Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 10 Released

Posted by samzenpus on from the brand-spanking-new dept.

Taco Cowboy writes "It's time to upgrade again. Firefox 10 is out and here's a list of bugs fixed in the new version."

68 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. "Firefox n released"... by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Firefox n released" is not a story.

    1. Re:"Firefox n released"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "'Firefox n released' is not a story" is not a comment.

    2. Re:"Firefox n released"... by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And nothing of value was gained.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    3. Re:"Firefox n released"... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 5, Funny

      /* "'Firefox n released' is not a story" */ is a comment.

    4. Re:"Firefox n released"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      | is not a pipe.

  2. Re:And we care because... by noh8rz2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

  3. Before any jokes appear by jcreus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firefox has launched a new version release system, creating an ESR for enterprises, organizations, etc. which is released once in 7 Firefox usual releases (Firefox 10, 17, 24, etc.), so that they don't have so much trouble (it must be horrible to find that two new versions have appeared as you are updating...). See a submission which didn't get to the front page for more details.

  4. Chromium master race by akilduff · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox's constant updates drove me to Chromium.

    1. Re:Chromium master race by jcreus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [sarcasm]Which has a faaaar slower release schedule. Definitely.[/sarcasm]

      Where do you think Firefox got the idea from?

    2. Re:Chromium master race by elashish14 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously from Windows. I mean, they went from 3.1 to 95! No idea how they pulled that one off.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  5. Re:And we care because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am on mosaic

  6. Re:And we care because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i am on telnet. beta.

  7. OMG guys by eexaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time you users are hit by the "release early, release often" that you always wished, I hear you moaning.

    "It's time to upgrade again."

    Attitude of that sentence somehow doesn't fit on shlashdot for me. I hoped that it was _here_ where people can appreciate the last "big" and still free browser.

    1. Re:OMG guys by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Release early, release often" is intended for testers and bleeding-edge users, not end users who just want a stable product.

      It's not as though there have been any user-noticeable changes between 3.6 and 9 other than them buggering up the GUI.

  8. Re:Can't update on my work computer by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need to edit your computer's maxVersion entry to read 10.0.*

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. Re:And we care because... by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    i am on telegraph stop insensitive clods stop could be faster stop

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Re:And we care because... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

    if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

    If it was called FireAsaDotzler I'd be 100% behind it.

  11. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by jcreus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But Flash must die; if we continue feeding it with updates it will not die. Web developers must realize that the future is HTML5.

  12. And FF10 also makes addons compatible by default by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Informative

    Firefox has launched a new version release system, creating an ESR for enterprises, organizations, etc. which is released once in 7 Firefox usual releases (Firefox 10, 17, 24, etc.), so that they don't have so much trouble (it must be horrible to find that two new versions have appeared as you are updating...). See a submission which didn't get to the front page for more details.

    In addition to the ESR Firefox (which is basically like an Ubuntu LTS in how it works), Firefox 10 also marks addons as compatible by default. These two things solve much of the update annoyances.

    FF11 will remove the UAC prompt on Windows, which will be a further improvement in 6 weeks from now.

  13. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Adobe have discontinued Flash for mobile browsers. Those technologies you mention make up its replacement.

  14. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if Firefox slimmed down enough

    Actually if you download the Chrome and Firefox installers, you will see that Chrome is twice as large.

    There are various definitions of "slimness", each browser wins on some, unsurprising because both of these are good browsers.

  15. Under actual news, IE 6 market share grows. by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish I was joking. IE 6 as a precent of desktop web browser views went up by 0.72% last month. FF as a whole went down, as did Chrome.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  16. Re:And we care because... by JeanCroix · · Score: 5, Funny
    *smoke*

    *smoke*

    *smoke*

    *smoke*

  17. Too slow by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's way too slow to keep up with firefox. ESRs should have been 4,8,16,32,...

  18. I like it by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    A version bump doesn't mean much these days, but this version is a big improvement. It's suddenly much more responsive and there's a very stylish built-in inspect tool if you press Ctrl+Shift+i. Also, Safari-style 3D transforms are implemented at last!

  19. Re:And we care because... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Funny

    (whacks oodaloop over the head with a bone, shrieks loudly)

  20. Re:And we care because... by flatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ?

    Plods along on 3.6 still...

    We care because there are substantial performance gains in recent Firefox versions and Firefox 10 finally addresses the plugin situation in a reasonable manner. Sure 3.6 will continue to work but you're missing out... but feel free to keep your head in the sand.

    I never thought I'd say it but it looks like the new release schedule is finally starting to pay dividends. Now if we could just get Mozilla to play better with the enterprise.

  21. Incomplete summary by revealingheart · · Score: 5, Informative

    Could a Slashdot editor please add to the summary info about the Extended Support Release for organizations released at the same time, and the new built-in web developer tools? Even a link to a website with coverage about the new changes to Firefox would do.

    1. Re:Incomplete summary by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry but if you want a slashdot editor to do that, you ned to phrase it in a way that allows them to hit the right combination of buttons for the banana to drop.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:Incomplete summary by sco08y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could a Slashdot editor please add to the summary info about teh Koch brothers payola for organizations relased at the same time, and the new built-in government tracking software? Even a link too a website with coverage about the Apple iPad vs. Google Android would do.

      Fixed your post to meet slashdot editorial standards.

  22. Re:And we care because... by jameskojiro · · Score: 5, Funny

    (Uses protein expression between clusters of cells)

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  23. Addons now compatible by default by InvisiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.

    Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.

    As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).

  24. Re:Can't update on my work computer by rwise2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or if you want to keep going for a couple od weeks, change it to 100.0.*

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  25. Re:And we care because... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Funny

    (is not)

  26. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    Web developers must realize that the future is HTML5.

    And IPV6. And "Strong" Artificial Intelligence. And maybe The Singularity. Or the Eschaton.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  27. Re:And we care because... by Laxori666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    i know

  28. Re:And we care because... by rjstanford · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course they could have kept to exactly the same release schedule without completely changing the definition of "major version number" to the point that they now have no way of telling people when a real, serious, actually major change is happening.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  29. Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul by trunicated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FF11 will remove the UAC prompt on Windows, which will be a further improvement in 6 weeks from now.

    That actually missed FF11, and is slated for FF12.

    --
    There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
  30. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Informative

    firefox RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 243mb across 2 processes(firefox.exe, plugin-container.exe)
    chrome RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 99mb across 4 processes(chrome.exe x4)

    This isn't a problem on your average desktop, but it blows ass on older machines, laptops, and netbooks that don't have the resources or the newer technologies that help offset the fact that Firefox is fat

  31. Re:End of Fark? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally, an Acoholics Anonymous mode! So, will this sense when I'm drunk off my ass and about to post something really stupid - aka posting while drunk?!

    No, it's simply a mode in which the dwarves drawing lines in your graphics card walk with their brushes in a straight line instead of staggering along a jagged line like drunkards.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  32. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Steve, is that you...?

  33. Re:youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Youtube only exists in Firefox?

  34. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by Millennium · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flash is a plugin. Bug the people who make it -Adobe, not Mozilla- if you want to use it on mobile devices.

  35. Re:List of bugs fixed... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or at least that it used to be...

  36. Re:And we care because... by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Funny

    if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

    It' would have to be FirerfoXXX for me to get on board. The XX stuff is a bit lame for my perverted tastes.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  37. Also by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With releases, keeping version numbers, you know, USEFUL is something we'd all like.

    I'm ok with software updating often. However I'd like to have some easy idea of how large an update it is and version numbers are supposed to do that. Firefox used to do the multi-dot system of major.minor.fix. So if something went from say, 3.5.8 to 3.5.9 I knew it was just bug fixes, no testing needed just deploy it. However going from 3.5.9 to 4.0 tells me there could be some major changes and I need to look at it.

    Now I have no fucking idea. There's a new "major" version like once a month, some which seem to be changed not at all, this one which seems to have made some non-trivial changes. Rather a pain in the ass to deal with in a large deployment setting, and confusing to users either way.

    Imagine if MS did this with Windows, if every patch Tuesday brought a "new" Windows version out. However sometimes a new product would ship and be totally different. So you have a situation where Windows 3652 to 3653 is just a patch for XP but 3654 is Vista and is totally different.

    FF's versioning is nonsensical and is just number envy as far as I can tell. "Let's do really big numbers so we look all new and shit!"

    1. Re:Also by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to quote myself from another forum; it's slightly old so the version numbers don't match what is current, but the idea is still the same. I'll also have you note that nowhere was there a guarentee that 3.5.x or 3.6.x releases were bug-fix-only releases; there were some rather significant feature changes and additions in both lines' "minor" versions.

      Meanwhile I have Chromium 15 installed, which sounds just as bad. The rapid release schedule is desirable for progress of web technologies. Keeping traditional versioning schemes doesn't really work with that. Otherwise it'll be 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, etc... until what? 4.32? By then 4.32 might seem like a big enough step from 4.0 to have warranted several "major" version bumps, even though the change will seem minor compared to 4.31, and that minor compared to 4.30, and so on. (Emacs predates the browsers... it skipped from version 1.12 to version 13 when the authors realized they may never leave 1.x otherwise, essentally that first number became meaningless)

      To both Google and Mozilla's credit, they have seriously downplayed the prevalance of the version number. What matters now is that users are up to date, and by most common installation modes, that happens fairly automatic for both of them. How many people can really tell that they're on Firefox 8 without having to open Help>About, or that they're on Chrome/Chromium 15 without opening its about dialog? Probably not many.

      tl;dr: the old versioning system doesn't work. To top it off, Mozilla doesn't actively advertise version numbers either. Much of the hate seems to be generated by Slashdot feeling compelled to note that Firefox got an update.

    2. Re:Also by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the other hand, if they just kept the same version, you'd have something like Linux where all the changes between 2.6.0 and 2.6.40 were incremental enough not to merit a major version change, yet the differences between versions 2.4 and 2.6 were completely dwarfed by the differences between 2.6.0 and 2.6.40.

      I'm not a software engineer, but from what I've noticed, it seems that once a product becomes mature enough (ie. once it does pretty much everything you expect), the version numbers become less significant as at that point as each revision is mostly just changing things under the hood, tweaking performance/security/stability/etc.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    3. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So... your argument is that because Mozilla failed to post the major updates with a correct increment to the major version number sometimes that it is reasonable to move to a system that always fails to increment the major version number correctly?

  38. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    firefox RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 243mb across 2 processes(firefox.exe, plugin-container.exe)

    chrome RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released, only tab open - 99mb across 4 processes(chrome.exe x4)

    This isn't a problem on your average desktop, but it blows ass on older machines, laptops, and netbooks that don't have the resources or the newer technologies that help offset the fact that Firefox is fat

    Firefox does have issues with being leaky. I came into the office the other day and it was using over 700MB RAM with about six tabs open. A restart fixed the issue, but Chrome doesn't have that problem. Then again, Chrome doesn't have side tabs (Tree Style Tabs), which is a must for having many tabs open. Tree Style Tabs is the only thing keeping me on FireFox.

    Currently, Firefox is using 417 MB for 9 tabs. The second largest memory hog on my system is Notepad++ at 96 MB.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  39. Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul by claar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, there are links to two bugzilla issues in that link of yours that explain how they intend to do it (I won't link them here so /. doesn't drive bugzilla down).

    It appears they intend to create a Windows service that runs as Administrator that will perform the updates, thus bypassing UAC.

    --
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
  40. Re:lolwut by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong. Chromium doesn't auto-update at all. You're thinking of Chrome.

    Chromium also doesn't have a lot of the built-in BS that Chrome has, such as a PDF reader (Okular works just fine, thank you), and stats reporting.

  41. Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul by ferongr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Maintenance Service does not run at startup, but only when Firefox itself instructs it to do. It's installed with Startup type set to "Manual".

    Seriously, before you whine at least take the time to read the damn bug.

  42. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Currently, Firefox is using 417 MB for 9 tabs. The second largest memory hog on my system is Notepad++ at 96 MB.

    You're lucky you don't work with IBM software.
    My local WAS instance regularly goes above 1.2GB ram usage.
    RAD is happy chewing up 600 odd MB
    Plain old eclipse doesn't usually need more than 300M

  43. Re:Wow thats a lot of bugs fixed in this version by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where is the list of bugs introduced with this upgrade?

    In the "What's New" Section of Firefox 11.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  44. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't, either. I pull them out of Process Explorer. That is unless your ass actually is Process Explorer

  45. Re:And we care because... by jonadab · · Score: 3, Funny

    You upgraded to 3.6?

    I tried 3.0, got tired of losing data, and downgraded back to 2.0. I tried 3.5, got tired of losing data, downgraded back to 2.0, poked around in Bugzilla until I found the relevant issue, noticed that the problem was not fixed in 3.6, and did not attempt the upgrade.

    The most important bug that was keeping me from updating was finally fixed in, umm, I think version 8, maybe 9, but by then I had kind of lost interest in the upgrade treadmill, so at the moment I'm currently still using 2.0.0.20 for now. Maybe I'll upgrade eventually, but I think I'll wait and see which version people say the right kinds of things about so I can upgrade to a *good* version.

    An example of "the right kinds of things", which would make me WANT to upgrade, would be something like, "This version doesn't have a lot of completely pointless UI changes, but it does fix most of the outstanding bugs. Support has also been added for a couple more CSS features, and the browser now remembers if you select an alternate stylesheet for a particular site and uses the same one when you visit the site again."

    I'm *unlikely* to be so excited about upgrading to a version about which people are saying things like "The new up-is-down left-side scrollbar[1] really makes the browser feel more modern, especially in conjunction with eliminating the window border and hiding the minimize and maximize buttons, which was long overdue. Also, having your preferences stored in the new Choices database allows a completely redesigned preferences dialog that allows you to search and get results from not just your prefs but also from your cookies and the Mozilla Planet feed, all in one unified interface. Additionally, hovering over a link now checks to see if the page it points to has any embedded video or plugin content, and if so it starts playing that in an overlay in front of the page you were looking at."

    [1] Imagine if a talented graphics artist spent sixty hours in Photoshop making a Xaw-style scrollbar (like Emacs used to use before it got GTK support) that looks like something out of a magazine ad, complete with reflectivity and glittering highlights. I can totally see the people who thought up the post-3.6 UI changes thinking that would be awesome.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  46. Re:And we care because... by theweatherelectric · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now if we could just get Mozilla to play better with the enterprise.

    The first Extended Support Release is based on Firefox 10: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/. The FAQ outlines the life cycle for the ESR builds.

  47. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by inode_buddha · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dunno, I've never had that issue. 6 months ago, my entire machine had 512 megs. Yes, you read that right. FF3.x did just fine on that. System software is Debian Squeeze, fully patched/updated. And no, the box isn't slow or anything noticeable.

    I rarely have more than 3 or 4 tabs open, tho - maybe that's the secret. If I need to refer back to something that bad, then I just "save page as" or "print to file".

    --
    C|N>K
  48. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    That is unless your ass actually is Process Explorer

    That would explain a lot about Process Explorer.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  49. Re:Can't update on my work computer by Korin43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When did FF go from being the crown jewel of OS to absoloute dogshit?

    Never?

    Or are you making the mistake of paying too much attention to Slashdot trolls?

  50. Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... by kbrosnan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is working fairly well on Nightly and Aurora. On Beta (11) soon.

    Adding Flash to Firefox was a considerable amount of work. Adobe and Google rather drastically re-wrote NPAPI. The only documentation on how Flash worked on Android is the Android source. This work represents several hundred person hours to get it working.

    TBH Flash support is in the current release version has a pref for flash on 2.2 and 2.3 but the experience is rather poor, hence it being disabled with no UI to enable it. about:config change plugin.disable to false. Judge Flash progress against the Nighty or Aurora builds. The Beta 10 or release 10 builds are not representative of the Flash experience for 11+.

    --
    These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
  51. Re:And we care because... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I tried 3.0, got tired of losing data, and downgraded back to 2.0. I tried 3.5, got tired of losing data, downgraded back to 2.0

    Pray do tell what this mysterious critical data losing bug was that has you scared in a corner clinging to FFx 2.0 while tens of millions of other people have somehow managed to use every version since without a problem?

    An example of "the right kinds of things", which would make me WANT to upgrade, would be something like,

    Does "the right kind of thing" include not being vulnerable to exploits that were discovered after December 18, 2008?

  52. Re:And we care because... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 3, Funny

    You win. Or you would have won, if you were.

  53. Re:And we care because... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    *grunt* *hoot* *growl*

  54. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by dudpixel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that memory mostly a cache? so if your machine has less memory it will try to use less so it doesn't run out of memory on the machine?

    and if your pc has oodles of memory it will use it, thereby increasing performance.

    unused ram is worthless. software using ram as a cache is a good idea if done right.

    dont complain if it uses too much memory - only complain if it doesn't free it when you need it for something else.

    --
    This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  55. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by teh+dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, right now, Firefox 9 on my work system is using 568,948K of RAM and I have 73 tabs open. It has been open all day, with heavy usage for most of it. I sometimes put my work box to sleep instead of turning it off.

    I personally find that Chrome is better at managing small numbers of tabs and Firefox is better at managing many tabs. If I have saved around 10 tabs on each, Chrome always starts up within two seconds and loads all saved tabs quickly, and uses around half the RAM Firefox does. Firefox takes around 10-15 seconds or so before it's fully ready and uses twice as much RAM as Chrome does. In this way Chrome is a lighter and faster browser. However, if I have more like 50 saved tabs in both, then I find Firefox is ready to go sooner and uses far less RAM (30-40%) than Chrome does.

    Some people find Firefox is fine, others find it is a huge hog. I get this behaviour on all my systems on which I have both installed (ranging from Atom based to Sandy Bridge machines), but I have had friends say they have the opposite experience I do. So it depends on the user and the sites they visit, the number of tabs people keep open, the extensions they have installed and their browsing habits.

  56. Re:How does it compare to Chrome? by Nivag064 · · Score: 3, Informative

    In preferences ==> General

    Set
    'When firefox starts'
    to be
    Show my windows and tabs from last time''

    and tick the checkbox
    'Don't load tabs until selected'

    This vastly reduces the RAM used by Firefox, I often carry over a 100 tabs from one login to the next.