Slashdot Mirror


Ninth Anniversary of Firefox 1.0 Release

Nine years ago today, Firefox 1.0 was released. Mozilla writes "Mozilla created Firefox to be an amazingly fun, safe, and fast Web browser that embodies the values of our mission to promote openness, innovation and opportunity online. In the nine years since we first launched Firefox, we have moved and shaped the Web into the most valuable public resource of our time." The first release of the little project to write a lighter alternative to Seamonkey is a bit over a year older.

15 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. don't care. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    phoenix was where it was at.

    it all started going downhill after politics and marketing departments of mozilla got involved.

    the 1.0 release was pretty much meaningless milestone in the big picture for the project. imho phoenix 0.2 should be the release to celebrate if any.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:don't care. by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Phoenix 0.2 was amazing for its day, but what we should really be celebrating is how the web was freed from the curse of "this site works in IE only". And that happened after Phoenix became Firefox.

    2. Re:don't care. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose. We would still have four major browsers available, all largely "standards compliant", along with a number of less popular browsers. Firefox changed the landscape, dramatically.

      I can't even remember which milestone I started on now, but it seemed to take FOREVER for 1.0 to come out. I guess it's close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now. To lazy to look up the dates for all the point.whatever releases.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:don't care. by linebackn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose.

      This.
      People may not realize it, but we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser. If Mozilla and Firefox had not gained popularity, it is quite probable that IE would have dominated enough market share to push out all other browsers. And nobody would bother creating sites that worked in anything else. Furthermore this would have virtually killed any OSes that Microsoft didn't feel like supporting with IE.

      As is is now, we have several open source browsers that are ported to many different OSes, and no dignified web site would even think of only supporting one browser.

  2. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry to say, but Firefox is kind of irrelevant these days.

    Chrome is developed by a company whose sole purpose of existence is to spy on people in order to sell more advertising - a lot of it via their browser.

    Mozilla is just out to make a browser, email client and other useful tools.

    Also, any perceived superiority shall be removed in a release or so - the browser market is just too competitive.

  3. wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

  4. Re:Nine, eh? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, at least we can celebrate the first years. Before the new versioning system and adding everything but your mom's dong instead of letting addons do the work.

    It's worse than that. With every new version, useful features are changed or removed and people are being forced to use more and more extensions to regain functionality that has been ripped out. Which leads to the current ridiculous situation:

    -- You have to depend on some random person to create the extensions you need
    -- You have to hope that the random person continues to update the extension so that it works with future versions of Firefox
    -- Or you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to write extensions yourself just so you can restore functionality that never should have been removed in the first place
    -- Installing too many extensions is well known to cause performance and/or stability problems with Firefox.

  5. Re: Chrome Is Better by jemmyw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No. I used Chrome for a few years there but I got unhappy that it was the only closed source application I was using on a daily basis. So I moved back to Firefox and have found it a good experience. The only gripe I have after 9 months is that the dev tools feel slugish.

    I'm even using Firefox on Android and find that better than Chrome.

  6. Re:Nine, eh? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Installing too many extensions is well known to cause performance and/or stability problems with Firefox.

    Having too many extensions does not cause performance/stability problems. Individual, poorly written extensions do, when they leak memory.

    Every time Firefox comes up as a topic on /., people say they want it simpler and smaller, and follow the newest trends young browser projects bring. It's ridiculous to expect it to not change the UI at the same time.

    -- You have to hope that the random person continues to update the extension so that it works with future versions of Firefox

    Firefox extensions don't need to be updated by the developer for future versions.

    -- You have to depend on some random person to create the extensions you need

    If that is true, then there are not enough people that have your problem, and are happy with the change Firefox devs introduced.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  7. It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a look at these numerous different measures of browser usage shares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_share#Historical_usage_share

    The most obvious trend concerning Firefox is the steady downward slide in its usage share. It has gone from over 30% of the market back in 2010 to down near 15% these days.

    Firefox 4.0 was released in March of 2011, although it was obvious before then that bad decisions were being made, and would continue to be made. This is when people in the know moved on to other browsers, followed by stragglers.

    The decline is very much due to how they've treated their users like absolute rubbish. They've focused on stupid UI changes, adding useless features and functionality that nobody wants, and removing very critical functionality that many users depend on, all while ignoring the pleas of the community to fix some very major issues like Firefox's slow performance and unbelievable memory usage.

    People aren't dumb. They know when they're getting shit upon, and they'll deal with it. That's why they've mainly moved to Chrome. It may have a shitty UI, but at least it's fast, at least it doesn't use far too much memory, and at least Google manages to not piss off most users with each release.

    When a product loses 50% of its usage share over just a few years, it'll most likely become a dead product within a few more. I hate to say it, but Firefox is on its way out. The numbers show it, and there's nothing being done to reverse this trend.

    1. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Ark42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The decline is solely from Chrome becoming mainstream and Google advertising it on their site, where lots of mom and pop Firefox users probably "accidentally" switch to Chrome because of some warning or advertisement from Google.

      The reality is both Chrome and Firefox are great browsers, and only a tiny fraction of people are upset with the changes from version to version. Generally, most of us should just be happy that people are NOT using IE6 anymore.

      Although personally, Chrome has not kept up with important CSS3 features nearly as well as Firefox, and now IE10 and IE11 have passed Chrome in my book. I mean, something as BASIC as linear gradients you'd expect to work in all modern browsers, but only Firefox and IE10+ can get it right. See bug 41756 - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41756#c71

    2. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I must point out that Chrome doesn't beat Firefox in memory usage. I just swapped from a Linux Mint Debian installation, in which I used Firefox primarily, to a Sabayon Linux installation, in which I use Chrome primarily. Similar configurations, similar extensions, similar page load - very similar memory usage. I suppose that anyone could do that same test for themselves, and different people would get different results. Someone who loads a butt-ton load of Java apps in their browser may find that brand Z works better, while someone who gloms onto every Flash app will find that brand Y works best, while the other dude who runs a stripped down version with no extensions enabled finds that brand X is bestest and fastest.

      For MY purposes, it actually seems that Firefox may have a very slight edge on Chrome for memory usage, but I'd have to do some double checking before I committed myself to that statement.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd say waaaaaay beyond a slight edge thanks to the memshrink project.
      https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/

      Old measurements. Situation keeps improving. Latest 2 or 3 firefox versions use smart loading/unloading of large images on image heavy web pages, for example.
      http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/figure3_browserfootprint.jpg

      Personally, on my chromebook, Chrome used 615MiB w/ 2 tabs open (crosh and a blank tab) while Firefox in Crouton used 385MiB with 18 tabs open, and that was after I had cycled through all the tabs to make sure they hadn't been unloaded.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    4. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is precisely the kind of whining that shows that we don't deserve a product like Firefox. A feature I don't want gets added in? Surely nobody wanted it! They removed a feature that I use? Surely it's because they're out to get me!

      You people whine like there's no tomorrow. In the meantime Internet Explorer changes it's UI in every release and keeps adding features "nobody wants" but their share keeps climbing. In the meantime Chrome makes boneheaded mistakes and invents tons of stuff that only a few businesses care about, and they're the saviors of the Internet.

      Really, Firefox fans need to chill the fuck out and (for lack of a better phrase) check their damn entitlement. You're not the only people in the world, and Firefox isn't dying because they're ignoring you. They're dying because nobody wants to use a browser that even the fans hate. They're dying because they can't compete against three companies with gobs of money. Even Opera couldn't compete, and they weren't a non-profit organization.

      It's clear as clear can be that Mozilla cares about its users. It's replaced half their codebase to appease user's addictions to Javascript and fancy special effects that require hardware acceleration. It woke up to their addon RAM problems and in 2 years have become the lowest RAM user of the major browsers.

      But do its fans care? No! Because they also removed a fucking checkbox from the UI, because it was causing other people problems. No! Because they couldn't keep moving Firefox forward without dropping some of their lesser-used UI elements and hoping the community will pick up the slack.

      Understanding is a precious commodity, and Firefox's own vocal fans are shooting themselves in the foot by pretending that Mozilla has to cater to their whims and their whims only. They cry about Firefox losing marketshare, then cry more when Mozilla works to solve that problem, because suddenly the tiny crowd of people they were catering to (which couldn't sustain them) isn't the only game in town.

      In short, you guys suck. I'm glad I'm not using Firefox anymore. I get to hear all sorts of praise for my browser of choice even when it screws up, because its fans understand that shit happens, and don't obsess over the problems. They realize that much more "good" has happened. You guys can't do that. You don't deserve Firefox anymore.

  8. Re:Chrome Is Better by InTheSwiss · · Score: 4, Informative

    The difference is Google pay Mozilla to be number one in the search box and, I believe, when people use the search box whereas Chrome begs you to login with your Google account so it can link every god damn thing you do in your browser with your account. Google didn't make Chrome for any other reason than it gets them more and more data. Same reason they made Android and Google+ and Gmail.