Firefox Adopts a 6-8 Week Variable Release Schedule (mozilla.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox Adopts a 6-8 Week Variable Release Schedule (mozilla.org)

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 7, 2016 @04:32AM from the as-reports-warrant dept.

AmiMoJo writes: Four years ago Mozilla moved to a fixed-schedule release model, otherwise known as the Train Model, in which we released Firefox every six weeks to get features and updates to users faster. Now Mozilla is moving to a variable 6-8 week cycle, with the same number of releases per year but some flexibility to 'respond to emerging user and market needs' and allow time for holidays. The new release schedule looks like this:

2016-01-26 – Firefox 44
2016-03-08 – Firefox 45, ESR 45 (6 weeks cycle)
2016-04-19 – Firefox 46 (6 weeks cycle)
2016-06-07 – Firefox 47 (7 weeks cycle)
2016-08-02 – Firefox 48 (8 weeks cycle)
2016-09-13 – Firefox 49 (6 weeks cycle)
2016-11-08 – Firefox 50 (8 weeks cycle)
2016-12-13 – Firefox 50.0.1 (5 week cycle, release for critical fixes as needed)
2017-01-24 – Firefox 51 (6 weeks from prior release)

147 of 249 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Holy Cow by sunderland56 · 2016-02-07 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Once again, I'm glad I don't work for Mozilla. Is their plan subtitled "How to create burnout in your workforce"?
Seriously: Great company; but I hope the punishing schedule doesn't cause their workforce to abandon ship.
1. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How can you possibly know if that is a tough schedule or not, without knowing what they are going to put into each release?
  Release cadence is like a CPU clock speed.....it tells you nothing unless you know how much work is done during each cycle.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Holy Cow by sunderland56 · 2016-02-07 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  QA still needs to test the entire product every single release, no matter what was added or changed.
  And just because you *can* slip an unfinished feature to the next release, doesn't mean your bosses will be happy about it.
3. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This upgrade treadmill is getting ridiculous. Can't anybody build anything that will last more than a few weeks? Am I that old to believe long tern stability is a good thing?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like you've been subjected to a lot of miserable software managers over the years.......
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 05:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yeap. Let it be a lesson to any software development team: every time you write a line of code, or add a feature, or remove a feature, ask yourself: "Does this feature clearly make the product better?"
  
  If you answer no to that question too often (or if an unbiased observer would answer no), then you'll just be pushing things around haphazardly, like Google (and more likely you'll be making things worse).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 05:50 · Score: 2
  
  Well, the whole architecture, including (especially?) the hardware, is more fragile than a house of cards. A browser capable of bringing down the whole machine, or even an entire network? I mean, please! How does anybody find this acceptable? We are doing technology the same way we do politics.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
7. Re:Holy Cow by sunderland56 · 2016-02-07 06:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  "Does this feature clearly make the product better?"
  
  You need to ask "better for whom".... better for the end user, or better for advertisers?
8. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Better for your customers, of course. They're the ones who pay the bills.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
9. Re:Holy Cow by Barefoot+Monkey · 2016-02-07 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like they start a new version and then sprint to finish the entire thing and do QA and bugfixes all in 6 weeks. That would be ridiculous. If you look at their release history you see that after starting development on a new version it's 4-5 months before it's ready for release, which is quite a realistic timeframe.
10. Re:Holy Cow by 0100010001010011 · 2016-02-07 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Am I that old to believe long tern stability is a good thing?
  I just moved to FreeBSD for everything in my house. I'm too old for dicking around with 'bleeding edge'. When I was 17 'bleeding edge' was the latest Alpha or Beta release I could find of OS X. Anymore it seems like Windows is just the latest Alpha or Beta.
  With FreeBSD it may be old or 'out of date' with the latest and greatest but it works.
11. Re:Holy Cow by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-02-07 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  QA still needs to test the entire product every single release, no matter what was added or changed.
  Ha ha, only in theory.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
12. Re:Holy Cow by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-07 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you get the memo? Mozilla is uncool now, so anything you can think of to bash them with, go right ahead, don't worry about facts.
  You needed a memo???
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
13. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In Mozilla's (and Google's) case that would definitely be the advertisers, they are the ones paying the bills. These 'upgrades' seem to be for their exclusive benefit. Truly necessary upgrades also go into Seamonkey, and that hasn't happened since November 8th. I have to assume that Firefox 'upgrades' are purely cosmetic and/or economic.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
14. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  In Mozilla's (and Google's) case that would definitely be the advertisers, they are the ones paying the bills. These 'upgrades' seem to be for their exclusive benefit.
  
  TBH I don't even know what differences there are between Mozilla/Chrome/Safari compared to a year ago. The UI has moved around a bit, but mostly they seem the same (some people have complained about feature removal, but it hasn't affected me).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
15. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you want real UI stability, Seamonkey is it, hasn't changed in over 18 years. There's no need, it's perfect. Safari and Firefox and even Internet Explorer went out of their way to mimic chrome as soon as it came out.
  I believe most of the 'upgrades' going into Firefox are beneath the skin, more like little bits of spyware and banners being added.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
16. Re:Holy Cow by mdelcorso · 2016-02-07 08:55 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Yes you are that old. Constant and continuous improvement is what drives innovation. Not a three year release cycle.
17. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 09:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, the key word now is "improvement", isn't it? That seems to be a matter of perception. I would love to know where the "improvements" are in a program that is no faster than, has grown just as fat as, and still has less than a quarter of the user features of its ancestor. Most of the processing is used to hide the garbage.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
18. Re:Holy Cow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  > Constant and continuous improvement is what drives constant regression failures, security failures, and bloatware beloved of middle managers who assess their work by line count and code churn by their minions.
  Fixed That For You.
19. Re:Holy Cow by UnknownSoldier · 2016-02-07 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  /sarcasm Don't you know? Releasing more often magically fixes all the (old) bugs! :-)
20. Re:Holy Cow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  It is what it's always been - a slogan for the FSF shovelware crowd to not test or document their work.
21. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 15:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have seen the change logs, and in my opinion they reflect no improvement over the decades old all inclusive program that preceded it. And for those who remember, when it first came out Firefox was supposed to be lean and fast and *stripped of cruft*. It's not any of those things now. I don't know of any single browser right now that is not a 30+ megabyte download, and they all run about the same speed. I see no disadvantage of sticking with something a bit more familiar that I can run for years without having to think about "upgrades". And when I do upgrade, at least it still has the same familiar face from last century, hasn't aged a bit.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
22. Re:Holy Cow by gl4ss · 2016-02-07 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  well..
  I suppose some boss has bonus riding on how many releases gets out.
  but not riding on what features if any get included in them.
  this looks like a plan to make releases, not to make development.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
23. Re:Holy Cow by exomondo · 2016-02-07 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  So is your beef with the accelerated release schedule or just that you don't like Firefox and prefer something else?
  
  I see no disadvantage of sticking with something a bit more familiar that I can run for years without having to think about "upgrades".
  So why not just do that then? You're free to do that and let others do what they want.
24. Re:Holy Cow by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  So why not just do that then?
  I do, but as I become a tiny minority, long term stability in the programs I use will cease to exist for lack of demand. Eh, whatever, the throwaway society is dominating all facets. Indeed, you are more than welcome to it.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
25. Re:Holy Cow by Malc · 2016-02-07 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  In fairness they have an Extended Support Release that lasts a year. This is better than Chrome if that's what you want.
26. Re:Holy Cow by ConceptJunkie · 2016-02-08 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  You need to ask "better for whom".... better for the end user, or better for advertisers?
  Better for your customers, of course. They're the ones who pay the bills.
  So you're saying advertisers, then... because they _are_ the customers for most software these days.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
27. Re:Holy Cow by Merk42 · 2016-02-08 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you want to go with the most basic features of a browser. Rending HTML and CSS, no browser currently in existence supports all of them 100%. Therefore, Firefox (and any other browser) has a way to go
28. Re:Holy Cow by R.Mo_Robert · 2016-02-08 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  [...] Can't anybody build anything that will last more than a few weeks? Am I that old to believe long tern stability is a good thing?
  Good thing Mozilla does just that, eh? They pick one of about every seven major-version Firefox release to make an ESR (extended support release) version, and they have been doing this since 2012. The ESR release is supported for one full year, plus another couple months or so (specifically, the time it takes to release the next major version of Firefox after that on which the last point release of the ESR version is based--they add critical fixes from major versions to ESR versions during the year of support but avoid major feature or UI changes).
  This is intended for organizations that deploy Firefox and need some stability (e.g., to test something before deployment and ensure support longer than 6-8 weeks), but you can use it at home, too, if you want.
  
  --
  R.Mo
29. Re:Holy Cow by exomondo · 2016-02-08 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't use Firefox, I prefer Chrome and the fact that it gets lots of updates is good because it adds support for new web features and fixes bugs and security issues.
  
  Eh, whatever, the throwaway society is dominating all facets.
  Nothing is being thrown away, in fact thanks to open source everything that was out there still is there and anybody can use and maintain it. I'm not sure exactly what you're upset about here.
30. Re:Holy Cow by exomondo · 2016-02-08 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  You young whipersnappers think because there's a new version out it's legitimate and better. He's telling you it's a regression.
  Here is the changelog for the latest version, where is the regression?
31. Re:Holy Cow by MoarSauce123 · 2016-02-09 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  That all depends on the content for the iterations. I'm more worried about the boneheaded management moves that during the past years put Mozilla and Firefox way behind. They need to go back to building something that people actually want to use. Maybe a bit harsh, but they should throw away everything they did after FF 4.0 came out and start over after firing the egocentric dev leads. What bugs me most is that they solely feed the egos of their developers and at the same time whine because people stop giving them funding. I wonder how long it will take Mozilla to connect the dots.
32. Re:Holy Cow by MoarSauce123 · 2016-02-09 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla has QA? So how come they still have the massive memory leaks and totally dysfunctional UI in place? Either the QA team consists only of a coat hanger or of a bunch of frustrated QA analysts who report all the flaws that the developers reject to fix because the way it works is how the devs like it and dare nobody say it is not right.
33. Re:Holy Cow by MoarSauce123 · 2016-02-09 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  QA is always an afterthought in most organizations...if it is a though at all. Look around and you will see plenty of mediocre apps. Yet users are apparently fine with that and rather see more half baked features crammed into apps than having the existing features work right.
34. Re:Holy Cow by phantomfive · 2016-02-09 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yet users are apparently fine with that
  
  No they aren't it drives them crazy
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
35. Re:Holy Cow by exomondo · 2016-02-09 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  What's that got to do with anything I wrote? I don't user Firefox so I'm not really across its features but certainly looking at the exhaustive list of what was added to the latest release here I would say most of them fit those two categories.
Wake up, Mozilla morons by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

You keep on doing what YOU want, while ignoring what the USERS want.
Year after year, your popularity goes downhill. Do you even stop to think about that?
Somehow you've been frittering away over $500,000 every DAY for the last several years, and for what?
Your deliberate self-destruction is annoying and pathetic.
1. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by jfdavis668 · 2016-02-07 05:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  What do the users want that they aren't supplying? I haven't noticed a problem.
2. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  What do the users want that they aren't supplying?
  Long term stability would be nice. A system that needs constant upgrading and maintenance is not a very good system. Imagine if you have to go out and get a new fridge or replace the drywall and siding on your house every month.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 06:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Users want a consistent interface, which is to not be arbitrarily mucked with, or copy annoying features of That Other Browser, which do not serve the User. They want their browser not to routinely dumb down features to better accommodate the lowest common denominator.
  They want a lightweight, extensible, secure browser that respects their right to privacy, and enhances their privacy on the Internet. So far, they've done just about everything in their power to make sure Firefox does not supply these features; for example: Pocket. No reason for it to be anything other than another extension. Promising to do away with the extension framework down the road. Doing absolutely nothing about browser fingerprinting, when they're in the ideal position to fight it. Not allowing power users to whitelist sites that don't abuse Javascript. Etc. Etc.
  They want the extensions that attracted them to Firefox in the first place to continue to work, which is again something they've promised to do away with in some future release.
  In other words, if you had a goose which laid golden eggs, you'd probably want to take care of it and stuff, right? These guys do anything in their power to neglect and annoy that goose. The goose is going neurotic and plucking its own feathers and banging its head against the wall, and they think it's great.
4. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Okian+Warrior · 2016-02-07 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  What do the users want that they aren't supplying? I haven't noticed a problem.
  Don't be silly!
  The next release fixes the tagalog rendering issue. Everyone needs to upgrade!
5. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by drinkypoo · 2016-02-07 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What do the users want that they aren't supplying? I haven't noticed a problem.
  Performance and reliability. Graphics updates are slow and after I resume from suspend I have to restart the browser or it chokes every few seconds. Sadly, I went to Pale Moon and it has the same problem.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by jfdavis668 · 2016-02-07 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  From the responses, I see everyone wants different things. We can't have everything and still be a lightweight browser. That's the problem with all browsers. They are trying to give everything that everyone wants.
7. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Barefoot+Monkey · 2016-02-07 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sounds like you want Firefox Extended Support Release (ESR). ESR releases receive a major update only once every 10 months, but still receive the same bugfix and security patches as the regular releases. Also, when you do get updated to a new ESR version, you know that it's one that's already been supported as a regular release for 2 months, so there's very little chance of surprise problems.
  The current version is Firefox ESR 38, which was released as ESR on 11 August last year. The next one is ESR 45, coming on 31 May, which will last all the way until 21 March next year.
  Hope that helps you.
8. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, I just use Mozilla's better product, Seamonkey. It has been very stable for a very long time, going on two decades.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
9. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by hackertourist · 2016-02-07 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's more what they are taking away. It started with the status bar, then there was the ill-conceived move to Australis, version 44 removed fine-grained cookie permissions, next they're planning to kill off extensions.
  Over the past few years they've spent countless hours on integrating features few people cared for, and more hours taking away features we actually used.
10. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 08:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Since when is 10 months of support considered ESR?
  That just shows how fucking retarded Mozilla is.
11. Re: Wake up, Mozilla morons by fustakrakich · 2016-02-07 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically Mozilla does put out a very long-term stable web browser. They just don't push it like they do with Firefox. And yes, I do believe that users would prefer longer term stability. They just don't take to initiative to look for it, right in front of their nose. And no, I don't like automatic updates. They are untrustworthy and can break your machine. It is an unnecessary risk.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
12. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Hognoxious · 2016-02-07 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's better than vanilla Firefox, but it's still crap.
  I hate it on small screens. You can't get rid of the huuuuuuuuge zoom %age thing, even though it's taking up half your screen. There are other things that can't be changed, even if you install third-party stuff. Classic theme restorer is a decent college try, but it's fighting a battle that should never have happened.
  And if you like rounded tabs, it's so you can stick them up your butt easier.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
13. Re: Wake up, Mozilla morons by mike2006 · 2016-02-07 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it surprising that people actually want their business tool to work consistently. This 44 was one of the most unstable releases in awhile that is outright hampering user productivity. This happens a few times a year with these updates but this update is the worst one in years.
  There should be no releases schedule. Updates should only be released when they are actually finished and tested free of bugs.
14. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by ChunderDownunder · 2016-02-07 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox OS user here.
  Dropping the platform for starters.
15. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by narcc · 2016-02-07 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox OS user here as well. You'll be interested to know that they're only dropping it internally on smartphone, though not until after 2.6. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from moving forward with it on their own, without specific support from Mozilla. A bit like how manufacturers can use Android without specifically involving Google.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
16. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by drinkypoo · 2016-02-07 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  It might be possible that you're suffering from an operating system driver problem, e.g. from your graphics driver. It's worth checking if there is a graphics driver update available for your system.
  It's persisted through multiple driver updates and indeed multiple graphics cards. It's probably related to some plugin, but why should a plugin even know that the system has been suspended?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Darinbob · 2016-02-07 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Stability. It's a nice thing to have. But Firefox is adding NEW features every release, features that no one asked for. So instead of 6 to 8 weeks between security or bug fix releases, we have 6-8 weeks of major releases with 1 to 2 weeks in between for hot fixes.
  Of course, if you are from the viewpoint that the customers are the advertising industry then perhaps you are right, they are being given everything they want.
18. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Darinbob · 2016-02-07 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Updates every 10 months if they are mandatory, is still too rapid. Remember when we could go a year or two without a major update that completely changed the UI or broke your plug ins?
19. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by CRC'99 · 2016-02-07 15:22 · Score: 2
  
  ... and at some point, someone will start fixing bugs in Thunderbird that have been there for years.....
  
  --
  Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
20. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by Waccoon · 2016-02-07 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  Not to trivialize your problem, but if there's one nice thing I can say about Firefox is that it's been exceptionally reliable. I've had about 1 crash throughout all of 2015, and that's with Flash installed. Seriously.
  I do know that Firefox's hardware graphics acceleration gave me many issues over the years, though that seems to have been resolved since I got my latest nVidia graphics card a couple years ago. My best suggestion is to disable hardware acceleration. Indeed, I can't think of why plugins, extensions, or profile setup would be affected by suspending the system, but if an application uses some "odd" hardware acceleration techniques, problems can persist even across many different video cards. Java (both applets and desktop apps) had the same problem for a long time.
21. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by thegarbz · 2016-02-07 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  You're describing the "power user" not the user "user".
  But therein lies Firefox's problem. Most of it's users are in fact "power users".
22. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by thegarbz · 2016-02-07 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Reliability does not need to be measured in "crashes". It can be measured in slowdowns, chokes, doing things to the system, not responding properly to user input...
  I've had Firefox crash once. It took down every tab and the browser. Conversely I see Chrome crash a tab frequently, but handle it gracefully and given the lack of other faults (the above list) I find it to be the more "reliable" browser.
23. Re: Wake up, Mozilla morons by slipped_bit · 2016-02-08 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I turned off automatic updates a while back because the UI kept changing with each release. Specifically, things were moved around, hidden, and sometimes removed completely. Then there was the release where they forced automatic updates and removed the ability to not automatically update. I backed up a few revs to something stable. I wouldn't mind automatic updates if it was just bug fixes and not fundamental UI changes ("let's hid the URL bar", "Let's hide the menus", etc.) I'm glad my car doesn't do automatic updates (yet, I know some do). It's comforting to know that every time I get into my vehicle the brake pedal, accelerator, and the rest of the controls are in the same place with the same function as before.
24. Re:Wake up, Mozilla morons by iampiti · 2016-02-08 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't liked many of the latest changes in Firefox but I believe that its decrease in popularity has more to do with Google relentlessly pushing Chrome and the big shift to mobile than any actual faults in Firefox.
  Obviously they should still try to please the users and to turn the tide
The resources of my computer are going to waste by jones_supa · 2016-02-07 04:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, whatever man.
Firefox is falling off the wagon technologically anyway. You can feel the single-threaded model limiting things. Everything freezes from time to time and browsing is choppy. Google Maps is painfully laggy. Video playback uses huge amount of CPU. Screwing around with version numbers and release cycles are meaningless tweaks when there would be much bigger fundamental problems to solve.
Chrome and Edge is where the rippin' development is happening.
1. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because they're not working on those bigger problems, right? It sure is easy to just criticize without actually knowing anything, and I've long given up on Slashdotters actually knowing what they're talking about. The biggest hurdle they have to cross with solving those problems right now is: addons. Yes, that's right, addons are keeping us from having the performance/multi-process upgrades we so desire in Firefox, because so many of them were written to depend on a slow and single-process Firefox. But yeah, totally Mozilla's fault, even if they're trying their best to keep those addons working before jumping shipping those much-desired improvements.
2. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by Blaskowicz · 2016-02-07 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  CHrome and Edge are rolling release just like Firefox.
3. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by jones_supa · 2016-02-07 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Nice denialism.
4. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by drinkypoo · 2016-02-07 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  The biggest hurdle they have to cross with solving those problems right now is: addons. Yes, that's right, addons are keeping us from having the performance/multi-process upgrades we so desire in Firefox, because so many of them were written to depend on a slow and single-process Firefox.
  Nonsense. You just announce that a new version is coming that will not support the old addons, and start releasing alphas a year (or so) before actually abandoning the old browser for the new one so that people have time to port the popular plugins.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by jones_supa · 2016-02-07 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's not the point here.
6. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by narcc · 2016-02-07 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the point is to complain about Firefox, regardless of the merits of those complaints. Never mind that this schedule is actually lighter than the old schedule, nor that they've been doing rolling releases for ages. If Mozilla does anything, including something you've wanted them to do for a while, you've got to tell everyone it's the worst decision ever, and that the world is coming to an end.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
7. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, whatever man.
  . You can feel the single-threaded model limiting things.
  What are you talking about? Firefox has been multi-threaded for over ten years at least.
8. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by thegarbz · 2016-02-07 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  The point is not what is a rolling release, but rather what gets rolled into each release.
  Firefox does window dressing. Chrome / Edge do structural remodeling.
9. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by jones_supa · 2016-02-07 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
10. Re:The resources of my computer are going to waste by jones_supa · 2016-02-07 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not fully.
cool story, bro by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2016-02-07 04:51 · Score: 1

Firefox Adopts a 6-8 Week Variable Release Schedule
Thanks for the info. Around here we dump our garbage on Tuesdays. Or Wednesdays if there's a three-day weekend.
1. Re:cool story, bro by rubycodez · 2016-02-07 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I thought of something similar, but it has to do with regularity of sitting on a porcelain plumbing fixture. Really, Mozilla has gone off the rails of sanity.
2. Re:cool story, bro by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-07 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  What ever happened to "it will be done when it's done?" Oh, right .... marketing ....
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:cool story, bro by radarskiy · 2016-02-07 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  "it will be done when it's done?"
  That's great if you're the only person working on a project*. In the real work, people are trying to schedule their work on X that depends on Y and Z versus their work on A that depends on B and C. Are you just going to sit on your thumbs fro Y, Z, B, and C to all finish?
  *Actually, it isn't great if you're the only person on a project either, because somebody is waiting to use your project. That's what make it work rather than wasting time.
4. Re:cool story, bro by BarbaraHudson · 2016-02-07 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  "It will be done when it's done" isn't just for single programmers, you know. Oh, wait - you obviously don't. To bad, so sad. Maybe you should tell Linus that's he's doing it wrong.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Removing features faster than ever by thegarbz · 2016-02-07 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

With the new faster release cycle they can alienate the existing user base with more efficiency and at a faster pace than ever before!
1. Re:Removing features faster than ever by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  They are not going to a faster release cycle, Einstein.
2. Re:Removing features faster than ever by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 07:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Good!
  Maybe they'll start by removing "Hello," and "Pocket," and push notifications, and all the other garbage they keep bundling in that doesn't belong in a web browser. Who is asking for these features? If I want a damn videoconferencing client, I can install Skype or Gotomeeting, I don't want or need that shit bloating up my web browser.
  What slays me is that we've been down this road before, with Navigator morphing into Communicator and trying so hard to do so much that it collapsed and died. Maybe the people at Mozilla weren't born yet when that disaster took place? It's the only excuse I can see for why this bit of history repeats itself.
3. Re:Removing features faster than ever by ChunderDownunder · 2016-02-07 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Like it or not but webconferencing and push notifications have been implemented in the major competitors' browsers.
  One human's bloat is another's functionality.
4. Re:Removing features faster than ever by thegarbz · 2016-02-07 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly. Major competitors laid the groundwork for implementing standards and left it at that. Firefox implemented whole clients complete with connection to third party for profit companies and then proceeds to pester the user about the feature.
  It's a bigger implementation that goes way beyond what the standards call for and gets in the way of what Firefox was supposed to be, a web browser. Even Chrome has backed away from it's crappy notification centre, and out of the box running Chrome it looks and acts like a damn browser.
5. Re:Removing features faster than ever by ConceptJunkie · 2016-02-08 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but the whole point of the Mozilla project was to get back to basics, eliminate the bloat, and make a tool that does one thing well. Well, it was 10+ years ago anyway.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Dumb by 110010001000 · 2016-02-07 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The idea of having a "regular schedule" of releases is stupid. What if you didn't have any compelling features to add? You are just going to do a release because that is what the release schedule says? Here is a hint guys: writing software is not supposed to be just to keep you busy. It is supposed to deliver a product that is useful.
1. Re:Dumb by CrankyFool · 2016-02-07 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You don't think they're figuring out what features they're going to build into a release when they start the 6-8 week cycle for that release, do you? I suspect that, like any other sane engineering organizations, they have a large backlog of features and issues to pick from for each release.
2. Re:Dumb by Osgeld · 2016-02-07 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  unlikelike any other sane engineering organizations, nothing in that backlog is useful or improves the product in any sort of way
3. Re:Dumb by PsychoSlashDot · 2016-02-07 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You're mostly right. I'm sure they have a very detailed plan for what features to remove at each release. By end-of-year 2017 the goal is to have Firefox resemble Notepad, only without mouse, keyboard, or clipboard input support.
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
4. Re:Dumb by 110010001000 · 2016-02-07 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows? Are they going to know what features they need to add in 2017, now? What if a critical bug crops up? Wait 6-8 weeks? Why do they have large backlog of features? It is a browser.
5. Re:Dumb by Deep+Esophagus · 2016-02-07 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously each of those releases includes compelling features that have been added. They wouldn't bump up the major version number for a few trivial tweaks and patches, would they?
6. Re:Dumb by Junta · 2016-02-07 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Conversely, if you have no planned cadence, you can land in development hell, churning eternally without actually releasing because in the time feature A has matured, you decided to squeeze in feature B and decided it can't release without B, rinse and repeat.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
7. Re:Dumb by johncandale · 2016-02-07 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  The log just shows how many things are fixed/improved but can't show how many new bugs are introduced to be found later
8. Re:Dumb by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox is pretty much feature complete at this point. I wish Mozilla would spend several releases focusing on nothing but bug fixes. Take four releases in a row and have them focus only on bug fixes, and don't introduce any new features.
9. Re:Dumb by narcc · 2016-02-07 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  They'll do what they've always done, release a minor update to deal with the security issue or critical bug.
  They've had a release schedule for ages, you know, it's right there in the summary.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
10. Re:Dumb by radarskiy · 2016-02-07 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  "What if you didn't have any compelling features to add?"
  If there really are no new features and no bug fixes, then you can change the plan and not do a release on that date.
  There is vast difference between a changeable plan and no plan at all.
11. Re:Dumb by Kjella · 2016-02-07 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  You think say the Linux kernel isn't useful? They've been on a three month cycle for ages, roughly one month merge window and two months of release candidates. Basically what you want is for everybody to time box what they can do before the next release, but you can't know if you don't know how long that'll be. Maybe if it's two months you'll do some quick enhancements and fixes but if it's six you do a deeper restructuring. If 90% of your developers have finished according to plan and 10% is threatening to hold up the release then the great majority won't be able to effectively use a small extension. It's better to just scrub the parts that aren't ready and say we're releasing now, sorry try again next merge window. Of course assuming that you have a large enough project that there'll be some release-worthy items every cycle and that people don't just submit shit for release no matter what state it's in. There's a lot less drama about who is important and can rush patches and delay releases if the answer is no, you can't. Only bugfixes during RC, if your code breaks shit or needs major rework you're bumped to the next version. If you don't have a person with balls managing that your releases will suck, but if you can't stand up to the developers it'll probably suck on a rolling basis too.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
12. Re:Dumb by tlhIngan · 2016-02-09 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Who knows? Are they going to know what features they need to add in 2017, now? What if a critical bug crops up? Wait 6-8 weeks? Why do they have large backlog of features? It is a browser.
  Given I seem to get Firefox update notifications every 2 weeks or so, I'm not exactly sure what's the entire point of these 6-8 week releases.
  Each update is still as disruptive as ever, so is it every 4th update now is even more disruptive or what?
It's not a 'six-week' release schedule. by ThaumaTechnician · 2016-02-07 05:05 · Score: 2

It's a 42-day release schedule.

It's a small but important difference.
1. Re:It's not a 'six-week' release schedule. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 05:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's a 42-day release schedule.
  It's a small but important difference.
  Cool, just in time to to pose the question to life, the universe and everything else.
2. Re:It's not a 'six-week' release schedule. by rossdee · 2016-02-07 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Next month theyre going to rename the organization to The Sirius Cybernetics Corporation
3. Re:It's not a 'six-week' release schedule. by ThaumaTechnician · 2016-02-07 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  And their Marketing Division will have been the first against the wall when the revolution came.
What about instead waiting until it's ready? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pushing out releases just to check a checkbox off is very Agile. Instead, you should work towards making better software instead of trying to hit metrics.
1. Re: What about instead waiting until it's ready? by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ever since Mythical Man Month came out, there has been plenty of focus on managing programmers, on how to improve managers (which isn't necessarily bad, and MMM is a great book).
  The end result is that sometimes programmers run around like mindless monkeys, following process, and trying to figure out what is wrong with their process and what change they need to make to make things better.
  
  In reality, it's not the process, if you want a good team and a good product, you need to focus on improving the programmers: the process is secondary. The best Agile proponents actually do focus on improving the skill of the team, but too many of the consultants out there are focused on process, process, process,, which leads to mindless monkeys.
  
  But getting back to MMM, Fred Brooks pointed out that unless you have a giant team, the exact processes you use are kind of irrelevant.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re: What about instead waiting until it's ready? by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  people try to throw something together to talk about in scrum.
  Thanks. You just reminded me of the months I've spent sitting in pointless 'standups' waiting while people say mindless things to other people who aren't listening. Good times.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re: What about instead waiting until it's ready? by Junta · 2016-02-07 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I've always hated about people's approach to status meetings (scrum and before scrum). People take up my time talking at length about what *they* successfully did at a detail level I do not need. Tell me things that are done, and don't give me details of how arduous it was to get there. Tell me if you are having a problem and would like to have some help.
  I've always viewed things like I've done a good job if there's not much to say about the work done.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
4. Re: What about instead waiting until it's ready? by Junta · 2016-02-07 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  That has been a long standing problem with many companies, that they strive to make software developers interchangeable cogs through process. Apply enough process and you'll get great products whether you use experienced and enthusiastic people or bottom of the barrel people who can't make more money another way.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
5. Re: What about instead waiting until it's ready? by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 06:30 · Score: 2
  
  When I manage, if I don't know what someone is working on, I go and ask them personally. I don't need to waste everyone else's time in a status meeting to discover that. Generally I know what everyone is working on (because I either assigned it to them or they let me know). If someone is going to have trouble getting something done on time, I expect them to tell me immediately, not wait until a status meeting.
  
  Status meetings are especially a waste of time when you have a status tracker. Why do I need to wait in a meeting while everyone announces their status, when that information is already contained in the status tracker??
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What's the schedule for reducing bloat? by QuietLagoon · 2016-02-07 05:14 · Score: 1

The schedule allows new features to be added more quickly, so Firefox will get more bloated more quickly.
.
This is a good thing, how?
Does this schedule leave time for listening? by hackertourist · 2016-02-07 05:24 · Score: 1

Over the past few years Mozilla has made tons of unpopular changes despite vociferous complaints. Will the new release schedule give them time to find out what their remaining users actually want?
1. Re: Does this schedule leave time for listening? by Junta · 2016-02-07 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Windows 10 is a pretty good sign they were paying *some* attention to the Windows 8 reaction.
  To be fair, until they released, they couldn't gauge the reaction from the market they *wanted* in Windows 8, mobile/tablet users. Yes the desktop users may have made it quite clear how screwed up it was, but MS doesn't really need to care about them, they are a captive audience. They wanted to capture the market they couldn't get before.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
2. Re:Does this schedule leave time for listening? by narcc · 2016-02-07 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Look at this thread. If you were to believe every comment about what "the users want", then they want deeply contradictory things.
  What you mean is "why doesn't Mozilla listen to me?" "Why aren't they tailoring their browser to meet my specific needs?"
  We've got people here claiming that all Mozilla does is remove features. We've another camp complaining that all Mozilla does is add needless features. Then you have the camp that isn't happy even when they get what they want. They complain about the plugin system, then complain when they get exactly what they wanted. They complain about imaginary problems. They complain about things that were fixed years ago. I wouldn't listen to this group of users either.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
3. Re:Does this schedule leave time for listening? by iampiti · 2016-02-08 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  That smile at the end might be sarcasm but...I have to correct you: They released Windows Feedback to *pretend* they listen to you. They even show that some of my suggestions have been upvoted but I can't see by whom. I believe it's just a smokescreen so they can pretend they listen while doing the changes they had already planned before.
  About Mozilla: The changes against the users are mostly in two categories: Simplifying the browser and changes to generate income. The first kind I guess are to adapt the browser to non-power users who's a larger market than of power users. In my mind it's a mistake since it was power users who made it important in the first place ...but I might be biased by my condition of power user.
  The second kind needs no explanation: Mozilla needs money and hence the integration of unwanted services and subtle advertising.
Flexibility? by MtHuurne · 2016-02-07 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

some flexibility to 'respond to emerging user and market needs'
(snip)
2017-01-24 – Firefox 51 (6 weeks from prior release)
I don't understand where they'll get the flexibility from when they're planning releases a year ahead...
1. Re:Flexibility? by radarskiy · 2016-02-07 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Making a plan does not mean that you cannot change the plan.
Re:If I'd wanted to know that ... by KGIII · 2016-02-07 05:46 · Score: 1

While that may be true, the same can be said for almost anything on here - except Ask Slashdot and Interviews. I'm not sure you understand the point of a news aggregation site.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:10 days should be enough. by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Brendan Eich, then working for Nestcape now still at Mozilla, defined created and demoed the first version of Javascript in ten days.
And it shows. The web would have been better if he'd spent a little more time thinking about it.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Mozilla's problem is a lack of basic math abili by Rockoon · 2016-02-07 05:58 · Score: 1

Replacing a fixed 6 week schedule with a 6 to 8 week schedule and having the same number of releases a year is mathematically impossible
Veracity isnt one of the metrics that they were "optimizing."

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re: The resources of my computer are going to wast by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 06:09 · Score: 1

How is this NOT Mozillas fault. They chose to hold onto a dying system instead of upgrading. I Don't blame anyone else but mozilla for this. They have been ignoring their users for way to long.
My rule of thumb... by Junta · 2016-02-07 06:19 · Score: 1

If a group embraces the terminology of the most popular 'process', it's probably bad. In other words, most teams are bad and use whatever is most popularized as a stand in, and tend to act however they want, but pay lipservice to the popular process to make themselves look like they are following industry best practices.
I'll add to the 'unless you have a giant team' that if you have a giant team, you've *probably* done something wrong. Most software development teams I've seen with over a hundred full time developers really would be better to have maybe a dozen or so good people. It's the mistake of conflating importance with needed manpower. Then in an effort to utilize said manpower for what should be a smaller project, very silly things happen in the architecture.
All that said, I think the suggested strategy on making the date rather than getting all the features isn't bad, so long as quality doesn't take a hit. In other words, wait until it's ready with respect to bugs, but don't let a missing feature hold you up.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
1. Re:My rule of thumb... by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  If a group embraces the terminology of the most popular 'process', it's probably bad. In other words, most teams are bad and use whatever is most popularized as a stand in, and tend to act however they want, but pay lipservice to the popular process to make themselves look like they are following industry best practices.
  Yes, and instead of giving them a new process (which will fix nothing), it would be more effective to train them to be better programmers. Focus on the individuals, not the process.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Holy beef by invictusvoyd · 2016-02-07 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps they leave the QA to the users .
1. Re:Holy beef by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering that, so I searched and apparently Mozilla has a QA team, and they even have a blog. Morale seems to be good, they even send members of their team to conferences......
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
2. Re:Holy beef by davester666 · 2016-02-07 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  I just wish Firefox could show how much CPU power a given tab was using. I normally have a bunch of tabs open, and the whole browser just dies sometimes. I know Amazon sucks for this, they really like periodically reloading the page and also run a crapload of javascript to track what you are doing on a given page, and ebay is only slightly less annoying.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
3. Re:Holy beef by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of webpages have memory leaks. They keep loading stuff and never unloading it.
  And that's not even talking about the 'infinite scroll' pages like Pinterest.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Holy beef by fbobraga · 2016-02-08 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Like terms like "IoT" nowadays and "Cloud Computing" sometime ago: buzzwords ftw!
5. Re:Holy beef by Xest · 2016-02-11 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe morale is good and they get to spend their days blogging and going to conferences because they leave QA to the users?
I'm impressed by fahrbot-bot · 2016-02-07 06:56 · Score: 1
- 2016-11-08 – Firefox 50 (8 weeks cycle)
- 2016-12-13 – Firefox 50.0.1 (5 week cycle, release for critical fixes as needed)
- 2017-01-24 – Firefox 51 (6 weeks from prior release)
They already know, 11 months in advanced, they'll need a critical fixes release then - and have planned ahead - so we can count on smoooooth sailing until December.
--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:I'm impressed by vux984 · 2016-02-07 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  No. They already know 11 months in advance, that they will do a bug-fix fix only release a week before the christmas/new years holiday season; when everyone takes off for a few weeks.
  They will not release anything major that release.
  And they will make it a short cycle (5 weeks) because by the next week, the 20th of December, people will already be taking off.
you never bothered to ask whether or not you shoul by johncandale · 2016-02-07 07:02 · Score: 1

You were so busy with whether or not you could, you never bothered to ask whether or not you should. Every update is a chance to introduce a bug or incompatibility. I want stable software that runs on 2 -5 year old hardware. Also it takes time and bandwidth to do updates. The new interface is equivalent value to the old one, but the old one was better because we were used to it, etc
Re:plugin obsolesence by johncandale · 2016-02-07 07:03 · Score: 1

google spyware? no thanks
Seriously? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-02-07 07:14 · Score: 4, Funny

My children will be using Firefox ver 7,462,354,846.01
They'll need to buy more memory just to keep the version number from using up all the RAM.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Seriously? by shawn2772 · 2016-02-07 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  My children will be using Firefox ver 7,462,354,846.01
  Lessee, Firefox's is at version 44, so you expect your children to be alive (7462354846-44)*7/52 = 1,004,547,761 years from now. But, after they've downloaded their consciousness into asteroid-sized computers, will they actually need a web browser? At that point, they should be able to just accept the raw ZPHTML42 text and render it mentally into the appropriate N-dimensional conceptual structure.
2. Re:Seriously? by ConceptJunkie · 2016-02-08 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they should just use GUID's for verison numbers.
  That joke is less funny when you realize that's exactly what Git does.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Here's an idea for a feature by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-02-07 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's an idea for a feature...make it stop inexorably sucking up more and more memory until it slows to a crawl and then crashes.
Now that would a cool feature.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Here's an idea for a feature by radarskiy · 2016-02-07 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't see that problem."
  Therefore that problem cannot exist for anyone.
2. Re:Here's an idea for a feature by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Here's an idea for a feature...make it stop inexorably sucking up more and more memory until it slows to a crawl and then crashes.
  Now that would a cool feature.
  You talking about Chrome there?
3. Re:Here's an idea for a feature by Waccoon · 2016-02-07 18:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yesterday I caught Firefox using 2.6 GB of memory with only three windows (not tabs) open. I used the profiler to track what was causing the long, regular 2-3 second freezes, and it's always the garbage collector. 95% of any web page's rendering time was caused by the memory manager choking. I closed all but one window, and set the last window to "about:blank." Memory usage didn't even budge. Almost all of that RAM was used by the Javascript heap.
  The only time I've ever seen applications use more memory is when I'm running video games, and those programs are designed to waste as much memory as possible.
4. Re:Here's an idea for a feature by Waccoon · 2016-02-07 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  To compliment radarskiy's comment, I'll add that awful memory management has been a well-documented problem in Firefox for over 8 years.
  Saying that a plugin/extension is causing obscene memory usage in a browser is in the same league as blaming a virus for an OS crash. It's a cop-out, and flat-out wrong.
5. Re:Here's an idea for a feature by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-02-08 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I closed all but one window, and set the last window to "about:blank." Memory usage didn't even budge.
  Yep. On my PC after a while Firefox routinely climbs to gobble up 1.9 GB of RAM and then starts to screw up. I close all the windows and leave just one tab loaded, and it's still sucking up 1.9 GB. I close that last window and it frees up all the memory.
  Firefox has been doing this for years with no end or fix in sight. If they were going to fix just one problem, this would be the one I'd suggest.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Mr. webmaster, ready to die? by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 07:44 · Score: 1

I think you need to calm down, man.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Mr. webmaster, ready to die? by phantomfive · 2016-02-07 08:16 · Score: 1

In forums, sometimes they're the idiot, sometimes I'm the idiot.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Mr. webmaster, ready to die? by radarskiy · 2016-02-07 11:35 · Score: 1

"Now we know why"
We have always known why: APK is an idiot.
Posting this with Pale Moon, 64-bit version. by Futurepower(R) · 2016-02-07 14:55 · Score: 1

Pale Moon is a version of the Firefox code without a lot of the managerial mistakes made by Mozilla Foundation. Pale Moon has a 64-bit edition that in my experience is far more stable than Firefox. Firefox has memory hogging and subsequent instability that causes it to crash when there are many windows and tabs open.

Usually Firefox add-ons work perfectly with Pale Moon.

Pale Moon has tools for migration from Firefox and for backup. Adblock Latitude blocks ads. There are other Pale Moon add-ons.

Nice add-on for both Firefox and Pale Moon: The Open Link in... add-on provides an "Open Link in Background Tab" option that is good for deciding which Slashdot stories you want to read later.
Last one to leave turn out the lights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 15:48 · Score: 1

6-8 weeks... one week for each of their remaining customers! HAHAHA ... what... too soon?
Real schedule by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-07 21:21 · Score: 2, Funny

2016-01-26 – Firefox 44, completely new UI
2016-03-08 – Firefox 45, stumbleupon now built-in
2016-04-19 – Firefox 46, removed api for adblocking
2016-06-07 – Firefox 47, settings dialog now based on firefox os
2016-08-02 – Firefox 48, made yandex default search engine
2016-09-13 – Firefox 49, built in chrome bridge
Re: plugin obsolesence by ConceptJunkie · 2016-02-08 01:19 · Score: 1

Chrome was the first browser to do rapid releases and version number escalation.
I would recommend PaleMoon. It's Firefox without the churn and without the feature bingo.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:* TRIGGER WARNING * by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-02-08 01:41 · Score: 1

Wake me when they start practicing Premature Integration

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:Mr. webmaster, ready to die? by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-02-08 13:45 · Score: 1

If the question is, "You are a webmaster", then the answer is yes, I run several sites. What's your point?

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...