Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 8.0 Released
Today Mozilla announced the launch of Firefox 8.0. The headline features this time around include adding Twitter as a search bar option, tab loading tweaks, and the default disabling of addons installed by third-parties. "Sometimes you download third-party software and are surprised to discover that an add-on has also installed itself in your browser without asking permission. At Mozilla, we think you should be in control, so we are disabling add-ons installed by third parties without your permission and letting you pick the ones you want to keep." Here are the release notes and download links.
Firefox 4.04
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I liked it better in the old days when all we had to deal with was huge memory leakage
In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
Firefox 9.0 will be out next week.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110920 Firefox/3.6.23 - Enough said. The latest version/series that actually matters.
I use Greasemonkey every day. Greasemonkey is built into chrome. Not firefox. And when they auto-upgrade-without-permission to a new version that doesn't support it, I lose functionality that I use every day. Not smart.
But it was the crashing every 10 minutes that finally did me in. I could live with the "1 gig of RAM per 15 tabs", even though I knew other browsers could do 50 tabs with the same memory. I mean: Buy more ram. Restart firefox to free up the leaked memory. There were solutions.
But no solution to crashing every 10 minutes. No. The best was when I downgraded and the problems persisted.
I'm so glad I finally took the plunge and switched to google chrome. I'd been avoiding it because the plugin/extension offerings were not previously sufficient. ANd it's true, I still have to open Firefox to use DownloadHelper to download YouTube videos (almost daily). There are Chrome equivalents, but I haven't found one that doesn't require you re-typing the title into the filename, and I'm quite willing to open a browser to prevent myself from having to type a long filename.
but in general - Firefox can take its shitty browser and shove it into whatever incompatible plugin it keeps up it's bloated ass.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The even numbered firefoxes are the best!
Easy, we are tired of our add-ons being disabled with every new "major" release even though they work just fine, thanks. Also, FF is so needy with all it's "update me, update me" nonsense. Leave me alone and let me do something other than attend to you.
I switched to Chrome with NotScript and haven't looked back.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The instability and other issues mentioned by others have spoiled many people's opinions about Firefox. For many of us, a new version just doesn't matter because any improvement would be too late to matter. Ironically, just this morning I personally reached my final level of frustration and decided to quit using Firefox for good. Having a new version to play with is not enough to make me try it again...mostly because I have completely lost faith in the ff dev team in general. Chrome has been my primary browser of choice for some time (not because of any love for Google, but because it works fast and reliably for me). Safari is my new secondary browser now that FF is going in the rubbish bin.
The sanity of the Firefox team is under question as of late. From what I can remember:
* Incrementing the major version number with every slight tweak is annoying.
* Worse yet, the reasoning behind it is stupid. They just want their version number to be big, like IE.
* Major feature creep: they keep talking about the browser as an OS, and 3D acceleration, and stuff that has no purpose in a browser.
* The long-standing issues about Firefox are being ignored: primarily memory and performance.
Completely smooth upgrade, no incompatible plugins, and lazy tab loading is the best feature ever for tab-crazy people like myself. Since they got the memory use under control in v7, life is good. With Chrome taking up 2-3x more memory than FF, I just can't deal with that anymore. Plus lazy tab loading is now my killer browser feature. Gotta have it. I think FF9 (Dec 20) or FF10 is supposed to have even more substantial memory reduction applied.
I know FF is multi-platform but you cannot even make GPOs an add-on. (It kinda defeats the purpose if the user can uninstall the add-on!)
Meanwhile in bug 267888 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=267888) there are still talking about creating ADM files.
ADM files are for Windows XP, when this bug was created 7 years ago!!!)
Windows 7 uses ADMX files.
But it doesn't matter now.
The people that need MSI/GPO cannot handle Full versions of FF coming out every 2 months.
They have enough trouble keeping up with "patch Tuesday" from MS.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Try it anyways.
I just upgraded and all of my plugins are working just fine.
Firefox's biggest problem isn't anything technical - it's that once they DO fix an outstanding issue, no one seems to recognize it. And IMO it would be a crying shame to kill a competent browser because of bad PR.
On an old machine (8.5 years) running Windows XP 32-bit, this version is significantly faster than its predecessor. I don't care what version number they use; this is an upgrade.
I'm panicking right now. Why a new version number? I'm just not sure I can deal with this. It's just too much. Goodbye cruel world!
... watching old music videos.
Thumbs up if you're still running Firefox 3.6 in 2011!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
They've brought that on themselves.
Firefox 4: The release that took away the status bar.
Firefox 5: The release that broke all your extensions, just after you'd installed the one that got your status bar back.
Firefox 6/7/8: The releases that talked about taking away the URL bar, the part of the URL bar that told you whether you were using http:/// or ftp:// or version numbers.
Not a single Fx release has touted stability as the main feature of the release; all the buzz is about whatever angel-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin issue that the Fx UX team deems important that month.
Disclaimer: I may have gotten my controversies wrong up there, but that's because I run 3.6.24 by choice. I'm not interested in a cheap copy of Chrome's UX. I'm even less interested in a development team that says "It works fine without extensions, so if you install extensions to replace the features we took out, don't blame us if it leaks RAM like a sieve". Fuck 'em.
The sanity of the Firefox team is under question as of late. From what I can remember:
* Incrementing the major version number with every slight tweak is annoying.
I understand that this annoys some people. But both Chrome and Firefox do it now, and benefits and detriments are well known. It's not a perfect approach, but it does have its advantages. I don't think both Google and Mozilla are 'insane' ;)
* Worse yet, the reasoning behind it is stupid. They just want their version number to be big, like IE.
The main reason for Chrome and Firefox doing this is to get improvements faster to users. Rapid releases allow that.
Mozilla also has the reason that it is following Google's lead. Google started with this version numbering scheme, and not inventing a new one is better for everyone - less confusion.
* Major feature creep: they keep talking about the browser as an OS, and 3D acceleration, and stuff that has no purpose in a browser.
That is a long discussion, for sure! But this is nothing to do with Firefox. All browsers are including 3D acceleration (well, except for IE) and other OS-like features. Google is even pushing native code in the browser (which I think is taking things too far).
* The long-standing issues about Firefox are being ignored: primarily memory and performance.
We are working very hard on those issues. If you try this release, I think you'll see significant improvements on both issues, and there are even more in the pipeline for the versions coming up afterwards.
Oh I don't know, how about ignoring the need for MSI installers and Group Policy support for seven fucking years?
Every time there's an article in Slashdot about Firefox, there's at least one highly voted comment from someone complaining about Firefox being basically unmanageable on a corporate network.
I'm not talking about some massive effort to resolve complex issues like performance or memory, which have hundreds of subtle causes that have to be chased down and individually fixed. Creating an MSI requires simply an open source toolkit and a configuration file for the build process. For Active Directory Group Policy support, only a text file is needed and some minor tweaks to configuration parameter loading. The main installer doesn't even have to change! Just have an "enterprise downloads" section on the webpage.
The solution is simple and quick, it would massively increase the potential market for Firefox, but these feature requests will not be implemented. Not now, not ever, just no. The Firefox team doesn't do icky and boring technical stuff. Instead, they spend their valuable time on important things that clearly a lot of people need, like 3D graphics in the web browser.
No, I really liked firefox's features and was loyal user for a very long time. Chrome has quite a few quirks, but has proven itself dependable for me. And like most users, I want something core to my workday like a browser to JUST WORK. I don't have the time or patience to be troubleshooting bugs and filing bug reports on it. My wife is even less forgiving: she doesn't have the time, patience, or wherewithal to be filing bug reports. And she is even more dependent on her browser to get her work done and make money then my job. No, quite certainly the perception and experience drove the decision in this case. Yes, the ff dev team is very active...but then maybe that is the problem? A code base that changes all the time is by definition not stable.
Hey that's good to hear. Do you also have a plugin for plugging your plugin? And if you used the plugin-plugging plugin to plug your plugin-plugger, would the internet stack overflow? :)
The enemies of Democracy are
From what I can tell, your plugin interface is still using version number to determine plugin compatibility, causing plugin authors to do a lot of extra work. The plugin interface should be frozen and versioned and changed infrequently, so plugins could go more than a month without updates. Yes, Chrome updates frequently, but it never disables half of my plugins on update every month and declares that they don't work like firefox did before I ditched it.
Why not stabilize the plugin interface for some long time period (more than a month) and version it?
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
A number of perfectly legitimate complaints get raised by users comparing recent versions of a popular web browser to earlier versions of itself, expressing specific desires and outcomes, and the official reasoning for the unpopular and unwanted changes from the developer is, "but Google does, too!"
Is that about right, or am I missing something?
Hint: People like Firefox because it ISN'T Chrome, or Safari, or Internet Explorer.
That is where we are headed with 'jetpack' addons. Those have an API like you said. But most addons today use the older interface, which doesn't work that way - and it will be a long time until most addons are rewritten to the new API.
There is no advantage. Your version number is suppose to communicate something to the user. A major version change means you have something new and significant. A minor version means you are making a small tweak or minor refinement.
A major version number often signifies potentially incompatible changes, while minor version numbers keep stable APIs and functionality. In that context, Firefox and Chrome bumping the major version number is correct: These 6-week updates are quick, but they do change functionality in ways that break stuff (that is, websites render differently, potentially wrongly).
I do agree there are downsides to this numbering! But I am just saying it has a certain logic, and advantage.
Firefox Crash Info
about:crashes
Put into your URL bar and press ENTER. Shows a list of crashes of your copy of Firefox.
Crash Info for all users and all versions
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox
Crashes per 100 Active Daily Users, version 7.0.1
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/products/Firefox/versions/7.0.1
Top Crashers, version 7.0.1
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/topcrasher/byversion/Firefox/7.0.1/14
Notes:
1) The lists of crashes are ONLY the ones that Firefox caught. The lists do NOT include crashes that don't start the crash reporter.
2) Version 7.0.1 often stays in memory even though the GUI was closed.
3) The crashes are often preceded by rapidly increasing memory use. Firefox corrupts Microsoft Windows, so that Windows needs to be re-started. When Firefox corrupts Microsoft Windows, it often damages operations in Windows that are not connected with browsing.
4) Crashes are most frequent for those who do a lot of online research, and open many Firefox windows and tabs, and leave them open while putting the computer into standby or hibernation.
5) The crashes and memory gobbling have been reported for more than 9 years. Not much has improved, even though the change reports for every version say there have been "stability improvements".
I don't think both Google and Mozilla are 'insane' ;)
Yes, they fucking are. Not companies as a whole, but some of their people close to the top are clearly incompetent, trying to save their asses by proposing "trendy" features. They do not care about the product, only about getting the promotion.
I understand that this annoys some people. But both Chrome and Firefox do it now, and benefits and detriments are well known. It's not a perfect approach, but it does have its advantages. I don't think both Google and Mozilla are 'insane' ;)
If I wanted Firefox to be like Chrome, I would use Chrome.
If you try to get 100% of users you will end up getting nobody. In other words: Do things differently than Chrome when it is about things that "are not perfect, but have some advantages".
The main reason for Chrome and Firefox doing this is to get improvements faster to users. Rapid releases allow that.
Breaking extensions is not an improvement. I understand that they have to be broken sometime, but that should be maybe very 5 years or so, not 5 times a year.
We are working very hard on those issues. If you try this release, I think you'll see significant improvements on both issues, and there are even more in the pipeline for the versions coming up afterwards.
I will wait for a LTS-version.
Mozilla also has the reason that it is following Google's lead. Google started with this version numbering scheme, and not inventing a new one is better for everyone - less confusion.
What was wrong with the old one? You know, major and minor numbers, increase the major number only on significant, major changes? Add a third number for bugfixes and cosmetic updates?
They've thrown out a perfectly good numbering scheme because some dofus in marketing has read a psychology book too many and convinced himself that "bigger == better" will convince the minds of more consumers.
I understand that this annoys some people.
No, you don't. This doesn't annoy people, it actively pushes them to change the default browser that they've been using for a decade. You are losing your most loyal users. I hope you remembered to list that under "detriments", and you have something more valuable under "benefits", though I can't imagine what that would be.
As little as a year ago, I'd be telling anyone who uses anything else that I'd recommend Firefox. Today, I shut up unless they use IE, in which case I tell them to use any other browser of their choice.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Breaking stuff often isn't something to be proud of. It's something to be ashamed of. That's why Firefox is losing ground again now.
Firefox isn't losing market share - it's been flat for a while. (So, growing in absolute numbers, but not in percent of the market as it grows.)
Chrome is also doing these fast updates that break websites, but is growing in market share. So the issues are more complicated here I think. I do agree though that breaking stuff is bad! Both Firefox and Chrome are doing their best to avoid that, but with rapid updates, it's impossible to avoid entirely.
Sleeping w/ 109 tabs open.
That's how I roll. It really indicates the failure of 'bookmarks" or any other reasonable way to keep information at hand.
I run Linux - and it was browsing that drove me to 64-bit. :-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."