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 Announces Long Term Support Version of Firefox

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the can't-stop-until-version-73 dept.

Firefox 249

mvar writes "After a meeting held last Monday regarding Mozilla Firefox Extended Support Release, the new version was announced yesterday in a post on Mozilla's official blog: 'We are pleased to announce that the proposal for an Extended Support Release (ESR) of Firefox is now a plan of action. The ESR version of Firefox is for use by enterprises, public institutions, universities, and other organizations that centrally manage their Firefox deployments. Releases of the ESR will occur once a year, providing these organizations with a version of Firefox that receives security updates but does not make changes to the Web or Firefox Add-ons platform.'"

cancel ×

249 comments

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

Good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662638)

This is a nice solution to the problem everyone has been complaining about.
I really see no complaints to this move.

(inb4 shill)

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662694)

I hope they will do the same for Thunderbird.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663024)

The Thunderbird team is talking about an extended support released on their mailing list. There's more info on the Mozilla Wiki [mozilla.org] , but it is being planned.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663058)

ESR's support is only for a year though, it seems? It might take institutions 2-3 months to decide it's worth upgrading to. A 2 year solution seems like a better, long term plan. In 2002-2009, having your web browser being a year out of date meant losing out on a lot of features and security fixes, but in the last 2 years innovations have really slowed down and I think 2 years support (as opposed to 1) would give institutions a lot more reason to stick to Firefox. Think of it - the many 4 year undergrad students (perhaps the less technically inclined student) would only have to experience one change in the web browser in their college career in school computer labs, etc. By changing this yearly, you're just adding another thing to the pile of the "annual make sure it all works together without crashing checklist".

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663378)

Firefox was at version 3.5 in 2009.
Even FF 3.6 (2010) was much slower than FF 9 is now. I'm glad I upgraded and didn't stick with the old one.

From http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/3.6/releasenotes/

Support for new CSS attributes such as gradients, background sizing, and pointer events.
Support for new DOM and HTML5 specifications including the Drag & Drop API and the File API, which allow for more interactive web pages.

Many interesting stuff also in http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/4.0/releasenotes/ and http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/5.0/releasenotes/ and the next ones.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663498)

Er... Browsers are adding security improvements and features at a much much faster rate now than in the 2002-2009 timeframe. This is true at least for Microsoft, Mozilla, and Google.

In the specific case of Mozilla, it has about 60x more employees now than in 2002 (and 3x what it had in 2009). It would be _really_ odd if improvement rate were actually slower as a result, since the codebase was already quite mature in 2002.

Re:Good (1)

_0x783czar (2516522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663400)

Agreed. This is a smart move for the Mozilla foundation and should only bring greater reliability to the platform. As an active user of both Chrome and Firefox, I'm glad to see Mozilla making moves to keep their product a viable solution for companies and organizations in the long run.

Re:Good (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663666)

Enterprise customers who aren't ACs may think differently as later posts indicate....

Enterprises Will Like This! (4, Insightful)

americamatrix (658742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662652)

This will be good news for Enterprises that want(ed) to deploy Firefox but didn't because of Mozilla's release schedule.

Now if there was only a way to control/deploy this through group policy, then Firefox in the Enterprise will really take off.


-th3r3isnospoon

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662668)

Is this the new "Linux ready for the desktop" meme?

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (5, Funny)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663380)

This year will be the year of Firefox in the Enterprise!

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (3, Funny)

grahamlee (522375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662772)

Then, at some point in the future, Mozilla will run a campaign explaining that 10% of the interwebs is on Firefox 11 ESR, but there have been loads of new features and enhancements since then so we should all tell people to upgrade to Firefox 17. Friends don't let friends use IE 6^W^WFF 11.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (3, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662958)

Not only this, but mozilla officially stated in their blog that they will actively work to prevent people from getting ESR version, so only the corporations have access to it "because it shouldn't be the fix for add-on breaking problem".

Basically, "you will have the problems we shove down your throats and you will like them", once again.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (5, Informative)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663154)

It actually says "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." Mozilla software will remain freely available. The ESR is not targeted at individuals, and the changes to addon compatibility (compatible by default) and updates (silent/background) in the next 18 weeks will hopefully address a lot of the issues people have with the regular release. In the end, it's up to the individual to choose, but the installers will be available to download if you really want them.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (3, Interesting)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663200)

"In the next 18 weeks" is about eight months too late for them to fix those problems. They needed to have all that worked out before Firefox 5.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663592)

Absolutely correct. However, I wonder why Mozilla is trying to prevent the ESR version from having widespread access.

There's no commercial gain in so doing, it's built anyway -- so people may as well use it, it won't affect support particularly -- just move questions perhaps. So where is the harm in giving people freedom of choice? Is freedom of choice not intrinsic in the philosophy of open source software?

I suspect the only reason for limiting the ESR version is vanity and arrogance. FF's arrogant developers know fine well that the ESR version would quickly become the default version of FF out there. It is exactly what everyone wants, a stable version of the software without new, worthless, feature-bloat ever two weeks.

FF developers, why not just have balls to admit you fucked up? Give people a free choice between ESR or the rapid-deployment constant-flux FF versions. See which people prefer -- and then run with that, and concentrate more on that version.

Really, what is the fucking point on forcing your idiotic ideas on users who really want something else? That's why you are too cowardly to make ESR freely available. And we know it.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663692)

Friends don't let friends use IE 6^W^WFF 11.

Out of curiosity, on what bizarre system do you have ETB mapped to the BS/DEL-like action?

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (4, Informative)

acoustix (123925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662810)

FrontMotion Firefox Community Edition [frontmotion.com] has a MSI version that can be pushed out via GPO and also has adm/admx templates available.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (5, Informative)

SteelZ (1828180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662836)

Now if there was only a way to control/deploy this through group policy, then Firefox in the Enterprise will really take off.

Run "Firefox Setup.exe -ms" to do a silent install or if you must have a .msi, download it from these guys [frontmotion.com]

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662842)

This will be good news for everyone who just wants to browse the web and doesn't need their browser to change every other week. In other words, just about everyone. I expect most users will be on ESR before long.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663522)

This would be somewhat bad, because the ESR will almost certainly be less secure than regular releases. It'll get fixes for critical security bugs, but will _not_ get architecture changes designed to improve security in depth, pretty much by definition.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663530)

It'll still change every other week if there are bugs or security issues that warrant an update.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662864)

Only a year? No thanks.Even Ubuntu gives two years for LTS. Add me as a second for FrontMotion.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662932)

Even Microsoft said they will create a new version of IE every year soon.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (2)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662972)

They still support their old versions. Making new ones isn't the problem. Dropping the old ones that mission critical apps depend on is the problem.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663594)

No, the problem is developing mission critical apps tied to a single Firefox version (or to Firefox, period). Supporting older FF versions is just putting make-up on the pig.

Ubuntu LTS (1)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663608)

Actually, Ubuntu LTS is supported for 3-5 years. They release every 2 years, but have an ENTIRE YEAR of overlap to allow for deployment.

This makes the yearly release with 12 weeks overlap seem downright rapid. (It's only 24 weeks if you count alpha and beta releases.)

While I admit this is significantly better than a release every 6 weeks with the prior release completely unsupported, this only moves from "completely broken" to "barely adequate" for enterprise use.

Re:Enterprises Will Like This! (1)

MDillenbeck (1739920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663228)

Depends on when they are releasing the LTS versions. After all, it doesn't do me a whole lot of good if it comes in middle of the semester - and I agree with other posters, 2 or 3 years might be nice to have. Oh well, at least Firefox is easy to sequence for App-V.

What about the Native Android Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662656)

That won't exist until Firefox 11, so will people be stuck on the non-native Firefox 10 on android for a year?

Enterprises? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662666)

Are there really that many enterprises using Firefox? In recent times Firefox has become ALMOST as bad of a security risk of Internet Explorer.

Re:Enterprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662714)

No it hasn't, that's ridiculous and you have no means to back that up.

Re:Enterprises? (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662770)

Can you point us to a report that backs that up or we're just supposed to believe an Anonymous Coward? ;)

Re:Enterprises? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662818)

Can you point us to a report that backs that up or we're just supposed to believe an Anonymous Coward? ;)

And even if there were "reports"... nothing is easier than to set up a small spiderweb of blogs referencing each other claiming whatever you want in whatever "flowery" and buzzword-laden language you want.

Heck, he web is full of reports that claim that horde-blinkers are good for websites or other such nonsense.

Re:Enterprises? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662876)

Mostly because the newer IEs got their act together, not because Firefox is worse.

Re:Enterprises? (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663008)

Are there really that many enterprises using Firefox? In recent times Firefox has become ALMOST as bad of a security risk of Internet Explorer.

Firefox seems more focused on adding features (and new versions) rather than fixing bugs.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140582/Firefox_flaws_account_for_44_of_all_browser_bugs [computerworld.com] .

Re:Enterprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663314)

Nice of you to mention that article is over two years old.

Re:Enterprises? (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663082)

Are there really that many enterprises using Firefox?

No, because there isn't currently a LTS version.

Re:Enterprises? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663374)

I'm a pharmacist for a large drug store chain. We are using Firefox 2.something on all our computers. I never really use the web at work, so it doesn't bother me too much.

SWEET! (1)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662676)

Does it come in a fun-sized package?

Who is paying? (1, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662682)

Who is paying for Mozilla products?

Do they have any paying customers in Europe or Asia?

Re:Who is paying? (2)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662732)

Mozilla needs a high market share in order to convince search engines to give it a better contract.

meaning Mozilla will try to get a larger userbase for firefox, so that the next round it needs more money, It can ask for more money from bing/google/yahoo or whoever is willing to pay for the defualt browser spot for firefox.

so do they have paying customors outside north america? no, it doesn't matter, its the market firefox is trying to expand into to get money later

Re:Who is paying? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662986)

They just needed to say the magic word (bing!) to triple their google gold.

Re:Who is paying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662756)

google pays atleast 80 percent of their income. In fact, all browsers that have a significant market share are paid by google.

Re:Who is paying? (1)

bkaul01 (619795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662946)

IE is paid for by Google? I mean I know Android vendors are paying Microsoft for patent licensing rights, but that's a stretch ...

Re:Who is paying? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663026)

IE isn't significant, it's just very large.

Re:Who is paying? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663028)

No. Firefox is, at least for now.

Search engine companies frequently bid on being the default search provider for a browser, with the exception of IE and Chrome which, as they are made by companies that also make search engines, don't offer themselves up to the competition.

If a browser has higher market share, they can get more money from the search engines, because they're worth more.

Can't wait! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662708)

... to see how Slashdot complains about this.

Re:Can't wait! (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662750)

Oh, here you go... So, now Mozilla will have to increment version number by 10 every release, so they keep up with Chrome version numbers?

Eric S. Raymond's personal Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662712)

And here I thought ESR would be using a more recent version. Then again, The Jargon File is the very epitome of extended support releases, eh?

ESR? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662742)

I'm going to keep reading this as the Eric S. Raymond release.

Re:ESR? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662882)

I'm going to keep reading this as the Eric S. Raymond release.

My thought exactly.

Oh good. ANOTHER browser to support. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662776)

One one hand, this is what enterprises want. On the other... it's way old-school thinking. Shouldn't Firefox instead concentrate on not invalidating Addons for EVERYONE? If the "web rendering" is being frozen for specific versions of Firefox, isn't that just going to cause MORE fragmentation? Wouldn't Chrome's silent updates work better, assuming FF doesn't screw things up? Maybe allow a switch to force a specific addon or theme in environments to alleviate the "OMG MY INTERNETZ LOOK DIFFERENT!" fallouts.

As a developer for the general web, I do not look forward to being asked to support a "non-standard" version of Firefox on top of the "public" FF, Chrome, three versions of IE, Safari, PLUS all the various mobile platforms.

Plus, any clients affected by this will just know "I use Firefox", at most.

Re:Oh good. ANOTHER browser to support. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662858)

"OMG MY INTERNETZ LOOK DIFFERENT!" fallouts.

More like "omg, the shitty web app our employees depend on to do their job no longer works and we are losing thousands of dollars an hour" fallouts. This is (one of) the reason enterprises tightly manage what is on workstations. New major versions of software need to be tested to ensure that they do everything they need to do to keep the business running. This is of course time intensive, hense why "long term support" versions are desirable.

Re:Oh good. ANOTHER browser to support. (4, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662990)

1. It is only one version to support and you can run it next to the latest version of Firefox. I would think this is a good thing if it keeps the people that do not what all those changes on the same older version instead of, some users on 6, some users on 7, some users on 8.

2. What you are looking for is called the "Add-on Compatibility Reporter":

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

It was obviously meant for a different purpose, so with that name it makes it kind of hard to find.

Re:Oh good. ANOTHER browser to support. (3, Informative)

deadsquid (535515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663108)

The ESR is going to be based on Firefox 10 (which, incidentally, changes addons to be compatible by default), and most of the core rendering will not be affected. It is Firefox, but it won't get new features. It'll be "standard", but new additions will not be available, and that's a compromise that corporate deployment groups ere willing to make. Chrome's silent updates present the same problems to these orgs, in that the browser is changing rapidly and orgs have problems with testing and certification on the schedule.

Re:Oh good. ANOTHER browser to support. (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663620)

> Shouldn't Firefox instead concentrate on not
> invalidating Addons for EVERYONE?

That change is in Firefox 10, shipping in less than 3 weeks.

But "enterprises" (which includes schools and libraries, not just corporations) care about things other than extensions; they have all these intranet apps to worry about too, which normal users do not have to deal with. And intranet apps have a tendency to be coded like it's 1999 (heavy dependence on browser bugs and nonstandard features, targeting only one browser version, etc, etc)

I agree that for the general web this is suboptimal; that's why Mozilla didn't want to do it initially...

On the other hand, it's hard to say which is better for the general web: libraries and schools being able to use Firefox ESR or there being no ESR version of Firefox but libraries and schools being stuck on IE8.

Groovy! Finally, sanity is back! (0)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662788)

Welcome back, sanity! Finally, we'll again be able to use extensions!

Re:Groovy! Finally, sanity is back! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662830)

Starting from Firefox 10 all extensions will compatible by default

Long Term? (1)

timmy0tool (756143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662790)

one year is now long term?

Re:Long Term? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662826)

Well, compared to 6 weeks... yes.

Re:Long Term? (1)

timmy0tool (756143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662976)

Long term is relative... When there are browsers out there with support for 10 years, this still seems very short sighted.

Re:Long Term? (1)

jlebar (1904578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663648)

Long term is relative... When there are browsers out there with support for 10 years, this still seems very short sighted.

I'm sure you'd agree that the 11-year (so far!) support cycle for IE6 has been a boon to consumers and web developers; Mozilla is indeed short-sighted not to want to replicate that rousing success!

Not long enough (1, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662824)

Once per year is still too quick, IMHO. In my experience, 2-4 years (or more!) would better fit enterprise expectations.

Re:Not long enough (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662898)

As long as managers make developers do stupid things with browser interfaces a year is going to be way too short.

Re:Not long enough (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663004)

Microsoft said they will also move to one release per year.

Re:Not long enough (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663062)

And those will be for Windows 8. A lot of shops are still rolling out 7. IE 8/9 will be supported for quite a while. XP won't drop out of support for another couple of years so IE 6/7/8 will still need to be supported.

Re:Not long enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663268)

I know you're just trolling but there is more to the enterprise than just MS.

Re:Not long enough (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663602)

"Once per year is still too quick, IMHO. In my experience, 2-4 years (or more!) would better fit enterprise expectations."

It's a gesture to quiet grumbling on sites like this. It's obviously not intended to work.

Did they fire Asa? (5, Insightful)

xenoc_1 (140817) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662840)

This is still reactive damage control to foolish arrogance by Asa "we don't give a crap about enterprises" Dotzler.
That's what you get why you hire a fanboy to become the voice of your company.

Re:Did they fire Asa? (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662890)

Sadly no, the ADHD Kid is still jumping up and down and shrieking about how great it is that there are (at least) 4 major versions currently on the go. I only wish I were joking about that.

Re:Did they fire Asa? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663064)

And the idiots who are constantly bitching around because they can't divide the major version number by 10 and add this to 3.6 are much better I suppose.

Re:Did they fire Asa? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663452)

What are the alternatives then?

IE release every 2-3 years
Opera every 2-3 months
Chrome every 1-3 months

So if you want every 2-3 years that leaves IE.

Honestly I have been upgrading from 4 to 9.0.1. The difference seems minimal to me. It is a bit snappier and they rearranged the buttons. I seriously do not see why people are getting in a twist about it? It really better reflects what is going on. They are releasing faster. The version number conveys the information I need. "this one is newer than that one". This has been a argument from the beginning of version numbers. What constitutes bumping the "big" number. They have decided it is every 4 months when they release. With minor points if something breaks. Also anyone who bothered to upgrade to 8 will probably not stick to it.

What is the version of windows you run? Bet without going to a command prompt and typing in ver you have NO idea other than 'its vista/xp/win7'. But service packs and hotfixes do mess with that number. But you have the information you need 'its newer than the other one'. You use probably hundreds of libraries and packages every day and probably do not know what the version number is. Yet somehow this one is magically important.

Think about this they have since the release of 4.0 improved javascript nearly 40%. We would still be waiting on that. They have a new engine coming. What are the chances we would even get that 40% and not have to wait longer because of the new engine? They have done that before. I would rather have the feature when it is done.

Re:Did they fire Asa? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663020)

This is still reactive damage control to foolish arrogance by Asa "we don't give a crap about enterprises" Dotzler. That's what you get why you hire a fanboy to become the voice of your company.

Indeed. Let me provide a link [zdnet.co.uk] to go with your insight.

By the way is the about box still showing the version number [mozillazine.org] ?, I'm still on 3.6.

SSL Security Ignoring version? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38662866)

I will pay money, seriously, for a version of firefox that ignores SSL warnings and comes with a java that does the same. It must not ask me to confirm I wish to continue, yes, I trust this site, yes, I trust this app, yes I trust this authority and so on. No popups, no clicking, no mucking about. Just load the website and load the java app without ANY warnings. 50 pounds, waiting. Paypal gift. I don't care what platform - linux, mac, windows. This is a legitimate request, I spend all day on our internal network accessing devices with invalid SSL certificates and each java is self signed.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662942)

I'd be happy if I didn't have to permanently trust every site that has a minor SSL issue. I'm not banking with them, I just want to see the page.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663136)

Why don't you import the keys used for signing into Firefox? That should take care of it.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663284)

Why don't you import the keys used for signing into Firefox? That should take care of it.

How would I get the key that's used for signing for the https page for an HP ILO? There are 1,700 of them currently, I have another ~400 to install. And that's just the SSL page for the ILO, not counting the Java ones.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663646)

How would I get the key that's used for signing for the https page for an HP ILO?

Presumably from HP.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663690)

How would I get the key that's used for signing for the https page for an HP ILO?

Presumably from HP.

Exactly, which ain't gonna happen. So, as I say, I'll have a version of Firefox that doesn't care about SSL problems.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663790)

How would I get the key that's used for signing for the https page for an HP ILO? There are 1,700 of them currently, I have another ~400 to install. And that's just the SSL page for the ILO, not counting the Java ones.

Admittedly, I haven't used HP ILO in many years, but can't it generate normal certificate requests and get them signed by an internal certificate authority? Is HP that dumb?

Dell's OpenManage system makes it easy to replace the self-signed default certificates with signed certficates.

Then just import your internal CA into firefox as a trusted CA, and into the trusted java certificate store, and all your problems go away.

Re:SSL Security Ignoring version? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663812)

Just use sslstrip [thoughtcrime.org] locally as a proxy; as the name says, it'll strip the SSL from the connection (while leaving it encrypted from the ssltrip software to the server), so Firefox and Java will only see unencrypted HTTP.
Don't forget to disable the proxy (there are nice addons for 1-click toggling) before browsing the big bad web.

Now, can I have my fifty? Oh wait, Paypal. Thanks, but no thanks.

Hope they are serious (2)

linebackn (131821) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662922)

I just hope they are actually serious about this extended support version. Their other "enterprise" efforts in the past have mostly just been talk.

And then there is still the problem that even if you, the company, are now on the new long term supported version, the beta testers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h general public will be on newer versions that potentially may do things differently. If your corporate application is also public facing then you still have a problem.

Personally I would encourage regular users to stick with the long term supported version as well.

Re:Hope they are serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663286)

Or maybe you guys should suck it up and test versions faster. It can't take that fucking long can it? Stop slacking.

Re:Hope they are serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663494)

Trying to appear seasoned and skilled by using 12 ^h?

First, it's ^H. Second, ^W removes whole words.

But nice try anyway. Now get off my lawn you fucking wannabe.

Re:Hope they are serious (3, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663670)

Then you would be hurting those regular users, since the ESR will almost certainly be less secure than the regular version; the longer into its year of life you get the more this will be true.

GP Integration? (2)

Troke (1612099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38662960)

Don't get me wrong, love Firefox for smaller sites but the lack of Mozilla handled Group Policy integration (I know there's an add-on somewhere) makes it a no no for me in my larger environments. Perhaps the use of ESR will force the change when they realize more enterprise environments begin to use Firefox.

Individual use "strongly discouraged" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663040)

From https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal

"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."

Fuck you, Mozilla.

I've been a loyal user and recommended FF to everyone I know, up until this crazy constant-update business started. ESR looked like perhaps a nice way to accommodate both your "vision" for perpetual updates AND people who don't want to have a new browser downloading (and breaking extensions) every time they turn around. But I guess that's only for "large enterprises" and the rest of us need to just suck it.

Your arrogance is astounding, and seals the deal: Safari and Chrome have their issues, but I'm done with Firefox.

Re:Individual use "strongly discouraged" (1)

modernzombie (1496981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663344)

I moved to Chrome 3 months ago for regular browsing and it was amazing how much fast things seemed to load. I still use FF for development becuase Firebug works much better than Firebug Lite on Chrome.

Re:Individual use "strongly discouraged" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663636)

At least on google properties (youtube, google.com, gmail, google docs, blogspot and god knows what else) that could be due to the "SPDY" extension to HTTP Google pushed out.

While the spec was apparently a bit vague in places, Firefox did add support. You can try it in Firefox 11 alpha or Firefox 12 nightlies.

It still has to be enabled in about:config - not on by default.
Search for spdy.

Re:Individual use "strongly discouraged" (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663660)

I stopped recommending it long ago. I recommend Chrome instead.

Reasons do not exist to run FF without add-ons.

Add-ons are its only virtue, and competitors would do well to note that.

Offer a STABLE browser with many add-ons which duplicate the functionality of those for Firefox, and users can move away and not look back.

I find (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663272)

Most addons I use just need a min/max version fix and they work fine.

Frontmotion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663296)

The mental hurdle for some is that this is SO long overdue. They can't /not/ do it, but for me, Frontmotion has filled this gap for some time. While I have read the odd complaint here and there about it, it's always worked for me and my small orgs to simply deploy an alternative browser to the users. For additional control, they even provide the group policy templates. Also, I think the vast majority of admins would be more concerned about something they can deploy and manage more than long term support. Mozilla wouldn't need an ESR version if they had simply supplied Firefox in MSI format (w/ ADM/X templates) as has been talked about since v4. At this point I will stick w/ Frontmotion, unless he decides his services are no longer necessary.

Version number madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663322)

Mozilla, just because Chrome is doing it doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

Are .1, .2 or .5 not sexy additions to version number anymore?

This is a good first step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663332)

This is a good first step away from trying to be Google Chrome.

There is already a perfectly good browser that does the job of Chrome very well - it's called Chrome. Firefox should stop trying to emulate it.

1 year is too often (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663360)

My (very large) org just rolled out IE8, and is in the process of moving 20,000 users from Office 2002/3 to Office 2010 (including Outlook). Release annually if you must, but don't be surprised when Enterprise cusomers skip every other release.

major versions are not for minor releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38663470)

I love mozilla and I use FF and TB but I decided a while ago not to upgrade until they get their head out of their collective asses and stop with the major release insanity.

The idea of keeping it locked to the gecko engine version only makes sense to the internal developers (I asked some of them)

This LTS version should be the only version and it should be for everyone not just corporate IT departments.

I'm still at FF7 and I refuse to upgrade until they improve this mess. Safari and Chrome are looking better every day but I'm still holding out hope that sanity wil return to the mozilla releases processes.

Supported Lifetime? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663472)

As important as the release schedule is, another important factor for Enterprise users is the time it takes to test new releases against all their standard environments and internal apps: if each ESR is only supported its year plans a couple of month this will still deter enterprise use.

I would suggest that 30 months be the minimum support window: two full years since release plus some overlap time between release N being available and version N-2 dropping off security patch support. Like to Ubuntu's LTS support windows server-side (two year release cycle, support for 2.5 cycles). Longer might by advisable (our biggest clients, two of the largest banking organisations in the UK, only upgraded to IE8 late last year: more than two full years after its first non-beta availability - going by news I get from other people I know in relevant positions, I'm pretty sure this is a common situation elsewhere in corporate circles rather than just our clients) though I accept that longer than 2.5 years may not be at all practical for Mozilla (who would fund the tail of such a long support window?). In fact, if it were my decision I'd probably go for a longer release cycle as it would make a longer support cycle more practical: say releasing every two years and supporting each release for three or three-ana-half.

And so doth the market ... (0)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663506)

... deliver clue to those who would presume to supply clue to it.

I kind of like Mozilla fumbling... (5, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38663724)

My reasoning is as follows: I don't want to be using what the mass of the Internet is using in terms of browser. I want something with strong plugins and the ability to filter out dynamic code embedded in pages. That means Firefox.

When it looked like Firefox was going to gain 50% share, I was worried. First, my browser gets targeted. Second, people would be motivated to detect and block those using the script and ad blocking plugins I use. The decline in FF market share is pretty good news to me.

Keep at it, Asa!

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>