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 1.1 Scrapped

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the doing-it-up-right dept.

Mozilla 482

An Anonymous Reader writes: "The Firefox team has decided to scrap the planned 1.1 release (already in Alpha 2) and instead release the final version as 1.5 due to the significant number of bug fixes and changes. The 1.5 feature complete beta is expected next month." From the article: "We are planning for a Firefox 2.0 and 3.0, but will divide the planned work over (at this point) three major Milestones, 1.5 (September 2005), 2.0 (unscheduled) and 3.0 (unscheduled). All major development work will be done on the Mozilla trunk, and these releases will coincide with Gecko version revs."

cancel ×

482 comments

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

First Prime Factorization Post (3, Funny)

2*2*3*75011 (900132) | about 9 years ago | (#13125155)

1.1 = 11/(2*5)

Mod parent up (1, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 9 years ago | (#13125380)

This is more amusing than 99.9% (3*3*3*37/2*2*2*5*5*5) of all the trolls out there. I generally dislike trolls, but this guy is unique, and worth of at least a short-term boost in karma.

This is all getting quite confusing... (1)

plazman30 (531348) | about 9 years ago | (#13125158)

These Mozilla folks need to make up their minds...

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (2, Insightful)

Iriel (810009) | about 9 years ago | (#13125246)

Then again, I'm not really complaining about it. All the available extensions out there have got to be giving the Mozilla development team more to consider for the next stable releases. Consider, also, that the other (major) alternatives are broken and commercial (IE and Opera). Not that the latter is bad, but for such a fantastic browser to be completely free and have a wide range of extendability is something that must be accounted for. Then again, if they've already changed the release schedule once, who's to say that they won't do it in our favor in the near future? All this talk of new features makes me want to start coding...

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (2, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125268)

Not that I use it, but I feel I must point out that IE is free. Isnt that kind of why opera gets crushed? It's a commercial software package squashed between an awesome free package that you need to download, and a sub-par package that likely comes with your computer. P.S. I dont use opera either.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (4, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | about 9 years ago | (#13125326)

IE is free


Free as in must pay for Windows to legally use it!
They scrapped their UNIX versions ages ago (yes they used to support Solaris and IRIX) and the Mac version when Safari was released.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (1)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125373)

I'd have to pay for windows to use wordpad too, but that doesnt mean I'd slap money down for it. As far as I see it, something is only really worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Obviously, nobody in their right mind would pay for IE, thus, the price is right. I could however see sevearl situations where someone would genuinely need Windows for something... like... i dont know, does jedi knight dark forces 2 run under wine?

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (5, Funny)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | about 9 years ago | (#13125530)

Internet Explorer is free about like it is free for me to have sex with my wife. Sure, no money changes hands for the act, but believe me, getting the package the sex is "bundled" with is very expensive.... Way too many diamonds, not enough pearl necklaces....
I am happy with Firefox. I do not think that I would ever pay for a browser however, even if it was really great. I guess we have all been conditioned to want free browsers....
Your browser is NOT Microsoft Internet Explorer. Close this window and re-open.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#13125388)

Well, it's not free. If I want to install it on my computer in my office, I'm going to have to install Windows, and that means I'm going to have to buy a license. Instead I have Firefox running on an Ubuntu install and don't need to pay any license fee.

The worst part of the tragedy of Microsoft's domination is the illusion that components like IE are actually free. I hate to break it to you, but you know the plastic toys inside cereal boxes that said "Free Whiz Bang Balloon Racer", well it wasn't free, and neither is Internet Explorer.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125454)

Firefox is not free either, because I must buy hardware to run it on.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing... (1)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125473)

Geez man, you knew what I meant, and I know you knew what I meant. My point was more for the bulk of home computer users, who, while I'd love to believe are ready for, willing to adopt, or even aware of awesome superior free alternatives to windows, generally arnt at least one of these things. For grandma sitting in some nursing home somewhere who knows how to use windows, I'd rather install firefox than try to convince her to shell out for opera.

Great. (1)

XanC (644172) | about 9 years ago | (#13125164)

I was really looking forward to 1.1. Beta next month, and it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".

Re:Great. (4, Funny)

Linus Torvaalds (876626) | about 9 years ago | (#13125497)

it's scheduled for release in (brace yourself): "??? 2005".

They must be planning to profit somehow.

Scrapped? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125167)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate and less alarmist to say that Firefox 1.1 will instead be called Firefox 1.5?

Re:Scrapped? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125298)

No, because if you read the post, it says that a 1.1 release would be different from a 1.5 release. The 1.1 release would simply fix some bugs without introducing many new features. The 1.5 release will contain the bug-fixes, as well as the new features. So, no, it would not be more appropriate to say that.

Re:Scrapped? (2, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | about 9 years ago | (#13125299)

You must be new here.

Welcome!

Please submit a bug report. (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 9 years ago | (#13125347)

Will fix on CVS :P

Just wording? (1)

theantipop (803016) | about 9 years ago | (#13125170)

This all seems like semantics to me. If their planning a beta release ni a month and a half, how were they gonna squeeze 1.1 in anyway? Either way, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want 2 browsers on my machine.

Re:Just wording? (1)

Packet Pusher (231564) | about 9 years ago | (#13125485)

I haven't seen anything out of Microsoft that would make me use their browser again either.

Re:Just wording? (1)

Pflipp (130638) | about 9 years ago | (#13125528)

Either way, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want 2 browsers on my machine.

Yeah, who would want that. That's why I don't do much with Opera on my Debian machine...

if you're gonna just throw it away... (5, Funny)

idiotdevel (654397) | about 9 years ago | (#13125172)

can i have it?

One small keystroke for a man... (5, Funny)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125175)

One small keystroke for a man, one giant leap forward for verison obscurity.

So shouldn't the headline be (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125180)

"Firefox 1.1 renamed"?

Re:So shouldn't the headline be (1)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125320)

Firefox 1.1: Renamed, Reloaded, and ready to kick the intraweb's ass! ....well, almost ready... maybe in a couple of months; dont go crazy! were just letting you know it will be called something differnt, you'll still have to wait unless your uber and dload the nightlies, and if you are uber, which, i really want to believe you are, you're really going to love it when we change firefox 1.5 to firefox 5.1 in a crazy "wtf" switchup 2.5 weeks from now.

Logic (1, Funny)

Almond Paste (838493) | about 9 years ago | (#13125181)

I had no idea there actually was any logic behind version numbers, besides that newer versions tend to have a higher number.

Re:Logic (3, Interesting)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125211)

There isnt any logic behind version numbers, that's why they're making news out of stuff like this.
As far as i'm concerned, I don't really care about what version number my browser is, as long as it's the latest, and it doesn't start with IE.

Re:Logic (1)

antonymous (828776) | about 9 years ago | (#13125549)

I don't think FF developers are making "news" out of this, rather someone just stumbled across this page and said, "WTF! No version 1.1?? Unleash the /. masses!!"

Re:Logic (3, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | about 9 years ago | (#13125252)

besides that newer versions tend to have a higher number.

"No see I'm version 1.1. Before me was 2.5, 3.4, and 4.2. Its a long story involving a time machine and version numbers."

Re:Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125411)

Heheh... Gotta love HG2G references.

I personally am glad that they're naming the version according to how big of an improvement it is.

Trillian used to be the same, but they cerulean studios realized they were doing it wrong, releasing huge versions with a .01 bump in version number.

Re:Logic (2, Funny)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125418)

besides that newer versions tend to have a higher number.

Dont forget the wonderful "beta" qualifier which totally throws what you said to the wind.
Beta 1.0->2.0->3.0->....16.0->1.0!

Dodgeball reference. (4, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 9 years ago | (#13125194)

Anyone else notice that Firefox 2.0 is codenamed "The Ocho"?

Re:Dodgeball reference. (1)

abh (22332) | about 9 years ago | (#13125256)

Yikes. So not only do they try to be corny and clever and show they're "hip", they do it and also make themselves look retarded. Version 2 is the Ocho? I wonder what they'll call Version 8...

Re:Dodgeball reference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125289)

"Deuce"

Re:Dodgeball reference. (1)

mnemonic_ (164550) | about 9 years ago | (#13125319)

They should just call it Version 9. You know, like how Netscape skipped version 5 ftw.

Re:Dodgeball reference. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125359)

In Bizarro Solaris World, 2 = 8, so why not Firefox too?

Re:Dodgeball reference. (1)

codergeek42 (792304) | about 9 years ago | (#13125305)

Well "Ocho" means "eight" in spanish but I guess they didn't want to use the spanish "two": "dos". That's just way too much versioning confusion there. ;-)

They really need to fix autoupdate (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | about 9 years ago | (#13125200)

I was running 1.0.4 and just happened to notice the mozilla.org slashblurb about a new version. I checked and the new version was 1.0.6 which had major security updates, yet when I did Tools->Options->Advanced->Software update nothing was found (and this is simply a manual way to trigger the normal update mechanism). If the update software can't find a new version with major security updates then what good is it?

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate (5, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 9 years ago | (#13125329)

If you read the comments yesterday you would have found that mozilla does staggered updates to ease the pressure on their servers and hence the auto update feature will be working in a day or two.

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate (1)

GweeDo (127172) | about 9 years ago | (#13125355)

They do a staggard release to help bandwidth issues. It is released to the FTP servers/mirrors first, then hits the auto update servers.

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate (3, Insightful)

abh (22332) | about 9 years ago | (#13125446)

Interesting practice, but imagine the outcry that would happen if Microsoft did this...

"What! They know there's a security problem but they only release it in some places! And auto-update doesn't work for a couple days! This is ludicrous... switch to open source!"

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate (2, Insightful)

mpathetiq (726625) | about 9 years ago | (#13125550)

You just described exactly what happened with XP SP2. Auto-updates were staggered, but you could do a manual update at any time.

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate (5, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | about 9 years ago | (#13125405)

One of the main advantages of 1.5 is the improved update system. Everyone knows that the 1.0 one was not up to scratch that's why they spent a lot of effort improving it. Based on current nightlies I'd say they've done a good job.

Version Numbers (5, Funny)

Hachey (809077) | about 9 years ago | (#13125207)

I'm just glad we are out of the 0.X realm. That was really hurting Firefox's street cred to be below 1.0 --- I'm for the rapid growth of Firefox's version number. We gotta catch up IE7 and Opera 8.


--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org [uncyclopedia.org] :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing [uncyclopedia.org] and Pong! the Movie [uncyclopedia.org] !

Re:Version Numbers (0, Flamebait)

Aadain2001 (684036) | about 9 years ago | (#13125412)

I'd trust a Firefox version 0.X more than a MS version 10 any day!

Re:Version Numbers (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 9 years ago | (#13125430)

Bloated, seemingly meaningless version numbers are exactly what we don't want. Firefox is good software, we don't want it to go the way of netscape...

Which is now run from the same rendering engine...

Re:Version Numbers (1)

Compholio (770966) | about 9 years ago | (#13125546)

We gotta catch up IE7 and Opera 8.

I say we just skip to 10, Firefox is way more stable and secure - we could make the claim for a skip to version 10 :)

arg... i'm so confused (2)

ohyedoggies (859303) | about 9 years ago | (#13125209)

can anyone just tell me, plain and simple, when MozillaBird 2.8 is coming out?

Name change again! (0, Redundant)

wild_berry (448019) | about 9 years ago | (#13125210)

So they pick a different number for the next widely-available and publicly-distributed version of the browser. Slashdot has sensational headline, with the late movie still starting at 10pm.

In truth, it's only a new name, and I've got used to that from MoFo...

The version number game (2, Interesting)

riflemann (190895) | about 9 years ago | (#13125217)

Interesting to see that FF has to play catcup on the version number game.

Are people really that silly to think that the (soon to be released) IE7.0 is almost 6 versions "ahead" of FF?

I guess this is a sacrifice we need to make to get some of the mum&dad market.

Re:The version number game (1)

doughrama (172715) | about 9 years ago | (#13125284)

I get your point.

But do you really think that version 1.5 as opposed to version 1.1 is going to get uninformed consumers that much more excited?

Re:The version number game (1)

computerdude33 (890573) | about 9 years ago | (#13125303)

"Are people really that silly to think that the (soon to be released) IE7.0 is almost 6 versions "ahead" of FF?"

The sad truth is, yes.

Re:The version number game (1)

Ki Master George (768244) | about 9 years ago | (#13125448)

Are people really that silly to think that the (soon to be released) IE7.0 is almost 6 versions "ahead" of FF?

Uh... yeah.... since when have people not been silly? I'd like to meet these people--although I imagine they would be sort of boring.

Re:The version number game (1)

zev1983 (792397) | about 9 years ago | (#13125452)

I think a good way to describe it to people that don't understand software versioning is to ask them which is better, the 9th revision of a Ford Taurus, or the 2nd revision of a .

Steal The Thunder (1)

Jeet81 (613099) | about 9 years ago | (#13125219)

Steal Microsoft's thunder and release it right after IE 7. :)

Steal The Thunder and Double It (5, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 years ago | (#13125251)

Steal Microsoft's thunder and release it right after IE 7. :)

Even better, release it right after IE 7 and say it's the bug fix for IE 7.

Re:Steal The Thunder (0, Redundant)

Otter (3800) | about 9 years ago | (#13125307)

...and instead of jumping from 1.0 to 1.5, call it Firefox 8.0!

Re:Steal The Thunder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125466)

You think it's funny, but just why do you think 2.0 is called "The Ocho?"

Just wait and see...

Re:Steal The Thunder (1)

heauxmeaux (869966) | about 9 years ago | (#13125486)

You underestimate the power of the dark side. No amount of FF re-versioning will ever put a dent in the IE juggernaut. You are in an OSS induced brain-haze my friend.
The bubble popped. MS won. Get over it.

Re:Steal The Thunder (1)

Haydn Fenton (752330) | about 9 years ago | (#13125538)

Steal the thunder my ass.

The only reason people use IE over FF is because they're ignorant. The majority of people (according to website stats) still use IE.
If they use IE now, why would they even consider swapping to FF when their much-loved browser gets a huge update with all the features and security measures they think they need?

Alternatively, they release FF before IE7, get a bunch of publicity and some more users while they can.

Don't play games with MS. They have enough money to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and they more than likely WILL win. They can afford advertisements that reach everywhere, they have the brand name people recognise and talk about, they have the lawyers and bank balance to threaten or destroy businesses.

Why take risks? Do whatever you can while the big boys are busy getting their toys ready.

Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug? (1, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 years ago | (#13125230)

Please, say it's so!

I've lost two FireFox potential converts over this issue just this week.

Re:Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125382)

They should make launch.yahoo.com use valid HTML, just like all good music sites [gnu.org] do [w3.org] .

Re:Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug (2, Insightful)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | about 9 years ago | (#13125498)

Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug?

Why would it be Firefox's job to provide a workaround for Yahoo's bad browser-detection routine?

Nonsensical change (1, Redundant)

Anspen (673098) | about 9 years ago | (#13125248)

Seems like a silly vanity decision. If the changes are not big enough for a 2.0 just make it 1.1.

Especially a piece of software that in its 1.x.x run so far hasn't even done a .1 change.

This will only confuse people. "Oh No! I missed versions 1.1-1.4!"

Re:Nonsensical change (5, Funny)

hendridm (302246) | about 9 years ago | (#13125353)

This will only confuse people. "Oh No! I missed versions 1.1-1.4!"

That's okay. Those people are too busy looking for Windows 96-97.

Re:Nonsensical change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125415)

Or, you know, they might just think it's version One-and-a-half. No, wait, that would be silly.

Re:Nonsensical change (1)

Miros (734652) | about 9 years ago | (#13125525)

Software version numbers mean about as much to the average user as those numbers in the upper right hand corner of your monitor [i know you just looked ] and those foolish numbers PC makers put on their machines. Now, find yourself wondering what happened to the Compaq V699, then, realize you do not care.

Good. (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 9 years ago | (#13125250)

I think this is a good move and bumping the version numbers will help differentiate it better than a really minor point release. There is no reason that open source software should follow really miserly versioning while commercial software keeps bumping version numbers big time to increase upgrades.

Excited (2, Interesting)

nexxuz (895394) | about 9 years ago | (#13125280)

I am really looking forward to this upcomming release. Maybe the "It's not M$ so its not as good" people in my office will actually open their eyes to better software. (I belive that the only reason that they still use M$ is because that can set it on "auto-pilot" and just sit back)

Re:Excited (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | about 9 years ago | (#13125490)

If you haven't convinced them so far, a number of bug fixes and (largely) invisible upgrades aren't really going to do much.

Seems to be bigger jumps (3, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | about 9 years ago | (#13125288)

It now looks like what was 1.1 will be 1.5, what was 1.5 will be 2.0 and what was 2.0 will be 3.0

This makes some sense, a lot more work on what was 1.1 has taken place (mainly on the automatic update and enterprise deployment side) so it warrants a 1.5 designation.

Whether 2.0 and 3.0 will be significantly different then we won't know until the time but as long as the product is good people will use it. I used it back in the 0.x days (before it was even called Firefox) and it still beat IE and the Mozilla suite in many ways. So whatever version numbering scheme they use is fine by me.

Can you read this? (5, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | about 9 years ago | (#13125315)

I've spent the morning reading WONTFIX bugs on the Firefox text zoom issue. I'm feeling down on the browser just now.

There is no good option for making text zoom permanent if you have bad eyes. You can kludge by zooming default fonts and then disabling everything else in CSS.

The people working on Firefox are not interested in fixing this because "text zoom breaks page layouts." The fix that they've decided on, which may or may not come someday, is a page zoom feature that zooms everything. (Raise your hand if you love sideways scrolling.)

I am amazed at the lack of consideration for people with bad eyes -- it's not a small number of people either. Mozilla composer bends over backwards to enforce alt tags for images, but when it comes to usability nobody cares.

Maybe we'll start to see some consideration of this sort of thing once the average age of open source coders hits 50 and they find themselves having to squint more often.

Re:Can you read this? (1)

an_mo (175299) | about 9 years ago | (#13125379)

Isn't there a firefox extension to do that? I read yesterday about that. SHouldn't be hard to find.

Re:Can you read this? (2, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | about 9 years ago | (#13125505)

There probably is an extension. The one I was able to find hadn't been updated in some time and didn't work with the last few releases, but I didn't scour the extensions page. I could probably find something if I were interested in using this myself.

Saying "that doesn't matter, it's fixed by an extension" is one of the big problems with Firefox. This is a basic usability issue. Is it going to be fixed in the browser itself, or will it get shuffled off into extension-land where it has to depend on some random maintainer fixing it for every new release of Firefox? I see "there's an extension for that" way too often in response to Firefox usability issues. It's holding back innovation.

Re:Can you read this? (4, Informative)

generic-man (33649) | about 9 years ago | (#13125416)

Just get Opera. For years (as in, since their Windows 3.1 days) they've supported a zoom feature that enlarges text, graphics, and even Flash animations. They also support CSS-based modifications that, with one or two mouse clicks, render a site easily readable by anyone with bad eyes, no tolerance for Comic Sans, and/or people who disagree with the decision to render a page in 7-point grey-on-white text [nynewsday.com] .

Firefox and its army of extension developers will eventually re-implement Opera, but in the meantime the real thing is much better.

Re:Can you read this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125459)

wouldn't it be better to get some glasses than to complain to the developers that you have bad eye sight?

Re:Can you read this? (4, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | about 9 years ago | (#13125472)

They do have a preference where you can set the minimum font size which would make things easy to read for you while not zooming text that's already big enough to read.

Look in prefereces/options for fonts and there's a pref to set the minimum font size. It's not like it's a hidden pref or anything it's in the standard dialog

Re:Can you read this? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 years ago | (#13125477)

I've spent the morning reading WONTFIX bugs on the Firefox text zoom issue. I'm feeling down on the browser just now.

Yeah, well, there's tons of WONTFIX bugs for music in FireFox as well, and that's usually the deal breaker for early adopters.

Sad, really, as FireFox is my browser of choice.

Re:Can you read this? (1)

Ki Master George (768244) | about 9 years ago | (#13125502)

I think average open source coders either a) already have hit fifty or b) never will hit fifty, because so many new open source developers will come along constantly.

Re:Can you read this? (1)

loggia (309962) | about 9 years ago | (#13125516)

Thumbs down, Firefox.

Re:Can you read this? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | about 9 years ago | (#13125537)

There is no good option for making text zoom permanent if you have bad eyes.

Have you tried specifying a CSS user stylesheet? According to the CSS specification, user styles are supposed to supercede any styles delivered by the content provider (excepting those flagged !important, which almost no one does)...

Again blame it on MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125316)

Firefox 1.1 Scrapped - It's all Microsoft's fault!!

I'd be happy if (2, Interesting)

FreshlyShornBalls (849004) | about 9 years ago | (#13125327)

...they stopped new development on Firefox altogether and got Thunderbird a little more stable. Oh.....and they need to get that lightning calendar [mozilla.org] integration working, too. Then I could actually think about moving my organization over...

Re:I'd be happy if (2, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | about 9 years ago | (#13125508)

Different people work on Firefox than work on Thunderbird and lightning. Most of the developers work on whatever interests them or wherever their particular skills lie.

People working on Firefox is not stopping those who want to work on other projects doing so (and Thunderbird is coming on well too, just a little bit more slowly than Firefox)

Firefox 7.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125330)

Do you think they'll have Firefox 7.0 ready for Longhorn?

Sorry for my dyslexia (3, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 9 years ago | (#13125403)

Do you think they'll have Firefox 7.0 ready for Longhorn?

Sorry for my dyslexia, but did you say "Do you think they'll have Longhorn ready for Firefox 7.0"?

YAY! More broken plug-ins! (0, Flamebait)

qube99 (652571) | about 9 years ago | (#13125337)

I can't wait to upgrade to this, find out that half the plug-ins don't work and spend 2 hours trying to get 1.0.4 to work again.

I'm switching back to IE or the AOL Explorer if this keeps up.

Re:YAY! More broken plug-ins! (2, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 9 years ago | (#13125398)

I would suggest opera as a better choice.

Re:YAY! More broken plug-ins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125427)

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, bud.

Re:YAY! More broken plug-ins! (1)

qube99 (652571) | about 9 years ago | (#13125462)

Maybe you have time to futz around with software to get it to work. There are a lot of us out there that expect when a developer releases something, that it uh....WORKS! 1.0.5 was a mess. 1.0.6 was just as big of a mess.

Between Firefox and the junk Symantec has been releasing lately, developers have gotten too arrogant. Just test your stuff before you send it out there.

Alas, SVG (2, Interesting)

BobGregg (89162) | about 9 years ago | (#13125369)

The timing of this seems very unfortunate. With 1.1, we were likely only a month or so away from having real, native SVG support in a major browser - and likely *before* IE7 was released. That might have given SVG a chance to be noticed for real by the public in a way that hasn't happened yet; maybe even enough to put pressure on the IE team to actually implement it themselves.

With the new delays, there's every chance that the IE7 betas will be out before SVG has a chance to become noticed by the general public. That just seems... unfortunate.

Re:Alas, SVG (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125527)

SVG is useless unless it's advertised in the accept header and it wasn't when the DP nightlies last ran on Win32 without bombing.

So what's different? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125393)

Are the memory leaks fixed now?

Slashdot should be more positive (4, Interesting)

linebackn (131821) | about 9 years ago | (#13125419)

Does slashdot suddenly have something against Mozilla / Firefox? This reminds me of the "Mozilla suite discontinued" and the "Thunderbird (some version) canceled" stories. These could EASILY be re-worded to put a more positive spin on it.

How about: Firefox leaps ahead to 1.5!

Going on to describe: The vast number of improvements to Firefox has warranted a larger version increase, skipping over 1.1 the next release will be 1.5...

Similarly the previous stories could have been "Mozilla.org focuses exclusively on Firefox" and "Thunderbird flies ahead to version (number)".

Of course it didn't help the previous two were copied out of context from Mozillazine articles. Hmm... I don't see anything about this at all on Mozillazine yet.

Anyway Slashdot should be trying to help Mozilla.org and Firefox, not trying to sensationalize every change.

Re:Slashdot should be more positive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125436)

Slashdot is a news website, not a propaganda outlet.

I think Slashdot has been exceptionally fair in reporting these stories.

Corporate deployments (4, Interesting)

plazman30 (531348) | about 9 years ago | (#13125421)

Having worked in a corporate infrastrucuture for far too long, I have to sadly say, that the biggest enterprise drawback to the use of FireFox is the lack of a Admin kit, that would allow you to customize which extensions you push out with Firefox.

It would also be nice to have an MSI based installer for easy deployments via exisiting application deployment engines (AD, SMS, Zenworks, etc) and the ability to customize the broser via Group Policy.

I know all of these only apply to the Windows world, but I think these kind of things would help Firefox in the long run.

Anyone remember this from 2 days ago? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125443)

The Future of Firefox
On July 19th, 2005 with 396 comments
sebFlyte writes "As Firefox moves swiftly towards 1.1 and Internet Explorer keeps trundling towards IE7, ZDNet UK has an interesting set of articles about..."

Swiftly!!!!!!!

-AC

Is there any plan to ... (4, Insightful)

roubles (716740) | about 9 years ago | (#13125461)

Is there any plan to start merging the most popular extensions into the browser itself ?

I've noticed the biggest complaint people have with upgrades is that they render their extensions/themes incompatible.

Also, it must be a pain for the extension authors to maintain extensions across so many different releases.

If something is exteremely popular, maybe it should be part of the browser to begin with. Especially since so many people want it.

Doing so will mitigate the upgrade issues, and they'll end up with a more functional browser.

Evident reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13125515)

They are wasting too much time with these realeses.

Making a RC, plus follow bugs, plus addons reviews, translate everything, etc

It can be much better if they make a few betas or RC that will be quite tested by advanced users.

Reccomendations for FF (0, Troll)

Khyber (864651) | about 9 years ago | (#13125519)

I'd like to point out that many of the problems now found with FireFox came about when smart script kiddies and coders found out that Java is a useful way to screw up someone's computer. Same thing with Flash.

My recommendation for the Mozilla development team is to include the support for Java and Flash within their program, BUT disable it by default, and force users to enable it when they want to. I know this sounds screwed up, but to many degrees this wil make FireFox even safer, as most users are unaware that FireFox can potentially be just as vulnerable.

One of the people I do side work for called me a couple of weeks ago, and told me she was having problems with FF. I went over to her place, and found out she had gone past my disabling Java and installing FlashBlock. She removed Flashblock (having played many flash games and gotten addicted to them) and her gmail wouldn't function the way she wanted it to with Java disabled. Of course, needless to say, she visited some site that installed some stuff thru Firefox thanks to Java. She was riddled with worms and trojans. It was so bad i had to wipe her computer clean, to her chagrin. I told her "If you try to work around my own security measures that I implement on my own system to keep my system secure, you're bound to run into problems." It took about ten hours of explaining to her and demonstrating on her laptop (boy, she hated that) how Java can screw her system up, as well as Flash. It took me less than ten minutes to use flash to riddle the laptop with spyware. She's learned her lesson (after wiping out both her harddrives) and now she won't dare get around any security I implement.

The trick here, is to educate people on what's real and what's not. Sitting around doing nothing about it but griping is not going to help, it's only going to exacerbate the problem. People need to constantly and continually educate those with less knowledge, otherwise we're going to trap ourselves into allowing the uneducated masses make the bigger decisions for us.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>