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 3.6 Support Ends April 2012

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the slow-motion-shutdown dept.

Firefox 187

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla for some time after switching to the rapid release process talked about releasing Extended Support Releases that would give companies and organizations some breathing space in the race to test and deploy new browser versions. With the first ESR release (which will be Firefox 10), comes the Firefox 3.6 end of life announcement. Firefox 3.6 users will receive update notifications in April to update the browser to the latest stable version by then."

cancel ×

187 comments

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

Group Policy (5, Insightful)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599500)

companies and organizations some breathing space in the race to test and deploy new browser versions

I doubt this hardly matters to companies. The thing is, they *cant* deploy Firefox as it is. There is no group policy like with IE, and recently with Chrome. You can distribute it easily within your company. This is what Firefox has always lacked and I don't understand why they have been so ignorant about it. Yes, it does nothing to home users, but it's required for companies.

Re:Group Policy (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599756)

Actually, it matters for anyone doing stuff complicated (usually needlessly) on the web that has to support something other than Microsoft... like learning management systems.

Re:Group Policy (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599794)

You can put it in an image and have the imaged version check for updates on its own servers. Infact I worked for a school district who did this for 30,000 machines

Re:Group Policy (3, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599964)

Right because it was so hard to script out the installer, and copy pre-crafted config file to the right place Actually if anything that ties corporate users more to a specific version because they have to actually invest some time into building their own deployment package which is certain to be somewhat version dependent.

If you IT staff can't "deploy" Firefox they are worthless. I can completely understand them not wanting to chase the latest version, preferring to just replace the executable installer package with one that just has the security fixes in it but none of the new math. So all their pre-rolled configs and installation scripts don't have to change.

 

Re:Group Policy (4, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600234)

Fine, script the installer.

Now update the home screen, and add new bookmarks to already deployed installs.

That's where GPO carries on and your solution ends.

Re:Group Policy (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600882)

Firefox has to run as admin to update, strike one. It doesn't have low rights mode like chrome and IE, strike two. Its crazy release schedule means zero testing before deployment, strike three and you're outta there!

As someone who used FF before it was even called FF and the suite before that i hated to see it go but go it had to as its performance has been getting worse it seems as far as CPU spiking and RAM leaking, extensions were breaking everywhere and the final straw was that XSS bug that allowed malware writers to spam yahoo mail accounts from FF. If you got a bunch of spam emails from friends with Yahoo accounts, all consisting of a single word or sentence and a driveby malware link? that was the FF XSS bug. With low rights mode its damned near impossible to pull crap like that since the browser runs even lower than a user it simply can't get the permissions to do a lot of nastiness. Low rights mode was released with vista in 2007 BTW and here it is 2012 and Firefox STILL doesn't have it. But hey they have personas right?

I truly hope the FF devs will stop going Goatse at their users and get back to their original mission statement which was to build a small, fast, and light browser with good security because I do miss NoScript although I don't know if its really needed with low rights mode and sandboxing. But if you think IT are "worthless" for not deploying a less securable browser that requires admin rights to install and isn't easy at all to set up GPOs that can't be trivially bypassed by the user? Then I'd personally hate to see what the admins are like you'd consider competent, probably the type that just gives everyone admin rights and cleans up after the messes.

Re:Group Policy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600118)

FrontMotion offers a customized version of Firefox (FrontMotion Firefox Community Edition) that supports lockdown via Group Policy. My company has been using it for years, and it meets our needs perfectly.

My support for Firefox ended 2011 (-1, Flamebait)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600174)

I wouldn't recommend Firefox to anyone anymore. Mozilla really screwed the pooch. Unwillingness to fix long standing bugs. Blaming extensions for bugs when they created the extension system that allowed them. Forced changes with no option to configure sensible defaults (AWFUL bar, status bar changes etc). UI constantly changing for the sake of change. Lack of willingness to listen to users. Version numbering madness. Extensions breaking with every release. Screw that. I'm writing this on Firefox 3.6. I've tried 4, 5, and 7 and they aren't worth the effort so I'm ditching the browser the moment I can't use 3.6.

To Mozilla: Thank you for providing such a wonderful browser. FUCK YOU for fucking it up so badly. Yes, it's free, but that doesn't mean you can get me hooked on a good product then ruin it without me having strong feelings about it.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (4, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600372)

I think the main reason for emotional response like yours (and mine, which largely mirrors yours) is because many of us in IT actively advocated firefox as a replacement for IE in corporate world, and actually got it pushed through. Which is one of the biggest reasons why firefox took off, people like using the same browser at home and at work.

And then, they essentially gave everyone in corporate IT a very public finger, especially when you have to explain to your bosses why firefox cannot be supported anymore and you have to switch to something else if that was your primary browser in the company. Not only do you end up feeling used, but your reputation (and potentially career) get stained.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601058)

Did you see the link above that says "Extended Support Releases"? What exactly is wrong with that proposal?

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601720)

Did you see the link above that says "Extended Support Releases"? What exactly is wrong with that proposal?

The problem is it starts with version 10. Those of us who have avoided the "version number race" aren't using 4, 5, 6 ... 10 for a reason. ESR for version 10 really offers us nothing. The ESR roadmap in the article already goes up to version 24 (which should be out by Christmas at this rate). And who knows how long they'll "extend" it for? Their roadmap shows version 10 supported until version 17, which will be a shorter duration than 3.6 was supported.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602630)

"Too little, far too late".

They already took the PR hit, and they already hit their supporters in corporate world. The damage is done. Half-assed damage control (which is what these ESRs are) is not going to bring firefox back to corporate world, nor remove the huge stain from reputation of both FF itself and IT professionals who were pushing for firefox acceptance in their workplace.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600416)

Firefox is the only major browser (well maybe Opera too) that still runs on Windows 2000. So I will continue to use it.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601232)

For those that would like a nice cross platform browser and don't mind going off the beaten path a bit, may i make a suggestion? try QTWeb [qtweb.net] which is just what you think it is, a browser made with the QT framework and Webkit rendering engine. It works in Windows, OSX, and Linux, runs quite well from a thumbstick and is pretty nice and zippy.

I agree with everything you posted BTW and would only add the thing that finally broke me was how bad later releases ran on AMD CPUs. I don't know if they are using the Intel Cripple Compiler or what but the performance difference between AMD and Intel CPUs when it came to FF was pretty startling, with my losing a good 30-40 minutes on the battery using FF on my E-350 compared to using Comodo Dragon or QTWeb, both of which seem to be CPU agnostic. On the older AMD CPUs like my Sempron nettop FF slams the CPU to the point it is unsuitable for purpose yet both Dragon and QTWeb give the 1.8GHz Sempron new life and make it an excellent low power nettop. if I would have stayed with FF I'd have had to shitcan the box and built something more powerful which when we are talking about a fricking web browser is pretty crazy.

To the FF devs, what did you do when you switched from 3.0.x to later versions? Because whatever you did you need to undo it. 3.0.x was just fine on any AMD or Intel chip, the 3.5 and 3.6 branches were okay but not great with the spiking starting, and 4 and everything after was just shite on a crusty roll. The latest version is a little better but when you are talking about going from a 100% CPU spike for nearly 2 minutes to a 98% CPU spike for a minute that still isn't really good and makes the machine unusable until FF quits slamming the chip. Now when i can take the exact same system and under Dragon be using a good 40% less CPU, or get better performance from QTWeb when its on a thumbstick than I do from your browser when its natively installed? then to steal a line from an old K's Choice song "Something's Wrong". But I recommend Dragon and QTWeb and install both on new builds whereas I used to install FF before doing anything else. FF is just too power hungry and the performance simply isn't there which i think is a damned shame, it was truly a great browser before all this craziness.

Re:My support for Firefox ended 2011 (1)

habig (12787) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602424)

I agree with everything you posted BTW and would only add the thing that finally broke me was how bad later releases ran on AMD CPUs. I don't know if they are using the Intel Cripple Compiler or what but the performance difference between AMD and Intel CPUs when it came to FF was pretty startling, with my losing a good 30-40 minutes on the battery using FF on my E-350 compared to using Comodo Dragon or QTWeb, both of which seem to be CPU agnostic.

Interesting... The older machine I've had the most problems with newer FFs has an old AMD chip. I'd figured it for memory footprint till I dropped in a couple more GB, hadn't considered the CPU.

But, it's not the Intel compiler, as the problem is worst on Fedora, which builds the binaries themselves using gcc.

Re:Group Policy (2)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600186)

That's where you're wrong. Many organizations use group policy, but it's certainly not mandatory for a product like a web browser. If that were true, programs like 7zip and textpad wouldn't be used in an enterprise environment either, and that's clearly untrue (especially among engineers and programmers).

This is because most policy objectives can be enforced at a higher level. For example, blacklists integrated into the hardware firewall take care of most of the filtering for major companies. Smaller companies have software firewalls that do feature group policy support to do the same.

Firefox has long been touted as a safer alternative to IE, even and especially in the corporate environment where one infected computer can spread to the entire LAN.

So this does have an impact, as much as them moving to a rapid-release cycle that bumps releases irrespective of the amount of changes by a whole version number. Corporations are sensitive to Firefox's development and release cycles, even if it's marginal for most companies that deploy Firefox.

And they're going to all be unhappy about this news. I'm certain once Mozilla ends support for FIrefox 3.6, all of the sysadmins burned by advocating switching their company's web browser to Firefox will voluntarily, if not forced to, write off all Mozilla products as enterprise-appropriate in perpetuity.

In fact, you can even argue that it's a black mark on all non-enterprise open-source software. Firefox is very visible, and closely associated with both free as in beer and free as in speech. Many places are risk-sensitive, and this kind of behavior can make PHBs think open source, especially open source that does not come with contracted support, is too risky for deployment in an enterprise.

Re:Group Policy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600764)

You did see the ESR part where the reason why they'd EoL 3.6 is because they're doing a version that doesn't get a major rev every six weeks, right?

Just on Windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600214)

Note that this only applies to Windows

Greeaaat (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600318)

I can think of at least half a dozen enterprise applications (Avaya UCM, TripWire Enterprise, Juniper Netscreen WebUI, etc) off the top of my head, latest versions of which require Firefox 3.6 to run (with disclaimers, warnings, broken functionality an all). They sort of work with FF9, sometimes, and absolutely don't with IE. This is going to suck.

Byob and Wpkg (4, Informative)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600432)

They just relaunched Build your own browser, (byob.mozilla.com), which should help customize the settings. (I haven't tried it yet as we customized it manually)

We deploy with WPKG and find it works quite well. Not all companies use the MSI deployment tools...

Re:Group Policy (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600666)

One step at a time, man. Getting them back to a semi-reasonable release and maintenance schedule is probably going to have to be enough for now. MCSE-friendly installation can come later, and this has to happen first anyway.

10th post! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38599558)

firefox version number ftw!

rapid-release (1, Informative)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599562)

For those who think "Wow, that's 6 versions ago", consider it was released just two years ago.

Re:rapid-release (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38599608)

They're releasing less versions now then they did during 3.x if you look at the total quantity of updates rather then the version number.

Re:rapid-release (1)

imbusy (1002705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599618)

Wow, that's over two years ago

Re:rapid-release (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599750)

Hell

There are some who are whining IE 6 is no longer supported after 10 years and refuse to upgrade. I guess its assumed the web hasnt changed at all on 10 years so why update?

Re:rapid-release (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599658)

Yea, the versioning makes it look likes its something from the 90s considering firefox is on 9 now I think, but ya, firefox's versioning system is still non-intuitive and according to the dev team everybody has to live w it.

Re:rapid-release (3, Interesting)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600124)

So should we expect that six weeks later firefox 4 support ends? followed six weeks later by the end of firefox 5 support? etc...? etc...?

Re:rapid-release (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601528)

Why? Firefox 4 wasn't released six weeks after 3.6.

Re:rapid-release (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601866)

Should we expect trolls to move on?

Use something else and STFU. Anyone who can effect a change to the way releases and version numbers are managed is not going to do so because you've posted the SAME SHIT on Slashdot hundreds of times. It ain't Burger King, bitches. You can't have it your way even if you post the same shit a thousand more times. Get over it, see a grief counselor, and use something else.

And PowerPC? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38599610)

Does this mean FF 10 will support PowerPC?
(probably not)

One less supported browser for my old PPC boxes...

Re:And PowerPC? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599788)

Only those Operating Systems, or versions thereof, supported by the version of Firefox the ESR is based upon will be supported through the life of that release.

I still have no idea. FF 3.6 isn't drawn connected to anybody so I assume it means based off of FF 10 so... no?

--posted using FF 3.6--

Re:And PowerPC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600190)

Why not use the Camino browser?

http://caminobrowser.com

Re:And PowerPC? (3, Insightful)

SiMac (409541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601048)

Because Camino is still based on Mozilla 1.9.2, which is the base of Firefox 3.6 and will probably be EOLed along with it. TenFourFox [floodgap.com] is a port of Firefox 9 to PPC. It should work.

Re:And PowerPC? (0)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601932)

One less supported browser for my old PPC boxes...

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:And PowerPC? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38602678)

Oh really, why would that be?
I know they're getting old now, but the build quality on Apple's pre-Intel PowerBooks is better than anything else I've had, ever.
I've still got my 1998 PB1400 in everyday use (although not using FF because of the RAM usage), as well as a G4 PowerMac and a very nice 12" PBook. Sadly TenFourFox isn't an option because I switched to Linux some time ago :-(.

Thunderbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38599662)

Not bothered about Firefox frequent updates but thoroughly dislike Thunderbird getting updated so fast so looking forward to this ESR release.

Data depends on it being stable, while firefox can be downgraded if not stable with nothing major lost.

p.s. Darn another abbreviation that forces you to repeat the last word.

Re:Thunderbird (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599854)

It is called RAS syndrome (short for "redundant acronym syndrome syndrome"): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome [wikipedia.org]

Then end of firefox for me (1)

sinij (911942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599832)

I am using 3.6 and when they stop supporting it, I plan to stop using Firefox. The only reason I am using it in a first place is NoScript, otherwise I would have moved to Chrome ages ago. NoScript allows me to be sloppy with updating hosts killfile, it is by no means mandatory.

With the first ESR release (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599922)

With the first ESR release (which will be Firefox 10), comes the Firefox 3.6 end of life announcement.

ESR stands for extended support release. Which means it will lag behind in updates to the main version but be updated only for security/stability reasons, just like Firefox 3.6.

This is what people were asking for right...? A stable version of Firefox that will be updated about every year instead of every 6 weeks?

And Noscript already works on the latest Firefox.

Re: With the first ESR release (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600762)

I don't think there's an ESR for Firefox 3.6. It sounds like ESR is only a backport of security and stability fixes for supported browser versions, which, once 3.6 has been phased out, starts at 4.

Re: With the first ESR release (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600944)

Er, 4 hasn't been supported for a while. Nor 5. Nor 6. Nor 7. 8 was EOLed on December 20, and 9 will be EOLed on Jan 31.

There are no backported security or stability fixes for 4-8. To put it in Mozilla's terms, 5 is the security/stability release for 4 [mozilla.org] , 6 is the security/stability release for 5, and so on.

According to TFA, the first ESR will be 10, not 4.

FTFY: NotScript (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599954)

Use NotScript: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn [google.com]

There you go, FTFY, now you can move to Chrome.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (1)

sinij (911942) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600090)

Thank you! RIP Firefox, killed by version bloat.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600134)

Going to Chrome because of version bloat on Firefox seems a trifle funny. There may be reasons to go to Chrome, but protesting version bloat isn't one of them.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600276)

Well, Chrome does a whole host of things better than Firefox. Stability and memory usage are key. GP was probably weighing whether the stability and memory usage is worth not having control of what Javascript runs and what doesn't.

GP obviously considered being able to control Javascript more important than the stability and memory usage. Since GP just found out there actually is a Javascript filter addon for both browsers, the favor has swung to Chrome, considering Firefox has no answer for the memory usage at all and its solution for stability is weaker than Chrome's.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (1)

DarkTempes (822722) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600802)

My copy of Firefox 3.6.x has comparable memory usage to Chrome when you actually add up what all the Chrome child processes use.
And the only memory I've seen in a long time are add-on related (Firebug I'm looking at you).

And I honestly can't think of the last time Chrome or Firefox crashed on me. Maybe once in the last 6 months due to flash?
Chrome handles Flash crashes slightly better but they still happen.
For me, Chrome's real selling points are the better javascript engine and a smoother GUI (it definitely handles rogue processor hogging tabs better; webkit > gecko/XUL).
For me, Chrome's detractors are that it's less customizable/extensible (its versions of adblock/firebug/noscript/etc are still inferior to their Firefox brethren).

Of course, that's only my anecdotal evidence.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601152)

Memory and the new GUI were the main two reasons that I hear from people who're still using 3.6.

Memory use was admittedly bad. 4.0 was almost unusable for any length of time. It's gotten gradually better, though. 8 was really pretty good, and as of 9, I think I'd finally say that memory use is a non-issue. If that's what was keeping you away from the newer versions, I'd say it's time to give it another shot.

As far as the new GUI goes, there were basically 4 changes. (1) Tabs on top, which can be easily reverted from the View - Toolbars menu. (2) The status bar is gone, although it can be brought back (it's called the Add-on Bar); there's not much use for it however because link URLs are shown at the bottom regardless of whether or not the status bar is visible. (3) The skin has one universal menu when you turn the Menu Bar off, which it is by default; pressing Alt temporarily shows the menus, or you can turn them back on (they did, however, move some options around - e.g. there's a new Web Developer submenu which they moved a number of things into). (4) The Awesome bar. Yes, it's different. No, you can't really make it behave like the old Location Bar did. Maybe you like it, maybe you don't. You can set it to suggest both History and Bookmarks, or just one of them, or nothing. Personally, I like being able to search history directly from the location bar.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (5, Interesting)

revealingheart (1213834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601082)

You'll have to provide sources for Firefox's alleged instability. Here's a link to Mozilla's Firefox crash statistics [mozilla.com] . If you can link to a report about Chrome's stability, it would be very useful.

As for memory, Mozilla have been working on reducing memory in Firefox with the MemShrink project [mozilla.org] . Nicholas Nethercote's blog [mozilla.com] has the latest reports on improvements to the upcoming versions. Even then, it's been established before in testing that Chrome is a relative heavyweight [tomshardware.com] when it comes to memory.

Re:FTFY: NotScript (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601930)

Going to Chrome because of version bloat on Firefox seems a trifle funny. There may be reasons to go to Chrome, but protesting version bloat isn't one of them.

Chrome makes it so you don't care what version you use.

Updates are applied transparently in the background (no admin needed), which happen when you start the browser. Extensions stay working and AREN'T version-dependent. (Firefox is supposed to have a stable extension API so new versions don't break extensions, but...).

And no funky UI changes that keep tweaking the way stuff acts.

And when will they add low integrity mode support that IE and Chrome have, and the ability to do no-admin updates.

I'm lucky in that migrating to the rapid release is possible now I figured out al lthe crap - using the new profile manager (a separate download, but it's stable now), which extensions are required to keep a "traditional" look and feel (and how to move stuff like NoScript back t othe bottom-right corner) and what extensions are outdated and what the new extensions to use are. But it's a huge PITA.

And requiring admin means I basically have to physically go into my parent's computer periodically and update firefox. Bleh. (They don't have passwords, so RDP doesn't work, and RDP'ing into the admin account does a force-logoff for them (can't figure out how to get around this - I have fast user switching on and it's win7 enterprise...)).

Considering the past holiday season was the call to "upgrade and update your parent's browser"...

quoting original document (3, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599864)

The ESR is specifically targeted at groups looking to deploy it within a managed environment. It is not intended for use by individuals, nor as a method to mitigate compatibility issues with addons or other software. Mozilla will strongly discourage public (re)distribution of Mozilla-branded versions of the ESR.

They essentially admit that the problem is major enough for people to want to get this "corporate world only" release, and they actually want to prevent people from getting it as much as possible. Disgusting.

Re:quoting original document (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38602310)

No, they admit that people are stupid enough to want a long term release for a product that gets improved with every new version, and they discourage them from using it because it would be dumb as fuck. The ESR version is for enterprises who need time to test (because apparently 6 weeks wasn't enough for you slackers), not for people who are mentally challenged and unable to report bugs in Firefox so that they are fixed, and instead prefer whining about it on Slashdot.

Hmmmm . . . (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599984)

Looks like I may have to try out Fx 4 and see how things go.

3.6 is a very nice browser. Never had any problems using it or with memory usage.

*Sigh* Why is it when I find something that just does what I want, the manufacturer has to discontinue it and replace it with something a whole lot crappier?

Re:Hmmmm . . . (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600844)

Looks like I may have to try out Fx 4 and see how things go.

You mean Firefox 9.0.1, right? Firefox 4 isn't supported anymore.

Re:Hmmmm . . . (1)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601596)

More like FF9. FF4 was so 2011...literally.

Attorneys can't update. (3, Informative)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599988)

Sigh. As one of the Righthaven tools[1] found out the hard way ... the CM/ECF system used by all Federal District Courts has been tested to work with FF 3.5; from extensive personal experience it also works fine with FF 3.6. It does not work at all with FF 4.0+ (in that you can't use FF to upload PDFs, which is all you'd use the Electronic Case Filing system for (document retrieval is done through PACER, though they overlap).

For some stupid reason, ECF specifies an ACCEPT parameter of “image/*” for the PDF upload forms, which of course is incorrect (PDFs are MIME type “application/pdfper IANA [iana.org] ; see also, e.g., RFC 3778 [rfc-editor.org] ).

As of FF 4.0 (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/input [mozilla.org] ), that 'accept' parameter is honored and FF filters the file selector box to only permit image filetypes to be uploaded. End result? #massivefail

Yes, ECF is broken. But try getting not one, but 89, Federal bureaucracies to fix their tech in a timely fashion... (Each district court runs its own ECF system.)

Sigh.

[1] Declaration of Shawn A. Mangano, Esq., Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC, No. 10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF, docket entry 127-1 (Dist. Of Nevada, June 29, 2011)

Re:Attorneys can't update. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600382)

Use IE. IE is tollerable at version 9 and is the most supported intranet browser which is only updated annually. Not sexy like Chrome, but you run a business and cant be bothered by constant upgrades.

Re:Attorneys can't update. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600784)

Sounds like I need to find lawyers offices and sell them a mess-with-the-headers proxy for $400 to fix this problem.

Re:Attorneys can't update. (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601230)

I'm really unimpressed with any lawyer who couldn't figure out how to change the filter to "All Files" so that they could find the PDF. Yes, it works fine. Yes, I whipped up an HTML test page and I tried it.

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, being a geek lawyer, either knew this or could have figured it out, and it's just the Righthaven tools who apparently don't know how computers work.

Of course, a FF extension to change the accept parameter of <input type="file"/> elements would be even slicker.

ESR == upgrades that matter (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38599998)

Finally, we know for sure which "major versions" are worthwhile: 10, 17, 24...

PPC Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600032)

My small business runs PPC Macs on OS 10.4. We cannot upgrade to 10.5 because of certain software dependencies which would cost too much to fix. What are IT people like me supposed to do now that the only remaining browser that was any good on our machines is going away?

Re:PPC Mac (2)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600814)

Realize that as part of running a business you might have to upgrade software/hardware at least once in seven years.

You could also try Camino [caminobrowser.org]

Re:PPC Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600904)

I guess that's why you're still a small business.

Re:PPC Mac (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600914)

You can use TenFourFox [floodgap.com] , which is synched with official Firefox releases and even contains a PPC JIT. But you might want to get rid of those machines sometime soon...

Re:PPC Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601202)

I've been trying to get the money to replace them for a long time. The problem is the workflow management software I inherited, which won't run on 10.5 or higher. This is a newspaper which until a month ago was still using a 1970's era camera and dark room. Change does not come easily here.

Re:PPC Mac (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601988)

Adapt or die.

FF3.6 is starting to look like IE6 (1)

expert464 (1639331) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600106)

People being forced to hold on to an outdated version of a browser because specific sites (add-ons) won't work with newer versions.

Re:FF3.6 is starting to look like IE6 (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600250)

People being forced to hold on to an outdated version of a browser because specific sites (add-ons) won't work with newer versions.

Except FF3.6 doesn't suck.

Re:FF3.6 is starting to look like IE6 (2)

expert464 (1639331) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600310)

Except FF3.6 doesn't suck.

Say that again 11 years past it's release date in 2020 and we'll have a fair comparison.

System requirements (3, Insightful)

sirdude (578412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600296)

It's interesting looking at how the minimum requirements for 3.6 [mozilla.org] and 9 [mozilla.org] compare. In just under 2 years, the recommended hardware for FF has effectively quadrupled in Windows. Macs have odd changes and Linux doesn't warrant minimum/recommended requirements.

Looking at the recommended requirements from a different angle, you need at most a 12 year old system to run FF on Windows and a 6 year old system for Macintosh. Linux's restrictions are solely software dependencies.

Weird.

Re:System requirements (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600748)

That IS weird, considering they've rolled out only minor updates and UI problems since 3.6. I'm puzzled that the requirements would have changed at all.

Re:System requirements (3, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601172)

That IS weird, considering they've rolled out only minor updates and UI problems since 3.6. I'm puzzled that the requirements would have changed at all.

I believe you'll find the new randomly-positioned status bar takes a lot more RAM and CPU than the old one because it has to continually work out which part of the screen you're trying to read and then ensure it always pops up on top of it.

Makes sense (1)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600306)

Why support version 3.6 when the current is 9.0.1?

*cough*

Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600364)

Anyone know if debian will have a backport of a more recent version for squeeze (stable)? They currently have 3.5.16. http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=iceweasel

Re:Debian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600530)

Never mind, found this: http://mozilla.debian.net/ .. not sure why this is not on the official backports repo.

Concept Of Browser Support Unclear On The Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600450)

I'm running Firefox 3.0.6. If I'm shopping for a video card online and the web site doesn't work, then I go find another web site that does.

Re:Concept Of Browser Support Unclear On The Conce (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602046)

Ok.

Why support Mozilla? (2)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600822)

Someone tell me why any enterprise should ever donate Mozilla a single penny of support ever again? Mozilla has aggressively and loudly snubbed enterprise users (after having courted them), has refused to listen to anything other than their politically-driven BS, and have told people to change their way of dealing with upgrades just to accommodate Mozilla. Looks like an abrupt about-face after those "evil corporations" stopped contributing. So when's the next ideologically-motivated "fuck you" change coming?

It's very disappointing. I worked at Netscape back in the 1994-1996 timeframe, and I knew some of the people who did very well in the Netscape IPO then went on to Mozilla. They've apparently changed. I guess it's okay to be enterprise-hostile after the enterprises have landed them a huge paycheck...

Re:Why support Mozilla? (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600948)

Someone tell me why any enterprise should ever donate Mozilla a single penny of support ever again? Mozilla has aggressively and loudly snubbed enterprise users (after having courted them), has refused to listen to anything other than their politically-driven BS, and have told people to change their way of dealing with upgrades just to accommodate Mozilla.

Mozilla created Extended Support Releases specifically to accommodate enterprise users. In what way did they "refuse to listen"?

Re:Why support Mozilla? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602194)

Yeah 6 months late and most businesses have downgraded back to IE 7. I advise all corporate customers to use IE instead. Still no one outside of slashdot even knows this port exists. Asa even told corporate users that if it wants security fixes for 3.6 and 4.0, that 5.0 was THE security fix. Mozilla itself has publically stated it does have not the resources for QA and security fixes for older releases let alone new ones. FF has over 6k bugs and is updating its rendering engine rather than focusing on fixing them. They are closing security holes thankfully but still not acceptable in the enterprise. No I.T. worker wants to answer 900 calls saying that the corporate add-on for proxy settings broke as FF auto updated etc.

IE is what I recommend now. Sigh. Maybe not IE 7, but at least IE 8 and IE 9 are ok. IE 9 is a much better browser for corporations if they have upgraded to Wiindows 7 already. This year most will be migrating thankfully so this will be an option. The only corporations who have used Firefox were those who were stuck on IE 6 and had the brains to realize it was a liability for employees to use the internet with it so both are included.

With IE 9 they can use just one browser that is supported by GPO and MS. Mozilla had a multi personality disorder. Many in management listen but Asa comes out with press releases telling users to fsck themselves and please go use IE instead (yes he actually stated that in slashdot). Either way it is poor management and leadership and that is not something you want to bet yourself with in the enterprise.

Re:Why support Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38602456)

You feel the corporations are entitled, without contributing. They are not.

Mozilla Unclear on the Concept (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600856)

They're talking about x weeks after y weeks....what business need is z YEARS, with z>=2, with only bug fixes and security updates. This pandering to out of control bloat, bugs, eye candy and gee-whiz nonsense needs to stop. Business and many people like myself want a stable, secure, predictable, and useful browser, not a petri dish for every brain fart a mozilla developer has.

Re:Mozilla Unclear on the Concept (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602066)

Nice rant.

Re:Mozilla Unclear on the Concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38602590)

true, though

Firefox has sold out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38600862)

Firefox 3.6 was the last of the good versions of Firefox, back when it was the little browser that took on the big bad IE. Now it is sucking Chrome's cock while getting it up the ass from IE while Opera films it and Safari faps to it.

A billion dollars from Google, and yet they can't even keep their extentions stable unless you lie about being "compatible" and they ignore the massive pile of complaints covering everything from user interface changes to ignoring enterprises to not testing on low memory systems like netbooks and wonder why there so many memory complaints.

I'm a Chrome user now, and I'm not ever going back. Firefox is the abusive ex who keeps claiming he's changed every six weeks, but if you go back he will beat you up again.

Re:Firefox has sold out (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602318)

Firefox 3.x has been having problems for awhile. FF 3.6 is most certainly not good, but rather tolerable compared to IE 7/8 if you have 2 gigs of ram, plus 4 core CPU. Chome and IE 9 came out killing it in addition to FF 4.0.

I occasionally used IE 8 just to see how it compared to FF 3.5 and was shocked to see it snappier in all but javascript intensive apps like Google Maps. Firefox 1.x was GREAT!

Actually FF was not great, but better than IE 6 in comparison. Now Chrome comes and is better. Firefox 2.x was more bloated but had some new features. FF 3.x was mediocre. IE and Chrome kept getting better. FF 3.6 is very SLOW on old machines and AJAX JQuery oriented sites. 4.0 mixed with poor management were both the final straws that spelled the doom of FF. IE 9 came out too which is the first good IE browser since 6. Yes IE 6 was good in 2001 as much as we hate it today.

just one thing I hate about FF (2)

epine (68316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38600968)

In all the versions I've used, FF offers you an upgrade without first checking how many of your existing extensions won't come along for the ride. After one bad experience, I decided no upgrade was preferable to a negative upgrade, on the suspicion that one or more of my plug-ins would bonk.

The simple technical advisory function was MIA.

Re:just one thing I hate about FF (0)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602228)

Plugins are the only thing keeping me on Firefox 3.6 still.'
Very few of the plugins I rely on work on Firefox 4 or newer.

Now that Mozilla is purposely breaking plugins every few weeks with their major number changes, the path ahead is pretty clear:
Either stay with firefox and spend a day every month finding close-but-not-quite replacement plugins for the rest of time, or simply do this once during my switch to Chrome.

I also tried spending some time getting Firefox 4 deployed on the domain at work, only for them to release 5 a month later and once again break every last plugin I had installed except AdBlock.
We quickly yanked that package back out and are currently recommending Chrome as an alternate to IE (Which is unfortunately still needed for Intranet use)
I've just been delaying that switch personally, since FF 3.6 actually works for my needs and I have been happy with it.

It was bad enough when Mozilla was simply PUSHING me away, but now they plan to yank the floor out from under me as well.

Screw you mozilla. Say hi to Netscape in hell once you finish sending your own browser there.

Firefox 3 is still better in some areas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601022)

For example, no Firefox newer than 3.x has a resizeable Save Bookmarks window.

Newer FFs have regressed in this area because Mozilla's policy is "If you want that window to be resizeable, write an extension to do it". Unfortunately nobody ever wrote such an extension so we've ended up with less functionality than in 3.x.

Another example of FF regression is bookmarks lookup speed. It used to be instantaneous in 3.x, which used a single XML file to store bookmarks. Now that FF uses SQLite, it's hundreds of times slower --- almost unusable when you have thousands of bookmarks, whereas FF3 doesn't blink an eyelid under these circumstances.

There's lots of good stuff in newer FFs of course, but it hasn't all been progress. In a few areas it has regressed dreadfully.

Re:Firefox 3 is still better in some areas (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602394)

Speed? Go google Peackemaker benchmarks and run it compare it to IE 9 and Chrome?

Hell, even IE 9 is 20x faster than FF 3.6 in javascript benchmarks

! Its javascript compiler is outdated compared to the JIT ones in current generation browsers. With AJAX everywhere I would not want to run FF 3.6 anymore.

It is obsolete and last decade in terms of technology. I hate the UI of Chrome and the quality of the new FF, but Chrome and IE 9 are much better for Google apps like their maps program.

Tired of being their beta tester (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601138)

It's good they have finally picked a release for long term support. I don't give a shit that they say it this is not for individuals, I'll be sticking with 10 if it is LTS in any way, and that is what I will encourage others to use.

I am tired of being what amounts to their beta tester. And it irks me that anyone would use the public at large in that way.

Just hope they are serious about this. In the past most of their "enterprise" efforts have just been talk.

So.... (2)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601162)

So I should probably think about updating all the machines I have running Firefox 2.0.0.20?

We have a bunch of older Mac running 10.3.9 that can't even update to Firefox 3.6 because it requires 10.4.

I thought the whole point of Firefox was that it was supposed to have lower system requirements than IE.

Re:So.... (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602088)

I thought the whole point of Firefox was that it was supposed to have lower system requirements than IE.

Who said that?

Mozilla is responsible for IE6's long reign. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601564)

Mozil;a was originally supposed to be released in 2000 as "Netscape 6", but it was bloated and slow, then it took them four years to go through Seamonkey/ Pheonix / Firebird before Firefox was released in 2004. If they got their chops right they would of released Firefox in 2000 and added GPO/MSI support then before IE could take a foothold. But no, they didn't and let IE 6 ruin things.

It was actually Safari that was the first viable non IE browser (mainly in part due to Steve Jobs getting booed for IE in 1997). Opera doesn't count because it was shareware/adware until too late.

Re:Mozilla is responsible for IE6's long reign. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602458)

Quite the opposite.

I will be always thankfully for Mozilla to free us. GPO didn't matter as corporations in 2005 drank the MS coolaide and wanted to bet on the winner which was IE 6. It had 90% marketshare so why use this freeware firebird thingie!?

GPO became popular just a few years ago as active directory was just starting to take off in 2005. FF is what opened the web and so did Apple's IPhone. Mozilla had decent management until both the CIO and CEO left early last year and ASA kind of took over.

What about sync? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38601718)

In Firefox 3.6 sync extension is not available.

Maybe.... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38601884)

... just maybe the Redhat/CentOS guys will decide for a newer version in their repos.

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (2)

CyDharttha (939997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602028)

I wonder what version Ubuntu 10.04 LTS will move to? It's still on FF 3.6. There's just over a year of support left for the desktop LTS version.

Firefox offers support? (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602438)

For what?

On the 24th to be exact. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38602644)

April 24th, 2012. :)

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>