Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Mulls Dropping Firefox For Win2K, Early XP
CWmike writes "Mozilla is pondering dropping support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP without Service Pack 3 when it ships the follow-up to Firefox 3.5 in 2010, show discussions on the mozilla.dev.planning forum by developers and Mozilla executives, including the company's chief engineer and its director of Firefox. 'Raise the minimum requirements on Gecko 1.9.2 (and any versions of Firefox built on 1.9.2) for Windows builds to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher,' said Michael Conner, one of the company's software engineers, to start the discussion. Mozilla is currently working on Gecko 1.9.1, the engine that powers Firefox 3.5, the still-in-development browser the company hopes to release at some point in the second quarter. Gecko 1.9.2, and the successor to Firefox 3.5 built on it — dubbed 'Firefox.next' and code named 'Namoroka' — are slated to wrap up in 'early-to-mid 2010,' according to Mozilla."
Did Mozilla get taken over by Microsoft or something?
I disagree. Some people prefer Windows 2000. And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade. Also, some legacy applications may not run on newer systems.
I'm not sure where you're getting the .NET from. TFS reads "Firefox.next" - not "Firefox.NET" or somesuch. TFAs certainly don't mention any .NET.
At least they give some manner of justification - Microsoft themselves dropping support for Windows XP SP2 and anything older than that. fair 'nuff, I suppose - it's not like Firefox will magically stop working once they drop support and if somebody really, really wants to contribute patches to deal with older OS's, there's nothing really stopping them from doing so (or forking if the Mozilla peeps would actively block such patches from being included ).
And if you have a server, you might not want to upgrade.
If you have a server, don't use it to surf the web!
Why?
I mean, obviously if software vendors are going to discontinue support, that's a decent enough reason. But you understand it's kind of circular reasoning to argue that developers are right to drop support because people shouldn't be using it, because developers are dropping support?
In general, I don't buy new stuff just because it's newer than what I have. I'm not particularly outraged that Win2k support is being dropped, though. It is old, and if your old system is working fine with all the old software and drivers, then keep using it with Firefox v3 or v3.5. That's fine.
Still, if your computer is 6 years old and still working for you, I say stick with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just try to keep it secure, since you won't be seeing new security patches.
...and stop supporting 2000/XP all together, we need to get rid of any MS destop OS that can run IE6.
The response was to the outright dismissal of Windows 2000. Having a web browser installed on a server for convenient download and installation of patches, drivers, etc. seems prudent enough. The dismissal of Windows 2000 entirely is the real jackassery.
It used to be that one of the big selling points of Mozilla/Firefox was that it could run on almost any OS! Mac, Windows (95 and NT 3.51 and up), Linux, BeOS, OS/2, Solaris, and more!
To me this meant I could go to just about any computer, use Firefox, and have every web page render the same regardless of the OS. And I didn't have to worry about purchasing or learning a new OS just to browse a web site.
What happened to all of that?
I would almost think that with the economy as it is, Mozilla would want to keep Firefox as popular as possible by keeping it running on all these older computers out there that will NOT be replaced any time in the near future.
And personally, I'm still disappointed there is no Windows 9x version any more. Thank goodness for SeaMonkey 1.1.x and Opera!
So Moz is only going to support the current shipping service pack for XP and Vista. Why? Is Firefox doing anything (better question SHOULD it be) low level enough for the current version to matter?
The situation with FF on Linux it is bad enough, in that they don't do security fixes for older versions, and new versions generally won't run on old Linux distributions but we understand that Moz Corp doesn't really give a crap about Linux, they make their coin on Windows. But now they are slashing Windows support. Only supporting XP SP3 isn't terrible, but if it is a prelude to dropping XP when 7 ships it will be a terrible thing.
Democrat delenda est
Let's get this straight: "Raise the minimum requirements to require Windows XP Service Pack 3 or higher," with no benefit, and no rationale other than for breaking compatibility for its own sake? If that's the case, I venture to say that Mozilla has seriously lost its way.
So, Microsoft ditched support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP pre-SP2? So what; the APIs are just the same now as they always have been. If anything, Mozilla should focus more attention to catering to users of OS versions that Microsoft left behind, where they have less competition...and chances are, the users of Windows 2000 are still using the OS that they are because they're frustrated with Microsoft's "support" policies and the further regressions (performance and usability issues, product activation) posed by newer versions of its products.
I'm seriously still bitter about them breaking compatibility with Windows 95 and NT4 a few versions back: One consequence was that the current version of Firefox was no longer capable of running off a version of Windows not unremovably inundated with Internet Explorer and its ilk. Short of a miracle of penetration from the Linux camp, how are we going to wean people off of a steady consumption of upgraded Microsoft products when we get attitudes and potential decisions like this?
Not everyone works in a large corporation...sometimes the 2 servers company A owns needs updates, and they're not going to have a whole WSUS deployment set up for those 2 servers and 10 workstations they own. I've worked in many environments where it's necessary to have a working web browser on a server.
My guess is that you've never seen a server application with a web interface for its configuration.
That means you've never installed a commercial database.
I don't take much stock in your sys admin knowledge.
XP x64 is based on the Server 2003 code base, not the XP x86 code base. Despite it's age, SP2 is the most recent service pack for the Server 2003 line. As long as it supports Server 2003 SP2, it will support XP x64.
What's this web interface you're talking about? Real system admins don't even use the command line -- they go in there and start writing/manipulating machine code.
The troll with karma.
Sure, some people do... but how many people are actually in this category? And is it worth the Mozilla Foundation's time and money to provide official support for it?
It's a legitimate question, and I'm betting the answer is: "Not enough to worry about." If you don't want to upgrade to XP or Vista because of the typical reasons I hear (don't like activation, too bloated, whatever), then switch to Linux or something. Or just keep using Firefox 3.1. Or fork Firefox to support Win2K, since you've got a vested interest in it. Just because it's your problem doesn't make it Mozilla's problem.
It's not about needing, it's about testing. By dropping support for XP-SP0, you declare that you've never tested your software on XP-SP0. It might work, or it might not. Some code might have recently been written which breaks on SP0 because of a bug that has been fixed since SP3. Or it might not.
Point is, dropping support for older Windows versions decreases the amount of testing needed. That is the biggest value, not about utilizing newer APIs.
No, it's very much not prudent on a production server. God help any company who hires you as a server admin.
I wonder. Does this apply to terminal servers too?
It would be rather absurd at a lot of companies to log into the vpn, log into the terminal server, and then search in vain for the web browser, only to be told after calling the help desk they can't browse the company intranet, or use any of the internal web applications like the CRM, web based project tracking, web based defect tracking, web based groupware, web based order entry and inventory tracking systems, etc, etc, etc because the new idiot server admin has a strict policy of not installing browsers on production servers.
It's never necessary to have a GUI on a server.
THL phish sticks
"having web client software installed" != "plinking around randomly on youtube all day"
There are often very good reasons to have a usable and reasonably secure web browser installed on a server system.
the ones who would suffer most from such a move are those least able to afford new hardware -- kid you not -- i was at a school in march 2009 -- with old donated machines that were still running windows 98 (yes 98!!) and the 'new' machine was running windows 2000. i was trying to login to get my .mac webmail - which requires at least safari 3, mozilla 2, or ie7 - fat chance to get my webmail if i'm running on win2k - ugh. but i was able to DL & install (using win98) a copy of mozilla2 for win98 and get access to my webmail -- mozilla was the only link that made it possible to keep that old machine useful for a modern webmail app. cutting support kills old machines and puts them into dumpsters and landfills.
2cents from toronto
j
Not every shop requires 24/7 99.99999% uptime. Not every shop can afford identical test hardware (or test hardware at all). My point is there are very different levels of "production" and pain tolerance (vs. spending more money and time).
Sometimes, in small companies, you just have to wing it and hope for the best (while having a fallback plan if everything goes to hell). A competent admin with an adequate sense of risk-vs-reward will do fine.
No benefit? Do you have any idea how much effort is wasted testing these platforms? How many opportunity costs there are to supporting old stuff?
You can't say you "support" a platform these days unless your tests pass on it. That means you need it installed somewhere running test software, and someone familiar with the platform needs to be around to help you when things break, which they do. Supporting it also means crippling any software that wants to use APIs that later versions of the platform supports. You either need two versions of the code (one with the feature you want, one without, a serious nightmare) or you have to tell the users of Windows XP from *years* ago "so sorry, we can't use that important performance optimization. Some idiot somewhere is still running Win2k".
Platform support is a huge cost. Dropping it is an easy savings. Any organization that acts without regard to cost has never even seen the way, never mind "lost" it.
You'll still be able to download older versions of Firefox; they might even continue to provide security updates for them.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
OK... agreed, but that's not what I was talking about. By "web client" I meant client-side web software, usually called "browser" but not necessarily used for "browsing". Useful for e.g. downloading system software updates, taking a peek at some HTML-format documentation while you're standing at the server rack, etc. I generally have at least one machine in each rack with a GUI on it and part of that GUI is a HTML-renderer / HTTP-client, i.e. a web browser. It's not strictly absolutely necessary but often pretty handy.
1.) Service Packs are cumulative. You don't have to install all 3. You can just install SP3 and be done. 2.) SP3 can be slipstreamed directly into the install CD so that you don't have to install it after the fact. Google it.
Opera is willing to support you guys left out in the cold with a modern browser, going all the way back to Windows 95.
Excuse me, but real sysadmins (or programmers) use butterflies. (Obligatory)
30 characters are fine for a s
You realise right, Windows 2000 goes out of EXTENDED support next year (i.e. the same support status that XP has just entered into). This means no more updates (including security) for 2000 EVER from the middle of next year onwards.
Mozilla supporting it or in people fact using it from then on simply is not the best idea.
Hey, I *AM* Still using Win2k, and you know what? It's *ON* A new computer. WITH Radeon HD3650, And a Logitech DFP, with a 500 gig SATA hard disk. And y'know what? It runs circles around both Vista and XP, has had no crashes (although it HAS had irrepairable registry corruption! Appears to be either app or driver related but it's hard to track down once the OS is hosed.) Best part is, with the except of games using Windows Live or Developer Studio 2k8 runtime libs I've had no problems installing/running games that are supposed to be XP only. Anyone else out there with me?
Too bad not upgrading is not really an option with a web browser. You have to keep up with security updates.
As long as they don't come out with detectives and try to take away my two W2K licenses, I could give a rip wether Microsoft 'supports' my W2K boxes. I refuse to upgrade past W2k. All the briteboys who aren't even old enough to have used W2K can say what they want. Microsoft hasn't done anything since the W2K release compelling enough for anybody with a clue to upgrade past it. That's the whole POINT in keeping Mozilla current on W2K.
In any event, I thumb my nose at Firefox anyway. Seamonkey rules my world.
Sure, you're right, because making software that is visually appealing and leverages the underlying display technology for something as visually oriented and ubiquitous as web browsing on the most used lineage of OS is completely unimportant. Instead, they should rewrite the windows XUL backend in Tcl/Tk for kicks.
It is never necessary to have Windows on a server. Of course, it seems to be on a few...