Slashdot Mirror
Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility
snydeq writes "Mozilla's 'endless parade' of Firefox updates adds no visible benefit to users but breaks common functions, as numerous add-ons, including the popular open source TinyMCE editor, continually suffer compatibility issues, thanks to Firefox's newly adopted auto-update cycle, writes InfoWorld's Galen Gruman. 'Firefox is a Web browser, and by its very nature the Web is a heterogeneous, uncontrolled collection of resources. Expecting every website that uses TinyMCE to update it whenever an incremental rev comes out is silly and unrealistic, and certainly not just because Mozilla decided compatibility in its parade of new Firefox releases was everyone else's problem. The Web must handle such variablility — especially the browsers used to access it.'"
Use another browser and don't stress about major changes ever.
Maybe TinyMCE isn't actually as "platform independent" and "cross-platform" as it claims?
Code to standards (with appropriate polyfills) and ye shall prosper.
flamebait
Tons of websites, including those with advanced features work perfectly with updated versions of firefox.
So what's wrong with this particular feature? And why is it that FF is getting the blame?
Mod Article.... Flamebait
The real annoyance for me is the version numbering / compatibility scheme. There are add-ins that are still relevant, and still work perfectly, but you have to go through a song and dance to install them every time the version numbers change, the song and dance being unpacking them, editing the version numbers in their metadata, and repacking them, or finding the add-in in your profile from an older version and editing it there.
If they could fix this, that would be much better. Instead of add-ins declaring which versions they are compatible with, it should be possible to compute which APIs they access, and whether their behaviour has changed.
In the case of TinyMCE, I'm not sure what the issue is, unless people are packaging it as an add-in - my only encounters with it are as something embedded in a web page, so it would naturally have to cope with a wide variety of browsers by default.
You mean like Chrome's rapid release cycle?
TinyMCE is not an addon - the article seems to be talking about a Firefox bug, but doesn't provide a bug ID.
Addons are now up-issued automatically where possible; I have found fewer addons breaking compared with the sweeping changes made using the old model of major releases.
The article also misses the benefits from regular releases: features and improvements get in front of users more quickly, and changes are incremental, rather than jarringly abrupt. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox_(Rapid_release_development_cycle) for a list of changes since Firefox 4.
If they still put a static "3" or "4" before the actual version number, so the current version was Firefox 4.11 instead of Firefox 11, nobody would bat an eye. Everyone is losing their shit over Firefox releases when they're really just whining over a numbering scheme.
This is so obvious, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Users see the Firefox version. Plugin developers see the plugin API version. So if FF 10, 11, 12 ,13 all have the same API, then they are automatically compatible. New features added to the browser can be tested for. Removing features causes a API rev.
ffs, just do it and stop with all the noise!
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
They're not whining over a numbering scheme, they're whining over a plugin compatibility scheme.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
a) Chrome have always done it that way.
b) Chrome doesn't fucking break everything every upgrade!
Honestly. Does Firefox still give you a XUL error instead of sensible HTTP error pages if it's upgraded and you haven't restarted it yet?
I'm using Chrome now
No, look and see! That's the benefit of other browsers! One can find the lack of stress *and* have the features, also!
Is this something people actually use?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I stopped using Firefox and don't stress at all. I want my fucking browser to just work, and since i have no particular emotional investment in it, it got uninstalled, and it is unlikely, unless I start doing a lot of web work again, to ever reappear on my machine.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think just about every Chrome user is a former Firefox user.
How long before Safari passes Firefox as well?
b) Chrome doesn't fucking break everything every upgrade!
I have to agree with this. Despite Chrome's background updates, I haven't woken up and launched it to find half of my plugins are dead. Nor have I had to turn compatibility check off or any of the other coaxing I've needed to do to get my FF plugins working.
I've been told in the past that a large part of the compatibility breaking is due to add-on developers, not Firefox itself (something about writing the add-on to ignore a version incompatibility), but either way, the net result is the same.
Admittedly, I can't speak as to the last couple years or so, because starting at Firefox 4, the combination of Flash, two ATI video cards in crossfire, and Firefox has resulted in regular, yet completely unpredictable BSoD's, and everyone I've ever talked to in support has pointed to a fault with one of the other two parties and said there's nothing they can do. Upgrading to 5 didn't help, and upgrading to 6 didn't help as well. That's when I uninstalled Firefox for good. Chrome has never done that, even with Flash, and even with hardware acceleration turned on.
Now that Chrome has AdBlock Plus and ScriptNO and all of the other plugin equivalents I care about, I no longer pine for Firefox.
puts an unbelievable amount of tentacles into your system
Citation?
I've seen no evidence (nor even claims, before yours) of this.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The thing is, I don't care. In fact I prefer my browser not to muck about with user-facing stuff all the damn time. I used Firefox again recently for a few minutes and the disappearing/reappearing forward button was both maddening and utterly inexplicable.
Because there is no easy way to distinguish at a glance between major upgrades and minor bug fix releases. Because the only reason Mozilla is doing this is because Chrome is. Because the major.minor version system has worked for decades. Because Mozilla is being an ass about this and telling their users it is better because we tell you it is. Because I have no freaking idea whether 10 compared to 9 is a major upgrade with tons of new features, a minor upgrade with just bug fixes.
That is why people are 'whining' over a numbering scheme!
Good luck getting the visitors to your site to use the browser/version you want them to.
This comment looks best in IE6.
> I think just about every Chrome user is a former Firefox user.
I don't think Google is advertising Chrome on television to reach Firefox users. In my experience, the "IE crowd" likes Chrome's KISS UI and the Google brandname is seen as more trustworthy than no-name-brand Firefox.
It's JS and html. How can it be dependant on a specific version of Firefox unless it's coded exceptionally poorly? Why doesn't chrome's fast versioning cause problems? This submissions is shit.
At work, I'm only allowed IE or FF. I use both depending on what I'm doing, but FF as my primary. At home I'm typically a Chrome user, but I have all three installed and use them all, again depending on what I'm doing. IE is the only way I can remote in to work. Chrome is light-weight and great for browsing or Netflix. Some applications (excuse me for admitting that I'm a Facebook user, but primarily Facebook apps) are much more reliable under Firefox than under IE or especially Chrome. I haven't used Opera for many years - Ever since they started using ad-support, even though I realize that's long gone. I've never bothered with Safari.
So, even though I usually live in Chrome, I see no reason to completely ditch the alternatives - They all have their place. Can't we all just get along?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
So you're telling that anyone who knows Chrome v4 will feel right at home with Chrome v18? Awesome!
The thing is, I'm not using Firefox, I'm using Slashdot. Firefox is analogous to the display, keyboard and mouse here: it's a necessary evil that ideally stays in the background as much as possible. Any new and innovative features are more likely to get in the way than be helpful, especially if they happen in the UI.
Or even better analogy: browser UI is like inept political propaganda the author just couldn't stop himself from inserting into an otherwise decent book: it's there and you can't do anything but skim over it hoping to get back to the good parts soon.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Simple answer - You only officially support the ESR versions, and make your users entirely aware of both that fact, and the "why" behind it.
I see. So sort of like a note somewhere on the page that says "This site looks best in Firefox X". What's old is new again?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Have you looked at the plugins for firefox vs any other browser? Compare them, and the number of features for other browsers is pretty much approaching zero.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Just because you have abundance does not mean you can become lazy with efficiency. If we learned anything with the economic collapse that we have had to deal with in the last few years, it is that people and corporations (not people) that operated fairly well in the good times started to get eaten alive by their own inefficiencies.
I may have 8GB in my laptop, and looking for more, but I also run a *lot* of programs at the same time while I am working. Having 10-20 tabs open at any one moment is not unusual, and even more when I am developing/debugging APIs, websites, etc. That does not include a separate browser on another screen with references open, etc.
If IE and Firefox want to be lazy buttheads and use twice the memory just because it is cheap, I can also use Chrome when I could use that gig or two of memory back for other processes.
That's just for single users. That kind of inefficiency is more evident on remote desktop environments where you have 50-100 sessions running at any one time with employees using 5-10 tabs for web portals to 20-30 SaaS vendors. When you get to that level, you will see the difference between using Chrome and IE very quickly.
Don't apologise for being a Facebook user. Also don't apologise for being a Windows user, or an IE user. Don't make excuses for it, just use what works best for you. Anyone that disagrees can go suck a fat one - Technology is about making our lives easier, about seamlessly connecting with other people around the planet and about having the choice in which way you want to do it.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill