×

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 Unveils 'Aggressive' Firefox OS Schedule: Quarterly Feature Releases

Soulskill posted about 9 months ago | from the foxes-are-frequently-aggressive dept.

Firefox 87

An anonymous reader writes "With Firefox OS version 1.0 out the door, Mozilla has decided that it's time to unveil its strategy for new versions. The company is planning to make feature releases available to partners every quarter and push out security updates for the previous two feature releases every six weeks. 'As far as I know, that's the most aggressive mobile OS release strategy out there,' Alex Keybl, Mozilla's Manager of Release Management, said in a statement. 'This sort of alignment across multiple browser products, and now an OS, is unprecedented at the pace we're moving.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

87 comments

Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44338909)

Firefox browser is already aggressive, and it sounds like this is going to be more so.

I expect Firefox OS 95.0 out by the end of the year, and Firefox OS 98.0 a week later.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1, Interesting)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 9 months ago | (#44339153)

I thought the same thing when I first read the title, but from what I tell, there is a subtle difference. Instead of a "major" Firefox release full of nothingness basically every fucking month like it is now, they intend every third release to be less boring and actually bring new/major features. So... they're bringing back the "major versions" they threw out on their Google copying spree, only they won't be designated by major version numbers... they'll be designated by every third major version number.

If that means we no longer hear about every god damn Firefox release on Slashdot and other technology news sites, then I'll be happy. Just skipping versions 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, etc. and covering only versions 23, 26, 29, 32, etc. would be a hell of an improvement. Especially assuming these versions really *are* worth writing about (ie. more than just a bug-fix release with a major number bump).

Mozilla keeps backing up and making their release plans more like the old, while still refusing to go back to the original release style that worked. Ironically, they defended their stance like it was the end of the world for the longest time... then they, slowly, seem to be getting the point that their genius idea is not so fucking brilliant after all. This just reeks of an organization with advertising and $$$ at the top of the management all right. Ever since that fucking Mozilla Corporation was founded. Well... at least they seem to be getting the clue (slowly).

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | about 9 months ago | (#44339365)

I don't think it goes far enough. If they really want to beat Google, they need to switch to powers of 3 for the version numbering.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (-1, Troll)

hjf (703092) | about 9 months ago | (#44339859)

I just wish they worried about things that REALLY matter. See bug 392073 [mozilla.org] , opened in 2007. I just can't believe this is so low in Mozilla's priority list. It's just silly.

The new Flickr design, for example, looks very nice. Except on firefox it hangs for a couple of seconds with 100% CPU usage every time you scroll down. Buggy JS code? Maybe. But it kills the browser completely. They could at least try to run every tab as a separate process (maybe they should have shut the hell up instead of criticizing the competition when they did that? Anyone remember the "heat" google got for making Chrome run each tab as a separate process? Doesn't sound so silly now, does it?)

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340185)

Article is about Firefox OS, not the browser.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 9 months ago | (#44341227)

But Firefox OS is implemented by the very same people.

IOW, expect the same attention to details and customer-friendliness.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44341313)

But Firefox OS is implemented by the very same people.

And it's running the very same browser. And the browser is the basis for everything you see. So bugs/holes in Firefox are more relevant when talking about Firefox OS, not less.

Check your details (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about 9 months ago | (#44340833)

Your math would check out if you had your details right.
Firefox cuts a release every six weeks (not four). So a FFOS feature release would correspond with *every other* Firefox version (not every third).

Mozilla keeps backing up and making their release plans more like the old

In what ways have you seen this?

Re:Check your details (0)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 9 months ago | (#44340983)

In what ways have you seen this?

A prime (though now older) example: Extended Support Release. A.K.A., let's finally bring back what people and businesses wanted all along: an end to this extension breaking/updating chaos, constant unnecessary UI changes with minimal new features of actual value, with a forced rapid-update cycle. But only after endless Microsoft-style "we're right, everyone else is wrong" shitslinging.

This news, of a distinct "feature" release every couple versions/months, just screams of the next step in bringing some sanity back to the Firefox release cycle--which is to say, making it a bit *more* like it used to be. Which on its own is not bad--it's a good thing--but it's ridiculous that it's taken this long for them to bring back the distinction between "major" and "minor" versions.

Too bad it seems like a year or two goes on between each major positive change/improvements in the Firefox development cycle. Which is especially disturbing, because the powers that be sitting in their offices at the Mozilla Corporation practically destroyed the development cycle overnight.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 9 months ago | (#44350915)

I thought the same thing when I first read the title, but from what I tell, there is a subtle difference. Instead of a "major" Firefox release full of nothingness basically every fucking month like it is now, they intend every third release to be less boring and actually bring new/major features. So... they're bringing back the "major versions" they threw out on their Google copying spree, only they won't be designated by major version numbers... they'll be designated by every third major version number.

If that means we no longer hear about every god damn Firefox release on Slashdot and other technology news sites, then I'll be happy. Just skipping versions 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, etc. and covering only versions 23, 26, 29, 32, etc. would be a hell of an improvement. Especially assuming these versions really *are* worth writing about (ie. more than just a bug-fix release with a major number bump).

In other words, get ready for major UI breakage or other crap every 3 releases now, rather than oddball times.

Why Mozilla insists on consistently screwing up the UI, I don't know. Chrome at least tends to keep things the same, but Firefox keeps breaking things and it's not always obvious how to fix it.

Like my pet peeve introduced a few months ago - firefox autocomplete stopped completing deep URLs, and only does up to the hostname. Which is a royal PITA if you need to access something via a deep URL, or on a different port. Hell, entering forums directly can be problematic if they put it in a subdirectory. I haven't found an option to revert the behavior.

Perhaps if they did what Chrome does and quick breaking muscle memory, it won't be as screwed up as it is now. Hell, I expect half the options to revert back to old behavior to get removed "because no one uses it".

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (3, Funny)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 9 months ago | (#44339367)

Firefox ME won't be so stable.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

rvw (755107) | about 9 months ago | (#44341035)

Firefox ME won't be so stable.

Firefox Me - that sounds like a marketing slogan.

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339807)

When it reaches 32767 will it wrap back around and become negative?

Re:Isn't all of it ridiculously aggressive now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340661)

Look at TFA. Even the animal in the picture is tired from updating Firefox.

On your timeline, though, Firefox OS 98 Second Edition should be two days after 98.0.

Goddamn it Mozilla! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44338913)

Pull the freaking break. Can't you see you're only losing users to Chrom*?

Re:Goddamn it Mozilla! (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 9 months ago | (#44340713)

So regain users it should be less "Do you want Firefox to be the default browser?" and more like "What is the riddle of steel?"

Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (-1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 9 months ago | (#44338919)

Just can't bring myself to go back to Firefox. Not sure why we needed even more mobile OSes anyway.

Re:Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339097)

Remember when Mozilla just made a good browser? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Re:Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339555)

The only thing I dislike about downloading video files is that I'll miss classic jokes like this in the future. But I can live with that.

Re:Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339413)

I said exactly the same thing about Android after I found out how much data my handset mined from me.

Re:Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340439)

WTF? I don't think Firefox has crashed on me in almost 2 years.

Perhaps Google Chrome never crashes, but I prefer a crash per year over a browser that sends all my data back to head office for archiving.

Re:Ignoring nasty resource leaks 4 times a year (1, Troll)

foniksonik (573572) | about 9 months ago | (#44341321)

That's the problem with Firefox though. It gets backed up with user data which fills up RAM and eventually starts to leak out causing odd auto-immune reactions in the host OS. Google solved this problem in Chrome by passing that data through to their servers which have a much greater capacity to hold all your personal data.

Sure now that I've said it, it seems obvious.

That's a Service for Your Benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44343535)

By tracking which porn sites you visit, we're able to better tailor to your needs.

Excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44338961)

Now your device manufacturers can ignore your release at least 3 times a learn. Learn how NOT to implement this from Android's example.

Re:Excellent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339177)

Exactly. And Mozilla will have none of the leverage of the major players to even get updates pushed. Google struggles enough with it as is. Apple and Microsoft only are able to do it better because they have more platform control. I can't see how Mozilla will have anyway to push a carrier or handset maker to push out these constant releases since they are just given the entire thing away with no strings.

Re:Excellent (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 9 months ago | (#44339361)

I think I read/heared somewhere that they can do this because the top part is handled by Mozilla and only the bottom part, like the kernel is handled by the carriers.

Re:Excellent (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 9 months ago | (#44339401)

LOL, that's a good one. Google has a hard enough time with the carriers from bloating the hell out of the Android handsets as it is, and Mozilla is seriously expecting to have any say at all in what happens after they RTM?

I guess they aren't Chrome supporters, they're insane.

Y A A A A A A A W N !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44338967)

about sums that up !!

Mozilla !! Even the name is old !!

Time for a NEW name !!

WrathOfKhan !!

Re:Y A A A A A A A W N !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339275)

No, Mothra. Wait, have to pay some Jap for that name. Gothra. How about, Duck Bharma?

Most likely to fail (0)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about 9 months ago | (#44338973)

"that's the most aggressive mobile OS release strategy out there" >>= This means it is also the most likely to not succeed.

what is it? (1, Insightful)

buswolley (591500) | about 9 months ago | (#44339067)

Now Im a long time user of Firefox...and mostly have been happy. But I tried Chrome recently,and I admit I'm impressed....I just dont want a monoculture of browsers out there, and Firefox has had made a great (and important) contribution.

I'm interested. What is it that bothers people about Firefox? Sure Chrome loads up quicker...but my browser tends to stay open for days at a time anyway. There are a lot of great add-ons etc.. It doesn't seem slow using it generally....It doesn't FEEL as slick, but is that more of a theme UI thing, or something else?

Plus I like the idea of Firefox OS...besides saying the brand is old, they can't succeed, etc, what is it that people don't like about Firefox OS?

Re:what is it? (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 9 months ago | (#44339141)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fxchrome/ [mozilla.org] FXChrome seems to do a pretty good job simulating the look and feel of Chrome.

Re:what is it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339373)

Soon you won't even need an addon. Alex Limi is doing his best to make Firefox as dumb as Chrome. The latest brilliant decisions include moving the menu to a button that looks exactly like in Chrome, and removing the ability to disable scripts/images from Preferences... supposedly because people would forget about it and then think their browser is broken m/

Re:what is it? (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 9 months ago | (#44339209)

Firefox has had shitty browser releases. Firefox 4,5,6, and even 3.6 were all bloated, slow, buggy, and broke updates every month. Worse Asa Dolzter told us who work in corporate I.T. to fuck off and even logged on slashdot begged a user to go back to IE 8 when he complained?!

On my Turion with 2 gigs of ram system Firefox quite frankly is unusable in Linux. even with 3 tabs open it uses all 2 gigs of ram back when I ran it in 2011. Chrome runs smoothly back then.

IE is the browser we love to bash here but when Chrome hit the scene Firefox became the new legacy and slow browser. Many of us went to bat and put our reputation on the line to put Firefox in at work explaining how it doesn't break every release unlike IE. I did not like Chrome spying on me so I held my nose and used IE 9 for the first time in many many years until I gave up for Chrome eventually. ... low and behold the MS bigwigs said see I told you so after Asa broke the plugins! It made web developers angry too as they hated IE 6 with a passion, but need to certify there apps. Guess what? You can't recertify your app every 6 weeks! So now IE is more entrenched than ever.

So yes there is some resentment and even hostilality towards Mozilla here.

But the positive is Firefox ESR 17 and later are great! Firefox no longer breaks add-ons with the latest versions and uses 1/3 the amount of ram. Slashdotters should try Firefox again? However at work I am a die hard IE supporter now, :-( No group policy and no way we can know an update will break our intranet apps means too much risk.

Re:what is it? (3, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 9 months ago | (#44339483)

I'm posting this using Firefox. Running under Linux. On a an old laptop with a Celeron processor, from the Good Old Days when a CPU was a CPU and we didn't need no steenkin' "cores"! 2GB RAM, about 1.5GB of that showing as free. 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11 tabs open. No issues here.

Re:what is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340445)

On my Turion with 2 gigs of ram system Firefox quite frankly is unusable in Linux.

Same here. I'm using a 32-core system with 64 gigs of RAM, 8 gigs of graphics and a SAS array of enterprise SSD's, and Firefox still takes about 40 seconds just to start-up.

Seriously, Billly Gates, snap out of it.

Re:what is it? (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | about 9 months ago | (#44339277)

I run them both as a way to separate browsing concerns. For instance, I'll use chrome for gmail and job hunting while I use firefox for research and general browsing. Just depends on what makes sense at the moment. Sometimes I have 20 - 40 tabs open in each browser. But I make sure to heave each browser available if possible. I like them both.

Re:what is it? (-1, Offtopic)

Greyfox (87712) | about 9 months ago | (#44339281)

A firefox upgrade that required me to reboot my system was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I'd been growing increasingly annoyed with the browser and its developers as time went on. I stopped using it at home about a year ago in favor of Chrome. Firefox had introduced a change that broke the archaic application stack I'd been maintaining at the time. I found someone else on one of their forums who was having the same problem I was, and he received a only-slightly-more-politely worded "fuck off" from the developers. So I started looking around again. Of course, I was already pissed off about the way they'd gone out of their way to break the C standard library IP address resolution on OSX. The only reason I was keeping Firefox around after that was no one else at the time had a usable noscript add-on. As soon as someone wrote one in Chrome, I was off like a shot. Chrome also seems to be more consistent across all the operating systems I use it on, but that's just a bonus.

Re:what is it? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 9 months ago | (#44339419)

So, you hate what Fx has become, and then you switch directly to the browser that Fx most wants to be...

And you don't see anything wrong with that line of reasoning?

I'm seriously concerned because Fx is the last not terrible browser out there and they're working hard to copy every ill conceived and stupid design decision that everybody else is doing, without considering the fact that people chose to start using Fx, which suggests that it had something right.

Re:what is it? (0)

Greyfox (87712) | about 9 months ago | (#44339873)

Nah man, I've always kind of hated Firefox. From day one it would randomly just consume all the RAM on my 486/66 Linux box. Pretty much any time there's been a better option available, I've used it. I'm just using a tool that seems to work better for me. I don't really see a problem with that at all.

Re:what is it? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 9 months ago | (#44340179)

Firefox requires a reboot if/when it can't overwrite its files correctly. That means either you forgot to close it or there was a hung session in the background. It's been that way since... forever, I think.

Re:what is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44366449)

Chrome also seems to be more consistent across all the operating systems I use it on, but that's just a bonus.

Anything but! Different operating systems are supposed to be different, otherwise we'd all just use the same one! I stopped using Firefox because it was too much like a foreign Windows program on my X desktop. Chrome's even worse.

Re:what is it? (0, Flamebait)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 9 months ago | (#44339543)

> What is it that bothers people about Firefox?

* Lack of each browser tab running as a separate process. One "hung" tab and it freezes all the other ones. /sarcasm That's real bright in this day and age.
* Lack of a tab overview to see how much EACH tab is using CPU-wise, Memory-Wise, and FPS. Google Chrome: Tools - Task Manager. Enough said.
* Leaks memory like a sieve. The running joke is that FF is a memory hog. The bigger problem is closing tabs doesn't restore memory! WTF? The ONLY way to "fix" the memory hog is to close & restart the browser. Dev's don't give a fuck to fix.

Been using Firefox before 1.0. Hated Chrome when it came out but jumped to Chrome around FF v6 - v9. Google's V8 engine dynamically compiles Javascript to x86. Along with superior WebGL support there is nothing FF has at this point. :-(

Re:what is it? (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | about 9 months ago | (#44340277)

Umm in most benchmarks, firefox uses the least amount of memory compared to the other browsers and has done for quite awhile. I personally haven't had any memory issues with firefox in quite some time.

Re:what is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44346631)

Run Firefox and Chrome side by side. Leave them both running for a couple of weeks. Watch as Firefox's memory use balloons out of control to the point that the browser starts becoming unresponsive while Chrome keeps chugging away. Kill yourself for being a huge asshole and moron.

Re:what is it? (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 9 months ago | (#44340831)

You have absolutely no clue at all. And you're a liar.

Re:what is it? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 9 months ago | (#44364535)

Riiiight .... says the 7-digit UID to the 5-digit UID person who has been browsing & contributing to /. for 10+ years and programming since the 80's.

Are you even able to stay focused for more then 2 minutes and actively engage that brain of yours or do just like to make yourself look a bigger idiot with the immature ad hominem attack which adds nothing constructive to the discussion at hand?

When did /. turn into Reddit retard mode??

Re:what is it? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 9 months ago | (#44342589)

Leaks memory like a sieve. The running joke is that FF is a memory hog. The bigger problem is closing tabs doesn't restore memory!

Maybe it deliberately leaves page elements in memory cache for faster access in future and thus isn't even supposed to free all the memory used by a tab?

Re:what is it? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 9 months ago | (#44353243)

Ah, the old days where the mods shoot the messenger instead of listening to the message.

Glad "about:memory" reclaims all memory when there are no tabs open. Oh Wait, it doesn't.

What is the equivalent of "Chrome's Tool - Task Manager" in FF again? .. Oh wait, there isn't one.

Re:what is it? (0)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44339681)

Well I am still using firefox at the moment, but actively looking for another option. I just hate all the others as well, and use each when necessary of course. But firefox is the ONLY browser I know of where you can open a tab, type a few keys and pull out a video from url history, enter, then press ctrl-t for a new tab and it does not work. It's a basic UI bug that's been reported many many times over more than a decade, and how many times have they screwed their users over with gratuitous change-for-the-sake-of-change in the UI department over these years while simultaneously ignoring the stuff that did need to be fixed?

Several other replies here also mentioning things that have earned Mozilla some illwill over the years as well. And recent Mozilla history appears to be about making Firefox into Chrome. Dammit, if I wanted Chrome I would be using it already! Chrome is the creepiest thing on the net the first and so far only download from google that I went wtf? and disinfected.

Re:what is it? (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 9 months ago | (#44339727)

Is Chrome spying on me for Google?

Re:what is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339841)

you can get a variant called dragon that undoes all the Google spying

Re:what is it? (2)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44340055)

"Spying" might be too strong a word but it's creepy as hell. It wants to run all the time, and from wierd oddball directories it shouldnt be touching to boot (what is this, chrome or datamgr?,) and it was constantly begging me to sign in for easier tracking. It doesnt want to keep my local settings local, it clearly wants to store them somewhere outside my control. And when someone tried to make a noscript for chrome, they found the architecture wouldnt allow it! (I know there is a noscript-like extension for chrome, but unless chrome has been fundamentally re-architected recently it's only blocking scripts AFTER it wastes bandwidth downloading them.)

So it may not be spying on me, but it certainly acts like that is what is on its mind.

Re:what is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340465)

The greatest trick Google ever pulled was projecting an image of being everyone's geeky corporate pal, all while pursuing diametrically opposite, profit-driven plans that require them to suck-up every piece of personal and private data about us.

Sheer. Marketing. Genius.

Re:what is it? (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 9 months ago | (#44340783)

Sounds like the flash plugin hijacking the keyboard? That's nothing new, and I thought it was by design. Just use flashblock, which makes the issue both less common and more obvious - you can't do ctrl-t when in a flash object, but hell you don't expect every key combo to work when you're running a VM in virtualbox or something, either. Your key presses are trapped by the VM.
As for the Firefox UI it's stayed the same since Firefox 4 and you've been able to move buttons and bars around since even longer than that.

Re:what is it? (1)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44341383)

Yes, it's blocked because of the braindead way firefox handles plugin (not specific to flash either.) No, it's nothing new, they've been studiously ignoring it for over a decade as I said. Your attempt to justify the bug is very mozilla-ish, but in fact this is not a VM running a different OS, it's a browser plugin, there is no reason the plugin needs to break the UI, and every other browser on earth outside of mozilla actually seems to handle this correctly.

Re:what is it? (1)

Per Christian Frost (2973367) | about 9 months ago | (#44345731)

When was the last time you tried this? I'm using Fx 22 and it works for me. (Although it might be because of one of the plug-ins that I use.)

Re:what is it? (1)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#44345879)

Well I tried it just now and either I was mistaken in thinking that youtube was the site where it would assert without even clicking, or if youtube changed something on their end to quit doing that. But once you click the player to pause, change volume, etc. the bug reasserts. This breaks on tons of other sites with many different plugins. Other browsers dont seem to have such problems with it, but from reading countless pages of bug reports and discussion I get the idea there is something particularly bad here in the mozilla design - for some reason it seems to actually give up the keyboard input when it focuses a plugin, rather than passing it on after parsing it still, and I read stuff like "We should give plugins the ability to pass through shortcuts to the browser" ( https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Features/Plugin_keyboard_focus [mozilla.org] ) which seems rather backward - the browser should be deciding what part of the keyboard input to pass through to the plugin rather than begging adobe to pass them back after the fact, no?

Clearly it's not impossible to do that, IE and Safari both manage it without issue.

See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78414 [mozilla.org]

Carriers will eat Firefox OS alive. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339389)

This would be a great strategy if carriers actually released these versions. Instead, what will happen is what happened to Android. Every carrier will be on a different version of Firefox OS and all will be out of date.

I am all for more competition in this space. But, only iOS can roll out updates across carriers at the same time and their penance is major carriers are now abandoning the iPhone because of their tactics.

A rolling release model with a rarely updated core OS that sticks to only plumbing but embeds all its feature updates in "apps" that control the desktop experience would be an approach that fits with the current carrier environment. It is the only way for an upstart OS to create a uniform user experience and get traction.

Re:Carriers will eat Firefox OS alive. (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about 9 months ago | (#44339609)

It depends, at least in the US. T-Mobile is moving towards a "bring whatever device you want" approach, and Google has started directly selling their Nexus phones to consumers. I think this will start to improve once most carriers standardize on LTE-only and the phones are a bit more universal than they are now. With the Qualcomm CDMA patents out of the way, the barrier to entry to the Verizon network goes away and their phones will drop in price and more vendors will want to sell for the Verizon market.

Can we get AES-GCM yet ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339601)

Installing R25 nightly's build to notice the cipher suite is incomplete troubled my fierce anus !

Churn for the sake of churn (2, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 9 months ago | (#44339689)

Churn for the sake of churn is the most asinine strategy I've ever heard of. Look at how slow vendors are to actually release updates for Android for their devices. Mozilla is shooting themselves in the foot if they think their hardware partners for Firefox OS want to see point updates anywhere near as often as they're proposing. They want something tested and stable that they can ship, not an always-in-development "product."

Re:Churn for the sake of churn (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44341305)

Just like the Linux kernel, the partners don't have to ship every update. Just like the Linux kernel, features are added and bugs are fixed in Firefox on a regular basis, and it makes sense to ship updates. But since the whole phone is based around it, updating it might as well be an OS update.

Re:Churn for the sake of churn (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 9 months ago | (#44345497)

One big difference: The supporters for Linux systems release updates that can be installed automagically on a regular basis. They may not deliver the latest release of the Linux kernel, but they do backport patches and fixes and roll those out on a regular basis. The handset vendors do not.

Make releases available to _partners_? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339709)

What's wrong with making new versions of an OS available to the users? Vendors have no incentive to push upgrades, they've already sold the phone, and they would have to adapt their additional ad/spyware. This will become the same mess as Android.

No hope against Apple. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44339877)

Apple is kicking Firefox and Google and Microsoft and Rim's asses ALL over the map. What do these *losers* all have in common? CRAP UI's, unusable non standard hardware with slow performance, bad battery life, NO apps worth talking about, etc etc.

Unless Firefox can somehow solve all of these problems and do it in a couple of months, they literally have no chance at all against the only company that matters in technology: Apple.

The only reasons to "update" any product are... (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 9 months ago | (#44339893)

...to fix defects and to add features.

If you must constantly update, your product is broken and your users are beta testers.

Re:The only reasons to "update" any product are... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44341343)

If you must constantly update, your product is broken and your users are beta testers.

All products not mathematically proven to be bug-free, and not containing every feature that the users could ever want, must be broken to you. So, are you computing on some of NASA's old cast-offs, or what?

Re:The only reasons to "update" any product are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44342903)

or if you're trying to boil a frog

Weeeee! (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 9 months ago | (#44339901)

I don't care what anyone says. The simulator is fun to play with. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Beta Testing? (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | about 9 months ago | (#44339993)

How do you even have time to thoroughly beta test things on a schedule like this? It seems run and gun and eventually people doing this kick their users in the nads with some security or stability flaw that SHOULD have been found with enough time to do it right.

Re:Beta Testing? (2)

caspy7 (117545) | about 9 months ago | (#44340961)

Since you seemed to have a potentially genuine question in there, I'll give it a shot.
Firefox has three 6 week long prerelease phases before a final release (Nightly, Aurora & Beta). Nightly is reserved for larger changes and then subsequent phases have increasing restrictions for code landings (always getting more strict before moving to the next phase). Each phase, of course, has an increasing number of users, with Beta having the most.
This way most of the code that's changed gets between 12 and 18 weeks of testing.
Mozilla has thousands of automated tests they run daily looking for stability, correctness, etc (and of course security reviews).
Chrome uses this same basic model.

Oh, I just saw you said "a schedule like this" referring to the new Firefox OS schedule. That would mean that the final releases will have been in testing for 30-36 weeks.
This does not seem "run and gun" to me.

nsa LOVES MOZILLA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44340021)

the reason for these fast doings is ...[censored for national security by nsa]

Pluggins, not featuritice (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 9 months ago | (#44340085)

I like the idea of pluggins for special features instead of building in gazillion features. Improve the meta model to make it easier to create pluggins rather than hard-code them all into the browser. Otherwise, the menus and dialogs will be Bible-sized.

Too aggressive (0)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 9 months ago | (#44340751)

I don't need more aggressive people, now I'll fear people with smartphones are out there to stalk me and shoot me and that the devices are concealed weapons. I know they have "point and shoot" cameras.

this is Stormy Peter's fault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44341217)

Stormy Peters is working for Mozilla now, and wherever that woman goes everything turns to dogshit. She was running the gnome foundation about the time gnome went batshit and has never recovered. Stormy Peters is a malignant idiot. When asked about sweatshop labor being used for all electronic devices she chirped back that all the foxconn slaves working 85 hours a week "should just learn a programming language and make their living from open source."

But why...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44342165)

This would only make sense when the OS, or non-core features could be updated without vendor involvement - behind the scenes, with a simple popup notification, just like the browser, or a desktop OS. Without that, it just produces fragmentation and consumer confusion.

this is all Robyn "Stormy" Peters' fault! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44345985)

Stormy Peters is working for Mozilla now, and wherever that woman goes everything turns to dogshit. She was running the gnome foundation about the time gnome went batshit and has never recovered. Stormy Peters is a malignant idiot. When asked about sweatshop labor being used for all electronic devices she chirped back that all the foxconn slaves working 85 hours a week "should just learn a programming language and make their living from open source."

Check for New 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...