There is community support for those through TenFourFox, but eventually they won't be able to keep up with the development pace, as supporting PowerPC macs is not effort-free.
This is a problem that Mozilla has failed to address
Because it's not actually their problem. They can't update every add-on or extension ever written to the newer versions themselves. Many of them aren't even open source.
If you installed crappy extensions onto the base product, it is not the problem of the base product if they don't work.
Type Inference in 9.0 wasn't a security fix. Reducing memory usage by 30-50% in 7.0 wasn't either. (I'm sure the other releases had improvements other than security fixes, just nothing that interested me personally).
Didn't make it, though something like 99% of the stuff on AMO is compatible. The problem will still be third party plugins (better called "malware" IMHO)
even the right click on a link to show the drop down menu takes several seconds
If that is anything but instantaneous, it's time to do a virus scan, wipe all noncritical add-ons and extensions, maybe even the profile, and start over.
It's somewhere in their policy for Mint 12 that they're simply going to disallow and adblock search engines that don't pay them: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1851 "Search engines who do not share the income generated by our users, are removed from Linux Mint and might get their ads blocked."
I don't know what to say to that, but I sure as hell won't be using their blackmail software.
According to Wikipedia, there are 250 people in the Mozilla Corporation. The Mozilla jobs page has >50 open positions. Send those "temp professional coders" over, I'd say.
Maybe the problem is that during their passing in Mountain View they get lost in the Google or Facebook campusses:-P
For a product that allegedly has 6000 bugs, I don't encounter very many,
Well, 6000 unconfirmed bug reports. As pointed out elsewhere, this includes "my internetz don't work", duplicates, feature requests, and complaints the UX team is on crack.
I completely fail to see the connection between the actual version numbers in releases, or release frequency, and the bug tracking system, or how they influence each other.
Care to explain?
One thing I could imagine is that it is more likely that the developers will ask you to test something again on the latest release. Not a big change here, I'd guess before they'd have asked you to test on a nightly.
it appears there is no testing against non-malware links done
Somewhere near the end they mention that they tried some popular sites (Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google...) to see if they weren't accidentally blocked.
Fair enough, but can we then stop bitching about upgrades breaking add-ons?
Either add-ons are a critical feature of Firefox and deserve consideration in such a report, or they're not, and in that case their non-presence can't be a criticism./. can't have it both ways!
My experience with IE, which I do use, is that you get a "xxx.exe is not commonly downloaded and could harm your computer" as soon as you download anything that isn't popular software. Given that this provides zero useful information, I would expect most users to completely disregard it after a while.
And I bet, correction, I'm sure the study result won't look so good in that case.
Without more information about the false positives encountered, I'd consider it worthless for an objective evaluation.
Slashdot Mirror
There is community support for those through TenFourFox, but eventually they won't be able to keep up with the development pace, as supporting PowerPC macs is not effort-free.
This is a problem that Mozilla has failed to address
Because it's not actually their problem. They can't update every add-on or extension ever written to the newer versions themselves. Many of them aren't even open source.
If you installed crappy extensions onto the base product, it is not the problem of the base product if they don't work.
By the time Firefox gets out through stable distributions it's already 2 or 3 versions old. IE isn't even this bad
Of course it is. A new Windows install will always get Internet Explorer updates.
Type Inference in 9.0 wasn't a security fix. Reducing memory usage by 30-50% in 7.0 wasn't either. (I'm sure the other releases had improvements other than security fixes, just nothing that interested me personally).
*nor when we check for update*
Apparently it wont be offered for update until after new year, to avoid having to pull some server admins from behind the Christmas dinner table.
I don't use windows so it probably isn't available to me
I don't get what you mean here. Firefox is most certainly not a "Windows-only" product.
but Nightly is broken
It breaks often. That's why there's an Aurora and Beta in between before you even get to a release.
because FF changes their version number at a different pace (though I agree that it is a silly and pointless move).
The version number changes quicker because the releases happen quicker. That's not hard to understand.
Didn't make it, though something like 99% of the stuff on AMO is compatible. The problem will still be third party plugins (better called "malware" IMHO)
even the right click on a link to show the drop down menu takes several seconds
If that is anything but instantaneous, it's time to do a virus scan, wipe all noncritical add-ons and extensions, maybe even the profile, and start over.
It's not the Javascript performance that makes people switch to another browser, it's the sluggish user interface.
The user interface is written in JavaScript.
or even EVERY site via *.* -- WHO THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?!
I think Firefox and Chrome reject such certificates by default (for obvious reasons).
They will stop doing that for Mint 12.
It's somewhere in their policy for Mint 12 that they're simply going to disallow and adblock search engines that don't pay them: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1851
"Search engines who do not share the income generated by our users, are removed from Linux Mint and might get their ads blocked."
I don't know what to say to that, but I sure as hell won't be using their blackmail software.
The problem is when the font rendering in those consoles is fucked up.
Which is exactly what Linux Mint gives you. I'll take my Unity AIDS instead, thanks.
Europe =/= Germany. Not that they didn't try, though. Apple *and* the Germans, that is.
The patches for this landed last week but were backed out because of an issue on one platform. They should be back in as soon as those get resolved.
According to Wikipedia, there are 250 people in the Mozilla Corporation. The Mozilla jobs page has >50 open positions. Send those "temp professional coders" over, I'd say.
Maybe the problem is that during their passing in Mountain View they get lost in the Google or Facebook campusses :-P
Sell the private jet and hire people to tackle this problem Mozilla CEO.
>50 open positions, including (of course) QA:
http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?k=JobListing&c=qpX9Vfwa&v=1
RESOLVED WORKSFORME
For a product that allegedly has 6000 bugs, I don't encounter very many,
Well, 6000 unconfirmed bug reports. As pointed out elsewhere, this includes "my internetz don't work", duplicates, feature requests, and complaints the UX team is on crack.
This is down from 13000.
I completely fail to see the connection between the actual version numbers in releases, or release frequency, and the bug tracking system, or how they influence each other.
Care to explain?
One thing I could imagine is that it is more likely that the developers will ask you to test something again on the latest release. Not a big change here, I'd guess before they'd have asked you to test on a nightly.
With the bug first reported over 4.5 years ago, this was entirely avoidable.
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2007/Jan/83
it appears there is no testing against non-malware links done
Somewhere near the end they mention that they tried some popular sites (Amazon, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google ...) to see if they weren't accidentally blocked.
"Surprisingly", no browser failed :)
these tests are repeatable, and can be independently conducted
Uh, no.
Fair enough, but can we then stop bitching about upgrades breaking add-ons?
Either add-ons are a critical feature of Firefox and deserve consideration in such a report, or they're not, and in that case their non-presence can't be a criticism. /. can't have it both ways!
My experience with IE, which I do use, is that you get a "xxx.exe is not commonly downloaded and could harm your computer" as soon as you download anything that isn't popular software. Given that this provides zero useful information, I would expect most users to completely disregard it after a while.
And I bet, correction, I'm sure the study result won't look so good in that case.
Without more information about the false positives encountered, I'd consider it worthless for an objective evaluation.