Firefox 16 Pulled To Address Security Vulnerability

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 16 Pulled To Address Security Vulnerability

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 11, 2012 @12:48AM from the cautious-cautious dept.

Shortly after the release of the newest major version of Firefox, an anonymous reader writes with word that "Mozilla has removed Firefox 16 from its installer page due to security vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could allow 'a malicious site to potentially determine which websites users have visited' ... one temporary work-around, until a fix is released, is to downgrade to 15.0.1"

165 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

16 AND PREMATURE EJACULATION PROBLEMS ?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:53 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Well, it was v3 not too long ago !!
Firefox *16*!? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-10-11 00:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
1. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Finally Firefox got legal in my state.
2. Re:Firefox *16*!? by KBentley57 · 2012-10-11 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you have been anywhere near any tech site in the last year or more, you would know that firefox has gone mad with the numbering scheme. So, either you've been offline for longer than usual, or are trolling mozilla.
3. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?
  If you're lucky, it'll be the year you get a browser upgrade. Change can be scary though... I warn you, they changed the url bar and everything.
4. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Please, enough with those old jokes. Firefox is buggy and slow enough to create new ones.
5. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  ... or it's a joke.
  * Whooossh*
6. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Election Panic" all around - so 2012 I guess
  Firefox jumped on the Chrome/Chromium bandwagon regarding version-numbers. Even though it seems a little absurd after the time it took them to release 3.x after 2.x I'm still very glad for the momentum Chromium brought to browsers-development - especially if you think about the progression javascript engines made the last few years.
7. Re:Firefox *16*!? by partyguerrilla · 2012-10-11 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's simply replicating Chrome's numbering scheme. The idea that a higher version number is a better product is still ingrained in people's heads for some reason.
8. Re:Firefox *16*!? by buck-yar · 2012-10-11 01:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...
9. Re:Firefox *16*!? by KiloByte · 2012-10-11 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  To FF10, since that's the stable version that upcoming distributions will ship. The glorified trunk snapshots you hear so much about are not supported (beyond "pull the newest snapshot"), so have no place on serious non-dev machines.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
10. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  3.6 is to modern versions of Firefox as IE6 is to...well, a better version of IE that has yet to be released.
11. Re:Firefox *16*!? by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2012-10-11 01:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?
  Don't worry, Mozilla switched from miles to meters. It's only three weeks ago. Expect FF 238 around Christmas.
12. Re:Firefox *16*!? by mcgrew · 2012-10-11 01:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So, either you've been offline for longer than usual, or are trolling mozilla.
  
  If he were trolling Mozilla he would have said "here's the patch!" and linked the IE download page. Um, did the IE vuln get fixed yet? Opera is looking better and better!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
13. Re:Firefox *16*!? by BenJury · 2012-10-11 01:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why is it 'mad'? I don't understand why people have such issues with this. Its just a damn number. If it really irks you so much just add a decimal point to the start of it in your head and move on.
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
14. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Then wait for firefox 32.
15. Re:Firefox *16*!? by tuppe666 · 2012-10-11 01:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's simply replicating Chrome's numbering scheme. The idea that a higher version number is a better product is still ingrained in people's heads for some reason.
  As part of the process. Large features get to be rolled out when they are ready, rather than waiting for a release every one to two years, or even delaying those releases if they are not.
16. Re:Firefox *16*!? by BenoitRen · 2012-10-11 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously people have an issue with this because it's not just a number.
17. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  It's not just a number, it's a number that denotes compatible versions.
18. Re:Firefox *16*!? by tuppe666 · 2012-10-11 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...
  The delayed release contains a new Developer Command Line, unprefixes a number of stable features including: CSS3 Animations, Transitions, Transforms, Image Values, IndexedDB and Values and Units. Firefox also unprefixes Battery API and Vibration API, two Web APIs. [Mac users will find that preliminary support for the VoiceOver screen reader]
  It also fixes for numerous critical vulnerabilities. Holes associated with a full 14 security advisories were closed in the new Firefox 16, in fact, 11 of them rated “critical.” [memory corruption and memory safety hazards, a buffer overflow bug, and a spoofing and script-injection flaw]
  That sounds like enough to more than enough to justify a release. The fact that they have pulled its release for security reasons, seams pretty sensible to be.
19. Re:Firefox *16*!? by BenJury · 2012-10-11 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  Um, I suppose if I squint it kinda looks like 'Ib, so I guess so....
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
20. Re:Firefox *16*!? by tuppe666 · 2012-10-11 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  3.6 is to modern versions of Firefox as IE6 is to...well, a better version of IE that has yet to be released.
  I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not. IE6 is very much kill it with fire, the fact that Microsoft has limited the update to XP of IE is a disgrace. As a user of Firefox I would argue strongly that 15 is head and shoulders above 3.6 whatever the version number a browser released January 2010 well over 2 years ago.
21. Re:Firefox *16*!? by LordLimecat · 2012-10-11 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  The trunk snapshots have a name, Aurora.
  Theyve moved to Chrome's dev model, which as an end user is awesome (especially now that their autoupdater actually WORKS). Bugs get fixed faster, and I dont have to wait 6-12 months for them to add a feature that everyone's been clamoring for for months (as back in the 1.0, 1.5 etc days).
22. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Never, ever, did I hear these fossils complain about the version numbering of the web browser of their darling ad broker.
  Firefox does it, bang, default complaints with every release.
23. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Desler · 2012-10-11 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it works so awesome that now people need to know to downgrade because they too rapidly released a product with a huge security hole.
24. Re:Firefox *16*!? by dietdew7 · 2012-10-11 01:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's mad because we never know whether we're getting a patch with a few bug fixes or a completely different UI. I guess I'm mostly annoyed that Mozilla and other software producers feel the need to make-over their UI every six months. It feels like change just for the sake of change.
25. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  I think there's a limitation to this. You don't see a lot of stuff out there being marketed as version 735 of the product.
26. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Bugs get fixed faster
  Weird. I remember downloading bugfix versions of Firefox 3 all the time. Seems 3.6 got 15 bugfix releases before 4.0 was released. Where as nowadays, we get only ONE bugfix version, before we get a stack of new bugs (aka. a major release).
  I'm still waiting for bug fixes for bugs introduced in 4.0, and it does not look like they will care about bug fixes before version 16 either.
27. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  To many it signifies major API changes are happening rather frequently. This can come across as the Firefox team not knowing what they're doing or they've explicitly decided that marketing trumps software development conventions. I suppose the latter isn't as bad, but it's not encouraging.
28. Re:Firefox *16*!? by runeghost · 2012-10-11 02:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Fortunately, Firefox is well on it's way to helping destroy that idea.
29. Re:Firefox *16*!? by BenJury · 2012-10-11 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rewrite that as 'To many who do not have a vested interest it signifies major API changes are happening rather frequently'. Those who do care will know all about the new version and its changes as they'd be on the beta channel. For us normal users, we don't care, which incidentally is why they are not marketing the version number at all. Its just 'Firefox'.
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
30. Re:Firefox *16*!? by davidbrit2 · 2012-10-11 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  The asymptotic release shortening means they'll have to start using scientific notation shortly after the new year.
31. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 02:20 · Score: -1
  
  You'll never know what they're changing unless you look at the release notes you lazy git. I guess that would be too inconvenient for you and pretty much deflate any argument that allows you to tiresomely bitch about Firefox's versioning system.
32. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  In Capitalist America, Mozilla trolls you!
33. Re:Firefox *16*!? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-10-11 02:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If he were trolling Mozilla he would have said "here's the patch!" and linked the IE download page. Um, did the IE vuln get fixed yet? Opera is looking better and better!
  You can prise Mosaic from my cold, dead, Compaq Presario PC with 200MB hard drive and Pentium MMX CPU!
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
34. Re:Firefox *16*!? by higuita · 2012-10-11 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Dont worry, they dropped the 3.7 from the version... just imagine that its version 3.7.16 :)
  
  --
  Higuita
35. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Cyko_01 · 2012-10-11 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly! Most addons default to compatible now. Those that cannot, simply set the max version to 50. The UI hasn't changed significantly since 4.0
36. Re:Firefox *16*!? by interval1066 · 2012-10-11 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I agreee with OP. Its makes numbering releases irrelevant rather than convinient way to index releases by usefulness. Obviously you're a fan of reading the release notes over and over again everytime you need to know what's in a particular release.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
37. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Luckyo · 2012-10-11 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  IS 3.6.28 bugged for you? It's the last release of the 3.6 "not chromefox" family.
38. Re:Firefox *16*!? by bluefoxlucid · 2012-10-11 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah that's what I was thinking. FF50 will be out by the time I'm old enough to date.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
39. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 02:58 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  This is all very fucked. Should have just been creating a portable POSIX operating system with OpenGL stack -- I mean, that's what we'll have in the end. Fuck HTML5 -- I've been waiting for over a decade since v4.01 came out. I can build a native App for every platform and get pixel perfect results with far more flexibility and performance via cross platform toolchains. What's the web offer? A grab bag of Javascript Frameworks for Javascript loaded each time I click a link. Fuck that shit, I'm out.
40. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 03:07 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The newest version of Firefox glows an eerie blue due to the Cherenkov Radiation emitted as the electrons making up it's version number accelerate faster than the speed of light can travel in the OS medium it's suspended in.
41. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  If you had to re-package every revision for your enterprise customers you'd be upset too. I's easy to tell management that increment from 3.0.0.01 to 3.0.0.02 isn't rally necessary, but 15.01 to 16.0.0? "Rawer! get it done now!" Good thing Firefox ESR's versioning isn't so crazy.....
42. Re:Firefox *16*!? by lxs · 2012-10-11 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Opera is looking better and better!
  But Opera is only on version 12.02!
43. Re:Firefox *16*!? by jonadab · 2012-10-11 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I tried Firefox 3, but it kept losing tabs on me. I downgraded to Firefox 2 and have not looked back.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
44. Re:Firefox *16*!? by mattOzan · 2012-10-11 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Firefox Extended Service Release (ESR) is available for those who require consistency in the UI for a longer term.
  http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/.
  Major version releases are only every 12 months. There is a minor patch release every six weeks which coincides with "normal" Firefox version updates. All security patches are deployed to both release channels, but feature enhancements are not deployed to the ESR channel between major version releases..
45. Re:Firefox *16*!? by jfengel · 2012-10-11 04:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And they seem to have celebrated by screwing it.
46. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  I switched from Mosaic to Netscape back in the days when my overclocked 40MHz 486SX was the fastest computer anyone I knew had.
47. Re:Firefox *16*!? by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Javascript Frameworks for Javascript
  I think you know what I want to say, here...
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
48. Re:Firefox *16*!? by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some reason this isn't the "default" distribution of it then? Nobody but QA testers and gentoo fans should be using the other one.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
49. Re:Firefox *16*!? by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think that couldn't happen on a slow release schedule? The bug wasn't discovered until it hit the general user population. Whether that took 4 months or 4 days doesn't matter.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
50. Re:Firefox *16*!? by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  That update was so bad it gave me cancer!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
51. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-11 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  So, either you've been offline for longer than usual, or are trolling mozilla.
  
  If he were trolling Mozilla he would have said "here's the patch!" and linked the IE download page. Um, did the IE vuln get fixed yet? Opera is looking better and better!
  Yep within in 24 hours. IE may have a much slower release schedule and be behind in some area's but it is not IE 6 anymore. It is an ok browser and certainly usable after IE 9 and IE 10 is very competitive to Chrome and FF believe it or not. Since MS takes security seriously they have improved it and have a security response team similiar to Google's and Symantecs.
  You can hate Windows still but I do give them an applause they have been very actice shutting down malware networks.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
52. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  It is 16 only in dog/fox years; so it is really only ~4 - keep your hands off perv
53. Re:Firefox *16*!? by sjames · 2012-10-11 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Then use the ESR and be happy. It's been a few years now since developers reliably used the major.minor.sub-minor versioning.
54. Re:Firefox *16*!? by CheshireDragon · 2012-10-11 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  wow, nostalgia hits....66MHz 486DX was the first comp I ever built. After a few weeks I upgraded to 4MB RAM baby and that was 200$ my dad spent. I would have bought it, but I was only 12 at the time.
  
  --
  "That's right...I said it."
55. Re:Firefox *16*!? by ocdscouter · 2012-10-11 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think there's a limitation to this. You don't see a lot of stuff out there being marketed as version 735 of the product.
  I'm sure they'll decide that version 640 should be enough for anyone.
56. Re:Firefox *16*!? by LordLimecat · 2012-10-11 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  The stack of bugs is smaller because the release is smaller. Thats the whole point.
57. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 16:19 · Score: 0
  
  It's not the default because the Mozilla guys are batshit insane. Need more proof? Even if you have 10esr installed, unless you manually install 17esr, it will auto-update to 18 (non-esr).
58. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  In a round-about way, it cured mine.
  http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/2012/08/of-roller-coasters-cancer-and-linux.html
59. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Desler · 2012-10-12 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you didn't actually understand me. I never said they couldn't have released something with a bug. I said that there whole rapid release and hide the version numbers policy effectively causes more pain to users when they do make a mistake like this. They claim that version numbers don't matter but a fuck up like this reminds us that it DOES matter (because without knowing the version number or some sort of information how do I know what to revert to?) and now they've made a system that makes reverting a total pain in the ass.
60. Re:Firefox *16*!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...
  The delayed release contains a new Developer Command Line, unprefixes a number of stable features including: CSS3 Animations, Transitions, Transforms, Image Values, IndexedDB and Values and Units. Firefox also unprefixes Battery API and Vibration API, two Web APIs. [Mac users will find that preliminary support for the VoiceOver screen reader]
  It also fixes for numerous critical vulnerabilities. Holes associated with a full 14 security advisories were closed in the new Firefox 16, in fact, 11 of them rated “critical.” [memory corruption and memory safety hazards, a buffer overflow bug, and a spoofing and script-injection flaw]
  That sounds like enough to more than enough to justify a release. The fact that they have pulled its release for security reasons, seams pretty sensible to be.
  The asinine release system from Firefox makes developers' jobs that much more difficult. Nobody appreciates this bullshit from Mozilla except for devs who are working on never-ending projects for nobody.
Temp Solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 00:57 · Score: -1

My butthoal brings David Boises to the Bard
and your mom is uh effin tard
and your mom is uh effin tard
I could do you but your butt is large.
1. Re:Temp Solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Worst haiku ever.
Darn it Mozilla by thomas8166 · 2012-10-11 01:01 · Score: 1

Well, guess that serves me right for being on the Firefox beta channel. I honestly don't even remember how long I've been using the FF16 beta. TFA didn't mention if beta users are affected, but I'm going to assume that we are.

--
I make hardware RNGs, which give 2.5849625 bits of entropy per use in theory (actual performance dependent on usage).
mod dLown by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:04 · Score: -1

website. Mr. de development models fear the reaper And she ran turd-sUckingly and as BSD sinks OS don't fear the handy, you are free been looking for!
Not so smart by SirDice · 2012-10-11 01:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why the hell did they pull it? Firefox 16.0 fixes 24 bugs, of which 21 are considered important. They're advising people to downgrade to THAT version because of ONE minor privacy issue. Seriously? Why don't they urge people to upgrade to 16.0 and start pushing out 16.0.1 as fast as they can?
1. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  They'll take my upgrade from my cold-dead hands !
2. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I don't understand that. I mean, unless you're running NoScript or Adblock, tons of sites are already tracking you, so this privacy issue doesn't seem all that important. Plus, Mozilla has said that the fix will probably be out next Thursday, so why go to the trouble of downgrading just to turn around and upgrade again in a day or so?
3. Re:Not so smart by Bigby · 2012-10-11 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was thinking "We're all going to die!" How is this considered that major of a bug? I guess maybe they can get the session ID in a GET request and get to your banking website?
4. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Looks like 16.0.1 is already out, according to yum update on fc17. Unless that was the original numbering of the release.
  Dependencies Resolved
  Updating:
  firefox x86_64 16.0-1.fc17 updates 24 M
5. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As I understand it, sites can access stored URL's and URL parameters. An obvious example of a URL you wouldn't want exposed would be ftp://username:password@someserver.foo.
6. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:39 · Score: -1
  
  It's easier to just wait a week and upgrade to 18 beta.
7. Re:Not so smart by SirDice · 2012-10-11 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  I can deal, for a short while, with this relatively simple issue. I can't deal with 21 serious bugs while Mozilla takes their sweet time to fix that one issue.
8. Re:Not so smart by briancox2 · 2012-10-11 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Firefox 16.0.1 just installed on my Droid Bionic automatically. OTA. Fast enough for you?
  
  --
  We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
9. Re:Not so smart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm, I see to be having trouble connecting to that server....
10. Re:Not so smart by Blue+Stone · 2012-10-11 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Surely the solution is to disable history or browse in Privacy mode, rather than downgrade and risk exposure to those 21 important security issues present in version 15.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
11. Re:Not so smart by BZ · 2012-10-11 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Sweet time? It was fixed yesterday, hours after it was discovered; builds should be coming out today.
12. Re:Not so smart by javary · 2012-10-11 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  16.0.1 is now out.
  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html
13. Re:Not so smart by SirDice · 2012-10-11 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's nice. Still no reason to pull 16.0 as it could just as easily have taken longer.
14. Re:Not so smart by BZ · 2012-10-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  When the decision to pull was made, the schedule for 16.0.1 was already known.
Oh well by scdeimos · 2012-10-11 01:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I guess the decades-old saying still holds true, "never install a point-O release."
1. Re:Oh well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  They're mostly point0 releases now; and automatically installed to boot. :)
No auto-downgrade?! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:09 · Score: 1

Why don't they issue an 'update' that downgrades me back to 15.0.1 then? They can even rename it 16.1 or whatever to keep the auto-update happy with a version number increment.
I got upgraded yesterday, do I have to manually downgrade myself - seems ridiculous.
Firefox? FIRESUCKS! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:16 · Score: -1

Since Mozilla start to transform Firefox into a Chrome-wannabe, Firefox simply sucks. If I wanted a Chrome-like browser, I'd just go Chrome. Now we have to deal with all those shitty moves, with ridiculous version numbers and rushed versions plagued with mistakes.
Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering all the stuff "16" was supposed to have fixed, recommending a rollback over this sounds completely incompetent. And therefore expected.
Remember, these are the same geniuses that decided to start rolling the version number everytime someone fixes a typo a few months ago, and thus calling the current version (what is it really, 5.3 or so?) 16. And it isnt truly new either, take a look at this old bug for example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78414
Been sitting there well over 10 years now. Not one serious attempt to fix it. How many new features that no one wanted and random gui changes to confuse users have they managed to implement in that time period?
So yeah, no surprise here. Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1. Re:Sad but expected by BenoitRen · 2012-10-11 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you'd like SeaMonkey or Opera.
2. Re:Sad but expected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  Every browser I know seems to have that issue, so I'm not sure if it actually has to do with the way plug-ins work in general. I don't understand why it's tolerated though.
3. Re:Sad but expected by jonadab · 2012-10-11 02:14 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  > Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.
  
  Oh, they already did that. It's called Firefox 2.0.0.20.
  
  Open-source programmers famously don't like to re-invent the wheel, so naturally since making a browser that doesn't suck has already been done, it's now a solved problem and therefore no longer interesting to work on.
  
  The community has therefore moved on to newer and better things, like combining related toolbar buttons into one (back/forward), unnecessarily changing how user data (such as bookmarks) are stored on disk, combining unrelated toolbar buttons into one (stop/reload), eliminating useful features (e.g., the status bar), moving UI elements to new and interesting parts of the screen (stop/reload again, not to mention the notorious Tabs On Top), and so on and so forth.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
4. Re:Sad but expected by Jesus_666 · 2012-10-11 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  So yeah, no surprise here. Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.
  True. As a web developer I like HTML5 and CSS3 but it's interesting how browser engines are often still lacking in fairly basic things. For instance, WebKit apparently can't handle hover states on pseudo-elements properly.
  
  Perhaps the browser/engine devs should spend some time on making sure that the existing functionality works well before trying to one-up each other in who supports the latest first-draft CSS feature. Then again that's not how competition works so I guess I'll be looking forward to CSS5 Accessible Teledildonics support while hoping that all engines support position: relative properly...
  
  Perhaps I should move towards a field where there's at least one working implementation of my language of choice.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
5. Re:Sad but expected by bluefoxlucid · 2012-10-11 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  So, a Java emulator with a QuickSave binding at F11 or ^s you would rather hit F11 and Firefox wanks to fullscreen? What about arrow keys? I can't scroll up/down a page (or left/right for that matter) when a plug-in OR an input box has focus! So horrible when I'm trying to play Pacman flash games, jamming up/down/left/right on twitch reactions, and the page just SITS STILL AND WON'T SCROLL! That's a total bug, must fix it.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
6. Re:Sad but expected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's the way NPAPI works. ActiveX doesn't have this problem, it has other problems.
  About halfway through the bug, someone points out that it's the plugin API's fault, and suggests that if someone wants to rewrite the API they're welcome to submit a patch.
7. Re:Sad but expected by jez9999 · 2012-10-11 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.
  Try Seamonkey's browser.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
8. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Not acceptable. They have paid developers. This should have been job number 1 until it was fixed.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
9. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  If your gizmo really needs reserved keystrokes like that, then you should think about making it a separate app, not running it inside a browser!
  The browser global keystrokes only serve their purpose when they are globally available and always work. This is absolutely fundamental. Shortcut keys that only work in certain tabs, not in others, depending on what is loaded, is fundamental interface breakage. Shortcut keys that do one thing in one tab but something else entirely in another is even worse.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
10. Re:Sad but expected by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-11 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Webkit doesn't follow the W3C standards. They follow whatg and their own. My fear is W3C which is about to finalize HTML 5 will be incompatible with webkit and Google will do a microsoft and try to make it like IE 6 in order to corner the mobile web market.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
11. Re:Sad but expected by bluefoxlucid · 2012-10-11 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  and what about JavaScript hijacking keystrokes and context menus, resizing and moving windows, etc?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
12. Re:Sad but expected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Sane version numbers.. consistent UI.. buff.. tan.. yep, this is my browser!
13. Re:Sad but expected by tlhIngan · 2012-10-11 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Webkit doesn't follow the W3C standards. They follow whatg and their own. My fear is W3C which is about to finalize HTML 5 will be incompatible with webkit and Google will do a microsoft and try to make it like IE 6 in order to corner the mobile web market.
  Webkit dominates the mobile web market already. Android uses webkit by default, as does iOS. And Blackberry's new browser is webkit based.
  The only mobile OS to come with a non-webkit browser is Windows Phone.
  Short of installing Firefox or Opera, webkit pretty much is the dominant browser engine. Maybe second after IE (if you combine Chrome+Safari since they use webkit internally).
  Geez, who would've thought an Apple project would out-IE IE.
14. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  This is a really hilarious suggestion. Not that I am saying I wont try it, but... let's remember here. Back a long time ago, it was Netscape Navigator that we all adopted because it sucked less than Mosaic. Then it became this whole huge crufty Netscape suite, with a bunch of extra stuff most of us didnt want or use (including a particularly awful mail client.) People slowly quit using Netscape, moving to IE (blech) or Opera in worrying numbers. Netscape became Mozilla, and this Netscape Suite became, if I am not badly mistaken, Seamonkey. Then Firefox was spun off, and it was great, a lean mean browsing machine without all that extra cruft, and it brought us back in droves.
  Now Mozilla has gone retard and turned Firefox into a bloaten mishappen heap, and you are telling me the Seamonkey Suite is the one that sucks less?
  That is absolutely insane, it makes no sense at all, therefore knowing Mozilla it's probably accurate. Downloading Seamonkey now.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
15. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why most of the sites that use a lot of javascript are essentially unusable without noscript.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
16. Re:Sad but expected by donaldm · 2012-10-11 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  The latest update of F17 has firefox 16.0.1. (firefox-15.0.1-1.fc17_16.0-1.fc17.x86_64.drpm) With delta rpms it is only 8.7 MB, however I also noted a new Chrome update which like all Chrome updates has no deltas so I have to download another 43 MB which is a little annoying especially when my last update was only a few days ago.
  
  google-chrome-stable-22.0.1229.92-159988.x86_64.rpm (43 MB) - 8th Oct 2012
  google-chrome-stable-22.0.1229.94-161065.x86_64.rpm (43MB) - Today
  
  To be fair I also got two kernel releases in the same time frame but I am talking about Fedora 17 here which for me is not an issue.
  
  Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.
  "Suck" in what way? There are quite a few web browsers available now and because I only run Linux (Fedora 17) the only one I can't run is Microsoft IE although with a virtual machine I can even do this but even then I still prefer Chrome or Firefox. As far as versioning I have always preferred a major release number (ie "1" or for the purists "0" upwards) followed by a functional or minor release number and possibly followed by a cosmetic or bug fix number. As for "dashes" I suppose that is ok as well although I don't write enough code to justify them.
  
  As for Mozilla having a major number for each update (they do actually use these but normally they are ".0.0") I personally find this silly but if that is how Mozilla wants to do it then fine by me.
  
  --
  There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
17. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-11 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I overstated, I dont expect a program that doesnt suck. Just one that sucks less. That's all I ask for, a little slack.
  They suck when they get in your way with awkward interfaces or change for the sake of change. They suck when they encourage a generation of truly awful web designers and even infect HTML itself with suckage. They suck when they hand control of your machine out to any random web page they happen to get directed to. They suck when they insult your intelligence with idiotic schemes premised on the notion that you are an idiot - someone for instance that thinks an inflated version number means a better browser, or that you are someone that is 'confused' by having options.
  The list of when they suck could go on for some length, obviously, without ever being exhaustive. Bit like I said, I expect every piece of software to suck a bit. I just try to keep the direction of travel in the right direction - always moving towards suck less, not suck more.
  I use every major browser and experiment with minor ones. I have to use windows for work so that is the majority of what I see unfortunately. Firefox is devolving into suck before my eyes. IE is required for maybe half the things I do at work. It works fine, sort of. It basically lets anything in. I never use it to open a random link, or even do research, just open intranet stuff with it. And I still wind up having to reset it periodically because it craps all over itself. But it works well enough for what I have to use it for.
  I used to do everything else in Firefox, now I am playing with Chrome and Opera. Opera was really great back about 3.6. Then it got bloated. It's still bloated, but it may be a workable substitute for Firefox. The licensing situation is very poor however.
  Of course the same is true of Chrome, and Chrome is just nasty too. Chrome is SkankaGoogle getting way too clingy. It doesnt get used much, but I have been noticing lately gmail doesnt want to work until I use chrome. Might need to replace gmail too...
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
18. Re:Sad but expected by Jesus_666 · 2012-10-12 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it's not like Firefox isn't coding to the WHATWG specification. Or Opera. Or Microsoft. HTML5 as specified by WHATWG so far is the HTML5 everyone's currently dealing with.
  
  Of course there are still plenty of WebKit-specific things that pop up all over the web because the web development community seems to have a massive WebKit fetish. (I admit that WebKit is fast and has nice dev tools but I think it's kind of quirky and temperamental compared to Gecko.) Essentially WebKit is turning into IE6 because we're pushing it in that direction, which I find somewhat disturbing. It's like web designers want to suffer.
  
  --
  USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
19. Re:Sad but expected by gottabeme · 2012-10-12 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it should have higher priority, but come on, job #1?
  
  --
  "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
20. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-12 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but with the amount of time we are talking about, and so much work done on NEW UI stuff over that time, it's insane that major UI breakage has been ignored and left to fester the entire time. Fixing what is broken should be obviously and undeniably higher priority than adding new features. How many new features has firefox added in just the last ten years? Yet the paid developers cant be bothered to fix the fundamentals of the system, and actually suggest that the users should send them patches to shoot down instead of doing something about it?
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
21. Re:Sad but expected by gottabeme · 2012-10-12 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I generally agree with you. I suppose, to be fair, I should admit that one could say that I just want them to fix the bugs that are important to me. But some of the ones that are neglected do seem much more important than yet another minor UI change, or WebGL, or another fancy web site/logo redesign. Yeah, yeah, not everyone can do the Firefox coding, but money can be put toward anything.
  The problem, I think, is that browsers are now far too complex to be effectively maintained as a community project. Sure, you see little browser projects, like how KDE is trying to push Rekonq as their new default browser, but come on: look at how many people it takes just to make Firefox and Chrome secure, and they're fixing security bugs constantly. How could a few guys make a secure browser in their spare time, a browser that does all the modern JS/CSS/HTML5/plugin stuff? I don't think it can be done. The barrier to entry is too high. It's like, sure, some people can build kit planes, but you can't build a kit airliner--it takes a Boeing or Airbus to do that. So I think we're basically stuck with Firefox and Chrome for the foreseeable future--or Opera if you don't care about FOSS.
  I keep Chrome around just in case Firefox goes south for a while, but I have gotten so used to Pentadactyl that I hate having to browse the web without it. It saves so much effort, if for no other reason than its simple hotkeys (like T for a new tab, instead of Ctrl+T).
  
  --
  "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
22. Re:Sad but expected by Arker · 2012-10-12 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem, I think, is that browsers are now far too complex to be effectively maintained as a community project. Sure, you see little browser projects, like how KDE is trying to push Rekonq as their new default browser, but come on: look at how many people it takes just to make Firefox and Chrome secure, and they're fixing security bugs constantly. How could a few guys make a secure browser in their spare time, a browser that does all the modern JS/CSS/HTML5/plugin stuff? I don't think it can be done.
  
  I believe it can be done, but it can only be done by someone that wont flinch from breaking things in terms of support for existing page that work in existing broken browsers, and perhaps even refusing to implement some of the stuff that's more recently been crammed through standards as well. This really narrows the possibilities for it to actually happen.
  The idea of securing the browser by having a team of people constantly closing bugs is just a symptom of a long detour down a dead end path. To make the browser secure you have to design it in from the start and you have to firmly subjugate other design goals to that one.
  A browser that firmly subjugates the plug-in isnt going to have the plug-in manufacturers as happy with it, of course. Back when the design errors were being made people were getting rich on the dotcom bubble and it seemed ever so much more important to 'enable' people to run anything and everything in the browser (as if downloading an application and then running it was just an impossible chore) than to worry about possible consequences. I said at the time to anyone that would listen where this would lead and I was called an idiot for my trouble more than once, but look, hey, I was right all along.
  
  future--or Opera if you don't care about FOSS.
  Eh, Chrome or Opera seem about the same from a care about FOSS perspective. Neither is Free, but both are free and available on common varieties of linux at least. And Opera seems much more willing to accomodate my desire for a browser rather than a clingy adware delivery system.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:21 · Score: 0

... or wait till tomorrow for Firefox 17
1. Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'm waiting for Firefox 26 which comes next Friday. I hear it will have full HTML10 support.
Already? by jones_supa · 2012-10-11 01:22 · Score: 1

I know about the new speedy release scheme, but how is it possible that version 16 is released when 15 is only at 15.0.1?
1. Re:Already? by jonadab · 2012-10-11 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  > I know about the new speedy release scheme, but how is it
  > possible that version 16 is released when 15 is only at 15.0.1?
  
  Apparently you've *heard* of the new speedy release scheme but don't actually _know_ about it.
  
  Point releases are no longer planned in to the release schedule. After 15.0.1, the next planned, scheduled release would be 16.0, and after that 17.0 then 18.0. That's the whole point of the new speedy release scheme: every planned release, no matter how minor, gets a new major version number, so that Firefox can be more like Chrome.
  
  Thus, there would only be a 15.0.2 release in the event that a security flaw is discovered in 15.0.1 that needs to be fixed before 16.0 is ready.
  
  (The fact that Chrome is still actively gaining market share while Firefox has plateaued couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Chrome is much newer and therefore still finding its place, nor could it have anything whatsoever to do with the aggressive advertising that Google does for Chrome on several of their very popular services. No, surely it must be because Chrome has a weird and confusing UI design and is in version twenty-something already. Obviously if Firefox is to be successful it must copy the _least_ attractive features of Chrome to the greatest extent possible. Soon new versions of Firefox will start installing themselves in user-writable locations in each user account separately by default, just to make sure all network administrators hate it with a fiery passion.)
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
2. Re:Already? by UltraZelda64 · 2012-10-11 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Except... this new light-speed release cycle has already proven to create several duds, leading to an official release and then a near-immediate (or in this case, immediate) bugfix "point" release. So it's obviously not working too well. But don't tell Mozilla that, it might just make Asa cry. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I can't say it enough... Mozilla's rapid-release idea is a fucking joke.
  The reality is that this should something more like 4.5.12 or something... not version 16.
3. Re:Already? by lennier · 2012-10-11 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  Soon new versions of Firefox will start installing themselves in user-writable locations in each user account separately by default, just to make sure all network administrators hate it with a fiery passion.
  Actually that would make our lives easier. So they won't do that. I think if the Firefox devs really cared what us administrators thought they'd have provided centralised Group Policy configuration back when we asked for it - ten years or so ago - instead of making us edit custom .js files and manually ship them to the workstations. But still, they haven't completely forgotten us; they keep the old Netscape Communicator era "profile" system with randomised path name, which nobody ever uses and which breaks as soon as you try to log into more than one workstation at once. Just to keep the old memories alive. All those arguments... all the flames... the futility, the anger, the betrayal.... so beautiful.
  Now we feel nothing anymore, not even a vague sense of schadenfreude. Another gaping launch-day security hole? Yawn. Join the queue behind Adobe, Adobe, Adobe, Oracle and Microsoft.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Still? by Lillebo · 2012-10-11 01:23 · Score: -1, Flamebait

2012.
People still use Firefox.
1. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  No kidding!
  Apparently there are still enough people out there who either:
  - Haven't consumed enough of the Apple/Safari Kool-Aid and
  - Still value their 'privacy' enough to resist being sucked into the Google Void,
  to justify the choice. If you wait a generation or so, though, those folks will die off and be replaced. Then you won't even have to hack facebook to steal 500 million phone numbers--just do a Google Search!
2. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah like 35% of the market and declining. But whatever bro its cool you can still be snarky! And if you are having trouble with the math that is 1 in 3 people.
  http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
  The number thing is *silly* to get upset over. I personally like having better browsers every few months/weeks instead of every few *years*. The memory thing was something to get upset over. They are almost starting to get it under control. But it may be too late at this point. Or we could go back to what they had before and we would still be waiting on v5 after the 17th delay because some other feature was not 'just right'. Some of the stuff in v4 was done for 2 years and just sitting there not getting used. Then suddenly it was getting used bugs being found but being written 2 years earlier... Yeah the old way was so much better!
  I am looking forward to 17/18. It has some cool stuff in it. Such as moving proxy into its own thread. The garbage collection goes in at 16. Plus a wide variety of css3 stuff. Oh and per tab memory reporting so you can figure out which website is to blame for snorking up 200 meg... That sort of thing.
3. Re:Still? by Desler · 2012-10-11 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah because W3Schools is totally a realistic sampling of the general population. On the other hand Wikimedia's stats peg it as under 20%.
4. Re:Still? by iggymanz · 2012-10-11 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  you do know that's just a graph of the browser types that visit wikipedia?
5. Re:Still? by Luckyo · 2012-10-11 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Add-on locked. I stayed on 3.6 though, chrome's interface is intolerable for me. So I just run it sandboxed now.
6. Re:Still? by jonadab · 2012-10-11 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
  
  Bear in mind, those are stats from a site visited almost exclusively by web content developers, most of whom are fairly active on the computer, use it a lot, and are less averse to upgrades than average. It's not an entirely representative sample of the internet at large. Out-of-the-box defaults, such as what comes on a computer when you buy it at the store, would naturally be expected to be significantly underrepresented in such a sample. Newer browsers would tend to be somewhat overrepresented.
  
  I estimate Firefox usage at something more like 20% and holding fairly steady with minor fluctuations month by month. (New versions of other things come out, and people switch over, then new versions of Firefox come out, and people switch back...) IE is around 45% and has been declining steadily since the turn of the century. Chrome, which has been increasing since its introduction, has recently or will soon surpass Firefox if its trend continues, but the most marked increase I've seen in recent quarters is in mobile devices, most of which either use or convincingly spoof Mobile Safari.
  
  Google presumably has more precise stats, broken down by geographic region, although their numbers may be somewhat skewed toward Chrome, much as Microsoft's are skewed toward IE. Slashdot's stats would be skewed in a manner similar to that of W3Schools, with perhaps an additional skew toward browsers that run on *nix systems and/or from the command line. Know your audience.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
7. Re:Still? by Lennie · 2012-10-11 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  And as you know (and can already see on that page) the graphs vary widely between these "providers".
  The graph at the top shows visitors to Wikipedia yes.
  The graphs from statcounter count pageviews, the graphs from netmarketshare count by visitors (maybe even IP-address).
  Which means statcounter is skewed for heavy Internet users (users which do many page views will skew the results in their 'favor'). Heavy users of the web will probably use a newer browser.
  But the netmarketshare numbers are also delibertly by them changed to fit the number of Internet users per country (so the large share of for example IE-users in China skew the results a lot in that direction).
  Good luck finding good numbers.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
8. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Have you looked at Firefox Extended Support Release? I don't have any add-ons that haven't moved to support FF ESR 10.x.
9. Re:Still? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-11 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  Smart move. There are +40 security vulnerabilties in FF 3.6. Infact, I would use another browser at this point if you do anything important like pay bills or do banking omn your computer. Hackers target it and website operators will treat it like IE 8 and give it downgraded content and leave the HTML 5 stuff for modern browsers.
  FF 3.6 is turning into the next IE 6 fast.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
10. Re:Still? by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-10-11 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  For what it's worth, according to Netmarketshare, http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustomb=0, Chrome on the desktop has not been gaining ground since early 2012. It's hovering at around 19%. IE is holding steady as well at around 53-54%, with Firefox staying at about 20%. Judging by the trend lines, I'd say that for the desktop markets these shares are entrenched. I don't expect to see much change unless FF, IE, or Chrome does a major screw up to drive people off their platforms.
  Netmarketshare's report on mobile devices is very different. http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustomb=1 Opera mini, Blackberry, and Symbian have been falling with Safari Mobile and Android browsers picking up the slack. Interestingly enough, it doesn't look like the iPad2 back in April really affected the mobile browser shares at all.
11. Re:Still? by Luckyo · 2012-10-11 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  It of the same problems as any post-3.6 does. The only problem it removes is constant add-on compatibility headaches. The rest is still a turd.
12. Re:Still? by Luckyo · 2012-10-11 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to spend significant effort owning my browser, go ahead. I dump contents of sandbox it sits in on a regular basis.
  Not to mention I have sane banking and billing. Even if you get me keylogged, you're not getting into my account. Nevermind that I haven't had a security breach ever since I got form.A virus back in floppy days. Security is not only about holes, but about safe practices as well. And I play things like WoW and GW2, where people with all those nice shiny browsers get "hacked" left and right. And yet, me and my old "vulnerable" 3.6 just keep on truckin'.
13. Re:Still? by jonadab · 2012-10-11 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  > For what it's worth, according to Netmarketshare [stats]
  
  Those are fairly believable figures. They don't exactly match mine, but the deviations are not extreme and are possible to explain in a variety of more or less plausible ways. Their stats are probably based on a larger sample than mine.
  
  > Netmarketshare's report on mobile devices is very different.
  
  My mobile device UA stats are changing rather significantly from quarter to quarter, as entire product lines drop out of use and others debut on a fairly regular basis. The only really sweeping generalizations I can make are as follows:
  
  1. Mobile usage overall is growing rather rapidly. I started paying closer attention when it topped 5% of total usage on a site I maintain, just a few months ago. I am pretty sure it will top 10% by the end of the current calendar year. If you'd told me two years ago that that would happen, I would have been rather skeptical.
  
  2. Most mobile devices (that are used to access websites) appear to run either iOS or Android. There are numerous others, but they're minor players. The big boys are iOS and Android.
  
  3. Most mobile browsing appears to be WebKit-based. Mobile Safari seems to be either the most popular mobile browser or the most popular mobile UA string to spoof, maybe both. (Sometimes you can tell it's being spoofed. Amazon Silk, for example, spoofs Mobile Safari but also puts its own identifying tag in, so it's easy to split out. Of course, Silk is WebKit-based, so from a content development perspective the difference is not extremely important. I do like to make my stats as accurate as I can, though.)
  
  4. Furthermore, most mobile browsing now appears to be based on versions of WebKit recent enough that they can handle CSS media queries. Such mobile browsers are much easier for a web developer to support than the ones just a couple of years ago. From this I conclude that most cellphone users have discarded their previous-generation phones or relegated them pretty much exclusively to voice call usage.
  
  5. Currently, phones appear to outnumber tablets roughly two to one (just counting the ones that people are actually using to browse websites). However, this ratio has not been stable for very long. (It changed when the iPad was released and changed again when the major ebook reader vendors started putting web browsers on their readers and turning them into tablets. It could easily change again if some other market event shakes things up again. The tablet market is not mature and therefore not very predictable.)
  
  In practice, as a web developer, the conclusion I draw from this is that it is highly desirable for most websites to use media queries to reduce the number of columns as the screen width decreases so that it becomes possible to view the site in a single column if the user happens to be on a small screen, such as on a phone.
  
  The design I am currently working on for our site where I work can now handle horizontal resolutions as low as 170px without introducing any horizontal scrollbars. At large widths, such as on a high-resolution wide-screen desktop display, the layout has three columns with a nice amount of whitespace between them and some subtle decorations in a few places to make the space look less bare (e.g., the header at the top gets an extra textured gradient fading in on the left edge and a photo of our nicely photogenic building on the right, if there's room to do that without crowding things). Media queries rock. The default look, for browsers that don't support media queries, is designed to not screw anything up too badly down to 800px.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
14. Re:Still? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  So what does that make the folk that use Opera?
15. Re:Still? by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-11 18:32 · Score: 1
  
  Personal preference wise (security issues ignored) I would rather poke my eye out with a carrot than use FF 3.6 again.
  On my el cheapo laptop FF 3.6/4 was so sluggish, so slow, and bloated I temporary ran IE 9 instead!
  Try it again Lucko? It just got patched and I have to say it is vastly improved over 3.6. Add-ons have a new api like Chrome that do not break, ram is 1/3 what it was on low ram systems, it is fast again, and my old laptop runs it fine now.
  Yes the UI has changed. There is waterfox and there is a way to turn on the menus back on too. Sandboxie is annoying and I remember using that which was the last straw before going to IE 9 which was sand-boxed and in 2011 was ok standards wise.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
16. Re:Still? by Luckyo · 2012-10-11 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  I agree on slowness, it's a bit laggy on my cheap personal laptop as I use it with a lot of tabs open. But it's a small price to pay to not have to suffer from chrome's interface with all its usability-butchering small screen optimizations on my dual 24" monitor setup as well as never having to worry about key add-ons, such as mission critical (for me) finnish spellchecking break on update with no recourse but rollback.
  Essentially, unless someone mods entire 3.6 UI back, including a functional status bar and buttons, about the only upgrade I can see myself making is to another browser with same add-ons and interface that isn't optimized for small screens. And seeing how I'm add-on locked into firefox for foreseeable future, that's not likely either. Sandboxie really isn't all that terrible if you have a fast enough machine, and my desktop is a two year old gaming PC. It could probably run hundreds of tabs before it would start to slow down.
  In a way, modding FF UI back to 3.6 be something I should suggest to folks working on classic shell. They made IE look reasonably usable again after all, maybe they'll do the same for firefox? Wishful thinking but a man can dream.
ROFL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:27 · Score: 0

I assume you're joking, but if you aren't, then I feel compelled to inform you that firefox version numbers are now meaningless.
1. Re:ROFL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think he's joking. These people at Mozilla have screwed the pooch.
  There have been 10 full version number Firefox releases in just over a year 6 -> 16.
  The only possible explanation is that all of these new version releases really translate if you base them on 4.0
  4.6, 4.7, 4.8 last fall, and 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 this fall.
  I don't know what cult they're following at Mozilla now, but I don't like it and from the other postings here a lot of other people are also with me.
Thanks for publicising the vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:28 · Score: 0

Thanks for publicising the vulnerability, ya bastards
Gee I wonder how this will go by teslatug · 2012-10-11 01:32 · Score: 2

Let's see, they make it super easy to upgrade, but much harder (in comparison) to downgrade. Can you guess what the majority of users will do?

Of course the fast upgrade cycle has a downside, it's only a matter of time before Mozilla would let its users down with this newfangled upgrade methodology they've subscribed to.

If you're going to have a quick and seamless way to upgrade, you better have a quick and seamless way of downgrading too!
1. Re:Gee I wonder how this will go by Cyko_01 · 2012-10-11 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  It funny you say that, because the new rapid release cycle allows for twice as much bug finding/fixing time compared to the old way
2. Re:Gee I wonder how this will go by Cyko_01 · 2012-10-11 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and most people will wait the 2 days for the patch in 16.0.1
Pointless pull by GeekWithAKnife · 2012-10-11 01:34 · Score: 1

I don't get why they bothered, By the time anyone gets around to bothering with an exploit on a mass scale Firefox 17 would have been released. Besides, who really wants to know I visit "extra lunch money" on a daily basis?

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
1. Re:Pointless pull by bsmedberg · 2012-10-11 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Malware authors work a lot faster and more efficiently nowadays. Public security holes show up in the rootkits within hours or days and are exploited within a week.
In slightly related news 10hrs chrome patch by bobstreo · 2012-10-11 01:37 · Score: 4, Informative

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/2113239/in-under-10-hours-google-patches-chrome-to-plug-hole-found-at-its-pwnium-event
Time to upgrade from Fedora 14 .... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:47 · Score: 0

EOM
Then why use numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 01:53 · Score: 0

Why not use dates? Or even fancy marketing names? Using conventional release numbers (i.e. 16.0.1) implies some sort of logical structure to the release schedule, does it not? Well, if there is no logical structure to it, then certainly it doesn't make sense to use numbers.
1. Re:Then why use numbers by VFA · 2012-10-11 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  I think Firefox should only use irrational number for their version numbers. that would be logical :)
2. Re:Then why use numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  WHY DOES IT MATTER SO MUCH?
  Why does the version number have to indicate anything other than version x differs from y?
  Release 11OCT2010 came out. Guess what you're gonna do if you care: Read the release notes.
  4.38.1 came out. Guess what you're gonna do if you care: Read the release notes.
  129 came out. Guess what you're gonna do if you care: Read the release notes.
  Poochy Smoochy came out. Guess what you're gonna do if you care: Read the release notes.
  The only way the version number or name will accurately describe the release is if the string actually contains the release notes. Just get off it already. It really is a stupid thing to get choked up about. Why are you looking for so much meaning in a version number?
  If you want to sound interesting, bitch about FF not having some feature you've been wanting.
  The new version string that finally includes all the information people expect from it:
  
  Firefox.Notes.First.offered.to.release.channel.users.on.October.11,.2012).Check.out."What’s.New".and."Known.Issues".for.this.version.of.Firefox.below.As.always,.you’re.encouraged.to.tell.us.what.you.think,.or.file.a.bug.in.Bugzilla.If.interested,.please.see.the.complete.list.of.changes.in.this.release.What’s.New.FIXED.16.0.1:.Vulnerability.outlined.here.NEW.Firefox.on.Mac.OS.X.now.has.preliminary.VoiceOver.support.turned.on.by.default.NEW.Initial.web.app.support.(Windows/Mac/Linux).NEW.Acholi.and.Kazakh.localizations.added.CHANGED.Improvements.around.JavaScript.responsiveness.through.incremental.garbage.collection.DEVELOPER.New.Developer.Toolbar.with.buttons.for.quick.access.to.tools,.error.count.for.the.Web.Console,.and.a.new.command.line.for.quick.keyboard.access.DEVELOPER.CSS3.Animations,.Transitions,.Transforms.and.Gradients.unprefixed.in.Firefox.16.DEVELOPER.Recently.opened.files.list.in.Scratchpad.implemented.FIXED.16.0.1:.Vulnerability.outlined.here.FIXED.Debugger.breakpoints.do.not.catch.on.page.reload.783393).FIXED.No.longer.supporting.MD5.as.a.hash.algorithm.in.digital.signatures.650355).FIXED.Opus.support.by.default.772341).FIXED.Reverse.animation.direction.has.been.implemented.655920).FIXED.Per.tab.reporting.in.about:memory.(687724).FIXED.User.Agent.strings.for.pre-release.Firefox.versions.now.show.only.major.version.728831).Known.Issues.Unresolved.If.you.try.to.start.Firefox.using.a.locked.profile,.it.will.crash.see.573369).Unresolved.For.some.users,.scrolling.in.the.main.GMail.window.will.be.slower.than.usual.see.579260).Unresolved.Windows:.The.use.of.Microsoft's.System.Restore.functionality.shortly.after.updating.Firefox.may.prevent.future.updates.(see.730285).Unresolved.Pointer.lock.doesn't.work.in.web.apps.see.769150).Unresolved.on.v16.Resolved.in.v17
  Note that any line breaks are unintentional side effects of limitations in slashdot or your browser.
3. Re:Then why use numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Poochy Smoochy came out. Guess what you're gonna do if you care: Read the release notes.
  Mark Shuttleworth? Is that you?
Firefox 10 ESR(Extended Support Release) by sardinha · 2012-10-11 02:04 · Score: 1

Certainly there are pros and cons, and it’s indicated to organizations, but why not using Firefox 10 ESR(Extended Support Release) and escape pressure of the browser market? http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html
1. Re: Firefox 10 ESR(Extended Support Release) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  I agree that FF ESR is the way to go.
  However, ESR releases come out nearly as often as the regular releases. The good news is there are no new features, just fixes. Sometimes this means there are less security fixes in a match ESR release vs. the regular release.
  Interestingly enough, while FF 16 was released with ESR 10.0.8, and FF 16 was pulled, ESR 10.0.8 is still available.
  It'd be nice to know if both versions are affected. No public disclosure on the Security Advisories page.
2. Re: Firefox 10 ESR(Extended Support Release) by RatherBeAnonymous · 2012-10-11 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I use FF 10 ESR personally and I install it on the work computers. In general I'm happy with it and my users are happy with the web browser interface not changing every month and a half, but I have run across one annoying issue. Many web developers have a policy of only supporting browsers 2 or 3 versions older than what is current. Developers in the know should certainly make an exception for Firefox ESR, but I have had a few web sites admonish me for running an outdated browser.
PITA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 02:32 · Score: 0

I just upgraded to 16 yesterday too...
It's more than just decimal points by Kergan · 2012-10-11 02:55 · Score: 1

Why is it 'mad'? I don't understand why people have such issues with this. Its just a damn number. If it really irks you so much just add a decimal point to the start of it in your head and move on.
It's not just a damn number. By convention in typical software versioning, version X.Y.Z means:
- X: major version number
- Y: minor version number
- Z: bug fix version number
Taking a house analogy:
- The major version number is akin to the building itself; it's the overall architecture. You bump this when you basically tear part or all of the whole thing down and rebuild it on more solid foundations.
- The minor version number is akin to the interior floor plan, plumbing, cabling, etc.; it's the API. You bump this when you introduce new features, or change or deprecate existing ones.
- The bug fix version is akin to everyday maintenance and the interior design; it should have zero impact on whatever is interfaced with or relying upon your software. You bump this when you find something defective and make it work the way it should.
You could argue that consumers don't care, and that power users will be well aware of what's really in a new version, and thus that not conforming to the above convention is no big deal. That argument completely falls apart, however, when you consider the system admin or the advanced user who ends up asking himself whether he should upgrade a non-conforming piece of software on a computer or not. If the latter two need to waste time on a BS versioning scheme, they'll replace the offending piece of software as soon as they get the chance for peace of mind.
1. Re:It's more than just decimal points by BenJury · 2012-10-11 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That argument completely falls apart, however, when you consider the system admin or the advanced user who ends up asking himself whether he should upgrade a non-conforming piece of software on a computer or not.
  
  If you're making this decision based on the version number alone, you're doing it wrong.
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
2. Re:It's more than just decimal points by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  When you have several options of more or less equal merit, the version numbering scheme is a perfectly valid deciding factor.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:It's more than just decimal points by BenJury · 2012-10-11 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  With logic like that, I somehow suspect you work in a paper factory in Slough.
  
  --
  Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
4. Re:It's more than just decimal points by X0563511 · 2012-10-11 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why? If the decision is closely matched enough to be arbitrary, why are arbitrary deciding factors not appropriate?
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Why not use svn commit as version number? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 03:46 · Score: 0

I'd much rather run Firefox 16239.0.1!
Wasn't on the beta channel first by Animats · 2012-10-11 04:45 · Score: 2

I was subscribed to the Firefox beta channel, since I develop add-ons for Firefox. When Firefox 16 came out on the release channel, the beta channel was still delivering Firefox 15.0. Apparently somebody skipped the beta test.
Automatic updates by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 05:34 · Score: 0

How's that working out for you?
I'll stay on the ESR release and update when *I* decide to do so. Thanks.
Re: We are downgrading to IE already by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-11 05:49 · Score: 1

Too bad my office is downgrading back to IE.
It is too little too late and releases like this should scare any organization who uses a non IE browser. Asa really did ruin a beautiful thing as many were just warming up to FF 3.6. But this release cycle? Hell no, and hte intranet developers are now de-certifying it for their apps. Only IE is supported now. Maybe in 2019 with IE 8 is EOL we will move to HTML 5.
What a shame.

--
http://saveie6.com/
STOP! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 06:03 · Score: 0

Can we all SHUT THE FUCK UP with the idiotic complaining about the version number scheme. It's stupid and you sound like an asshole! It's a FUCKING NUMBER. WHO THE FUCK CARES? Does every Fucking article about a software release have to have this moronic bitching! Dumb-asses!
1.4GB of RAM by EmagGeek · 2012-10-11 06:43 · Score: 1

FF 15.0.1 is taking up 1.4GB of memory on my machine right now.
Already fixed by Emetophobe · 2012-10-11 06:58 · Score: 5, Informative

16.0.1 was already released. Release notes here.
Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-11 07:12 · Score: 0

It's been fixed - 16.0.1 has been released.
Moot now? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:05 · Score: 0

wait a minute -- my copy of FF 16 aggressively updated itself this morning and restarted as V16.0.1. Is the problem solved?
Time to update the main story? by rmiesen · 2012-10-12 14:05 · Score: 1

Firefox has apparently patched this vulnerability in version 16.0.1. In the interest of not causing Firefox users to needlessly panic and downgrade without good reason, maybe the poster should update the store to include a note about how this vulnerability has been patched.
I like Firefox by billd10 · 2012-10-18 10:03 · Score: 0

At least they are fixing the problem and will probably do so more promptly than most. I have had better luck with Firefox than with any other browser. However, the option to keep the old version has disappeared. Mine did not automatically upgrade to 16, so I still am using the last good version. Was 16 a beta version?