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 Contemplating Five Week Release Cycle

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the faster-faster-faster dept.

Firefox 495

MrSeb writes with an article in Extreme Tech about the ever quickening pace of Firefox development. Quoting the article: "Mozilla, not content with its monumental shift from four major builds in five years down to a new stable build every six weeks, is looking at outputting a new release every five weeks, or perhaps even less. Christian Legnitto, a project manager at Mozilla (and currently the 'release manager' of Firefox), announced the intention to shift to a shorter release cycle on Mozilla's planning mailing list. In response to one developer citing the success of the six-week release cycle, and asking whether it would be feasible to speed it up even further, Legnitto said: 'Yes, I absolutely think in the future we will shorten the cycle.' There are still some pains to overcome, though, such as add-on maintenance, testing, and localization — and ultimately, as browsers become more like operating systems, do we really want something as important as Firefox receiving a new major version every 5 weeks?" In other news, it looks like Firefox is losing users faster than ever despite (because of?) the new rapid release cycle.

cancel ×

495 comments

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

Sigh... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460602)

I've stopped using Firefox. I was a constant user of it since the Firebird days, but somewhere down the line the whole project has lost sight. I find Chrome a good deal faster and more agile. Maybe I'd feel differently if I were a plugin developer, but as it stands, Firefox seems to be a project that has lost its way.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460766)

I've stopped using Firefox.

Same here. I bought a new laptop, switched to Chrome, and I also switched to XFCE while I was at it. Firefox on a five week release schedule? Spare me: it was buggy enough back in the Firefox 3 days. Why don't they just release every nightly, whether it works or not and have done with it?

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460820)

Well, at least you don't complain about the new cycle while switching to Chrome.

I've decided to stay with Firefox. It feels faster and better, although I gave the other browsers a fair try. I just didn't like them, and lack of proper addons just made the decision easier.

Re:Sigh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460822)

If you ever work a service job like maybe for extra income, y' know so you can take care of your own and not be a leech on society requiring all the public assistance and the welfare about 50% receive in the form of not paying federal income taxes... you will soon notice certain trends.

If the client is ... old, black, or a big fat disgusting lardass ... guaranteed, guaran-fucking-teed, they will need more assistance than any other client, will ask more stupid questions, will need basic things explained more than once, will make more tiny insigificant changes to an order, will look for excuses to get free stuff (particularly if they are fat AND black, well most black women are fat [true fact, look it up] so there you go).

Nothing wrong with pointing this out because it happens to be the FUCKING TRUTH. Yes, the FUCKING TRUTH, that thing you only like when it says what you want to hear.

Re:Sigh... (0)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461124)

Like I posted before...

Firefox 4, 5, and 6 were piles of overbloated resource hogging pieces of SHIT.

I've been using Mozilla from before the firefox days, hell I even used firefox before it was called firefox (remember phoenix anyone?), but firefox truly has gone the bloated route now.

Both IE9 and Chrome are now FAR better browsers than Firefox 4/5/6.

I've personally switched to Chrome everywhere, and looking at getting the entire office at work switched from Firefox to Chrome as well (the rapid release cycle of Firefox is nuts, its more rapid than even Chrome and the browser only gets worse with each new release anyway.)

Re:Sigh... (2)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461142)

I still use Firefox on Windows at work. The Windows version works well, and I can live with the constant upgrades (so far). And all things being (more or less) equal, I still prefer Firefox as a browser.

But I'm finding that the Linux version of Firefox is getting unbearable to use. There are just so many times when the UI becomes unresponsive. Hell, there are very noticeable delays just to scroll with the scroll wheel. And their attempts to copy the Chrome UI are really kludgey on Linux. Chromium works much better - though I've seen it do flaky stuff on some websites. So most of the time, I still use FF, but I'm getting closer to switching.

I was pretty pissed off when Chrome didn't go with QT or GTK for a cross-platform UI. But Google's somehow managed to come up with a way to build a multi-platform browser that actually works well on all the platforms. Firefox used to be the best at that, but it's losing ground. I was beginning to suspect that Firefox's shortcomings on Linux were Linux-specific (X window events getting lost - or GTK throwing them out when the app can't consume them, crummy threading libraries, etc.), but Linux Chrome has very few of the FF performance issues. I guess that's good news for Linux, but not great for FF.

Have they totally lost it, or what? (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460610)

Have they totally lost it? It's not like the browser world is making sudden great progress. It's a mature technology. The big problem today is getting stuff fixed.

I'm doing some Firefox extension development, and I'm finding documentation from versions 1.5 to the current one, all out of sync.

Re:Have they totally lost it, or what? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460652)

Updating documentation isn't as hot or sexy as bumping the version up one full major release, whether it deserves it or not.

I have never seen a single open source project ever that gave two shits about documentation. Not one.

Re:Have they totally lost it, or what? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460706)

Oh look, another dumbass fucktard who can't use MAN.

Re:Have they totally lost it, or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460878)

Counterpoint: PostgreSQL, FreeBSD.

Re:Have they totally lost it, or what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37461068)

well theres openbsd. they do it for everything they touch

Re:Have they totally lost it, or what? (1)

dballanc (100332) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461104)

Django. I'm pretty sure there is more documention than code. There are a lot of open source projects with excellent documentation. Not all or even most, but a lot.

Please just give us individual patches! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460620)

Mozilla could fix their issues if they came up with a way to apply individual patches to ward off security issues without a freakin new install.... What if I had to reinstall Linux or Windows every time a new patch came out..? I wouldn't use those either if i had to reinstall them once every 5 weeks.

System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (5, Insightful)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460630)

Sorry i have other things to do than repackage FF for deployment every 5 weeks.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460690)

How is repackaging version 5.0.1 versus repackaging 6.0? You still download it and still repackage it the same exact way. So what's the big deal?

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460782)

It still takes time to do it.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460962)

You don't have it automated?

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461112)

I, for one, have a Sapient AI written in Fortran whose sole purpose is testing new Firefox releases against the various corporate crapware it needs to be compatible with.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460804)

Is there something about "every 5 weeks" that you don't understand?

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460892)

no what it means is every 5 weeks nothing gets done for about a week because FF has to be packaged , tested not to break any apps, then deployed and that's if it passes. In the meantime all the other projects, get pushed back because FF is eating up that time. Thank god we don't support plugins, we would never get any FF updates.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461008)

I know. That's why I asked AC if there was something he didn't understand about "every 5 weeks."

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460728)

What's wrong with auto update?

If you don't use auto update, you're potentially using vulnerable browsers.

If you do use auto update...seriously, what could break? I understand the time of worrying about IE versions, but that's because they really were different. Do you really think that they'll all of the sudden stray from the standards enough to break your corporate site?

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460806)

What's wrong with auto update?

If you don't use auto update, you're potentially using vulnerable browsers.

If you do use auto update...seriously, what could break?

At an absolute minimum, every new release seems to move UI entities around or delete them altogether and then you have 1,000 users asking you what happened to their web browser because the status bar went away and can you come and fix it for them.

Mozilla seem to be committing suicide right now for no reason anyone can adequately explain.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460808)

the problem is when you have 10,000 workstations all connecting to mirrors.mozilla.org and downloading the update will cause some connectivity problems.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460840)

I'm going to guess that you don't really have any formal sysadmin experience. Otherwise you'd not be surprised at all about those unlikely regressions that show up on seemingly minor updates.

As to auto-update, care to suggest anyway to make that work without giving users admin rights?

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460966)

Talk to Google. It seems to work fine for Chrome.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

tgeek (941867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460882)

Do you really think that they'll all of the sudden stray from the standards enough to break your corporate site?

Absolutely.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (1)

javakah (932230) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460922)

What would break is Javascript. The different browsers have been messing around quite a bit with their Javascript engines in recent years, and there are idiosyncrasies that have to be worked around. What you see as a minor change to how a browser handles a piece of Javascript does in fact mean that major corporate websites could suddenly no longer work for thousands of users.

When you have to support such systems, you want to be able to do testing to make sure that things work. This new scheme means that each and every day you are living under the gun, wondering if today is the day that Mozilla will release a version with a minor tweak that will leave you in a huge mess.

Unfortunately, although I've loved Firefox and have used it for years, I'm about ready to suggest that my organization no longer support it, because it's becoming impossible to realistically test against. The best that such testing can do is say 'It works today, but who knows about tomorrow?', which bosses REALLY don't like.

Re:System Admins Contemplating ditching FireFox (3, Interesting)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461110)

> If you do use auto update...seriously, what could break?

FF5 broke my employer-mandated SSL VPN plug-in, which made me unable to telecommute.

They had a fix deployed about five weeks later...

Reason to use Firefox... (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460640)

I switched to Chrome long ago, but despite my efforts to convert her, my wife still wants to use Firefox. And if she wants Firefox, she's getting Firefox.

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (2)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460676)

Picking your battles is an important component of a happy marriage!

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (2)

keird (519534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460800)

I like the fact that Chrome is just always up to date and they are continuously releasing. I don't have to worry about what version I'm using. Shouldn't all browsers move to that model?

KD

--
Kilroy is Here.
http://itunes.com/apps/kilroy [itunes.com]

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (3, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460838)

Not when doing so continually breaks the things that the users you do have care about, no.

What FF user actually wants this model? Most of them don't. Releasing at the same speed as Chrome isn't going to win over Chrome users, but it will chase FF users off. That's what we're seeing here.

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460946)

Perhaps addon writers shouldn't be lazy. Noscript has not once broken for me, despite having gone from FF5, to Aurora, to Nightly on my personal system.

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460950)

As an avid Firefox user, I find I'm torn with this release method. It used to be that when a new version of Firefox came out, it was the shizzle to the nizzle, the bee's knees, the cat's...well you get the idea. Version 3 was leaps ahead of Version 2 and Version 2 made Version 1 look antiquated. However, that's partially because it took Mozilla so long to release them, over the course of a year or so, Firefox would go from being the most advanced, best browser out there to being outdated and slow. This was before Chrome came along, at least.

However, this release cycle doesn't seem to do anything other than piss people off. I actually don't mind it, it doesn't seem to get in the way for me and I do use several extensions, but the jump from 4, to 5, to 6 didn't seem to bring anything new to the table. I couldn't tell them apart without reading the changelog.

I'd move to Chrome, but it doesn't support Windows' DPI settings, so as a user with bad eyesight, this is a deal-breaker for me. Firefox handles it brilliantly.

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37461014)

I switched to Chrome long ago, but despite my efforts to convert her, my wife still wants to use Firefox. And if she wants Firefox, she's getting Firefox.

In other words, you're afraid if you set your foot down on even a minor issue, she will stop giving you access to her vagina. Admit it.

What you don't realize is women respect a guy who's not afraid of that. The kind of respect that turns them on. You get more puss anyway.

But no, you're just like most men, letting your wife walk all over you. I bet you fix her problems when she uses something you recommended against, too. The way to do it is "ok, use what you want, it is your own choice, but if you have problems you're also on your own".

Re:Reason to use Firefox... (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461114)

Right, because whether to use Chrome or Firefox is a decision of such fundamental importance that it's worth giving an ultimatum to my best friend over it.

Or something...

Contemplating (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460642)

I am contemplating something too. To make Opera my default, it's not right now, but I use them at the same time here, why do I even do it anymore? AdBlock Plus and my extensions..... I need to figure out how to port extensions to Opera and just move

Re:Contemplating (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460818)

F12 in opera makes for a nifty facsimile of noscript.

Re:Contemplating (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461062)

I'm a long-time Opera user. There is now a good adblock extension in Opera, enough to where I've switched my daughter to Opera, and getting ready to push my wife onto it, I'll let her test drive it for a while before pulling the plug on Firefox. Other extensions I can't address, since I'm not a big Firefox user--just enough to set it up for the family and get adblock installed.

Lolwut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460668)

Firefox 42 here we come!

Rolling...rolling...rolling (1)

hilldog (656513) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460670)

Is Firefox a candidate for a rolling upgrade model as some Linux disto's are now doing?

Re:Rolling...rolling...rolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460984)

faster to roll out and quicker to break

Forget versions if you're pumping them out this... (4, Insightful)

mackil (668039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460678)

Since they're pumping out versions as fast as Chrome, why not do what Chrome does and make the version # irrelevant?

How many people know what version of Chrome they're running? I sure don't know. But Firefox trumpets the "new" Firefox on every release.

If you're going to do a rapid release schedule, you've made the version number meaningless to your average user.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460736)

How many people know what version of Chrome they're running?

Anyone who ever opens the about dialog box?

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460778)

How many people know what version of Chrome they're running?

Anyone who ever opens the about dialog box?

I think his point is that aside from the geeks on Slashdot, there aren't that many users who actually do that.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460810)

Let me take this opportunity to say hello to all 3 of you.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460790)

As I recall, this idea was actually floated. But after a couple of weeks the news was posted to Slashdot and the nerd rage was so strong, the plan was scuttled.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460850)

Probably because in certain cases the "Firefox is up to date" ifnormation on that screen flat out lies and tells you you're up to date when you're really not. The version number is a pretty important sanity check until they fix that bug (which they still haven't).

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461084)

The other issue is when someone reports a bug in your website, you want to be able to know which version of the browser was used in order to reproduce the environment. The harder it is to find the version, the longer the helpdesk call.

It also makes it hard for vendors selling web applications. They say it works for Firefox--does it work for all versions? Does it break when a new version of Firefox is released? Some major educational applications still require Firefox 3. Ideally, they would be written to stable standards. Practically, they aren't. You can say that it's the developer's fault, but that is small consolation for the user.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460876)

Because Chrome is special and exempt from the petty hate being directed towards Mozilla.

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460944)

Chrome's been the same way since Google started it. Mozilla trying to play Google with their Firefox releases fucked up a previously reliable application in the process. See the fucking difference?

Re:Forget versions if you're pumping them out this (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460986)

What I don't understand is why they don't do a half way and release a new minor every 6 weeks and save the major versions for...well...major versions? Firefox went from 4.0.0 to 5.0.0, then a bugfix came out that was 5.0.1, then 6.0.0. Why didn't they just do 4.0, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.2, etc? That would shut most people up and considering that little has changed between versions, would probably make extension developers' lives a bit easier. It also removes the superfluous middle digit.

Not despite, because of (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460688)

If they keep this up, I will remove it from our labs. I am not going to deal with this shit. Release bug fixes as often as you need to, but new features need to be something that doesn't happen too often. I can't go and test this shit every few weeks, nor do I want to deal with things that are outdated. I like FF, but this policy they have is pushing me to dump it. I haven't yet, but we'll see.

Re:Not despite, because of (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460828)

We already have at my office.

Re:Not despite, because of (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460860)

Yeah, we should sit for years between versions to keep cranky IT workers and the corporations they inhabit happy.

Re:Not despite, because of (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460972)

No, instead we should arbitrarily break shit simply because we can, serving no real purpose whatsoever aside from turning what was previously exceptionally stable into something that's shaky at best. Clown.

There is an alternative (2)

chebucto (992517) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460708)

Seamonkey uses Gecko and is compatible with most Firefox extensions, but has a sane release schedule. 4 years from 1.0 to 2.0, 2 years from 2.0 to 2.3 (current version).

It gets new features more slowly than Firefox, but, currently at least, it is as good as Firefox (for my use, at least). Oh, and it has a menubar and statusbar.

Bad Mozilla! (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460712)

No, the fact that it will very very soon go to eleven does not make your browser any better! I realize you are getting version envy (IE 9, Chrome 14, Opera 11) but believe it or not, NO ONE GIVES A DAMN. Except the Mozilla devs, apparently.

A faster release cycle is fine. Just not one that increments the main version number, especially when (perhaps poorly coded) extensions break. When you do that, it just looks like a "mine's bigger!" contest. Which I think it is. And that is sad.

No more gov customers (1)

Chris453 (1092253) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460714)

Since many US government agencies requires that all software be on an approved list by version numbers, this version game is shooting themselves in the foot.

Irrelevent (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460994)

Since many US government agencies...

Which US gov agencies use FF? None?

FF is irrelevent to the average US government wonk (like me), as we will never get the chance to install it anyway - Microsoft bought us a long time ago.

Great... (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460716)

This is just great. Given that many extension devs already apparently find it hard to keep up with the FF release pace, this means that soon *none* of my extensions will work. If only NoScript worked in Chrome I'd chuck FF right now.

Browser share (1, Informative)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460738)

The article linked to describes losing browser share. That does not imply that it's losing users. It might be. However, the article does not say that.

Re:Browser share (2, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460952)

I suppose they could be gaining users, and that some users...aren't using the browser, leading to paradoxical loss of browser share. More users of Firefox using less browser.

Ow. I think I just sprained my brain.

Let's try this again. Browser share is user share, unless (A) some users are using more than one browser, or (B) some browser users aren't actually using the browser, in defiance of the actual meaning of the phrase "browser user". Like, "non-driving driver", or "non-drinking drinker".

Dammit, my brain still hurts.

Re:Browser share (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37461046)

I believe his point is that if they don't gain users, and the number of people online goes up, their browser share goes down.
Better?

Re:Browser share (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461108)

It the total number of people using a browser grows, then the number of users can grow while the user share decreases

Shooting Themselves (and us) In The Foot (2)

sehlat (180760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460750)

We use Selenium IDE for test scripts. Every new release# kills Selenium. My boss has canceled several projects that were intended to use this for regression and other testing while we try to find something that's not going to die on us every few weeks.

I stopped using FF because of the rapid releases.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460754)

I used to love Firefox. But I have a lot of trouble with these rapid releases. I was very surprised by this move without much consultation with its user community.

FF team: Please listen to your users closely. I'd like to see FF continue to thrive, but you can't do it without listening closely to the user needs.

Extensions... (4, Insightful)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460762)

Extensions stop working at random without any good reason and in record time. So many of us use Firefox over Chrome because of extensions.

This plan is just terrible.

Re:Extensions... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460910)

I am an extension author. If they expect me to work so regularly on something that enhances their product, they need to pay me.

Re:Extensions... (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461060)

It would be nice, but I am using some extensions that are only supported on two browsers - IE and Firefox. I had to fricking use IE at home... grr. IE is for work only because I still need to use the damn ActiveX heavy HR web system that integrates with that godawful HR system SAP puts out (dear SAP - hire a usability engineer already... as someone trained in usability, I can attest your software is not, and my companies' custom web interface isn't much better - I have a theory that is your goal however, as HR tend to like sadism...). I'd go Chrome, but our internal apps don't support Chrome at all (but they work in Chrome, Opera, and Safari - we're just not allowed to validate against them except Safari on mac).

To make matters worse, some extensions weren't done updating from the last update when Firefox invalidated them again.

"In response to one developer citing the success" (4, Insightful)

davewoods (2450314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460764)

Mozilla addons getting shafted because one guy wants faster releases? Sweet.

Still my browser...for now (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460780)

Firefox is starting to piss me off. I'm relatively happy with the way it looks and works now, and I've got the add-ons I want installed and working properly. I see no way they're going to keep a schedule like this without breaking aps and causing me problems.

I've had Opera as my back-up browser for quite a while now. I notice it's getting quite a nice stable of widgets together. When they get enough that are close to my current Firefox add-ons, I think it's going to be curtains for the Fox.

Now available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460784)

Firefox 342,567,321 now available for download.

Re:Now available (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460898)

That was so last week. Get with the program.

the bottom of this particular slipper slope (2)

prgrmr (568806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460786)

This will continue until they get to a daily release schedule with each new release containing 1 new feature or 1 or 2 bug fixes. And then look for twice daily, etc.

Mozilla, much more than Google, is pushing me toward using Chrome.

Re:the bottom of this particular slipper slope (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461126)

Question: "What version of Firefox are you running?"

Answer: "I dunno, is it AM or PM?"

---

Question: "I hear they're replacing the Planck length as the smallest measurement. What are they replacing it with?"

Answer: "Mozilla release cycles."

They're doing it for the cake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460832)

Mozilla has decided that the wait between cakes from the IE team is too long and want it every month now. Duh.

Tomorrow's news (1)

GeneralSecretary (1959616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460842)

Mozilla commits to change its release cycle and versioning system every 5 weeks.

Incredible (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460852)

I'm amazed at how hateful and petty people are towards Mozilla over this. Google gets a pass though.

I guess the notion of "release early, release often" is dead?

Re:Incredible (1)

15973 (861573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461052)

It's not about being mad. Mozilla created a culture around their browser and how it worked, how it was updated, how add-ons worked and were programmed. The problem is that they created a culture, and now are going against everything they created, because they've lost sight of where they started and why.

Re:Incredible (4, Interesting)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461054)

No, google doesn't get a pass. A number of us weren't using chrome for reasons just like this - do you see a lot of enterprises pushing out chrome? Nope. If FF does the same thing as chrome, why use FF? The market needs versioned (6-9+ months minumum) browser other than IE. Guess that's going to have to be Opera instead of FF now.

GUI changes (1)

NortySpock (1966236) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460856)

Weren't they making frequent and unwanted changes to the GUI the last few releases? (I dunno, I just realized I've been using Chrome exclusively for the past few months.)

I mean, if your interface rapidly goes down the tube, your customers are going to jump ship as fast as they can.

Live demo of the definition of insanity (5, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460868)

Did Mozilla go hire some MBAs or something? That's the only rational explanation for this idiocy.

The userbase has rejected rapid release. They hate it. Users are leaving the browser faster then ever before ever since it started.

So Mozilla's response is... even faster releases? Is it possible to miss the point any more then this? People don't care about this shit, they just want a good browser.

Re:Live demo of the definition of insanity (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460920)

Indeed, so people are leaving a browser that is moving to rapid release and going to a browser that does... rapid release. Wait, what?

Re:Live demo of the definition of insanity (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461136)

Well, it goes something like this. If my browser is going to rapid-release regardless of what I use, I'm gonna go with the one that doesn't suck ass in the process, i.e. chrome.

Re:Live demo of the definition of insanity (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460928)

Is it possible to miss the point any more then this? People don't care about this shit, they just want a good browser.

Don't worry: after they remove the version number from the UI, no-one will notice the rapid releases.

You know what is funny? (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460870)

Chrome scares my from a privacy standpoint. Firefox wants updated between every keystroke. IE is my new browser of choice.

The Real Reason is Different (1)

Quantum_Infinity (2038086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460880)

Regardless of what justification they give for shortening the release cycle, the real reason is that they simply want to catch up with the version number of Chrome. Since they are several versions behind right now, they need to have a faster release cycle than Chrome to catch up. So if Chrome has a six week release cycle, they need a shorter one.

Better than Chrome on Mac but worried about addons (1)

jbrodkin (1054964) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460900)

I switched from Firefox to Chrome 2+ years ago because at the time FF was constantly crashing. Just this week I switched back to FF because Chrome on Mac has had numerous problems for me over the past month. So far I am liking Firefox, but I am relying on a few plugins or add-ons. The quick development cycle will make it tough for users who have to rely on add-ons that may not be updated to support new browser versions immediately upon release.

We're Doing 5 Blades! (4, Funny)

DoomHamster (1918204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460912)

Mozilla should just cut out the race to 5 blades and call nightlies full releases.

One bug fix, one version (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460916)

Eventually we'll move towards a new version for every bug fix.

Why 5 weeks? (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460932)

They might as well make it an even month. Call it version yyyymm (201109 for this months version). That way, they not only have their fast updates, but the higher version numbers ever!

Best version of Firefox is 3.6 (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460954)

I finally downgraded to Firefox 3.6, because versions 4/5 were so sluggish that they became nearly unusable. There is some major performance bug in the new versions. You can easily see this when you shut it down after using it for a day. The process takes an entire minute to close down - Firefox 3.6 only takes a couple of seconds.

I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460978)

Exactly what problem does Mozilla think they're solving by accelerating release cycles?

Re:I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461078)

The problem of how to blow as much market share and the shortest period of time.

I've Quit Using it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37460988)

Not only because IE 9 has proven more secure, but because every new update from Firefox breaks my plugins. I'm tired of Fixing what they keep Breaking in my user experience.

Remember when... (1)

15973 (861573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37460992)

I started using Firefox (for the second time) when it was Netscape 4.0. Remember a time when Mozilla didn't give users the impression that it was just trying to copy Google in every possible way? Good times...

The only thing keeping me with Firefox is HTTPS Everywhere (https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere), and being able to clear the cookies/cache on exit. Give me another cross-platform browser with those features, and Mozilla is going to have a hard time convincing me to stay.

Insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37461018)

As far as I am concerned they lost the plot completely. I am sick and tired of losing functionality of vital add-ons for most of the time. As soon as the add-on developers catch up they release a new version. I used to be a huge fan of FF but will now look elsewhere. This is insane. What a shame to ruin a good browser with stupid release politics.

Check AddOns before updating (1, Insightful)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37461020)

What if Firefox would check addons before updating to a new version. If the addon is incompatible with the release and there is no compatible update available, the user is informed about this and given the option to proceed or abort the upgrade.
This way sudden and unexpected breakage of addons is prevented. And addons are really what makes firefox so popular.

Other than the addon 'problem', I really don't see what people are complaining about. Fast release cycles is what we want, right? And version numbers are just numbers...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>