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!

Mozilla Firefox 6 Released Ahead of Schedule

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the great-to-see-browsers-war dept.

Firefox 415

BogenDorpher writes "Mozilla is currently on schedule to release Firefox 6 on August 16th but it looks like the final version has already been signed off and is unofficially available on Mozilla's servers."

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

too late (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086412)

Chrome it is. Webkit is the future.

Sorry Mozilla, but you missed the train.

Re:too late (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086472)

Speak for yourself.

Re:too late (3, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086482)

When Chrome finally fixes text-shadow rendering on Windows and doesn't act like a lazy dog when you set background-size: cover on a fixed background image, let me know. On that day, you just might be right.

Re:too late (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086490)

Too late? Something else is in the future? Missing the train?

You can't please everyone, you release early and thats what you get.

Re:too late (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086548)

When Chrome finally lets you use a sidebar, perhaps. Right now I'm sticking with Firefox - I like to be able to actually find things in my bookmarks menu, thanks.

Re:too late (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086662)

On Chrome it's Ctrl+Shift+O -- Bookmark manager.
I prefer Firefox's separate window approach, and it does give you better sorting options, but it's not entirely fair to say that it's not possible to find things in the bookmarks menu in Chrome.

Re:too late (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086668)

Chrome sucks ass. Firefox is a MUCH better browser.

Re:too late (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086702)

3 cheers for the good old days of browser monopolies!

Don't feed the troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086804)

Obviously

Re:too late (1)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087132)

Try again when Chrome finally has a useable Vim mode. Pentadactyl for Firefox rocks hard, while Vimium is just useless.

Exe may be there, so? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086418)

The index.html in each directory still says

Thanks for your interest in Firefox 6 We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 6 yet. You should check out the latest Beta. When we're all done with Firefox 6 it will show up on Firefox.com.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (2)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086506)

I just downloaded and tried it out. The tab that auto loads when you first run a new version of Firefox is titled "Welcome to Firefox Beta" and the page itself says "You are now running Firefox Beta"

Re:Exe may be there, so? (1)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086542)

I went to Help->About Firefox and release version is 6.0. It says "You are currently on the release update channel" and not beta update channel. This is just confusing now.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086666)

They probably just haven't gussied up the page for the release version yet. If you're feeling gutsy, though, why not take up Nightly [mozilla.org] ? The current builds are very stable and have better memory management than 6 will probably provide.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (2)

starofale (1976650) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086884)

I wouldn't recommend Nightly for normal browsing. You'd be better off with Aurora [mozilla.com] (Firefox 7) if you want the new features sooner but also like to be sure Firefox will start after every update.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (1)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086938)

Wow! I'm trying out Firefox 8.0a1 right now and it's got a much smaller memory footprint than Firefox 5. I hope it stays that way till tomorrow morning!

Re:Exe may be there, so? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086712)

This is because the people responsible for the version numbering can't keep up. I understand. They need to sleep sometime and before you know it 17 newer versions were released.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (2)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086568)

They're still mirroring the release. It's not the first time that some idiot submits a story like this.

Re:Exe may be there, so? (1)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086580)

I second that... makes you wonder how this is news for "nerds" sometimes...

STOP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086442)

Go to hell Mozilla

Version number doesn't matter, just fix whats broken and stop messing with the interface THAT WORKS.

Re:STOP (3, Interesting)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086688)

Everybody who still uses 3.6, raise your hand.

*raises hand*

Re:STOP (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086760)

I hated 3.x. I stayed on 2.x until Chrome was released. Firefox 4+ has brought me an interface that I can stand again.

Re:STOP (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087028)

The thing I like about firefox is that you can completely rearrange the interface. For me every version has looked the same.. I don't really care what they do with the default settings.

Re:STOP (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087278)

can you do that in 4? I havent tried to

Re:STOP (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087114)

Using Cent OS 6 at work. I'll just wait until they include a new version of firefox in their standard distro before I upgrade.

Re:STOP (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087256)

3.6 is the last one me or anyone I know will ever use. They've jumped the shark.

Re:STOP (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086734)

Version number doesn't matter

But this one goes to 6.

Re:STOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086780)

Go to hell Mozilla

Version number doesn't matter, just fix whats broken and stop messing with the interface THAT WORKS.

The old interface is cluttered and wasteful. Most people will say that isn't considered "working". If you want the old interface, make a few checkmarks under View and you're there. It's shocking that people on a site that's supposed to be for "nerds" do not know how to use GUI menus.

Re:STOP (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087314)

The old interface is cluttered and wasteful. Most people will say that isn't considered "working". If you want the old interface, make a few checkmarks under View and you're there. It's shocking that people on a site that's supposed to be for "nerds" do not know how to use GUI menus.

It's shocking just how out of touch Mozilla has become. This whole "clutter" argument from self titled "UI experts" is just tiresome now.

Re:STOP (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086982)

that is exactly what they are doing. 4.0 was the last major UI change and that is part of the reason it took so long to release it. There are no major UI changes until at least fx8 (to help add-on creators cope with the new rapid release schedule), and they are getting fixes out to the user faster then before. YOU are the one who is fixating on the version numbers, not them. The major version number (the first digit) does not symbolize major changes, but a stable release - which this is - only with fewer changes then fx2/3/4.

Why not just wait for version 7? (5, Funny)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086456)

After all, it'll be out Friday..

Re:Why not just wait for version 7? (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086894)

I almost downloaded it, but between reading your post and checking the page, it's now up to version 11.

Re:Why not just wait for version 7? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087178)

OH man, good joke! I can't believe how original and thought-out it is. I can't wait to also see jokes like:

"Oh you guys are only running version 6?! Get out of the past! I'm already on version 2344322342342334234!"

That'd be such a funny joke that isn't plastered all over every Firefox article just like this one! The number is just so comically large, lmao! Just imagine a software with such big numbers! lmao!

And then I can't wait for someone to say "but I'm running Firefox version 1337", because that one is so clever too. Do you get it? It's spelled "leet" in 1337, as in "elite". It's just a reference, AND it's a comically large number lmao! So funny!

I can't wait for more jokes about how {comically large number} amount of versions have come and gone in {comically short amount of time}. They're so awesome and new. I feel we've discovered an entirely new approach to comedy. I don't even mind that literally nobody is actually discussing Firefox or the article since they're flooding all discussion with spam, because we're transcending!

hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahah ahahahahahahahaha
lmao!

It'll be out Friday! lmao still gets me! Everytime I think about it! I'm sorry, again, it's just that I've never seen it before ever, and never in any recent Firefox articles, lmao!

Oh man. Breathe, breathe.

Breathe, breathe in the air.
Don't be afraid to care.
Leave, don't leave me.
Look around and choose your own ground.

Long you live and high you fly
smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be.

Run, rabbit run.
Dig that hole, FORget the sun,
And when at last the work is done
Don't sit down it's time to dig another one.

For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

Rofl it's a Pink Floyd song hahahahahahahahhaha. Firefox rapid-release big numbers jokes. lmao!

Wow already v6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086460)

Takes time to change that number from 5 to 6. Those hard-working devs has to
first delete the old 5, and then find the 6 on the keyboard, and then press the 6.

I'm exhausted just thinking about all the high-quality gruesome work they do for us.

Re:Wow already v6 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086834)

And how many applications used by millions of people have you released?

Re:Wow already v6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086928)

Like that doesn't make it less retarded.

Re:Wow already v6 (2)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087040)

the relevant sarcastic question would be "And how many applications used by millions of pissed people have you released again and again, jacking up the major version number in rapid succession"

Plugins (5, Informative)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086476)

Unfortunately six of the plugins I rely on (yes, those plugins that are supposedly the #1 reason to use Firefox over less customizable browsers) don't yet even support Firefox 5. Everytime that "update Firefox" box comes up, I check, find six plugins outstanding, and back out of it.

Update too fast and you will leave users behind.

Re:Plugins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086540)

Between Ubuntu and Firefox "upgrading" the user experience into oblivion, Microsoft is starting to look like the voice of reason and sanity. The who computing ecosystem is being torn apart and turned on it's head.

Re:Plugins (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086814)

Did you somehow miss what M$ has been doing to the user interface lately?

There is but one option if you don't want your user interface completely fucked these days. Apple.

10.7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086930)

Did you try 10.7? Their interface is becoming inconsistent as well.

Re:Plugins (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087048)

This!
I hadn't considered that in a while... OS X is the only mainstream OS that makes changes subtle. Except for updating the brushed metal pattern every couple releases to some other fill-in, it's almost been a GUI luddite because the Doc keeps the same location, size and main form. When they do something like adding those Download / Recent document stacking thingies, they avoid clashing with the rest of the GUI.

What matters most is that for a full decade they avoided the huge Luna-like buttons, and won't be pulling an Ubuntu left->right tantrum. They've even resisted adding new window buttons and 3D-fying the the buttons, which is a Windows-related perversion to convey "change" and "improvement" in today's GUIs when features don't change that much. Last but not least, you don't need to relearn the Mac control panel every year. Vista to Windows 7 started to staedy the locations and labels a little bit , but I won't hold my breath with the myriad of netbook-imitating changes that a Windows 8 Metro GUI will doubtless bring

Re:Plugins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087204)

fuck you and fuck "this!!!" can't stand that shit. this. this this this.... fucking annoying.

Re:Plugins (1)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087346)

fuck you and fuck "this!!!"

can't stand that shit. this. this this this.... fucking annoying.

Could be worse; it could be "me too". Or "+1".

Understand you live in an era where people have a historically unprecedented ability to express their opinions that nobody gives a fuck about. Why don't you do like the rest of us and just ignore everyone else?

Re:Plugins (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087264)

This!
I hadn't considered that in a while... OS X is the only mainstream OS that makes changes subtle

That's because Apple recognizes that the average consumer wants consistency and stability, not new bling and features every few months. The consistency and reliability is also the main reason IOS apps are generally perceived to be of higher quality than Android apps

Re:Plugins (1)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086544)

Update too fast and you will leave users behind.

I don't get the point either... We just updated to FF 5, how come they're pushing version 6 already? Are they trying to get ahead of IE in version numbers?

I'm still running FF 3.5.X like a charm on most desktops, and having tested a Beta a couple of weeks ago, I don't see how they justify being at version 6 now.

Re:Plugins (5, Informative)

EMR (13768) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086550)

This is why they are encouraging extension developers to switch to the Mozilla addons SDK which provides API stability between firefox releases (and is built in in firefox 4.0+ ). the addon SDK also allows for installing plugins without restarting the browser!! YEAH!!!

now, have you tried installing the addon compatibility reporter?

  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

with that enabled you can forcibly enable addons that claim to not be compatible and test to see if they work. Also it gives you a away to send feedback to the developer that "hey it works" or "no it doesn't". And of course if you haven't contacted the developers of those addons, then that could be why they haven't been updated.

Re:Plugins (0)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086578)

+1 Informative

Re:Plugins (4, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086610)

well isn't that special, the user is supposed to spend lots of time each quarter and hope they come up with the right tests to check everything? apparently, some of the add-on developers don't like that schedule either.

    that's the exciting new trend spreading across the major open source projects, disruptive but half-baked changes. Ubuntu with Unity, GNOME, KDE, Firefox. What other major project will have its developers flip the users the bird and fly off into the Land of Un-Usability? stay tuned, there really are a couple more in the pipe.....

"Supposed to"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087196)

No. They're encouraged to, that's quite different. The stable API sounds like the way to go if you want to provide a good end user experience for add-ons, and it makes the most sense. The bleeding edge API is for testing.

Re:Plugins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087078)

Why don't addons come with test suites and a manifest that says what APIs they use? Then they could be bumped to new versions automatically if they pass.

Re:Plugins (1)

Bryan Bytehead (9631) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086678)

Good grief.

  Install the Nightly Tester Tools. Just because Mozilla (actually the extension) says that it's unsupported doesn't mean it won't work. I've got a couple of extensions that are limited to 3.*, and THOSE still work. And of the ones that don't tend to work, those authors have made available beta versions that haven't broken anything for me yet.

And I'm running the 8.0A1 nightly 64-bit. The only plugin (and I do mean plugin, not extension) that won't work is the WMP plugin. The 32-bit version works just fine, even 8.0A1.

Re:Plugins (2)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087146)

Are you fucking kidding? There's an EIGHT? There's a sane fork of firefox somewhere, I'll find it.

Re:Plugins (5, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086954)

Unfortunately six of the plugins I rely on (yes, those plugins that are supposedly the #1 reason to use Firefox over less customizable browsers) don't yet even support Firefox 5. Everytime that "update Firefox" box comes up, I check, find six plugins outstanding, and back out of it.

Update too fast and you will leave users behind.

I used to encourage Firefox use in my shop... I gave my users the choice of IE and Firefox, and back when IE had that huge list of old unpatched holes, I told my users that I preferred FireFox if they were so inclined.

I've taken FF off of the approved list. The upgrades are coming too fast, and breaking too many things (mostly plugins, as the parent poster noted).

Re:Plugins (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087352)

Talking about that annoying message, is there a Firefox Addon for Firefox 4 that automatically closes that upgrade box? That spammy upgrade dialog box has been the reason for me to stop using Firefox unless I am in need of using one of those plugins.

Major versions? (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086488)

I still don't understand why they elected to change to this system of releasing major versions every flippin month. The old system was working just fine, why can't this be Fx 5.5? And save v6 for when there are actually some major changes that deserve a major version.

Re:Major versions? (1)

the-matt-mobile (621817) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086596)

No doubt. When I read the OP, all I could think of was that of was what an understatement it is to say they released version 6 early when you consider that 4.0 came out a few months ago. Given all the really bad decisions Mozilla has made lately, I have to wonder if they've ever heard of this little old browser called Netscape? History seems to be repeating itself.

Re:Major versions? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086706)

When I read the OP, all I could think of was that of was what an understatement

Yeah, I can understand you getting stuck in that thought; I find it hard enough just trying to read it.

Re:Major versions? (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086608)

Because incrementing by full version numbers gives them an excuse to break things at every release.

Re:Major versions? (3, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086674)

Exactly. Meaning that if one wants stability, FireFox and Chrome are probably not for them.

IE and Opera started looking so much more attractive now. Even Netscape 4.7...

Meanwhile... (2)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086498)

Meanwhile most of the customers coming into my shop still run Firefox 3. Why are they releasing major versions so frequently, there's going to be a lot of people with very low Firefox version numbers that don't know they're 10 versions behind and wouldn't know how to fix that.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086600)

I would suggest mentally normalizing the version numbers into release dates. Keep a list in your head, or on a wall, and then you can judge outdatedness more cromulently:

  • Firefox 1.0: November 9, 2004
  • Firefox 1.5: November 29, 2005
  • Firefox 2: October 24, 2006
  • Firefox 3: June 17, 2008
  • Firefox 3.5: June 30, 2009
  • Firefox 3.6: January 21, 2010
  • Firefox 4: March 22, 2011
  • Firefox 5: June 21, 2011
  • Firefox 6: August 16, 2011

Now, you can truthfully ask yourself "How outdated is this user?" rather than the bogus proxy question "How many versions behind is this user?"

Firefox has been fired. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086502)

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 addon breaking, the theft of the status bar and ignoring its users and wasting 80 million dollars a year is the last straw. I uninstalled Firefox this week, and have switched to Chrome on my main PCs and Safari on my iPad. I might even go back to IE when Windows 8 comes out due to the promising platform previews.

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. (3, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086650)

1. Memory leaks have been a major issue of recent Firefox development. Current FF 8 nightly builds use a tiny fraction of older versions, and they're extremely stable. This is accomplished by no longer caching previous pages (so if you go back, you'll have to reload from scratch.) I've got a cool 200 tabs open right now in a very old session and it's only using about 500 MB of RAM.

2. The status bar can be restored with this extension [mozilla.org] . Addon compatibility is likely to be more stable in the foreseeable future since most of the major architectural changes were around the 3-to-4 transition.

3. Firefox doesn't run on the iPad. Are you a troll, technically inexperienced, or in a state of reduced mental capacity?

Re:Firefox has been fired. (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086728)

There is a great fork, Seamonkey. Runs on Windows, GNU/Linux, Mac OSX, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFly (for the *BSD use their ports collection) . The latest version 2.2 came out 07 July 2011. Runs all the firefox addons I use, though you'd have to check the ones you like.

Re:Firefox has been fired. (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086986)

I don't think this should have been modded down, it sounds like a Firefox experience that is sadly going to become more common for average users.

Don't know if anybody even noticed, but Mozilla shut down Spreadfirefox.com (now it just redirects to a page on Mozilla's main site) just before they released Firefox 4. Admittedly, the community had already gone down the toilet and the site was mostly just collecting spam.

(also the poster said he started using an iPad with Safari, not that he had been using Firefox on it)

Stupid versioning scheme, really (4, Funny)

Ragondux (2034126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086526)

They should really call it Firefox 1108, and release one per month. If that's too slow, they can just add the day too, Firefox 110816 sounds really advanced.

Re:Stupid versioning scheme, really (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086718)

Or why not use unary numeral system for the version numbers? FireFox v111111 would confuse hell out of the competition. After all, Chrome, as of last morning is still at the measly v13.

Version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086528)

So what exactly is this pressing need to increment one major version number per release? Does a higher number make the browser somehow better? What is wrong with the old and familiar scheme of major.minor.build (or a form of)?
Looking up some differences between 5 and 6, I find the major version increment hardly warranted. I find this desire to catch up to Opera and Chrome in version numbers rather comical, how about we just increment major for every build? Hell, get rid of major and use build # as version: Firefox 2740.

Re:Version numbers (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086656)

Firefox 6 is 1 better than Firefox 5, duh.

Re:Version numbers (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086790)

Version numbers have been bad for decades- marketing people wanting whole version numbers like 5.0 so update end up 5.0.1 and other silly games in the other direction.

What they should be doing is Firefox #.build# so you get the feature set and the build number. They seem to forget developers make the web apps they run too! a whole version number should remain somewhat static as far as features that cause any noticeable changes and bug fixes can go into the build numbers. When they actually do something that impacts web developers and add-on developers then they should go up a whole version. They are partially doing this today, as each version upgrade seems to break everything.

Re:Version numbers (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087282)

The major version number (the first digit) does not symbolize major changes, but a stable release - which this is - only with fewer changes then fx2/3/4. It is even more stable then previous versions because every version goes through a much longer testing period then before, and a relatively short development period.

Awkward moment.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086554)

When Mozilla actually releases something early instead of delaying everything.

Version number issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086558)

Many companies that make software for the web usually have a policy of supporting browsers up to a certain version number.
I think Mozilla needs to have an internal version number that reflects the stability of the rendering API so this way companies
can have some sense of how compatible future versions of Firefox are.

Where I work at , we only support Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 . The project that I am on has software where there are a few rendering
issues and bugs that show up on FF4+, which we will not fix yet because our clients tend to be mostly IE users. And with
Firefox adopting Chrome's update schedule, it's very hard to pin down what version of Firefox to support since we don't
know what things will change, and don't have the luxury to schedule a block of time devoted to "beta testing" new versions
of Firefox, if there are changes to the rendering or javascript engine that break previously working code.

Re:Version number issues (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087324)

in my experience, if it worked in the old version, it probably still works in the new version unless you used some stupid hack or workaround. The reverse is rarely true, so it might actually be better if you only the supported the old version

Rolling Releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086598)

I thought the version numbers were rolling releases now? So doesn't the release of "6" just mean it's being released on the "5" stream?

Re:Rolling Releases (3, Informative)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087164)

6 is released, 7 is in beta, 8 is testing (Aurora), 9 is trunk development (Nightly).

6 weeks later:

7 is released, 8 is in beta, 9 is testing, 10 is trunk development.

etc.

Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086630)

I can understand companies not being in touch with their customers, but does Mozilla not even read tech sites like Slashdot? Every story about Firefox lately is filled with exactly how negatively people feel about this version number fiasco.

Chrome was able to get away with bumping version numbers because it was a very new product and nobody was depending on it yet. Even though they removed the "beta" tag surprisingly early on (for a Google product), I think many people STILL consider Chome as "beta".

On the other hand large corporate type applications were just beginning to support Firefox and depended on long term support of major versions. Well, that has just been stomped in the face. Sadly, from a corporate stand point the only browser that really seems stable, viable, and "corporate friendly" now is IE.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086842)

The internet at large is full of negativity. Simple dissent is not enough reason to consider a change. Mozilla isn't a democracy, and it shouldn't be.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087106)

dissent due to breaking compatibility with tools users use, losing features they use, and hampering productivity are a reason to change. The internet is *filling* with negativity for firefox, caused by the loss of common sense by the Mozilla Corporation. It is reason enough to change to Seamonkey or Chrome.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (0)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087220)

Dude. 'EVERYONE' hates this shit. It isn't simple dissent.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086854)

Mozilla probably understands how extremely insane people get when they encounter even the most minute form of change (e.g. how often an arbitrary version number is incremented), let alone some of the more major and necessary overhauls they've been attempting. They have real work to do instead of participating in bike-shedding [bikeshed.com] on Slashdot all day.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086888)

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! Speak no evil!

- Mozilla developer. BTW, our next project is "Hear no evil", with a stone monkey for it's symbol. It's an internal project which will allow us to follow the "do no evil" motto of our Google masters. "See no Evil" is a public project. Everything renders white.

Re:Does Mozilla not read Slashdot? (4, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086962)

The other issue is that Chrome doesn't tie compatibility to version numbers. When I update Chrome I don't get a box telling me it is disabling half my extensions/apps. For the most part, everything just works. So, the number is just a number.

Mozilla's problem is that they assume extensions don't work after major version changes, which basically imposes arbitrary breakage. So, the number isn't just a number in their case.

Comments on the browser itself? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086696)

So... 40 posts about how much better the support experience would be if they incremented it by 0.1 instead of 1.0, as if the bugs somehow know which digit was incremented. But, no comments about the actual browser? For example, have they finally reverted "tabs on top"?

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (5, Informative)

Briareos (21163) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086776)

For example, have they finally reverted "tabs on top"?

So right-clicking somewhere in the toolbars to bring up the toolbar context menu and unchecking "Tabs on top" (which I actually like a lot, thankyouverymuch) is too much to ask?

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (1)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086936)

Thanks for your comment, I wasn t aware that it is possible to disable this "feature"!!! (and never thought it would be possible this way!)

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087224)

And this is exactly why Mozilla doesn't listen to the "browser expert" nerds on Slashdot! :P

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (2)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087388)

It's people like you that are making so much noise. For example, when FF4 was released, everyone bitched that the dropdown menu was gone from the back and forward buttons. They wailed that there was no way to go back in the history more than one page at a time.

Of course, that was entirely false. All they had to do was one of two things. Right click on the button and the history dropdown appears, or click and hold and it appears. It's like people have forgotten that they can actually poke around and figure things out for themselves. If it's not readily apparent, they assume it can't be done.

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086988)

For example, have they finally reverted "tabs on top"?

You're a prime example of why Mozilla doesn't take any of this recent huff seriously. Your concerns are meaningless, negligible, and amount to nothing but white noise. You are bike-shedding [bikeshed.com] in your own world. You act as though there isn't even a clearly and readily available GUI option to disable Tabs On Top.

It'll be nice in a few more months when everyone has naturally gotten over their all-too-human completely irrational emotional response to change. Mozilla shouldn't fall for any of this bullshit in the meantime.

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087054)

Have you ever used FF4+? Tabs on top is NOT the default.

Re:Comments on the browser itself? (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37087396)

Have you ever used FF4+?

Nope. Too late.

If there was a "This title is misleading" button.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37086920)

... I would click it for almost every single Slashdot story. Firefox 6 has NOT been released. When Mozilla releases it, they will change the Firefox homepage. Being software developers, they know how to change their websites.

kthxbye

So I guess Google toolbar is done then? (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 3 years ago | (#37086980)

Or how many releases have to go by before it is supported again?

Fx has bigger problems than its versioning policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087322)

Fx displays mediocre performance for me with only 3 plugins installed. It has been doing so for a long time. I noticed a clear improvement in speed with v4 but I still get, out of the blue, constant whole window freezes for 10-30s - during which one core of my CPU spikes to 100% - especially if I have a few pages with Flash opened. I tried many tweaks to get around it but sooner or later the problem comes back.

I suspect that this is, to a large extent, Google's fault because the freezes appear especially on GMail, G+, Reader and Youtube. They must be pushing the envelope with the complexity of these sites, Fx seems to be unable to handle it and Google doesn't care anymore since they successfully positioned their own browser as the paragon of speed. Then again, I do use Google's site predominantly so maybe I would see the problem elsewhere.

I'm worried that this both perceived and factual performance problem will seriously hurt Fx. I've been using Fx and its ancestors for more than 10 years and I've never been so close to abandoning it. If I could have "Search With" for Chrome, I'm pretty sure I would start using it as my primary browser.

does it crash less than FF 5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37087356)

FF 5 added some good features, but it crashed more than any other version of Firefox.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?