Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 5 Scheduled For June 21 Release
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has updated its Firefox 5 release schedule and is apparently upbeat that it can release the browser even earlier than previously anticipated. The release was pulled in by a week to June 21. Mozilla is now also using a Chrome-like versioning system for Firefox — where the final Firefox 5 may be called Firefox 5.6.44.144, for example."
Of all the stupid features from Chrome to pick up, the version numbers is, by far, the dumbest. Has anyone considered how stupid a version number in the high double digits might be? Firefox 81 seems kind of clunky, doesn't it?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
It used to be versions were about feature sets. If you added a small feature to a program you'd increment the minor version, if you added big features you'd release a major update. The idea of having versions increase on specific dates seem weird.
This just reminds me of when Microsoft Word for Windows jumped from version 2.0 to 6.0 just to appear competitive with WordPerfect. This will make version numbers irrelevant and nigh pointless.
Firefox Red/Blue, Firefox Yellow, Firefox Gold/Silver!
or maybe Gemstone based versioning like Firefox Ruby/Sapphire!
I hope it's better than 4.
Why are minefield builds numbered 4.2 pre alpha then?
After many years of Firefox being a solid, well performing browser, it appears it's going to end in bloat just like Netscape did...
And, history is set to repeat itself again with MSIE 9 having more to offer than Firefox just like MSIE did back years ago when people dumped Netscape in droves.
I'm sticking with Firefox 3.6x for as long as I can, and then when push comes to shove, just like back in the Netscape days, will likely switch to MSIE 9 unless a decent fork of Firefox comes along before then - a decent fork probably already exists, but not aware of what they are.
Many people just want a fast, compact, featured (Chrome falls short in that regard; privacy issues) browser - Firefox offered that - shame to see it becoming buggy bloatware.
Ron
Cake is even more yummy when it comes from Microsoft!
Fine, I agree that version numbers are becoming irrelevant, just update the product in the background, period. The only people that care about build numbers are developers.
Using whole number upgrades for seemingly monthly updates is plain retarded.
Of course you can go the route of Apple and use point upgrades to indicate whole OS updates. Apple has been on OS X for 10 years.
That's just horrible.
Its easy nowadays - "You use Firefox 3.6 or 4.0" ?
I'm NOT remembering a string of numbers.
If they want large numbers, maybe they should take a tip from ubuntu.
You could get "Firefox 11.6" out in 5 months. See? Big number.
As much as I dislike uselessly high version numbers, their release plan looks rather impressive. If you didn't bother to click the article link, the development for each new version of Firefox will occur in a rather "layered" fashion. After initial development on Firefox 5 is finished in mozilla-central, work begins on the initial development for Firefox 6, and after that, 7. At the same time as 6 and 7 are being worked on in mozilla-central, Firefox 5 and 6, respectively, are moved to mozilla-experimental and worked on. While experimental work is being done on 6 and 7, Firefox is moved into "Beta" and Beta work begins on 5 and 6, respectively. It's much easier to understand if you look at the image I linked to, and it certainly looks impressive, though I am not quite sure how it will work out in the long run. Only time will tell, I guess.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
I hope it's better than 4.
I couldn't agree more! I wish they would fix the bloat and listen to their user base instead of adding more features we don't want (what a crazy idea).
Take the time to fix bugs and release something even better.
how is babby formed?
Then the latest Firefox would be realeased when it's ready to be released. Come to think of it, he should run the world.
- "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
I just see the date June 21, but which year?
Jun 21, 2014 perhaps?
I really do hope they fork the code. The developers seem too arrogant to listen to the myriads of cries from the people who actually use their browser.
The new version 4 already was taking almost 400 megs of ram. That's acceptable?? Hello?
I really hope they'll make the auto-updates more aggressive, like Chrome does. Otherwise, the Firefox market share will become excessively fragmented.
Sig
What actual features and improvements could they possibly have added in "8 WEEKS" since the release that they have had time to actually put through an Alpha test, Beta test, and then full release that would warrant a VERSION 5!?! This seems crazy lame to me. The browser has slowly gotten bloated, now the number? Why?
Hi there, I work on Firefox. First thing, we didn't write the article linked to in the summary, and I don't think they gave a totally accurate description. In fact, I don't even think this was interesting enough for a blog post from them.
:) It just gets shipped quicker. But that is important too, and that's why we (and Google) are doing this.
We are basically going to switch to a development process that is very similar to Google's with Chrome. So everything you say here is valid about their development practices as well - rapidly rising version numbers for no reason, little features in 'major' releases, etc.
Why are we doing it? There is just one reason, it helps get code shipped faster. Code does not get written faster though, in either Chrome or the new Firefox process
Basically, Chrome and Firefox will release quickly, with small amounts of changes each time. I agree with you 100% that the major version number rising each time is silly! Personally I would either drop the version number entirely, or use something like Ubuntu's versioning scheme (10.10 for 10th month, 2010). But oh well.
In any case, since you asked what will ship in Firefox 5, I can tell you about stuff I know about (which is platform/backend stuff, not frontend). We have several improvements to performance that should be very useful, in both JavaScript and graphics. In particular WebGL should be faster on some cool demos on Linux, which I am very happy about.
1. Install FF4
2. Install 37 addons, including some from warez sites
3. Install 48 skins
4. Complain FF is bloated.
doh!
I just hope they don't decide to keep the tabs location fixed on top of the address bar for good.
around December 30th, according to Mozilla's calendar, rigth?
Don't turn that around on me.
We are all God's parents.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So now we call add-ons "a new version"?
People who have browser requirements for their online system need to be able to say "Requires browser X v2.0 or higher, browser Y v1.5 or higher, etc".
Opera is already at 11, I'm not even sure what version Chrome is at and at this rate Firefox is going to be version 50 before 2012.
Why can't they use the date in ISO? What's wrong with "Firefox 2011-04-07"?
Could you guys please focus on something that's not javascript, for at least a week or two? Like how FF gobbles up 2GB of RAM? Or how its hardware acceleration makes text unreadable? Or how Flash crashes whenever it has hardware acceleration enabled? Or how it takes fifteen minutes to start up if you have a few tabs left over?
All these versions and frequent updates are good for one thing: marketing. Frequent releases keep the application on the minds of the consumer.
It keeps people engaged, like something's happening even if when it's not. It's not that dissimilar to the Twitter mindset. And with carefully metered feature implementations a company can ensure that there's something to offer in subsequent versions. And with others playing the same game they're probably thinking it's best to hold back on certain features until they know what the competition is up to.
It's inevitable that what we've seen with gadgets would spread to software. Except with an even more absurd timetable.
That address isn't even assigned... :P
I realize this is petty, but why the rush to bump up the numbers? I mean is the only way to give your product some eye appeal is to give it a bigger flashier new number? Of course I'm assuming there is some kind of defined (and designed) spec being worked on here. Every time you implement a feature in the spec, you tick up the MinorFeature number. You write a new spec with more Stuff in it, you tick up the MajorFeature number.
But maybe not. Maybe there is no spec and no design. People just keep gluing stuff on whenever they feel like it and push it out the door when it doesn't crash (too much). OK, that model is R-ReleaseNumber.Bugfix. Not as pretty, but at least it warns people you are just driving without actually navigating to a goal.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Well I hope they fix the memory leaks as fast as the release cycle. Firefox 4 is a piece of crap...
I think the really important aspect is if users actually remember/care about the version number of browser.
Do they know it's Firefox 3 (16.6?) or Firefox 4?
I don't think Google ever advertised the version number in any significant way.
It's always "Download Google Chrome", not "Firefox 4, Free Download".
If Firefox moves away from major version numbers completely then yeah, call it 5-6-17-293-whatever. It's "Firefox"
Hyperom.com
Firefox was never about speed or minimalism. I've used it since 0.94 and it's always been the slowest to load and the most memory consuming. I can't fault them for the slower load times as they don't use the MS HTML engine which is already preloaded by the time one is ready to launch a browser, and besides, with tabs I rarely closed/re-opened the browser anyway. They've improved on both the speed and memory usage over time, but even still performance isn't the main reason I use Firefox. It's the various extensions available (features) and the fact that it's distinct from the OS by design (security, as opposed to IE basically being an extension of Windows by using many intertwined COM components, etc.). A third reason I like it is it's been cross-platform for a long time, and I can carry my browser profile between Windows and Linux with little or no trouble (I imagine Chrome is the same way)..
Besides for raw speed Opera's usually been the winner in that department.
When I need a fast browser I use Chrome, but 80% of the time I'm using Firefox.
I guess I'm the minority, but I like the straight number version system opposed to things based on date or quarter like some others use. v94 doesn't bother me at all, and neither would v765. It's simple, easy to understand, and can go on forever without a "reset" or change to the version system.
Why mess with what works?
Currently my bank doesn't even support FF4. It does work, but I get a nastygram when I login. I suppose that's their way of protecting themselves if the browser should fsck something up on the site. They're quite picky about which browsers they support. They will eventually support almost anything, but they'll have to test them first, and with a new release every three months I think I'll always be out of compliance with this site. And some day I guess something WILL break.
Not fun.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
dammit. how the frack am i supposed to keep up with all these browsers to make sure my site remains compatible? can't install 3 versions of each simultaneously , need a goddam VM farm to be able to test.
standards are getting better but still not perfect enough. i remember banking my head against the wall trying to fix a css display error on a simple site for a while. wasn't till i figured out firefox thought that margin was inside a block element (ie more padding) instead of outside the element. like Opera and IE thought. had to re-write a lot of crap to get my layout lined up across all the browsers/versions
Perhaps i should celebrate new year every month, just to make things happen faster.
So why didnt Firefox just name it v4000 and v5000 sounds soooo much better.
Serously. Look at how similar the guis are. The dev tools haven't even been modified at all, icons and all. I suppose the sincerest form of flattery in imitation or something.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Knowing Firefox, they will release "Coming this Winter! Firefox Summer Edition! (Cause' remember, it's summer in the southern hemisphere)"
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
"Mozilla is now also using a Chrome-like versioning system for Firefox â" where the final Firefox 5 may be called Firefox 5.6.44.144, for example."
Why don't they just fucking call it Chrome Squared and get over it? They've been doing nothing but ripping Chrome off ever since it was released. Firefox is barely Firefox any more, it's a pale imitation of Chrome that doesn't really know what way it's headed. Except wherever Chrome goes.
Open source is great for forking... in theory. Too bad no developers forked Firefox at the end of its 2.0.x life or 3.6.x life, before it started losing it completely. Better yet, a version of Firefox 3.6.x with the original 2.x and earlier location bar still accessible if desired and the original double-dropdown-menus beside the Back/Forward buttons. Too bad I'm not a developer, and if I was, such an undertaking would probably be far too much to handle for one person.
Currently, all the "forks" seem to be taking the latest Firefox version, adding their own little patches, and removing Mozilla trademarks. Yay. IMO, what we need is something that takes Firefox back to its roots, yet stays modern.
Leave me the UI that I use all day (part 1) and make whatever engine improvements are needed (part 2). Do auto-updates on (stable) part 2 but only *offer* updates on part 1. Why should I have to use add-ons to get things back the way I want them?
Frirefox Green is made from people!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!