"Firefox n released"...
by
Sez+Zero
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Firefox n released" is not a story.
Re:"Firefox n released"...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"'Firefox n released' is not a story" is not a comment.
Re:"Firefox n released"...
by
adamofgreyskull
·
· Score: 5, Funny
/* "'Firefox n released' is not a story" */ is a comment.
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.
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.
Chromium master race
by
akilduff
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Firefox's constant updates drove me to Chromium.
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?
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.
Re:And we care because...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:And we care because...
by
JeanCroix
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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!
Re:And we care because...
by
tripleevenfall
·
· Score: 4, Funny
(whacks oodaloop over the head with a bone, shrieks loudly)
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.
Incomplete summary
by
revealingheart
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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
Re:Incomplete summary
by
sco08y
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Fixed your post to meet slashdot editorial standards.
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...
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"
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.
Re:And we care because...
by
Laxori666
·
· Score: 5, Funny
i know
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!
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.
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
Re:Still no Flash in mobile ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Steve, is that you...?
Re:youtube
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Youtube only exists in Firefox?
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.
Re:List of bugs fixed...
by
jmac_the_man
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Or at least that it used to be...
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
"Firefox n released" is not a story.
if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.
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.
Firefox's constant updates drove me to Chromium.
i am on telnet. beta.
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.
You need to edit your computer's maxVersion entry to read 10.0.*
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
But Flash must die; if we continue feeding it with updates it will not die. Web developers must realize that the future is HTML5.
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.
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.
*smoke*
*smoke*
*smoke*
That's way too slow to keep up with firefox. ESRs should have been 4,8,16,32,...
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!
(whacks oodaloop over the head with a bone, shrieks loudly)
?
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.
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.
(Uses protein expression between clusters of cells)
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
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"
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.
i know
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!
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...
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
Steve, is that you...?
Youtube only exists in Firefox?
Flash is a plugin. Bug the people who make it -Adobe, not Mozilla- if you want to use it on mobile devices.
Or at least that it used to be...
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.
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!"
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...
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.
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.
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!
I don't, either. I pull them out of Process Explorer. That is unless your ass actually is Process Explorer
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.
That is unless your ass actually is Process Explorer
That would explain a lot about Process Explorer.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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?
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
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?
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.
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.