploying is unreliably connected? What if we run out of disk half way through? Will the changes roll back if the moron user turns the box off during a dritical phase when it looks like nothing's happening? etc., etc., etc. They depend on the vendor having already tested the main execution path has been thoroughly tested.

      An untested and unofficial MSI? I don't think so

  21. Is there any plan to ... by roubles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Is there any plan to ... by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is antithetical to Firefox's mission. Give the user a capable browser that contains no bloat (ie. stuff some users don't want).

      I looked at the 5 most popular extensions on mozilla's update site. The top 4 may be pretty popular but that's a bad idea since Mozilla would be guaranteed a lawsuit.

      The fifth is ForecastFox and a lot of people (myself included) don't want it in there.

  22. Re:Great. by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 4, Funny

    it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".

    They must be planning to profit somehow.

  23. Re:This is all getting quite confusing... by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  24. Scrapped? if 1.1 is now 1.5 then ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Funny

    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! --
    1. Re:Scrapped? if 1.1 is now 1.5 then ... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, Firefox 1.5 will be Firefox 5.

      A Solaris user, I see. ;-)

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  25. Re:Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug by nacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  26. Re:This is all getting quite confusing... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Funny


    > 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...

  27. Re:Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug by kbrosnan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I gave you a full answer yesterday.
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=131 16785

    Not to mention you posted the same comment
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=131 14118

    --
    These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
  28. Re:Nonsensical change by aaamr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or windows 4-94 for that matter.

  29. Version-Number Junkies? by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Version-Number Junkies? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, it's not at all a political move, it's certainly not just to have a higher number. As I understand it, the way Firefox development works is, there's the CVS HEAD, which I guess you could consider similar to the 2.5 kernel series back in the day - unstable and quickly changing. Every so often, they make a branch off the head that will become a stable release. These releases are kind of dead ends, but that allows them to be more stable and have more static APIs. So what this article actually means is, a while after the 1.0 fork, they started the 1.1 fork, but now they've decided that even the 1.1 fork is too far behind the head, and so they've opted to focus their stabilization efforts on the 1.5 fork, which already includes bugfixes that would otherwise have to be backported.

  30. How Firefox is more "free" than IE by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firefox is not free either, because I must buy hardware to run it on.

    But it is closer to free than the alternatives:

    • With Firefox, you have a free choice of hardware to run it on. You can run it on PowerPC hardware, or you can run it on x86 hardware, unlike IE 6. Currently, if you want to run IE 6 (with Trident layout engine) on a Mac, you have to pay Microsoft for Virtual PC and Windows XP. Or if there is a large number of people on another kind of hardware, they can all pitch in to fund a port of Gecko to another platform; Microsoft would never allow that.
    • You're also free to upgrade your Firefox installation independent of your hardware or your operating system. In order to upgrade to IE 7, on the other hand, you have to toss out Windows 98/ME, Windows 2000, or Wine/GNU/Linux in favor of Windows XP with slipstreamed Service Pack 2 ($200).
  31. Playing a trick on Bill... by OwlWhacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    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