Beta
×

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!

Firefox 5 In Aurora Channel

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the versioning's-tough dept.

Firefox 161

blair1q writes "Mozilla.org has added a new intermediate development state, Aurora, to its Firefox development chain. Coming between Nightly-Build and Beta, it adds a fourth sense to the meaning of 'the current version of Firefox' (the Release version fills out the trope). And now they have populated the Aurora channel with what will eventually become Firefox 5. The intent is to reduce release-version cycle times by allowing more live testing of new features before the integrated code gets into a Beta version. The inaugural Aurora drop includes 'performance, security and stability improvements.' Firefox 5 is scheduled to enter Beta on May 17, and Release on June 21. Downloads of all of the active channels are available from the Firefox channels webpage."

cancel ×

161 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only half as good as Chome (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825790)

I have Chrome 10!!!

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825850)

I have IE 10

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

fukapon (469402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826262)

Don't foget biggest one, Opera 11!

Re:Only half as good as Chome (2, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825924)

I have 3.6, and it seems I'll be sticking to it until this "my version number is bigger then yours" insanity finally ejaculates and comes back to being a quality release rather then "lookie how fast we can release miniscule updates" like a premature ejaculator competition.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825980)

Eventually they will all switch to a YYYYMMDD release number. Until someone first gets the idea to use a Unix timestamp instead.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

Homburg (213427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826022)

The only proper version number is the 40-digit git commit id.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

portalcake625 (1488239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826062)

Hand in your geek card, Mozilla uses Mercurial.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827478)

Preferably they will just use milliseconds since epoch, for example 1302867763. That way there's never any confusion on the release order ;)

Re:Only half as good as Chome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826088)

So in other words you are basing your usage of software purely on its version number. Seriously, who gives a shit what the version number is? It doesn't affect how the software works.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

Billhead (842510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826162)

It DOES affect the software when they start adding bloat just to get a jump on their competitors with a new version number.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826432)

Have they added bloat?

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827248)

Actually, there's always going to be plenty of room for improvement. We're very fortunate to have firefox for reasons that transcend preference, and we should be glad to see this intensive development effort. A truly FOSS web browser becoming a de facto standard benefits everyone. It certainly lit a fire under microsoft, and look at the newer versions of IE. Not my cup of tea, but way better than they were pre mozilla.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827512)

Chrome users do. Apple users probably do as well. If you haven't learned by now that there's more to selling software than quality and functionality then you probably own an Apple. They've been successfully selling software because it's trendy for years.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (5, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826294)

Won't happen. What *is* insanity today, however, is sticking to a yearly or bi-yearly release cycle when the HTML standards evolve faster than that. Shorter cycles implies less features indeed, but this also means that there's not as much to test before each release, so the risks of following the evolution of the web better isn't increased despite following it better.

This is basically a very simplified version of the Chromium dev's motivation to move to this.

But it's of course more fun to think it's a version number game. However, just wait 'til Chrome 27 and you'll see that version numbers will lose their meaning soon enough, just like Google and others intended.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826552)

What *is* insanity today, however, is sticking to a yearly or bi-yearly release cycle when the HTML standards evolve faster than that

Seriously? We are still waiting for CSS3 to be finalised 12 years after the first draft was released. The precursor to HTML5 began its life in 2004 and HTML5 itself had its first draft release in 2008.

As a web developer, I wouldn't want to create a site that relied on people using a browser that was only a couple of months old. Sure it might work for Firefox and Chrome users, but what about the smaller browsers that can't keep up or the ones in embedded devices and phones.

On the other side of the coin, as a web user I don't want to have to constantly upgrade my browser to suit the latest whiz-bang HTML requirements of web developers. I upgrade my systems to benefit me, not anyone else.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826468)

So you missed Firefox 4.0, the last major release then ;-)

Re:Only half as good as Chome (4, Funny)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826774)

I have 3.6, and it seems I'll be sticking to it until this "my version number is bigger then yours" insanity finally ejaculates

<Sigh> Just close your eyes really tight, and say "It's version 3.8! It's version 3.8! It's version 3.8!" and click download. And then stop whining about something that was completely arbitrary to begin with.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826826)

You'll be waiting a very long time...did you look at the average computer user in the last time? Most are believing that 64Bit will double the performance...becuase it is twice as much as 32Bit...

Re:Only half as good as Chome (2)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827054)

4.0 is a major upgrade from 3.6, not a miniscule update. I suggest you download it. There are significant perf improvements, in the JS engine and elsewhere.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827416)

Hey now! That's a survivial instinct!

Re:Only half as good as Chome (1)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826702)

and only a quarter as good as Opera 11.

Re:Only half as good as Chome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826956)

lol! niggers on unicycles!

Chrome 10.x needs a security patch... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827602)

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34532/?task=advisories [secunia.com]

(LOL, & just as I was about to post this reply? I noticed your registered username here... Hello "King Billy" (what I call Mr. Gates, out of respect, not "ribbing")).

Doubt you're he but... there you are!

APK

P.S.=> Just a "heads-up"/"FYI" thing! See - I like it & use it, myself (though a big Opera fan here), & I actually started to use it (Chromium actually, not GOOGLE Chrome) around 2-3 months ago.

I'll say 2 things about Chromium:

---

1.) It is F A S T

2.) It is very "compatible" with most websites (better than Opera here, though I don't like admitting it)

---

AND, it WAS "100% bulletproof & bugfree" on the 'security-front' as far as patching KNOWN security vulnerabilities, up until 2-3 days ago too (but, as you can see, above? Yet another bug has surfaced).

I am just letting you know is all... The Google team's a BIT slower on this one than their usual, because the last one Chrome had? They patched it, same day it came out... apk

Wait-- whaa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825798)

Mozilla began laying out plans for a sped-up cycle designed to generate a new version of its browser every six to 12 week

A new RELEASE version? I guess I haven't been paying attention lately- I'd heard they were speeding up their schedule, but this is like the full life cycle of a butterfly.

Think about that.

Re:Wait-- whaa? (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825806)

Even more bizarrely, the trunk directory now contains builds of Firefox 6. Two years ago, these "major releases" would have been point releases at best.

Re:Wait-- whaa? (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827190)

... life cycle of a butterfly. ...... Think about that.

I thought along these lines: "phase out: To bring or come to an end, one stage at a time." (TheFreeDictionary ).

CC.

I'm really getting sick of this. (0)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825808)

When did Alpha seize to be the development channel & Beta seize to be the bug-tracking channel!? It's like every fucking project I come across has all of this backwards! Like Ubuntu! Everyone KNOWS 11.04 wasn't stable enough when it hit Beta, but they didn't swallow their pride & knock back the beta date & surely it pissed alot of people off! Cyanogenmod releases it's beta-quality builds as release candidates, & will completely change or add entire features during the RC phase!

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825834)

Which is why Corporate America wont touch a .0 release and waits for service packs before upgrading.

Software quality has gone down the tubes. I would tend to argue (flameware here) that Ubuntu is beta level when it's releases have come out until a few weeks after the updates get it stable. Just my opinion since you cited it

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825952)

'Seize' was the beta version of the word. The production version is 'cease'.

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826170)

Damnit I knew spell check was lying to me D:

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826232)

They can't make Firefox 5.0 the Alpha, becauseFirefox 6.0 is already the Alpha:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2446957 [ycombinator.com]

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826540)

What is wrong with simultaneous Alphas of Firefox 5.0 and Firefox 6.0? Surely it's better than coming up with another non-standard term for a pre-release state that is neither a Greek letter, nor a plain English word, so who knows where the hell it fits into things?

Or if they are really convinced that their users are too thick to handle two Alpha's at once, they'd have been better off redefining the May17 release as a Gamma release (if an RC is too conventional for them) and calling this the Beta.

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826242)

I disagree with what you say, as far as I can tell from reading planet mozilla, mozilla-central (the alpha channel) is the development channel and anything committed there will make its way into firefox 6, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the feature list for firefox 5 (mozilla-aurora) is frozen and all commits to aurora will just be bugfixes

Re:I'm really getting sick of this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826288)

Aye, when I were a lad the language was pure and unblemished and every word meant what it always had and always should. If "alpha" means development and "beta" means bug-tracking was good enough for the ancient Greeks then it should be good enough for the kids today, that's what I say.

CSS3 Animations (3, Informative)

ablaze (222561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825812)

and it has -moz-animation and @-moz-keyframes support. Works great! Special thanks to David Baron for his work on this.

Google insists that Chrome is faster? (-1, Troll)

haxor32 (2041746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825824)

But benchmarks of latest FF, prove [goo.gl] that FF once again beats Chrome. Yay!

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (1)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825868)

goatse

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825990)

Just posting to wipe my moderation - I marked this a troll not the parent like I meant to which indeed is a Goatse.

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825870)

Not the ones I have seen. In Linux, Chrome wipes the floor off of FF as FF is not hardware enabled and uses direct2d and directx for acceleration. I use Chrome over Firefox 4 on my 3.5 year old laptop because sites like msnbc.com have lots of javascripts which make FF 4 unresponsive in comparison.

This demo here [chromeexperiments.com] is much faster with Chrome. IE 9 wont run it however. Micorosft has their own 3d demo showing IE 9 ahead in their fishtank tool.

IE 9 seems to render html sites with javascript and html the fastest while chrome loads them quicker on my system. Firefox 4 is still quite an improvement over Firefox 3.6 but it is no longer in the lead from what I see. Scrolling on slashdot is the chopiest with it.

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826002)

Not the ones I have seen. In Linux, Chrome wip

Begging the question. [wikipedia.org]

pes the floor off of FF as FF is not hardware enabled and uses direct2d and directx for acceleration. I use Chrome over Firefox 4 on my 3.5 year old laptop because sites like msnbc.com

Appeal to emotion. [wikipedia.org]

have lots of javascripts which make FF 4 unresponsive in comparison.

This demo here [chromeexperiments.com] is much faster with Chrome. IE 9 wont run it however. Micor

Appeal to law. [wikipedia.org]

rosft has their own 3d demo showing IE 9 ahead in their fishtank tool.

IE 9 see

Red herring. [wikipedia.org]

ems to render html sites with javascript and html the fastest while chrome loads them quicker on my system. Firefox 4 is still quite an improvement over Firefox 3.6 but it is no l

Appeal to authority. [wikipedia.org]

longer in the lead from what I see. Scrolling on slashdot is the chopiest with it.

False dilemma. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826212)

Congratulations. You found a way to be more annoying than the grammar nazis.

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (0)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826360)

nazi's. Their unfixed that for you. (fight back against them. :) )

Re:Google insists that Chrome is faster? (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826794)

[Chrome wi]pes the floor off of FF as FF is not hardware enabled and uses direct2d and directx for acceleration. I use Chrome over Firefox 4 on my 3.5 year old laptop because sites like msnbc.com

Appeal to emotion. [wikipedia.org]

Where's the appeal to emotion here? That he reads MSNBC?

By the way, a lot of the others are wrong too.

Don't CLICK ON LINK (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825892)

It is good old fashioned goatse.cx.

Moderators please do your job

Re:Don't CLICK ON LINK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825976)

Why would anyone click on a link from the Greenland domain "goo" anyway.

Current version (2, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825856)

it adds a fourth sense to the meaning of 'the current version of Firefox'

No it doesn't, most of us aren't testers. If you want to use the latest development build, alpha build, beta build or release candidate, do so, but don't pretend it's a release. That's just hyperbole at best. Me? I'll wait for the next release, and thanks to all you folks who are prepared to run intermediate builds in the form of mass QA.

Re:Current version (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826694)

I've only just upgraded to FF4.0, although I did use the betas for a while. Thing is, some of my extensions only work with "official" releases, and I don't have time to work out how they should be re-written to work with a beta.

Re:Current version (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827062)

> I don't have time to work out how they should be re-written to work with a beta.

There's a setting in about:config that you can use to turn off extension version checking. Most of the time, this is enough, IME. And I bet given the new release cycle, that 99% of extensions written for 4 work with 5.

Re:Current version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827410)

I'm an end-user, not a tester. I don't want to be faffing around, nor trying to figure what's wrong on the off-chance it's broken. Give me something that works out of the box, or I might as well switch to Safari or IE, or even Chrome. Is FF are real product, or are Mozilla back to the delusion that they're creating the basis for other browser manufacturers (resurrect Netscape and that whole Seamonkey BS anyone?)

Re:Current version (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827630)

Wow, you're a real fuck tard, aren't you?

Firefox extensions are aftermarket products. That means it is not mozilla's job to fix them, but rather the extension author.

When was the last time you saw larry wall patching people's perl scripts? Does Bill Joy fix your java programs when they break because Java got an update?

Grab a brain, moron.

This is all getting slightly ridiculous... (4, Insightful)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825876)

I'm getting rather tired of everyone paying more attention to release dates, version numbers, and now the names of production and testing phases than the quality of the actual product/program.

Exactly! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826424)

Firefox 4 is really fast, but I don't think it's necessary for it to contact Google's safe browsing cache 5-10 times before I'm done reading one web page.

I keep getting skips and lags when scrolling, now it's off and I got peace, for a reduction in security.

Re:This is all getting slightly ridiculous... (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826450)

I'm getting rather tired of everyone paying more attention to release dates, version numbers, and now the names of production and testing phases than the quality of the actual product/program.

I think this is a pretty useful one - for developers at least. Now it's much easier to keep two copies of Firefox next to eachother. One is the normal release, stable, like FF4 now. The other is in alpha or beta, and shows where it's going. Firefox developers can use and test it, website developers can see how their site looks in the upcoming release.

There is only one problem that I see, you cannot run them next to eachother, and that is because they both have the same process name (I suppose). I have Firefox 4 running, tried to start Aurora, and it refused. Of course I could close FF4, but that is annoying if you read your mail in it, if you need to unlock the master key etc. So I hope they can manage to rename the process name.

Re:This is all getting slightly ridiculous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827186)

did you try -no-remote or FoxTester [mozilla.org] ?

Fourth Sense (2)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825908)

"it adds a fourth sense to the meaning..."

Is that like a fourth state of matter? What are the other three senses of the 'the current version of Firefox' anyway?

----
Sorry, you're foreign.

Re:Fourth Sense (1)

DeusExInfernus (2041722) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826054)

I think I've become too desensitized to BS; I didn't even wonder about that...

Re:Fourth Sense (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826320)

Senses of meaning, i.e.:

"Something or other is meant in the sense that..."

Bah! Firefox is bad after all (-1, Troll)

haxor35 (2040372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825928)

Its rumored that its new javascript engine [goo.gl] will run only in Windows!

Re:Bah! Firefox is bad after all (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35825964)

Frankly, I don't care what FF5 does if there's no status bar in FF4+. I'll keep using FF3.6 until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers if I can't find a new browser with a native status bar (screw the idea of having to install a plugin to get a status bar).

Re:Bah! Firefox is bad after all (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825974)

Goatse

(dude, seriously, you tried it like 3 posts prior as haxor32)

Re:Bah! Firefox is bad after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826024)

So haxor's major version number increased by 3 in 29 minutes. Firefox, try to top that!

Oh god another version (2, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825946)

So they want to have two months between major versions, and expect all add-on developers to update and test, all web developers to check their layouts, web site and magazine editors to update their tutorials, useful forum posts to be obsolete, people get used to the new UI...

WTF is this shit?

Re:Oh god another version (1)

syockit (1480393) | more than 3 years ago | (#35825982)

It worked with Google Chrome. So why not?

Re:Oh god another version (3, Interesting)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826310)

For most sites Firefox traffic is much higher than Chrome traffic. Add to that the fact that Chrome is using Webkit anyway so will benefit from prior testing and development for Safari and it's far less risky to churn out major releases. At the moment Firefox is in a sweet spot where it's stable enough and with a big enough user base that I can justify supporting it to clients. If we get to the point where I'm having to support 3 or 4 versions of it with the later ones potentially breaking stuff that was working previously it's going to be a lot more difficult for me to make that case. Besides, Chrome has always pitched itself as leading the way on the experimental side of things (see Chrome experiments), while Firefox is meant to be the stable, open source alternative to IE. I expect things to occasionally break in Chrome but I'm always surprised when they break in FF.

Re:Oh god another version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826090)

If your site is so inflexible that it requires specific versions of browsers to render correctly, then your're doing it wrong. 1995 called and it wants it marquee tag back, moron.

Also, I don't trust developers that can't keep up in the opensource world. Things change and you should plan for that. No body wants unmaintained code be it some bullshit addon or a kernel module.

Finally, you need not worry about "major versions." Since you obviously can't keep up, the new bag is that you can change the definition of "major version" to what ever the fuck you want. So what was perviously a minor version is now a major version. Weeee!!! This is fun. Marketing: bigger numbers mean better. Lets do that a lot. It's still the same product, made by the same jackasses, just with a new numbering and naming scheme because it's good press.

TLDR: Stop freaking out, it's really not that big of a deal.

Re:Oh god another version (2)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826332)

The issue isn't the bigger number, it's the risk that the tendency to want to justify the bigger number will lead to bloat, and that the smaller timescales will lead to bugs. With a minor revision nobody cares if all you did was tidy up some code to execute a little more efficiently, but with a major release people will want to know what added benefit it brings - that means a drive for additional functionality which needs sufficient time for implementation and testing (and no, that doesn't mean using your audience as guinea pigs). It doesn't matter how well you've coded your site if the browser is introducing its own bugs (see IE6 for evidence of this).

Re:Oh god another version (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826990)

FF4 is a good example of why they need a longer testing period. In early betas they moved the link destination URL from the bottom of the screen in the status bar to the right hand side of the address bar. It was a really jarring change because everyone is used to instinctively looking in the lower left corner for link URLs. For the RC it was moved back to the lower left, but it took many beta versions to be discussed and sorted out. If they were in a rush to get V4 out we would now be stuck with it mis-feature and FF would be worse for it.

Can't we just have a quality, stable and fast browser that doesn't jump on every bandwagon and constantly try to "innovate" for the sake of it? The new tabs-in-titlebar feature of FF4 is a perfect example of this - Chrome is doing it so let's copy them and save a few pixels! More of the web page is visible now! What, you were looking at the page title in the title bar? On a narrow screen the tabs are too small to display the title? The Firefox menu is harder to use than the drop downs we removed? Not having the tabs where they have been for the past 7+ years is annoying? But... But... 16 extra pixels of web page man!

Re:Oh god another version (1)

wunderbus (1545573) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826120)

No. Instead, they want developers to do the same thing they're doing with Chrome now, which is to develop for the current version of the browser, which adheres to the most accurate specification of HTML. That specification is improved constantly, and you wouldn't want to use a browser that implements HTML incorrectly.

Re:Oh god another version (2)

gertin (1063236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826130)

Shorter release cycles also means less radical changes from release to release. So, add-on developers should in theory have to do less work with each new version as compared to 3->4. The same goes for web developers, I doubt any radical changes will be done to Gecko in release cycles as short as 6 weeks.

Re:Oh god another version (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826352)

Less testing to be done since each update will bring with it less changes...
You won't need to do more testing, you will need to do less testing more often.

Or (0)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826052)

Firefox today took another step towards ripping off Chrome completely by adding another release channel.

Re:Or (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826118)

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826250)

You're being sarcastic but Chrome has the following features on that list:

- pin sites to start menu / taskbar / desktop (IE did not invent this)
- improved syncing
- automatic extension updates (it's invisible actually)
- no home button
- PDF viewer
- file upload indicator

OP is mostly right it seems.

radical proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826094)

where is the source code

F6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826268)

But have they fixed F6? I went to FF 4 for nearly half an hour before going back to 3.6 because F6 doesn't work. I know there's an add on to fix it, but such a simple bug should not need 3rd party software.

Please win back the long-time users (2, Insightful)

scragz (654271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826272)

I've been with Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox from the beginning; custom builds, bug reports, tech evangelism, extensions/userscripts; I have made more than one offline XUL application for personal use (JS application programming before it was cool!); the whole ten meters. It had been so good for so long.

In 2008 a few things happened. 1. The extremely sensible and welcome features added in the 2.x release cycle, coupled with the unique browser landscape, ended up derailing the original goals of the project (streamlined browser, minimal yet viable for mainstream use, with robust extension capabilities for anything else anyone could want) back into some ridiculous browser arms race; 2. I switched to OSX and I think the memory problems are even worse there; and 3. Chrome started shaping up to be everything I wanted technically, with its new extension and built-in userscript support (even if it was inferior), its sandboxing, and its sort of remotely sane memory usage, even if it didn't have the warm fuzzy feeling I had from my closeness to the Mozilla project.

I am still so guilty about my switch to Chrome but I spend so much of my life in a browser window that I really had to go the practical route.

And since then it's just been getting worse and worse, with all resources going into either JS performance to keep up in benchmarks or features to be able to add some more bullet points to a release announcement. All anyone wants is better memory management, and then tab sandboxing would be nice after that since Flash/Silverlight can really bring down an embedding process. Give us some core improvements that aren't marketing driven and move all the AWESOMENESS into extensions that can be disabled after install! That's all anyone (on /.) wants.

Re:Please win back the long-time users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826724)

Yada yada yada, but you made one mistake, google fanboy. Chrome memory usage is much worse than Firefox. Perhaps find a different line of attack? Me, I don't want your chrome because it is market driven and no one sane would run a web browser by an ad broker. Good luck with your doubleclick browser, your advertising for them, and your ad-blocking.

Re:Please win back the long-time users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826788)

I am still so guilty about my switch to Chrome

Stop being a fanboi and get over it. Sometimes it's time to move on.

Firefox is a fucking dinosaur. Those who still praise it as the next coming of Christ obviously are just reliving the glory days when Firefox was worth the time it took to download but that's not today. To hear the Firefox fanbois rave on you'd still think this was a matter of IE6 vs Firefox but at this point I'd sooner run IE over Firefox and that doesn't even scratch the surface of what's out there.

Re:Please win back the long-time users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827584)

I'm on /. and I'm glad the Awesomebar is built in. I probably never would have tried it if it were an extension, and it has turned out to be one of the best time-saving features I have used. An option to easily turn it off would be good, though.

Stupid (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826274)

Easier to just get rid of version numbers and use a rolling release system.

How do the arora guys feel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826304)

Did the mozilla developers pick this name purely to piss them off?

http://code.google.com/p/arora/ [google.com]

Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (2)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826410)

What the fuck Mozilla... Firefox 4 is crashing 20 times a day for me. I'm not even joking, here's a copy paste from the 7 last entries of my about:crashes

bp-... 2011-04-14 20:01
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:59
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:05
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:05
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:00
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:00
bp-... 2011-04-14 18:31

Basically I've switched to chrome now to be able to to my work. Your new strategy is fucking ridiculous. Build a quality browser instead of jumping onto the "we must increment the major version number faster than the others" bandwagon. Once upon a time the major version number was only incremented when you restarted a project from scratch. Nowadays that number doesn't mean anything anymore - to anyone. I don't know what major version number chrome is and I don't care either - and I don't think most people don't know or care.

You can start plan new features when you've fixed all the bugs. Planning for version 5 when your browser can't even run 10 minutes without crashing is ridiculous.

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (1)

NaiveBayes (2008210) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826436)

From the article: 'performance, security and stability improvements' Where did you get the idea that Firefox 5 wouldn't focus on stability?

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827144)

Those same "goals" were touted for many of the Phoenix and Firebird releases. Of course, they were never achieved.

Soon enough, however, we were hearing about how Firefox 1.0 would be faster, more secure and wouldn't crash so often. Again, this never materialized.

Then we heard how Firefox 1.5 was quicker, securer, and more crash-resilient. None of this was true, once more.

This has happened for every release of Firefox since then. Firefox 4.0 is no different. While its level of security may not be as horrid as other browsers, it's still exceptionally slow, and its stability is pretty poor. Like the poor fellow who posted earlier knows all too well, crashes every 2 to 6 minutes are normal.

After being mislead for so long, why should we think that Firefox 5 will actually be any better?

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826576)

In the name of clarity, I will post my about:crashes log from my new FF4 install below.

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826596)

I've been running F4 since the 1st beta and it's quite stable. Your problem is probably some extension.

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826820)

What the fuck Mozilla... Firefox 4 is crashing 20 times a day for me. I'm not even joking

What are the people that keep complaining about Firefox crashing all the time doing that I'm not? I've seen Firefox crash, sure, but maybe 10-15 times a year, not 20 times a day - and I'm doing everything with it that I could want of a browser. I don't have hundreds of extensions installed, but I've got a fair few common ones, so it doesn't seem to me that they're the source of the differences...

What am I missing?

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826930)

Have you umm... I don't know... considered that it might be a plugin issue or anything like that?
I mean... if you actually care you'd at least attempt to find out the root cause of the crash?

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827084)

Are you able to post a link to one (or more) of your crashes on the crash stats web page?

It sounds like you're having an unusual experience, hopefully somebody will look at your crash reports. I run 4 all day, all night, and have for months. I haven't had a crash since beta 8 or so (and that was OOM related)

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827244)

FF4 was crash prone for me too. Watching it in Proc Explorer I noticed that the "plug in container" would start spawning clones of it's self on exit .. and sometimes on open of FF. Plug In Container would spawn over 20 instances all running at the same time, max out the swap on my comp and kill the entire comp for 20-30 minutes at a time. All it took was opening a page that was running flash ... and about 7 minutes. Moz zine forums pointed me to question if FF and my anti virus where not playing nice together. Avast and FF don't get along .. so the forum suggested. So I dumped that and installed McAfee (yeah, I knew better but had a free license for it). With McAfee running instead of Avast I gained nothing, plug in container still spawned like crazy. In the end McAfee's system overhead was too much for that comp and I had to dump it.

For the first time in years .... I've been forced to go to a new browser. Google's browser and I find myself re-learning IE .... anything that works longer than 7 minutes is a marked improvement over my FF 4 experience.

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827150)

I agree, this is fucking ridiculous. The rule with browsers has always been "wait for the point release or the 0.5 release for stability". Now Mozilla has done away with those niceties - so FF4 is a steaming pile of instability still and they are going to call the bugfix release FF5. This is retarded. It's Firefox 4.1. I fear this new naming convention is going to drive everybody away. The only way I can be won back right now is a stabilized version of FF4. I still love Firefox 3.6, and am still running it on my desktop at home, but I can't stick with that forever.

Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (4, Informative)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827174)

This is my entire crash log dating back to when I originally installed FF on my current work laptop:

11-04-2011 09:19
21-03-2011 14:18
23-12-2010 09:09
29-11-2010 09:34
09-11-2010 12:29
09-11-2010 12:28
08-11-2010 11:25
03-11-2010 09:51
22-09-2010 12:48
22-09-2010 12:48
28-07-2010 16:00
23-07-2010 04:44
29-06-2010 13:49
29-06-2010 13:49
27-11-2009 14:47
01-09-2009 14:21
19-08-2009 11:14
27-07-2009 15:33
24-06-2009 10:07
15-05-2009 14:53
26-03-2009 12:53
29-07-2008 09:41
20-06-2008 08:57
02-06-2008 10:33
21-05-2008 10:46

25 crashes in a span of 3 years and I use plenty of extensions. You must be doing something very wrong.

it is surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35826528)

it is surprise

HREF="http://www.anyincn.com/sub_of_brand.aspx?cat_id=29&bra_id=249&bra_name=BVLCARI+Watchs&cat_name=Watches">BVLCARI Watchs,A

The Firefox I used to know.... (1)

zixxt (1547061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826686)

The Firefox I used to know was a focused, speedy and stable little browser that did its job really well and could be extended to do even more. But how time changes things now when I want a fast speedy and stable browsing experience I load up Chrome when I'm working in Linux and gasp IE9 overtook Firefox as the browser of choice for speed and stability when working under Windows 7. I tried FF4 since the early betas, and yes the speed is good at first but since the fonts are out of wack on my system with FF4 I need to turn off hardware acceleration which makes FF4 lose its sexiness and why I downgraded back to Firefox 3.6.16. Please return to your roots Firefox I miss you.

New strategy! (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826750)

Adding a revision number every couple of months is still not enough.

Wait until some clever software architect discover he can represent numbers as powers of two: this could be a Firefox 32 discussion! And by summer we may discuss about Firefox 64!
Using binary notation is noteworthy too.

Mozilla is killing extensions (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826756)

With this new release schedule I see on very pesky problem surfacing: as a major number is getting increased every six or so months, only actively maintained extensions will be working (unless you hack extensions compatibility in about:config, but most users will never do that).

Firefox is very popular due to its extensions and by changing the rules of the game, Mozilla is killing most of the extensions. It'll be interesting how this situation is going to turn out. One obvious solution is not to increase a major number internally (I still strongly believe that the new schedule was devised to make Firefox more prominent in the world of web browsers where Opera is already at version 11, IE will soon turn 10, Google Chrome will soon become number 11).

No Home button (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35826792)

I physically wince at that. I frequently use the home button to pull myself to my homepage on multiple different tabs (it has links leading off to various places). The first thing that needs to happen here is an extension restoring the Home button. They could just hide it instead of removing it. The UX team has basically taken over at Mozilla, and they like changing stuff to suit their whims.

Re:No Home button (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827222)

Tell me about it.
RSS Icon gone.
Star bs foisted on everyone
Tab Candy?
The missing statusbar?
Awefulbar?
The god-awful looking button that says "Firefox Release Candidate" or "Minefield" or whatever the release happens to be. (The start menu was horrid in XP and yours looks worse Mozilla)

Whatever happened to my streamlined browser that had extensions to add features to it? Now I use extensions to suppress a lot of the bs they've added to the thing.

Shouldn't

Funny thing + don't know if want (1)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35827018)

Well, let's see. Now we have stable release, beta release, aurora release and nightly release, right? Which is similar to --but not the same as-- the former stable release, beta release, alpha/Minefield/nightly. I guess we'll get used to the new status quo. Nitpick: the icons for nightly and aurora make sense, but the icon for beta is the same as the icon for stable. Also, I was using Minefield 4.2a1 and 2 updates ago it digi-evolved to Nighly 6.0a1 + new icon. Surprising. Then I found out about the new version scheme.

Nightly Blds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35827460)

I'm staying on the nightly's since that's the only place that I can get x64 packages and I'm too lazy to build the source myself. I'm irritated that they don't have x64 Aurora packages.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>