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 20 Will Finally Fix Private Browsing Mode

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the we-know-what-you-use-it-for dept.

Firefox 186

darthcamaro writes "Unlike every other major browser vendor, Mozilla today does not allow users to have their private mode browser window open at the same time as a regular browser window. That's now set to change. This is a flaw that has been in Bugzilla since 2008 and has been the subject of heated discussion for years."

cancel ×

186 comments

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

How about tabs in the same window? (0)

addie (470476) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149697)

For a Chrome-addict like me, what I've been waiting for is the option to open an incognito tab within the same window as regular tabs. Apparently this lack of functionality is a feature intended to ease confusion among users. For me, I just find it irritating.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149749)

I would totally mess that up. Open porn in the wrong tab and forget to clear cache because I'm used to not having to do so.

It doesn't help that I have 50 tabs open at one time, usually in the same window.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (5, Funny)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150375)

ok, at least you're honest about it, but holy shit, really, 50 tabs? you really need that much porn open at once.....you must be like a rabid sex monkey 23 hours a day....

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (3, Interesting)

crow (16139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149807)

Private mode tabs should have a different theme or color for the browser portion above the web page so that it's obvious that it's different. There's no need to force them into a different window.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151851)

They already have the different firefox button colors. So just do orange tabs for regular and purple for private tabs. As a plus, you can only show the different tab colors when they actually have an private session going.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (3, Insightful)

ccguy (1116865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149839)

I'm waiting for incognito mode not only not to leave track on the computer itself but also on the remote sites I visit. How is it incognito if I connect somewhere I've been before to and you send the cookies that were already saved for that site, for example?

So basically, fix the thing :-)

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150081)

Erm, if the browser is sending a cookie, that means the cookie was saved in your incognito session, so the thing is broken in the first place. It shouldn't save cookies at all.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (4, Interesting)

calzones (890942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150247)

Reminds me how I've wished for a new http "undo" feature.

Basically, if I make a request of a page from a server and decide it was a mistake, I want to invoke "undo" and have my browser history go back, wipe any cookies or history or cache trace, plus delete anything downloaded... AND THEN ALSO send an "undo" header to Apache to request wiping my visit from the logs.

Of course that would be open to abuse. So servers should only honor such "undo" requests if they happen within X seconds (say, 120) after the last non-ajax bit was sent to the browser, and as long as no further requests are made by the browser after the first one. For example, click a link on the page, interact with a form widget, or invoke a new ajax request... and you'd totally kill the ability to "undo".

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150723)

are you really THAT paranoid about ... well, i dunno, something?

oh wait, this is slashdot, so, yes.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (3, Interesting)

calzones (890942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151189)

Actually, as a web guy, I also care about logs that are free from false positives due to accidental clicks and redirects. A feature like this would help me verify that traffic to a page on the site is purposeful and desired by the end user.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151373)

Actually, as a web guy, I also care about logs that are free from false positives due to accidental clicks and redirects. A feature like this would help me verify that traffic to a page on the site is purposeful and desired by the end user.

And he really did opt in.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (1)

Splab (574204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151471)

Not a very bright web guy? Just look at how long they are on your page, less than X minutes and you just wipe their session again (or reverse it and just mark sessions that are actually busy enough to count as "interested").

(and don't wipe the data, amount of people who aren't interested in your site is probably as important as how many are)

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (2)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151773)

Just watch where you click. Touchpads with mouse clicks enabled anyone? Touch screens?

Am I the only one finding it is easier to click somewhere you don't intend to of make other input mistakes when using one of these compared to a conventional 3 button mouse with a scroll wheel?

Am I just too old school? Seems to me like doing flawless input with these is an ability challenge in itself.

Tor for the highly privacy seeking or the paranoid (4, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151263)

Dude, at that level of paranoia, go ahead and install Tor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)) [wikipedia.org] and use the version of Firefox it comes with to route your requests through the onion router.

Re:Tor for the highly privacy seeking or the paran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42152067)

TERRORIST PEDOPHILE!

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151297)

I'm waiting for incognito mode not only not to leave track on the computer itself but also on the remote sites I visit. How is it incognito if I connect somewhere I've been before to and you send the cookies that were already saved for that site, for example?
 

According to the help page about Incognito mode [google.com] ,
it explicitly states it deletes all cookies when you exit incognito mode. Use it for single purpose at a time, and close it out after the fact, there will be no cookies left for them to find.

Never log into any account while in incognito mode, unless you ONLY log in there while in incognito mode.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (4, Interesting)

Rhaban (987410) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149917)

That's how it works in opera: anonymous tabs not windows (but you can put the tab in a separate window if you want to).

As a web developper, I often use this to have several sessions with different users on the same website.

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149991)

This is how Opera has done it from the beginning... I'm really surprised the others haven't at least made it a non-default option yet

Re:How about tabs in the same window? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151231)

For a Chrome-addict like me, what I've been waiting for is the option to open an incognito tab within the same window as regular tabs. Apparently this lack of functionality is a feature intended to ease confusion among users. For me, I just find it irritating.

No, its to prevent leakage of data via the container. Each tab is supposedly running in a sandbox, but if they are in the same container window there is a risk there.

Finally! (2)

c0l0 (826165) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149713)

That's one of the very few features that I'd always wanted Firefox to adopt from Chromium, and now it's actually happening - yay for Firefox 20. Can't be longer than a few weeks any more anyway; now can it? ;p

Re:Finally! (3, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149795)

2013-04-02 to precise.

But you can probably download the daily build right now, the pre-Beta/Aurora in the week of 2013-01-06 or the beta on 2013-02-19.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar [mozilla.org]

Um, Safari? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149771)

I just tried this in Safari, and the private browsing mode seems to be all or nothing.

Re:Um, Safari? (2, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151261)

Yes, but the summary mentioned major browsers

*ducks*

The major tablet (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152239)

Yes, but the summary mentioned major browsers

What's the only browser that comes on the major tablet? The iPad is not just a plurality but a majority [cnet.com] .

version 20 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149775)

So this feature will show up by Wednesday?

Re:version 20 (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150205)

Tuesday

I Don't Care Anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149815)

The latest firefoxes are all so horrible that I just don't care anymore. They insist on putting a google search bar somewhere on the page, when what I want is a URL and only a URL field. I don't want it adding .com and I sure as hell don't want it sending something I paste into the URL field anywhere if it's not a valid hostname. In fact, I don't want it making any outbound connections that I didn't specifically ask for. It's been progressively downhill from about version 3.0.

Re:I Don't Care Anymore (2)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149881)

You realize you can configure it to do just that, right?

Re:I Don't Care Anymore (2)

gparent (1242548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150221)

Paranoid people should take the time to look at the options. They're there for a reason. Options that nobody care about may not be in the options menu but they'll be in about:config.

finally (1)

physlord (1790264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149823)

Finally, a decent porn mode. Why it took that long.

Re:finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149939)

Us Opera users have been wanking it for years.

Firefox? (0, Troll)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149831)

Oh yeah, the desktop browser - the one I used to use before switching pretty much exclusively to mobile browser. Do they still bother to compete with Chrome, Dolphin, and the stock Android browser? Last time I tried it was huge, clunky and setting up syncing of bookmarks was a joke (as opposed to, say, Chrome which just syncs up for you). I used to love FireFox but it just got bigger and slower; there's just no point any more.

Re:Firefox? (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150763)

Well some of us do more with a computer than check up on the latest kardashian kraze and failbook. While we have browser preferences, we tend to choose the one that has the plugins we need, even if it is technically inferior software.

Pr0nzSec 2.0 (1)

bambewn (2588841) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149907)

Never worried much about it really... Didn't think it was an issue. After private lemonbrowzing, I would just Ctrl-Shift-P back to my, worksafeish shenanigans.

When will they add HSTS security? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149929)

I'm kind of wondering when they'll add HSTS security, which ensures all traffic that starts on HTTPS does not get redirected to insecure HTTP instead.

Re:When will they add HSTS security? (2)

gparent (1242548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150099)

Maybe if you upgrade from Firefox 3.6 you'll find out about the new features they added?

Re:When will they add HSTS security? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150629)

Mine says Firefox 17.0 and it just update to that.

Re:When will they add HSTS security? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42152051)

Then you've had HSTS for the past 13 versions or so.

Re:When will they add HSTS security? (1)

BZ (40346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152101)

HSTS support was added in Firefox 4, a bit over year and a half ago. So wonder no longer!

does it fix downloads cutting out though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42149941)

the worst thing in firefox when you're downloading some crap off a slow ass website and then hop into porn mode for a fap and it stops your downloads because they were in normal mode! this has made me rage hard so many times. fix it, please.

But But (5, Funny)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149947)

Chrome is version 23, so Firefix is still lame, and lord help IE stuck at version 10.

Private mode as default (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42149965)

Why would anyone, ever, browse the web in "public" mode??? Isn't that like saying "Yes, please track me"?

First thing I do on Firefox is set it to dump all cookies/cache/history/etc/etc every time it closes. 100% on all the time private mode would be just fine, thanks. Unless you *like* big brother watching you.

Re:Private mode as default (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150029)

Not everyone is that paranoid. Some people like the convenience of saving cookies and cache across sessions.

Re:Private mode as default (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150793)

alternatively, you could say "most people aren't aware of the serious negative side effects that come with convenient defaults."

Re:Private mode as default (2)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152361)

That's because there are none. Seriously, start taking your schizophrenia meds, because no-one is out to get you. No-one cares what websites you visit. It will not affect your life in any meaningful way.

Re:Private mode as default (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150033)

How do you handle logins and passwords to various sites?

Re:Private mode as default (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150961)

our brains..

Re:Private mode as default (0)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152189)

Your brain can remember hundreds of different passwords?

Or perhaps you use repeated passwords. In that case, good for you and your security.

Re:Private mode as default (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151947)

How do you handle logins and passwords to various sites?

KeePass, plus the KeeFox addon to do the log-ins. Or any of the other password managers if you don't like that combination.

KeeFox detects the login page about 80% of the time in my case, and Autotype in KeePass works when KeeFox doesn't.

Anything like KeePass for Linux? (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152273)

KeePass

Requires .NET Framework 2.0 [keepass.info] . Or does it work in Mono? What password managers have Linux users found useful?

Re:Private mode as default (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150049)

Because I don't care. Things can track me all they like. I seriously don't care whether they do or not. (Except every once in a blue moon, in which case, I toggle on private mode. Or just log out of google, because that's where most of the major tracking is going on... :p)

Re:Private mode as default (1)

imsabbel (611519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150133)

Or you want usability. Or do you tell me you never use bookmark, history, or anything in your web browsing. Always type every URL per hand?
Cause thats more or less what it would boil down to be always in privacy mode

Let me guess, you thing you are a big shot because you have them on your google account...

Re:Private mode as default (2)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150235)

Definately not what most people want -- I certainly would hate that, too.

If you want it though, it's easy enough to enable: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/private-browsing-browse-web-without-saving-info#w_how-do-i-always-start-firefox-in-private-browsing [mozilla.org]

Does this mean I can (5, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150067)

post politically correct things (Linux rules and Bush sucks!) to Slashdot while logged in, and at the same time open a Private Browsing window and troll as AC?

Re:Does this mean I can (1)

Idbar (1034346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150887)

As long as you don't forget and start replying to yourself non-AC, seems like fair game.

Re:Does this mean I can (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150947)

DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

Re:Does this mean I can (1, Insightful)

teh31337one (1590023) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151723)

Mod parent funny please.

Multiple Profiles are More Functional (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150159)

Firefox has supported multiple simultaneous sessions since at least the 3.x days.

Use these command-line options:

    -ProfileManager -new-instance

Then create as many different profiles as you want. They will all have their own history, bookmarks, add-ons, cookies, etc. The only place you have to worry about cross-profile pollution is with plugins like flash that keep state (like flash-cookies) in their own directory rather than under the firefox profile directory.

I have about 8 different profiles - one for gmail, one for my bank, one for slashdot, one for IMDB, etc and I keep a special "anonymous" profile that is basically a private-mode session, it wipes everything on exit, cookies, disk cache, history, etc. I even use the "User Agent Switcher" add-on so that each profile pretends to be a slightly different version of Firefox to make browser fingerprinting a little bit harder.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150579)

Javascript profiling will identify your browser even with user agent switcher. You can find out what browser they are using even with a simple DOM tree check. Heck even CSS can be used to find out what Browser you are really using. The agent string is only for convenience.
Javascript example: http://www.corephp.com/blog/hardcore-javascript-browser-and-computer-fingerprinting/ [corephp.com]
Paper on different method: http://w2spconf.com/2011/papers/jspriv.pdf [w2spconf.com]
Old CSS history method, now mitigated : http://ha.ckers.org/weird/CSS-history.cgi [ckers.org]
tl;dr version: the internet is a public network, you are never really private in a public space.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150719)

Yep, I really did mean "a little bit harder" when I wrote it.

Security is never 100% - on both the attacking and the defending sides. It is always a trade-off between effort and results. I figure the majority of trackers will not go to those extremes to track people because not enough people even go so far as to diddle the user-agent string. It just isn''t worth their time to do it and do it reliably when pay-out is such a small fraction of the total.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150721)

A couple points:

1. Anyone doing this likely has NoScript and/or Ghostery installed, so that crap won't happen anyway.
2. The user-agent string is one factor of many which is (in fact) used to try to identify a browser as uniquely as possible.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150785)

I forgot to mention that using different themes for each profile really helps me to keep from accidentally using the wrong window. I also use the customize_titlebar_v2 [mozilla.org] add-on to change the titlebar to something unique to each profile, that helps when looking at iconified windows where you can't see the theme.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150957)

On linux it is --no-remote -ProfileManager, same usefulness.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150981)

No -new-instance is correct on all platforms. It used to be that -no-remote did the same thing, but now it turns off remote-control (like via script) which while esoteric enough that few would notice, isn't the intended use here.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (4, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151337)

Look at EFF's Panopticlick website to see the breadcrumbs you're leaving behind. And don't forget that if you're coming in from the same IP address, even with all of those different purported browser-agent strings, it's easy enough to collect those data together and make a profile for that IP address and for the various sites hit at the various times of day. If you've got certain niche websites which you visit, the combination of websites visited could also be seen as a fingerprint also.
;>)
https://panopticlick.eff.org/ [eff.org]

Carrier-grade NAT (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152321)

it's easy enough to collect those data together and make a profile for that IP address and for the various sites hit at the various times of day.

And with the depletion of IPv4 addresses, you eventually end up trying to distinguish among 200 unique visitors behind one carrier-grade NAT.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152377)

Oh no! Not the websites I visit! People will realise that I post on Slashdot!

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151463)

Firefox has supported multiple simultaneous sessions since at least the 3.x days.

They don't work properly in Ubuntu. Do a "firefox -P myprofile" while you have another profile running and Firefox will open a new Window with profile that was already running, not the one you gave on the command line. It's pretty badly broken and nobody seems to care.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

vsync64 (155958) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151505)

You need to do -a blargle to get it to avoid just sending a request to the running session. I'd say the behavior isn't ideal but this is at least a workaround that lets me have multiple profiles running for dev/test/browsing.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151611)

The -a option right now is:

            -a or --debugger-args Specify arguments for debugger

And doesn't seem to have any effect for me. If I remember correctly, -a used to be to select the running process instance in the past, but even back then it never worked for me either. The relevant bug report [launchpad.net] from 2006 about the profile mess.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151979)

Why aren't you using the -new-instance argument? It worked for me under ubuntu before I switched to Mint where it continues to work.

Re:Multiple Profiles are More Functional (1)

grumbel (592662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152069)

That's essentially the same as "-no-remote" and just gives a error message if an instance is already running:

"Firefox is already running, but is not responding. To open a new window, you must first close the existing Firefox process, or restart your system."

If you are wondering why I am not simply opening a new window via the GUI if an instance is already running: Sometimes the last window left of the instance will be a download window and the download window doesn't give you an option to open a new window.

Either way, it's just a damn old and annoying bug in Ubuntu's Firefox that turns using multiple profiles into quite a pain.

Cool! I'll be able to use Firefox now. (0)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150223)

I probably have to post some comment text or I bet this won't go through.

Do it now with Multifox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150239)

http://br.mozdev.org/multifox/

It only took 4 years? (4, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150399)

For firefox this is actually pretty good. My personal favorite bug [mozilla.org] is still plaguing users of FF over 11 years after being reported.

Re:It only took 4 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151903)

TBF this is also a problem in chrome.

Re:It only took 4 years? (1)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152035)

Yes, chrome is awful too. Browsers in general are pretty awful. Traditionally they have bent over backwards to enable plugins to do whatever they want, which is why this bug occured and more importantly why it has never been fixed and cannot be fixed. It's not a technical problem, it's a political problem, at this point a patch that fixed the original bug would never be accepted, it would cause too many problems with existing plugins.

The only browser I know of that at least partially avoids this bug is Opera. And I havent thoroughly tested it yet, so it may still be affected. But at least it passes one simple test that all the others fail. Go to youtube, start a video playing, then hit ctrl-t. In Opera that works just as it should.

Re:It only took 4 years? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42152177)

Hey, why don't you learn how to program and fix it? You know, contribute something?

It's free software, use something else or do something about it.

Yeah, but did they fix the leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150683)

I have a test virtual machine that has a clean Firefox 17 instance consuming 2.4GB of memory.

Seriously, it's fairly trivial to do this. Just open a bunch of GMail tabs and leave them open for a few days.

Re:Yeah, but did they fix the leaks? (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150829)

Memory leaks have been a problem with Firefox since back around version 2.0. Already at version 17, clearly Mozilla Corporation is more interested in inflating the version number than actually fixing decade-old performance problems. Ironically, such high version numbers with the same old problems make them look even worse than they did with a sane versioning system... apparently that never crossed anyone's mind at Mozilla.

Re:Yeah, but did they fix the leaks? (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151203)

haha hilarious..

Re:Yeah, but did they fix the leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151443)

Cool story bro. Why don't you use another browser then, or do you just like to whine?

Window Drag Handle (3, Interesting)

darkain (749283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150745)

I'm still waiting for the window drag handle to be the entire "glass" area at the top, and not just the top X% of it. Ever since Windows Vista/7, Microsoft has made it a defacto standard that any part of a window that is "glass" is a drag handle, and Chrome does this nicely. It is very annoying to not have a visual indicator of where the drag handle starts/stops, and more annoying to have that empty glass space become more or less "useless" if the browser isn't full of a million tabs.

Re:Window Drag Handle (1)

AxeMurder (1795476) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151347)

Ummm I can click anywhere in the glass on Firefox, including the area that fills with tabs and it drags just fine...

Re:Window Drag Handle (1)

darkain (749283) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151691)

Well, if it works on some systems and not others, it is still a bug.

That was quick. (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42150757)

So, Firefox is already set to get out of its teens. What's next? Firefox 30 late 2013? Version 100 by 2016?
Pretty soon they're going to have to do something, because people are going to get fucking sick of counting up an entire version pointlessly every god damn month.

Re:That was quick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151197)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/version-sanitiser/

Re:That was quick. (1)

sateh (467083) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151215)

I totally agree! These numbers are getting out of hand!

Don't get me wrong, I love the rapid release cycle and all the new features and improvements they put in those release, but those version numbers are driving me insane.

I honestly don't know how many more version number increments I can deal with. I've totally had it. I'm done with it.

Maybe they can switch to fuzzy cat/fox names like Apple does?

This bizarre version number incrementing has to stop.

Re:That was quick. (2)

SpectreBlofeld (886224) | about a year and a half ago | (#42152183)

Just use month/years in your release numbers. Seriously. A version of Firefox released in december 2012 is firefox 12.12. Simple. Gives you a clear idea of its modernity. No confusion or consternation.

If anyone else needs simple solutions, I'll be over here sitting in the Idea Booth.

Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42150979)

Software at version numbers above 10 bear two sets of image problems, especially when there is a new major release very other month.

a) they are perceived as old and out dated. Old software means heavy. Heavy means slow. Nobody wants slow software.
b) they indicate a broken lifecycle model. Major versions are meant to signify substantial, sometimes incompatible changes. Nobody in their right mind wants incompatible changes. And nobody believes an organization that claims to have reinvented the wheel every couple of months.

So *please* change this non-sense and start counting minor versions again. There was a time when Mozilla felt that FF could be seen a a product in its infancy at versions 3.x, when all other major browsers boasted versions >6,7,8. Well guess what, they've managed to turn this around and FF is now perceived as the grandfather as opposed to the young hip kid. Nice job.

Re:Version 20? (2)

snl2587 (1177409) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151151)

To be fair, Chrome is at version 23 now. I'd say no one thinks of that browser as the "grandfather".

Really, people put way too much stock in version numbers, especially for projects with rapid release cycles.

Re:Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151309)

So *please* change this non-sense and start counting minor versions again.

Oh, they do, kind of. You see, in a perfect world according to Mozilla, it would go like this:
Firefox 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... a new "release" a month.

But here in reality, they've been bitten in the ass by the fact that bugs do exist, so they can't completely do away with point releases. So what it seems like they're doing (and no doubt they don't like it) is:
- Beginning of the month: A major release.
- 2-7 days later: A minor, .1 release do get rid of some major bugs their pointless rapid-release schedule creates.
- A week to a week and a half after that (ie. midway through or toward the end of the month): A minor .2 release to fix additional bugs.
- A week or two after that: A new month starts, a new pointless fucking "release" of Firefox...

Damn, I bet Mozilla Corporation really hates bugs, don't you think? Fuck, if they had their way, they would abolish the decimal from the decimal system because, hey, if it's not a whole number, then it must be inferior!

20??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151025)

what happened to their numbering system? i was using firefox 4.x waiting for 5. then i took a nap. now firefox 20 is coming out? i rmember similar happened to winamp. i was using a version that worked, was small and didn't try to take over your computer, 3 i think it was. i took a short nap, and when i awoke, version 9 or something was out. maybe its jsut me, but i am gettin the feeling that these large software companies have forgotten how to count. are they in a hurry to reach a certain number? will that version number magically make t he product actually work? example, IE never worked well, always backwards and hard as possible. no matter how 'easy' they say it is. there is no way to stop google's Crome from updating ALL THE TIME. i use it for only 1 site. i cant stop t he updating. i tried to stop the service, and it finds a way around that. crap! then theres opera, same deal with FF, they both get this thing that they have to upload massive amounts of data for no reason to nowhere in cyberspace. just keeps me from using the web. i dont like web browsers.

back to the point

how did they suddenly get to 20? and why is there no truth in advertising? secure browsing? so the server doesn't log what ip is connecting to it?
20, seriously...

Re:20??? (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151421)

The difference is, Winamp's version numbering actually made sense. There was Winamp 2, and then the flop that brought with it freeform skinning known as Winamp 3. Because Winamp 3 was a failure (I don't know why, I liked it...), Nullsoft decided to go back to the drawing board. They decided to extend the current Winamp at the time (version 2) with plug-ins to handle freeform skinning and various other features they planned in the rewrite (version 3). The result of combining (version) two and (version) three was... drumroll... 5. 2+3=5.

But that happened many years ago; Winamp has been at version 5.xxx ever since. The main problem I see with Winamp was not exactly its version numbering system (although it can be confusing at times with so many digits after a single decimal, though that is not a problem with the current 5.63), but the fact that AOL has for years been adding a whole shitload of garbage to the installer, and it's installed by default, with no sane "full, but without the useless options" setting. And that's not including the endless unchecks to get rid of unwanted sponsored garbage. There's literally so much useless junk installed in a "full" installation, it's actually very difficult to get a nice, light, clean install without loads of crap that you don't need.

I miss the days of being able to select a "full" installation, uncheck maybe 6-12 things, install and be done with it. Now... half the new garbage, I don't even know what it is... and after running Linux for so long (ie. no Winamp, unfortunately), it's even worse trying to figure out what's what. What it needs is more options than just light/minimal and full... all or nothing is just not a good compromise.

Re:20??? (0)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151891)

Right about the time firefox 4 came out they went full retard. Every time someone fixes a typo they have a new major revision. The ridiculous versioning wasnt the only sign of collapse, although it's hard to miss. I relied on first Netscape then Firefox as my primary browser for well over 10 years but they finally made it suck so bad I even prefer IE. I absolutely loathe IE.

I switched to Opera as my primary browser and although I am far less than 100% happy with that (I would definitely prefer a Free solution) I must admit it works pretty well, and if you set aside the blobware nature of the release as well as notscript appearing to be slightly inferior to noscript, Opera wins every other comparison in my opinion. Personally I put pretty heavy weight on those two things, much more than most people would, yet new Firefox is so bad I just uninstalled it.

Please fix plugins.exe, thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151095)

No really, we've all been wanting this to be fixed or at least have a fresh face and get promises every year but it never happens.

Re:Please fix plugins.exe, thank you (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42151413)

I wish some day, the very word any browser uses to market themselves, that word being "fast"... actually meant something.

Speaking of long standing bugs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151469)

Maybe if they do implement this fix, they'll finally get around to fixing this bug [mozilla.org] after nearly 11 years and counting!

Wonder what old bugs they'll fix next year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151753)

in Firefox 100

(plus one Inform4tive) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42151829)

so theRe are p3ople For a moment and Most people into a EFNet servers.
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>