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 Launches Firefox OS 3.0 Simulator

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the try-it-out dept.

Mozilla 75

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Thursday announced the release of Firefox OS Simulator 3.0, polishing all the features in the preview release as well as making a few more improvements. You can download version 3.0 now for Windows, Mac, and Linux from Mozilla Add-Ons. The following features included in the simulator are now functionally stable, according to Mozilla:

  • Push to Device
  • Rotation simulation
  • Basic geolocation API simulation
  • Manifest validation
  • Stability fixes for installation and updates to apps
  • Newer versions of the Firefox rendering engine and Gaia (the UI for Firefox OS)."

cancel ×

75 comments

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

Mozilla needs to explain ... (1, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about a year ago | (#43615597)

... why the world needs another mobile OS. I imagine they have good reasons, but I read /., I even read Planet Mozilla occasionally, I support Mozilla's overall mission, and I still have no idea.

Perhaps a tagline or a some consistent, widespread marketing message would help.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (5, Insightful)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year ago | (#43615661)

So that we can have truly Free mobile OS?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615807)

Android and WebOS are both fully open source, free mobile operating systems.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616163)

Nobody uses WebOS (I think Lg is planning to use it on smart TVs but that's it)

Android is mostly free, but only on a technicality.
Google develops it behind closed doors and dumps its code every version, but ther's no possibility to report a bug, submit a patch, or participate in its development.

Firefox OS will be slighly freeer than Android though, since they'll rely heavily on the Android kernel and drivers.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616223)

Nobody uses WebOS

And so many people use Firefox OS, right?

Android is mostly free, but only on a technicality.
Google develops it behind closed doors and dumps its code every version, but ther's no possibility to report a bug, submit a patch, or participate in its development.

Ever hear of AOSP? File your bug reports here [android.com] . It's not "technically" free, it is free.

Firefox OS will be slighly freeer than Android though, since they'll rely heavily on the Android kernel and drivers

It can't be more free than completely free.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43616561)

Nobody uses WebOS

So why would anybody use Firefox OS? We've been down the path of free, open source, html5 app based operating system before and as you said nobody uses it.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617107)

but ther's no possibility to report a bug, submit a patch, or participate in its development

There's a frigging gerrit for Android, and while it's true that you can't directly influence some decisions of Android, you can definitely report bugs, submit patches and get them approved. Just quit breathing if you're just gonna type stupid shit.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618415)

There is nothing in Free Software licences nor the FSF definition of Free Software that requires the developers to have a public bug tracker, accept patches or allow others to participate in development.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43616363)

android is riddled with closed binaries for drivers and shell environments. the shells are one thing as they can be replaced, but the drivers truly hamper maintenance and development on hardware.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616553)

Funny, I can download complete source code and assets for Android, compile it and run it on my phone.

The default Android shell is open source and is probably the best to use compared to vendor proprietary shells. Which drivers aren't open source specifically?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43616579)

android is riddled with closed binaries for drivers and shell environments. the shells are one thing as they can be replaced, but the drivers truly hamper maintenance and development on hardware.

And why does Firefox OS use the Android kernel? For compatibility with those same closed drivers! FFOS is just as riddled with closed source binaries and you won't prevent OEMs from differentiating by applying closed-source shells just like they do with Android.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

spacepimp (664856) | about a year ago | (#43619897)

It would be a near impossibility for hardware/chipset/radio manufacturers to release open source drivers for their hardware (at least in America). It hampers the ability to upgrade these devices at your your discretion and hands it over to the manufacturers, and OEM's and carriers. The same driver issues have hobbled Linux adoption and sometimes feasibility for years. The alternative would be to never release anything and let only the closed source people who could care less about open own the whole mobile stack.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (4, Informative)

petman (619526) | about a year ago | (#43618225)

There's Android and there's Android.

1. There's the version of Android maintained by the AOSP that is fully open source.

2. Then there's the version of Android that Google releases exclusively for its Nexus line of devices. Although it contains some codes common with the open source, AOSP, codes, it also contains some closed source features like Photosphere. Note that Photosphere is not merely an additional application, but Google is marketing is as a part of Android 4.2 released for the Nexus devices. Since Photosphere is closed source, thus this version of Android cannot be said to be open source.

So, if someone says that Android is open source, he's correct. But if someone else says Android is not open source, he's also correct. They're just talking about different Androids.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620033)

Is that you, Marvin ?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43623061)

Uh, no. There is one main line of Android and that is AOSP. All other firmwares come from there, including the official Google releases.

And no, Photo Sphere is not a part of Android, it is just a value-add application. Nice try though.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

petman (619526) | about a year ago | (#43650581)

Go here: http://www.android.com/about/jelly-bean/ [android.com]
The page clearly says that Photo Sphere is a feature of Android 4.2 Jelly Bean.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

iampiti (1059688) | about a year ago | (#43623295)

Could that be the reason that Photosphere is not in the Galaxy s4 despite the fact it has Android 4.2? Or maybe is Samsung trying to distance themselves from Android. It seems Android wasn't even mentioned in the s4 presentation

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43615859)

The parent isn't informative, it's incorrect.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#43615881)

I just had a thought... I wonder if the OP is so indoctrinated that he/she can't understand how Android, an open source operating system, could be the dominant market leader, as if it's so successful that it must be proprietary or closed.

End User Apathy (1)

mtb_ogre (698802) | about a year ago | (#43617877)

"Open" isn't a selling point to anything more than a tiny sliver of the population. Few people care about "Open", let alone about splitting hairs between how open Android is versus Firefox. It's just not a selling point that is going to garner any momentum. The vast majority are happy with iOS which isn't open, but is easy to develop on and easy for developers to make money on. If Firefox is going to do well, its going to need to have something more interesting going for it than "More open than Android".

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (5, Insightful)

SuilAmhain (2819677) | about a year ago | (#43615665)

It's fairly obvious what they are hoping to do. Same bloody thing they did to the web.

Try this tagline for size:

"Hi we are Mozilla and we aim to knock down walled gardens and remove the need to whore every last bit of your privacy just so you can call your mother every now and then"

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617567)

I'll try it when it reaches version 21 next year.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615705)

Mozilla have an interest in expanding the open web ecosystem. Webkit has a monopoly on mobile (very few mobile devs test on anything more than Android/iOS native browsers), and apps compete directly with web technology for users (Android/iOS rely on non-web or proprietary frameworks).

Now it could be said that people need the proprietary or non-web platforms to accomplish tasks, but remember that asm.js and webgl and many other technologies are coming to Firefox OS. There's always an argument for not changing, and there's always an argument for legacy, but encouraging open standards and web tech for users is an important goal for Mozilla.

For users: Because Firefox OS targets lower-spec mobiles than iOS/Android so it will be cheaper (indeed, Mozilla aren't targetting conventional markets).

For developers: because it uses web technology everywhere (it's like every app is a Phonegap/Cordova app) it will be easier for most developers.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS/Introduction

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43617493)

Webkit has a monopoly on mobile

Soon it will be Webkit and Blink, of course you can have Gecko on Android devices as well. Tools like asm.js, mandreel and emscripten are equally valuable across existing platforms as they will be on Firefox OS. So that's all well and good and it's a neat idea but the question remains: what is the benefit (to the user) of Firefox OS over Android (or anything else)? Why will it be any different to webOS?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617769)

Why will it be any different to webOS?

The reason is Telefonica. According to this note http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57385412-78/telefonica-signs-up-for-mozillas-mobile-web-os/

Telefonica's objective is to drive HTML5 adoption across the industry. For the first time the capabilities of HTML5 and the open Web have been fully leveraged to create an entirely new mobile platform. From our experience in Latin America we know that a huge part of the market is not being catered for by current smartphones. With new open Web devices we will be able to offer a smartphone experience at the right price point for these customers.

What was just a toy project for Mozilla found a powerful client with a lot of money and market muscle to push the operating system. They don't plan to convince the users that they need a new OS, but offer phones in the right sophistication/price range for developing countries.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617893)

with the amount of Android code in FXOS [github.com] its basically just Dalvik that's missing and you believe that javascript apps are going to perform better than native or java Android apps?

For the first time the capabilities of HTML5 and the open Web have been fully leveraged to create an entirely new mobile platform.

where have i heard that before? oh right, in web os!

What was just a toy project for Mozilla found a powerful client with a lot of money and market muscle to push the operating system.

microsoft has even more yet they've failed to gain traction. it's stupidity to believe that money and marketing is going to help a non-starter project with no tangible benefit to customers to succeed in the market.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43619427)

How do you put Gecko on an Android device?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43621197)

Firefox Mobile

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (3, Informative)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#43615789)

Because competition is good. Drives prices down, features up and forces cross-scrutiny.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615879)

Key word being "competition". Firefox OS is never going to get off of the ground and therefore will never be competition to the likes of Android, iOS or even Windows Phone.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43616061)

If it was just another phone OS, you might be right, but it isn't.

I don't think you understand what a benefit something like Firefox OS will offer corporates. Once IT departments understand what it really is and how it simplifies/secures their work, they'll be all over it.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616149)

Right, you let us know when that happens. Until then, I'll stick with Android.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43616241)

Considering mozilla's track record with corporate IT departments, I'd say there will be a cold day in hell before anyone sane from those departments will trust mozilla's products enough to actually start using them ever again. The epic bait and switch they pulled with firefox and versioning system followed by the whole "we don't care about corporate" quote from the Asa "foot in the mouth" Dotzler, ensured that any dumbass intern in IT who decides to peddle a mozilla product will be hit on the head with a monitor that has a short version of the entire adventure until he gets the point.

By the time someone on the mozilla leadership team got their people to at least consider that corporate just might actually matter to mozilla which eventually resulted in firefox ESR, it was basically too late. Corporate heads who bought mozilla's message from before and rolled out firefox as the main workplace browser learned their lesson and migrated to the only major browser with sane updating and versioning system. IE. As much as many hated it. And it was completely mozilla's own fault.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... They fucked corporate hard with browsers. How much harder could they fuck corporate sector with the OS? Who will be stupid enough to take that risk when taking their recent history in consideration? How much key infrastructure and support will you move to use it before mozilla goes off the deep end again in the name of the next shiny "right way to develop software" that pisses in the face of reason and sanity?

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616505)

Nope, corporate heads switched to IE because Microsoft let's them spoof the Extended Validation green bar in IE, which no other browsers allow.

Re: Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616835)

Writing a Firefox extension to fake whatever EV UI isn't all that difficult either, though granted it's much more work than whatever IE's built in thing is.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43617447)

Times change.

Just 10 years ago, Nokia/Symbian dominated the smartphone market. Since then, Microsoft WPx hung on to around 30% for a while before crashing to near nothing, while RIM/Blackberry had the lead in business phones for a while, then ceded it to Apple. Apple's iPhone dominated everything for a few years, but looks like having single figure global market share before this year ends. Android's relative flexibility has hauled it to the front of the pack for now, but this is a dynamic market.

That's what competition does. We've become accustomed to the moribund desktop PC market, where one monopoly stifled innovation for decades. For those of us who like progress, the rate of change in mobile devices is refreshing.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43617517)

Times change.

True, but it takes disruptive features that directly benefit users for that to happen, I don't see that with Firefox OS or Windows Phone or webOS or Tizen or any of those other operating systems.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617667)

So why is it that most computers I use in a corporate environment have Firefox ESR installed?
I think that you just want to cause drama, the immaturity shows through your swearing.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43618423)

Because some people in IT are zealots and will not give up on the message, even if that message directly harms them. But the dip firefox took, and continues to suffer from due to corporate dropping them was very noticeable, and still is.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616215)

In Mobile, the single biggest factor of commercial success is your relations with carriers.
That's because they had the best carrier relarionships that Nokia was #1 until 2011, and that's because carriers hate microsoft and fear skype that Nokia collapsed post Lumia, and that's because they have the best carrier relations now that Samsung is now #1 (heeck, their strategy has long been "say yes to carriers whenever Nokia said no").

Firefox OS has support of big time manufacturers (so you know devices are going to see light of day) and big time and most importantly big time carriers like Telefonica or China Unicom. They are going to be widespread.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616263)

It can have all of the support it wants with Chinese manufacturers. How many people are actually going to buy a product with Firefox OS instead of Android or iOS though? Probably less than the number of people who bought Windows RT devices.

Besides, I only see that some no-name company called "ZTE" has said that they will produce a (note: singular) smartphone with Firefox OS.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about a year ago | (#43618773)

ZTE is a corporation with close to 100k employees with growing hardware and software businesses. All they lack is a brand, but if Samsung (which used to be the Yugo of home electronics) can be turned into a popular brand, then why not ZTE or Huawei?

But yeah, Firefox OS looks like it's going to be DOA. The fact that this comment is only the 60:th comment is a bad sign. If Mozilla can't get people who read Slashdot excited about their OS then there's probably no hope for it. I suppose ZTE is primarily working with Firefox OS because they want to absorb knowledge from it for their own closed-source in house OS project, or projects, that they are sure to be working on.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615961)

Easy: Google has one, so Mozilla wants one too.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616135)

Yeah, what good has competition ever done?!

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617361)

... why the world needs another mobile OS. I imagine they have good reasons, but I read /., I even read Planet Mozilla occasionally, I support Mozilla's overall mission, and I still have no idea.

Perhaps a tagline or a some consistent, widespread marketing message would help.

Can you really say that the mobile browsers in phones and tablets are as usable as full browsers on desktop environment?

No they aren't, and not just because you can't use the plugins to change your browsing experience to get rid of Ads and junk & improve your privacy settings over the default settings too much without rooting the device. Thus the goal is very much also improving browsing experience, security and privacy online, among other things.

We need rich set of plugins (ADB+, Ghostery, Noscript, Greasemonkey, Firebug, Certificate Patrol, Collusion, FireGloves, ...) to mobile platforms too and Apple and Google won't let us do it unless competition forces them to do it.

ac

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617577)

you can have add-ons for firefox mobile.

Google won't let us do it unless competition forces them to do it.

bullshit, don't spread FUD.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617823)

Because Android has a cost, Windows Phone has a cost and iOS has a sur-cost. While Tizen,webOS are not available anywhere.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617961)

Because Android has a cost

And FXOS is mostly Android [github.com]

While Tizen,webOS are not available anywhere.

False [tizen.org] and false [openwebosproject.org]

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43618261)

Why shouldn't we? iOS doesn't cater to the less fortunate in society and it's a closed garden.

Android is a mess, it's insecure, it's developed by a data hungry advertiser and it isn't offering a real alternative for app developers. Android also offers very little for hardware companies. If you're not Samsung then you're fighting over scraps and probably in financial dire straits.

So I do think it's needed and it relies on web so it's not exactly creating vendor lock-in.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43619309)

The reason the world needs another mobile OS is the people making the current ones. Apple wants my money, Google wants my data, and Microsoft wants my patience, and frankly, I'm not inclined to give them these things. That leaves me out in the cold unless another mobile OS comes along.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (1)

spacepimp (664856) | about a year ago | (#43620051)

Completely incorrect. Apple/Microsoft and Google all want your money and data and patience. Data is in many ways more valuable than money. FYI AOSP code is open source pull out the parts you don't like and make the OS suit your purposes. There are many ROMs out there that are doing somethign similar Cyanogen to an extent and or replicant. The world doesn't need an armchair RMS, nor do they owe it to do the work for you since you are completely unwilling to offer effort, time or money or data to make what you are demanding.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43619465)

They don't owe you or anybody an explanation.

Re:Mozilla needs to explain ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43624425)

They do if they want a user base. This idiotic notion that something free or open source is automatically shielded from all criticism and questioning needs to die. A product, whether commercial or free needs users if it is going to live and grow. If Mozilla has your attitude, I would fully expect Firefox OS to fail, badly.

sim? (1)

pbjones (315127) | about a year ago | (#43615639)

battery life is too good.

Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615663)

This is great for the consumer. More options and more competition is always good for the consumer.

It sucks for us developers, though.

*sigh*

Re:Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us (0)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43616041)

This is great for the consumer. More options and more competition is always good for the consumer.

Actually, studies seem to indicate that too many choices cause confusion for the consumer and may actually have a detrimental effect.

The same could be said for developers picking what platforms to supports, but "It sucks" basically says that more succinctly.

Re:Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618053)

> Actually, studies seem to indicate that too many choices cause confusion for the consumer and may actually have a detrimental effect.

20th century dictators used to state the same kind of thing, and maybe they were right.

Let's make people free from the responsability of their choices, let's make the big corps choose for them:

Meet the new boss(big corps), same as the old boss (nazists, fascists, totalitarian communists and other dictatorship forms).

Re:Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43630363)

> Actually, studies seem to indicate that too many choices cause confusion for the consumer and may actually have a detrimental effect.

20th century dictators used to state the same kind of thing, and maybe they were right.

Let's make people free from the responsability of their choices, let's make the big corps choose for them:

Meet the new boss(big corps), same as the old boss (nazists, fascists, totalitarian communists and other dictatorship forms).

You seem to think that the opposite of an excess of choices is a limited set of choices controlled by someone else. There's no room in your philosophy, Horatio, for any other cases.

Re:Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616099)

It sucks for us developers, though.

Then you're doing it wrong. It'd be great for me.

Re:Great for the consumer. Shit for the rest of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616175)

You'd enjoy making "apps" out of web pages and JavaScript?

Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615731)

I would like to see FirefoxOS running in a real low end device. Most low end Androids are enough for everyday tasks except for one: Browsing. Internet browsing is a pain in a low end device.

How FirefoxOS can be better is such small hardware doing everything with a web browser?

does it support the HOSTS file? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615747)

Unless they have HOSTS file support and a built-in 64-bit html5 HOSTS file editor, I won't use it.

Re:does it support the HOSTS file? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43617923)

Didn't getting root on some of the early Androids involve tapping each of the four corners?!

But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43615925)

Does it run emacs?

MeeGo (1)

elPetak (2016752) | about a year ago | (#43616551)

Nokia, Nokia, why hast thou forsaken me?

can it run native C code? (1)

doti (966971) | about a year ago | (#43616607)

Does all the apps need to be HTML5, or can I write apps in C/C++ too, like Android's NDK?

Re:can it run native C code? (4, Informative)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year ago | (#43617389)

FxOS only runs open web standards (HTML, CSS, JS, etc.) - C/C++ not being one of them.
Any web apps should then be able to run on Android (via Firefox) and in the future Chrome OS, Ubuntu Touch, etc. I say "in the future" because I don't know that everyone has yet settled on an app packaging standard.
If Firefox OS included C code in apps, among other implications, those apps would not be usable everywhere.

Currently though, C/C++ code can be compiled via Emscripten to asm.js, a Javascript subset. It will run in any browser, but Firefox is including an optimized module for asm code which gets closer to native compiled speeds than previously seen. It looks as though Chrome may be including their own asm module as well.

Re:can it run native C code? (1)

doti (966971) | about a year ago | (#43619749)

Thanks for the information.

I get the cross-platform point of being web-only, but it's still sad if it won't be able to run native code as well.

I'm about to rewrite my photo management software (currently written in Perl/SDL) so it can be more portable, particularly to Android tablets; and, even more importantly, future-proof. I haven't yet settled for the new language, but C (or C++, if possible) would be the preferred one. (Actually, I would prefer D, but it's not widely supported.)

Quick turn-around development (0)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year ago | (#43617355)

Since Mozilla has embaked upon the quick-turnaround development cycle for FireFox, the browser has become less and less useful for my needs.

.
More and more websites have stopped working properly.

More and more plug-ins have stopped working.

Since version 18, http proxying has become very problematic, to the point that it is no longer a working function of Firefox.

So I will ask a question that I have asked previously, what is the benefit to me of the accelerated Firefox development cycle if there are more problems introduced than resolved?

Re:Quick turn-around development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43617677)

What plugins?
What websites?
Why isn't it working for you?

I hate it when people say X doesn't work in Y and they don't provide examples of what X actually is.

Re:Quick turn-around development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618059)

Sorry to disappoint you, but my firefox (fully upgraded to latest) works great, and i do LIVE with http(and https) proxying all the time...

So guess your install is borked somehow...
also, 100% of all my plugins do work great, and never have stopped woring...

Re:Quick turn-around development (2)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43618787)

If you have any real issues, file a bug report or complain with details. Don't vaguely spread bullshit.

Doesn't simulate very well (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | about a year ago | (#43617647)

This simulator doesn't seem to simulate very well. I installed a couple apps, and wasn't able to interact with them as if it were a phone.

Though the native apps seem to work alright, and it feels like a modern phone to me.

Sadness (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about a year ago | (#43621607)

And here I thought for a second that Mozilla was offering a download of a simulator for their 3.0 version of Firefox.

I believe 3.5 was the last version that added a feature I actually wanted...and that was just the new tab button on the tab bar, which I've since stopped using anyway.

Check for New 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>