Do you like Firefox rapid release model?

[lovinglinux]

There is a lot of discussion lately about the new rapid release model adopted by Mozilla. As an add-on developer and "power user", I had some concerns, but am really starting to love it.

Here are some of the reasons I like it:


New features and improvements are being delivered faster than ever. We can clearly see considerable performance improvement since Firefox 4.

Add-on compatibility has been always an issue when deciding to upgrade. When Firefox 4 was released it took a lot of time to get compatibility for all the extensions I use. With the new release model and automatic compatibility bump, extensions that do not have incompatible code are being updated automatically, so we don't need to wait for the developers to take action.

Because of the new release model, the Ubuntu MozillaTeam provides a firefox-stable ppa and firefox-next ppa. Additionally, Ubuntu official repositories are now delivering Firefox updates that we wouldn't get without a ppa.

When a new version was released before, there were so many changes, that I had to re-write many things in the extensions code. Now, show stopper changes between versions are less common and most of the time I don't even need to edit my extensions.

When Firefox 3.6 gets retired, there will be only one Firefox stable branch and users will move faster to newer versions, thus there will be less need to keep backwards compatibility code in my extensions.


Here are some interesting articles to read:

http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2011/06/Why-do-Firefox-updates-break-add-ons
http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/19/add-on-compatibility-rapid-releases/
http://www.conceivablytech.com/8649/business/the-reason-why-chrome-is-gaining-market-share-and-ie-is-not
http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/07/19/announing-mozilla-enterprise-user-working-group/
http://www.conceivablytech.com/8186/products/firefox-5-a-success-for-mozilla

For support see Firefox 9 & Beyond Mega Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1712247)

[el_koraco]

I love it.

Aurora, 7.02a, running like a champ. The main thing for me is, Jägermonkey gets better with every version. I stay away from Nightly, because nothing works with it, but the others are great.

[Bachstelze]

No opinion. As long as it works, I couldn't care less about the version number.

[lovinglinux]

I love it.

Aurora, 7.02a, running like a champ. The main thing for me is, Jägermonkey gets better with every version. I stay away from Nightly, because nothing works with it, but the others are great.

I also tried the nightly version, but got to many issues with add-ons. I am happy with the beta for now, but I will try 7.0a1 again soon.


No opinion. As long as it works, I couldn't care less about the version number.

The main concern is not about version number, is about features, compatibility and stability. Some people are complaining that Firefox will have a weird number soon, but that is the same as complaining about the Shiretoko/Namoroka logos. It doesn't really matter.

[el_koraco]

+ it might be a HW issue on my part, but Aurora starts up faster than Chrome unstable here, both cold and warm. I got ABP and two other addons on both.

[Bachstelze]

The main concern is not about version number, is about features, compatibility and stability. Some people are complaining that Firefox will have a weird number soon, but that is the same as complaining about the Shiretoko/Namoroka logos. It doesn't really matter.

That's what I meant by "as long as it works", it really means "as long as a feature I want is not removed and it doesn't become overly unstable". I use only "big" add-ons (NoScript, AdBlock, DownloadHelper, ScreenGrab) so I don't think compatibility will become an issue any time soon.

[lovinglinux]

That's what I meant by "as long as it works", it really means "as long as a feature I want is not removed and it doesn't become overly unstable". I use only "big" add-ons (NoScript, AdBlock, DownloadHelper, ScreenGrab) so I don't think compatibility will become an issue any time soon.

You might have issues with ScreenGrab, which wasn't updated very frequently. However, I switched to Awesome Screenshot (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/awesome-screenshot-capture-/), so I have no idea if SG is being updated frequently these days.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

Still on 3.6, and loving it.
I've had a newer version in my laptop (don't know which one, had no toolbars, the address bar was in each tab, the reload button on the right, and it had an orange "Firefox" button on the upper left corner), and didn't like it at all.

[el_koraco]

Still on 3.6, and loving it.
I've had a newer version in my laptop (don't know which one, had no toolbars, the address bar was in each tab, the reload button on the right, and it had an orange "Firefox" button on the upper left corner), and didn't like it at all.

You can customize all of that. Just right click on anything on the toolbar, customize, and off you go.

[lovinglinux]

Still on 3.6, and loving it.
I've had a newer version in my laptop (don't know which one, had no toolbars, the address bar was in each tab, the reload button on the right, and it had an orange "Firefox" button on the upper left corner), and didn't like it at all.

Well, Firefox 5 is still very customizable. You can move everything to the position you like, including the address bar and the reload button. Toolbars can be hidden and you can add custom toolbars. The orange Firefox button can be disabled or moved. You can have sidebar on the right or floating, tabs on the right vertically displayed or at the bottom and much more. If you don't know how to make it look the way you like, stop by the Firefox 4, 5 & Beyond Mega Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1712247) and ask what you want. I will be glad to help you.

Here is how mine looks like now:

http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/6240285/640/6240285.png (http://picturepush.com/public/6240285)

BTW, address bar in each tab doesn't exist.

[Inodoro Pereyra]

You can customize all of that. Just right click on anything on the toolbar, customize, and off you go.


Maybe, but, as a layman, it's much easier for me to stick with the version I don't have to customize at all. So I just use 3.6, and the only thing I add is ABP.

[uRock]

It doesn't matter to me how they do the numbering scheme. I keep the latest stable version of Firefox on my machines. As for those who do not add Mozilla's PPAs, I can see where it would be a problem since the Canonical doesn't upgrade to the newer version unless they have to.

[Thewhistlingwind]

The model is fine, the versioning is however, ridiculous. I think that the problem stems from the idea that in contemporary usage, a number after a title refers to a sequel. (eg. Halo 2/3)

To indicate that this is not the case, a letter or word should come before the version number simply to indicate that it's not a sequel. My personal candidate is some form of "Build" (Release build, Final build, Stable build, etc.) adding this would make the numbering seem less ridiculous, and would indicate that the numbers refer to releases, not that the program is the latest sequel in a series of programs spanning say; 36 other codebases.

[Erik1984]

It's tempting to say that I don't care as each version seems to work fine for me (from 3 to 4 to 5 without any trouble) outside some Flash issues, but I don think that's Mozillaś fault. However I imagine it's inconvenient for environments where long term stability is required like businesses, student workplaces at universities and of course Linux distros with slow release cycles.

[forrestcupp]

I don't mind rapid release, but I don't like the version numbering. It'll be awkward in a couple of years when we get to Firefox 69. ;)

I don't mind it as long as all the plugins can keep up with it.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

It isn't "just a number", and you shouldn't "just get over it". The way you number versions matters a lot to people's perceptions. If your computing environment requires the slightest semblance of security and stability, you will opt for a well-aged, stable release. What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version. Also, the rapid release schedule puts entirely too much focus on ultimately useless features that are bright and visible (so they can claim they made significant changes just because they change the interface) instead of focusing on security and stability.

[forrestcupp]

What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version.

I agree with this. It's crazy that as soon as a new version comes out, the old one is deprecated. You're forced to use the bleeding edge, and not everyone wants to do that.

[SoFl W]

Can you hate the version numbers AND still be using 3.6.18?

I look forward to version 13427896³ being released by the end of next year.

[Thewhistlingwind]

I agree with this. It's crazy that as soon as a new version comes out, the old one is deprecated. You're forced to use the bleeding edge, and not everyone wants to do that.

I didn't even think of that.

And after I read beroot reboot's post I couldn't help but feel that a stable release was noticeably absent from the firefox ecosystem.

I think that for the best results they should have a release they support long term, and then a bunch of minor (Read: regular) releases in between. Ubuntu style.

[SoFl W]

When I tested FF4 on my laptop I didn't like it, I also had a problem with a few addons not workings so I stayed with 3.6.x on my desktop. All but one addon eventually was updated but that made me wonder if every time a new version of FF comes out will I have to worry the addons are not going to work.

I like the status bar at the bottom, I hate this change for the sake of change crap. I also hate, "hey the other guys are doing it so why don't we make our browser like theirs?" If I wanted that browser, I would use that browser. I like FF because it isn't like Chrome.


Constantly having to upgrade look so..... so.... Windowsish.

[krapp]

As long as it stays free and open, secure and customizable I have no complaints.

[drawkcab]

It isn't "just a number", and you shouldn't "just get over it". The way you number versions matters a lot to people's perceptions. If your computing environment requires the slightest semblance of security and stability, you will opt for a well-aged, stable release. What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version. Also, the rapid release schedule puts entirely too much focus on ultimately useless features that are bright and visible (so they can claim they made significant changes just because they change the interface) instead of focusing on security and stability.

What you need to get over is the expectation that engineers are somehow the driver's seat. When push comes to shove, marketing trumps engineering every single time.

The fact of the matter is that the competitive context has dramatically changed. No longer is Firefox the obvious alternative to IE because Chrome is now a more than viable alternative. Firefox has to do more to sell itself. It has to show that it's progressing, offering new features, etc.

The analogy that strikes me is aluminum bicycle frames. Aluminum bicycles ride like garbage compared to steel, but they are lighter in the showroom and are more fun to test ride around the parking lot. They're a marketer's dream so that, nowadays, you have to look around a bit and pay a lot more for a quality steel frame.

I think we're seeing a shift in Mozilla's general strategy that, for better or worse, emphasizes strategic marketing.

[krapp]

The analogy that strikes me is aluminum bicycle frames. Aluminum bicycles ride like garbage compared to steel, but they are lighter in the showroom and are more fun to test ride around the parking lot. They're a marketer's dream so that, nowadays, you have to look around a bit and pay a lot more for a quality steel frame.

As I know very little about bikes, this is news to me. Why is steel > aluminum?

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

while i don't think the version number needs to change so much i do like it this way i dont get impatience and start using the nightly like i did waiting for firefox 4
sadly the update manager makes you download the entire firefox when you probably only need 5mb through firefox's updater (i just have slow Internet < 1Mbps)

[BrokenKingpin]

Why do they need to jump full version numbers each time? We will be at version 97 by the end of next year.

[lovinglinux]

It isn't "just a number", and you shouldn't "just get over it". The way you number versions matters a lot to people's perceptions. If your computing environment requires the slightest semblance of security and stability, you will opt for a well-aged, stable release. What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version. Also, the rapid release schedule puts entirely too much focus on ultimately useless features that are bright and visible (so they can claim they made significant changes just because they change the interface) instead of focusing on security and stability.

Well, they did not just change the UI. I wouldn't call html5 video support and javascript engine optimizations useless. Sure, you could say for example Tab Groups is not for you, but it is innovative and potentially very useful, depending on your browsing behaviour.

You can see the list of changes at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking

In regard to stability, keep in mind that changes between major versions are not radical like they used to be and features that are not ready are simply disabled or removed. Additionally, before a new version is released, it passes through the beta, aurora and nightly channel. Channel switch occurs every 6 weeks, so each new version has at least 18 weeks development cycle, which is only 1,5 months shorter than Ubuntu release cycle. Sure, Ubuntu offers LTS, but you need to consider that a new Ubuntu version is probably much less stable than a new Firefox with the new release model. Not to mention Firefox is just a browser and not an entire OS. Ubuntu Beta testing period is of...guess what...6 weeks.

Another thing to consider is that with the new channel switcher and with the introduction of the Aurora channel, more users are capable of testing development versions, which will increase bug reporting. You don't see many users using the nightly channel, just like before, but you already see many users happy with Aurora builds. The only issue that prevents me from moving to Aurora is actually add-on compatibility, but I am happy with the beta.


I agree with this. It's crazy that as soon as a new version comes out, the old one is deprecated. You're forced to use the bleeding edge, and not everyone wants to do that.

I wouldn't call it bleeding edge. Firefox 5 is essentially an improved Firefox 4 and Firefox 6 is not looking different either.


When I tested FF4 on my laptop I didn't like it, I also had a problem with a few addons not workings so I stayed with 3.6.x on my desktop. All but one addon eventually was updated but that made me wonder if every time a new version of FF comes out will I have to worry the addons are not going to work.

Answer: http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2011/06/Why-do-Firefox-updates-break-add-ons

Mozilla is also discussing the possibility of marking add-ons as compatible by default and disabling those that are known to be incompatible: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Add-ons/Add-ons_Default_to_Compatible

I have 74 add-ons installed and only 8 are not compatible with Firefox 6.0b4. I disable compatibility check and most of them still work. Only Google Redesigned doesn't work at all. Tabloc works, but gives a lot of errors, so I disabled it.

To check compatibility of dd-ons, see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/compatibility/report


I like the status bar at the bottom, I hate this change for the sake of change crap. I also hate, "hey the other guys are doing it so why don't we make our browser like theirs?" If I wanted that browser, I would use that browser. I like FF because it isn't like Chrome.

Constantly having to upgrade look so..... so.... Windowsish.

I was against the end of the status bar, but now I actually prefer the new add-ons bar, because you can easily customize it and drag any toolbar item to it. To get the old status bar functionality, use Status-4-Evar (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/) extension.

[uRock]

They're just numbers.

[lovinglinux]

while i don't think the version number needs to change so much i do like it this way i dont get impatience and start using the nightly like i did waiting for firefox 4
sadly the update manager makes you download the entire firefox when you probably only need 5mb through firefox's updater (i just have slow Internet < 1Mbps)

Me too. Firefox 4 took so long to be released that I moved to Opera and even considered not going back, because I couldn't run most add-ons I like with the nightly or even Firefox 4b. Now I am already using Firefox 6.0b4 and the transition was so smooth...


Why do they need to jump full version numbers each time? We will be at version 97 by the end of next year.

Actually, it will be something like 15 or 16. Chrome is already version 13 and I don't see anybody complaining.


They're just numbers.

+1

[hyper2hottie]

I'm liking the new model. So far I have had no issues with stability. Anything that has issues gets fixed quickly.

[Khakilang]

I don't really care, its just number. As long as it is not retarded or crash. But I have Chromuim stand by just in case.

[NightwishFan]

No. I prefer 'major version'-'minor version'; It makes a lot more sense.

For my own web browser I do not do time based releases however I use similar to Gnome: 1.0 is release version, 1.1 is devel, 1.2 is release; 2.0 is next major version (largely incompatible with earlier version).

[Bandit]

As long as its up to date with security issues and remains stable. I couldn't care less.

[doorknob60]

I don't really care. I will always use the most recent version, no matter what number it's called, doesn't make a difference whether it's called 3.9 or 8 or whatever :P As long as it keeps improving and stuff, that's good enough for me.

[JDShu]

The "way of open source" is to release early and release often. If you believe that works, then you have to believe that people can test quicker, developers can fix bugs quicker, and overall the software improves faster and becomes stabler.

[SoFl W]

Well, .... [CLIP]....extension.
Thanks for all your help.

I am usuing 10.4LTS, and it doesn't do the latest FF versions. I did make the upgrade to 5.0, using the PPAs as I see 3.16 will reach end of life this month. I have to get used to the new versions sooner or later.
I did use status-bar forever on my laptop but not sure if I think it is worth it, I can turn on "addon bar" in the settings and I think that will take care of what I need. I see the hover over a link information in the corner. I am also going through the about:config options and tweaking.

The only addon that didn't work was farkode and if I could find something similar I would be happy. I don't visit Fark, but farkode allowed you to right click in a comment box and add html code (image and links) using clipboard data. Just a quick way of adding html to comments.

Thanks again for those links and info.

[lovinglinux]

Thanks for all your help.

I am usuing 10.4LTS, and it doesn't do the latest FF versions. I did make the upgrade to 5.0, using the PPAs as I see 3.16 will reach end of life this month. I have to get used to the new versions sooner or later.
I did use status-bar forever on my laptop but not sure if I think it is worth it, I can turn on "addon bar" in the settings and I think that will take care of what I need. I see the hover over a link information in the corner. I am also going through the about:config options and tweaking.

The only addon that didn't work was farkode and if I could find something similar I would be happy. I don't visit Fark, but farkode allowed you to right click in a comment box and add html code (image and links) using clipboard data. Just a quick way of adding html to comments.

Thanks again for those links and info.

You are welcome.

You can use BBCodeXtra (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bbcodextra/), which is already compatible with FF 8.0a1.

[SoFl W]

[QUOTE=lovinglinux;11121953You can use BBCodeXtra (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bbcodextra/), which is already compatible with FF 8.0a1.[/QUOTE]
Good, not as nice as farknode (or I am not used to it) but it will work on those wordpress blogs. I think I might have used it years ago. Thank you.

[lovinglinux]

Firefox 6 has been released yesterday. So far, among the 64 extensions I have installed, only 2 are not compatible with FF 6. Nevertheless, they both work with compatibility check disabled.

This is really great. Before the fast release cycle I had to wait a long time before being able to fully upgrade.

[Lucradia]

I don't really like it much to be honest.

Stylish isn't updated for 6.0 either, but everything else I have is. (Adblock, Colorzilla, Greasemonkey and Screengrab)

[lovinglinux]

I don't really like it much to be honest.

Stylish isn't updated for 6.0 either, but everything else I have is. (Adblock, Colorzilla, Greasemonkey and Screengrab)

You can get the new Stylish version, not reviewed yet, from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/versions/

[handy]

You can get the new Stylish version, not reviewed yet, from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/versions/

When I try to install it I'm told it is incompatible with my version (6) of Firefox?

[Elfy]

So far, among the 64 extensions I have installed, only 2 are not compatible with FF 6. that's lucky then - out of the 5 or 6 I use 2 failed ;)

No idea what the compatability check is but fiddling about with the install.rdf files and telling it to behave made one of them work - the other I found a different addon to do the same job.

Same last time - won't happen again as I'll just not let them update :)

[lovinglinux]

that's lucky then - out of the 5 or 6 I use 2 failed ;)

No idea what the compatability check is but fiddling about with the install.rdf files and telling it to behave made one of them work - the other I found a different addon to do the same job.

Same last time - won't happen again as I'll just not let them update :)

I recommend using Add-on Compatibility Reporter (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/15003/) to disable compatibility check, instead of messing with the install.rdf files.

Which add-ons are not compatible?

[Elfy]

reloadevery and a smart bookmarks one

[Aquix]

All my extensions worked in ff6 except stylish. Sometimes I have to reinstall a extension to get it to work and that has happened on 4,5 and now 6 upgrades. This time I had to reinstall quick search bar.

But I'm no fan of this version number mess they have created, and if it will lead to extensions not working then I'm installing opera.

[lovinglinux]

When I try to install it I'm told it is incompatible with my version (6) of Firefox?

Did you get version 1.2.1?

[drawkcab]

As I know very little about bikes, this is news to me. Why is steel > aluminum?

Steel is more workable, durable and repairable.

The big advantage is the first one. As a more workable material, steel tubing can be engineered to give a more compliant ride. This is not such a big deal on suspended mountain bikes. For the average road rider, however, it means that the rider does not become fatigued by road chatter. My experience has been that in rides over 20 miles (not uncommon for roadies) the compliance of a quality steel frame is far more beneficial than the lightweight or efficiency of aluminum. Of course you can't judge that quality in the showroom or on a short test ride.

Carbon fiber can be dialed in to be both vertically compliant and horizontally stiff so that you have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately it is also expensive and lacks durability. If you crash your CF bicycle you pretty much have to throw it away.

Unless you compete regularly in cat. 3 races and need every performance edge you can get, you're probably way better off with a nicer steel frame that fits. Unfortunately those are pretty difficult to come by these days.

Full disclosure, I currently ride a Steel/Carbon hybrid frame.

[Lucradia]

Did you get version 1.2.1?

Thanks this worked for me.

[lovinglinux]

Thanks this worked for me.

You are welcome.

[lovinglinux]

All my extensions worked in ff6 except stylish. Sometimes I have to reinstall a extension to get it to work and that has happened on 4,5 and now 6 upgrades. This time I had to reinstall quick search bar.

But I'm no fan of this version number mess they have created, and if it will lead to extensions not working then I'm installing opera.

The rapid release cycle actually benefits extension compatibility, because Firefox changes are less likely to cause compatibility issues like they did before when a new major version was released. There is also an automatic version bump implemented already, so any add-on that doesn't have incompatible code is marked as compatible automatically.

The issue you are experiencing is probably because when you upgrade Firefox, any extension that doesn't match the Firefox version will be disabled until you apply a compatibility patch. This compatibility patch is, as mentioned above, applied automatically, but you still need to download the patch. So, after each new release upgrade, got to Firefox add-on manager and search for updates, apply them and restart Firefox. This should make the extensions work, unless they are really not compatible.

If you think that is too much you can always use Add-on Compatibility Reporter (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/15003/) add-on, to turn off the compatibility check. I use that all the time and it works great for me. Just keep in mind that, when you turn compatibility check off, all extensions will be installed and enabled. Some of the incompatible extensions will probably work without any problems, other might break.

There is a proposal on Mozilla to make add-ons compatible by default in Firefox 9 and automatically disable those that are not. This could improve your experience a lot, because you wouldn't need apply any add-on patches and those that really have compatibility issues would be disabled automatically.

[Aquix]

The rapid release cycle actually benefits extension compatibility

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way, and you are the go to guy for firefox around here, with your great extensions and all. ;)

[8_Bit]

Can someone please explain to me exactly how this release model makes updates "get delivered to us faster"? I don't see it.

Before, I would still receive updates very frequently. They would just be for incremental updates (4.0.0 to 4.0.3). What the heck is the difference between that and now, other than a higher number (4.0.0 to 5.0.0)? The updates don't at all seem more frequent than before, only the decimal point of the changed number that does.

[lovinglinux]

Can someone please explain to me exactly how this release model makes updates "get delivered to us faster"? I don't see it.

Before, I would still receive updates very frequently. They would just be for incremental updates (4.0.0 to 4.0.3). What the heck is the difference between that and now, other than a higher number (4.0.0 to 5.0.0)? The updates don't at all seem more frequent than before, only the decimal point of the changed number that does.

Actually, the most important thing is that new features and core improvements are delivered faster. In the old style cycle, we had to wait for several months before a new major version was ready to primetime, before being able to enjoy new features or core improvements. Now, they are incorporated earlier and if a feature is not ready, it is simply disabled or removed from the current release. This avoids one problematic feature holding the release of others that are ready for primetime. In the old release model, if a planned feature was not ready, they would postpone the release. Now, releases are following a schedule, independently if the new features are ready or not.

The versions you are referring to (4.0.0 to 4.0.3) where essentially security and stability patches. Now, they are more than that. Although differences between major versions (4.0.0 to 5.0.0) are actually less pronounced, they indeed include new features and other enhancements that otherwise would be included only the long release cycle.

[oldsoundguy]

Yes and No. Many of the plug ins and skins and such fall behind with the rapid release schedule. And some never catch up .. some really GOOD plug ins, which is sad.

[handy]

Did you get version 1.2.1?

Yep.

I get the "... does not match the add-on Firefox expected" error?

Beef Taco also doesn't work, & Flash-Aid says it will be enabled after I restart Firefox, but restarting makes no difference?

[lovinglinux]

Yep.

I get the "... does not match the add-on Firefox expected" error?

Beef Taco also doesn't work, & Flash-Aid says it will be enabled after I restart Firefox, but restarting makes no difference?

I think the first error is an AMO issue. I have experienced that and was able to solve by downloading the extension and installing it by dragging the xpi file to Firefox window. Instead of clicking the Install button on AMO site, right-click and select "Save link as". This will save the xpi file instead of trying to install it.

About Flash-Aid, try to uninstall the extension and install again.

[alphacrucis2]

I notice that a recent update on the GIMP web site indicates that the GIMP devs intend to move to a similar release cycle model where feature updates are released more frequently in smaller chunks. The intention is to commence with this once they get to version 2.10.

[lovinglinux]

I notice that a recent update on the GIMP web site indicates that the GIMP devs intend to move to a similar release cycle model where feature updates are released more frequently in smaller chunks. The intention is to commence with this once they get to version 2.10.

Interesting.

[handy]

I think the first error is an AMO issue. I have experienced that and was able to solve by downloading the extension and installing it by dragging the xpi file to Firefox window. Instead of clicking the Install button on AMO site, right-click and select "Save link as". This will save the xpi file instead of trying to install it.

About Flash-Aid, try to uninstall the extension and install again.

I got Flash-Aid to work, but Stylish won't.

[leviathan8]

At first, I liked very much the version 4 of Firefox, but what disappoints me now is that new updates come too soon, rendering Firefox unstable and breaking compatibility with add-ons. Only if the Mozilla community would make a long term release, it would be awesome, but now with the 6th version of Firefox that managed to crash in a single day my computer 4 times, I decided that it's time to change a while to Chromium until they get a stable release. Even if I don't have the amazing NoScript and AdBlock is not that good, I can benefit from its amazing speed and stability.

[Paqman]

I think it's probably a good thing. People providing web services and content should be aiming their stuff at the standards, not particular versions of the client. So anything online that breaks due to a Firefox update was broken in the first place anyway (assuming Mozilla continue to keep improving their compliance with the standards).

[handy]

I don't agree.

[lovinglinux]

I got Flash-Aid to work, but Stylish won't.

Please post in the Firefox 4,5 & Beyond Mega Thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1712247) for further support.

[Oxwivi]

I don't agree.
Elaborate.

[forrestcupp]

No. I just upgraded to Firefox 6.0, and the Java Console plugin didn't even work. There weren't any updates for it. They're requiring too much from plugin developers.

[Merk42]

I notice that a recent update on the GIMP web site indicates that the GIMP devs intend to move to a similar release cycle model where feature updates are released more frequently in smaller chunks. The intention is to commence with this once they get to version 2.10.Too bad GIMP will never reach 2.8 let alone 2.10 lol

[forrestcupp]

Too bad GIMP will never reach 2.8 let alone 2.10 lol

I've been waiting on 2.8 forever. It sucks that they have so many great changes to it, and they're taking 20 years to get it out.

[SoFl W]

I notice that a recent update on the GIMP web site indicates that the GIMP devs intend to move to a similar release cycle model where feature updates are released more frequently in smaller chunks. The intention is to commence with this once they get to version 2.10.
Jeeez... What the heck is it with this rapid release crap? First Tylenol then every piece of software. I want to upgrade to 2.7 just for the single window mode. Otherwise GIMP 2.6 works for me.


Copyright © 1995-2008
Spencer Kimball, Peter Mattis and the GIMP Development Team

Wow, didn't know the last update was in 2008

[JDShu]

Too bad GIMP will never reach 2.8 let alone 2.10 lol

What are you talking about?

[oldsoundguy]

and today's STABLE release had a package error, but apparently anticipated as it was self fixing.

Still wish that the skins and plug ins would be able to keep up. I had a skin I was using a while back in 3.6 that I liked very much, but will not work in the latest release(s).

[lovinglinux]

Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, posted today on her blog an interesting insight on the rapid release model.

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process/

[lovinglinux]

Someone asked some days ago in the FF Mega Thread, when the third-party add-on installation permission feature would be implemented. It has landed on Aurora ( FF 8 ), along with other features:

http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/08/19/firefoxaurora8/

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/6407554/640/6407554.png (http://picturepush.com/public/6407554)

I was wondering why they didn't implement the same "load on-demand" feature, similar to the one provided by Bar Tab extension and the panorama feature. They did now:


Restore tabs on-demand: For users that have lots of tabs open, we’ve added a preference that allows tabs to load on demand, resulting in faster start-up times when windows are restored.

To activate this feature, select ‘Don’t load tabs until selected’ in the General preferences.

How long would it take to get these great new features without the rapid release model?

[juancarlospaco]

I use HTML5, Firefox dont work with HTML5.

[Thewhistlingwind]

Update:

Any more of this madness and I may be forced to chrome.

Or maybe I'll figure out how to run JS programs in terminal and switch to elinks.

I mean, I obviously can't trust the Mozilla developers as much as I thought I could.

[lovinglinux]

I use HTML5, Firefox dont work with HTML5.

?????


Update:

Any more of this madness and I may be forced to chrome.

Or maybe I'll figure out how to run JS programs in terminal and switch to elinks.

I mean, I obviously can't trust the Mozilla developers as much as I thought I could.

Which madness? It is just getting better and better.

[sammiev]

Bring on the new releases. :popcorn:

[wojox]

I love it. As long as it works. ;)

I have reverted to only using the latest stable (tired of not all my add-ons working).

As a add-on developer how much is involved to prepare to upgrade to the next release?

[NightwishFan]

I use HTML5, Firefox dont work with HTML5.
Iceweasel (Firefox) 6 Scores: 298

http://html5test.com/
http://html5test.com/results.html

[juancarlospaco]

?????


True.
Random Simple Example:

Save this as test.html, open it with Firefox and Chromium:



<details><summary>Click to Expand:</summary><br>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam sodales urna non odio egestas tempor. Nunc vel vehicula ante. Etiam bibendum iaculis libero, eget molestie nisl pharetra in. In semper consequat est, eu porta velit mollis nec. Curabitur posuere enim eget turpis feugiat tempor</details>


Realize the True, Firefox cant handle 1 line of generic HTML5.
I was a Firefox Fan once, but i want Adobe Flash to die...

[Thewhistlingwind]

?????



Which madness? It is just getting better and better.

Let me count:

1. Add on incompatibility. (If 7 out of 64 are broken, thats bad.)

2. No stable release. (Essentially taking a crap on their enterprise market.)

3. Changing the UI for the sake of change. (In a very Chrome-esque way.)

4. Version number insanity. (Do I need to elaborate?)

5. Whenever this gets filled with something, change will be heavy on my mind.

[lovinglinux]

As a add-on developer how much is involved to prepare to upgrade to the next release?

Depends on the add-on. So far, I just had to change a couple of things from FF 4 to FF 5. If your add-on doesn't have incompatible code, you don't even need to edit it, because compatibility bump is automatic now.

[sammiev]

Iceweasel (Firefox) 6 Scores: 298

http://html5test.com/
http://html5test.com/results.html

I scored 313 with FF7. Not bad for first try I guess. :)

[lovinglinux]

1. Add on incompatibility. (If 7 out of 64 are broken, thats bad.)

I have a different experience. I use more than 60 extensions and only 2 weren't compatible with Firefox 6 by the time of releas. This is a miracle.


2. No stable release. (Essentially taking a crap on their enterprise market.)

Well, that doesn't affect me, so why should I bother.


3. Changing the UI for the sake of change. (In a very Chrome-esque way.)

I also don't like when they copy Chrome, but so far the changes have been good to me. Besides, I customize my Firefox UI a lot.


4. Version number insanity. (Do I need to elaborate?)

No, you don't. I just think it's not a big deal.


5. Whenever this gets filled with something, change will be heavy on my mind.

I don't get it.

Anyway, I am testing Firefox 8 and it is awesome. Most extension are not compatible yet, but they all work with compatibility check disable. Considering it is an alpha, it is another miracle. I am glad they will release it this year.

[Merk42]

I use HTML5, Firefox dont work with HTML5.nothing has 100% compatibility with HTML5 because the spec for HTML5 isn't even done.

Why don't you file a bug about your example? Given the rapid release model maybe you'd see it in Firefox rather soon.
EDIT: Well look at that (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591737) it's a known issue and the reason it hasn't yet been implemented is what I said, the standards can change.

[Famicube64]

I scored 313 with FF7. Not bad for first try I guess. :)
340 with 13 bonus points on Chrome stable. :popcorn:

[juancarlospaco]

file a bug about your example?

that (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591737) it's a known issue

it hasn't yet been implemented

the standards can change.

Thank you for replying yourself.

And thank you for pointing that iam correct.

They always reply that something can change in future and they dont care.

Meanwhile..., Chromium, working HTML5 right now, with an Open Source program.

[NightwishFan]

No you are not correct. Both have fairly good html5 support however neither are even close to 100%. It is irrelevant.

[lovinglinux]

For those who thing Firefox is less stable now...


Why Rapid Releases Can Improve Stability (http://home.kairo.at/blog/2011-08/why_rapid_releases_can_improve_stability)

[NightwishFan]

I wish folks would adopt stability to mean 'unchanging'. No software is bug free.

[Merk42]

Thank you for replying yourself.

And thank you for pointing that iam correct.

They always reply that something can change in future and they dont care.

Meanwhile..., Chromium, working HTML5 right now, with an Open Source program.
Who says they don't care? It's a bug that's filed, not marked as WONTFIX.
Even if this one part of the HTML5 spec doesn't work in Firefox doesn't mean "Firefox can't do HTML5". If that's the case I could hand pick elements of HTML5 and come to the conclusion that no browser "works with HTML5".

[el_koraco]

Meanwhile..., Chromium, working HTML5 right now, with an Open Source program.

Wait, so you went from "Firefox doesn't do HTML 5" to "Chromium, working HTML 5"?

[juancarlospaco]

Who says they don't care? It's a bug that's filed, not marked as WONTFIX.

The users here, you want a WONTFIX heres a WONTFIX:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

Even users submitted several Patchs, they Trashed the Patchs.
Is the True...

[Merk42]

The users here, you want a WONTFIX heres a WONTFIX:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

Even users submitted several Patchs, they Trashed the Patchs.
Is the True...WebP is not part of the HTML5 specifications.

[lovinglinux]

The users here, you want a WONTFIX heres a WONTFIX:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

Even users submitted several Patchs, they Trashed the Patchs.
Is the True...

That one is a very particular bug. Is about implementing a new image format, that is not standard and not widely used. Is completely different from not fixing a HTML5 compatibility.

[TheNessus]

Well, Firefox 5 is still very customizable. You can move everything to the position you like, including the address bar and the reload button. Toolbars can be hidden and you can add custom toolbars. The orange Firefox button can be disabled or moved. You can have sidebar on the right or floating, tabs on the right vertically displayed or at the bottom and much more.


So... it's becomimg like Opera, only a few years late?

[NightwishFan]

So... it's becomimg like Opera, only a few years late?

Word.

[Alisya]

I think they should drop the rapid release model and focus more on actually making improvements.

A larger version number does not indicate any significant improvement, so why do it?

I prefer lower version numbers anyway, and believe that only the most major releases should have a significant version change (ie, 1.0.4 to 2.0).

[lovinglinux]

A larger version number does not indicate any significant improvement, so why do it?

No, it doesn't. However, the improvements are indeed coming really fast.

[sammiev]

I only care that the final product works. Version number means little. :popcorn:

[Artemis3]

I am using Firefox 6.0b4 and Panorama doesn't load all tabs when you start Firefox. You have to click on a group to load the tabs, which makes startup a lot faster.

Been doing that at least since version 4:

about:config
browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs 0

No Panorama or BarTab required...

[lovinglinux]

Been doing that at least since version 4:

about:config
browser.sessionstore.max_concurrent_tabs 0

No Panorama or BarTab required...

Good to know. I suppose the new Preference setting changes that. I wonder why they didn't implement that before and why this feature is still not enabled by default. It makes a huge difference.

I don't use Firefox session manager. I use Session Manager extension, which is also behaving like Bar Tab now.

[ikt]

On the one hand the firefox 3 and 4 releases were really amazing, the download stats, counters, flashy graphics and all around coolness really set the stone when it comes to new software releases.

On the other hand there's really no point holding features back because the other features aren't ready yet, I'm a huge fan of rapid release and the linux kernel dev model.

[juancarlospaco]

WebP is not part of the HTML5 specifications.

Excuses dont fix the problem, iam not happy with that, i was a Fan of the Firefox.

Heres another Random Example, just 1 DIV and 1 iFrame,
save this as test.html, open with Firefox and Chromium:



<style>
body{background-color:black;}
#anim1{text-align:center;-webkit-perspective: 1000;perspective: 1000;margin: 0px 0 0px 0px; }
#anim1 iframe{text-align:center;-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform 1s ease-in-out;-webkit-transform: rotate3d(0,1,1, 45deg);transition: transform 1s ease-in-out;transform: rotate3d(0,1,1, 45deg);-moz-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 45deg);margin: 0px 0 0px 0px;}
#anim1 iframe:hover{text-align:center;-webkit-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);-moz-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);margin: 0px 0 0px 0px;}
</style>
<div id="anim1"><iframe src="http://www.mozilla.org/" width="200" height="400" border="0"></iframe></div>

[Merk42]

Excuses dont fix the problem, iam not happy with that, i was a Fan of the Firefox.You used WebP in your example to show how "Firefox dont work with HTML5", given that WebP is not HTML5, it doesn't prove the case.

Heres another Random Example, just 1 DIV and 1 iFrame,
save this as test.html, open with Firefox and Chromium:



<style>
body{background-color:black;}
#anim1{text-align:center;-webkit-perspective: 1000;perspective: 1000;margin: 0px 0 0px 0px; }
#anim1 iframe{text-align:center;-webkit-transition:-webkit-transform 1s ease-in-out;-webkit-transform: rotate3d(0,1,1, 45deg);transition: transform 1s ease-in-out;transform: rotate3d(0,1,1, 45deg);-moz-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 45deg);margin: 0px 0 0px 0px;}
#anim1 iframe:hover{text-align:center;-webkit-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);-moz-transform: rotate3d(0,0,1, 0deg);margin: 0px 0 0px 0px;}
</style>
<div id="anim1"><iframe src="http://www.mozilla.org/" width="200" height="400" border="0"></iframe></div>

This isn't HTML5 either, it's CSS3.


I can cherry pick (http://caniuse.com/#search=Datalist%20Element) things (http://caniuse.com/#search=mathml) that don't work in Chrome but do work in Firefox too, so I guess Chrome "dont work with HTML5" either.

[lovinglinux]

Excuses dont fix the problem, iam not happy with that, i was a Fan of the Firefox.

Coincidentally, I just got an update on WebP page at Mozilla on my rss feed.


According to Jeff, WebP isn't good enough for us to ship yet. There are discussions with Google to improve WebP so it's relevant vs. JPEG*

https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Platform/Features/WebP_support&diff=344123&oldid=prev

[lovinglinux]

These are my updated Firefox benchmarks, showing the performance improvement of the upcoming FF 7:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/6427904/img/6427904.png

http://service.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/index.action

[lovinglinux]

Very interesting article:

Firefox 9 Gets 30% Boost In JavaScript Performance (http://www.conceivablytech.com/9188/products/firefox-9-gets-30-boost-in-javascript-performance)

[forrestcupp]

I just got a popup that says Firefox 6.0.1 is available. What the heck is that? I thought we were done with these small version numbers.

[Thewhistlingwind]

I just got a popup that says Firefox 6.0.1 is available. What the heck is that? I thought we were done with these small version numbers.

Security update.

Revoked a root certificate.

[juancarlospaco]

You used WebP in your example to show how "Firefox dont work with HTML5", given that WebP is not HTML5, it doesn't prove the case.


Lol, i do NOT used WebP in my examples.

You know what, we both fail, why?, because you know whats WebP ?
WebP is Just a WebM Video!, and Firefox support WebM Video, so...
whats the difference?, its a 1 Frame standard WebM Video... :D

So its not working because someone dont want to, but the code is already there.

[Thewhistlingwind]

Lol, i do NOT used WebP in my examples.

You know what, we both fail, why?, because you know whats WebP ?
WebP is Just a WebM Video!, and Firefox support WebM Video, so...
whats the difference?, its a 1 Frame standard WebM Video... :D

So its not working because someone dont want to, but the code is already there.

Oh no.

I hope people don't start uploading any sort of drawing/photo in webP format. (Thats meant to be in any sort of decent quality.)

:(

[blueturtl]

As such I have nothing against a faster update schedule. However I don't understand why they now have to change the main version number every time they release a minor update.

Firefox 6 feels more like Firefox 5.1 and soon we will have ridiculous numbers like Firefox 77.

[juancarlospaco]

On my images, i got -50% | -25% of size at the same quality as JPG, and its Libre.

They working on Alpha Channel Experimental Support, very Experimental ATM.

[Merk42]

Lol, i do NOT used WebP in my examples.

:confused:


The users here, you want a WONTFIX heres a WONTFIX:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=600919

Even users submitted several Patchs, they Trashed the Patchs.
Is the True...

[juancarlospaco]

:confused:

Thank you for pointing that iam correct, thats not an example but a Bugzilla of Mozilla,
and Bugzilla of Mozilla is not mine; and is not an example, its a Bug Tracking system.

[NightwishFan]

Thank you for pointing that iam correct

:popcorn: Thank you for pointing out that you were pointing out a point that is right out? A system of bugs tracking bugs for Mozilla bugs and Jeff Goldblum? Checkmate.

I am not too worried about html5. It isn't like browsers will ignore it if it becomes common. Not like Chrome has a monopoly on open technology.

[Merk42]

Thank you for pointing that iam correct, thats not an example but a Bugzilla of Mozilla,
and Bugzilla of Mozilla is not mine; and is not an example, its a Bug Tracking system.So then why bring up WebP when I contest your original argument that "Firefox wont work with HTML5"
201201

[standingwave]

Hard to believe that less than a year ago we were still at 3.x. At this point they're pretty much just mocking the very concept of revision numbers, aren't they? :D

Firefox 11 Alpha to Land December 20th; Will Bring Speed-Dial, Chrome Migration (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/11/firefox-11-alpha-to-land-december-20th-will-bring-speed-dial-chrome-migration/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+d0od+%28OMG%21+Ubuntu%21%29)

[johnnybgoode83]

Good God, they really are flying through the version numbers.

[ajgreeny]

It was simply done this way so that Firefox did not appear to be lagging behind Chrome and chromium, which have had these full version jumps from the start, according to many people.

In all honesty, both are really only making small version increments each time and it is just the decimal point that has disappeared from the numbers.

[dniMretsaM]

I personally like it for a few reasons:
(a) It appears more up to date to the non-technical crowd (in general).
(b) New features are coming faster.
(c) It's a lot faster to type/say "FF 8" than "FF 3.6.18."

[Primefalcon]

wasn't 8 just released? so they're planning one more releases in 2 months... kinda get the feeling they're doing this just to get higher versions than Chrome... kinda glad I don't use FF anymore

[Merk42]

wasn't 8 just released? so they're planning one more releases in 2 months... kinda get the feeling they're doing this just to get higher versions than Chrome... kinda glad I don't use FF anymoreFirefox releases a new version every 6 weeks.

Just out of curiousness what do you use?

[JDShu]

Release Early, Release Often is one of the most important philosophies in open source development.

[standingwave]

It was simply done this way so that Firefox did not appear to be lagging behind Chrome and chromium, which have had these full version jumps from the start, according to many people.So it was a marketing decision! Blech! :P

[Lucradia]

Release Early, Release Often is one of the most important philosophies in open source development.

Then change the name when you get too many version numbers (IE: 20) and then start with 1 again.

[shuttleworthwannabe]

Well Chrome/mium is already at 17.x.
Aside: Until FF gets rid of the huge tab bar, and make it more real estate friendly, I think I will keep away from it. I use Chrome/mium and Opera (also has a tab bar but less bulky). Browsing speeds do not matter to me as I am in a country where (affordable) internet is dog slow in any case.

[whatthefunk]

Firefox has gone way way down hill since they started this new version thing. There are so many issues with it now that I cant even use it. Im kind of glad though because it forced me to try out Opera, which is superior in nearly every way.

[Lucradia]

Firefox has gone way way down hill since they started this new version thing. There are so many issues with it now that I cant even use it. Im kind of glad though because it forced me to try out Opera, which is superior in nearly every way.

Besides tab preview (which can be turned on in firefox by enabling firefox to show each tab as a window in the taskbar) and gestures, what does Opera have that Firefox doesn't?

Also note: I don't need tablet stuff, or social stuff, or built-in messaging service, or FTP Support.

it's all opinionated. Firefox suits my needs and has something that Chrome and Opera don't: forcing cache reloading and checking for new versions each page visit, which I highly need for many things I do every day, and helps keep the quick editor here on vBull updated after each "Save" rather than showing the old post, and playing nice with shoutboxes, etc. (This doesn't work if you press the back button though, as firefox reloads the last visited version, which is blech.)

As for shoutbox issue as I mentioned. Try idling on a shoutbox for more than two hours without the shoutbox acting weird, or not updating properly, in chrome, Opera and Safari. Try navigating around sheezy art (logged in, and check the user control panel) in Opera and Safari.

[whatthefunk]

Besides tab preview (which can be turned on in firefox by enabling firefox to show each tab as a window in the taskbar) and gestures, what does Opera have that Firefox doesn't?

Opera DOESNT:
-Stay open for ten minutes after I close it
-Crash when I use Facebook
-Use 40% CPU
-Freeze up when I type things into the address bar
-Stall when auto-filling forms

[Lucradia]

Opera DOESNT:
-Stay open for ten minutes after I close it
-Crash when I use Facebook
-Use 40% CPU
-Freeze up when I type things into the address bar
-Stall when auto-filling forms

The last one doesn't matter to me. Auto-filling forms is a security risk, plus I like to make sure I remember my passwords, etc. I can also just double click a textbox to see what I've past used (unless it's a password.)

As for the 40% CPU:

http://i.imgur.com/UK2pk.png

That's with flash playing in one of my tabs. (Not my active tab though)

I don't get the freeze-up when typing into the address bar. Worksforme.

I don't get firefox staying ten minutes after, it does stay about a minute after or so. But still, worksforme :V

lol, facebook. But still, doesn't crash, worksforme. This is firefox 8, on the CPU listed below in my signature.

[whatthefunk]

Forgot that it also started freezing up for up to ten seconds when changing tabs.

I know that my Firefox problems arent universal, but theyre problems for me and have made Firefox the most worthless bundle of math on my computer.

[dniMretsaM]

Well Chrome/mium is already at 17.x.
Aside: Until FF gets rid of the huge tab bar, and make it more real estate friendly, I think I will keep away from it. I use Chrome/mium and Opera (also has a tab bar but less bulky). Browsing speeds do not matter to me as I am in a country where (affordable) internet is dog slow in any case.

That's coming in FF 9.


Then change the name when you get too many version numbers (IE: 20) and then start with 1 again.

That's just ridiculous.


Opera DOESNT:
-Stay open for ten minutes after I close it
-Crash when I use Facebook
-Use 40% CPU
-Freeze up when I type things into the address bar
-Stall when auto-filling forms

Never had any of these problems. But hey, use what works for you.

[Lucradia]

That's just ridiculous.

or take the Notch / Minecraft approach, releasing Minecraft commercial, non-beta final as 1.0 :V

[forrestcupp]

I have a feeling the world will end next December 21st when Firefox 666 is scheduled to be released.

[cgroza]

I really am for this kind of release cycle. Brings the features to the user much faster.
What is the point of letting the already implemented things wait for the yet not implemented ones.

[lovinglinux]

I really am for this kind of release cycle. Brings the features to the user much faster.
What is the point of letting the already implemented things wait for the yet not implemented ones.

+1

I don't really care about the version number.

Running Firefox 9 Beta here and waiting for 10,11,12,13,14...

[dh04000]

I like how this new development spree has spurred the Mozilla devlopers to write more code, add new features, and do more bug fixing than ever before. Firefox has advanced at an amazing rate! :)

But what i don't like it that the fast pace it killing plug-in developers ability to keep up..... 75% of my plug-ins are no longer compatible. Since plug-ins were firefox's killer app back in the day, this is concerning me. :/

[lovinglinux]

I like how this new development spree has spurred the Mozilla devlopers to write more code, add new features, and do more bug fixing than ever before. Firefox has advanced at an amazing rate! :)

But what i don't like it that the fast pace it killing plug-in developers ability to keep up..... 75% of my plug-ins are no longer compatible. Since plug-ins were firefox's killer app back in the day, this is concerning me. :/

Plugins usually don't break, what breaks are extensions.

I have 70 extensions installed and only 2 are not compatible with Firefox 9 Beta at the moment. In fact, since the fast release schedule, extension compatibility has improved for me. In the old days I had to wait months before getting all my extensions working again, after a Firefox release. Now they are already compatible.

I also test about 20 different extensions every month and I haven't found issues as you described.

What extensions are you using?

[prodigy_]

From the Web developers point of view the new model is better. I mean pushing updates. Moreover, they should have discontinued 3.6 completely by now.

Supporting old versions is always a terrible mistake when your product is a browser - Microsoft proved that time and again. Of course IE9 is still a mess (e.g. its text rendering is completely broken). Nonetheless it's a lot better than IE6/IE7. And it would feel like heaven if IE updates were pushed like those of Chrome and FF. We would still need to write hacks for IE but at least not different hacks for 4-5 different versions at the same time.

[Linuxratty]

I have a feeling the world will end next December 21st when Firefox 666 is scheduled to be released.

:D:popcorn:Funny!
I prfer a slower release myself.
I also miss file.close window.

[Merk42]

From the Web developers point of view the new model is better. I mean pushing updates. Moreover, they should have discontinued 3.6 completely by now.

Supporting old versions is always a terrible mistake when your product is a browser - Microsoft proved that time and again. Of course IE9 is still a mess (e.g. its text rendering is completely broken). Nonetheless it's a lot better than IE6/IE7. And it would feel like heaven if IE updates were pushed like those of Chrome and FF. We would still need to write hacks for IE but at least not different hacks for 4-5 different versions at the same time.I believe Firefox 10 will be the first Extended Support Release (think LTS). This will be for the benefit of IT and i believe will be when 3.6 will be EOL'd. Not sure how long the ESR is supposed to be supported though, I think it was like 'only' 6months to a year or something like that.

[wolfen69]

It's only a numbering system, and doesn't mean each release gets a total overhaul. Meh in my book.

[RoboPhoenix]

This is probably going to be a terrible post and VERY FEW people are going to read this, but this reminds me of a codinghorror blog post about "version infinity".

I think it's a good move, assuming that each version is better than the last and that most of the problems that arise in the old versions pop-up in the newer ones.

The increasing version number would also give the user the appearance that things are improving, even if they're not, because most people generally don't understand numbers or decimals.

Here's the link for that blog post (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html).

[anna2112]

I usually go for update. As long as my add-ons will work !!!

[thetruckinglife]

what is the difference between 3.6 and 8.0?
i recently did a fresh install of 10.10 and was wondering how 3.6 would run and surprisingly it ran very well,youtube,hulu,veetle all played video very well and all websites loaded quickly.
anywho i use Opera, it just suites me best.

[lovinglinux]

Add-ons in Aurora are now considered compatible by default!!!!!

http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/12/12/help-test-default-compatibility-for-add-ons-on-aurora/

I just tested it. Tried to install a version of one of my add-ons that is not compatible with FF 10, only FF 8. It installed without complain. No more need for the Add-on Compatibility Reporter, unless you want to report add-ons that don't work.

[Linuxratty]

Still on 3.6, and loving it.l.

Same here...No compelling reason to leave it till 10.10 is no longer supported.


I believe Firefox 10 will be the first Extended Support Release (think LTS

Ah,that's more like it.

[guyver_dio]

I like that updates are being delivered faster but couldn't it just be 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.3, 5.4 etc... instead they went from like version 5 to what is it 8 now in a couple of months. I think it makes version numbers meaningless. The main number is meant to reserved for major upgrades, and x.whatever for minor updates. I loved the days waiting for a new version of something to come out and when it does it's got tonnes of differences to play around with. It was exciting.

[lovinglinux]

I like that updates are being delivered faster but couldn't it just be 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.3, 5.4 etc... instead they went from like version 5 to what is it 8 now in a couple of months. I think it makes version numbers meaningless. The main number is meant to reserved for major upgrades, and x.whatever for minor updates. I loved the days waiting for a new version of something to come out and when it does it's got tonnes of differences to play around with. It was exciting.

They are still major updates, but instead of delivering all new features at once yearly, they are delivering them in small dosages every six weeks. They wouldn't be able to add such features on minor versions updates, because those are reserved for security and stability patches.

[lovinglinux]

Mozilla claims Firefox 9 is up to 30% faster than Firefox 8:

http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/12/20/major-javascript-enhancements-make-firefox-speedy-up-to-30-faster/

That's awesome.

[ardentangel]

No, I do not like it.

Every computer headache (and days of lost time in my life) has come from updates. I wish I could sue each and every programmer that has removed great sections of my life because they think their next idea is Sooo great.

But I can't and the best I can do is let a few programers know how I feel and I say:

Stop it!

Stop wasting my time putting out what you think is greater than sliced bread which only ends up creating days of down time for me. Firefox was recommended as the greatest new thing by a friend years ago, I tried it, it hurt my eyes there was so much garbage loaded onto it that it locked my screen and I have removed it from every computer that it was automatically loaded with since then. The biggest reason I ran away from Firefox is because of Thunderbird, it is a terrible email client and I refuse to ever use it again.

I am especially upset that Sea Monkey has been taken over by this company. I love Sea Monkey, it is simple as a browser can get and it works without updates every five seconds. Gah! I'm gonna have to look out for a new browser AGAIN!

Just Stop it, please.

I know this is a poor economy and you need an excuse to employ people, but it just ends up wasting my time (including writing this). I am more afraid of logging on to the internet for what some update might put onto my computer than any spam or site virus. I am moving away from Windows because all the updates mess with me, so why on Earth do I want to find the same thing happening with Ubuntu and Linux!?!?!

Oh and just so everyone knows, I will most likely not be back to fend off comments. I just do not have the time. This is *just my opinion* and you do not need to respond negatively to it. I only post it here in hopes that one, maybe two programers start to comprehend the feelings of those who receive their garbage out and have very few venues to voice our displeasure at loosing days to stripping off harmful software and clean installing something that works.

Please, I beg programers to just stop it.

[Elfy]

Old thread closed.