Mozilla Ships Firefox 5, Meets Rapid-Release Plan

CWmike writes "Mozilla delivered on Tuesday the final version of Firefox 5, the first edition under the new faster-release regime it kicked off earlier this year. The company also patched 10 bugs in Firefox 5, including one in the browser's handling of the WebGL 3-D rendering standard that rival Microsoft has called unsafe. Firefox 5 looks identical to its predecessor, Firefox 4, but Mozilla's made changes under the hood. Mozilla has denied copying Google Chrome's upbeat schedule but analysts have noted the similarities and pointed out the need of all browser makers to step up the pace. Because of the shorter development cycle, Mozilla called out relatively few new features in Firefox 5."

More work for plugin developers

[tom17]

It seems this new schedule will create more work for plugin developers. My FF upgraded itself today to FF5 and I have plugins that don't work. FireGestures and VMware are two to start with.

Will this now happen every few months?

Do fewer things and do them better?

[ackthpt]

That's an admirable and sensible approach. What would be nice, too, is not to ship a product with all the new stuff defaulted to Enabled, a fault I continue to find with Microsoft and Google - "Hey, we like this new hack, let's foist it on our unsuspecting users and turn a deaf ear to them when they howl."

hey, that's dangerous talk there! We need thousands of new features, right now, and damn the bugs!

This is getting silly

[Rising Ape]

We're at Firefox 5 already? Doesn't seem like five minutes since Firefox 4. Used to be that an entirely new version number meant it was definitely worth taking the time to upgrade, but at this frequency how do we know which are the important ones?

Why not 4.1?

[Retron]

Yes, a few tweaks but it looks largely the same. Beats me why they didn't just call it 4.1!

5 FINAL???

[pla]

Damnit, we need to get rid of this "rapid release" BS.

I've finally gotten 4 configured the way I like; and prior to that, I completely skipped over v3.

People don't want cutting edge web browsers. They want them to work, and they want them to look and feel the same for years at a time. Add support for new media types, tweak the rendering engine, but leave everything else alone!.

And that doesn't even consider how this crap breaks plugins... Literally half the plugins I currently run, I had to edit the install.rdf just to get around the damned version check (after which, they all work just fine of course).

Seriously, a computerworld link?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

WTF slashdot? We get a link to a computerworld writeup about the new release, instead of the release notes and download link?

Re:Do fewer things and do them better?

[MozeeToby]

On the other hand, this release includes essentially zero new features. Calling it a major release and incrementing the primary version number for what is essentially a security update is confusing to the point of making version numbers useless. This release doesn't even deserve a 4.1 IMO.

Re:Do fewer things and do them better?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Calling it a major release and incrementing the primary version number for what is essentially a security update is confusing to the point of making version numbers useless. This release doesn't even deserve a 4.1 IMO

Agreed.

I think the FF devs are just trying to be like Google, and use major version numbers for every minor update they conduct. Terrible, terrible.

Why didn't they just call it Firefox 14?

[Tridus]

Since the version numbering scheme is total nonsense anyway (this is hardly a major change over 4, it's more like 4.1) why not just leapfrog over everyone and call it Firefox 14? Then Chrome will have to play catchup!

Re:More work for plugin developers

[tom17]

Though I didn't say it. This is my point. This is a 4.1 release at best. Making every release a major version number increase rather than the point release it should be means that developers will have to now either re-release their plugin more often or just say to hell with it and set compatibility to *any* future version.

The Major & Minor versioning was great for this. Why did they have to go change it.

Maybe they need a major/minor 'behind the scenes' versioning system and then a fancy 'name' that the public sees, just like MS do with Windows 7 being version 6.1.

Re:5 FINAL???

[dbcad7]

The problem is that IE9, and now Firefox, have copied too much of the Chrome interface.. Now there is nothing wrong with the Chrome interface except that it is hard for many people to figure out how to do things they are used to doing... People who upgrade from IE8 to IE9 are often lost.. It is also a pain in the ass for support people, that most of the new browsers seem to search instead of go to a URL that is typed in an address bar.. From a support point of view, I would much rather that it just error out as page not found..(at least then I know it was typed wrong, and don't have to guess which search result might get us where we need to go).. For searches use a separate search bar like it was for years... I realize these are nitpicks, but if the mass majority were not such lame brains and had a least a little understanding of what the heck they are doing, then it would be no problem.. but they don't.

Re:Do fewer things and do them better?

[ShakaUVM]

>>There is such a thing as modifying the product in ways which improve efficient user interaction and use of system resources. Why shouldn't such an approach be considered a valid Full Release, rather than cramming in more "New" and unwanted/unnecessary "features"?

It's the difference between how Google has been versioning Chrome, and, well, how everyone else does it. Remember how excited people were for Firefox 4? Nationwide rollout? Interactive map showing you where all the downloads were coming from? Now try to imagine this excitement over a product whose changelog is: "We sped up javascript and 3D stuff 10% and broke some of your addons."