Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

138 comments

What about forks? (1)

geirnord (150896) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777251)

How will this afect all the software that have forked from these versions?

Re:What about forks? (3, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777345)

They will no longer receive upstream support or bug fixes.

So how about dropping all demands on the code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777587)

So that, for example, someone else can maintain security fixes etc.

Re:So how about dropping all demands on the code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777903)

Someone else can maintain security fixes etc. That's how open source works.

FF 3 in portage (2, Funny)

Woek (161635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777271)

Time for the Gentoo Portage people to mark Firfox 3 as stable!

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777523)

too bad it's (FF3 on gentoo) the most unstable browser i've ever used, even worse than cello (anyone remember cello?)

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777603)

The girlfriends machine had a lot of random crashes with all versions of Firefox up until 3.0.4 came out. (Yes, on Gentoo)

Since then not a single problem. At all. And she's been using it since day of release.

A simple 'emerge --sync --quiet && emerge -u =mozilla-firefox-3.0.4' (assuming you have it unmasked) will solve that issue.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777615)

Bah. Why did I type that '-u'? Ignore the '-u'. :-)

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

ATMD (986401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777951)

A simple 'emerge --sync --quiet && emerge -u =mozilla-firefox-3.0.4'

I'm a Gentooer myself, but I don't go round claiming things like that are simple. That road leads to madness. Specifically, the person whose box I've just installed Linux on gets mad at me.

Re:FF 3 in portage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778303)

also, you don't go around claiming you have a girlfriend.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Flentil (765056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778165)

"A simple 'emerge --sync --quiet && emerge -u =mozilla-firefox-3.0.4' (assuming you have it unmasked) will solve that issue." Simple? This is why linux will never catch on with most people. Simple is to download and install and it works automatically. The above is about as far from simple as an old-school modem initialization string from the 90's.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778445)

[successful_troll.jpg]
can't stop from replying...

open terminal
"aptitude install firefox"

or

open gui package manager
search firefox
select firefox
click install

done

Much better than:

open web browser
search firefox
go to web site
click download link
wait for download to finish
run exe
click through installer

done

gentoo was never meant to be simple

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Firefalcon (7323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778461)

While that is the case for Gentoo, it is intended to be for hardcore Linux geeks. Apt or RPM based distros such as Redhat, Mandriva, or Ubuntu make it nice and easy to install - go to your package manager, search for "firefox", select "Firefox 3", and click "Install" (or "Apply") and when it's finished, the software has been installed.

That's nicer and more consistent (only one place to look) compared to finding and installing some Windows software. I'm not going to try to pretend that everything is easier using Linux, but it is a lot more user friendly than it used to be, and some Distros are concentrating very much on ensuring that they are as user-friendly and "plug and play"-esq as possible...

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

budgenator (254554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780323)

oh sure windowsXP SP2 is much easier.
1. click the download button,
2. click save to desktop,
3. right click file, and select all,
4. control c to copy to the clipboard
5. open shared folder
6. control v to paste the file
7. right click, run as admin
8. enter password
9. click ok on installer a gazillion times
10. enjoy the program

Of course windows Vista is a lot easier because they finally fixed the broken run as command but nobody runs vista.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780489)

windows "a simple 'google firefox, go to firefox downloads page, click on the download link, run the download link, accept UAC, accept EULA, click next a few time"
ubuntu "a simple 'apt-get update ; apt-get install -qy firefox'

ofc to anybody who knows what thier doing on gnetoo its just "emerge firefox-3.0.4" on ubuntu its "apt-get firefox" but on windows you still have to arse on

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777935)

Oh really? I'm using FF3 on Gentoo x64 right now, I and haven't seen it crash in months. Hell, since a week or two ago I'm even running 3.1beta2, also without crashes so far.

So, anything more than personal anecdotes on your side?

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778081)

So, anything more than personal anecdotes on your side?

That would be a fair comment if you hadn't countered with nothing more than your own personal anecdote.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778243)

Naw. Burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778283)

I was expecting this kind of response, and it would only seem fair...if I was the one making some out-of-the-blue claim that a certain piece of software is totally unstable on a platform I happen to use. I do not recall any outcry on the Gentoo forums regarding stability of FF3.

So really, it's not up to me to prove that FF3 works on Gentoo, it's the OP's task to show me that there actually IS a problem.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779477)

I think the better response might be "I see your anecdote and raise you a blatant lie!".

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778631)

So, anything more than personal anecdotes on your side?

Has this bug (453964) [mozilla.org] been fixed yet ? According to the bug tracker, no one has even bothered looking at it, since it's still "unconfirmed".

Oh well. I guess I'll stay on Firefox 2, then. Or see if I can get IE running under Wine...

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778773)

The bug won't be fixed until it is confirmed. It isn't confirmed until it is reproducible on more than one machine. It works fine on the two machines sitting in front of me. Don't get me wrong, it pegged my 3Ghz processor at 100% for about 30 seconds, which would normally be unacceptable, but the page isn't exactly a common format (5400 lines of different font'ed links). So I can't see why they would consider it top priority.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

flex941 (521675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779615)

Is it a) 3GHz Pentium 4? or b) 3GHz Core2? If (a) then it's really not serious bug because that's a really crap processor (do not argue with me - i'm really stubborn, I have decided long time ago don't give a f*** about what you think you have to say). Was when introduced and most certainly is now. But when (b) then that's pretty serious regression on firefox part. 5400 lines of <a> and <font> doesn't sound like impossible to handle in meaningful time. Like in couple of seconds or so.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779925)

The bug won't be fixed until it is confirmed. It isn't confirmed until it is reproducible on more than one machine. It works fine on the two machines sitting in front of me.

It doesn't work fine on the two machines I tested it on.

Don't get me wrong, it pegged my 3Ghz processor at 100% for about 30 seconds, which would normally be unacceptable,

So it doesn't work fine on your machine either./p>

That's three machines this bug has now been reproduced in; four, if your other machine also exhibits this behaviour. Any guesses how many it takes to persuade the Firefox maintainers that yes, this bug indeed exists ? Or at least get them to check the supplied link for a page that demonstrates the bug ?

but the page isn't exactly a common format (5400 lines of different font'ed links).

And it works fine on Firefox 2. Which makes this a regression bug. And frankly, there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for hanging, by which I mean that the UI stops responding, no matter what the web page might contain. Especially since this is not a script, blinkengift, or any other kind of active content, or even an image, but simply static text. And while I could perhaps accept that laying out text is serious business, I just simply can't believe that a simple text search would be in any way affected by the text attributes; nor can I believe that opening a link in a new tab/window can possibly be made more expensive by the layout of the page it was opened from.

So I can't see why they would consider it top priority.

I get a feeling that Firefox maintainers don't consider anything that doesn't contribute to the "shiny" or "cool" factors a priority. Just remember the good old memory leak bug...

Firefox is increasingly becoming like Netscape: new features and shine keep on getting piled on increasingly rotten core, making the whole mess less and less useful with each new release. That tendency eventually led to the death of Netscape and the domination of IE; I wonder if Firefox will follow its ancestor down the path of uselessness.

The question is: I ditched Netscape for IE, and IE for Mozilla, and Mozilla for Firefox; but what will I ditch Firefox for ?

The more cynical part of me wonders if the reason to terminate support for Firefox 2 is to simply force everyone to upgrade. It's a bit too close to The Microsoft Way for comfort...

Re:FF 3 in portage (2, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780879)

The more cynical part of me wonders if the reason to terminate support for Firefox 2 is to simply force everyone to upgrade.

Of course it is. You don't even need to be cynical. What other reason makes sense? From their point of view supporting two versions takes more resources.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779567)

So that's got what to do with Gentoo exactly? And some obscure bug with a webpage noone really needs that uses a shitty layout really causing your browser to hang for a few seconds really doesn't make FF3 "the most unstable browser".

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777589)

Agreed. I'll probably get lynched from other Gentoo users for this, but I've not had much trouble with firefox-bin.

I think 3.0.1-r1 is current for the binary (please correct me if I'm wrong! Haven't synced my desktop Gentoo install in a while...).

Not great for everyone I know, but it's probably better than using Firefox 2.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

emj (15659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779031)

How do they manage to get FF3 to be unstable? It crashes very seldom for me on Ubuntu, Debian and Mac OS X. Sure the history browsing is a lot slower now days, but still fairly usable on older computers.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779107)

I don't know. I've had a look on the Gentoo Bug Reports, have run www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.3 and the binary version all day, it's not masked and I've not had any problems. Not sure what the OP is having problems with.

Re:FF 3 in portage (1, Redundant)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778487)

I'm perfectly happy with Firefox 2. I dislike many things about FF3, like the new Bookmarks/History window, "Show in Sidebar" not being on the history menu, the ugly preferences and addons panels, the horrifyingly intuition-defying "awesome bar" that ALWAYS gets what I'm trying to type completely wrong, and the horribly ugly theme.

Anyway I don't want to upgrade so I shouldn't have to. How hard is it to backport security updates? It's not like gecko itself has security vulnerabilities.

I don't care if they mark FF3 stable, but my "emerge firefox" better not upgrade me.

time for a change (1)

emart (1343753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777287)

damn, i was really looking to downgrade my software, too.

Thunderbird (4, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777291)

Thunderbird 2 is effected by this, but afaik there is no Thunderbird 3.

Is this is a death sentence for the project?

Re:Thunderbird (2, Interesting)

jpt9 (590767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777343)

I agree... I love Thunderbird, and would hate to see the project be ignored. -- J.P.

Re:Thunderbird (3, Informative)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777493)

There is a Thunderbird 3 in the works (see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Main_Page [mozilla.org] ).

They are currently headed for Beta 1 (see the latest status meeting notes at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/StatusMeetings/2008-11-11 [mozilla.org] ); the nightlies can be downloaded from the usual place (http://www.mozilla.org/developer/#builds) if you want to take a look.

Re:Thunderbird (5, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780841)

Even so, it is poor practice to end support for one of your products when its successor hasn't even been released yet.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777613)

I use Thunderbird a lot, but I can't say I really like it. I, too, hope it doesn't get ignored though. Goodness knows it needs a lot of work. It's the only real open source competitor to Outlook, barring Evolution perhaps (unless someone here can recommend me to a good open source POP client?), but Mozilla has a tremendous amount of goodwill from people from its Firefox endeavours, so it's better-poised to dethrone Outlook.

But in all honesty, Thunderbird is one of those pieces of software that makes me breathe a sigh of relief when I go back to Outlook. Outlook is light-years ahead of anything Thunderbird has come out with.

I sincerely hope Thunderbird 3 proves me wrong.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777761)

Well, Outlook is IMHO a very good Groupware client, and it works okay for general e-mail, but it's a complete PITA when it comes to "older" usages of e-mail, like mailing lists.

Quoting in Outlook sucks (it's nonexistent), there are plugins but they don't really work right.

Of course, most of these things do not matter to the average user - i'm using Outlook for all my corporate Groupware & Mail needs, and use Google Apps Premier for my private Mail (earlier, i used mutt).

We have a one or two clients without Exchange that use Thunderbird, and i think i would prefer it over Outlook for my private Mail needs - but i guess it all depends on what exactly you need it for.

Re:Thunderbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777403)

No. Thunderbird 3 is under heavy development, and Thunderbird 2 will continue to receive security updates, even when Firefox 2 won't.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

uncleFester (29998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777495)

No. Thunderbird 3 is under heavy development, and Thunderbird 2 will continue to receive security updates, even when Firefox 2 won't.

.. cite? admittedly, haven't dug much past TFAs mentioned in the /. story but nothing i saw in those links says 'tbird will be an exception for security fixes.' and moving to an alpha (or even beta?) version of tbird3 is not an acceptable path for a stable codebase in place today.

-r
(and yes, i would like some cheese with that..)
(and i wish i had a lawn for you damn kids to get off of..)

Re:Thunderbird (5, Informative)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777405)

Thunderbird 3 is under development [mozillamessaging.com] . An alpha version is available.

Re:Thunderbird (4, Insightful)

Web-o-matic (246295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779015)

This seems very odd.

I can't see Thunderbird 3 coming out before next year, so how can Mozilla put the current official product (TB 2) 'out of support' before release of the next version? Not to mention that customers will need a reasonable transition time to test 3.x in their own environments, before they migrate from 2.x to 3.0, which would call for TB 2 'support' for several months after the launch of TB 3.

Just like with Firefox, for example.

Or is the TB team going to maintain gecko 1.8 solely to support TB 2.0.x until 3.0 is out (and, hopefully, somewhat beyond that)?

That would make sense, but is a big drain on TB resources.

Or is this tantamount to saying that TB is a dead-end product, not worth Mozilla's time and effort??

Re:Thunderbird (1)

Clazzy (958719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777437)

Thunderbird 2 is effected by this, but afaik there is no Thunderbird 3.

Is this is a death sentence for the project?

http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/thunderbird/#tb3 [mozillamessaging.com]

Looks like you're in luck.

Re:Thunderbird (2, Informative)

Quartz25 (1195075) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777859)

Thunderbird 2 is affected by this, but afaik there is no Thunderbird 3.

There, fixed your grammar for you.

Re:Thunderbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778233)

Grammar != orthography.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778955)

My affect was effected by the the affect of discontinuing progress on Firefox 2.

egads.

Re:Thunderbird (0, Offtopic)

kobaz (107760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777895)

It's affected, not effected.

I can affect the results of...
The effect of the study was...
Birds are affected by...
I will effect a change in...

I shall... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25780107)

I shall affect change in society to the effect of removing grammar Nazi's from affecting my viewing experience on the most effective communication medium humans have ever been able to effectively build, while not affecting change in my viewing experiences on the most effective porn distribution system humans have ever created; a system so great one girl can effectively affect my body to the effect of things you do not need to hear, all while effectively not knowing of my not so effective existence.

There, proofread that grammar Nazi!

linux ff3 stability? (2, Interesting)

uncleFester (29998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777327)

alas, the first time i tried cutting to ff3 on the linux side of my home pc (dual-booter) it was a nightmare.. constantly crashing/hanging, etc. it's wasn't the prereleases either.. it was 3.0 or 3.0.1. bad enough i actually reverted back to 2. i was just thinking of taking another stab at movin' on up.. just hope it's more solid and not as painful.

-r

Re:linux ff3 stability? (1)

Ins0mau (1305569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777395)

I only had a few problems with Firefox Beta 5 under Fedora Linux. And absolutely no problems with the first proper release. Guess you were unlucky mate.

Re:linux ff3 stability? (1)

uncleFester (29998) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777441)

self-replying... just dropped 3.0.4 back on my box (fwiw, i'm slackware) and so far so good. i wish i could specifically remember what finally drove me to downgrade... just remember it being a piling-on of things (like mplayerplugin was unstable + freezing + occasional spontaneous app-close and the like) and i just quit fighting it...

we'll see how it goes..

-r

Re:linux ff3 stability? (2, Informative)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777619)

99% of those symptoms were flash-related. installing adblock and noscript/flashblock also helped these crashes, at least for me on debian and ubuntu.

Re:linux ff3 stability? (1)

UltraAyla (828879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777677)

As far as instability, etc. I still get more problems with FF3 (on Vista) than I did with two, but overall it's still a better experience for me and I've been using it since launch. In general, I find it to be better with resources and faster, but like you, I also had (and still have) occasional instability (including random CTDs) and crazy memory spikes for no good reason (or so it seems). They still have some issues, for sure - but overall none of it's a dealbreaker for me.

It won't actually affect SM, TB, e.a. that much (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777337)

See the mozilla.dev.planning [google.com] thread in which the Firefox 2 EOL was first discussed. Yes, just dropping support altogether would cause problems for products like SeaMonkey, Thunderbird e.a. (which haven't yet shipped a version based on 1.9), and that's why that won't happen. Firefox 2 might be unsupported, but necessary security fixes will continue to be identified and backported to the Mozilla 1.8.1 branch, so that those products can continue to release security updates for a while until after their next versions have shipped (hopefully by the end of Q1 2009).

Panther Users (2, Interesting)

MrLint (519792) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777349)

This is kind of a concern, Mac OS X 10.3 is still alive and well out there. Somewhere along the line they cut 10.3.9 from the supported OSes for FF3, so now its 10.4 and up only. Now while I don't expect the 2.x branch to have any security compromising problems, the establishment dogs who's only job it is to demand that every possible security thing is addressed will start grousing. And FF has been he only alternative for an up to date browser.

Re:Panther Users (3, Informative)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777373)

This is kind of a concern, Mac OS X 10.3 is still alive and well out there.
[...]
And FF has been he only alternative for an up to date browser.

Actually, iCab [www.icab.de] and Opera [opera.com] are still supporting 10.3.9.

Re:Panther Users (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777467)

the establishment dogs who's only job it is to demand that every possible security thing is addressed will start grousing.

They haven't been grousing about the fact that Apple hasn't released security updates for 10.3 in months? About the fact that the latest(and almost certainly last) version of Quicktime for 10.3.9 has numerous security holes?

Re:Panther Users (1)

lpontiac (173839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777825)

Mac OS X 10.3 is still alive and well out there.

Can't find it on Apple's site, but I'm pretty sure 10.3.x is unsupported and receives no security updates.

Re:Panther Users (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777929)

While your point is well taken, QT 7.4.5 got a security update in April and it included 10.3.9.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1241 [apple.com]

Re:Panther Users (1)

MechaBlue (1068636) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780731)

10.3.9 hasn't seen any kinds of updates from Apple for months. As of Friday, the following common internet software does not have the most recent version available:

  • Safari* (1.3.2 vs 3.2)
  • QuickTime* (7.5 vs 7.5.5)
  • Firefox (2.0.0.18 vs 3.0.4)
  • Flash Player (9.0.151.0 vs 10.0.12.36)
  • Adobe Reader* (7.1.0 vs 9.0.0)
  • Java* (1.4.2 update 12 vs 1.5.0 update 16) (6 is available for Leopard but isn't compatible with Safari)

* This item hasn't received any updates recently and is presumed to be unsupported.

The following internet software has a most recent version available:

  • Opera (9.62)
  • Shockwave Player (11.0.3.470)
  • Flip4Mac (2.2.1.11)

While this list is not exhaustive, these are commonly used applications that are exposed to the internet. The lack of OS, Safari, and QuickTime updates says that the platform is no longer supported Apple. The lack of recent major versions says that other companies are stopping support for Mac OS X 10.3.

Alive? Yes. Well? No. 10.3 is living in an iron lung.

Well I hope Thunderbird 3 comes out soon... (2, Informative)

Yer Mum (570034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777351)

Then. In any case it's not nice to be forced to upgrade to version 3 and have support immediately cut off for version 2. I'd like to be able to stay with the old version for half a year or so, I like my mail profile and I don't like data loss bugs.

Re:Well I hope Thunderbird 3 comes out soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778467)

It's not like mozilla doesn't have the money to support multiple branches and applications.

Support for old versions is too short (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777355)

This is one of the reasons Firefox fails to gain market share. A new release comes out and 6 months later the previous one is abandoned. No enterprise can accept this.

Re:Support for old versions is too short (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777435)

I've an idea. Fuck the enterprise, fuck enterprise, fuck corporations, and fuck you too!

Re:Support for old versions is too short (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777797)

Or the fact that you can't centrally manage it. There are some unsupported community builds out there, but none of them come close to what IE can do in the right hands - especially the whole Zones concept which, while not perfect, can allow very powerful policies to be set.

Add to that that a browser is highly security critical, and deploying IE updates is a breeze even in very small Windows deployments thanks to WSUS, it's not that easy with Firefox.

It clearly shows that the Mozilla Foundation, like Apple, only targets home users.

Re:Support for old versions is too short (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778493)

FF 3 has a number of improvements over 2 for enterprise deployment, and I believe more are planned for future releases.

Re:Support for old versions is too short (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778263)

No enterprise can accept this.

Please don't be silly. It is entirely possible that this policy is reducing the numbers of enterprises that are adopting Firefox, but I know for a fact that at least one enterprise has accepted this, so your claim is trivially shown to be false and everything you say thereby becomes suspect.

Thunderbird? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777357)

The summary indicates that Thunderbird 2 will not be supported after the mid-December EOL. However, on the Thunderbird site, there's no mention of this and there's no version past 2.0.0.17 available for download.

Will Thunderbird be affected or is the summary mistaken?

too bad for my employer (1)

amigabill (146897) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777359)

Our sysadming at work refuses to install FF3, largely because of the large number of support libraries that he would also need to install/update. I guess I can understand to some extent that some things are certified for our CAD software vendors to support things, but it feels uncomfortable to move into a situation lacking security updates in any part of the system.

Re:too bad for my employer (3, Informative)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777577)

We use Suse Linux Enterprise Server 10 at work. The GTK libraries are too old to build Firefox 3, and SLES 11 is not coming out for a few months.. I guess our local admin will have to seriously consider ditching SLES, its general obsolescence is becoming a problem lately.

But in any case, I can't understand the decision of ending support for Firefox 2 just 6 months after having released Firefox 3, this is too short for some distributions to respond.

Re:too bad for my employer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777743)

Can't you build a local set of GTK libs too?
Also, Mozilla do distribute pre-compiled binaries for Linux; these are (iirc) already linked statically against the libraries they need.

Re:too bad for my employer (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777887)

That would void Novells support agreement. Compiling your own libs for a production server never happpens.

Besides why do you think they pay Novell for?

Re:too bad for my employer (2, Informative)

arizonagroovejet (874489) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778317)

According to a thread on Novell's forums, they and Red Hat will be back porting security updates to Firefox 2 until they release new versions of their Enterprise Linux products. http://forums.novell.com/novell-product-support-forums/suse-linux-enterprise-desktop-sled/sled-updates/336654-firefox-support-2-x-ends-december-what-then.html [novell.com] The thread also contains a link to a guide to getting Firefox 3 running on SLES/SLED 10.

Re:too bad for my employer (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778575)

You are running a graphical web browser on a server?, does anyone see something wrong with this picture?

Re:too bad for my employer (1)

pablomme (1270790) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778667)

It does seem peculiar. I don't know what lead to this decision, but we're using SLES for desktops instead of SLED. I don't think it's wrong, just a bit peculiar.

Anyway, SLED has the same issue too.

Re:too bad for my employer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777995)

Glad we use Debian Etch with Iceweasel. At least we will still receive security updates via the Debian people.

Re:too bad for my employer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778477)

This way we can be sure it will be as secure as their OpenSSL.
For the time being I will use lynx which is included in the OpenBSD base system and thus audited and mantained by people who know what they are doing.

Re:too bad for my employer (4, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778355)

That is the issue with Firefox/Mozilla. They seem to ignore the enterprise requirements, how companies do things etc. As result, IE enjoys its kingdom on Windows desktop.

For example, while entire thing is documented, even open source package makers exist, they refuse to ship MSI packages. MSI is the Windows Native installer. It is not so different from shipping tar.gz to Redhat Enterprise and expect those sysadmins sit and convert them to RPM. It is same deal on OS X too while OS X doesn't have that many enterprise users. Normally, a .pkg should be provided.

Here is the entirely open source maker for MSI files coming from MS employee directly. (No moonlight/mono deal)
http://wix.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

No, Windows admins won't monkey around 2000 terminals to run "setup.exe" files. Some guys spare significant amount of time building their own MSI files just to satisfy Firefox fans.

If you can't run FF3, you better convert to Konqueror or Opera if they really stop security updates. Firefox is really popular and lots of 2.x users still exist. Black hats will sure use that advantage.

As a Mac user (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777379)

I currently own an iBook G4 running Mac OS X 10.3.9 and using Firefox 2 to browse the web. Since Firefox 3 recquires Mac OS X 10.4 or later, either I have to buy a newer verson of Mac OS X, use an "unsecured" version of Firefox or use another browser.

Life sucks :/

Re:As a Mac user (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780813)

Or install Linux for free.

Left Behind: An Open Source Movie. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777381)

"So, if you haven't already upgraded, there's no time like the present."

That's why one should upgrade to [insert commercial software here] version before it's too late.

Internet Explorer 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777385)

The fact that it will not have any security upgrades won't stop people from using it.
Of course, most people who uses it knows better, but I've installed quite a lot of "red internets" to some computer iliterates some time ago, and don't trust them to click on the "upgrade" button, without the urge to call me...
Time to get that [thinkgeek.com] shirt?

Time marches on. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777427)

I am somewhat disappointed, but time marches on. I had been using FireFox 2 up until last week before finally "upgrading" to FireFox 3; honestly there are not many detectable differences (and all the extensions I use still work fine). My one and only complaint is the "Awesome Bar". Some people love it; other hate it. I hate it. It's not enough to make me stop using it, but I really wish I could get the old Address Bar back.

Re:Time marches on. (1)

cobaltnova (1188515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777479)

Then turn it off. If you don't want search results, set "browser.urlbar.maxRichResults" to zero in about:config. If you want the old appearance try oldbar [mozilla.org] . I actually found that Firefox 3 was a tiny bit faster than 2, so I'm happy.

For more information look here [mozillazine.org] and here [cnet.com] .

Re:Time marches on. (1)

cobaltnova (1188515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777545)

Bad form to reply to my own post, I know. Oldbar is kind of out of date. Old location bar [mozilla.org] may be a better bet.

Also, more info here [googlepages.com] . With instructions.

Re:Time marches on. (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778279)

My one and only complaint is the "Awesome Bar". Some people love it; other hate it. I hate it. It's not enough to make me stop using it, but I really wish I could get the old Address Bar back.

Give it some time. Your reaction is a common one, but not everyone who starts off hating it stays that way. I should know; I went from hating it, to accepting it, to finding it really quite useful on occasion.

thank god i'm safe (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777451)

phew!
thank god i'm safe, my 1.8 install isn't being chopped.

I hope they fix Firefox 3 by then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777751)

Last time I tried Firefox 3 a couple months ago, the bookmarking system was intolerably slow. Bookmarking a single page took 10-20+ seconds. Many of the convenient addons that I take for granted as part of the Firefox browsing experience, weren't available or weren't functionally equivalent to the Firefox 2 versions. Newer isn't always better. I had to switch back to Firefox 2, because it just works.

Here's hoping for an independent project to keep up security patches on Firefox 2.

Why act like MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778251)

If people aren't upgrading besides technical reasons (E.g. OS X 10.3.x situation), they must have reasons to hate/decline the FF 3. While I am never into Firefox too much, shouldn't Mozilla organisation listen to them, ask them what makes them stay in 2.x and try to fix the issues?

This is a bit like MS thing, sorry. As their "We shipped Vista, death to XP" days before they ultimately figured the issues and they released SP1 and hurrying Windows 7 now. Even MS postpones death of XP every month or so.

What bothers me is not the Firefox 3.x only release schedule. Not asking people what stops them from upgrading to 3.x is the real deal.

Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778305)

Until I can admin multiple devices with self-signed certificates, Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red ass. I guess I'll be stuck using IE.

Re:Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778405)

admin multiple devices

What the fuck are you talking about?

self-signed certificates

The instructions to accept the certificate are right there on the screen. You don't even have to dig through a bunch of menus, just click where it tells you to click.

Re:Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red (1)

MROD (101561) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779583)

self-signed certificates

The instructions to accept the certificate are right there on the screen. You don't even have to dig through a bunch of menus, just click where it tells you to click.

Yes, you have to click several times (as opposed to once in FF2). Unfortunately a great number of embedded control devices generate a new self-signed cert. every time they boot, which makes FF3 basically unusable for operating this sort of thing.

Re:Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red (1)

kjots (64798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780303)

Unfortunately a great number of embedded control devices generate a new self-signed cert. every time they boot

I think your angst should be directed towards these lazy and inconsiderate hardware developers for violating the intended purpose of HTTPS, rather then at Firefox for doing what is essentially the right thing.

Oh, but wait, it makes your life just a little bit more difficult. I guess it must be bad.

Re:Firefox 3 can kiss my rosy red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25780517)

Actually, they are using https correctly.. for one of its purposes, to prevent snooping of a connection on a closed network where authenticity isn't an issue (as you are usually using bare IP addresses rather than domain names on your own network).

Now, the problem of testing the authenticity of a connection is where 3rd-party, trusted signed certificates come in, which is what you and the designers of the FF3 code are thinking of.

The problem with FF3 is that it takes 5 clicks and an "error" page to do this (where in this case it is not an error as such, hence breaking HCI rules) instead of the FF2 one click. This wouldn't be such a problem if it were a configurable to switch to the old system, even if it were buried within the about:config system to make it difficult for the general public (<sarchasm>who we obviously have to save from themselves as obviously aren't intelligent enough</sarchasm>), but it's not and the developers arrogantly dismiss the idea out of hand.

i would update but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778599)

i would update but i really really really hate the way firefox 3 deals with your history in the address bar. i don't want random links i click on to show up here. i only want links i type in or paste in, nothing else.

when i last used 3 it would only save 4 or 5 links i typed, the rest being junk i clicked on. oh and some of the stuff would remain, forever. had to uninstall to reset the issue until it happened agian.

so looks like either IE or opera if mozilla wants to do things that way.

Golly (1)

caspy7 (117545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779337)

Golly, maybe we should release Thunderbird 3 *before* discontinuing support for 2.
You know. Just a thought.

Seamonkey 2.0 is not yet even in beta (2, Insightful)

bcwright (871193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779599)

Seamonkey 2.0 is not yet even in beta (there are alpha releases available). The previous versions of Seamonkey (1.1.*) are based on Gecko 1.8. There are plans to get Seamonkey 2.0 into beta "Real Soon Now" but that probably won't be until Firefox 3.1 goes gold.

A bit of a shame since Seamonkey is the logical inheritor of the the old Netscape feature set and look-and-feel, but done right (and with far fewer bugs). It even has a WYSIWYG HTML editor that works much like the old Netscape editor, except that it very rarely (if ever) crashes - Unlike Netscape, in which it was always a gamble whether you'd be able to get anything done in the composer before Netscape crashed and you'd lose all your work.

Yeah, it's open to the criticism of being a prime example of the Swiss Army knife approach to software design - but in fact it does many of these things quite well, often better than specialized applications. For example, although there are a few other open source WYSIWYG HTML editors out there, virtually all of the others have died on the vine at this point.

Extensions wanted (1)

Krommenaas (726204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779891)

Does anyone know of FF3 extensions that... - let me zoom in/out of text only, like in FF2? - prevents the url bar from showing everyone standing behind me what sites I've been visiting?

still on 2.0 (1)

barryfandango (627554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780127)

nooooo! I'm still hooked on 2.0 for Google Browser Sync (only supports 2.0, development has stopped.) Why can't another browser incorporate such a feature?!

Re:still on 2.0 (1)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780525)

You mean like Opera Link, which is included with Opera?

Thank god (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780771)

The last firefox 'security update' I installed completely wrecked it, making it crash on startup. Now it only runs in safe mode. I hope they never realise any more of these 'improvements'.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...