×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

364 comments

And we care because... (1, Offtopic)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895571)

?

Plods along on 3.6 still...

Re:And we care because... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895591)

I'm still on 3.5.

Re:And we care because... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895619)

I am on mosaic

Re:And we care because... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895703)

i am on telnet. beta.

Re:And we care because... (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895781)

i am on telegraph stop insensitive clods stop could be faster stop

Re:And we care because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896025)

i use telepathy

Re:And we care because... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896175)

I set the entire universe in motion with carefully designated laws such that it was inevitable that the following message would be expressed:

It is truly beautigul.

Re:And we care because... (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896265)

We know; it's distracting. Please stop projecting.

At the very least, lay off the BBW pr0n while we're eating.

Re:And we care because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895711)

I'm still running Phoenix.

Re:And we care because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895751)

I still write and send people physical letters and go to the library.

Re:And we care because... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895873)

I use gopher.

Re:And we care because... (5, Funny)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895607)

if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

Re:And we care because... (5, Funny)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895795)

if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

If it was called FireAsaDotzler I'd be 100% behind it.

Re:And we care because... (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896377)

if it was called Firefox X I would totally be on board! or maybe FirefoX.

It' would have to be FirerfoXXX for me to get on board. The XX stuff is a bit lame for my perverted tastes.

How does it compare to Chrome? (2, Insightful)

yog (19073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895707)

I still care about Firefox--it was the first real challenger to Internet Explorer since Netscape was dethroned, and it's such a nice browser... but Chrome just feels faster and more modern.

I guess considering that Google funds the Mozilla Foundation, the two browsers are not exactly competitors, and yet they are. Well, if Firefox slimmed down enough, I might switch back, since browsers are so functionally interchangeable these days, but for now I'm happy where I am. Sorry, Firefox team!

Re:How does it compare to Chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895847)

I'm curious.. why would you consider Firefox less "slim" than Chrome? At least, to the point where it hinders your use of the browser?

Re:How does it compare to Chrome? (4, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895931)

Well, if Firefox slimmed down enough

Actually if you download the Chrome and Firefox installers, you will see that Chrome is twice as large.

There are various definitions of "slimness", each browser wins on some, unsurprising because both of these are good browsers.

Re:How does it compare to Chrome? (4, Informative)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896233)

firefox RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released [slashdot.org] , only tab open - 243mb across 2 processes(firefox.exe, plugin-container.exe)
chrome RAM usage on http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/01/1840252/firefox-10-released [slashdot.org] , only tab open - 99mb across 4 processes(chrome.exe x4)

This isn't a problem on your average desktop, but it blows ass on older machines, laptops, and netbooks that don't have the resources or the newer technologies that help offset the fact that Firefox is fat

Re:And we care because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895749)

3.6.24 here.

Still working like a champ.

Re:And we care because... (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895829)

Full ACK. Pretty insightful for a FP. Pity I don't have mod points at this moment.

The news factor of this is low, even for /.

Re:And we care because... (4, Insightful)

flatt (513465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895967)

?

Plods along on 3.6 still...

We care because there are substantial performance gains in recent Firefox versions and Firefox 10 finally addresses the plugin situation in a reasonable manner. Sure 3.6 will continue to work but you're missing out... but feel free to keep your head in the sand.

I never thought I'd say it but it looks like the new release schedule is finally starting to pay dividends. Now if we could just get Mozilla to play better with the enterprise.

Re:And we care because... (4, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896203)

Of course they could have kept to exactly the same release schedule without completely changing the definition of "major version number" to the point that they now have no way of telling people when a real, serious, actually major change is happening.

Tomorrow's News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896153)

Firefox 11 Released.

youtube (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895587)

wonder if they fixed the issue with youtube that seems to only exist in firefox.

Re:youtube (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896285)

Youtube only exists in Firefox?

Can't update on my work computer (1)

schlesinm (934723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895597)

For unknown reasons, my work computer (still on Windows XP but Win 2007 is coming any day now) won't let Firefox higher than 8.X run. 9.X or 10.X just freeze when starting up.

"Firefox n released"... (4, Insightful)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895601)

"Firefox n released" is not a story.

Re:"Firefox n released"... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895827)

"'Firefox n released' is not a story" is not a comment.

Before any jokes appear (5, Informative)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895609)

Firefox has launched a new version release system, creating an ESR for enterprises, organizations, etc. which is released once in 7 Firefox usual releases (Firefox 10, 17, 24, etc.), so that they don't have so much trouble (it must be horrible to find that two new versions have appeared as you are updating...). See a submission which didn't get to the front page [slashdot.org] for more details.

And FF10 also makes addons compatible by default (5, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895903)

Firefox has launched a new version release system, creating an ESR for enterprises, organizations, etc. which is released once in 7 Firefox usual releases (Firefox 10, 17, 24, etc.), so that they don't have so much trouble (it must be horrible to find that two new versions have appeared as you are updating...). See a submission which didn't get to the front page [slashdot.org] for more details.

In addition to the ESR Firefox (which is basically like an Ubuntu LTS in how it works), Firefox 10 also marks addons as compatible by default. These two things solve much of the update annoyances.

FF11 will remove the UAC prompt on Windows, which will be a further improvement in 6 weeks from now.

Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul (5, Insightful)

trunicated (1272370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896231)

FF11 will remove the UAC prompt on Windows, which will be a further improvement in 6 weeks from now.

That actually missed FF11, and is slated for FF12 [mozilla.org] .

Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896339)

Firefox 10 also marks addons as compatible by default.

Actually, when I dropped out of the sandbox and attempted an upgrade the most useful addon I have was declared incompatible.
Password Hasher.

I'm just going to take a look now that I've been reminded and see if it will update without moaning.

Re:And FF10 also makes addons compatible by defaul (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896353)

FF11 will remove the UAC prompt on Windows, which will be a further improvement in 6 weeks from now.

How the hell do they intend to do that?

No, wait, let me guess - they intend to install it in the user directory like Chrome does. I have to guess, because the feature description sure doesn't explain how it would work [mozilla.org] .

Oh, but the bug reports do. Apparently they're going to "work around" UAC by running yet another background updater. Just what I need. Another background updater running at startup, slowing Windows boot, just to "work around" Windows security.

Somehow, the idea of "working around" security features built into the OS sounds like a horrible idea to me.

Re:Before any jokes appear (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896221)

I actually thought this was a joke before reading the follow-on commentary.

That's a problem.

Chromium master race (5, Funny)

akilduff (2523374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895613)

Firefox's constant updates drove me to Chromium.

Re:Chromium master race (5, Insightful)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895691)

[sarcasm]Which has a faaaar slower release schedule. Definitely.[/sarcasm]

Where do you think Firefox got the idea from?

Re:Chromium master race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895925)

Don't use logic against people who don't think in logical terms.

lolwut (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895783)

Chromium gets updated as frequently, if not more.

It just doesn't prompt you, and ask for your permission.

Firefox actually started this rapid release schedule in response to Chrome's process. A large factor in the adoption of this process was likely due to Google's heavy involvement in Firefox and it's primary sponsor funding an assload of Firefox's cash flow. In fact a lot of what Firefox does not, seems like an active pursuit to become more like Chrome, whereas when Chrome started out, it essentially seemed to be a version of Firefox staple gunned on top of WebKit.

Chrome is up to like version 18. I bet you started using it somewhere between 4 and 9.

Mod parent up. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896027)

This.

It's Google's fault; a stupid version number arms race.

Re:lolwut (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896157)

Chromium gets updated as frequently, if not more.

It just doesn't prompt you, and ask for your permission.

Actually, I believe only Chrome auto-updates. Chromium does not. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chromium master race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895991)

Seamonkey doesn't have the major version jumps that Firefox has (if that makes any difference to you). I think it still gets updates almost as often, although the smaller version jumps can give less incentive to need to upgrade. It is only on 2.7 right now.

End of Fark? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895705)

From the list of bugs fixed:

688365 [Skia] Enable 'new AA' mode

Finally, an Acoholics Anonymous mode! So, will this sense when I'm drunk off my ass and about to post something really stupid - aka posting while drunk?!

Shit! That will put Fark out of business, uinless Drew adds a script and disclaimer 'Sorry, Firefox 10.0 and above will not work on this site.'

Re:End of Fark? (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896247)

Finally, an Acoholics Anonymous mode! So, will this sense when I'm drunk off my ass and about to post something really stupid - aka posting while drunk?!

No, it's simply a mode in which the dwarves drawing lines in your graphics card walk with their brushes in a straight line instead of staggering along a jagged line like drunkards.

Using it now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895713)

on Linux. Seems unstable, crashes, is slower that 9.

The fact that I'm reading this story in Chrome... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895715)

The fact that I'm reading this story in Chrome speaks volumes what I think about Firefox these days.

OMG guys (4, Insightful)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895729)

Every time you users are hit by the "release early, release often" that you always wished, I hear you moaning.

"It's time to upgrade again."

Attitude of that sentence somehow doesn't fit on shlashdot for me. I hoped that it was _here_ where people can appreciate the last "big" and still free browser.

Re:OMG guys (1)

Windwraith (932426) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895805)

I actually like it, but I have acute versionitis, I use git/hg/etc more than apt-get...so I don't count.
The transition from latest versions has been quite smooth actually. No addons here (30+) failed to load in about 3-4 releases (beta channel).

Re:OMG guys (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895825)

"Release early, release often" is intended for testers and bleeding-edge users, not end users who just want a stable product.

It's not as though there have been any user-noticeable changes between 3.6 and 9 other than them buggering up the GUI.

Re:OMG guys (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895915)

"Release early, release often" is intended for testers and bleeding-edge users, not end users who just want a stable product.

Pretty sure that was also John Holmes' personal philosophy.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here 'til Thursday.

Forward button missing, UI items jump around. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895737)

The forward button disappears unless you press the back button. -1 for making the UI items jump around. I'm getting tired of things changing around every six weeks. I'm looking forward to using the entended support release when it's out.

Then again, this comes with web developer tools. I'm not a web developer. How do I remove this bloat? Why weren't these tools offered as an add-on rather than built-in?

Re:Forward button missing, UI items jump around. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895867)

The sad thing is that already have that. Its called Firefox 3.6. It has been out for a long time and is very consistent. Personally, I'll stand away from the bleeding edge as long as I have a usable and consistent UI, a consistent experience, and a lot of the crud added by addons rather than in the core (the one that put me over the side was the built in facebook support, rather than as an addon).

It's all new! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895741)

We don't fix bugs, we release new versions! This time we put a '10' on the box on Flynn OS I mean FireFox.

Wow thats a lot of bugs fixed in this version (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895765)

Where is the list of bugs introduced with this upgrade?

Still no Flash in mobile ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895807)

I realize that it isn't a very popular around these parts, but quite a few websites still use this critter and are unlikely to stop using it in the near future. Meanwhile they're implementing antialiasing for WebGL and OpenGL ES acceleration, features that aren't in common use yet.

Hum ...

This is the web we're talking about. It should be access to content first, then the frills.

Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (4, Insightful)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895871)

But Flash must die; if we continue feeding it with updates it will not die. Web developers must realize that the future is HTML5.

Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896177)

Web developers must realize that the future is HTML5.

And IPV6. And "Strong" Artificial Intelligence. And maybe The Singularity. Or the Eschaton.

Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896253)

Steve, is that you...?

Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895921)

This is the web we're talking about. It should be access to content first, then the frills.

You do realise this is the best argument against flash don't you?

Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (4, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896323)

Flash is a plugin. Bug the people who make it -Adobe, not Mozilla- if you want to use it on mobile devices.

Webapps for everything? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895835)

With browsers being released every 3 months, can we really trust webapps to work in 2 years?

Best explained here: HTML5 for everything? [elpauer.org]

Under actual news, IE 6 market share grows. (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895947)

I wish I was joking. IE 6 as a precent of desktop web browser views went up [arstechnica.com] by 0.72% last month. FF as a whole went down, as did Chrome.

Not compiled for 64-bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895953)

Win32k.sys called, those security vulnerabilities are still present!

Re:Not compiled for 64-bit (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896197)

If you really wanted a 64 bit version of Firefox you woud have already found and downloaded it since they've been building one for a while. Don't blame them for not walking up to you and handing it to you on a silver platter.

I like it (4, Informative)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895963)

A version bump doesn't mean much these days, but this version is a big improvement. It's suddenly much more responsive and there's a very stylish built-in inspect tool if you press Ctrl+Shift+i. Also, Safari-style 3D transforms are implemented at last!

Re:I like it (0, Flamebait)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896195)

The question is, though, what did they break? What did they disable? What functionality did they decide their users didn't need to be using any more? What nonsensical, unjustified, flavor-of-the-week changes did they make to the UI? And how long will it take me to fix everything back and regain all the things I lost with the "upgrade"?

This is lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38895969)

Slashdot I expect more out of you. What a lazy post.

Incomplete summary (5, Informative)

revealingheart (1213834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38895979)

Could a Slashdot editor please add to the summary info about the Extended Support Release [mozilla.org] for organizations released at the same time, and the new built-in web developer tools [mozilla.com] ? Even a link to a website with coverage about the new changes to Firefox [pcworld.com] would do.

Addons now compatible by default (3, Interesting)

InvisiBill (706958) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896061)

Personally, it hasn't been an issue for me (with my old, highly-customized profile), but one of the new features listed in the not-so-technical release notes [mozilla.org] is "Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default". This seems to be the major issue most people have with their quicker release cycle, so hopefully it'll alleviate some pain there.

Older versions of Firefox (Firebird? Phoenix?) had a separate version number just for extensions, which would've avoided these issues. However, it would create a confusing second version number completely unrelated to the browser version, and they always seemed to set it to the same number as the browser version anyway.

As for my personal upgrade anecdote, I set "extensions.checkCompatibility.10.0" to False just to be safe. When I restarted Firefox, I got the box asking which addons I wanted to enable and disable (with my current settings pre-selected). I clicked OK and Firefox 10 opened up, looking exactly the same as 9.0.1 (which I have customized to look and act almost exactly the same as 3.6).

idiocy (0)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896087)

Releasing a software with bugs and publicly display those bugs is stupid...and freak'n annoying too. Version 10... really ???

Looking forward to Seamonkey 2.7 (1)

janeil (548335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896095)

At least Seamonkey isn't doing the version number jumps, and also seems to be leaving the interface alone for the time being. And, I still appreciate being given a choice to upgrade or not, if I happen to check. Seamonkey just feels more "mozilla-ish" to me than firefox does any more.

one more step to silent upgrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896117)

This release helps with the already-improved add-on compatibility problem with upgrading (I haven't had any add-ons disabled during an upgrade since v7, but YMMV). The rest of the silent upgrade features are tentatively scheduled for FF13 in June. Hopefully everyone will stop complaining about the fast release pace after that; you won't know what version you're on anymore, just like with Chrome.

Oh for crying out loud... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896131)

Fuck off with the crazy versioning already. Otherwise, we're going to have to start using scientific notation to represent Firefox's version # in a few years. They'll just start skipping to the next 1000-level release # whenever there's a major update - "Firefox 2E3 ?! What the hell happened to 1.78E3 thru 1.99E3?!

Is this an improvement? (1)

dsgrntlxmply (610492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896219)

Slow-to-download PDF documents can still hang all tabs and windows. This is likely to be bad behavior in Adobe's plug-in, but one is left wondering whether Acrobat reader's terrible behavior could be encapsulated so as not to freeze everything.

Startup time seems excruciating on older machines with New remember-password query pops up on the left side (not good when mouse attention is on the right side) uses a pull-down that is too hair-trigger toward remembering the password when you don't want to.

The about:memory screen is a fun toy. As someone who began writing code on 1970s machines, I am left wondering how anything could be using such massive amounts of memory. At least it's interesting to see the memory use categorized, even if I do not understand the categories.

date-time version system (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896261)

can we all just please move to a date-time version system for software?

to me, firefox is just firefox, not firefox [number]. any software with the same name but a different version number is still just the same software to me, because it generally has the same overall basic function - even if it's found better ways or interfaces for doing so. it's not like firefox 9 was a browser but 10 came out and was all like "being a multi-tool web interface is lame, I'm gonna be an auto-cad clone now, so I need a new number!"

I'd much rather see "firefox v.2012.02.01.14.57.05" (YYYY-MM-DD-hh(24hr)-mm-ss of the final build's file time-stamp.) as it would not only tell me that this version is newer than the last version (which is all mere version numbers do), but it would also tell me WHEN it was last updated (+1 minor level of usefulness).

arbitrary version numbers just don't mean much to me anymore. especially not when mozilla and others are just going to randomly assign them based on a feeling of inferiority when compared to microsoft's IE version number or whatever.

[south park] (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896287)

Here's the new version of Firefox! Fuck you! It's going to break even more of your out of support addons and shit down your throat. But we don't care, we're going to beat that snarky Internet Explorer with a higher version number!

[/south park]

Sadly so (0)

Corson (746347) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896307)

I am sick and tired of upgrading to new FF releases that disable the add-ons I use most often. How is it possible that an add-on remain compatible with IE over succesive Windows updates but not with FF?

Just Installed a plugin... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38896315)

I just installed Cooliris, I restarted Firefox, Firefox updated and broke the plugin.

I'm losing more and more control over my own system as time goes on, I think its time to go back to 3.6 and Windows XP, FUCK THE FUTURE!

I am waiting for FF XIII.2 (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896327)

I'm waiting until they release Firefox 13 release 2.

It's a bit twee, but the graphics are very cool.

And it handles Kanji like a pro!

But what about the memory leaks?! (0)

griego (1108909) | more than 2 years ago | (#38896369)

Can't have a Firefox thread without some bleating & yammering about memory leaks...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...