Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla

Firefox 4, A Day Later 435

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the foxy-lady dept.
Yesterday we noted that Firefox 4 is out in the wild. Since then, the popular browser has been downloaded 6 million times, double the numbers reported for MSIE9. Now the development team is talking about a new development process and what to expect for FF 5 and 6. And unsurprisingly, naysayers proclaim that IE will survive, while Firefox will die.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 4, A Day Later

Comments Filter:
  • Ah, ZDNET (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:40AM (#35587174)

    ...still propping up the Microsoft Monopoly after all these years!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:42AM (#35587212)

    Also remember to install it on public computers and at your school and make sure IE is removed from start menu and desktop.

  • by bmo (77928) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:42AM (#35587214)

    Are you proposing a trojan that silently installs FF in the background? Yeah, that's going to work out really well for the reputation of FF.

    Stupid idea is stupid.

    Crikes.

    --
    BMO

  • by netsharc (195805) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:43AM (#35587244)

    Is this guy really saying "wow, look, Firefox took forever to release a version which was just 0.5 higher, while Chrome went from 9 to 10 in four weeks."?

    How the FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU- does a moron like this get hired to write a tech column?

  • by characterZer0 (138196) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:50AM (#35587422)

    How the FFFFFFFFFUUUUUU- does a moron like this get hired to write a tech column?

    He writes articles with inflammatory headlines and gets clicks. He gets it into clueless middle managers' heads that IE is better than Firefox. There are people who will pay well for both of those things.

  • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:55AM (#35587530)

    I don't see Firefox every rising above ~30-35%, due to fragmentation of the market:
    - 1/3 for mozilla
    - 1/3 for microsoft
    - 1/3 for google
    - Plus a few percentage points for "minor" browsers like Opera and Apple safari. Oh and if Firefox ever did "die", which I doubt, I'd sooner switch to Opera's opera or Mozilla's Seamonkey then IE.

    I am forced to use IE with my Dialup provider (image compression only works with IE6/7/8), and it stinks. Mostly from the lack of features.

  • by Kynde (324134) <kyndeNO@SPAMiki.fi> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @11:57AM (#35587554)

    "Ed Bott's Microsoft Report" predicts that IE will survive and Firefox will die.

    In other news a VCR said that VHS ain't going nowhere...

    (And what's worse, the fkuc up is making arguments based on major version number delta over time. Such uncanny insight is rare!)

  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @12:43PM (#35588366)
    Those of us that are forced to work with the 'official corporate browser, IE' are the ones that end up paying for this.
  • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @12:49PM (#35588460)

    no, he; actually says "Firefox took 2 years to go from version 3.5 to version 4", whereas Microsoft managed to put out a beta and a release candidate in that time - go microsoft devs!

    I suppose he completely forgot about Firefox 3.6 while he was kissing Ballmer's shiny bum, and the 12 (?) beta releases that FF put out, or the 2 release candidates.

    Not that I consider a beta or a RC a proper release - they're 'toys' for the early adopters to play with, but regardless of that, you cannot be considered a serious journalist if you don't compare the same way.

    Incidentally, I can say that IE9 will not get a foothold too much - we've just had an email sent out from corporate IT saying "don't install it, it breaks all our lovely enterprise apps". So I could install it, but then I wouldn't be able to fill in my timesheet (I know, the pain) so I guess I'd better do as they say and continue all my usual surfing using FF4. I know my salesman has converted to Chrome and he barely knows what the internet is so I can't say IE9's future is as cheerleader-bright as he thinks it is.

  • by VortexCortex (1117377) <(VortexCortex) ( ... -retrograde.com)> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @01:22PM (#35588974)

    So, you're saying that the Google funded, closed source, web browser "Chrome" is capable of quickly catching up to the features that the free donation & ads supported Firefox took so long to develop.

    Basically you're saying: more money and developers == Faster Development. Thanks for your input Mr. Obvious.

    P.S. Yeah, that's right: I said, "Chrome is closed source". Chromium is open source, and Chrome may or may not be a direct derivative of the open source Chromium. Needless to say, Google adds their own proprietary bits to Chromium before they ship it as Chrome, ergo: Chrome = Close Source.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Chromium [chromium.org]. Chrome is a joke -- Why anyone would want to use the closed / proprietary version (with Google's late-night secret sauce added), when there's a clean open source version available is beyond me.

  • by jez9999 (618189) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @03:04PM (#35590328) Homepage Journal

    Actually, I don't like this new tactic of a major version number increment every 3 months or so. I think it was helpful to think of the major version number as a really big, API-breaking change that didn't happen very often, with minor version numbers representing significant but not too major evolutions of functionality.

    This new scheme means we'll have Firefox 40 by about 2020. I predict that somewhere before that, they'll either stop the major version increments, or drop the emphasis on major version number altogether and just call it 'Firefox'.

  • by Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @03:10PM (#35590414)
    I won't duplicate the other comments about Chrome being run by a huge, well resourced company. But it is!

    However, it is worth stressing that Chrome had the advantage of no prior baggage, and the benefit of hindsight. So the architecture of Chrome was built from the ground up to resolve issues that afflicted other browsers including Firefox, and at the same time, did not have to be compatible with existing add-ons/extensions. Mozilla presumably have a tougher time resolving existing issues, whilst maintaining compatibility with a *huge* number of add-ons. If they did massively break compatibility, they'd be kissing goodbye to one of the main advantages to Firefox.

    and STILL no official MSIs, or AD templates

    ^ this
    Sometimes I'm not sure Mozilla are really helping themselves though! It strikes me that this would be relatively easy to resolve, so I'm not sure what's gone wrong with the Mozilla world domination team.

  • by TheRealGrogan (1660825) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @04:06PM (#35591194)

    Ed Bott is just a pro-Microsoft troll (usually... though he has done a few good pieces). His job is to piss people off, and generate visitor sessions for ZDNet.

    Any "Microsoft App Platform" will be for Windows. Microsoft's definition of targetting code for multiple platforms means multiple versions of Windows. XP, Vista and Windows 7 32 and 64 bit etc.

    Funny how their crap doesn't catch on like it used to. For example, they have resorted to forcing Silverlight on people's computers. If you want MSN Messenger, or anything in the Live Essentials suite you get Silverlight. I have yet to see any content I couldn't view for lack of having silverlight. (That doesn't mean there isn't, just that I haven't encountered it. It's really not that popular). No sane developer is going to put their money on that, and risk alienating visitors. There's a reason that Flash is the most widely used technology today and that is because there's a good chance that most all of your visitors have a Flash plugin available. It's the closest thing to multi platform there is, for media content. Flash Player Square allows pure 64 bit browsers to participate too now. .Net Framework is rubbish. Fragile, hardware intensive rubbish (They work around that now by having services that run all the time to pre-compile byte code) that produces apps chock full of GUI annoyances. Many computers need to have multiple implementations of it too. 1.1, 3.5 (which covers 2.x) and now 4.

    So I think we'll be seeing Firefox survive Internet Explorer 9, or Chrome, or Opera regardless of what nonsense Ed Fucking Bott extrudes from his flabby rectum. With a more level playing field in this day and age, it will remain a viable choice.

  • by rrohbeck (944847) on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @04:25PM (#35591490)

    That sounds great! Where can I download the Linux version?

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @05:24PM (#35592192) Journal

    I don't know about that considering that IE and Webkit are currently safer than Firefox for all of those running a modern version of Windows (Vista and 7) thanks to the fact that both IE and Webkit support low rights mode and Firefox doesn't. In fact the only way to get Firefox to actually function with lower rights is to disable the security features [superuser.com] that makes low rights mode secure in the first place!

    Now will I ever go back to IE, or offer it to my customers as a recommendation? Not a chance in hell, after spending years cleaning up the mess that was the abandoned IE6 there is too much bad blood there, and thanks to Webkit I don't have to. But there are millions on modern Windows versions and for ALL of them currently IE is safer than FF by a long shot and if they promote that? I could see many simply sticking with IE rather than switching.

    It is just common sense, why would you run the browser at a higher permission level than required? The browser is running unsigned third party code from the wild and wooly web, the lower the rights it has the better. Why Mozilla can't manage to add support after 4 years is just ridiculous. I'm currently typing this on FF 4 (which looks like a bad Chrome ripoff to me) but without low rights mode and now that the Chrome extensions have all my must haves like ABP and Forecastfox means this will probably be the last time I use FF or hand it to my customers.

    It is a shame, as I've been a FF users since the early days, but what good is having a modern OS with enhanced security if the programs that benefit from it don't actually use it? So while I won't be going to IE I will be saying goodbye to FF for Comodo Dragon [comodo.com] which gives me all the speed of Chrome and low rights mode without phoning home to Google.

    I really had hopes for FF 4, but it seems like they are spending their time aping Chrome instead of simply making FF better. As XP dies out more and more people will be able to use the security features that FF simply doesn't support. What is the point of aping Chrome (such as tabs on top, no file/edit/view, bookmarks on the right corner) if you don't copy the important stuff like the increased security? Feels like cargo cult usability [piestar.net] at play to me.

    And I'm sure the fanbois will waste their mod points, but it doesn't make 2+2=5 nor will it change reality. You wouldn't run your OS as admin, would you? You agree that least permissions for the task is simply best secvurity practices, yes? Then why would you insist on running a browser that runs at higher permissions and in fact dies hard if you try to run it with less permissions than the user? Seems like a bad design problem to me, maybe that is why Moz still hasn't added it even after 4 years, Gecko is simply not capable of running with lower permissions.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...