Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Contemplating Five Week Release Cycle
MrSeb writes with an article in Extreme Tech about the ever quickening pace of Firefox development. Quoting the article: "Mozilla, not content with its monumental shift from four major builds in five years down to a new stable build every six weeks, is looking at outputting a new release every five weeks, or perhaps even less. Christian Legnitto, a project manager at Mozilla (and currently the 'release manager' of Firefox), announced the intention to shift to a shorter release cycle on Mozilla's planning mailing list. In response to one developer citing the success of the six-week release cycle, and asking whether it would be feasible to speed it up even further, Legnitto said: 'Yes, I absolutely think in the future we will shorten the cycle.' There are still some pains to overcome, though, such as add-on maintenance, testing, and localization — and ultimately, as browsers become more like operating systems, do we really want something as important as Firefox receiving a new major version every 5 weeks?"
In other news, it looks like Firefox is losing users faster than ever despite (because of?) the new rapid release cycle.
I've stopped using Firefox. I was a constant user of it since the Firebird days, but somewhere down the line the whole project has lost sight. I find Chrome a good deal faster and more agile. Maybe I'd feel differently if I were a plugin developer, but as it stands, Firefox seems to be a project that has lost its way.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have they totally lost it? It's not like the browser world is making sudden great progress. It's a mature technology. The big problem today is getting stuff fixed.
I'm doing some Firefox extension development, and I'm finding documentation from versions 1.5 to the current one, all out of sync.
Sorry i have other things to do than repackage FF for deployment every 5 weeks.
I switched to Chrome long ago, but despite my efforts to convert her, my wife still wants to use Firefox. And if she wants Firefox, she's getting Firefox.
I am contemplating something too. To make Opera my default, it's not right now, but I use them at the same time here, why do I even do it anymore? AdBlock Plus and my extensions..... I need to figure out how to port extensions to Opera and just move
You can't handle the truth.
Is Firefox a candidate for a rolling upgrade model as some Linux disto's are now doing?
Since they're pumping out versions as fast as Chrome, why not do what Chrome does and make the version # irrelevant?
How many people know what version of Chrome they're running? I sure don't know. But Firefox trumpets the "new" Firefox on every release.
If you're going to do a rapid release schedule, you've made the version number meaningless to your average user.
If they keep this up, I will remove it from our labs. I am not going to deal with this shit. Release bug fixes as often as you need to, but new features need to be something that doesn't happen too often. I can't go and test this shit every few weeks, nor do I want to deal with things that are outdated. I like FF, but this policy they have is pushing me to dump it. I haven't yet, but we'll see.
Seamonkey uses Gecko and is compatible with most Firefox extensions, but has a sane release schedule. 4 years from 1.0 to 2.0, 2 years from 2.0 to 2.3 (current version).
It gets new features more slowly than Firefox, but, currently at least, it is as good as Firefox (for my use, at least). Oh, and it has a menubar and statusbar.
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
No, the fact that it will very very soon go to eleven does not make your browser any better! I realize you are getting version envy (IE 9, Chrome 14, Opera 11) but believe it or not, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN. Except the Mozilla devs, apparently.
A faster release cycle is fine. Just not one that increments the main version number, especially when (perhaps poorly coded) extensions break. When you do that, it just looks like a "mine's bigger!" contest. Which I think it is. And that is sad.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Since many US government agencies requires that all software be on an approved list by version numbers, this version game is shooting themselves in the foot.
This is just great. Given that many extension devs already apparently find it hard to keep up with the FF release pace, this means that soon *none* of my extensions will work. If only NoScript worked in Chrome I'd chuck FF right now.
How many people know what version of Chrome they're running?
Anyone who ever opens the about dialog box?
The article linked to describes losing browser share. That does not imply that it's losing users. It might be. However, the article does not say that.
Who ordered that?
We use Selenium IDE for test scripts. Every new release# kills Selenium. My boss has canceled several projects that were intended to use this for regression and other testing while we try to find something that's not going to die on us every few weeks.
Extensions stop working at random without any good reason and in record time. So many of us use Firefox over Chrome because of extensions.
This plan is just terrible.
Mozilla addons getting shafted because one guy wants faster releases? Sweet.
Firefox is starting to piss me off. I'm relatively happy with the way it looks and works now, and I've got the add-ons I want installed and working properly. I see no way they're going to keep a schedule like this without breaking aps and causing me problems.
I've had Opera as my back-up browser for quite a while now. I notice it's getting quite a nice stable of widgets together. When they get enough that are close to my current Firefox add-ons, I think it's going to be curtains for the Fox.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
This will continue until they get to a daily release schedule with each new release containing 1 new feature or 1 or 2 bug fixes. And then look for twice daily, etc.
Mozilla, much more than Google, is pushing me toward using Chrome.
As I recall, this idea was actually floated. But after a couple of weeks the news was posted to Slashdot and the nerd rage was so strong, the plan was scuttled.
Mozilla commits to change its release cycle and versioning system every 5 weeks.
Probably because in certain cases the "Firefox is up to date" ifnormation on that screen flat out lies and tells you you're up to date when you're really not. The version number is a pretty important sanity check until they fix that bug (which they still haven't).
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I'm amazed at how hateful and petty people are towards Mozilla over this. Google gets a pass though.
I guess the notion of "release early, release often" is dead?
Weren't they making frequent and unwanted changes to the GUI the last few releases? (I dunno, I just realized I've been using Chrome exclusively for the past few months.)
I mean, if your interface rapidly goes down the tube, your customers are going to jump ship as fast as they can.
Did Mozilla go hire some MBAs or something? That's the only rational explanation for this idiocy.
The userbase has rejected rapid release. They hate it. Users are leaving the browser faster then ever before ever since it started.
So Mozilla's response is... even faster releases? Is it possible to miss the point any more then this? People don't care about this shit, they just want a good browser.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Chrome scares my from a privacy standpoint. Firefox wants updated between every keystroke. IE is my new browser of choice.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Because Chrome is special and exempt from the petty hate being directed towards Mozilla.
Regardless of what justification they give for shortening the release cycle, the real reason is that they simply want to catch up with the version number of Chrome. Since they are several versions behind right now, they need to have a faster release cycle than Chrome to catch up. So if Chrome has a six week release cycle, they need a shorter one.
That was so last week. Get with the program.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I switched from Firefox to Chrome 2+ years ago because at the time FF was constantly crashing. Just this week I switched back to FF because Chrome on Mac has had numerous problems for me over the past month. So far I am liking Firefox, but I am relying on a few plugins or add-ons. The quick development cycle will make it tough for users who have to rely on add-ons that may not be updated to support new browser versions immediately upon release.
Mozilla should just cut out the race to 5 blades and call nightlies full releases.
Eventually we'll move towards a new version for every bug fix.
They might as well make it an even month. Call it version yyyymm (201109 for this months version). That way, they not only have their fast updates, but the higher version numbers ever!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I finally downgraded to Firefox 3.6, because versions 4/5 were so sluggish that they became nearly unusable. There is some major performance bug in the new versions. You can easily see this when you shut it down after using it for a day. The process takes an entire minute to close down - Firefox 3.6 only takes a couple of seconds.
Exactly what problem does Mozilla think they're solving by accelerating release cycles?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
What I don't understand is why they don't do a half way and release a new minor every 6 weeks and save the major versions for...well...major versions? Firefox went from 4.0.0 to 5.0.0, then a bugfix came out that was 5.0.1, then 6.0.0. Why didn't they just do 4.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2, etc? That would shut most people up and considering that little has changed between versions, would probably make extension developers' lives a bit easier. It also removes the superfluous middle digit.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
I started using Firefox (for the second time) when it was Netscape 4.0. Remember a time when Mozilla didn't give users the impression that it was just trying to copy Google in every possible way? Good times...
The only thing keeping me with Firefox is HTTPS Everywhere (https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere), and being able to clear the cookies/cache on exit. Give me another cross-platform browser with those features, and Mozilla is going to have a hard time convincing me to stay.
Since many US government agencies...
Which US gov agencies use FF? None?
FF is irrelevent to the average US government wonk (like me), as we will never get the chance to install it anyway - Microsoft bought us a long time ago.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
What if Firefox would check addons before updating to a new version. If the addon is incompatible with the release and there is no compatible update available, the user is informed about this and given the option to proceed or abort the upgrade.
This way sudden and unexpected breakage of addons is prevented. And addons are really what makes firefox so popular.
Other than the addon 'problem', I really don't see what people are complaining about. Fast release cycles is what we want, right? And version numbers are just numbers...
The other issue is when someone reports a bug in your website, you want to be able to know which version of the browser was used in order to reproduce the environment. The harder it is to find the version, the longer the helpdesk call.
It also makes it hard for vendors selling web applications. They say it works for Firefox--does it work for all versions? Does it break when a new version of Firefox is released? Some major educational applications still require Firefox 3. Ideally, they would be written to stable standards. Practically, they aren't. You can say that it's the developer's fault, but that is small consolation for the user.
Why don't they do something really cool, like exponential release numbers. I'd love to install Firefox 10^81, meaning there are more versions of Firefox than atoms in the observable universe
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Birds of a feather screw the add-on devs together.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
To be fair, Firefox had more than its share of problems before going to this model. Chrome on the other hand doesn't seem to have too many terrible bugs (other than the crashes in their flash implementation, which is annoying) and it doesn't seem to leak memory like a sieve.
Perhaps the problem is not the release cycle, but I would rather they dropped the release cycle and went to something that allowed them to fix bugs (rather than introducing new ones more and more quickly) if they can't manage to get this process to work for them. Perhaps it has to do with how the project is managed or maybe its just that Chrome wasn't in such rough shape when it started. Either way, I have given up on firefox for now anyway, its just too buggy, too resource intensive and way too leaky.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
With the exception of those who get down and dirty with their browser specs, has anyone even hardly noticed the change from 4 to now?
Yes. Every new major release either moves something around in the UI or removes it completely.
Good way to piss off your existing users who don't want to have to remember a new menu location for some random option every few weeks.
Browsers versions are not a pissing contest. Is your goal to be at version 9000 before Google?
Between Firefox 4 and Firefox 6. Are they even doing releases anymore or just bug fixes?
It's getting so bad with the rapid release cycles that I've tossed out FF4+ as my critical add-ons no longer work. The rapid move from 4 to 6 w/o actually fixing things made as much sense as them simply having gone to Firefox 11 (because it's 1 more then 10).
It's gotten so bad that I'm finding myself actually using IE 10 more then I'm using firefox. I've got tabs and since I've configured my scripts to none except for those websites I actually find that I need them on, I'm finding IE to be more stable and less of a problem. The only thing I'm hoping is that the noscript folks actually get an accelerator/plug-in for IE so I can get the same functionality as what firefox gives me as Noscript is the only add-on that has at least remained compatible with it.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
The strength of Firefox lies in its plugin architecture which is leagues ahead of the competition. Adblock on Firefox is superior to other browsers because it can block dynamic content/video ads. Noscript, Requestpolicy, sharemenot, refcontrol, betterprivacy, certificate patrol, and on and on. These are all addons that I use that either have no alternative in other browsers due to technical limitations or have alternatives that are lacking in functionality. Firefox is also the only major browser left that is 100% open source, most of Chrome is based on Chromium but there is still proprietary code in there and there isn't really a conveniently packaged Chromium version for production use. There are a lot of things I like about each browser and I rotate browsers frequently but I often find myself relying on Firefox for the plugins it has that are a step above the rest. I am not really a fan of the new number versioning scheme but it does seem like improvements are happening faster than before, which can only be a good thing for the end user.
I mean they are not actually speeding up development and testing and fixing.
I do not believe they can speed up their delivery of quality tested features
by much at all. Who can?
They're just re-labeling what they have as a whole-number release much more often.
Why? Who knows. Maybe because it's fashionable.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What I don't understand is why they don't do a half way and release a new minor every 6 weeks and save the major versions for...well...major versions?
They'd never release a "major version".
The idea of a major version release is that it's one which changes a lot of things, or adds a large number of new features or a few very large features. But the idea of an agile development process, with a very short release cycle, is that you never do that. You change a few things in each release, or add a few features. When it comes to big features, you find ways to break them down into smaller features and add those incrementally. If a feature is not decomposable, then you incrementally add all of the support structure and then when you're ready you make a release that essentially does nothing but turn on that big feature.
In an agile release cycle, all releases are small updates. There just isn't time between releases to do a lot of work.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm not sure why anyone cares what the number says, especially slashdotters, who should be familiar with how meaningless version numbers are. They can go from 4.0.0 to 25.potato::# with a bugfix release for all I care. Posters here often complain about extension breaking or new bugs being introduced, but I've been running firefox's aura branch (which auto updates daily) as my only browser both at work and at home for the last 4 months without any trouble. Version checking is disabled for addons and they all keep working regardless of if they're flagged as compatible or not.
Let me take this opportunity to *facepalm* for you. My post was a sarcastic comment joking about this.
Simple: because IE is already at 9. With Firefox only at 6, it's obviously way, way behind, so they need to catch up. Staying with 4.x would have been even worse.
FF team: Please listen to your users closely. I'd like to see FF continue to thrive, but you can't do it without listening closely to the user needs.
Interestingly, this exact same behavior is being seen in other major open-source projects: Ubuntu, Gnome, etc.
The browser I use is good enough.
I was a long time FF user since early alpha releases. Plugins are nice but FF has too many issues. I started to use Chrome and I like it. As long as it continues to work well and is fast (enough), I'll stick with Chrome.
Among the reasons I think a lot of people back when had a 'favorite' browser was standards compliance and rendering speed. All the major browser devs are working towards standards compliance *now* (as compared to severals years back) and we have faster computers, its negated much of the reasons to find a browser.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I stopped using FF because of two related things: their rapid release cycle, and the direction they're taking the browser in. I hate the loss of control on my own machine, I hate their attitude toward users, and I hate that they seem to think that FF should be like a web app or an OS.
This makes me really sad. I've been with FF from the very beginning, but this has all been too much for me. It's my machine, not theirs, and I will not be dictated to or forced to upgrade on their terms. They've told me unequivocally it's their way or the highway. I choose the highway.
I switched to Chrome when the update nonsense started and haven't looked back. Chrome is faster and the plugins don't break with every update. In fact, I don't know when it updates and that's fine because it just works. Fsck Mozilla!
You just wish your ID was as low as mine! I used to be proud to have such a low id, but not so much now. Slashdot most
They could also just divide up releases in to more levels. So say you stick with the 3 point version numbering. The third one is for minor releases that are bug fix only. Those can come out as often as needed. Testing should be minimal, because they can be nothing but fixes. The second number is for minor feature updates. These can add new features, but only so long as they in no way interfere with existing functions or APIs. Addon compatibility is guaranteed, UI remains unchanged, etc. These you put a limit of maybe 1 every 3 months. The first number is major versions. Anything is game here, change whatever, no guarantees of any kind of compatibility or consistency. These you cap to once a year.
That would be real workable. However a major version every 5 weeks is not. I realize that what changes in the major version will not always be major but I also can't go around checking and testing that every single time.
I mean imagine if Windows did that. Imagine if every patch Tuesday was a version number, but so were new OSes. So Windows 66 is just a new update for XP, but all of a sudden Windows 67 is Vista.
The whole point of versioning is to try and keep things consistent and let people know what to expect. Doing the "major release all the time" thing breaks that.
Is it just me or did anyone notice in the story that they were hush on if this was just desktop or desktop/phone browsing?
I noticed that Chrome and Safari had the largest growth. Both of which are the default browsers for pretty much the majority of phones. I don't know anyone that seeks out Firefox mobile or for that matter knows it exists. With mobile web browsing becoming more and more the way people access the Internet, I think Firefox will loose users quick when people buy a droid or iphone and want to snyc their desktop with the phone's bookmarks and history.
That's just me and my angle on things.
How many people know what version of Chrome they're running?
I have an idea which major version I'm running, partially because some of my Chromes are on the release channel and some are on developer, so I know what's coming down the pipeline.
Breakfast served all day!
Perhaps the problem is that inexperienced project managers are running the show rather than a unified vision from a single executive. Just check out this guys blog here:
/. posts from a Mozilla browser...
http://christian.legnitto.com/blog/page/8/
He started in March 2010, and about 1/2 of his blog posts are about either "blogging is hard," supermoto, snowboarding, or some new popular song on youtube. This guy is all over the place, just like Mozilla's releases. This may be one of my last
Anyone who ever opens the about dialog box?
A feature they're trying to eliminate from Firefox. They want to remove the version numbers from the about dialog so as to not confuse users, or some such crap.
My Reminder Cues:
IE Update Reminders - About every dentist appointment (1-2 years)
Chrome Update Reminders - Roughly every equinox and solstice.
Firefox Update Reminders - Monthly diarrhea.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
... really needed to start focus on apps other then browsers IMHO. Why are they so obsessed with the browser, there's tonnes of other apps they could be working on. There is no need to constantly release browsers any more, one should think about the needs of end users and design apps around that.
... it seems to me that another avenue through which Firefox is bleeding customers is through Flash updates. When Firefox updates it tells you in a bright yellow box in the middle of the post-update page if your Flash player is out of date. Given the constant stream of Flash updates Adobe rolls out, this happens very often. Thing is, the Flash installer they point to offers Chrome, and I think it's a web-based based opt-out (haven't checked recently). So the more frequently they push updates, they more of their user base they are likely to lose to Chrome.
If you think they are going too slow, you have a very different perspective from my own.
Mozilla didn't understand how people were using their browser, and as such, most of them dismissed the fact that their memory usage problems went deeper than mere leaks.
If they don't get those fixes out the door now, they're screwed for sure. Firefox 7 helps---I know, because I've been using it since just before it hit beta---but 8 should be even better than 7 about long-term memory usage.
At least they're using the countably infinite natural numbers. Fear the day they figure out how to use real numbers for their versioning system.
And I think this is a big flaw in Chrome too. A product shouldn't be just a straight line of incremental fixes, there need to be branches so that you an stay on old versions and still get bug fixes and security patches. The straight line model is the naive straight-out-of-school developer's favorite model, the one they used on their class projects.
As sad as that is, it's true. People are much more impressed by higher version numbers. They should just come out and say the next version is version 11. Or infinity...
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Why are you guys bashing Mozilla so badly? They might have made a mistake, yes. But what about giving them some constructive criticism and/or some recommendations for ways to fix the situation instead of this bashing craze? I mean the liveliness of the web we feel so natural today wouldn't have been possible without them. But now that we have an arguably better browser (backed by a corporation that doesn't hold the users' privacy that important IMO), everyone is busy making fun of them, huh?
Try Opera. Seriously, they seem to be doing alright with not participating in the version number pissing match, they're fast, and they've got a lot of functionality built right in.
Chrome's been the same way since Google started it. Mozilla trying to play Google with their Firefox releases fucked up a previously reliable application in the process. See the fucking difference?
So Firefox is just doing what Google has always done, yet Google is for some reason exempt from the hatred. So you didn't refute the post you were replying to at all. In fact, all you did was get weird and angry on the internet.
And there's an old-fashioned security & stability patch to .23 coming up in a few days.
If 3.6 stops getting patches before the dev team figures out there should be an official LTS branch (preferably with a one-place "Use the goddamn traditional interface, assholes, there's a reason I didn't switch to Chrome" preference), well, then I'll have to consider alternatives.
As a Mac user, there are two things that I love about Chrome that has led me to stick to my decision to transition. The first is that passwords and login info are stored in the Keychain utility. This is extremely portable; my HDD crashed recently and I was able to open my keychain up by decrypting it on my wifes Mac to be nicely re-assured all of my crazy passwords and login info was safe. I do not know where this is stored in FF, but I love how Chrome integrates into the Macs password encryption system (the keychain is the authentication gateway used for all Mac apps, Mail, etc. for you non Mac users) The second is that FF still does not understand vertical screen space is valuable real estate on a laptop. I dont have a "pixel measuring utility", but there is a significant and noticeable difference between the amount of space FF and Chrome uses. Furthermore, with the new Lion OS and the lastest Chrome release, the full screen Chrome mode is back and looks freaking spectacular. Having said that, I still keep a copy of FF around for when I need some crazy add on. When I need to rip vidz off the internet, FF is superb (via plugins), and it also has a very nice GUI manager for SQL lite which for some reason I use quite often.
1) The Flash plugin they bundle has various local changes applied to it (e.g. its version number often doesn't match _any_ public version number released by Adobe).
2) They haven't removed H.264 support last I checked. They just said they would, then nothing. Just like they said they're release Android source, then nothing.
There is no nthing to see here. Some boob threw a dumb idea out there about increasing the rapid release cycle and the community talked him out of it. Just like asa dotzler's removing the version number from the about dialog proposal, this is dead in the water. What this proposal did spark is more discussion on how they can work more productively and efficiently - which is a good thing.
Did Mozilla go hire some MBAs or something? That's the only rational explanation for this idiocy.
The userbase has rejected rapid release. They hate it. Users are leaving the browser faster then ever before ever since it started.
So Mozilla's response is... even faster releases?
Hi, I am a Firefox dev. The answer to your question is no: The answer is not faster releases. We are not currently planning to do faster releases, despite the Slashdot headline.
;)
What is the link then? Someone - not sure if a Mozilla developer or not - posted the suggestion to make it faster. Since Firefox's development is open, anyone can post whatever they want whenever they want. There was some debate, most of it negative - as you would expect. Then someone posted it to Slashdot, where it was picked up.
So, no faster releases. What actually is the Mozilla response to the current situation: To fix the problems. We are working to make updates silent and break less addons. We've also made it so third parties can't install addons without your permission. All of this is in response to user feedback. Hopefully some of that stuff will be posted to Slashdot too
Why would poeple who didn't switch to Chrome before think it's a good thing that Firefox is becoming more like Chrome?
Presumably if people really wanted Chrome, they'd go get it. This "hatred" is perfectly rational. These are pissed off FF users, not Chrome users. They don't want the same things.
Much like IE's biggest user group (Enterprises) REALLY doesn't want this type of thing. If IE adopted this rapid release nonsense Microsoft would get blasted into next year.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
One cannot get flash on Android's Firefox and the devs don't seem to care. Hell even the stock browser (which isn't bad) includes Flash. When it comes to Android browsers, the leader is Dolphin.
I know a lot of /. users aren't fans of Flash, but considering all the website content people miss without it, they'll quickly ditch a browser that doesn't support it.
Mozilla has decided that the wait between cakes from the IE team is too long and want it every month now. Duh.
The cake is a lie.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Chrome does silent updates, so it doesn't matter to me if it updates every night. I left FF completely when version 6 was released. It was the easiest way to make those stupid upgrade dialogs go away. I was happily using 3.5 for awhile, but then in rapid fire I'm hit with 4, 5, 6 in what seems like a month or two. Sorry, I have shit to do. Dealing with FF-generated popups every day isn't my idea of productivity. If there were an easy way to get rid of the damn update things, I might have given it a chance. Both "Cancel" and "Ask Later" both end up popping another dialog up the next day. Sorry, but fuck off already. In short, I don't give a shit what they do now. They already pissed me off.
It's not just on Linux, I'm noticing weird behavior on Windows, too. Is it possible you don't use Firefox as much at work?
I don't like the rapid new versions; they break add-ons. Add-ons are the reason I use Firefox.
Version 6.02 of Firefox is very unstable, far more unstable than version 3.6.20. Firefox 6.02 crashes often when there are 100 tabs open, a situation that is common when doing research. Firefox 6.02 often crashes with no crash report.
Questions:
1) Why did the Mozilla team decide to play games with version numbers?
2) Google has been paying Mozilla Foundation more than $80 million each year. Can anyone say they have seen 80 million dollars of yearly development? Where does the money go?
3) Will Mozilla foundation lose its deal with Google? See this article, for example: Mozilla Extends Lucrative Deal With Google For 3 Years.
See this article also: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox.
Quote: "Almost the entirety of Mozilla's income -- 97% of $104 million -- arrives in the form of royalties from the Firefox search box, and the lion's share (86%, $85 million) of those royalties are paid by the default search engine: Google.
"In November 2011, however, Mozilla's contract with Google will expire. It will then be renewed... or it will be allowed to lapse." [My emphasis]
4) Why is Firefox version 6.02 extremely unstable with many tabs and windows open? What happened? Firefox 3.6.20 was far more stable. What was done that caused the instability?
5) Why don't the Firefox programmers fix the memory and CPU hogging? It has been there for at least 8 years.
Chrome has a similar bug (at least I've experienced it in the dev version, possibly the beta version as well). Chrome was claiming my browser was at the latest version, despite being months out of date.
I can't seem to find a page that lists the latest version of Chrome, so I have no idea if my browser is up to date now or not. Does one exist?
It's that Firefox is now just a lagging behind Chrome. I used to use FIrefox when it was the best browser out there. I still use it now and then, but Chrome is just better performing and lacks no features that Firefox provides.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Can someone explain to me why they are doing this? I completely fail to understand. I'm totally left behind. I don't even know what version I run but I hate how basics like the reload button disappear or get hidden with every new version. Each new version takes me longer to get it set up to something usable. If I could have nosript with another browser I change. I don't think that I have any ability to reign in the insanity of mozzilla, I'd just like to know why they are turning a great bit of software into a giant pile of suck. These release cycles have to be lots of work so WHY?? What is the justification? There must be some advantage for someone somewhere, I just can't spot it.
-- QED
I consider firefox to be in the "just fine" range. Their releases aren't world changing so much as they are irritating. I'd rather they improved the download process in windows (since windows package management is awful) and released only when needed, or tried breaking functionality into multiple modular branches then releasing those more often. Perhaps inspiring people to build other browsers, or browser distributions around the different core features. I know to some extent that was what was done, but there is more to modularize if people wanted to.
Stabilizing the extension API, or making component versioning would also be nice so if you're whizzyfoo widget was terribly old but only touched a component that hadn't changed in years, it wouldn't need a revision bump every time they released a new version. (It's been a long time, but I think World of Warcraft did this with it's addons eventually, making them include the libraries they needed and updating versions based on those)
Alternatively, a killer feature for me would be "private browsing" in a tab, so I could login to facebook and google+, and other social sites in some tabs without them spreading their cookie porn all over the other sites I visited.
We're doing five weeks!
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
And even GNU has put out some good man pages. My intro to shell programming was reading the man page for bash. It's remarkably comprehensive. I don't know how that slipped through GNU quality control. ;-)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Don't get me wrong, the chart from the description clearly shows IE is losing to Chrome -- unless I'm blind. Firefox has been losing but it's not that dramatic.
Personally, I want them to return to the usual release pace.
Yeah, because "14.0.835.186 m" has so many more significant digits. They might as well just substitute a hashcode instead of the version number and be done with it.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
How is Seamonkey in this respect? Is it clamped to, say, Mozilla 3.6, or is it moving along w/ the rest? Originally, it was closely tied w/ Netscape Communicator 4, but since then, it's made changes to its interface like Personas. Question: which version of add-ons does Seamonkey use?
can't they just make it auto update by tiny amounts frequently! since ive switched to os x i miss linux package management and cant be bothered to update every 6 weeks!
I don't see why they would need fast release. It worked just fine the way they proceeded before. Chrome is doing faster releases, but why should Firefox care ? Firefox is where it's at because of plugins, and after each update I lose some plugins for some days and some forever. If Firefox wants to do fast release to close security holes and/or fix bugs fine, but those types of release should in no way change the API and break support for existing plugins.
I want to continue to use FF but its terrible memory leaks have pushed me to Chrome. Its ridiculous that a few browser windows and, over time FF climbs to 1.5GB. Chrome manages to stay under 500MB for the exact same usage.
Also there really not much in recent FF releases, of which there are far far too many, that I like.
Keep it small, fast and stable and I will come back.
I'm on a Mac. if anyone can tell me how to debug php with Zend studio using Chrome or Safari i'll switch. until then i'll have to use Firefox because the ZEND toolbar only supports FF/IE.
I use a lot of extensions but only a few are really critical.
One of these (FoxyTunes) is still not FF 6.* compatible and the usual tricks (bumping the version etc.) doesn't work. It was made 5.* compatible two weeks before 6.0 was released and now it's broken again. I also use some mass downloaders (downThemAll+AntiContainer) a lot.
Chrome then... Well, none of the above exist for Chrome so that's a moot point. Another is gestures. The lack of decent support for extensions in Chrome results in pages where gestures doesn't work so that's rather useless. The mass downloader extensions don't exist for Chrome so that's another nail in that coffin. Finally I really like the stuff that the WorldIP extension for FF provides, but such an extension isn't possible in Chrome because info about the current page isn't available to extensions or so I'm told. Another nail for me.
So I'm stuck with FF and extensions that keep on breaking. I'm not looking forward to them breaking faster.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Why doesn't Mozilla declare the next version "version 20". This way they would clearly show they are more advanced than Chrome. :)
If FF is losing users it's for two reasons: they break existing functionality with every release, and they're unresponsive to bug reports. Having two drones reply to every report with unrelated cut-and-paste from the documentation, then marking the report as solved, does not count as a constructive response.
...that the Firefox boys and girls are getting into a 'quickest possible release' p***ing contest with themselves. There's no need for releases this often, twice a year, between the stable releases of Ubuntu is plenty fast enough.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
And I think this is a big flaw in Chrome too. A product shouldn't be just a straight line of incremental fixes, there need to be branches so that you an stay on old versions and still get bug fixes and security patches. The straight line model is the naive straight-out-of-school developer's favorite model, the one they used on their class projects.
It is the website model. Any website you use can force updates on all of its users instantly and with no possibility of running the old version. Google do that often with their websites, so naturally they decided to make Chrome work the same way.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I hear the new Firefox is going to leapfrog them all, and go the whole way to 11.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
well actually to the end user it really is just confusion. The only guys who might need to know exact version and build are devs and probably IT maintenace crew and those guys know to type about:$string into the browser bar (no kidding). So yes please remove all versioning info and please please auto update and please please don't even tell me about it except when i'm on a slow connection and might want to waste my bw on html (which apparently only opera knows how to determine).
-- no sig today
I really really really hate software releases.
I use computers to get work done. I want no more than a significant release every two years, one that is well out of beta, with no bugs that I can casually find in the first 10 minutes.
Security fixes yes. Major bug fixes, yes. These are minor releases. But a minor release should NEVER change the API for extensions.
I'll go further: APIs should NEVER change. If there is need, you change the name, provide both APIs for a full (or more) major release cycle, meanwhile, announce to the developers that certain APIs will be discontinued, and give them a couple years to do it.
Worst case this means there is a version of the extension for each Major release, which if they are reasonably infrequent is not onerous to do.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
The whole point is not rapid release, it's silent-updates! Mozilla got it all wrong, users hate updating. 4/5 of the people in this office will simply dismiss the update dialog, because they are annoyed by it. Microsoft understood that with automatic installs as well, unless you disable them. Google understood that as well with Chrome. Nobody cares about the version number except developers.
Most users don't care overmuch about having a "bleeding edge" browser; they would rather the browser be stable. Additionally, I find that the average user doesn't appreciate being asked to update every month and a half.
"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless in another sense."
...they could rename Firefox to Manganese.
"Various local changes" doesn't mean it's a new implementation of Flash. It is Adobe's Flash plug-in.
How reassuring.
It's just as problematic in the Linux world where distributions take time to test and patch before releasing to users. Gentoo has a 30 day stability requirement. I still haven't seen even FF4 be marked stable in Gentoo (seems they've actually skipped it going straight to FF6). It's the same issue with Thunderbird.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
> "Various local changes" doesn't mean it's a new
> implementation of Flash.
Sure, but it does mean they can easily have crashes that the Flash plugins Adobe ships do not.
> How reassuring.
It's meant to be! After all, Google is so good for the web! Or something....
What's the difference between firefox and a woman?
Firefox only behaves irrationally and breaks everything ten times a year.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My only serious complaint about Firefox is the huge memory footprint and the performance degradation that accompanies it. When I'm I'm researching something and get deep into it, with the usual 3-4 windows with a plethora of tabs that inevitably are attached to each window, Firefox slows toa maddening crawl and sometimes just locks up solid. Take the exact same Windows and tabs into Chrome and it the difference is quite obvious: Chrome just handles it much more elegantly.
I much prefer Firefox's interface (maybe it's just familiarity, but there ya go) and there's simply no comparison in terms of add-on, etc. but I'm on the verge of giving up on FF if they can't find a better way to handle those huge sessions.
Clearly, the Mozilla folks are clueles. But there's hope: they should just ask Netflix for business advice, and then all will be well.