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!

Firefox 6 Ships Next Week, 8 Blocks Sneaky Add-Ons

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the seven-due-the-week-after dept.

Firefox 247

CWmike writes "Mozilla is on track to release Firefox 6 next week, according to notes posted on the company's website. 'On track with a few bugs still remaining. No concerns for Tuesday,' the notes stated. Firefox 6 includes several noticeable changes, including highlighting domain names in the address bar — both Chrome and Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 do something similar by boldfacing domain names — and reducing startup time when users rely on Panorama, the browser's multi-tab organizer. Meanwhile, Mozilla said this week that starting with Firefox 8, Mozilla will automatically block browser add-ons until users approve them, which should put an end to sneaky installs."

cancel ×

247 comments

Oh boy, more features! (0)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074324)

Quick, invent more 'stuff' to throw at it, so we don't have to fix the bugs we introduced in ff4!

Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074674)

I got fed up with Firefox's horrible memory leaks and poor performance way back at Firefox 2, and have used alternate browsers since then. But after hearing about Firefox 5 being released, I figured that I'd give it a go.

What a mistake! Firefox 5 hasn't improved at all. The memory leaks are still there, and they're far worse now. I used it for a couple of hours, and its memory use was over 7 GB. Luckily, I've got 16 GB, so 7 GB wasn't that painful. Still, it was totally unacceptable for a web browser to ever use that much memory.

The performance pales in comparison to Chrome, Safari, and even IE. It felt slow, while the others feel fast and responsive.

I just don't get it. They've had years upon years to improve the situation, but it isn't getting any better. It's getting much worse, in fact! All of the other browsers are getting better. Why isn't Firefox? Why does it keep getting worse?

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074920)

What sites are you going to where your browser is soaking 7GB... I've never seen FF run over 800MB, though that is too high imho. However, never really had an issue with it, though I've been using Chrome as my primary for about a year.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (1, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075178)

I can answer that. Go to video sites that are NOT Youtube, like most of the 'Ow my balls!" kind of dumb vid sites? watch FF suck down memory like a wino sucking down MD 20/20. The Chormium based and IE seem to give mem back when you close tabs, FF? Not so much.

I have also seen cases where I had left FF running and went off to do something else and forgot about it and several hours later come back and memory had JUMPED a good 30-40%! Again it seems to be tied to whether or not you had played any videos that day.

This is why after years of having FF in my standard customer build I have replaced it with Comodo Dragon [comodo.com] which IMHO has some nice extra features as far as security and no calling home to Google so it is the best Chromium based for me and my customers. I've always loved the FF UI but IMHO after the 3.6.xx branch FF has just gone to shit. Its memory usage is nuts, it spikes the living hell out of CPUs, especially if the tab you are launching contains video, its just a mess. I have to support everything from netbooks and late P4 office machines to multicore and I need something that will give a consistent experience. Dragon does, FF don't.

Personally I think it is the Gecko engine. I just don't think it has been able to take all the extra crap they have bolted on like plugin separation. Where FF once was a nice lean solid browser ever since Chromium came out it has been "Me too!" to the 50th power instead of just making FF the best FF it can be and I think it shows. I haven't seen memory leakage this bad since the 2.x.x branch. I hope they fix it so I can have another browser in the toolbox but right now the responsiveness and resource usage just isn't there. When it takes a good 25+ seconds to launch FF on a 2.8GHz quad with 8Gb of RAM? That is fucked up. The Dragon takes less than 5 seconds from click to typing.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075476)

I'm also using Comodo and I'm using it all the time now for the last 6 months.

I'd been a FF user since beta 1.0 days. I've grown sick and tired of memory problems and bells and whistles with FF.

It took me a few weeks to really get used to Chrome but its a much better experience.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (4, Interesting)

djl4570 (801529) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075224)

I'm probably pissing in the wind responding to an AC but here goes anyway. I've used Firefox since it was Phoenix 0.6. I've run Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox on Windows 2000 Pro, Red Hat/Gnome, on Pentium III and Pentium 4 systems. Firefox has always had an appetite for memory but I've never observed the kind of consumption you describe. I've loaded the high res HST image of the Helix Nebula with the intent of breaking Firefox and it didn't break. It just used seven hundred meg and wow, none of the memory leaked, it was all released when I closed the tab. I've opened two dozen posts on /. in separate tabs. I've opened a dozen tabs on a dozen windows and every time I closed them most all of the memory was released. So prove it. Download Sysinternals Process Explorer or something comparable for your OS and show us a screen shot that documents this claim.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (1, Flamebait)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075720)

It's really worrisome, because it seems to be part of a much larger trend, that of FOSS software in general going downhill, and basically self-destructing.

Just look at the situation with Linux desktops, where both Ubuntu (by far the most popular distro) and Gnome have decided to abandon their users in an attempt to woo ADHD teenagers who do nothing but play games and browse Facebook. The other big desktop, KDE, hasn't gone the dumb-down route like those, but it hasn't really improved much in 10 years either, pursuing a radical rewrite which doesn't seem to have really improved the user experience or improved reliability or performance, but instead offers memory-hungry features of questionable value, namely desktop search and indexing.

The mainstay for Linux/Unix graphics, the X Window System, is also being abandoned in favor of a system that doesn't have network transparency the way X does, eliminating one of the giant features that makes X so great. X is full of legacy cruft and really did need a rewrite to get good performance on modern hardware, but the Wayland people have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in dropping one of the most useful features of X, so pretty soon Linux users won't be able to run applications remotely any more, they'll have to do it like Windows users, using RDP, VNC, etc. where an entire desktop session has to be started up and logged into on the remote computer and opened in a new window. No longer will sysadmins be able to open multiple apps from multiple servers and have them all display on one screen together.

Now Firefox seems to be driving off a cliff too. Before long, we're going to have MS dominant on the desktop again, even though the "desktop" may be decreasingly popular in the home and mainly used in workplaces and for a small number of power users, developers, etc.; and Apple and other consumer device makers dominant for consumer/home markets, making tablets and smartphones that "the masses" use to access the internet.

It's quite sad, because Linux and FOSS had a lot of momentum there for a while, and seemed to be making great progress. But instead of just being happy with that, and trying to get all the important applications and infrastructure to a certain level of maturity and then just going into maintenance mode and encouraging the devs work on other projects to fill in other gaps that exist in the FOSS landscape, the developers just couldn't leave well enough alone, and had to keep reinventing the wheel over and over again, much like their proprietary counterparts where companies want to keep adding more and more features (bloat) so they can convince users to keep paying for regular "upgrades". Obviously, it's not like this with all FOSS projects; the kernel just keeps evolving and adding more drivers (which is a never-ending task with new hardware constantly coming out), openssh hasn't changed significantly in ages, nor has the bash shell, my favorite monitoring program gkrellm doesn't seem to have anyone trying to revamp it over and over, etc. But the big projects just can't seem to help themselves.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075828)

What a mistake! Firefox 5 hasn't improved at all. The memory leaks are still there, and they're far worse now. I used it for a couple of hours, and its memory use was over 7 GB. Luckily, I've got 16 GB, so 7 GB wasn't that painful. Still, it was totally unacceptable for a web browser to ever use that much memory. The performance pales in comparison to Chrome, Safari, and even IE. It felt slow, while the others feel fast and responsive.

I notice you didn't mention konqueror. Does that mean you use (64bit) Windows? There is no 64bit windows version of FF5. Maybe you saw 7MB of RAM used and were confused? IIRC, a 32bit app can't address 7GB of RAM no matter how many bits the OS supports.

Re:Bugs, memory leaks, and poor performance. (2)

DMFNR (1986182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075830)

I'm always suprised when I see reports like this because on my computer (4GB RAM, Ubuntu 10.04 or Windows 7 Home Premium), Firefox and Chrome are pretty comparable memory-wise and Chrome is slightly faster, but only by a little. I very rarely have more than 10 tabs open, mostly documentation type stuff, not to many images or flash, and I've never seen a browser take up more than a couple hundred megs of memory. I'm definitly not calling bullshit on anyone who says this, but what I am wondering is if Firefox is just holding on to the memory to speed itself up and will it give the memory back if another program needs it. It's like in Linux, where if you just look at a simple graph on the memory your system is using it will always be around 90%, but if you investigate a little deeper in to the issue you'll see that most of that is being used as cache. It's very possible Firefox could be doing something similar.

Even with only 4GB of memory, I find I really have to go out of my way to start hitting the swap. If you have 16GB of memory, and the amout Firefox is taking isn't really hurting anything else, why not just let it have it? All it's going to do is make for a faster experience. The real question is what happens when Firefox's allocated memory starts getting in the way of other programs, it would be interesting to see some experiments testing that out because according to Mozilla themselves say they have most of the major memory leaks fixed.

Other issues could be poorly written plug-ins and bulky websites. I know there are a few plug-ins that allow you to manually clear out the memory Firefox is using, and can provide some more data on what exactly is being used.

Re:Oh boy, more features! (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074890)

4? I'd consider upgrading if they just fixed the two distinct data-loss bugs they introduced in Firefox 3 that have been there ever since. (Currently I'm using 2.0.0.20, because it doesn't lose data. I know people complain about FF2's performance, but that's always been less of a concern for me.)

Re:Oh boy, more features! (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075358)

data-loss? Are you saying that FF3 makes your Internet disintegrate?

Great (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074326)

I'm really looking forward to this.

A bit slow, aren't we? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074328)

I'm planning on running 12 by the end of the year. You guys are waaaay behind.

Re:A bit slow, aren't we? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074590)

Version 1337 for the win?

Auto updater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074344)

I would love an auto update to this that did not say "Hey go download here to get the latest version" Or even the current "Downloading patch, please apply later" bit. IM not a chrome user but i like that it auto updates with out intervention.

Really? I thought it was "impossible" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074352)

Really? They can block third party addons?

Gee, every time there was a story about a third party addon breaking Firefox, Firefox's excuse was always that it's "impossible" to prevent third parties from installing addons. Apparently they were lying; they just didn't bother.

Ironically, the ability to block third party addons blocks Firefox from being deployed in any enterprise settings. I guess they weren't kidding about Firefox not being for enterprise users.

Re:Really? I thought it was "impossible" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074656)

No, you dumbass, do try to pay attention. This blocks ALL add-ons until the user explicitly says "yes, I want to install this add-on". Normally when you install an add-on you see that ticking countdown box that warns you, so that's when the user would normally say "yes". But sneaky programs could just slip add-ons into the Firefox directory and it would load them up with no warning at all. Now it'll say "new add-on detected, really let it run?" and if you say no, it will be disabled.

I realize I used a few long words in that but hopefully I got the message across.

Re:Really? I thought it was "impossible" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074760)

Yes, dumbass, but the last time people suggested that Firefox consider implementing something like that, they claimed it was impossible and couldn't be done.

But the point still stands: providing the ability to block admin-installed addons (as Firefox still doesn't support Group Policy, WTF?!), means that Firefox is a no-go in the enterprise.

Every change they've done recently moves Firefox one step closer to be banned from any computer run by a competent sys-admin.

Re:Really? I thought it was "impossible" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074942)

Can't tell if trolling, or just stupid.

They didn't claim it was impossible forever no matter what.

They claimed it was impossible with the current architecture of Firefox.

Obviously they've re-written the way the browser handles Addons, and can now push this feature.

Firefox 24 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074376)

And by 2014, we'll be preparing to upgrade to Firefox 24. \o/

Firefox will be dead by mid-2012. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074896)

And by 2014, we'll be preparing to upgrade to Firefox 24. \o/

It's doubtful that Firefox will be relevant much beyond mid-2012. It's already sliding into irrelevancy. It is becoming the XFree86 of the browser world.

There's just no pressing reason to use Firefox these days. It's no longer 2002, where the only other browser was IE6. With Chrome and Safari and Opera and even IE9 available to us, Firefox offers no benefit.

All of its competitors today are faster, they use less memory, they have better developer tools, they are more extensible, they have smaller installers, and don't go changing their UI every fucking release.

Re:Firefox 24 (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075716)

along with chromium 39! you are getting major features and a more stable browser sooner, so quit complaining about a lousy version number. If you don't want your add-on to break then set the compatible version number to 99 and fix the problems as your users bitch about them.

add-ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074382)

now they need to do something about helping authors keep their addons up to date or making them work some other way.
example google voice addon - didn't work,wasn't supported on 4 via the official addon site. I ended up going back to 3.6 and finally found someone who updated the addon for 4.*
Screw it now, I'm staying on 3.*
It gets to a point where an addon is part of the functionality of the browser in this case the voice addon was something I relied on daily instead of keeping the tab open.

Happy FF8 user here (4, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074412)

I'm using FF8 alphas on the Nightly channel, which is part of the Moziila PPA in Ubuntu. It's fantastic. It uses way less memory and is way faster. It's also way stabler than nightlies were when I was running Moziila nightlies in 2001, and they were pretty good even then. The only downside is extensions that haven't caught up. If you're clear for those, I heartily recommend it.

Re:Happy FF8 user here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074500)

FF = Final Fantasy
Fx = Firefox

http://snurl.com/fxnotff

Re:Happy FF8 user here (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074804)

Since I've never played Final Fantay, 'FF' will do fine for 'Firefox'.

Meanwhile, I'd like to suggest 'FU' for 'Anonymous Coward'.

Re:Happy FF8 user here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075076)

Context, my man. If this was a story talking about a Final Fantasy game, sure. But this is a story talking about Firefox.

Re:Happy FF8 user here (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074684)

Concur. I run it for weeks straight with no problems. As for addons, I only use user scripts and Adblock. Greasemonkey doesn't work, but Scriptish does. Adblock works great too.

Re:Happy FF8 user here (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074836)

I'm currently using Aurora (v.7) for add-on compatibility as a convenience. I've not got much that doesn't work with it. Currently got Adblock Plus, Flashblock, Ghostery, HTTPS everywhere and Noscript working, so I'm happy. Hopefully it'll roll over to 8 soon.

unHappy FF user here (4, Informative)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075336)

The only downside is extensions

I've been loving Firefox for years, but this fast release schedule is driving me nuts. Every time a new "major" version comes out now, at least one or two of my extensions break. The first one to go (on FF4) was Ubiquity, which still isn't fixed, and the stupid thing about that is Ubiquity is a Mozilla Labs extension. It's pretty sad when their own damn extensions can't even keep up, let alone 3rd party stuff.

So, back to your point about extensions being the only downside, honestly, do we use Firefox for any other reason? I could have ditched FF for Chrome or even IE9 (shudder) but it's the extensions that make Firefox so awesome, and that's what's suffering the most with this bullshit release schedule.

Re:unHappy FF user here (2)

InsaneLampshade (890845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075588)

*agreed* I would ditch FF for Chrome too if it weren't for the extensions. Thus far all mine have been updated relatively quickly, but I can't help feeling that at some point in the future plugin developers are just gonna give up bothering.

Re:unHappy FF user here (2)

gfody (514448) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075836)

just disable addon compatibility checking

Mozilla gets funding from memory manufacturers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074416)

They have back room deals woth multiple memory manufactuerers to deliberatley include memory leaks, so they can sell more ram. Back in 2004 a Gig of memory was high end, now it is too little for even netbooks thanks to payola from memory companies.

I am now a chrome user and won't be using Firefox anymore.

Re:Mozilla gets funding from memory manufacturers (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074648)

I run a PAE kernel and found out the 4GB process limit can come in handy when FF goes apeshit. :)

I'll rather wait for FF7 (2)

Rastignac (1014569) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074446)

FireFox7, aka FinalFantasy7, will have a huge step forward dealing with memory. FF6 doesn't have such nice awaited features. I'll skip #6.

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074592)

Can you skip version 6, or are they going to pull another asshole "Firefox 5 is EOLed because v6 is out" like they did to Firefox 4?

Or do you mean you're sticking with Firefox 3.6? Because that seems like a good idea these days, at least until they figure out that their "rapidly release schedule" isn't actually helping anything and is just ensuring that no one gives a shit about new Firefox releases any more.

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074756)

Or do you mean you're sticking with Firefox 3.6? Because that seems like a good idea these days, at least until they figure out that their "rapidly release schedule" isn't actually helping anything and is just ensuring that no one gives a shit about new Firefox releases any more.

Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser. With FF6, that means Google's only going to support FF4, FF5 and FF6. FF3.6 won't work with Google Apps and other stuff anymore (seriously, I tried using G+ with FF3.5, and it demanded I upgrade - supported browsers are 3.6, 4 and 5 then).

And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI? FF5 screwed up the tab bar if you have a bunch of tabs and close them right->left since the now-rightmost tab doesn't scroll right - your mouse just has an empty space.

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (2)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074972)

Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser. With FF6, that means Google's only going to support FF4, FF5 and FF6. FF3.6 won't work with Google Apps and other stuff anymore (seriously, I tried using G+ with FF3.5, and it demanded I upgrade - supported browsers are 3.6, 4 and 5 then).

Well, shit, because I still have a PowerPC Mac on my desk. It's stuck with Firefox 3.6 because they dropped PowerPC support in Firefox 4. So I guess that means it's time to move over to Safari for it. I suppose I can't complain too much on that one, but it's annoying having a perfectly functional Mac that's going to get warehoused because no one will compile software for it any more. Actually it's Apple dropping support for Mac OS X 10.5 that will force the issue: as soon as an unpatched security issue is found, IT will force me to disconnect it and it will become useless. (And since I have it explicitly to run Mac-only software, Linux isn't an option to extend its life.)

And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI? FF5 screwed up the tab bar if you have a bunch of tabs and close them right->left since the now-rightmost tab doesn't scroll right - your mouse just has an empty space.

That's another feature half-assed copied from Chrome. When you close a tab in Chrome, the tabs don't rearrange until the mouse leaves the tab bar. It's useful because an accidental double-click won't close a tab you didn't mean to close.

In Firefox 5, they just don't scroll over to fill the right most space until the mouse leaves the tab bar, but otherwise rearrange themselves. So a double-click will kill two tabs.

I don't think I'd mind Firefox copying features from Chrome if they didn't continuously half-ass them and turn a feature that's useful in Chrome into just a pure annoyance by missing out on why Chrome does something or how they make it work.

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (3, Informative)

oopsilon (958290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075230)

Well, shit, because I still have a PowerPC Mac on my desk. It's stuck with Firefox 3.6 because they dropped PowerPC support in Firefox 4.

Firefox is being kept alive on PowerPC:
http://code.google.com/p/tenfourfox/ [google.com]
http://tenfourfox.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075304)

TenFourFox is a great product, the problem as time goes on is outdated plug-ins. Flash is stuck at 10.1 and horribly slow on PPC (it used to not be like that, thanks Adobe!), and Java updates will soon end.

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (5, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075252)

> Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser.

There's an extension called User Agent Switcher. Setting it to mimic a recent version of Firefox causes problems for some reason, but if you set it to mimic a recent version of Opera, suddenly everything works just fine. (Disclaimer: I haven't tested this with every single feature of every single Google service in existence; but it works with everything that I *have* tried.)

Twitter no longer works with Firefox 2 as of about a week ago (ever since they made the Big Stupid Change that puts acres of whitespace between adjascent tweets), but I haven't managed to find a browser that the new version *does* work with (and, being a web developer, I have like fifteen different browsers installed for testing; you'd think they could manage to support at least of them, but no), so phooey on Twitter.

> And when will Mozilla stop screwing around with the UI?

When pigs fly, I think. As near as I can tell, user expectations got changed over from something that Firefox wanted to meet to something that Firefox specifically wants to break, sometime around version 1.5. The gratuitous UI changes were minor at first (little things like the first round of changes to how bookmarks work), but the growth rate of their significance appears to be geometric: if rearranging the order of the standard buttons (back, forward, reload, stop -- not that the stop button in Firefox has EVER worked correctly) wasn't new and interesting enough for you, hold on to your seat, because in version three we're completely altering how the location bar works, and then version four changes the whole top of the browser window around so much you won't even recognize it.

Soon we'll be doing away with the tired old "back button" concept, ranking the pages in your history by their *popularity* (as determined by other users), and presenting them visually as part of Panorama. Also, "scrolling down" will be replaced with "zooming in", which you can do with multi-touch trackpad gestures, and manually-created bookmarks will be phased out in favor of assigning ratings (one, two, three, four, or five stars) to the items in your history, which informs your search results when you use the Awesomeness Bar. The bookmarks toolbar will obviously be going away, and also bookmark keywords, and the tab bar will be merged into the Awesomeness bar as well, so instead of having a bar of tabs that you can switch to, you can just use the Awesomeness Bar to search through your open tabs just like you would search through your history.

(Am I just being stupidly absurd? If you'd told me in 2000 about all the changes in Firefox 3, 4, and 5, I'd have said you were being stupidly absurd. I mean, really, getting rid of the menu bar? Putting the home button clear over to the right of the search box? Integrating bookmarks with history? No browser maker could EVER think those would be good ideas. Oh, wait. They did.)

Re:I'll rather wait for FF7 (1, Insightful)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075462)

Google only supports the last 3 versions of a browser.

If Google jumps off a cliff should Firefox jump too?

This is what the current crop of Firefox devs believe:

1. Google Chrome is the best browser in the world. It is much better than Firefox has ever been or probably ever will be. If we are really, really lucky and work very, very hard maybe someday we could make Firefox just as good as Chrome. To improve Firefox all we have to do is copy everything Google does.

2. Even MSIE is better than Firefox. Let's copy that browser too insofar as it doesn't interfere with copying Google.

more broken add-ons. (1)

BigFire (13822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074448)

Great, another rounds of broken add-ons.

Re:more broken add-ons. (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075662)

yea, but only the ones you do not want to use. If you want to use it then just click yes when it asks you to approve it.

yikes, another version jump? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074450)

First 4, then very quickly Firefox 5 and now version 6? Where is the consistency?

Re:yikes, another version jump? (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074508)

First 4, then very quickly Firefox 5 and now version 6? Where is the consistency?

Not sure if trolling or just new here.

And by "here" I mean the Internet.

Re:yikes, another version jump? (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074538)

First 4, then very quickly Firefox 5 and now version 6? Where is the consistency?

The consistency is that they are only incrementing the version number by '1' each time. Just be glad they didn't decide to use prime numbers or a Fibonacci sequence.

Re:yikes, another version jump? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074910)

I know. How can you tell which version 1 came later?

Re:yikes, another version jump? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075370)

Oh, I have an idea! We'll make each new version number the _factorial_ of the previous one. Yay!

(Actually, I think they should just use the build date: yyyy.mm.dd.)

Re:yikes, another version jump? (0)

fractalspace (1241106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074632)

Oh Yea. Perfect consistency here: 3.1, 95, 2000, 7

Re:yikes, another version jump? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075520)

Really? You're actually trying to make an argument using product names as version numbers? You do realize that all those operating systems have actual version numbers, right?

3.11, 4.0.950, 5.0.2195, and 6.1.7600 respectively.

Ability to install out-of-date addons (4, Insightful)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074456)

I'd rather they add some easy way to let users install addons that say, "Does not support Firefox x.x". They can put a big disclaimer/warning/alert to make sure the user knows what they are doing, but with the Firefox rapid release schedule I am tired of having my addons break because of version string issues.

One example is the Stylish addon. I am using the Firefox 6 beta in Ubuntu 11.10 alpha and Stylish refuses to install due to the version string. The addon info says it supports Firefox 3.6 - 6.0a2 (key part being "6.0.a2"). That tells me that it should work in later alpha/beta version 6 builds.

Firefox really needs to address the issue of how addons determine whether or not they are out-of-date. The browser version is no longer a useful metric for that.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074582)

There is an official add-on for that https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074696)

Mod parent up.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (3, Informative)

PalmAddict (543382) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074700)

can't enjoy that (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075024)

".....to report whether they still work or are having some issues with alpha and beta releases. Note: Recommended for alpha and beta users only! in other words, not for anyone who is interested in maintaining a production stable system.

Firefox has jumped the shark, "upgrade or die". fuck you, Mozilla Corporation.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075286)

This is just a reporter and not a thorough one at that. Yes, a good reporter ( one you can trust with your life or your 10000 people company's sanity) is needed. This is not it.

But the original poster also pointed out FF needs good UI for letting old addons run. Manually editing RDF files is insane. There should be a tool which takes an xpi file and tells you who wrote it and when, what compatibility it has, a flow chart of the code and what would not work with this release. Then it would ask you if you still want run as is, if you want to automatically change addon code for compatibility or cancel install.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075242)

New in Firefox 6: All extensions that work with FF 6 will have a heuristic for later versions of FF to determine whether or not the extension is compatible.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075250)

Have you tried this trick? Making Copy URL+ work on recent Fx [johnbokma.com] or Six Add-ons for Fx I love [johnbokma.com] in the Section "CopyURL+"

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075368)

MOD UP! Most insightful post in thread.

FF is ONLY valuable because of add-ons. Otherwise a faster browser like Chrome or Opera is preferable.

Re:Ability to install out-of-date addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075580)

Opera now has add-ons, they're called extensions in Opera - not to be confused with Firefox extensions which in Opera are called plugins :), but a lot of the "add-ons" you need with Firefox are already there in Opera. I can only see the version creep continuing - Opera is 11.50, IE is 9, Chrome is 14.?? All developers do it.

AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074460)

automatically block browser add-ons until users approve them, which should put an end to sneaky installs

Exactly how are they going to block that? Anything FireFox has access to, so would an (admin-level) installer.

Unless they're taking a signature from the add-on and some information unique to the user profile and generating a hash/code or that, and keep the hashing algorithm secret somehow?

Re:AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074776)

I see your point. I don't know how or if they'll try to do that.

However, the current "sneaky" method of installing add-ons was a feature, not a bug, and using it is not, per se, malicious. However, once user confirmation is required, any add-on that circumvents it will clearly be malicious and Firefox will be justified in blacklisting it [mozilla.org] .

Re:AddOn approval via hashes, or...? (2)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074812)

It is probably more aimed at commercial entities installing their crap without asking, rather than malware authors. That way something that causes instability will at least have be mentioned to the user reducing the risk of Firefox itself being blamed - like an extension to the facility already present to disable extensions that are know to cause instability.

While a malware author won't think twice about hacking around such a measure, a "legitimate" company will if they think doing so will create an opportunity for a competitor to give them bad press.

0-days (0)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074518)

More 0-days woohoo

They can't block sneaky add-ons (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074528)

Meanwhile, Mozilla said this week that starting with Firefox 8, Mozilla will automatically block browser add-ons until users approve them, which should put an end to sneaky installs."

Sneaky add-ons are installed by software that has the priviledge of messing with the system, like windows updates. When they have such a priviledge, it's easy to manipulate the user's profile to make it accept the new add-ons. They can't protect themselves against this.

Re:They can't block sneaky add-ons (2)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074640)

They can't block "evil" addons like that, sure, but they can block "well behaved" addons that install as part of some other software.

Take the Skype addon, for example. In IE9, IE will ask you if you want to enable it the first time IE9 runs. Firefox provides no mechanism for that, and instead just blindly runs it.

This will tell you "hey, there's a new addon, do you want to use it?" and then you can opt out.

You're right that "sneaky" addons that decide to play evil will be able to get around it. But given that the way Firefox currently works, all "system-level" addons are "sneaky," this is still a good fix.

Re:They can't block sneaky add-ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074806)

This will tell you "hey, there's a new addon, do you want to use it?" and then you can opt out.

You're right that "sneaky" addons that decide to play evil will be able to get around it

It will at least differentiate between "sneaky" add-ons and outright "evil" ones, which can be blacklisted [mozilla.org] once someone catches it and reports it.

Re:They can't block sneaky add-ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075262)

most of those installers require admin access to run. so in other words, that installer instance can just write whatever values it wants to whatever files. I can only hope FF will be using strong encryption for the approved list, otherwise the app installers will get smart about it an approve it for you.

Polymorphic code. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074778)

How about obfuscation like polymorphic code shipped to end users. The installer generates a binary using a set of instructions that vary based on a randomizing algorithm that has a cryptographic random number generator for secure input. When finished it destroys all evidence of what seed created the binary. Then that binary when ran, uses prevention techniques to prevent scanning the binary by malware to determine where the new exploit needs to go. Make it a huge pain to implement these engines by increasing randomness, not software techniques. Keep that algorithm to yourself and ship new code for each customer when they click the download link.

A: Each exploit is now traceable to some extent back to which binary they had to create the exploit.
B: Code can't spread because it can't figure out what to do? (reaching here)
C: Think of memory randomization, applied to the compilation process with regards to unique instruction ordering with the same output and data layouts that have varying patterns. (think of endianness but at the memory/storage areas in the binary, with MANY more types of layouts designed to be confusing and unique per binary. Every other bit, every 3 bits then 2 back with opposite truth parsing(0,1 switched), etc.Instead of BigEndian, use cascading vertical/horizontal binary spreads with randomized loaders also generated.

That would be damn near impossible to crack, but after dabbling with Genetic Programming (programs that generate lots of programs with a sliding wedge towards a certain fitness and mutate those programs similar to evolution) I believe what I described above is possible.

We generated code using such a program that could be fed 255 integers (5 digit limit per integer) of various counting schemes (start at 0 count by 2, count by 12s, 4 forwards, 2 backwards with mutation, Fibonacci! etc.) and it figured out how to write python programs to solve the problem or generate the input from the source code without saving the input inside the program! Even more is every time it's ran it figures out a different program to solve the input. Using a fitness algorithm for complexity trimming (some programs took hours to generate 255 integer output, some took 1 minute, some took 400 milliseconds) we can trim the user experience to an acceptable level.

That is where I see the future going. You heard it here back in measly 2011! And everyone thinks I'm crazy.....

Why can't that work? On a serious level. I know the talent is in here reading this.

Enough with the version number inflation! (5, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074566)

I suppose it's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to Firefox development for the past several years, but for fuck's sake, listen to your users and stop with the version number inflation!

Seriously, what makes this a Firefox 6 and not a Firefox 4.2? What new features does it add? Apparently the only really "stand-out" feature is graying out anything that isn't the domain name in the useless-bar. I mean, Awesome Bar.

(Seriously, I like the concept, but I've had quite a few instances this past week where instead of finding "the page I was just on five minutes ago" it does something like "page 3 of this article you read two months ago" with no hint of the URL I'd opened literally ten times already that day. Awesome. Here's an idea, can Firefox try and fix it to make it useful? Like sort based on number of times a page was viewed, counting reloads, so that typing the URL to a forum doesn't find page 2, 3, 4, and 5, but never page 1 because I don't click on the page 1 link enough, I just reload the forum?)

But back to the version number issue - quick, how many people know what version number Chrome is up to off the top of their head? Anyone?

How many people using Firefox 5 here have literally forgotten that they're using Firefox 5, because the last really major update was Firefox 4? I still think of it as "Firefox 4" because it looks identical, and have to be reminded that they've inflated the version number for no useful reason.

Seriously, stop blindly aping Chrome! If you're going to copy something Chrome does, try and understand it! For example, take removing the status bar. Chrome will expand the little URL popup that replaced the status bar if you continue hovering a link. Firefox 4 and 5 don't. And for some reason they randomly switch between left-aligning it and right-aligning the popup. And for fuck's sake, why don't you just expand the popup to fill the entire horizontal width of the window?! I've got the room to display the entire URL! Why doesn't Firefox bother doing so?!

But kudos for aping (poorly) the feature in IE 9 that warns when third party addons have been installed and gives you the option of not using them. It's nice to know that you're going to go ahead and do that after crying about how it's impossible to do, even after IE had launched with that feature.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074738)

Did you just write a whole essay on an arbitrary and meaningless version number? I'm assuming so and not bothering to read.

Just call it Firefox 3.12 if you want. Who cares?

What's it matter if you're updating from Firefox 3.6.12 -> 3.6.13 or Firefox 5 -> 6? It's the same process, same shit. You're just angry because of what numbers they're choosing to use. Think. Grow up.

I actually just scrolled up and read your line bashing the AwesomeBar. Great. How many years has it been now? And you still don't understand how it's used or why it's useful? It's hard to take anything you say seriously.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074938)

the websites apparently care, there are major ones refusing to work with "old" versions, old meaning 3.5 and before.

you argument that version number is of no consequence has no merit, this is major fucking-over of the users by major open source project.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075134)

Did you just write a whole essay on an arbitrary and meaningless version number?

It may be arbitrary and meaningless now but it didn't use to be.

It used to be that a move from Major->Major meant that there would be large changes and there's a good chance addons would break. Changes to minor versions might break addons, and patches shouldn't.

Now, who the fuck knows? The number's meaningless. No one cares about Chrome's version number, because it's meaningless.

Firefox's version number used to convey information, and now it doesn't. They've taken something useful and made it useless.

I actually just scrolled up and read your line bashing the AwesomeBar. Great. How many years has it been now? And you still don't understand how it's used or why it's useful?

Really? It's supposed to find infrequently read sites? Or sites that you've only read once? Because before it finds Slashdot, it finds some random article I read months ago.

Before it finds a website that I had repeatedly had to go back to over the course of a day, it found page 2 of some article I read a month ago. Actually, it found several random articles that had nothing to do with the site I was trying to pull up. Enough that scrolling through the entire list meant that, despite the fact I'd opened it, say, five times already, it wasn't on the list. At all.

And I can guarantee you the thing with me trying to reopen a forum only to find that the Awesome bar found nothing but either page 2 or beyond and random threads on the forum happened. Despite the fact that I'd bookmarked the forum. I thought that was supposed to promote it to the top of the search, but apparently not.

Of course, I wouldn't need to reopen it if Firefox hadn't randomly decided not to restore my tabs, but that's a different issue...

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075194)

For one, it breaks compatibility with extensions, since they normally will say "I'm compatible with Firefox 3.*" because normally when the major version number stays the same, things wont break. This is a fairly standard software practice. Firefox 4, 5, and 6 should have been called 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2, since they were only minor revisions, and do not break compatibility. So then when there's Firefox version 4 through version 392 (if they even make it that far), it's impossible to know which break compatibility and which are small updates.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (0)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075648)

So then when there's Firefox version 4 through version 392 (if they even make it that far), it's impossible to know which break compatibility and which are small updates.

There is a very clear mechanism for extension maintainers to identify which versions of Firefox break their extensions, its called testing.

Which, in practice, was necessary even when Firefox distinguished major and minor versions.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

jonahbron (2278074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074742)

But back to the version number issue - quick, how many people know what version number Chrome is up to off the top of their head? Anyone?

14!

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074872)

The dev channel's on 15 actually. :)

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074784)

I know I'm on Chrome 14.

The reason you're not supposed to think of the version number, is because its useless. The channel is the new version number. Because of the speed of the rollout, the version number you're so obsessed with is useless. What's in a version number anyways? Major.Minor.Bugfix is the common, right?

Major is to be updated when you only have API changes, right? Well, what happens if you're the only one using it? As they announced earlier. Then you don't care when your API changes. It's moot

Minor is for service packs and updates, right? Well, everything is an update. New web standards, speed improvements, what have you. There's nothing that they're releasing that ISN'T new.

Bugfix, seriously, we versioned this?! That's stupid, and I'm ignoring it.

If you don't like how Firefox is versioned in a fast release, so that they can be a #3 engine, then switch to #1 (webkit) or #2 (trident). Safari is more than welcoming to you. So is IE, which is now a competitive browser. They want to not be blown away waiting ~2 years for a major release again. Stuff comes when it's done now, rather than waiting for an arbitrary date. And if this new scheme bothers you, I would suggest not looking at any new software. This is the new way. And with web applications? There is no reason for a version number. It's going away.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075228)

Spoken like a guy that doesn't mind repeating history. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.

If we assume all new changes are good ones, and all new versions are backwards compatible with whatever came before, then we wouldn't care what version we are on now. Except they aren't, so we do. If a site, or an app is know to work with one version, then every change means regression testing to see if the new one works too. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If you are of the Programmer Full Employment mindset that says everyone should always rework their code constantly to be compatible with every other change and interface that is out there, then I get your point of view. Lots of work for everyone. If you are like everyone else that only wants change when it takes them somewhere useful, this is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.

And oh by the way, does every change work out to be a good one, even for the appiclation that made it? No, it doesn't. Sometimes it is a smart thing to back out of a change. And keeping close track of that, so the users will know what the hell to expect, is a good thing for the users. Assuming you care about the users. Which I know is an old school thing falling out of fashion. But since I'm one of them, I like it.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075678)

If we assume all new changes are good ones, and all new versions are backwards compatible with whatever came before

Don't assume that.

Assume that all new versions should be compatible except for specific announced incompatibilities. Also assume that all new versions are not compatible where you stand to lose anything of value until you've tested them.

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074914)

Get the a copy of the source and update it yourself. That's what the typical open source zealot likes to push. What's good for them must be good for you, right?

Re:Enough with the version number inflation! (0)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074968)

"I suppose it's no surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to Firefox development for the past several years, but for fuck's sake, listen to your users"

Indeed, if you've been paying attention to Firefox for years you'd know that its developers stopped listening sometime about 2005ish. Although there are some that have never listened. They have always denied that some bugs and memory leaks even existed.

Mozilla, seemingly doomed to repeat every single failure of Netscape.

Maybe once Firefox does finally fade the way Netscape did, they can call their next browser "Sisyphus". They might as well admit the truth right from the very beginning.

So fuck 'em. They don't listen. They took a very good idea (a fast core browser that was extensible as per the user's choice) and needlessly destroyed it with bloat, candy and assorted crap. They've not had an original idea in at least 5 years. And it's still not multi-threaded.

I used to love Firefox, but that was about v.1.5. I still use it, but now it really is a total piece of crap. Just a piece of crap I can use addons I like with.

Something to watch out for (new submenu) (3, Informative)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074654)

FF6 has a new Tools > Developer submenu, and they moved Error Console, View Source and Web Console there. Moving View Source there was a big surprise. Any reasonable developer might get totally freaked out searching high and low for View Source if they didn't know about that move.

In case you missed it, Web Console in FF5+ is like the console in Firebug when you have it set to enter JS commands at the bottom of the pane. But the difference is, Web Console is always available. It's not a plug-in like Firebug. So it's something you can count on, even if you upgrade and Firebug breaks in the new version.

Firefox has been Fired. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074662)

I was a long-time Firefox user, I even was part of Spreadfirefox.com and was a "Zealot" that managed to convert my Mom and brother to it and when I was at college I got the IT admins to install it back in the bad old days of IE6. But Firefox has lost its way. Its peak was 1.0 to 3.6. The memory leaks, the obsessive version numbers, the theft of the status bar and ignoring its users and wasting 80 million dollars a year is the last straw. I uninstalled Firefox today, and have switched to Chrome on my main PCs and Safari on my iPad.

Netscape died a horrible death, and Firefox seems to be repeating it. Hopefully enough concerned users fork the Firefox 3.6 code and "re-pheonix" it before it's too late.

Re:Firefox has been Fired. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075640)

This is a brilliant troll post.

1. Complain about Firefox's new release schedule and lack of status bar.
2. Switch to a browser with the exact same release schedule and lack of status bar.
3. See if anyone notices.

I noticed. Shockingly, even though you're trolling, some delusional people out there are doing exactly what you described.

It's funny that people think the status bar disappeared. It's just simply hidden until you mouse over a link. (The obviously intelligent thing to do. It's no surprise the unintelligent would disagree.)

They need to revert some UI changes too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074746)

They need to add the Firefox 3 UI and the status bar back as an option. Some of the changes they have talked about lately are dumb (like adding facebook functionality to the navigation bar). However, none of them compare to the UI change for no reason. I think the last line of one of the articles prove that.

As of the end of July, 48% of Firefox users were running Firefox 5, while just 11% were still on Firefox 4.

This leaves over 40% running 3.6 and before, not a small number by any stretch. And what was changed from 3.6 to 4? A bunch of things no one would notice immediately and the UI overhaul. I think those demographics are a message. Is Mozilla listening?

Six?! Eight?! (0)

sir_eccles (1235902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37074758)

I'm still using 3.something.

I bet none of them are standards compliant.

Re:Six?! Eight?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074922)

? Okay then...

3 in a row (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074832)

This is now the third time in a row they've pushed these new "update or die" version updates incompatible with the automatic update features. I may be on top of things and know when to go click "Help -> About" to trigger the update process, but my parents and such aren't, and I'll be damned I'm going to individually walk them through the process every few weeks like this. I'm done with Firefox.

At this point, my family is more likely to have an up-to-date and properly-patched browser with IE than with Firefox.

And yet.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074898)

The UI bug that allows light colored system fonts to screw up input boxes is still there. Why are they still phoning in the Linux version?

42 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37074988)

Be patient humans.... version 42 will answer all your questions....

memory leak .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075132)

will they fix the memory leaks ?

Re:memory leak .. (2)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075824)

yes [mozilla.org]

FF sadly lacks ,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075308)

for Linux .. how about a QT version ? GTK being old and broken it seems wasteful to code on top of it.
how about an inbuilt ability to open flash videos with say, mplayer for a start .. the FlashVideoReplacer plugin does this, but its as crashy as anything...
and in default settings - not to allow 3rd party cookies. or flash cookies. i know there are extensions for this ..
basic cross site scripting protection, and oh my god, the memory leaks ..

Another upgrade? (3, Interesting)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075438)

I still haven't gotten Firefox 5 completely back to the old 3.6 look and feel, which was more workable and required fewer button clicks. The last nagging issue is the one that Firefox no longer displays in the drop-down the history of links in the current tab, so you can't quickly go back to the top of a rabbit trail that you started down. Sometimes that was my only way out of stupid sites that disable the back button.
Oh, and the Federal Student Aid site (FAFSA.gov) only supports Firefox 3.5 and 3.6, one of which is no longer supported by FF and the other of which will also soon be not supported.

Re:Another upgrade? (3, Informative)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075854)

right-click on the back button and the menu appears

Block user add ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075458)

As another person posted we really need an option to stop user installed add ons in schools etc...

Great, so no extensions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37075684)

All my extensions will break, and I'll have to manually edit them to work. They would have of course worked if the version number went up by a decimal point.

Firefox has been abandoned (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37075882)

Firefox 3.6.19 forever! I am now treating Firefox like an abandoned application. Google developers have now taken over. It may still be the best current browser due to its useful extensions, but it is like a bad copy of Chrome and imho inferior to Firefox 3.6.19 in most ways.

If I had to choose between Chrome and Firefox 4+, I really don't know what I would choose. Despite the horrible interface and all the badly implemented Chrome-ness Firefox 4+ still has unique functionality in the form of extensions like NoScript, Adblock Plus, and Scrapbook. They contain functionality that I just cannot live without and I haven't seen 100% replicated in any other browser. So I would probably be forced to stick with Firefox 4+ even though I prefer Chrome, Opera, and even MSIE in terms of the interface and usability etc.

Sure Chrome has NotScript, but it just doesn't work very well compared to NoScript. It's not a viable replacement. I ended up using the built in javascript whitelisting functionality which was a huge PITA. It was like going back to IE4 when I had to manually add sites to security zones by actually typing in the URLs.

If it some point a critical security flaw is found in Firefox 3.6.19 complete with exploits in the wild I may reluctantly migrate to Opera. Or maybe by that time someone will have forked Firefox 3.6.19 to at least apply security fixes as needed.

As of today Firefox 3.6.19 is still downloadable for Windows and Mac OS X and is available as a binary in the repositories of both of the Linux distros I use: ArchLinux and TinyCore.

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...