Slashdot Mirror
No Additional Firefox 4 Security Updates
CWmike writes "Unnoticed in the Tuesday release of Firefox 5 was Mozilla's decision to retire Firefox 4, shipped just three months ago. Mozilla spelled out vulnerabilities it had patched in that edition and in 2010's Firefox 3.6, but it made no mention of any bugs fixed in Firefox 4 on Tuesday, because Firefox 4 has reached what Mozilla calls EOL, for 'end of life,' for patches. Although the move may have caught users by surprise, the decision to stop supporting Firefox 4 has been discussed within Mozilla for weeks. In a mozilla.dev.planning mailing list thread, Christian Legnitto, the Firefox release manager, put it most succinctly on May 25: 'Firefox 5 will be the security update for Firefox 4.' Problem is, users are being prompted to upgrade now but are hesitant because the new rapid release of updates means many add-ons are not compatible. And without security updates in between, many could be left exposed with unpatched browsers."
...for anyone running a Linux distro :-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
For Firefox 6.0
It feels like I just updated to Firefox 4 yesterday.
Is it already time for Firefox 5?
What is the big news that brings us a whole new version-number?
Prosp long and liver.
...they would be fine.
However, it looks like Mozilla failed to communicate it well enough, thinking their own notice was enough. The result is that Mozilla seems to take Microsoft's path for once - refusing to patch security issues on a relatively new release, and washing their hands clean with an EOL.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Then why do I have 2 addons that doesn't?
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
I would not be surprised if their new release cycle causes their marketshare to start shrinking in a significant fashion.
I have been a long-time Firefox user (ever since it was Phoenix) and their current release philosophy is really turning me off. They just seem so misguided and detached from reality.
Are they trying to kill their user base ?
Anybody serious deploying system WILL NOT ship a mozilla product. Obsoleting a software 3 month after its release is ridiculous. You can't try to get market share and killa release in 3 month. If you don't plan to give any support, call that a development version!
I am SO disappointed in them!
Google seems to be updating Chrome at a high rate because they want to control both the server side (all Google properties) and the client side. Google properties now use features that only work in Chrome. It's Microsoft's old "Embrace, extend, devour" applied to the Web. Microsoft tried this with Silverlight, with less success.
Whether Firefox should cooperate in this effort needs to be questioned. Whether Firefox users should go along is very questionable.
I really don't want to have to push out a brand new version of FF every few months and risk breaking my users' plugins that they use.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
This could be a maneuver to confuse the IE team, giving them some time to reverse engineer FF4 and then come out with the real one. Just a crazy thought ...
We put you on the Internet map,
www.racknine.com
Version numbers don't matter any more. This is really not a major release. It is an incremental upgrade, just like Chrome and just like the Linux kernel. It is a new way of developing software that has been happening for a while now.
This is the exact behavior that will drive users away. It's more disruptive than the KDE 4.0 debacle.
I've been a committed Firefox user for many years, using daily many plugins that I find irreplaceable (zotero, noscript). I'm now seriously considering alternatives. I find it irresponsible that Mozilla would not stand behind the major release of one of their products for more than three months.
This really sucks. A copy of Firefox that I leave running 24/7 on an older notebook near my bed is already nearly worthless after having switched from Firefox 3.x to Firefox 4 because of the absurd memory demands of Firefox 4 (had dozens of sites open under 3.x, now opening 2 sites in 2 tabs is a challenge). One of the key things that I do with this systems depends on using a plug-in. Can't run Firefox 5 until the plug-in is ready and even then fear that the memory issue may get even worse. Now I'm told that security vulnerabilities will be left open if I stay on 4, which I am currently forced to do.
Chrome has a rapid development too, but I'm not sure that plug-ins for Chrome would be as version sensitive as Firefox plugins seem to be. Hard to imagine that things could be any worse. And there is even the chance that Google might fix major security vulnerabilities discovered in their three month old code without telling users that they have to upgrade and break everything else.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
As I remember, the Mozilla Add-ons site does not allow plugins to be posted if they have a maxVersion that hasn't been released yet (that's the gist of it anyway).
You might be able to post an add-on with a maxVersion of 4.1alpha or something, but it would break on 4.1 final. Of course, there's no way to quickly re-enable the add-on, because Mozilla thinks you can't be trusted to run your own browser, an interesting concept coming from open source software.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
If it helps you sleep at night, the nightly builds are currently 7.0a1, and planning for FF8 is underway. And prior to FF4, Gecko was still in the 1.9 numbering series. (They bumped it up to match the FF version release.)
Ironically, SeaMonkey is still at version 2, when it comes from a branch of the Netscape tree that should make it six or seven.
And furthermore, all of these web browsers are identified as Mozilla/5.0 in their user agents.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Mozilla just keeps making more and more retarded decisions. The last good branch was 2.x. It's been all downhill since then. I'm still using 3.6.x since I refuse to upgrade to version 4 or 5.
The only real options left:
1) Put up with their decisions
2) Fork it
3) Jump ship
I'm choosing option 3.
This whole version number thing is insane and pissing off anyone who needs a singe stable version that is supported for a reasonable length of time.
If they wanted to up the version number they should have just skipped 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to 11 or 12. Or since everyone skips 13 anyway just go directly to 14 and be done with it. Then keep it there for at least a year.
before the new one is even fully ready for release. IOW, they deliberately break their own software. Can someone please explain what kind of sense this makes?
I do not have a sig. You are hallucinating.
Mozilla Corporation gets most of its funds from Google. Something to keep in mind in regards to the future of Firefox...
My gut says, barring some significant change in funding / lead developers, that Firefox's future is bleak - what's happening now feels to me so much like what happened back when Netscape jumped the shark with their bloated Communicator suite. People bailed in droves.
The ideal situation would be for a group of developers to fork Firefox 3.6.x, throw in some of the improvements from 4, and run with it. Many would be greatly appreciative, and likely support it in both time and donations; don't make the same mistake as Mozilla Foundation has in regards to relying too much on any one major donor.
It matters for add-ons. If they bump to a version past what is an allowable maxVersion string they will break many plugins and it will cause plugin writers to have to go through constant churn of bumping version numbers to keep up so their plugins don't run into issues.
It's just a number that prevents users of my add-ons (extensions) from installing them once the number changes. I released those pieces just for the hell of it, since I already wrote them for myself, they use minimum features, so there is really nothing to do for me between releases, the add-ons just continue working. But there is a long lag between the release of the 'new' FF 'version' and the time the automated tests show that there is nothing in the add-ons that needs to be changed, in the meanwhile I start getting all these complains from people, who want me to 'support' the new FF version.
There is nothing to support, it doesn't need to be modified, it works as is and these constant version bumps only create more traffic in my inbox for no reason and frustration for those, who move up to the new FF version but can't have the add ons work there right away. I don't bump up the versions of the add-ons by hand because I have nothing to modify and I have better things to do, so this is just pure nonsense from FF.
On my dev box I now have Opera and use it half of the time because FF crashes too often on my GNU/Linux machine and Opera is much more stable and uses less memory and is faster.
Instead of bumping up versions uselessly, how about working out the bugs in at least one of them and make it a really stable browser? Oh, and while at it, how about changing the way FF treats self-signed certs, so that instead of scaring the users away with nonsense that wouldn't pass for HTTP but for some reason is acceptable in way that HTTPS with self signed certs is treated, instead come up with a useful way to display that this is a self signed cert and still allow the connection without displaying the 'safe' visual cues? But what am I saying? I bet that SSL CAs provide enough kickbacks to the browser company that this issue won't be addressed.
But you'll get your version to match and overshadow the competition. Why not just jump right to version 100 right now and be done with it for at least 6 more months?
You can't handle the truth.
This really sucks. A copy of Firefox that I leave running 24/7 on an older notebook near my bed is already nearly worthless after having switched from Firefox 3.x to Firefox 4 because of the absurd memory demands of Firefox 4[/quote]And THAT comment shows the issue is with you and not Firefox. FF4 has *reduced* memory requirements, not more. (Not to mention how absurd the rest of your post is.)
The average home user is not going to readily know about it unless Firefox itself pops up a window to tell them. Since what I would guess, and from my personal experience working on peoples computers, would be a large portion set their home pages to something other than the "Version Check" page they will never know there is a new version. If they could do it as a auto-downloaded incremental upgrade that would be the best.
Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
Who, exactly, is the rapid release schedule helping? It's certainly not helping web developers and organizations who try to list their supported browser versions and actually try to code towards those versions. The quickest path to get the corporate PHBs to stop supporting your browser is to have the IT staff say "Guess what, the next version of Firefox is already out so we need to make updates." At some places, support for browsers other than IE is tenuous at best, so making it more difficult to support these browsers only hurts the browser manufacturers.
Want to gain more support? Release a stable product, with wide support for standards and add-ons, and do so on a sane, well-publicized schedule. People don't care about version numbers; updating software isn't something people want or like to do. Why are you making it more difficult and cumbersome for users to use your product?
Because that's not the way the addon versioning system works?
Look, it's really pretty simple. An addon needs to say what versions of Firefox it supports, as the API is known to change with each version.
The old rule was that you were pretty safe in assuming that the "patch level" number (the third/fourth number depending on release) could change without breaking any addons. Changing the minor number might break existing addons and could add new APIs. (For example, the change from Firefox 3.5 to 3.6.)
Changing the major number indicated a major change in functionality that could, potentially, require addons to be rewritten. (For example, Firefox 2 to Firefox 3.)
How the hell do you work that into the new versioning system?! The only way would be for the browser itself to "know" that Firefox 5 is basically Firefox 4 and not flag addons written for "4.0+".
Am I supposed to assume that an addon I write against Firefox 4 will work in Firefox 5 and Firefox 6, when the same was certainly not true for Firefox 1 to 2 - and 2 to 3, and 3 to 4? When will they be changing the API again? Am I supposed to be psychic when setting the maxVersion number?
Keep in mind that it's the browser itself that enforces these version checks. It's not something that addon developers really have any control over.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Here's the thing, Mozilla. If/As you screw over extension support, I have no reason to stay with you.
You'd better rethink the implications of your "rapid release"... nomenclature. And really, it's just nomenclature. So, you are willing to toss your competitive advantage for the sake of bumping version numbers like Chrome?
Dear Mozilla: Pull your head out of Chrome's ass.
Conservative, mod down for violating
Some extensions (*cough*Selenium) are REQUIRED for my work. I've had to drop several extensions as the 3->4->5 steamroller moves on. Until Mozilla either takes over extension compatibility maintenance or sets up a compatibility API that will be stable from release to release, Firefox will definitely start losing market share.
Although we have never gotten that pop-up here. Hmmmm.
Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
But that is merely a symptom, not the cause.
If nothing else, the new release philosophy causes the incredibly stupid approach to add-on compatibility to be highlighted.
People have complained about add-ons 'breaking' for years with other (point) releases, usually stating that after updating the maxVersion string manually, or using Nightly Tester Tools to override, the add-on continues to work perfectly fine.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking.. but part of me is hoping that the new release schedule forces Mozilla, and the community, to re-think add-on compatibility reporting; flagging add-ons as 'broken' not by default, but after testing.
I am still using Firefox 3.6 and will stay that way until either Mozilla lay down the crack pipe or I find another browser whose UI designers aren't similarly crack addled (sorry Chrome).
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
I believe you can install the Mozilla Add-on Compatibility Reporter (made by Mozilla) to manually turn on any outdated/incompatible/whatever add-ons.
I can't blame them for making such functionality take a couple of extra steps because I imagine the support nightmare from your average user is hell otherwise.
I'm not a big fan of this new rapid release thing with major version numbers just to look better, though.
Congrats, you just (loosely) described Java Applets, Silverlight, Flex, etc
Now figure out the problem. (Unless that was your point, and it went woosh over my head)
I think we need a fork. Mozilla's behavior is getting worse with each release; the community needs to take control of the project before they kill it with their incompetence.
If it helps you sleep at night...
No, that's just given me even more to contemplate while staring at the ceiling. I'm surprised to hear FF8 is planned already....care to share any spoilers for what goodies I can expect in FF6 and 7 in the meantime? Actually never mind, I'll just wait till next week when they release both within 24 hours...
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
With Linux 3.0, Firefox 5, and the weekly Chrome version bump, "version numbers" are essentially meaningless.
Version numbers are really a relic of the boxed software, major release days anyway. Rolling updates seem to be the future, so build numbers may be more appropriate.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
End Of Life after THREE FUCKING MONTHS?? Who the fuck thought this was a good decision?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Firefox doesn't really need to do that as it's open source and upgrading to a newer version is free.
As long as you're not doing any incoming qualification, that's dandy. Of course, in an enterprise setting you just might want to make sure that the new version supports all of your mission-critical applications. If you're running a distribution, you might want to do some QA on it.
As it is, Gentoo (to name one) still has 4.0 in unstable, and Mozilla's rapid releases are practically guaranteed to keep any of the new releases from ever reaching stable. That's not a joke; running tarballs is a quick way to hose dependencies in most distributions, and pure death in the hardware platforms outside of PC clones.
Then there are all of those plugins that will never catch up to the supported browser version ...
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
From where I'm standing, it's interesting that they patched 3.6. I can only assume that this is mainly due to market share and the need to keep it secure.
If so, they run the risk of falling into the XP trap. Ditch 3.6 now and push for a FF5 update for all, otherwise you'll have 3.6 hanging around for an eternity and potentially pulling an IE6 stunt further down the road with the "it does what I want, why upgrade" brigade...
Does it really matter what the version is?
Obviously it does. Have you not read the comments? Marketing that drives people away from your product is bad marketing.
No no, FF5 wasn't released in the US, at least not for SNES. FF4 was rebranded as FF2, and FF6 as FF3.
Ya um I rarely have Firefox open with less then 7-8 tabs - no noticible issues. Everything I've heard is that they've reduced memory footprint issues in 4..
Seriously if your computer can't handle more then 2 tabs open - be it Firefox, Chrome, Opera or IE, your doing it wrong.
ARRRRRGGH! So I upgraded to FF 5 and the Google Personal Home Page now does not display properly. NoSquint seems to work, but that might be the problem. Who knows. This does not look good comrades, no it does not look good. I hate the new Firefox button because we hates changes we does, my precioussss. Give it a week or so, but may be time to change browsers. What you all recommend?
Why are the extensions considered outdated when Firefox 4 is largely the same as Firefox 5? Did they remove/replace enough functionality such that most of the extensions are now broken, or should the extensions be updated to take into account rapidly changing version numbers?
Twinstiq, game news
It sounds like browser version numbers are designed to be a poor proxy for plugin API version. Therefore, I have to wonder, why not version the API instead (i.e. Firefox Plugin API 2.1 in Firefox 5.0)? Plus, you even get backwards compatibility since it becomes trivial to have multiple APIs and use the highest one the plugin is compatible with.
When will they be changing the API again? Am I supposed to be psychic when setting the maxVersion number?
I'd just set it to 99 or whatever and patch shit as it breaks.
I'd rather have an app that's buggy on a new version of FF than one that *would* have worked fine but had maxVersion set too low...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
You might want to look at this /. article:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/10/2125227/Mozilla-MemShrink-Set-To-Fix-Firefox-Memory
which clearly says ""If you're like a lot of Firefox 4 users out there, you've probably noticed that Firefox has a serious memory problem — it uses more than it really should." I noticed. Shame on you for not. It is a pig on my old HP notebook. Granted the notebook is somewhat light on memory, but there is no excuse for running dozens of tabs just fine in Firefox 3.6 but bogging down in 4 with only two tabs open (and it seems challenged at that). And I've watched the memory profile for 4, it just eats too much. Wish I could just revert to 3.6 without loosing everything, security issues be damned.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Version numbers are arbitrary. They could have just named this one Firefox 4.5 or something. It doesn't matter to me. I installed 5 on WinXP Pro and Linux Mint 11. Works good for me. I understand the changes are mainly under the hood. It is supposed to be a little bit faster with a smaller memory footprint.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
I'd just set it to 99 or whatever and patch shit as it breaks.
I'd rather have an app that's buggy on a new version of FF than one that *would* have worked fine but had maxVersion set too low...
Last I checked, you're not allowed to do that and have your addon be hosted on addons.mozilla.org. Which is why none of the addons on there do.
Not to mention that doing that was strongly discouraged by Mozilla and, prior to Firefox 5, at least, a really bad idea.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I wasn't even given an option to upgrade or not, it just happened without asking and broke a couple add-ons I use every day.
We're all full up on Crazy here...
They are trying to copy or catch up with Chrome on the version numbering thing, but they are missing something important here. With Chrome, it gets auto-updated all the time (at least mine is, on both OS X and Ubuntu), to where I've always got the latest and greatest, and all the inherent security fixes and such. If I had to manually download a new copy of Chrome regularly, even every three months, I would grow tired of it. But the auto-updater does it for me; I installed Chrome once and am now done with that part of it. I couldn't tell you what version of Chrome I am running, except for I know it updated itself earlier this week.
Firefox, on the other hand, won't auto-update to a "major version", like going from 4.x to 5.x. Mozilla should know they had a hard enough time getting people to download a new copy, even when it took 18 months between major versions. People are not going to re-download it on such a quick schedule.
And Mozilla needs to update Firefox's handling of extensions, with its "max version" attribute. Once again, it was bad enough when there was a new FF update every 18 months and it took forever for the extension developers to make the simple integer change. All I have read this week with FF5 is how this extension and that extension disabled itself, when it will probably work just fine.
I was a long-time Firefox supporter and didn't like Chrome at first. Now I am either going with Chrome or Safari all the time, and feeling sad for the days when Firefox was the shiznit.
:q!
hah, mod points to you sir ;)
Companies sooner or latter manage to hurt themselves even without compentition or outside influence. Just give them enough time to do so.
Even my computer illiterate mother knows not to upgrade to major software versions because of what that means EVERYWHERE ELSE (except chrome.) Point updates are mostly bug fixes and nothing jarring that will confuse her.
Mozilla needs to realize its not just computer people and IT who hate this, it will be confusing to normal users as well. We go from the silly 2 decimal system to a whole number system; can't we go to something in between. minor updates just use 1 decimal, skip the double number mess and put major changes that may confuse users off for whole version names.
I haven't even started using 4 myself because I was waiting for 4.1 and the add-ons to catch up and now we have 5 and people complaining all over about upgrade troubles with it. Bumpy transition but it won't get a whole lot better...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Although the move may have caught users by surprise, the decision to stop supporting Firefox 4 has been discussed within Mozilla for weeks.
Who cares what the users think about EOL'ing a product that was only released a few week ago. We The Developers are going to do what we want, users be damned.
I think version numbering should be dropped completely from public view.
The effects of version numbering would come back into obvious public view once the (hidden) version number of the web browser exceeds the (hidden) maxVersion number of the add-ons that one uses. Imagine what happens between a release of a new version of Firefox and the release of the corresponding version of Flashblock: "Why are there suddenly blinking, screaming ads all over this site? It might give me a seizure!"
Yes, I agree, the arbitrary version compatibility strings are the problem, for extensions in a lot of cases. A move from 4.x to 5.0 should not actually break many (or any?) extensions, because they haven't changed those interfaces.
If there's no update for an extension that is essential and the versioning doesn't jibe, there's this extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/
That allows you to ignore the compatibility version check, enable disabled extensions and submit "this extension works" or "this extension doesn't work" to developers.
I'm using Firefox 5.0 in Linux (self compiled), but in Windows I use Nightly, because it gives me a 64 bit firefox that gets updates. When Nightly reached a version number that was to disable my Status4Evar addon, I used the tool to enable it again and it's still working with the firefox version being 7.0a1
They make it sound as if it is the users fault. The users are not there so you can code. You should not code despite of the users.
I now need to run firefox with the -P option, because they do not allow me to run two instances at the same time (No, I do not mean a second window). Running it over ssh needs an extra parameter.
It does a lot of other things against logic, like updating itself instead of letting my distro do that.
With everything they do I get a feeling that the developers think they are holier then thou. They do things because they can and/or because it is fun to do for them.
At this moment the only thing that keeps me with Firefox is the add-ons, but I will making a list of the importance of all plugins and see if there is an alternative elsewhere.
They, of all browsers, should know how fast people can switch and loose everything again.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Might be a workaround for some:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/checkcompatibility/
Nightly FTW!
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Why should a user need to know that or care? I am going to recommend non techie users use Chrome for now on, and professionals use IE. This is quite serious and it says more about the unprofessionalism of Mozilla, then it does about the inconvenience.
http://saveie6.com/
I'm not aware of any support provided by Mozilla, other than bugzilla (not that it's really a support channel).
The support problem would fall to the developers. I'm sure Mozilla could allow developers to set a max version at their discretion, thus allowing the developers to take the risk that their "versionless" add-on would fail in some future version. Some devs might prefer that to having to constantly submit updates for new versions that have no effect on their add-on.
With enough work, a mechanism to detect and disable a failing add-on could probably be created.
I've never heard of the Compatibility Reporter (based on its name that's not what I would have assumed it did).
I use Chrome now, it's trivial to create extensions for it and I've never had an update for it break all of my extensions. It also doesn't require three clicks (one of which is hidden) and a pop-up to let me view an HTTPS site that happens to have a mis-matching certificate (like <URL:https://jax-ws.java.net> which has plenty of links pointing to it.)
It's not a 'few extra steps' if the solution so well hidden. A button with one of those stupid "you can't click OK until you wait three seconds" boxes would be a "few steps" for enabling an add-on, but a simple checkbox would be better.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
and here I thought that slashdot usesr could use google to solve problems, it's the second time in two days that I have to say this on slashdot, set extensions.checkCompatibility.5.0 (replace the number with your version or nightly for nightly build) to false
Because creating and transferring text files is easier.
Given that some extensions are tied to FF4, I can't upgrade until those extensions are upgraded.
You know, kind of the same way I can't upgrade IE w/o breaking certain things.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Why use the latest version? Newer versions are not better, they do not have fewer bugs, they do not have better features. I'm certainly never going to upgrade and disrupt my work merely to make some total stranger happy.
v2.0.14 is probably the last version to get any updates for v2.0.x. v2.1 is the newest one to get updates. :(
See http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.seamonkey/browse_frm/thread/ec51a020f4ba9587/3bd9abb6689f50a2 for my newsgroup thread about it. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Christian Legnitto, the Firefox release manager, put it most succinctly on May 25: 'Firefox 5 will be the security update for Firefox 4.' Problem is, users are being prompted to upgrade now but are hesitant because the new rapid release of updates means many add-ons are not compatible. And without security updates in between, many could be left exposed with unpatched browsers."
Came to say that.
Don't the people in charge think these things through? It appears not.
The new versioning schema is the new security hole in Firefox.
And all done for no real gain or benefit.
Idiots.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
For end users, it's the little things that matter.
I know people who are still on FF 3.6.18 because their favorite weather addon doesn't work in 4.0/5.5 (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/forecastbar-enhanced/), or users who don't want to upgrade past XP because the TCP-IP changes in Vista/7 broke Kerio Personal Firewall (http://www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/keriopf215.zip), or Mac users who lag behind OS versions because a haxie wasn't ready for prime time (http://unsanity.com/haxies/) and have no plans to upgrade to Lion because key components will go missing (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=119528).
While I understand the reasoning of the major players for updating and refining, isn't it time in the rush to do so, that they stop and consider "What really makes my product appealing to the user?".
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
If it's "stealing" to view a web site without "viewing" the ads, then it's "stealing" to mute the TV during a commercial, or change the channel, or go to the bathroom. Same for the radio.
I have made no agreement with any web site owners to look at or download any content they may place in their pages. Site owners who make content freely-viewable do so at their own risk, without any guarantees.
Don't let the **AAs co-opt the meaning of "theft". Don't let them brainwash you.
Next thing you know, people will be saying that it's "stealing" to go to a site without CLICKING ads. Good grief. Grow a spine! Stand up to the idiocy!
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Considering Firefox 5 is the 'security update' to Firefox 4 and also has features like better CANVAS support, CSS3 animations etc, I'd say in this case it does have fewer bug and better features
I'm sorry a completely automatic upgrade somehow disrupts your work. Just don't get upset if your old browser lacks features sites require, it's not like web developers like myself need to make some total stranger happy.
This shortened lifespan for each version release pretty much negated the stable portion of my argument. If I have to put up with rolling releases then I'll do it with Chrome since (1) they've been doing it longer, (2) haven't bit the hand that supported them yet (well at least on the browser), and (3) it works better now on a netbook than firefox. Now if only chrome would render my employer's timecard system correctly...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Well, I particularly like about:memory and about:permissions. The list of features and changes is long and curious, but I doubt there will be a change as big as 4 for some time.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
As of chrome 12.0.072, my issues with the timecard system appears to have been resolved. One more nail in firefox's coffin.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Perhaps it's wishful thinking.. but part of me is hoping that the new release schedule forces Mozilla, and the community, to re-think add-on compatibility reporting; flagging add-ons as 'broken' not by default, but after testing.
Mozilla is now doing exactly that for hosted add-ons and working on an Add-On SDK to reduce future breakage.
You keep web visitors happy by not requiring them to have all the latest whistles and gadgets. People don't need CSS3 animations. It's fluff to make a web site look cool but is it really necessary? I'd far rather have solid web sites that pretty ones that suck up my cpu. Are we going back to the dark ages where web sites announce that they only work with one browser? HTML5 is nice and all, but a really good web site should work with HTML3.
Do not let marketing take over the job of engineering.
A more sensible solution would be to declare which APIs the add-on requires, and for the browser to say whether they are available or not.
Firefox 5 is more like Firefox 4.1 in truth, the only thing this rapid release crap has done is confused everyone with thinking what is actually a minor update is a major break lots of extensions update.
only the version number check embedded in the meta file.
Nice, I got moderated troll. So much for telling your honest opinion on Slashdot. The implicit rules are to mod -1 disagree with anyone that doesn't agree with the nerd groupthink.
Oh wow. So basically you're saying that there has never been an update that has fixed any bug or added any feature. You're either exaggerating or trolling. The whole point of rapid release cycle development is that you should not even notice when the application updates itself. "Release small. Release often." Read more about it in the article I linked.
Yes, I agree, the arbitrary version compatibility strings are the problem, for extensions in a lot of cases. A move from 4.x to 5.0 should not actually break many (or any?) extensions, because they haven't changed those interfaces.
In other news, Slashdot finally discovered why Windows 7 reports its version number as "6.1" ~
the only real reason to stay with firefox is the add-on's, just like one few the few reasons to stay with windows is the huge software library. They need to fix breaking add-ons, and they need to do it now
Yea... I'm running FF7 nightly with about 45 tabs open, and my memory usage from FF is less than 750mb(note: running Kubuntu 11.04 x86_64).
Sure, on a 1gb laptop, that could be an issue, but you wouldn't be running 46 tabs there, either.
How the hell do you work that into the new versioning system?! The only way would be for the browser itself to "know" that Firefox 5 is basically Firefox 4 and not flag addons written for "4.0+".
Am I supposed to assume that an addon I write against Firefox 4 will work in Firefox 5 and Firefox 6, when the same was certainly not true for Firefox 1 to 2 - and 2 to 3, and 3 to 4? When will they be changing the API again? Am I supposed to be psychic when setting the maxVersion number?
Two things they could do. The one they probably should do right away is to decouple the API versions from the program versions, since those have become meaningless. Heck, even Windows did this when their marketing department got the clout Mozilla's seems to have - developers could still query the real (meaningful) version number even though the box had a year or stupid name on it. They could leave things as they are now for addon developers or they could introduce a new maxAPIVersion check, one time.
If they were feeling energetic, they could teach the browser how to introspect its API changes and make smart decisions. Say, an addon uses foo() and bar() - those did not change since the maxVersion release, so run the addon. Another addon uses foo() and baz() and declares the same maxVersion. The browser knows that baz() changed semantically, so it prevents baz() from running.
I'd probably rather see that approach since it takes the weight off of thousands of developers and puts it onto one or two.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No, I'm saying that newer is not always better. If I've got a stable release there's no reason for me to upgrade just because there's something newer because the newer version might be less stable.
The problem is that the API is heavily tied to the UI. For example they got rid of the status bar in FF4 so any add-on that relies on having icons there won't work properly. Many add-ons don't use that feature so will work fine, but you couldn't just include an old version of the API in FF4 for compatibility because stuff it needs has gone away.
The only option is to check each add-on separately, and that is what they are now doing. Add-ons were automatically tested for FF5 compatibility and updated if there were found to be no problems. The testing is able to spot things like use of depreciated parts of the UI.
The FF add-on API is a total mess. They have been talking about fixing it, or rather just starting over with a new one for years.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking with the Firefox release I've been using:
http://mistersanity.blogspot.com/2011/06/firefox-why-i-refuse-to-upgrade.html
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
As a code monkey in training I don't get you, people. From what I can gather if Mozilla had released the same code in the same timeframe but versioned as 4.1 you would apparently not hate it but if they version it as 5.0 then "hurr durr, they suck" - apart from showing just how bloody stupid and retarded plugin compatibility check is, what does this change for you?
Train a lot more please. This breaks the plugins, as mentioned, but it also plays havoc with software audits and patch management programs (you almost have to use a third party patch manager for firefox if you have hundreds of windows computers since Mozilla is too stupid to figure out how to roll an msi). They're getting rid of all but the major version number, but the reasoning behind it ("versions are meaningless") allows for a slippery slope condition where they start using no mechanism to track what code compiled into the executables, or maybe they track that, but add a project subtitle "Firefox:Gandalf was released just before Firefox:Pym", which would allow for tracking if someone maintained a list of subtitles. The major.minor.patch numbering system actually works and is useful to users (albeit perhaps not to the developers).
Who has actually had any significant issues with the recent upgrades?
I see a lot of people freaking out, but there hasn't been one person in my entire IT (developers, plugin heavy) office that had a problem with the upgrade. We each probably use 5-10 plugins.
And as far as I can tell, each new release has continue to support web standards, so it's not like any properly designed web site is going to fail. Now if you're in the boat of supporting some really old web code or web apps, I can understand that a browser moving to a 'agile/rapid' development cycle could pose some headaches, but that is just yet another good reason to start coding to standards. And coding so that dynamic features fail gracefully if your conditions are meant. Flashy/jquery/fancy stuff should add value to a site, not be necessary for it to function.
but part of me is hoping that the new release schedule forces Mozilla, and the community, to re-think add-on compatibility reporting; flagging add-ons as 'broken' not by default, but after testing.
Or having a separate version number for the API.
As in "running this plugins requires support for API version x.y.z" - if Firefox 5.0 and 6.0 both expose the same API to plugins, they could keep the same API version, instead of forcing the plugins authors or users to yet another increase of the "maxVersion" value.
Also this could be partly automated:
When packaging a plugin for distribution, it should be possible to programmatically scan which API functions are called, and thus assist determining the API version which is required to run it.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That's why I hate the new scheme. The logic should be, from my point as a developer:
- Minor version numbers don't change interfaces
- Major version numbers might change interfaces.
From now on, how will they alert people that the change from version 4 to 5 to 6 doesn't change interfaces, but the one from 6 to 7 does?
One of the main reasons I liked OSS better than Commercial applications was that they put more focus on development than on marketing. But that seems to change. Crap. Perhaps, similar to the Mozilla -> Phoenix fork back then, that aimed to cut the bloat, there now could be a need for a fork that cuts the marketing.
I'm definitely with you on that. The end result is that people will distrust the upgrades and not get the fixes that they need. I don't blame them, for it can be pretty disruptive.
It is going to break extensions for sure, due to versioning alone even if those interfaces haven't changed. It's not like they allow extensions to report compatibility with non existent versions.
I do in house computer service, and in many cases my users are the typical "grandma" (sorry, but it is apt in this case). If I can't set them up with Firefox and have them live in peace, then I'm going to be turning off the updates and they'll get them next time they see me. When I upgraded people to 4.x, I did it properly, upgrading extensions and plugins and set it up with the toolbars the way they are supposed to be etc. so it wouldn't confuse them. If I change something, and it leaves them unable to do something, then it costs me time.