Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Aims To Release Four Firefox Versions In 2011
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla is planning to release four new versions of its open source browser by the end of this year. That means Firefox 4, Firefox 5, Firefox 6, and Firefox 7 are all slated to ship in 2011. Mozilla was originally planning on having Firefox 4 out by the end of last year, but it had to delay the release. The last release was Beta 10 but there are still probably two more betas, at least one release candidate, and of course a final build. It's clear the company no longer thinks this model is a good one, and wants to accelerate its release cycle, much like Google did with Chrome."
More detailed information on the accelerated development cycle and the major features intended for each new version are available on Mozilla's Firefox 2011 Roadmap.
I always love when a browser company gives me more versions (and their individual idiosyncrasies) to test and support. At least Chrome back doors updates to their browser so anything out there should be the current version (like it or not).
Like accelerating the version number major releases suddenly makes the release cycle better. More bugs?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It's clear the company no longer thinks this model is a good one, and wants to accelerate its release cycle
It sort of sounds more like they want to remove minor version numbers, and make every update a new major version.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Nice to see that Mozilla has adopted my software development philosophy: Remember, the sooner you get behind, the more time you have to catch up! I can't be the only person that doesn't believe these will all ship this year?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Releasing 4 major versions in one year is immature, and Mozilla should no better. What motivation do they have other than competing with the other browsers that have higher version numbers? Stupid.
Hariyfeet, if you read this, I want to remind you once again that Firefox deciding not to make use of Windows Integrity Controls is not equivalent to running the browser as a root process. Sigh.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Absolutely no reason to even try versions 4, 5, or 6.
WTF, Mozilla? A major version number used to actually mean something.
I'll stick with 3.6 until someone forks and releases a spiritual successor.
Someone has caught the chromoenza!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Changing the version number that fast would break a lot of extensions. Don't do it Mozilla!
until it can go to 11.
..Firefox 4, 4.01, 4.02 and 4.03.
Are the marketers at the Mozilla Foundation focusing on getting Firefox up to version 10 before Internet Explorer just for marketing purposes? What could possibly be so important to warrant 4 major versions in a year? And if they were that large of enhancements, why not combine them for their customers sake?
Racking up version numbers isn't something that should be done on a whim. Jeez, how long did it take Firefox originally to hit 1.0?
3.6 --> 4.0 --> 5.0 --> 6.0 --> 7.0 = 3.6 --> 4.0 --> 4.1 --> 4.2 --> 4.3
It's "big version number envy". Nothing more. The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12". Is this a sign that marketing people are now running Mozilla? Will the budget go to engineers or Superbowl ads?
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Spoiler: First one to 10 wins. No one's told Apple.
...one of these releases won't suck. Not holding my breath.
This is a major reason why I use firefox, chrome may be open source but firefox extends that to open governance.
I would encourage everyone to read through the full roadmap: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap you shouldn't be disapointed.
Edit: Ugh, slashdot ol means ordered list, stop styling it like a ul.
Mozilla should move the other direction. They should follow the W3C lead and dispense with versions altogether and simply release "Firefox" that displays "HTML".
What could possibly go wrong?
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
For Moz el et the cycle number is about it being perceived as being better, however I seriously doubt they have invented or acquired any technology that is going to make the browser any better than really anything else out there. The browser wars are over, now its about making the device so browser dependent that they can't be separated at the head or hip. Too bad the devices are only able to handle dumbed down versions of the browser at this point. I'll wait another year or two and see what hardware/software offers then, release cycle acceleration numerology means nothing to me.
When Internet Explorer was at version 5, Netscape released version 6 of their browser. There never was a Netscape version 5. They jumped from v4 to v6 because they wanted to be newer than Microsoft. Apparently, Mozilla now feels they are "behind" Chrome which is currently at version 9, so instead of Firefox 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc., they will call them Firefox 5, 6, 11 and 23 so that they can be newer than Chrome.
It is sad how far off the rails the Firefox development process has gone.
WTF? I hope this is just marketing. My plugin already needed two days of tinkering just getting it working in 4; and when I add MP3 tagging and iTunes/Zune support I'll need separate code from version 3 and 4.
Maybe they're just trying to get to 9 fast, so they can match Microsoft, kinda like how the Xbox 2 became the '360'...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So they're going to go from 1 a year to 4? Or is it going to be 1 'normal' version chopped up into 4 bits. Each having a different version number to make development look like it isn't glacial.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Not sure why you find this upsetting or controversial. Is there some other platform variant that is not supported presently by Firefox that you expected to see listed there?
I don't want four browser versions in a year. I want one that works right. I'm tired of their browser hanging, taking minutes of compute time to exit, and unable to close some obnoxious hostile pages.
When the Mozilla crowd gets a bug-free 4.x out the door, with all reported bugs fixed, then they can talk about later versions.
(I'm underwhelmed with the Mozilla crowd. They come across as a bunch of Javascript hackers. There was a problem with duplicate entries in the internal SQLite databases, and I suggested making the fields a unique key, so the database would reject bogus updates. But that would have caused broken code to abort. Instead, they bolted on a Javascript hack to try to clean up the mess.)
Will one of these versions have a status bar? or minimal stability? or be let go of radical incompatibility (incompatibility not based on capability but based on idealistic -read fundamentalistic- API whitelists) with vital add-ons?
It might convince incompetent companies who are still on IE6 to change, as it is "just as good".
I'm pretty sure it won't make any difference technically. I'm sure they won't be moving any quicker, slower or whatever compared to usual.
Just when people go "WOW Chrome is better than Firefox because it updates so regularly!!!111one" - I guess mozilla marketting is pandering to those idiots now.
Let me tell you how much difference it makes to me whether its Firefox 4.1 or Firefox 5... none at all.
So what's all the fuss about?
Does this have any relation to, well, anything, or did you just feel oh-so-clever saying "Open Sores"?
If just one of these major releases features nothing but a blazing fast cold start, I'll be happy.
Seriously. If they want to keep up the version number with the other browsers (IE 9, Chrome 9, Opera 11) then just change Firefox 4 (or FF5) to version 9 or 10 and be done with it.
Sheesh, trying to accelerate the number incrementing by making minor point releases have major version number changes is just stupid.
Seriously, just admit that it would look better to have a high version number and make it so. Admit that it's just an attempt to make stupid consumers feel good. Nothing wrong with that, it's psychology 101 and will most likely bring in more Firefox users (the whole Facebook, etc crowd would eat it up).
I read TFA. It has some interesting ideas about promoting a semantic web of sorts, and pretty much showing an amount of hate for propriety stuff which bypasses the web. Why not have an interesting story on that? This is news for nerds.
Instead no lets go for a DUUUUUUUUUR THEY HAS QWIKER VERZION NOS NOW! DUUUR! Story.
Most browsers go up to 10, but 11 is one more, isn't it?
It will still be a while before Friedfox catches up with Chrome, which is already at 9.
As opposed to *not* supporting these OS's and platforms?
Of course Firefox will support them. This is good not bad.
This sounds very much like Spinal Tap. My browser goes to 11.
I hope it was just a typo -- the suso.com site he's linking in the sig says they support Open Source and are marketing host accounts on Linux servers. If it's not, someone might send them an email with a link to his comment and ask why someone affiliated with them is spouting off in this manner.
Blech. Just remove all of the bloat, make it stable and fast, and I might want to start using Firefox again.
Ever since the last 3.6 update I've had a ridiculous amount of crashes with FF when viewing any site that has some flash ad or element on it. As a result I've almost completely stopped using it with exception to check browser compatibility issues. Now that I know it's going to be requesting updates every quarter this year I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why any user would really want to stick with this browser.
Hell, IE8 seems to run more stable, and chrome has become my default browser of choice. The only thing I don't like about chrome is it's lack of good RSS support, but these days I'm finding myself using that feature less and less in my browsers, instead I just use RSS on my phone for "quick reading" on the light rail to work.
Ave Molech Setting
What's actually born out in many software companies is that having more frequent releases with fewer features in each release actually creates software that works! The difference is your focus on features is more narrow, and you are changing less code. Once you focus on making that code as stable as possible, you move on to the next project. This also has the added benefit of making a software company able to adapt to change more quickly.
The roadmap implies they may be moving to a scrum or agile development process or refining their process further. Firefox 4 seems like something that is taking forever, and after having spent over a year in a company that switched to scrum after having many major releases fall behind time and time again, I'm very glad they are going to a fewer features/faster release model.
The 4/5/6/7 might be a small marketing decision, but it's more likely simply a result of their development process simply using those the number procession they've always used and not spending time worrying precisely what the version number is, even though the cycle has changed.
The article inadvertently makes us focus on the version numbers themselves, when all of the techs and developers out there know the version number means nothing in terms of features, we should be dwelling on what it gives us.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Quite honestly, the stubborn insistence upon sticking with Gecko - and really, the sort of management that leads to decisions like that being made - will be the death of Firefox. At this point, Mozilla aren't solving any problems with their browser. What's the motivation behind Firefox? Why is it so bloated, and why are any of its developers okay with that fact?
Pride is a vicious thing.
... but where's the love for Thunderbird? If they gave it even half this degree of attention perhaps they could finally fix the years-old showstopping bugs. It's frustrating to see software with such potential left to rot.
... as long as at least one of those releases fixes some of the decade-old bugs discussed here just a couple weeks ago.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Looks like Mozilla are gearing to more accurately mimic an Agile project, with working releases about every quarter. Good thing - we'll have working nuggets every quarter rather than a major year-long undertaking.
Why not just express version numbers in binary?
Thus version 4 would be released as version 100, and version 5 would be 101
That should be enough for this year , and jump way ahead of the opposition.
What does sharing in the front end mean? Why the hell are you animating my user interface? Why is smart search being removed? What the hell is electrolysis?
"TBD"? Really?
Oh for the love of...! This isn't so much a roadmap as a scrawling in the sand. "Addons story that doesn't suck" gets us nowhere. A roadmap should be something more substantial than a brainstorm.
Why oh why is Firefox providing diffs? Should these things not be some sort of official plugins for those that need it, rather than baked-in features? and I can only assume the integration with GitHub is for the back-end, because otherwise that's not a feature my grandma needs. Someone sort this feature list out first before we can move on to sorting out whatever genius thinks moving major version numbers makes a difference.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
My big problem is that this might end up breaking addons that don't need to be broken. Firefox install manifests allow extension-writers to specify the maximum version of the browser that the addon supports. From using FF4, it seems that a lot of addon authors will just select the current major version of Firefox---in this case, Firefox 3---as the "maximum supported version." Sure, that makes a lot of sense from their perspective, since when the addon was written the author had no idea whether it would work on Firefox 4 or not, but it's rather annoying when you get a new version of the browser and the author hasn't updated the addon.
Firefox obviously won't install the addon if its specified "max version" is lower than the version you're using. So I have a couple of addons that I use in Firefox 4, where I've had to manually change the "max version" to FF4. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. More to the point, it's kind of annoying to deal with, and I don't expect your Average Joe user to go around editing XML files just to see if it's possible that their favorite addon works.
If you start incrementing your version numbers more rapidly, it means a lot of addons are going to be out of date for anyone on the bleeding edge. Since the large variety of addons are really Firefox's best feature...I'm not sure how they plan to deal with that.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
If their entire strategy is to play catch up with Chrome, then why shouldn't I just use Chrome? I've only been using it as a secondary browser and stories like this make me feel it should be my primary.
What worries me more about the strange shift in numbering, is that they are planning to axe a number of features to favor sync.
(Source: http://decafbad.com/blog/2011/02/06/pay-phones-and-firefox-features/comment-page-1#comment-467395 )
I can do without the microwhatever, but after all the time I spent tagging and getting the routine of tagging new bookmarks, I am not going to enjoy this. Fortunately there seems to be some vocal support for them.
Same with places queries, they are quite powerful and helped me organize my bookmarks a lot...
If there's anyone with a minimal of "influence" (AKA his/her opinion won't be disregarded as null), please step in and help preventing the browser from being directly wired to the cloud, as many mozilla people is suggesting. They can't axe tags because of sync. (I am not making this up unfortunately, check the bugzilla links in the article and how some suggest the whole bookmark system to rely on web services).
At least if the version numbers decremented we'd have some kind of goal...
Line up the milestones, as each feature is complete, subtract one version number.
There could be a big celebration when we reach 0, then we switch to another application.
Give it a try. Use a browser for a bit, assign a value to each of its major / minor / patch version numbers.
Pick a number between 1 and 100 based on how much you like it, and subtract your chosen values as each new version comes out.
You reach 0 (or negative in my case with IE6), You Switch browsers.
The more I use a browser the less I like most of the changes.
I reached Zero with Netscape 6, IE 6, Firefox 3, Opera 10, Currently at version T -23 (and counting) with Chrome.
I think I'll try Seamonkey (web + email) after Chrome.
Everything will be fresh and new again when I get back to Firefox (9?), maybe I'll be used to the tabs being at the top from my short fling with Chrome.
The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12".
Unfortunately you just described how 90% of end-users think.
Does that include "Windows 98 must be 14 times as good as Windows 7"?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap#Product_Priorities_for_2011
It states "Four technology shipment vehicles in 2011, including Firefox 4"
That does not mean four versions of FF will be released in 2011, just that FF4 is one of the projects.
I most certainly don't want a browser with any kind of RT guarantee, but a "best effort" one.
In order for the browser to make any sort of guarantee like this in a multitasking system it must be running in an RTOS. Concordantly, your fears are very likely misplaced, because everything in normal OS'es is some flavor of "best effort" (again, unless you are actually running an RTOS).
Protip: process priority level "Realtime" in Windows NT kernels... isn't. Similarly, setting a -20 nice level doesn't magically turn your MacOS/*n?x processes into realtime either.
I'm surprised they didn't carry the version numbers all the way up to 11.
Firefox 4 < crap
Usually this kind of behaviour signals that the software is going downhill...
Perhaps a programmer/developer can explain this for me. In Linux, open source and probably the majority of software, we have version numbers with newer versions taking up a new major or minor version number increment, depending on the significance of the update.
However, I've noticed some people argue that we (who's "we" I said) should instead be moving to the more chic and modern approach which appears to be popping up with certain products, whereby a bug fix means an increment in the build number rather than the version. So a bug-fix of a package marked at version 11.1 Build 35 would become version 11.1 Build 36.
What's with the build numbers? Why use them instead of a minor version number? Are they basically the same as a version number, and whoever told me the Build nomenclature should be used instead of minor versions as some kind of standard should be shot? I don't work in the professional development field so I can't decide if this is a stupid question or not.
X is for xtreme.
The 69 is sexy and far ahead of the other browsers.
Yes I am a marketing genius.
> The last release was Beta 10
Umm... I'm running the Firefox 4 beta ("Minefield") from the PPA, and I seem to be on 4.0b12pre (2011-02-03).
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Mozilla had original intended to ship Firefox 4 in *August* last year. End of last year was already a revised schedule.
Of course it is February now, and they keep adding features to the beta releases.
Now if it helps them to get Firefox 4 out of the door, I am all for it. But you achieve that by being realistic and getting things done. This plan serve neither :-(
Only for dumb extensions that insist on checking if( majorVersion != 3 ){ bang(); } they deserve to burn
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
1) Re-enable WebSockets
The recent decision to disable WebSockets by default should be priority for the Mozilla team. Complete the proposed protocol fix and get it re-implemented in FFox 4+.
2) Replace Spidermonkey with V8
It compiles to native code instead of interpreting. Nuff said.
3) Get FFox Mobile out on more mobile platforms (think iOS and Blackberry)
It's a shame it doesn't exist on the "other two" mobile platforms. Fix this plz.
There is NOTHING that prevents developers from doing that with pointreleases.
If you divide into "point releases" and "major releases", then you might be doing small incremental feature upgrades with a low cost of moving features between releases with "point releases", but you either aren't doing that with "major releases" or there is no point to the distinction between "point releases" and "major releases". So, if you have a "point release"/"major release" distinction, you either aren't doing it consistently, or you are making a meaningless distinction.
And, when you eliminate the meaningless distinction, there is no point in having "pont releases" since they exist to distinguish a release that is less important than whatever the major releases are in your system. When you have only one kind of feature release, it is a major release.