PDA

View Full Version : Firefox constantly behind schedule, what should be done?



kahumba
June 21st, 2010, 07:56 PM
Hi,
I'm a bit grumpy about Firefox lately,
Since at least version 2.0 all versions of Firefox were too late behind schedule, sometimes by a year or so.
Let's take version 3.6.4, it's more then just a minor update cause it brings OOPP, it was about to be released by April, then by the start of May, then by mid May, then by 1st June, then pushed back again several times and so we're at June 21 and it's still not released, and that's not even a full-fledged point release.

Now, Firefox 4.0 is scheduled for November 2010 which I find funny cause by analyzing the way Firefox evolved so far and how it missed every possible schedule and that 4.0 is a major update, perhaps the biggest one - it'll most likely be released by Summer 2011 at best.

I also find it a bit frustrating that Mozilla still insists on developing its own JavaScript engine despite having proven that it can't compete with Apple and Google. Its "new" engine, Jaeger-monkey, is still a lot slower than the competition, so IMO Mozilla should just drop this effort, adopt Google's V8 JavaScript engine and it would have more developers working on other parts of the browser where it can compete, it's a win-win solution for anyone, except for Mozilla's ego which clearly suffers from the NIH (not invented here) syndrome, but it wouldn't admit it.
I'm sure it's worth it, it's possible and relatively easy to get Firefox to use Google's V8 JavaScript engine because it's not like trying to move Firefox from Gecko to WebKit (I'm even implying it should, just comparing the efforts).

Since there's a lot more competition in the browser world than it was when Firefox was born - do you think it's a serious issue and what should be done?

EDIT: Please don't confuse VP8 (the codec) with V8 (the JavaScript engine from Google).

PurposeOfReason
June 21st, 2010, 08:02 PM
I think firefox is dying and good riddance at that. There are far lighter, more efficient browsers out there that don't bloat with extensions, follow web standards better and are more stable. I'm looking at you chrome.

unknownPoster
June 21st, 2010, 08:04 PM
I think firefox is dying and good riddance at that. There are far lighter, more efficient browsers out there that don't bloat with extensions, follow web standards better and are more stable. I'm looking at you chrome.

Any proof to back that up?

(As far as dying is concerned.)

PurposeOfReason
June 21st, 2010, 08:06 PM
Any proof to back that up?

(As far as dying is concerned.)
Still growing, but look at these three.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Firefox

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Chrome

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Safari

If the later two continue to grow at that rate they're going to have to steal market from IE and FF. As HTML5 gets bigger it is my opinion that this will happen at a dramatic rate.

alphaniner
June 21st, 2010, 08:07 PM
Stop using it.

Or, be the change you want to see in the browser.

zandrace
June 21st, 2010, 08:07 PM
Here is a start

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html

KiwiNZ
June 21st, 2010, 08:20 PM
Its free

How about helping with the project :rolleyes:

unknownPoster
June 21st, 2010, 08:28 PM
Its free

How about helping with the project :rolleyes:

Exactly.

Hard to complain about something that is completely free.

Dekrus
June 21st, 2010, 08:29 PM
How about developing extensions that make it run faster?

BrokenKingpin
June 21st, 2010, 08:36 PM
I just recently started using Chromium to see what it is like (was using FF), and I have to say I am really liking it thus far. It seems faster and more stable, and does better with flash!

chris200x9
June 21st, 2010, 08:37 PM
I think the fall of vp8 lies within firefox, I mean if you were creating html content would you go for h.264 or vp8? I mean chrome supports both, safari supports h.264, IE with supprt "both" but mainly h.264 the only one that supports only vp8 is opera which has a small market share. Firefox supports neither. I mean wasn't the point, by proxy, of open sourcing vp8 giving firefox a leg to stand on and push the standard? It is my opinion firefox should have worked their hardest to get vp8 support into 3.6.4. As it stands now it's like "we will have vp8 support by lat 2010....maybe..." By the time that happens vp8 will lose ground to h.264 and we will be in the same boat as with theora.

SunnyRabbiera
June 21st, 2010, 08:42 PM
I think firefox is dying and good riddance at that. There are far lighter, more efficient browsers out there that don't bloat with extensions, follow web standards better and are more stable. I'm looking at you chrome.
But chrome took forever to come to linux, plus it has questionable privacy policies and its extensions in my mind are not nearly as good as their firefox counterparts.

Thelasko
June 21st, 2010, 08:44 PM
If you absolutely must have bleeding edge software on Ubuntu, you can use a PPA.

Here's the PPA for Firefox. (https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa)

Unfortunately, you will sacrifice stability as a result.

When I ran Hardy (up to last week) I used a few PPA's. I would recommend having a back up plan if one of the daily builds doesn't work.

For example: I used the PPA version of Chromium. Every so often it wouldn't work. However, I still had Firefox 3.0 installed as a back up.

EDIT: Sorry, I kind of missed the point of the parent post. I thought he/she was complaining about Ubuntu being behind on the Firefox releases (which does happen). Not Firefox pushing back deadlines.

KiraLexi
June 21st, 2010, 08:44 PM
I think the fall of vp8 lies within firefox, I mean if you were creating html content would you go for h.264 or vp8? I mean chrome supports both, safari supports h.264, IE with supprt "both" but mainly h.264 the only one that supports only vp8 is opera which has a small market share. Firefox supports neither. I mean wasn't the point, by proxy, of open sourcing vp8 giving firefox a leg to stand on and push the standard? It is my opinion firefox should have worked their hardest to get vp8 support into 3.6.4. As it stands now it's like "we will have vp8 support by lat 2010....maybe..." By the time that happens vp8 will lose ground to h.264 and we will be in the same boat as with theora.

The current FF 3.7 (soon to be rebranded 4.0) nightlies support VP8...

chris200x9
June 21st, 2010, 08:51 PM
The current FF 3.7 (soon to be rebranded 4.0) nightlies support VP8...

I know, but that's like saying 1-3% of firefox users who actually use nightlies can use vp8, until it's in a release no one is using it. No one using vp8 only = vp8 fail.

kahumba
June 21st, 2010, 09:15 PM
The current FF 3.7 (soon to be rebranded 4.0) nightlies support VP8...

Folks, please note that I said V8, not VP8, I also added this edit to my first post for other people not to confuse it:


EDIT: Please don't confuse VP8 (the codec) with V8 (the JavaScript engine from Google).

PurposeOfReason
June 21st, 2010, 09:38 PM
But chrome took forever to come to linux, plus it has questionable privacy policies and its extensions in my mind are not nearly as good as their firefox counterparts.
Learn marketing, Windows came first for a reason. You can turn off all privacy policies you don't like or use chromium. As for extensions, that's a sad reason to keep FF around.

Old Marcus
June 21st, 2010, 09:40 PM
I happen to...

Like Firefox! SHOCK! HORROR! BURN THE HERETIC! etc...

I have never had trouble with speed, and never saw much improvement with Chrome.

wewantutopia
June 21st, 2010, 09:54 PM
I agree with Old Marcus. I am quite happy with Firefox. Speed/stability is just fine with me. Plus, I don't like the UI of Chrome.

Xianath
June 21st, 2010, 09:57 PM
The average software project is late by 100%, 20% of all software projects are over 200% late, and 35% never see the light of day. In light of that, Firefox is actually doing pretty well, especially given that it's open source (i.e. no project management).

PurposeOfReason
June 21st, 2010, 10:01 PM
The average software project is late by 100%, 20% of all software projects are over 200% late, and 35% never see the light of day. In light of that, Firefox is actually doing pretty well, especially given that it's open source (i.e. no project management).

Wait, you think open source means no management? If so, I have nothing more to say ITT. Also, citation needed for those stats.

zekopeko
June 21st, 2010, 10:08 PM
Hi,
I'm a bit grumpy about Firefox lately,
Since at least version 2.0 all versions of Firefox were too late behind schedule, sometimes by a year or so.
Let's take version 3.6.4, it's more then just a minor update cause it brings OOPP, it was about to be released by April, then by the start of May, then by mid May, then by 1st June, then pushed back again several times and so we're at June 21 and it's still not released, and that's not even a full-fledged point release.

Now, Firefox 4.0 is scheduled for November 2010 which I find funny cause by analyzing the way Firefox evolved so far and how it missed every possible schedule and that 4.0 is a major update, perhaps the biggest one - it'll most likely be released by Summer 2011 at best.

So it's bad to release a product when you think it's ready? Every project should be run on a tight schedule like Ubuntu?


I also find it a bit frustrating that Mozilla still insists on developing its own JavaScript engine despite having proven that it can't compete with Apple and Google. Its "new" engine, Jaeger-monkey, is still a lot slower than the competition, so IMO Mozilla should just drop this effort, adopt Google's V8 JavaScript engine and it would have more developers working on other parts of the browser where it can compete, it's a win-win solution for anyone, except for Mozilla's ego which clearly suffers from the NIH (not invented here) syndrome, but it wouldn't admit it.
I'm sure it's worth it, it's possible and relatively easy to get Firefox to use Google's V8 JavaScript engine because it's not like trying to move Firefox from Gecko to WebKit (I'm even implying it should, just comparing the efforts).

BS. Mozilla can compete with Apple and Google. The competition helps all browsers (that are released under a FOSS licence).

Dustin2128
June 21st, 2010, 11:13 PM
With all the argument, I must voice my own opinion.. who cares? Diversity is a good thing. Just use whatever floats your boat. For instance, I like firefox but opera feels 'snappier' and has amazing features, so I use opera. There does not have to be one dominant browser, that promotes stagnation in development, if anyone needs proof just look at IE6. The future of browsers is either cloud computing (hope not) or variety, something like 20% IE, 30% FF with the remaining 50% being taken by many different browsers. As long as it conforms to standards (I'm looking at you IE :evil:) it does not matter.

Windows Nerd
June 22nd, 2010, 12:15 AM
Oh no, what should we do!?

Stop complaining, and be thankful that many people have voluteered their time to develop a web browser that is done very well. I have no problem with firefox and think it is fast enough.

Scott

kahumba
June 22nd, 2010, 01:12 PM
So it's bad to release a product when you think it's ready? Every project should be run on a tight schedule like Ubuntu?

BS. Mozilla can compete with Apple and Google. The competition helps all browsers (that are released under a FOSS licence).

Don't hijack my point. I said Mozilla has proven it can't compete with Apple and Google when it comes to the JavaScript engine, not in any aspect.

I'm also talking about Mozilla being distinctively stubborn about setting unrealistic schedules and that its JavaScript engine has been a loser to Apple and Google since they started the JavaScript JIT effort, almost 2 years have passed since then and nothing changed, time to make conclusions for Mozilla, but it refuses to cause the NIH syndrome won't allow them to so they still keep working on a JIT that is still a loser. These are facts.

Are you willing to hijack what I'm saying once again and talk about "stop complaining (as if I were)" or something alike? I know "fans" like using such tactics to fend off info they don't like and can't dispose cause it's based on facts.

K.Mandla
June 22nd, 2010, 02:33 PM
Hi,
I'm a bit grumpy about Firefox lately. ...
You're absolutely positively right on all points, and my suggestion is to download the code, fix it, and rerelease it as your own. You can call it Firefix'd. :P

Xianath
June 22nd, 2010, 03:08 PM
Wait, you think open source means no management? If so, I have nothing more to say ITT. Also, citation needed for those stats.

1. Lederer, Albert L., and Jayesh Prasad. 1992. Nine Management Guidelines for Better Cost Estimating. Communications of the ACM 35(2):51-59.
2. Standish Group International, Inc. The. 2001. Extreme Chaos. http://www.smallfootprint.com/Portals/0/StandishGroupExtremeChaos2001.pdf

Any group of creative individuals with strong egos will pull a project in their direction because they want their ideas to see the world. Trust me. I just had to quench a discussion on how a confirmation dialog box should look like that has been going for over two days and two dozen emails! It's not exclusive to open-source development, but commercial software has people who make the final call, good or bad -- with all the consequences for the project and themselves. Some open projects -- eg. the Linux kernel and postfix -- also do. Other open projects follow development practices such as timeboxed releases (Ubuntu), don't-call-it-stable-till-it-is (Debian) and so on. The majority, however, are just chaotic.

zekopeko
June 22nd, 2010, 04:01 PM
Don't hijack my point. I said Mozilla has proven it can't compete with Apple and Google when it comes to the JavaScript engine, not in any aspect.

I'm also talking about Mozilla being distinctively stubborn about setting unrealistic schedules and that its JavaScript engine has been a loser to Apple and Google since they started the JavaScript JIT effort, almost 2 years have passed since then and nothing changed, time to make conclusions for Mozilla, but it refuses to cause the NIH syndrome won't allow them to so they still keep working on a JIT that is still a loser. These are facts.

Again BS. Mozilla improved the speed of their JS engine with every release. They might not be at the top for now but they are getting there. And you keep bringing up this NIH syndrome with little to no facts to back it up. It's quite the opposite. They are going to use parts of Apple's Nitro engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TraceMonkey#J.C3.A4gerMonkey


Are you willing to hijack what I'm saying once again and talk about "stop complaining (as if I were)" or something alike? I know "fans" like using such tactics to fend off info they don't like and can't dispose cause it's based on facts.

All the problem areas you mentioned are being addressed as we speak. On this machine I'm running Fx 3.7 and it's on par with Chrome in terms of speed.

Since benchmarks are your thing here is one: http://arewefastyet.com/

Austin25
June 22nd, 2010, 04:30 PM
Well, at least their is a stable version. For people waiting for the Pandora console, they waited well over a year after preorders. They didn't have anything but the blog and forum. Many still don't have their's.

lovinglinux
June 22nd, 2010, 11:01 PM
Let's take version 3.6.4, it's more then just a minor update cause it brings OOPP, it was about to be released by April, then by the start of May, then by mid May, then by 1st June, then pushed back again several times and so we're at June 21 and it's still not released, and that's not even a full-fledged point release.

It has been released today.

Stancel
June 22nd, 2010, 11:21 PM
The only reason Chrome might catch up with Firefox in popularity is because Google is a powerful company with hugely popular Internet services and Firefox is made by.....the Mozilla Foundation.

But I wouldn't be so hasty to say that Firefox is dying. Let's see when Firefox 4 comes out in November.

doorknob60
June 22nd, 2010, 11:49 PM
Do you want them to release it when it's not ready? No...you can help by reporting bugs, donating, etc. It's free, what more can you ask for? And I don't see Firefox dying anytime soon. It's gonna remain the #2 for quite some time.

Superkoop
June 22nd, 2010, 11:57 PM
I tend to vote with my feet... I use Chrome...

I can't actually change anything, for lack of time and mostly interest, I do what I can.
Firefox is nice, but I've reached the point where I prefer simple/slim/fast over large.