Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 8.0 Beta Available
An anonymous reader tips news that Mozilla has released the beta version of Firefox 8, only a few days after going live with the final version of Firefox 7. According to the announcement, the big changes this time around include the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine, more versatility in restoring tabs on startup, and improved user control over add-ons. "Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on, Firefox will disable the add-on until the user has explicitly opted in, giving users better control over their Web experience."
Is 'firefox' a browser or a unit of currency in Italy?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I was just about to point out that I had to revert to Firefox 5.X because Firefox 6 broke a web site I need.
Then I read this:
the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine,
and I'm seriously wondering why I don't run Opera or Chrome.
Oh, right. FoxyProxy is the reason why I don't run Opera or Chrome.
Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.
No sig today...
Didn't i just update?
With Firefox releasing betas/alphas and new releases every few weeks, why are we covering this? Can't we just have the ever six week release story and maybe another one if they do something innovative?
Chrome is on version 15 but I don't see a story here every number change.
Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.
We'll know for sure, when they release 9.0 Beta next week.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Congrats to the Firefox team. I, for one, appreciate the regular updates. It's getting better with each release.
Fuck it. I may as well do up a script to check out the latest nightly updates and re-build FF every day for me.
Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on
I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?
IE: Windows Media Player Plugin
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I think you should stop caring about version numbers. They are just numbers after all. I personally prefer having small updates on something like a weekly basis allowing yourself to slowly accept changes rather than having large releases every couple of months and have a paradigm shift shoved down your throat.
I use nightly. Updates every day. No problem doing that.
... wait for "Firefox Ack(n+1)" to experience significant changes from version Ack(n)?
Um, Ackermann's Function takes two parameters.
No sig today...
You're wasting your breath. You might as well ask people to stop making "First Post!" or say "Gobal warming? it's freezing outside!" every time there's a cold day.
No sig today...
The addons I want to keep? Sorry, I've never had this experience. It's more like, "the addons I want to permanently disable as they won't be updated to the latest version because the creator finished his project and moved on with his life". Seriously, a browser whose entire idea is 'you can extend it' combined with constant compatibility-breaking updates?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I use nightly too and everything is working fine, seems*1 faster than chrome and most importantly not a google spy.
1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.
I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.
8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.
If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rolling into your system images, had received some level of community exposure and any major problems would be known.
It just a matter of time before something really embarrassing like cookies not working or other such obvious thing that would have been discovered quickly makes it into a major numbered Firefox release now. This is STUPID>
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
oh wow. twitter as a search engine? you sure it doesn't warrant an even BIGGER version number? like say 15? it's a major enhancement to the search bar after all
It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.
If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.
You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.
Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.
Anyone on the Nightly update channel has been on Firefox 10 alpha 1 for a few days.
They've just using the major number for what the minor number used to mean.
Very stupid.
Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.
As opposed to what...? Everybody having the exact same version as you since the updates became automated and invisible?
No sig today...
It's supposed to signify something. That's the whole point of having a major and minor (and build) number.
<something big changed and may require config changes>.<something relatively minor has changed and I should just be able to keep working>
I have no idea what the purpose of this whole versioning/rapid release scheme is... but from my vantage point it looks very silly.
I'm on the Beta, so I'm getting updates ca weekly - I can say that 5+6 didn't go so well, but since then it has either been improvements, or "blah" (twitter-search? really??). Overall, last several updates have been all-good.
The fact that they have a dot in the middle suggests that they have some structure; that the number in front of the dot is more significant than the one after the dot. Why call it 8.0 when it's just a meaningless number? And why is mine called 7.0.1 instead of 7 or 7.1 or 8?
In fact, why not just use build numbers? Just give me Firefox 7136 and I'll admit that it's just a number with no implication of meaning or structure.
It's just a number.
No, it's not. It's also a mostly-automatic change in the software that people are running, and that is a much more significant concern.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I mean, how much money have they spent on cakes?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
I'm waiting for Firefox 23, so it will be the same version as emacs. I'm guessing it will be released around Christmas.
So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.
Which does not display it's version number so prominently, but otherwise uses the same development schedule and version numbering.
My UID is prime. Hah!
So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.
that has the same 6 weeks release cycle, news about Firefox are very good troll magnets
Glad to see that Mozilla has learned absolutely nothing from the Netscape fiasco. On the bright side, something good is sure to rise from Firefox's ashes.
Pft are you kidding? I have a bet that we'll see Firefox 15 by Halloween. At the rate we're going we might just see it. I'm kinda ticked at the stupidity of this though. I mean what's the point of actually using versions especially if you need to file bug reports if the user can't submit a bug report for the browser they're using outside of "10" or "23" or whatever else?
Bah. I'm looking at chrome as well. The only thing stopping me is the lack of something like noscript.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sure, because I note every version since 4 breaks certain JAVA functionality. That's why I note they're still updating v3.6.x and are on v3.6.23 now.
It may have been a controversial decision, but IMHO a brave and necessary one for Firefox's long term survival. Mozilla are keenly aware that they've been outdone in a number of areas by Chrome. Their market share is decreasing and it'll take time to slow the momentum even if they come out with some big improvements. Their old release cycle could well have meant the improvements needed to bring Firefox back into the game would have been too late. Firefox wasn't ready for the switch, unlike Chrome that was built from the ground up with rapid release in mind. Trouble is, I don't think they could afford to wait until it was. My guess is that Mozilla were well aware that the new rapid release cycle would (a) cause people pain when it comes to outdated extensions, and (b) annoy enterprise IT departments. They just saw what great things Chrome are doing, together with their falling market share, and decided that the couldn't afford to wait until they could solve these problems before moving to a rapid release cycle. Enterprise users and users with lots of extensions are in the minority when it comes to Firefox. There's no doubt in my mind that a browser with a slow release cycle is going to loose out to a browser like Chrome in the long term, all other things being equal. Remember I'm talking mainstream here. Not enterprise users, or geeks.
Yes, the regular update cycles are going to piss of a few enterprise types for obvious and very valid reasons. But let's face it, the enterprise is definitely not Firefox's core market. Faced with having to make some tough decisions in an attempt to ensure Firefox's survival, enterprise users were put to one side. The right decision in my opinion bearing in mind the urgency implied by falling market share. However, Mozilla is hearing enterprise concerns and is proposing what they would call 'Extended Support Releases,' which are basically the same concept as Ubuntu's LTS (Long Term Support) releases. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal for details. I've thought this was a good idea since the start, and I have a feeling Mozilla knew all along was something they were eventually going to have to do.
Mozilla have said they're well aware of the incompatible extensions issue and plan to get on top of it. I also get the impression they want to follow Chrome in hiding version info and pushing out updates without any user intervention. Both in my opinion important if you want to have a rapid release cycle without seriously annoying users. For the vast majority of users, I think pushing updates without confirmation is a good thing. Most people really don't care about having maximum control over exactly what gets installed on their machine. They just want something that works well and stays secure. Trouble is they don't appreciate that means regular updates. Much better to do it for them in my opinion.
The rapid release schedule that started after version 3.?, you mean?
I wonder at what point the people who support this nonsense will stop trying to reverse the tide by spitting at it. People DO care about the version number, no matter if the ivory tower planners think they should or not.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Now it sucks up processor and memory faster than Firefox using some "Safari Web Content" process.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
If they are breaking Java, they are doing you a service.
http://www.gnu.org/s/emacs/
The current stable release is 23.3. To obtain it, visit the obtaining section.
It's already out.
in Italy currency is currently Euro
So is a subspecies of the Eastern Wallaroo.
1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....
What!? You mean that "Classic Scheme benchmarks, translated to JavaScript by Florian Loitsch's Scheme2Js compiler" don't capture the use cases of modern websites?
You know how annoying it would be to have to stop and look for your tools because someone's pet monkey would sneak away with your tools? Well Firefox seems to have become that pet monkey. I'm deep into some project, and suddenly I get some upgrade notice and I have to review which updates are now broken? Oh then I got to find out what else is broke? Firefox, give us a break!! Er wait don't! You've been giving us plenty of broken tools, web sites.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
Oh Christ. Cue 100+ support calls.
Am I the only person that thinks these rapid increases in version numbers is ridiculous? I get that some people see version numbers and say "well this one is higher than that one so it must be better" but damn. 7 just came out and 8 is in beta? Give me a break.
Or in case of proper firefox releases, 3.6.23. The last number was for minor crap like this release, middle number was for minor and major features, and first number was for very big changes.
Good thing 3.6 is still supported. Someone at mozilla foundation still has a shred of sanity left.
As opposed to goal post that shifts every other day, and any of these days may break your desired functionality.
1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....
Hey... every time I look up in between reading a book.. this fat guy is ahead of the olympic runner on the track. Seems like hes better. Its another story that the olympic runner is in reality lapping him every single round when I'm not looking.
Perception is useless. Firefox uses all kinds of dirty tricks. Like on windows, when you exit firefox, the window disappears immediately but the executable remains in memory for a while longer doing god knows what. You will run into this sometimes if you accidentally close firefox and try to restart it. You get an error message because firefox is "already running".
Firefox is slow, buggy and has a amateur security model compared to chrome's elegant multiprocess sandbox model. Hell even IE9 and 10 have a better security model than FF. And thats embarrassing.
We're finally taking a break from the Microsoft/Apple bashing. Always refreshing to have a new company to hate.
I am waiting for 9.0, coming next Thursday.
More like 3.7.5.
But, it's got electrolytes!!! ;)
Because they get MONEY because of the large volume of users using it, that's we the users helping to line their corporate pockets.
So if we tell them they are destroying their formerly great product with their version churning, then they had better damn well unplug their shit filled heads from their assholes and take notice. Otherwise they will wither and die without the funding that we the users enable. And we can be as fucking rude as we want to those clueless douchebags who are running off on a tangent without regard to user needs.
You are wrong, the version number changes cause problems and break plugins, access to websites,and use of web-fronted configuration softwares. The computer cares, so we do too. Quit spewing that ignorant bullshit.
Just got 3.6.23 today. I guess it wasn't.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Try Seamonkey instead. It's still an old-school browser, and as a Mozilla product, it's been benefiting from the good parts of Firefox.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Seamonkey is the original Mozilla browser without all the Firefox crap thrown in. (At some point they felt the need to rename it from Mozilla, but I can't remember why.)
No Microsoft code, no trendy crap like ribbon bars, runs Ad Block Plus.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I'm gonna wait a couple of weeks until they release Firefox 24.
you are not expected to for another 6 weeks when the next stable release comes out. They simultaneously work on 3 versions at a time. As we speak version 10 is being developed and 8 and 9 are being stabilized in the alpha and beta channels. As soon as the currently beta becomes a release version, the alpha becomes the new beta, and they build an alpha build from the nightly channel. This is only the first of several fx8 betas before release. New alpha and beta builds are constantly being created to fix new bugs as they are being found and as the builds are tested by new and larger groups of testers.
Obviously, the second is optional and defaulted to 0.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Technically, Firefox 9.0 is scheduled to enter Beta at the same time they release Firefox 8.0.
That means November 8. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases
Why yes, just 6 weeks after Firefox 7.0 release...
Seriously, calm down on the major releases, Mozilla.
Good move on the plugin confirmation, I've been saying Firefox needed that for years.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I was running FF 7 when it was released for a few days, but there seems to be a really bad memory leak issue with it and I had to go back to 6.0 which works fine. I am running it under Windows 7 (64bit).
As opposed to goal post that shifts every other day, and any of these days may break your desired functionality.
If you're not following the standard then that's your problem, not Firefox's. If a minor release is going to break your website then it was going to break on the next major release anyway.
Under the old system you'd then have to support the old browser and the new one, I fail to see how that would be better....
No sig today...
Did you seriously just link to the unfunniest webcomic in the history of webcomics?
You really like that shit?
Deal with it is right. I no longer use Firefox.
Gone!
Without proper version numbers, which this FF would be 4.4, how does one tell what a beta is anymore? The purpose of beta software is to test out the software so as to find faults. If you don't fix said faults and instead release another "major" version, which in turn becomes its own beta, at what point can I trust that the software is no longer beta (in practice, not theory)? Mozilla, trying to catch up with Chrome in version numbers is like trying to compete with an amplifier that goes up to 11 when your own amplifier only goes up to 4, even when the power output on both amplifiers is the same.
Firefox was eventually replaced because it loaded so slow. I went searching and found Chrome. If Firefox could load as fast as Chrome does, I might switch back.
is pretty much all I have to say
No, that's end user's problem.
You know, the person that can simply click "uninstall this shitty crap that breaks my favorite add-ons every two weeks" and be done with it. Which is what is happening now, with firefox shedding market share faster then ever.
Is it just me or does it feel like we were using FF 3.x just yesterday? For a while it was mostly point releases now were on 8.x already? I must be living under a rock or something. That or I just forgot about FF after switching to chrome.
Incidentally, Firefox 7.01 was released on September 30. http://www.ghacks.net/2011/09/30/mozilla-rushes-out-firefox-7-01-update/
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
It's difficult to say what can be wrong with your Fx installation from here, but I can tell you about a drastic method that worked for me: I had Firefox 3.5 in my current computer, then upgraded to 3.6 and then to 4. Things weren't nice. Then, I backed up my bookmarks, wrote down my add-ons and uninstalled Firefox. Completely. Including profiles and all Firexox files inside system folders. Registry entries too. (There are how-to's out there.) Then, I installed Fx 4 anew, restored my bookmarks and added my add-ons again. No problems since then. It was a PITA :) Now I even use Firefox Nightlies and they work fine too.
TL;DR: It could be a dirty/old profile/problem with an add-on/plug-in. Complete Firefox uninstall and reinstall should solve the problem.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Firefox 7 had a minor but nasty bug so Firefox 7.01 was released. I think that really is news and not the release of Firefox 8 Beta. http://www.ghacks.net/2011/09/30/mozilla-rushes-out-firefox-7-01-update/
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
I am not sure what went wrong. How many times do you get that in your help desk? I didn't look too much into it, because I simply get busy (I am serious, I work full time and go to school). I chose Firefox originally because, well, there weren't better alternatives that suited my needs. However, updating and getting strange loading problems sort of irked me. I suppose I should take a note of that, because I see the same complaints at work as a I.T. dude and discount them all the time as ridiculous :) . I really appreciate you trying to help me out, its a very nice thing to do since it seems that most people just want to make a point in a rude fashion. I get tired of rude people. It tends to make me an angry bastard even though I naturally am a non-confrontational and pleasant individual.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
At this rate, given what the rapid release has so far done to their market share, firefox will be down to 10% share by christmas, and they'll need to go back to considering what their user base actually want, rather than some project leader's fantasy.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It's the end user's problem that you're not following the HTML standard?
I'm not sure I'd want to hire you.
No sig today...
They need a binary patching system like Chrome has for updates.
I wouldn't want to be hired by someone that doesn't have a faintest clue on how real world, and customer services that function in it work.
That's a recipe for being jobless in a year.
Neither Firefox 7s or 8 work in Lion, at least on my computers. I wish I could go back to 5 but I don't think it works in Lion. I'm even pining after IE these days. One just can't get addicted to or rely heavily on any one browser –it will only break your heart.
Maybe you could cite a "real world" example to back up your vague handwaving.
ie. A concrete example of how the new update system has made your life more difficult then the old system.
Until then you're just in the "talk is cheap" category of interviewees.
No sig today...
I think you should stop caring about version numbers. They are just numbers after all. I personally prefer having small updates on something like a weekly basis allowing yourself to slowly accept changes rather than having large releases every couple of months and have a paradigm shift shoved down your throat.
I would be cool with frequent small update with any numbering system, if it didn't mean that half add-ons would stop working because of the new version number (whether or not the update actually broke the extension; most of the time the only change required is to declare "this extension works with firefox version x.y")
Take your pick of a dot com company that went bust. That's people with your state of mind. Those that completely ignore the facts because they do not match their imagination. In this very discussion, there are MULTIPLE examples of exactly what you request here. Which you ignored, because they didn't match your ideals.