Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Kills Firefox Aurora Channel, Builds Will Move Directly From Nightly To Beta (venturebeat.com)
Mozilla said today it is killing the Firefox Aurora channel, six years after it was first introduced in April 2011. The move comes as, Aurora failed to live up to the company's expectations as a "first stabilization channel." Moving forward, the absence of Aurora will help the company streamline its browser's release process and bring stable new features to users and developers faster. From a report: The Firefox Aurora channel sat between the Nightly and Beta channels. Until now, Firefox development started with Nightly, which consists of the latest Firefox code packaged up every night for bleeding-edge testers, and was then followed by Aurora, which includes everything that is labeled as "experimental," then Beta, and then finally the release channel for the broader public. Going forward, builds will move from Nightly to Beta to Release. The Firefox Developer Edition, which the company calls "the first browser created specifically for developers," will be based on the Beta channel instead of Aurora. Developer Edition users should keep their existing profile, themes, tools, preferences, and "should not experience any disruption," Mozilla promises.
less wasteful bureaucracy, lets make code deployment great again
Because clearly the only reason Mozilla was losing ground is that the builds are coming out too slowly.
More builds! Faster builds! Eternal update cycles!
that I should have used Aurora.
Mozilla is shrinking, clearly the question becomes where does it place now that Verizon purchased Yahoo and that potentially Firefox cushy deal with Yahoo search will one day go away. I see the writing on the wall and even if you take away the shrinking market share of Firefox. The facts remain that a once viable browser is barely what it once was. Using Firefox in Linux is truly painful anymore, I quickly use it to install Chrome these days. Then I either uninstall Firefox or simply remove the quick launch icon and place it in the doldrums of semi retirement.
The latest Firefox market share stats are out, and things are looking pretty bleak. It looks like Firefox is now around only 5% to 6% of the market. It has next to no share of the mobile market (0.03%).
What's more, there are big changes that are supposed to be coming in Firefox 57. That's when there are plans to switch to the new WebExtensions approach for creating browser extensions. This system basically just imitates Chrome's approach.
There have already been concerns raised about broken extensions. Reportedly this new approach is much less capable than the existing approach, so it may not even be possible to port or recreate some existing Firefox extensions.
If this transition doesn't go smoothly, it could very well be the final nail in Firefox's coffin. Many of the remaining Firefox users are only still using Firefox because of legacy or custom extensions.
They may have to stop upgrading, if the switch to WebExtensions prevents their existing extensions from working. This, of course, would open them up to security risks.
The other alternative is to try to port these extensions of the WebExtensions API, which isn't much different than porting these extensions over to Chrome. If this happens, then there is absolutely no reason for these users to continue using Firefox. If their custom extensions now work with Chrome, they might as well just use Chrome directly, as it's a faster and lighter browser than Firefox.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were other teething pains that only become apparent when the final release is out.
The Australis UI changes a few years back were disruptive enough, and drove a lot of users away. The WebExtensions changes have the potential to be far more disruptive. Much like Australis, the WebExtensions changes are not something that users have asked for, but instead they're changes that are being forced on the users.
Perhaps the Firefox developers know that the WebExtensions switch could very well become the biggest disaster Firefox has ever faced? Perhaps it would even get to the point where these changes will have to be undone? Having a shorter release cycle would help mitigate the magnitude of this disaster. If everything does go to hell and the WebExtensions work needs to be thrown out just to save what's left of Firefox, then being able to get a new version out much quicker could really be a matter of life and death for Firefox as a viable software project.
Firefox really can't afford to lose any more users. Yet nothing about WebExtensions leads us to believe that it will attract new users, while it will surely drive away at least some of the remaining Firefox users.
Firefox 57 won't just be a turning point in the history of Firefox. It will be a turning point in the history of the web itself. It could very well be the release that takes Firefox down from 5% of the market down to the 2% or 1% range, at which point it would have to be considered completely irrelevant, instead of just mostly irrelevant like it currently is. If Firefox becomes irrelevant, then the future looks very bleak for Mozilla, too, as Firefox is pretty much the only project that Mozilla has that sees much use.
The parent comment shouldn't be modded "Troll". It's a very accurate depiction of the sad state of affairs.
I've been trying to think about what Mozilla software people actually use, and Firefox is the only project I can think of. But even Firefox is seeing fewer and fewer users as time goes on.
Thunderbird may still have some users, but as a project it has basically been left to die, from what I can tell.
Firefox OS was a total failure. It's perhaps the worst software project failure we've seen in a long time.
Bugzilla is outdated, and really only used by legacy users now.
Seamonkey never had many users to begin with.
Servo should be considered a failure at this point. I try it out periodically, and it always feels like a mid 1990s era browser. Month after month I don't see any progress being made, but I do still see the same dumb bugs present.
Rust should also be considered a failure at this point. They've managed to create a programming language that's less portable, less practical, less efficient, and less pleasant than C++, if you can imagine that. Rust isn't even that much safer than C++, especially if you use the smart pointers and other features of newer versions of C++.
Persona was a total failure.
That's all that I can think of. A lot of failures, and one limited remaining success (Firefox).
Even Mozilla's attempt at a new wordmark logo should be considered a failure, as the chosen design ("moz://a") is confusing even to technical people who know what a URL is. They look at it and wonder, "What's this "moz://" protocol? What's special about this "a" host"? Non technical people just call it "moza", or they think it's a typo, or they think it's just gibberish.
Really, once Firefox is gone, which may be sooner rather than later, I can't see Mozilla having any influence.
Why would Google, Apple, Opera, Microsoft, or any other web technology vendor bother listening to what Mozilla has to say if Firefox's market share can be counted on the fingers of one hand?
Why would Yahoo, or Verizon, or Google, or any other company want to sign a search deal involving a browser that has so few users?
Mozilla's future is directly tied to the success of Firefox, and Firefox's success is disappearing quickly. I don't have much hope for Mozilla, I'm afraid to say.
The statistics you are quoting are for all platforms, which you do acknowlege briefly. What doesn't come across though is that Firefox still has a larger market share than IE and Edge combined. It is the #2 desktop browser by a non-trivial margin. This speaks more to the dominance that Chrome has these days, than to the failure of Firefox.
It is completely understandable that Mozilla has moved toward Chrome in terms of UI, features and extensions. If Firefox and Chrome are too different, then any normal user trying Firefox after coming from Chrome will be confused, and not stay. This includes ex-Chrome users wanting their favorite Chrome extensions to work in Firefox. This interoperability may help Firefox steal users who have become disenchanted with Chrome. This is their only long-term path for survival.
Long story short, Mozilla is doing what it has to do with respect to extensions. None of this has anything to do with the article though, which is about Aurora.
Cutting a release steps just speeds up the vandalism of Firefox that removes real extensions, NPAPI support and XP support..I hope enough Slashdot users get mad enough to fork Firefox and Make Firefox Great Again.
Using Firefox in Linux is truly painful anymore, I quickly use it to install Chrome these days.
I don't use chrome, and am curious why you do.
1) When an employer's IT guy deployed it as the default browser, a few years back, I stopped using it (and installed Firefox) when a typo brought up a NSFW site - and then I couldn't get Chrome to dump it from the autocomplete (even by following their excuse for online documentation), where it insisted it be the top entry whenever I typed the first keystroke of a site name that started with the same first letter.
2) Like several appliances, its voice-typing feature forwards the sound samples over the Internet to servers - acting as a room bug. (Even if it doesn't do this all the time - and how do you know it doesn't? - it provides the infrastructure for trivial malware hacks to do so.)
3) The version on my new Android smartphone has a click-through license that includes an adobe license, which in turn constrains the user - for the rest of his life - to not compete with Adobe's products or work on security matters related to them. Accepting that (on an appliance that is identifiable as mine and no doubt "phones home" with the acceptance) would be a career limiting move.
So I don't use Chrome, and don't understand why any computer professional would.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I love the concern trolling that comes out with every piece of Firefox news. Mozilla has obviously lost the mainstream browser war but a lot of that is due to the fact that Google has deeper pockets and chose a base (WebKit) that was in better shape than the older Gecko was.
People still rage about Australis but then go on and say they switched to Chrome over it, while simultaneously complaining that Australis was a Chrome clone. Now, people will leave Firefox due to WebExtensions, which is... what Chrome uses. But the Firefox WebExtensions are extended (ExtendedWebExtensions?) to provide more of the functionality of the old extension system within a more modern API.
And the move to WebExtensions is largely due to the fact that the old extension model would be broken by the multi-process changes that have been taking place. Lack of multi-process tabs being one of the main points previously brought up by all the "Firefox sucks, move to Chrome" apologists.
The extensions API was going to break anyway as soon as multi-process was fully implemented. Mozilla made the decision to move to an extended WebExtensions API as a nod to the fact that many extension developers are familiar with it from porting to Chrome. But the Firefox version of the API will have abilities that Chrome does not have.
Firefox is still the only major browser that even nods the head toward respecting your privacy and the open web. It's still a perfectly good browser - it's my primary browser and I really don't have any issues with it aside from an occasional extension conflict. It's weird that so many people reflexively shit on it.
Why do FF advocates always belittle and ridicule FF users who express legitimate concerns? In this case you have written off what sure do appear to be legitimate concerns as just being 'concern trolling'. You ridicule FF users who had their user experiences ruined by the new UI. You ridicule FF users who might soon have their user experiences ruined by the addon changes. I've seen people like you ridicule FF users who have experienced and reported performance problems or other bugs. Why do FF supporters direct so much hostility at FF's other users? I'm not surprised that so many former FF users now use a different browser. It's not worth using FF if it just means you will be attacked.
Users who don't like Australis switched to Chrome because although the UIs are unfortunately equally bad, at least Chrome feels a lot faster and more responsive than Firefox, and Chrome doesn't use as much memory. They don't like using Chrome. It's just the least worst of the major browsers. Chrome is the choice that causes the users the least pain.
Shouldn't only patches (which proved to be stable in the nightlys) be PORTED to beta? Moving a whole release just moves all the experimental features as well ...
I don't trust those stats either. The network of sites I run sees different numbers for FF, Chrome and IE/Edge. FF has been about 1.5% lately. Chrome is over 60%, including both desktop and mobile versions. IE/Edge are around 25%. The rest are Safari, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. So I think that 5% is too high for FF, and IE/Edge should be over 20%.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that Firefox is any better.
Just look at how much user info Firefox can collect and send to Mozilla and others.
Their page clearly lists various types of identifiers and browsing history that might be sent, including such things as: "IP address", "location", "phone number", "email address", "URLs", "information about visited sites", "terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar", "website domain", "Google advertising ID", "active URL at time of crash" and "personal information".
In case you don't believe me, let's look at some examples from their page:
"Once per day, Firefox sends the following info to Mozilla when it checks for browser updates: your Firefox version information, language preference, operating system, and version."
"Firefox contacts Mozilla once per day to check for add-on information to check for malicious add-ons. This includes, for example: browser version, OS and version, locale, total number of requests, time of last request, time of day, IP address, and the list of add-ons you have installed."
"Firefox sends Mozilla a monthly request to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."
"Some Mozilla sponsored snippets are interactive and allow you to optionally share your phone number or email address. For example, you can enter your phone number to receive an SMS to install Firefox on Android. Your information is received and handled by our email and mobile marketing vendor."
"This data includes, for example: device hardware, operating system, Firefox version, add-ons (count and type), timing of browser events, rendering, session restores, length of session, how old a profile is, count of crashes, and count of pages."
"Firefox may send metadata, including URLs associated with the downloaded file, to the SafeBrowsing service. "
"Firefox that sends Mozilla usage, performance, and responsiveness statistics about user interface features, memory, and hardware configuration. Your IP address is also collected as a part of a standard web log."
"When Telemetry is enabled, certain short-term experiments may collect information about visited sites."
"Firefox sends to Mozilla data relating to the tiles such as number of clicks, impressions, your IP address, locale information, and tile specific data (e.g., position and size of grid)."
"Firefox sends Mozilla a request once to look up your location at a country level using your IP address."
"Firefox may send the terms you type in the Awesome Bar or Search Bar to your Default Search Engine to retrieve suggestions"
"Firefox may send “Referral Data” such as the website domain"
"Firefox sends Referral Data to our mobile analytics vendor, and also includes a Google advertising ID, IP address, timestamp, country, locale, operating system, and app version."
"Firefox records and sends Referral Data to Mozilla as part of Firefox Health Report. "
"Firefox may use several pieces of data to determine your location, including your operating systems geolocation features, Wi-Fi networks, cell phone towers, or IP address."
"This report contains technical information for us to improve Firefox including why Firefox crashed, the active URL at time of crash, and the state of computer memory during the crash. The crash report we receive may include personal information."
"Firefox sends information to Mozilla, including the list of add-ons you have installed, Firefox version information, and your IP address."
Some people will try to justify this by saying nonsense like "At least they disclose it!" or "At least some of it can be disabled!", but none of that really
He's ridiculing people who go "Ugh this is like Chrome" (as if it's a bad thing) and then leave Firefox... to use Chrome.
How to deal with Firefox Australis :
- right click on anywhere except the URL and tab bars, enable the menu
- click on the sewer grill, on "Customize" and rearrange a short few things
- when you need to close the browser cleanly, you can also go to the sewer grill, click and hit the bottom right "quit" button. easy targets to hit
- you can also use the sewer grill to access the Preferences icon, that's a workaround for them not putting preferences/options under the "Tools" menu in the linux version.
That's all I have to say about the "GUI nightmare" that is Australis.
You can also navigate to "about:about" for a list of option and feature web-like pages. Fairly hidden but it's a portal to the semi-hidden things.
Or maybe they leave for Pale Moon.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
However, they traditionally let you disable that sort of thing via about:config. Apparently with Chrome you have to build it from source to disable it (basically what Chromium is)?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I love the concern trolling that comes out with every piece of Firefox news. Mozilla has obviously lost the mainstream browser war but a lot of that is due to the fact that Google has deeper pockets and chose a base (WebKit) that was in better shape than the older Gecko was.
And who has been the stewards of Gecko since 2003? The Mozilla foundation. They've had 14 years to fix it instead of pissing away resources on operating systems, programming languages, LBGT-bullshit (not the cause but making a software company into a social program), rebranding (moz://a, only 20 years after /.), piling up a dragon's hoard and so on. They thought ding-dong, the wicked witch (IE6) is dead now we can let our flagship product rot.
People still rage about Australis but then go on and say they switched to Chrome over it, while simultaneously complaining that Australis was a Chrome clone. Now, people will leave Firefox due to WebExtensions, which is... what Chrome uses.
Well yes, if you take a pick-up truck and dress it up like a sports car I'd rather have an actual sports car, since neither is a good pick-up truck anymore.
The extensions API was going to break anyway as soon as multi-process was fully implemented.
They could have made it a lot more backwards compatible easier by pretending each extension was in a one-window browser and said here's a new API for cross-tab communication for those who need it. Many extensions don't really need to know any other tab exists. It's only a full rewrite because Mozilla wants it to be.
You make it sound like this is something that had to happen, that market forces bigger than Mozilla forced their hand. This is bullshit, they had lots of choices to take a different path and ignored all of them. In their latest public fiscal year (2015) they spent $214 million of $417 million in royalties on software development. They don't say how many employees that translates into but certainly that's >1000 FTEs and they have $323 million in assets, essentially all profit that's funneled into stocks and property. They have tons of money and resources they could use to make exactly the browser they want.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Around half the things you're complaining are just how the internet works.
Your comment is why users leave FF. FF advocates like you downplay a serious problem, then give a half-baked solution that doesn't even fix the problem, then you ridicule the user, and then you pretend the problem doesn't exist. The FF community treats its own fellow users worse than any other software community I've ever seen.
Yep, I left for cyberfox but that's done so now its palemoon or waterfox or whatever.
I used Firefox as my primary browser until they ran Brendan Eich out for supporting a political cause with his own money. I don't get why organizations such as Firefox and Drupal care what people do on their own time or with their own money as long as it is legal and they do not engage in the activity as a representative of the organization. Whatever happened to valuing diversity?
When I see a company that focuses on causes not related to their core mission it is a sign that they have lost their focus and are headed toward problems. This is generally true of organization across the political spectrum.
For more about Drupal's current issue: https://heatst.com/tech/drupal-contributors-threaten-to-quit-after-a-developer-is-banned-for-his-private-sex-life/
Chrome doesn't use as much memory.
LOL! Chrome is a serious memory hog. It uses WAY more memory than FireFox, and has for many, many, years now. Time to update your talking points.
It is completely understandable that Mozilla has moved toward Chrome in terms of UI, features and extensions. If Firefox and Chrome are too different, then any normal user trying Firefox after coming from Chrome will be confused, and not stay. This includes ex-Chrome users wanting their favorite Chrome extensions to work in Firefox. This interoperability may help Firefox steal users who have become disenchanted with Chrome. This is their only long-term path for survival.
Firefox was the defacto browser. It was theirs to lose. Users migrated to Chrome in spite of the UI being significantly different than FF or IE. Since version 4 they've been too busy fucking around with useless shit instead of making it better, and their marketshare follows this trend. Extensions, and unlimited customization was the only reason to keep FF. With every version they make the extensions harder and harder to work. Why keep running a cheap copy (Firefox) instead of the real deal (Chrome)?
Mozilla should realize that SeaMonkey is where its at.
I am still using Firefox, this browser has treated me well for years and I like that its not all about collecting and selling my data.
About a year ago, I had to reset Firefox a few times but they fixed whatever bug was causing performance issues and its been all good since then. While I have tried all the other major browsers, I always end up back with Firefox because...well, I like it better.
You are the same guy as above and it feels like posts by apk that attempt to pass off as something written by someone other than apk. Perhaps you are the "Republicans hate us and want us to die" guy, but applied your writing skills to piss on some "FF community" you've made up and that happens to include people you disagree with. There are enough millions FF users anyway that it doesn't represent a community any more that drivers of 90s Ford cars or owners of a certain brand of TV or people that walk up and downstairs form a "community".
I wish there were checkboxes to disable pictures and javascript like in the old days, if it makes web pages break down it would be the intended effect anyway.
I do admit I downplayed the problem, insomuch as it was an attempt at taking things lightly which is why I talked about mundane, unremarkable or slightly pleasant items so as to emphasize that it isn't an especially monstrous, alien or inflexible GUI unless you're thinking of the default appearance in Windows where the title bar is missing maybe but this aside I do believe it's a decently normal looking application as far as browsers go and we might think it's not right that you can't move buttons for back, forward, stop, reload anymore nor move the sandwich or sewer grill menu which does put an artificial limit on customization abilities but otherwise make customization a bit easier since you won't mess it up badly by accident and you know the general public will mess thing up with accidental drag and drop like they often did with the Windows 95 or XP task bar and moreover the link or menu item that brings the customization interface in is more prominently featured making it more discoverable for would-be users while the toolbar's consistency makes it a good place for custom and additional icons brought in by the installation of add-ons at the request of the end user.
There you go again, launching unfounded and outright incorrect personal attacks against FF users! I hate to break it to you, but there are many different people here who post as AC. It turns out that lots of us used FF, got screwed by the dumb changes the FF devs have made, then got abused by FF advocates like you after we pointed out these problems. At least this is a self-resolving problem. FF is losing users quickly, including many of us, and soon enough it will go the way of browsers like Mosaic and Navigator. It will be a small footnote in the history of the WWW.
They have tons of money and resources they could use to make exactly the browser they want.
I assume they are making the browser they want. They sure don't seem to have been making the one the users want.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
You mean that fork of Firefox 29 that still think they're doing a better job than Mozilla (and that they can handle all of the stuff they're deprecating), despite barely being able to cherry-pick Mozilla's work and calling it their own?
The one with a userbase who go around acting like Mozilla are clueless morons while despite still smugly relying on their work, and having some of the least idea of what Mozilla is doing and why?
Yeah, they're all so much more level-headed than the people who are just mindless hypocrites.
Firefox is still the only major browser that even nods the head toward respecting your privacy and the open web. It's still a perfectly good browser - it's my primary browser and I really don't have any issues with it aside from an occasional extension conflict. It's weird that so many people reflexively shit on it.
How anyone can think a company, that canned an employee for quietly donating their own money to a political cause, respects people's privacy and cares about openness is beyond me.
Also, the Mozilla Foundation's dependence on Google and Yahoo for funding these last dozen years is in massive conflict with Mozilla's screeds about an open web.
Firefox is no longer a perfectly good browser, as evidenced by the mass exodus away from it because it is not as functional as other browsers. That it remained relevant for so long is a testament to the creativity and foresight of JWZ (early designer of Mozilla), Brendan Eich (founder of Javascript), David Hyatt (co-creator of Firefox, hired by Apple to make Safari), Blake Ross (co-creator of Firefox), and Ben Goodger (early Firefox dev, hired by Google to make Chrome), and other people who have been long gone from the Mozilla scene.
I see... and what kind of developer wants a browser with no addons, no plugins and mandatory sandboxing? Developers will be using Firefox 45 or so for at least a decade. It will be the new IE7.
You convinced me, I will immediately seek to upgrade to Windows 10 Home or Insider Preview, go out of my way to enable everything and write a script to submit my web searches to Bing on Edge and Google on Google Chrome simultaneously, or the other way around. Thanks for making me see the light and providing an opportunity for me to amend my errors.
You mean that fork of Firefox 29 that still think they're doing a better job than Mozilla
As regards the interface, I'd say they are.
(and that they can handle all of the stuff they're deprecating)
Mozilla is the one deprecating stuff. PM is just continuing with the existing way that already works. Unfortunately that's indeed going to get rough once Firefox moves on, and then we'll see whether PM survives.
The one with a userbase who go around acting like Mozilla are clueless morons
How do you know how many people complaining about Firefox around here are PM users? I haven't observed that correlation. PM users may tend to be critical of Mozilla for obvious reasons, but I bet most people critical of Mozilla are not PM users.
while despite still smugly relying on their work
While I get where you're coming from, forking is an established and beneficial open source practice.
and having some of the least idea of what Mozilla is doing and why?
Tell me more about your qualifications, Mr. A.C. "Everybody who doesn't agree with me should shut their cake-hole", eh?
Yeah, they're all so much more level-headed than the people who are just mindless hypocrites.
At least they're doing something about it instead of just whining online.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
B/c Chrome is better than FF at being Chrome...?
Many of the remaining Firefox users are only still using Firefox because of legacy or custom extensions.
This is the reason I have not already bailed on Firefox. I will certainly stop upgrading when the extension changes come out. If this introduces any serious security issues, then I will stop using Firefox.
Now, people will leave Firefox due to WebExtensions, which is... what Chrome uses.
If I stop using Firefox (which looks increasingly likely with every announcement Mozilla makes), I will not be switching to Chrome, so that doesn't matter to me.
What matters to me is that the changes they're planning appears to make it impossible to develop extensions that can do what current extensions can do, and those extensions are currently the only reason I stay with Firefox. Why they're breaking it doesn't matter one bit to me. It's a dealbreaker.