Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Firefox 8.0 Beta Available

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the another-day-another-version dept.

Firefox 305

An anonymous reader tips news that Mozilla has released the beta version of Firefox 8, only a few days after going live with the final version of Firefox 7. According to the announcement, the big changes this time around include the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine, more versatility in restoring tabs on startup, and improved user control over add-ons. "Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on, Firefox will disable the add-on until the user has explicitly opted in, giving users better control over their Web experience."

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

fuck firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567458)

getting tired of their stupid rapid release schedule. who does it really benefit? what happened to stability and confidence in their product.

Re:fuck firefox (2, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37567538)

Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.

Re:___ firefox (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#37567560)

Um, the rapid release schedule is what gives Firefox its stability and confidence.

We'll know for sure, when they release 9.0 Beta next week.

Re:fuck firefox (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568522)

You mis-spelled instability and left out "drains" before confidence.

Re:fuck firefox (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | about 3 years ago | (#37568566)

The rapid release schedule that started after version 3.?, you mean?

Re:fuck firefox (2)

Tsingi (870990) | about 3 years ago | (#37567718)

I use nightly. Updates every day. No problem doing that.

Re:fuck firefox (2)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#37567866)

I use nightly too and everything is working fine, seems*1 faster than chrome and most importantly not a google spy.

1-Perception of speed is more important than a synthetic benchmark number....

Re:fuck firefox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568074)

They've just using the major number for what the minor number used to mean.

Very stupid.

Re:fuck firefox (2)

kilodelta (843627) | about 3 years ago | (#37568334)

Sure, because I note every version since 4 breaks certain JAVA functionality. That's why I note they're still updating v3.6.x and are on v3.6.23 now.

Im confused (3, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 3 years ago | (#37567466)

Is 'firefox' a browser or a unit of currency in Italy?

Re:Im confused (1)

pixline (2028580) | about 3 years ago | (#37567632)

Is 'firefox' a browser or a unit of currency in Italy?

Currency in Italy grows quicker than firefox version number, sadly...

Re:Im confused (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567784)

Is 'firefox' a browser or a unit of currency in Italy?

Currency in Italy grows quicker than firefox version number, sadly...

No, you are getting it wrong, in Italy currency is currently Euro, Firefox instead matches the number of underage whores bailed out from jail from the prime minister.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567482)

This is absolutely not worth a new major version.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 3 years ago | (#37567500)

It's just a number. Deal with it.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567642)

Most users immediately recognize that 7 -> 8 is typically more significant than 7 -> 7.01.
Now you're telling me I should wait for "Firefox Ack(n+1)" to experience significant changes from version Ack(n)?

Re:Seriously? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37567754)

... wait for "Firefox Ack(n+1)" to experience significant changes from version Ack(n)?

Um, Ackermann's Function takes two parameters.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567888)

My bad, Ack(n) is a function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function). Ackermann's function is A(m,n).

Re:Seriously? (2)

Anrego (830717) | about 3 years ago | (#37568144)

It's supposed to signify something. That's the whole point of having a major and minor (and build) number.

<something big changed and may require config changes>.<something relatively minor has changed and I should just be able to keep working>

I have no idea what the purpose of this whole versioning/rapid release scheme is... but from my vantage point it looks very silly.

The version number is a red herring (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 3 years ago | (#37568220)

It's just a number.

No, it's not. It's also a mostly-automatic change in the software that people are running, and that is a much more significant concern.

Re:Seriously? (1)

underqualified (1318035) | about 3 years ago | (#37567600)

I think you should stop caring about version numbers. They are just numbers after all. I personally prefer having small updates on something like a weekly basis allowing yourself to slowly accept changes rather than having large releases every couple of months and have a paradigm shift shoved down your throat.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37567794)

You're wasting your breath. You might as well ask people to stop making "First Post!" or say "Gobal warming? it's freezing outside!" every time there's a cold day.

Re:Seriously? (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 3 years ago | (#37567992)

If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).

Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.

As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rolling into your system images, had received some level of community exposure and any major problems would be known.

It just a matter of time before something really embarrassing like cookies not working or other such obvious thing that would have been discovered quickly makes it into a major numbered Firefox release now. This is STUPID>

Re:Seriously? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37568122)

Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.

As opposed to what...? Everybody having the exact same version as you since the updates became automated and invisible?

Re:Seriously? (2)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#37568178)

The fact that they have a dot in the middle suggests that they have some structure; that the number in front of the dot is more significant than the one after the dot. Why call it 8.0 when it's just a meaningless number? And why is mine called 7.0.1 instead of 7 or 7.1 or 8?

In fact, why not just use build numbers? Just give me Firefox 7136 and I'll admit that it's just a number with no implication of meaning or structure.

are you kidding me? (3, Insightful)

hymie! (95907) | about 3 years ago | (#37567516)

I was just about to point out that I had to revert to Firefox 5.X because Firefox 6 broke a web site I need.

Then I read this:

the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine,

and I'm seriously wondering why I don't run Opera or Chrome.

Oh, right. FoxyProxy is the reason why I don't run Opera or Chrome.

Re:are you kidding me? (2)

facetiousprogrammer (966842) | about 3 years ago | (#37567558)

I switched to Opera this week. bye bye chrome and firefox.....

Re:are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567918)

I'd like to switch to opera too, but the inability to make opera link(the opera synchronization system) work with an own server instead of the cloud one is a showstopper for me.

I don't like depending on third party server for this kind on things. It's not just a privacy concern(it too) but also a depending on others problem.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

mcvos (645701) | about 3 years ago | (#37568212)

Are people switching TO Opera? I'm in the process of abandoning it. It used to be an amazing browser, way ahead of the curve. But all its interesting features have been copied by everybody else by now, and too many websites just don't work well in Opera.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37568262)

Like which websites? I've used Opera consistently for about 7 years now. It used to not work with a few sites, but it's been a while since I've come across anything that is actually broken. And it still has a large number of uncopied features (like a mail client) which I've simply become used to having around. Ever since it added extensions, I really think there isn't a good reason to use Firefox anymore (aside maybe from an extension that hasn't been ported yet.)

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37567672)

and I'm seriously wondering why I don't run Opera or Chrome.

Have you checked out Chrome's release schedule? You get new versions weekly (more or less). The last updates were 18th and 21st of September (three days between them, tada!)

The only difference is that Firefox uses simple, consecutive integers and Chrome's version numbers look more like IP addresses.

Re:are you kidding me? (2, Insightful)

MechaStreisand (585905) | about 3 years ago | (#37567762)

No, the difference is that Chrome doesn't fuck with things on every new version, and Firefox DOES.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#37567900)

Why is that I run nightly and I have not encounter any problems? What are those things that were fucked in the last release ?

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Zhiroc (909773) | about 3 years ago | (#37568152)

I have one extension (at least) that doesn't support FF 6.0 yet. Until that changes, I don't move.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Creepy (93888) | about 3 years ago | (#37568330)

Extensions. They invalidate them every major revision and they've been revising on a schedule where many of these plugins aren't keeping up. It was much better when there were point releases that didn't break the extensions, but now they're broken every 3 months and the vendors can't keep up.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 years ago | (#37568412)

There's an extension for that.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=api [mozilla.org]

Everything I used that worked in FF7 still works for me in FF8. Even one that hasn't been updated since FF6.

After installing the Add-on Compatibility Reporter, your incompatible extensions will become enabled for you to test whether they still work with the version of Firefox or Thunderbird that you're using. If you notice that one of your add-ons doesn't seem to be working the same way it did in previous versions of the application, just open the Add-ons Manager and click Compatibility next to that add-on to send a report to Mozilla.

Even if your add-ons all work fine, if they're marked incompatible, please let us know that they work fine by submitting a success report so we can encourage the add-on developer to update their compatibility information.

We'll collect all of the reports and let add-on developers know what users are having problems with, or if their add-ons seem to work just fine in future versions of the product.

Re:are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568526)

I use 10 extensions, and the only time they break is when a new stable version is realeased and my Firefox 9 changes to 10. And it takes about a week to get those updated. And if needed, I just download the xpi files and change a single line to make it work. So, running nightlies and it all works.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37568078)

Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).

eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.

The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.

Re:are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567774)

Here's my Chrome version: 14.0.835.186
So if you take the first number to be the main version number, Chrome is currently 14, way ahead of Firefox.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | about 3 years ago | (#37568250)

Chrome is currently 14, way ahead of Firefox.

Yeah, but with FF's current numbering/updating scheme - they'll be "way ahead" of Chrome in like, two weeks! :P

Re:are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568472)

No, because both Chrome and Firefox have a roughly 6 week release schedule. Since they are releasing at the same interval, FF will never catch up.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 3 years ago | (#37568108)

Bug fixes and security patches can come out days apart, but it is six weeks between release numbers for Chrome.

Re:are you kidding me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568352)

The only difference is that Firefox uses simple, consecutive integers and Chrome's version numbers look more like IP addresses.

Nah, the real difference is that no one particularly cares what Chrome's version number is while Firefox is still bragging about beta release version numbers.

Re:are you kidding me? (4, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | about 3 years ago | (#37568042)

The really sad thing? The other week, the latest release of Firefox 6 decided that it wanted to intermittently crash my Nvidia drivers. Until I figured out I could fix this by disabling the hardware acceleration option (which has absolutely zero impact on performance anyway), I was coming to the conclusion that rather than Opera or Chrome, if I was going to switch, it would be to IE. Having not used it for years, I was pretty shocked at how much it had improved in the interim.

That said, I think there's some deep part of me that would just find it hard to trust IE.

But yes, Firefox has long since passed the point where a new version meant "oooh, new features" and reached the point where it means "oh god, what have they broken or ruined this time?"

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | about 3 years ago | (#37568316)

Firefox has long since passed the point where a new version meant "oooh, new features" and reached the point where it means "oh god, what have they broken or ruined this time?"

Ditto here...

Re:are you kidding me? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37568538)

If Firefox is able to crash your Nvidia drivers, it's the drivers - or possibly the Windows graphics subsystem - that are fucked, not Firefox.

I know this is irrelevant to you as the user, but we're on /.

Re:are you kidding me? (3, Informative)

BZ (40346) | about 3 years ago | (#37568056)

Is there a bug on file on this? We try really hard to not break websites, obviously; if we broke something without realizing it we would _really_ like to know.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | about 3 years ago | (#37568374)

Did you fix the kerning problem with A being after T like in INTERSTATE and TOTAL? (font-family:Arial,Helvetica).

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

BZ (40346) | about 3 years ago | (#37568496)

I have no idea which problem you're talking about, so I don't know whether it's fixed.... I personally don't work on the guts of text layout, so you'll have to help me out here by pointing to a bug report.

Re:are you kidding me? (3, Insightful)

MrZilla (682337) | about 3 years ago | (#37568304)

I tried switching from FF3 to FF6 recently. I did not like it at all.
Currently been running Chrome for a few days, it's OK, but has some irritating issues (for me).

Will try Opera next week.
Then IE.
Then I will give up and move to some deserted island and avoid modern browsers for ever.

Re:are you kidding me? (1)

nkh (750837) | about 3 years ago | (#37568550)

I installed Firefox 7.0 recently because I needed a SQLite manager and it's available as an add-on. But I'll stay with Chrome for the moment to browse the web, it's fast, stable and has all the features I need.

Really? (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | about 3 years ago | (#37567546)

Didn't i just update?

Re:Really? (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 years ago | (#37568478)

You probably went from stable FF6 to stable FF7.

This announcement is about the new beta version. Since FF7 is now stable, the new beta is FF8.

Never again (0)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | about 3 years ago | (#37567550)

Firefox has been the most unstable pile of crap the last 3 times Ive updated it. I switched to Chrome.

Re:Never again (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37568020)

It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.

If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI [secunia.com] to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.

You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.

Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.

Re:Never again (1)

GNious (953874) | about 3 years ago | (#37568172)

I'm on the Beta, so I'm getting updates ca weekly - I can say that 5+6 didn't go so well, but since then it has either been improvements, or "blah" (twitter-search? really??). Overall, last several updates have been all-good.

Why is this news? (5, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | about 3 years ago | (#37567554)

With Firefox releasing betas/alphas and new releases every few weeks, why are we covering this? Can't we just have the ever six week release story and maybe another one if they do something innovative?

Chrome is on version 15 but I don't see a story here every number change.

Re:Why is this news? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37567724)

Because it gives Slashdot a way to garner page hits from the inevitable Firefox hatefest.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567736)

Agreed. Can we see a blanket ban on "new version of Firefox" stories?

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568054)

I actually appreciate the updates, news for nerds, that's me. Quit wining so much.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 3 years ago | (#37568222)

Maybe in version 8 they can add support for Page Up and Page Down. It's not working for me on version 7 right now.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

cornface (900179) | about 3 years ago | (#37568360)

You have to press the keys with your finger. HTH.

Re:Why is this news? (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 3 years ago | (#37568278)

This was my reaction too. This isn't even a release, it's a beta. AFAIK Firefox constantly has a beta out, it shouldn't be news to anyone on this site.

Huzzah! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567568)

Congrats to the Firefox team. I, for one, appreciate the regular updates. It's getting better with each release.

Nightly builds (2)

killmenow (184444) | about 3 years ago | (#37567582)

Fuck it. I may as well do up a script to check out the latest nightly updates and re-build FF every day for me.

Re:Nightly builds (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 3 years ago | (#37567748)

No need, Nightly happily updates itself whenever it finds a newer version.

Re:Nightly builds (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 3 years ago | (#37567808)

Is that the one that is/was labeled "Minefield" ? I was running that once upon a time. Chromium has been doing the trick for me lately.

Re:Nightly builds (1)

binford2k (142561) | about 3 years ago | (#37567924)

Which doesn't do any good when you build it yourself. Which the parent specifically said that he did.

Re:Nightly builds (1)

maxume (22995) | about 3 years ago | (#37568118)

READ MORE Reading.

Re:Nightly builds (1)

Tsingi (870990) | about 3 years ago | (#37567818)

They will do that for you. I use the nightly build. (It's called nightly)

Re:Nightly builds (3, Funny)

jalefkowit (101585) | about 3 years ago | (#37567972)

Don't bother, before you're done rebuilding a new version of Firefox will be out anyway.

Third Party Addons... (3, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | about 3 years ago | (#37567594)

Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

IE: Windows Media Player Plugin

Re:Third Party Addons... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 years ago | (#37567648)

Think Flash....

Re:Third Party Addons... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37568110)

Mozilla blog mentions that it's for addons, which are different from plugins (plugins use NPAPI - Flash, Java, Shockwave, etc. - vs XPIs). They are separately listed in the addons manager for that reason. At this point, I'd say it probably doesn't apply to plugins, but the page doesn't give enough context to determine that.

Re:Third Party Addons... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37567916)

Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

IE: Windows Media Player Plugin

Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.

Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.

However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.

Re:Third Party Addons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568026)

In Firefox-speak, "Addons" includes extensions, plugins, themes, and maybe something else I'm forgetting.

Re:Third Party Addons... (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37568158)

If that's true, then it's as comprehensive as I'd hope. I just wonder if Firefox will whitelist certain addons at the risk of seeming to play favorites (if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).

Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.

Re:Third Party Addons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568456)

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

IE: Windows Media Player Plugin

I'd be surprised if IE didn't have a WMP plugin.

I hope they are just missing a decimal point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567656)

This is really 3.8.0 right?

BROWSER WARS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567670)

They are here [upup-downdown.com] again!

What?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567676)

That's dangerous! Firefox 8 has been EOL for nearly half an hour!

And guess what? memory footprint improved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567722)

arg, just noticed i'm on Chrome.

Why is this an article? (0)

Tuan121 (1715852) | about 3 years ago | (#37567788)

It's the people who post this crap on slashdot that incentives mozilla to spit out version after version simply in the hopes that it will remind people to use firefox instead of the better alternative, Chrome.

A superior product doesn't need to keep shoving it in your face. And before someone mentions Chrome's commercials- that is to get the word out to audiences that are unaware of alternatives, it's not what mozilla keeps doing to keep it in the tech news where everyone is aware of the alternatives.

Re:Why is this an article? (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37567960)

Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.

I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.

8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.

What third-party addons? (5, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 years ago | (#37567854)

The addons I want to keep? Sorry, I've never had this experience. It's more like, "the addons I want to permanently disable as they won't be updated to the latest version because the creator finished his project and moved on with his life". Seriously, a browser whose entire idea is 'you can extend it' combined with constant compatibility-breaking updates?

Re:What third-party addons? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568102)

This. I'm still using FF 3.6 because FF breaks every plugin with every release. So it's either stay on FF3.6 or go with the pig known as IE.

For everything else, there's Chrome.

I'm holding out for version 23 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567898)

sigh

of course linux distros and FreeBSD and everyone else have the same problem too.... couldn't just be happy with 1.5 or 2.1.3 or 3.3.7
Has to be a big number... has to be impressive.

In fact the only OS I can think of that actually earned its current OS version number from scratch is Mac OS.

Again? (0)

OpenDude (1948202) | about 3 years ago | (#37567994)

Already? o_o Wow. OK.

wow (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37567998)

oh wow. twitter as a search engine? you sure it doesn't warrant an even BIGGER version number? like say 15? it's a major enhancement to the search bar after all

Re:wow (1)

Coopjust (872796) | about 3 years ago | (#37568196)

The development cycle is better but using major numbers is stupid and has rendered it meaningless IMO. Chrome ratchets up the version number similarly, they just don't trumpet it and instead silently update (which Mozilla is deeply opposed to).

Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.

8 is soooo a few months ago (1)

Terranex (1500465) | about 3 years ago | (#37568024)

Anyone on the Nightly update channel has been on Firefox 10 alpha 1 for a few days.

I'm Waiting (-1, Redundant)

hduff (570443) | about 3 years ago | (#37568134)

I'm waiting for Firefox 23, so it will be the same version as emacs. I'm guessing it will be released around Christmas.

So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.

Re:I'm Waiting (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | about 3 years ago | (#37568248)

I'm waiting for Firefox 23, so it will be the same version as emacs. I'm guessing it will be released around Christmas.

So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.

Which does not display it's version number so prominently, but otherwise uses the same development schedule and version numbering.

Re:I'm Waiting (1, Insightful)

robmv (855035) | about 3 years ago | (#37568252)

So long dumbass Firefox developers, I'm switching to Chrome.

that has the same 6 weeks release cycle, news about Firefox are very good troll magnets

Re:I'm Waiting (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#37568318)

Pft are you kidding? I have a bet that we'll see Firefox 15 by Halloween. At the rate we're going we might just see it. I'm kinda ticked at the stupidity of this though. I mean what's the point of actually using versions especially if you need to file bug reports if the user can't submit a bug report for the browser they're using outside of "10" or "23" or whatever else?

Bah. I'm looking at chrome as well. The only thing stopping me is the lack of something like noscript.

Ridiculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37568232)

No more version increments please. Getting totally ridiculous.

Microsoft must be sick of this (2)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about 3 years ago | (#37568246)

I mean, how much money have they spent on cakes?

Netscape (1)

Tourney3p0 (772619) | about 3 years ago | (#37568314)

Glad to see that Mozilla has learned absolutely nothing from the Netscape fiasco. On the bright side, something good is sure to rise from Firefox's ashes.

Re:Netscape (1)

maxume (22995) | about 3 years ago | (#37568394)

Firefox 7 is a better browser than Firefox 4 was. There are minimal jarring UI changes between those 2 versions. Addon compatibility is being handled better with each release.

Not everyone sees those things as a fiasco.

Brave decision (1)

dnewt (2457806) | about 3 years ago | (#37568544)

It may have been a controversial decision, but IMHO a brave and necessary one for Firefox's long term survival. Mozilla are keenly aware that they've been outdone in a number of areas by Chrome. Their market share is decreasing and it'll take time to slow the momentum even if they come out with some big improvements. Their old release cycle could well have meant the improvements needed to bring Firefox back into the game would have been too late. Firefox wasn't ready for the switch, unlike Chrome that was built from the ground up with rapid release in mind. Trouble is, I don't think they could afford to wait until it was. My guess is that Mozilla were well aware that the new rapid release cycle would (a) cause people pain when it comes to outdated extensions, and (b) annoy enterprise IT departments. They just saw what great things Chrome are doing, together with their falling market share, and decided that the couldn't afford to wait until they could solve these problems before moving to a rapid release cycle. Enterprise users and users with lots of extensions are in the minority when it comes to Firefox. There's no doubt in my mind that a browser with a slow release cycle is going to loose out to a browser like Chrome in the long term, all other things being equal. Remember I'm talking mainstream here. Not enterprise users, or geeks.

Yes, the regular update cycles are going to piss of a few enterprise types for obvious and very valid reasons. But let's face it, the enterprise is definitely not Firefox's core market. Faced with having to make some tough decisions in an attempt to ensure Firefox's survival, enterprise users were put to one side. The right decision in my opinion bearing in mind the urgency implied by falling market share. However, Mozilla is hearing enterprise concerns and is proposing what they would call 'Extended Support Releases,' which are basically the same concept as Ubuntu's LTS (Long Term Support) releases. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal [mozilla.org] for details. I've thought this was a good idea since the start, and I have a feeling Mozilla knew all along was something they were eventually going to have to do.

Mozilla have said they're well aware of the incompatible extensions issue and plan to get on top of it. I also get the impression they want to follow Chrome in hiding version info and pushing out updates without any user intervention. Both in my opinion important if you want to have a rapid release cycle without seriously annoying users. For the vast majority of users, I think pushing updates without confirmation is a good thing. Most people really don't care about having maximum control over exactly what gets installed on their machine. They just want something that works well and stays secure. Trouble is they don't appreciate that means regular updates. Much better to do it for them in my opinion.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?