Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Ships Firefox 5, Meets Rapid-Release Plan
CWmike writes "Mozilla delivered on Tuesday the final version of Firefox 5, the first edition under the new faster-release regime it kicked off earlier this year. The company also patched 10 bugs in Firefox 5, including one in the browser's handling of the WebGL 3-D rendering standard that rival Microsoft has called unsafe. Firefox 5 looks identical to its predecessor, Firefox 4, but Mozilla's made changes under the hood. Mozilla has denied copying Google Chrome's upbeat schedule but analysts have noted the similarities and pointed out the need of all browser makers to step up the pace. Because of the shorter development cycle, Mozilla called out relatively few new features in Firefox 5."
faster-release fp
It seems this new schedule will create more work for plugin developers. My FF upgraded itself today to FF5 and I have plugins that don't work. FireGestures and VMware are two to start with.
Will this now happen every few months?
That's an admirable and sensible approach. What would be nice, too, is not to ship a product with all the new stuff defaulted to Enabled, a fault I continue to find with Microsoft and Google - "Hey, we like this new hack, let's foist it on our unsuspecting users and turn a deaf ear to them when they howl."
hey, that's dangerous talk there! We need thousands of new features, right now, and damn the bugs!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
We're at Firefox 5 already? Doesn't seem like five minutes since Firefox 4. Used to be that an entirely new version number meant it was definitely worth taking the time to upgrade, but at this frequency how do we know which are the important ones?
Translation:
Firefox 5 == Firefox 4 Beta 1 ...
Firefox 6 = Firefox 4 Beta 2
Firefox 457 = Firefox 4 RC 1 alpha.
The problem with this retarded change in version numbers is that their target audeince isn't going to be affected by the version number game. We geeks don't give a fuck what the version number is, and we know you're bullshitting with the stupid version number increases. We all still know firefox is just as buggy, bloated and overall broken on 'version 5' as it was on version 4, except now there are a few NEW half implemented features that no one cares about and/or will never be finished properly.
All they are doing is pushing themselves further from the business environment and relegating themselves to more of a geek toy.
Mozilla has become Netscape. It is no longer useful. Just a bunch of over paid douche bags who sit around and write code they want to write rather than actually producing something useful.
Its too bad they didn't do a better job of cleaning house the last time netscape failed, looks like they left enough of the old guard that its happened again.
I don't want to hate Mozilla, but for fucks sake give me a little help here, Mozilla has turned into an example of how not to do it. Its as if their goal is to demonstrate all the wrong things to do when trying to produce a respectable high-end OSS application.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They still haven't fixed a glaring bug in how tabs work in the OS X version. Tabs aren't drawn correctly in the title bar in OS X, as Chrome does, but are on their own bar right below it. This results in wasted vertical space and just looks ugly.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
"but analysts have noted the similarities and pointed out the need of all browser makers to step up the pace." Uh, why, exactly? Be quicker about fixing bugs, sure, but why do we need whole version number replacements every couple of months?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
> My FF upgraded itself today to FF5 and I have plugins that don't work, tom17
Why did you change the "Ask me what to I want to do" setting in Update. The option third down from "Automatically check for updates to:". And just under that is an option "Warn me if this will disable any of my add-ons"
Tools->Options->Advanced->Update ..
Yes, a few tweaks but it looks largely the same. Beats me why they didn't just call it 4.1!
Have they fixed the memory usage problems? With a few tabs open, FF on OS X can run 2GB+ of RAM on my machine. I've seen it go up to 5/6 GB.
I'll be sticking with Firefox 4 for a few more weeks, until I'm sure all my plugins have been updated. Also, I really can't see a good reason for Mozilla to start jumping versions so damn fast. It's not necessary!
The WebGL news is pretty depressing. Found this recently (explained here)
I'm still very excited about having a real drawing API in the browser to work with that's not tied to MS or Adobe. Guess it'll still be a while until this tech is ready for prime time (sigh, been waiting YEARS already).
It's not helping that MS is slinging as much FUD as possible. Claiming that IE is "more secure than Chrome or Firefox" is laughable, but crap like this is not helping our case to the casual observer.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Frankly, I don't care what numbers they use for each release, I just make them to make it simple to keep up-to-date. What's good about Chrome is not the frequent releases, but the fact that I don't have to worry about upgrades in spite of the frequent releases.
One thing that is quite annoying is the calls I get from users who are being prompted to upgrade Flash, Adobe Reader, or Java. It makes it harder to train users not to install stuff and to take any system prompts seriously when they are frequently presented with these prompts. Another good thing about Chrome is that it includes Flash so that gets taken care of automatically too.
One of the worst offenders, I'm afraid to say, is VLC. I think VLC is great, but their upgrade process is very awkward.
Damnit, we need to get rid of this "rapid release" BS.
I've finally gotten 4 configured the way I like; and prior to that, I completely skipped over v3.
People don't want cutting edge web browsers. They want them to work, and they want them to look and feel the same for years at a time. Add support for new media types, tweak the rendering engine, but leave everything else alone!.
And that doesn't even consider how this crap breaks plugins... Literally half the plugins I currently run, I had to edit the install.rdf just to get around the damned version check (after which, they all work just fine of course).
Preliminary for june 2010-2011 here. Changes from May:
Chrome: +1.08%
IE: -0.25%
Firefox: -0.79%
After six months in the lead in Europe, Firefox is now again behind IE. They're backing on every continent except Africa (+0.2%). I don't think rapid-fire will work any better if you don't have the bullets.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So they release a new version of Firefox and are are changing to a rapid release format? I say good for them, they step up production thus forcing all others to follow suit. Firefox has ruled and continue to rules the internetz.
WTF slashdot? We get a link to a computerworld writeup about the new release, instead of the release notes and download link?
My Acid3 test rendering quits t 97/100. Doesn't look like it passes to me.
Anyone else keep all those check boxes unchecked? One time I updated Firefox and my plugins wanted an update. The update lost me features, like a weather app that only lists the current temperature in a tiny area of the screen.
Here I am using Firefox 3 - I must qualify as a cynic by now.
I can't believe this rubbish. All this is doing is confusing users, causing more work for admins and developers - and for what? To keep up with the Jones' release schedule?
Software is made better by working hard, testing, bugfixing, testing, bugfixing, testing... not by artificially increasing version numbers because time has passed.
Debian, please, please, please, don't *ever* adopt this type of release schedule. I feel like you're the last honest software development team out there I can depend on to *know* that software is stable when you actually release it.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Ubuntu has long term support versions alongside with the rapid twice a year releases. Any way we can see something like that in browsers? Like FF 4LTS, supported for a couple of years with no new features except bugfixes and security updates.
For one, they'll be pressure from developers to output new products that are actually better from usability standpoint (quicker startup, smaller footprint, less clutter), since they'll be competing with their own earlier attempts.
I was wondering when that one would turn up. Type about:config into the address bar and set browser.cache.memory.capacity ..
Firefox 4 hasn't been out long and if Google keeps with the browser support schedule. Starting August 1st they won't support Firefox 3.6 anymore. I am all for getting people to upgrade but it seems like they'll be dropping support for Firefox versions pretty fast if Mozilla can keep up with their rapid release schedule.
Since the version numbering scheme is total nonsense anyway (this is hardly a major change over 4, it's more like 4.1) why not just leapfrog over everyone and call it Firefox 14? Then Chrome will have to play catchup!
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Remember when Slackware jumped from release 4 to 7? I believe it was so they were on the same number as RedHat or something silly. Apparently some believe a higher version number actually means a more advanced product.
If they break adblock and noscript- I'm moving to another browser.
I'm sure there are critical addons for other people.
I also must have a portable app version.
I went to FF4 on one browser at home and it BROKE my F5 plugin required for work.
No update yet.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Mozilla has denied copying Google Chrome's upbeat schedule but analysts have noted the similarities and pointed out the need of all browser makers to step up the pace.
The faster release cycle is ridiculous. The last time it happened, the major browsers got too buggy to use and I had to switch to Opera.
... still broken, reused serial, anyone...?
I mean, are they just changing their numbering scheme, or actually doing more work ?
'coz if numbers magically become features, windows 2000 becomes much better than WIndows 7 ?
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Parent post is a goatsex picture. Do not follow. slashgnome, you're an asshole of the proportions in that picture.
They changed their numbering scheme.
Firefox 5 is basically just Firefox 4.1
I believe they plan to have Firefox 6 out by the end of the year as well. Three "major" versions per year.
IE6 users = Luddites, get the torches and pitchforks!
FF5 = Hurr Durr, I'm not upgrading because I don't like big numbers, version numbers are teh stupid.
IE9 will not be able to keep up with Chrome's pace. FF has to follow suit, if it wants to stay relevant, because Chrome is picking them off one by one. If FF stays behind, it can go and sit next to IE9 on the "soon to be irrelevant" bench. Chrome changed the game, and the rest wasn't paying attention when it happened.
Are there any browsers out there not on this accelerated release schedule? I'd like to know so I can change over to something a little more secure.
Damnit - I'm still waiting for the release of Fox Force Five!
The WebGL is buggy and most of Mozilla's demo's wont run and the aquarium webGL experiment does not render properly.
I downgraded back to Firefox 4.01 and the problems went away. I have an ATI 5750 with the latest drivers under Windows 7.
The good news is Microsoft's IE fishtank demo topped 60 fps just like IE 9 with DirectWrite enabled. I am going to wait until 5.01 before I upgrade.
http://saveie6.com/
I say replace the version numbers with version names:
Firefox "Just Polish"
Firefox "Bitter Tears"
Firefox "Just Chrome Inside"
Firefox "Are we bigger than 9 yet?"
Firefox is starting to prove more and more recently that they're too focused on trying to "win" and copying all the latest trends.
This is not why I picked up firefox.
Suggestions on good alternatives? (other than IE and chrome)
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Where is the promised x64 version for Windows?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Dammit. A year and a half ago at the old job, I *FINALLY* got mgmt to drop support for IE 5.5 and 6.
When you release two MAJOR versions in a year, I've got no chance of dropping support for the old stale crap. How many versions of HTML and CSS am I supposed to write to?
What's the difference whether you call it FF 5.0 vs 4.XX you ask? The difference is a customer sees I support a version of firefox three major versions old and expects I do the same with IE and Chrome. And of course, whether or not it actually *is* a major update.
This rapid release cycle means instability, more broken CSS, and less libraries available for use in my webapp, because now I'm going to have to vet them and make sure they have a two month update cycle at the slowest--just in case somebody asks why I don't run on FF 6 or 7 by the time we release.
Now, I'm going to be blunt... minor version numbers usually set an expectation of...minor changes and backwards compatible other than bugs. Major...all bets are off. I have neither desire no need to support four major versions of a single browser and will do anything in my reasonable power to refuse to do so.
What this means for the MSF is ... all support for firefox is more likely to be dropped than any. I'll still dev and test in it because it has better tools, but it will never be listed as supported on any app. Why would I even bother to list support for something a three or four versions old?
Because they refuse to release an MSI file for it, so it can't be ran over an AD policy, and updated automatically on machines without local admin. Whoops...never going to sell your stuff to government or gov contractors.
Good work Mozilla, you're chasing yourself right back out of the market just like nyet-scape
And let me know when those new builds lose the persistent memory leaks... I really love watching a browser eat up 40% of the memory on a 10G system with every tab but a new empty one closed.
At this rate, the current Debian stable will still be on ff v3 when ff upstream is on v15. ff4 hasn't even made it into testing yet.
This is why I haven't upgraded SM2.0.14 to v2.1 because of extensions/addons. I am fine with v2.0.14. I will wait for v2.0 to be unsupported and v2.1.x to be stable and ready. I hate upgrading and breaking things. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Thanks for the clraification
That's sadly demagogic then. I guess in a couple of years they'll increment version numbers by ten at a time, and declare victory ....
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I like the fast release stuff. What I don't like are the version numbers, but they will get bored of it eventually.
Other than addon concerns (which, lucky me, no one broke this release) and the senselessness of removing non-major releases, we get updates more often. I like that.
I would prefer the extra space too, but that doesn't make either way "correct". Google decided to conserve a few pixels, and Mozilla decided to keep the window frame more like the standard for the platform. It's not a "bug", much less "broken".
I was considering an update to Firefox 4 but I was expecting the major bugs and issues to be ironed out before upgrading. I guess I'll just stick to Firefox 3.6 while I can and nothing is too broken and then move to Chrome when Firefox 3.6 is considered too old and Firefox 42 continues to be a piece of crap trying to (badly) mimic Chrome. I wish the Mozilla Foundation I knew back then, which released Firefox 1.5 and made a revolution, would come back.
In case you're wondering what's actually new:
- Added support for CSS animations
- The Do-Not-Track header preference has been moved to increase discoverability
- Tuned HTTP idle connection logic for increased performance
- Improved canvas, JavaScript, memory, and networking performance
- Improved standards support for HTML5, XHR, MathML, SMIL, and canvas
- Improved spell checking for some locales
- Improved desktop environment integration for Linux users
- WebGL content can no longer load cross-domain textures
- Background tabs have setTimeout and setInterval clamped to 1000ms to improve performance
- Fixed several stability issues
- Fixed several security issues
My only question is... does it still consumed ~200MB of RAM for opening just TWO tabs? Firefox's memory usage has gone way off the charts almost to the point of being unusable on anything but a machine with 4+ Gigabytes of RAM. Until FF developers get their shit together with memory usage I'm sticking with 4 and am seriously considering going back to 3.6.
Ouch, poor Opera. I guess their "windows 7 browser selection box" didn't really accomplish anything.
To disable the annoying extension compatibility check:=
create a new boolean called "extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0" then set it false
Credit: http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/837443
Granted, chrome has the same ridiculous versioning scheme, but I'd rather use a leading product rather than a cheap copycat. They may have thought this would bring in more users, but I suspect the only result will soon be the downgrading of Firefox from major browser status.
So the difference between Firefox 3.0 and 3.1 is about the same difference between firefox 4.0 and 5.0. Firefox 5.0 is basically what firefox 4.1 would have been under the old regime.
about:memory
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Awesome. I can bump major version numbers without making major upgrades, too.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
the developers that made the original stable release of firefox (1.5) are essentially gone.
They got replaced by egotistical assholes who do not realize the whole point of firefox was to get away from Mozilla's original bloatware browser with something light and lean.
on my old PII 400 MHZ, Firefox, or Phoenix at the time, was a much welcome change to mozilla, I hated mozilla.
Now 8-9 years later, it's like Mozilla came back and possessed firefox, now it's a horrid, slow monstrosity.
Of course at the moment, the other two mainstream supported choices are garbage too.
IE9 is utter crap, stick to 8. 9 doesnt render half of the websites I tried correctly, if at all, not saying every website, but a lot of special ones that will work in firefox no problem.
Chrome, chrome is fast, has many of the important extensions firefox has, and is generally awesome..
except for the fact it regularly spies on you and is collecting all your info as you browse for "marketing purposes" that will likely change as the leadership of google changes in a few years. Oh and the UI is horrid, whicb brings me to my next point..
IE AND FIREFOX USE THE SAME AWFUL UI AS CHROME, OR HORRIBLY MIMIC IT.
hey let's ruin years of UI compatibility by hiding your bookmarks, your buttons, and the status bar on the bottom! yeah mobile look is awesome!
same kind of crap that is plaguing the gnome project at the moment.
Luckily experienced users know how to change these settings, but for grandma or even your mother, hell no. I have so many pissed off customers who call after IE9 installs itself wondering where their favorites went and everything.
You have power users deciding what is "simple" which is like rich people defining what is "good enough" for poor people.
They are taking away necessary features while adding useless features no one wants.
Then on top of it, Firefox doesnt fix any of the real bugs because I guess they arent as fun as adding in about:KitchenSink
What's worse is firefox has succumbed to politics rather than churning out a competent and decent program.
It's all based around who thinks their cock needs to be stroked today. which seems to plague all good successful opensource projects after they become popular. The useless people who did nothing to make it popular weasel in and make their "improvements" which override someone else's work because they want the "glory"
in the end the end user could give less a shit and wants their damn menus back.
Seriously who cares about version numbers anymore? It has been a few decades now since someone released that if their competitor was at version 4 they should release version 5.
And to begin with the classic major version = new masses of new features system is a commercial software thing where you needed to convince customers to upgrade from the original to "Version 2.0!".
There is no common version system and so everyone does it differently (eg the old Linux system where odd numbers were unstable releases and even numbers were stable releases, which they abandoned because it was just inflating the version number).
Personally I think they shouldn't be used and people should use date based release codes.
Beware, Google Toolbar DOES NOT WORK!!!
Why don't they just call this version (5) something like 4.3?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
From a testing perspective, this is a real PITA. If you are testing web applications and need to define what browsers you are compatible with (and do testing on) for a future release, this can cause lots of headache. Let's say I have a release scheduled to go out in September. What release do I test against? 4 - it's not supported. 5 - it may not be supported by Sep.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I thought they planned to have a release every 3 months, which would make 4 a year. If they have to do this, I wish they'd at least keep the version number sane.