Firefox 9.0 Beta Available 291
An anonymous reader tips news that, right on schedule after Tuesday's Firefox 8.0 launch, Mozilla has rolled out the beta of Firefox 9.0. This update brings a significant boost to JavaScript performance, UI improvements for the OS X Lion version, and Do Not Track opt-out detection for developers. 9.0 beta also "supports chunking for XHR requests so websites can receive data that’s part of a large XHR download in progress. This helps developers make websites and Web apps faster, especially those that download large sets of data or via AJAX."
The IE team has stopped sending cakes (Score:5, Funny)
It's too expensive now.
Re:The IE team has stopped sending cakes (Score:5, Interesting)
IE sends Firefox Team Cupcake [geekwire.com]
Re:The IE team has stopped sending cakes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The IE team has stopped sending cakes (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-breaks-with-tradition-no-cake-for-firefox-8/ [winrumors.com]
"We didn’t do it since we thought it was getting to be overkill,” said a Microsoft spokesperson. “Every six weeks is a lot of cupcakes”
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a bummer, since getting more cakes was the entire point of rapid-release. Im sure we will be hearing Asa or whoever announce a return to longer releases-- perhaps once every 2 years, so they can get super large cakes.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't every IT "war" a fight between cupcakes?
Re: (Score:2)
Cupcakes!? Surely you mean fruitcakes.
Mod Parent Informative (Score:3)
It's not just funny, it's true! [winrumors.com]
I do not know what to do... (Score:4, Funny)
I do not know if I want to test FF9 now, that my day is coming to an end here at work, or well, just wait to come home and test FF10.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This has stopped being funny after FF5. It's the same comment over and over again, who mods this up?
And yet Chrome is all right by you people. Look next FF is getting silent updates. Get fucking over it.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's the same comment over and over again, who mods this up?
The same people that submits this story over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why it's ok for chrome and not for FF is because in Chrome, the version number Ian't part of the branding. People don't know what version of chrome they have, it's just chrome. Websites don't support Chrome 12 or whatever, just chrome. With Chrome, you don't need admin access to install or update, so even at work, people update. When was the last time you saw a Chrome version presser anywhere on the internet?
FF is changing versions like they don't matter, but treating them like they still do.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet Chrome is all right by you people.
This was my first thought too. People getting all pissy about Firefox getting rapid releases and switching to Chrome in response. Do any of them realize that Google were the pioneers of rapid release? Google started out with quarterly releases, which they then cut to six weeks, which was then adopted by Mozilla as their release schedule as Google seemed to have made a compelling argument for it [chromium.org].
So feel free to criticize Mozilla for rapid releases if you like, but give Google some credit too. It was their id
Re: (Score:2)
Don't panic - it's pretty simple if you want to convert from the advertised version to the real version. This is the formula I use for Firefox:
realFireFoxVersion(x) = 5 - 4.5/x + x/1000
Works for me every time.
Re: (Score:3)
realFireFoxVersion(x) = (5 - 4.5/x + x/1000).toString()+"beta"
FTFY.
Please stop.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Releasing new versions of firefox and fix the version you have, I'd appreciate 5.1 greatly, I'd also appreciate my browser not freezing randomly at times for 30 second intervals on the most random of things. I like firefox and I know a lot about its structure, but I have chrome installed now because some stuff just won't work as I want it to in ff. Kind of feels like I threw my chips in and now the project is heading completely downhill, I don't like IE UI & I don't know much about chrome, but holy shit, I'm about done w ff. Anybody from mozilla read forums to get user feedback or anything? Guys?
Re:Please stop.... (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop releasing new versions of firefox and fix the version you have
You do understand that the new releases have bug fixes, right? Probably the majority of patches going into any given release are bugfixes.
The main cause of random freezes should be fixed in the latest release, Firefox 8. If you're still seeing freezes, please file a bug and cc me (jlebar) and I'll follow up.
http://blog.bonardo.net/2011/09/30/is-your-firefor-freezing-at-regular-intervals [bonardo.net]
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not have bug fix patches for older releases? The problem isn't that these new releases are mostly just bug fixes, but that they're the ONLY release that's supported. FF8 is out now, which means no more patches to FF7. You are either forced to upgrade or you do without bug and security fixes. The reason Mozilla is getting a lot of pushback is because customers don't like being told what to do.
Re: (Score:3)
So, is it accurate to say that Firefox 9 is really something around 4.2.x or 4.3.x under standard numbering?
Yes, pretty much. Which actually a big part of the complaint: Firefox uses version numbers very differently from the way they are commonly understood.
Understand that our development process is unlike most other projects'. Like Chrome, we have three development versions in flight at once (nightly/canary, aurora/alpha, beta), and when we release, we promote nightly to aurora, aurora to beta, and beta to the release. In the X.Y model, the assumption is that you have only two versions in flight at once: X.(Y+1), which contains bugfixes, and (X+1).0, which contains new features.
Because our development model is so different, the X.Y numbers don't make much s
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know there are alternatives to Chrome. You may hate IE 6 like 90% of us slashdotters, but newer versions are shockingly better [blogspot.com]. As in hell freezes over better from that link!
I quit FF last March shortly after 4.0 and never looked back. Seriously it is the bottom of all modern web browsers. It is great that FF 7 and 8 are much lighter and load as quick as Chrome, but they have over 6000 bugs! FF is the new IE 6 of the 2010s and it pains me to say this as I have been using it since it was called phoenix a
Re: (Score:3)
IE doesn't work in Linux, so that alone makes it usable for me. I switched to Chromium a month or so ago, and I'm pretty happy with it so far. It does use more memory than FF, but the UI responsiveness is much better. I don't see how FF can fix that until they finally switch to one-process-per-tab like Chrome does things.
Re: (Score:2)
On Linux I prefer Chrome too. Mozilla uses the intel compiler and my old laptop is an AMD turrion and it shows whenever I hit a page with heavy javascript or multimedia. It could be because intel's compiler breaks IEEE standards and uses old i387 techniques for FPU but I am not a computer science major so I can't comment on that.
Do you use AMD processors on your Linux install? Still Chrome is not too bad and certainly is usable. FF also is behind on its Linux and MacOSX ports compared to Chrome. Does it eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please stop.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please stop.... (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Along with the versioning scheme comes lack of support for older versions
-- The version scheme is a pain in the neck for add-ons, which depend on versions
-- Normal version numbers give the user information; the version number tells us whether it has had major features, bug fixes, etc. Firefox's versioning has the effect of concealing this information from the user.
Re:Please stop.... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the rapid version changes stops interfering with addons and other such things, then people will stop caring. Chrome gets away with it because they designed Chrome to be version independent from the start regarding interface and addons. Firefox hasn't gotten that part yet, so these will continue to be annoying.
I vote to change meaning of FF "Fast Forward" (Score:5, Funny)
it certainly seems like it from recent increased version numbers pace
Re: (Score:2)
Oh don't worry, at the rate they're going at. We'll be at Firefox 121212 just in time for the end of the world.
Another JavaScript boost (Score:5, Funny)
Counting all the times I've heard about JavaScript boosts, everything written in that language must be faster than quantum computing now.
Re:Another JavaScript boost (Score:4, Informative)
that being said its now fast enough to have webgls game in browser.. to have gpg in browser.. to have linux boot in browser, etc hehe
One question. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How many times can you "boost" Javascript performance?
Infinite times. See: Zeno's paradoxes.
Do not like this release schedule at all (Score:2)
Since Firefox 7, it has been locking up periodically when on YouTube, this was supposed to have been fixed with version 8, and nope it is still locking up when closing a flash enabled page.
Seriously thinking of going back to IE, or finishing the migration to Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
I view Youtube with Chrome, but download Youtube vids using Firefox.
Easy enough to have multiple browsers open on any modern PC.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want, you can have multiple operating systems open on any modern PC. Seems that is like strapping a Honda trailbike on to your Chevy Volt which is bolted on to the bed of an F350 Pickup. At some point you have to ask yourself why.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But Firefox is just replicating the same stupid release management of Chrome; ie, rapid releases without supporting older versions. The numbering itself is irrelevant, what's important is that there is only one supported release at a time and that it changes often. If you don't mind rapid releases and updating a lot then either FF or Chrome is ok. But if you do not like this breakneck speed and want support for a stable version then neither FF nor Chrome is acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. the updates don't break chrome like they do firefox. They still have QC going in their process.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. the updates don't break chrome like they do firefox. They still have QC going in their process.
The only thing Firefox updates break is extensions. Chrome gets around this by not having any extensions worth installing.
Re: (Score:2)
Having extensions was one of the biggest marketing advantages of Firefox. No more.
Re: (Score:2)
People who use Chrome don't complain because they knew how Chrome worked when they started. Firefox users are upset because the old stable model was pulled out from under their feet and replaced with this hyperactive system. Mozilla built up a customer base due to the perceived stability; Chrome built up a customer base due to it being cutting edge and always up to date. These are not the same customer bases.
I don't see any bug fixes on that list (Score:3)
Are they addressing the outstanding bugs that came with the new features in version 8? I think there should be a few rounds of point releases to tighten up the code with any major new feature roll-out.
Example: I'm not sure my Twitter searches are coming up with the right results.
Do Not Track = dumbest delusion since DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Why the hell would that not be hard-coded to "Hell no, do not ever track me!".
2. Why the hell would any of those soulless bastards who use tracking in the first place suddenly grow a conscience and care about that feature?
1. If you believe "Do Not Track" works, you also believe that clicking on "unsubscribe" links in mails as well as DRM works.
2. If you are a person who cares about offending and not ripping off people, why do you track them in sneaky crooked ways the first place?
Re:Do Not Track = dumbest delusion since DRM (Score:5, Informative)
1. Why the hell would that not be hard-coded to "Hell no, do not ever track me!".
See http://blog.mozilla.com/privacy/2011/11/09/dnt-cannot-be-default/ [mozilla.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why the hell would that not be hard-coded to "Hell no, do not ever track me!"
Because then noone would obey the DNT setting.
1. If you believe "Do Not Track" works, you also believe that clicking on "unsubscribe" links in mails as well as DRM works.
Aside from the huge fallacy at the end of that statement (seriously, wtf), unsubscribe DOES work for most "legitimate" spam-- which used to make up the vast majority of my inbox (microsoft newsletters, sales offers from cisco, sonicwall, hp, etc), until I unsubscribed.
Heres why it works, and why DNT will work-- if people DONT respect that, then they get blocked in a much harsher way globally-- for email, spam filters would no longer let Microsoft or Cisco newsle
A ploy (Score:4, Funny)
opt-out detection for developers? (Score:2)
Sounds invasive to me. if i opt out of something why is my browser still squealing on me about doing it?
Or did i misunderstand what was being described?
It's only a matter of time... (Score:2)
until we can finally say that Firefox's version is...
OVER 9000!!!!
Javascript boosts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You want to see Javascript boasts? You might be surprised at this [blogspot.com].
Re: (Score:3)
http://people.mozilla.com/~dmandelin/KnowYourEngines_Velocity2011.pdf [mozilla.com] (or http://www.slideshare.net/newmovie/know-yourengines-velocity2011 [slideshare.net] if you prefer them on slideshare) is a good set of slides to read about things you want to avoid to make your JS fast.
Let it die (Score:4, Insightful)
I was a FF user since it was called Phoenix, and then Firebird when it was a set of patches for Mozilla. I have been advocating its use since 2004 and switched many computers and friends over. It was a great browser at one time. Unfortunately, its time is coming to an end unless drastic things improve.
To me FF in the 2010s is more similiar to the IE 6 of the 2000s I ran away from. Its rapid release schedule increased the popularity of IE [statcounter.com]in the US from users and corporations not liking FF anymore. Chrome according to that site is about tied with FF worldwide and will soon overtake it for #2.
The saddest thing for me is not the current state of FF. It is the fact that I am using IE more and more and preferring IE 9 over FF. IE 10 will give FF a run for its money [blogspot.com] and even Chrome next March when it is released. It is complete opposite of 2005 now and it is amazing it happened in such a very short period of time.
Fix your bugs Mozilla and I may come back like I did with IE. Until then I recommend everyone use Chrome or IE. FF is just too unreliable.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, those results would have made an interesting /. article in their own right. I'm amused that IE exactly brackets Firefox (158 more fails from FF8 to IE9, 158 fewer from Firefox to IE10). It's also interesting - and concerning - that Firefox's score doesn't seem to be improving. According to a commenter, even Firefox 10 nightlies still get the same score as Firefox 8. Meanwhile, Opera is racing from behind and will probably claim either first or second place. Of course, IE10 isn't even out yet - not
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I should submit that as a story but I am afraid I will be flamed to death as this is slashdot after all.
IE 10 is in beta I thought and is scheduled for release in March for Windows 7. A commentor in Ars Technica mentioned MS wants a yearly release of IE and March seems to be the month they prefer. My dream would be if MS would make a Windows 7 OEM CD with SP2 that came with IE 10 akin to IE 8 coming with winXP SP 3 cd, so that way we can start transitioning to HTML 5.
IE 8 is the only thing holding the deskt
Why would I want that? (Score:3)
I just need to wait a couple of months for ver13! Then I wait every two months for 15, 19, 27, 38, 64, 129, 300, 1025 .....
Hell I think I'll wait for V 1025, maybe they'll have fixed the memory leaks and quit shitting on extensions and plugins by then.
Re: (Score:3)
maybe they'll have fixed the memory leaks and quit shitting on extensions and plugins by then.
That is the most puzzling statement about Firefox I have ever seen. You have a browser with better extension support in mind?
Javascript lock in (Score:2)
If they would only just adopt Native Client like Google has, then we wouldn't have this terrible Javascript lock in. Let me use whatever language I like.
Firefox is as high as a kite (Score:2)
It used to be every time I ran firefox it would download and install a security fix.
Now every time I run firefox it installs whole new versions.
Seriously settle down guys or at least reweight your versioning system so it seems less scary. Your frightening a lot of people who assume you have all gone batshit.
In spite of the fact the numbering means nothing, (Score:2)
8.0 didn't fix the lockup and started rendering text-fields in black so I've had to remove that from home.
My partner said she hated the black text fields so I took us back to the 6.0 still archived in
11 and I'm in Heaven (Score:2)
well maybe not.. but us bleeding edger's are on 11 boys and girls.
Firefox to Chrome to Safari (Score:5, Insightful)
These version numbers are getting ridiculous. They'll be up to 2x.0 by next year at this rate. And every time they manage to break something.
I switched to Chrome a while ago, but now I'm using Safari because I like the OS X Lion integration that it seems only Apple is interested in or capable of providing. Native gestures (which FF now has, apparently), integrated dictionary lookup, autocorrect built into the spell checker. And it just feels faster, even when FF has no add-ons enabled.
If FF can do all that I'll switch back.
9.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they add a minor version when they know they're never going to use them?
Re:9.0? (Score:4, Informative)
The versioning setup is that N.0.0 is the next scheduled release. N.0.x is a critical security update that does not break compatibility with add-ons. N.x.0 is for critical security updates that DO break compatibility with add-ons.
Now obviously these last are avoided at all costs, which is why there haven't been any yet. But the option needs to be there... The other possibility would be bumping the major version number for that critical security update, which would be pretty odd...
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot should just create a cron job to post these Firefox stories. They could save a lot of time in the long run.
While they are at it, make it automatically post some BitCoin, Australia and Steve Jobs stories. Maybe throw in a random number generator and automate dupes too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why Mozilla doesn't just skip the next few decimals and just match Chrome's version number with their next release since that's clearly what they are trying to do. I've read the articles claiming that consumers are too dim-witted to know that the version number doesn't necessarily indicate which browser is the most advanced and Mozilla is trying to regain lost mind-share. But it's a waste of time and bandwidth to install a new version every week just because they want to actually use all of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot should just create a cron job to post these Firefox stories. They could save a lot of time in the long run.
Even more time could be saved, if Slashdot also had provided the cronjob service to its users: to automatically post comments to the Firefox version stories. It is even simpler than the stories/dups/random cron job, 'cause comments to the stories remain the same: option to copy user's comments from the past stories into the new stories should be On by default.
Re: (Score:3)
How about:
RIAA plans to add DRM to the late Steve Jobs custom version of Firefox after they won it in a bid using bitcoin in Melbourne.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit optimistic. I was expecting doubly exponential growth.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were looking for this [wolfram.com].
Version changes are the most visible evidence. (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla Foundation is a rich, rich corporation. No one should make the mistake of thinking that work on Firefox is done mostly by volunteers.
Did you see $78.6 million worth of improvements in 2008? [zdnet.com]
Did you see improvements suggesting that Mozilla Foundation had $168 million in assets in 2010? [mozilla.com] (Official PDF file, see page 2. Numbers are in thousands, as it s
Re: (Score:2)
That log you pasted at https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/topcrasher/byversion/Firefox/7.0.1/14 [mozilla.com] looks like the stuff of nightmares. It makes me glad I have so few bugs in my own software (I guess using C# helps a bit too).
Re:Version changes are the most visible evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are whinging about:
1. They are rich... (I wish I was rich too, stop complaining and get to work, slacker)
2. Firefox crashes... (seems to be a problem with Windows XP... stop using crappy Windows XP)
3. HDMI cables??? (WTF??!?? HDMI cables???)
(My anecdotal experience... Firefox never crashes on my Mac... Chrome OTOH, crashes regularly. YMMV)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> Poor cables may need to be replaced when video equipment is upgraded
Anyone with half a brain installs just CAT6 and uses push-down HDMI, RJ45, or whatever sockets.
Re:Version changes are the most visible evidence. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla Foundation is a rich, rich corporation.
Question: Where does their money come from? Would you say they have a "reliable income stream"? If you would, you probably dont know very much about them at all, since 90% of their income comes from search engine deals with one or two companies.
No one should make the mistake of thinking that work on Firefox is done mostly by volunteers.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/careers.html#feature-team [mozilla.org]
Thats the team. Anyone's guess how many people that is, and how many of them actually code, but I would wager far far more volunteers work on firefox than employees.
Did you see $78.6 million worth of improvements in 2008?
And seriously, im not sure where youre going with this. Is this some "fight the man" thing? You can always vote with your wallet, by not paying for their free browser, I guess.
Honestly, what are you complaining about? It cant even be considered your money in a "trickle down" sense-- its coming from third parties for setting a default search engine. If its such a big deal to you, use IE9 or Opera or Chrome or Safari. Switching isnt hard, really-- I promise.
One condition of instability: Windows XP 32-bit with Service Pack 3, for example, becomes unstable when Firefox has taken all the available memory, and is beginning to require the OS to use virtual memory. It seems a reasonable guess that Microsoft will be slow to fix Windows instabilities since poor experiences encourage people to buy new versions
Yea, Mozilla should totally get right on fixing a Windows problem. Or are you just going way off topic, or speculating wildly? How do you even know whether this is a Windows, Firefox, or third party issue?
2) Version 7.0.1 sometimes stays in memory even though the GUI was closed.
Give it some time to flush and close the sqlite database. It should leave memory after about 10 seconds, tops, unless your computer is really awful.
Firefox often corrupts Microsoft Windows, so that Windows needs to be re-started.
Its sounding more and more like youve managed to hose your windows install, and are blaming it on firefox. Seriously, how is a userland app running with non-admin privileges going to "corrupt Microsoft Windows", hmmm?
4) The crashes and memory gobbling have been reported for more than 10 years, since version 0.9 of Mozilla Suite [evolt.org], before Mozilla began using the name Firefox. Firefox is still unstable even though the change reports for every version say there have been "stability improvements".
And apparently you never read the replies from the devs starting around 3.0--
Fix your damn plugins, extension memory leaks arent Mozilla's responsibility
Seriously, I have oodles of computers that I use, and I simply dont see this issue. I have a large suspicion that these few complaints I constantly see on slashdot are from people who either use messed up extensions, are blaming mozilla for wonky plugins, or have hardware / OS issues outside of Mozilla's control. Scores of people try to track down these "memory issues", and the verdict time and again seems to be "it doesnt look substantially different than any other browser".
FWIW, one of my coworkers used to run Firefox 3.x on XP with about 9 instances going, with about 20 tabs each, for days on end. Must have been working for him, one would think, and I dont think he had more than 2gb ram (Im sure he had some serious paging going on).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox often corrupts Microsoft Windows, so that Windows needs to be re-started.
Its sounding more and more like youve managed to hose your windows install, and are blaming it on firefox. Seriously, how is a userland app running with non-admin privileges going to "corrupt Microsoft Windows", hmmm?
Yet it happens. Adobe Flash under Firefox seems to be able to kill my Linux system.
I'm not saying that Flash is executing in kernel space, but it seems that if there is a bug in system services or kernel, Flash (and so Firefox) will find it. (see Murphy laws)
Re: (Score:2)
...and it uses 2x the memory on my Mac that Firefox does
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say Firefox's biggest problem is that it's bloated. Chrom{e|ium} is considerably faster.
Really? Several report that I have read come the the conclusion the Firefox uses less memory than Chrome. Here is one relatively recent comparison between Firefox 7 and Chrome 14: http://techpp.com/2011/09/28/chrome-14-vs-firefox-7-memory-footprint-comparison/ [techpp.com]
This is from the article:
"It’s clear that Chrome 14 consumes more memory than Firefox 7."
Tom's Hardware also has comparison of Chrome 14 and Firefox 7, and other browsers, coming to the same conclusion: "Naming a winner for overall memory
Re: (Score:2)
Really. It's version 23 before the year ends.
Why was the parent modded troll? Does anyone actually disagree?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's daylight here on the other side of the world, can I still download the nightly version or do I have to wait 12 hours?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:8 now 9....tomorrow will be 15 (Score:5, Informative)
8.0 is release. 9.0 is beta. 10.0 is alpha. When a new version goes gold, as happened with 8.0 a short time ago, the beta and alpha versions bump up. It's standard practice for software but for some reason pisses everyone on Slashdot off with Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
It's definitely not standard practice for software to label minor releases as major releases and bump the version number accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
You are right. They broke everything that was rigth with the world: %regexpr[Major\.Minor\.Patch(\-\{classifier})+] with the following rules was perfect : ;)
1-increment patch if you change nothing public to fix a bug, minor if you add something, avoid breaking compatibility at all cost.
2-increment minor, reset patch if you add a new backward compatible feature to a public API.
3-increment major, reset minor and set patch to 2 on the addition of some major backward incompatible features
Re:8 now 9....tomorrow will be 15 (Score:5, Insightful)
The "some reason" is that 1. it's preposterously rapid.
8 was out on Tuesday, now 9 beta is available, by next Tuesday 9 will be out and 10beta will be ready by next Friday.
And 2. that the whole number releases are NOT really new versions. Well, some of them are, but how do you know which ones?
I know the idiot developers at Mozilla think this is no big deal. One of them even said so on this site earlier this week. But it is a BIG FUCKING DEAL. It's breaks add-ons. People have better things to do that try to fix that every week. It also screws up sites that NEED older versions to work -- like banking sites. But if you stick with the old version it screws up sites like Gmail because they need the latest "version" or 3. It's a catch 22. There is now ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY, NONE, of using Firefox throughout the majority of web that most regular people need to do. You absolutely HAVE to use more than one browser for your daily needs. This is worse utility than they had with 0.86. And the reason is simply VANITY and EGO.
It's fucked up. Totally fucked up. And the only reason Mozilla are doing this is because it makes them feel like their dicks are bigger than everyone else's.
Just like with Netscape, Mozilla is determined to bloat their browser into the ground. They are already bleeding users, just because of this numbering system. And they are too dumb, and too vain, to reverse the retarded decision.
But hey, let them learn the hard way, very soon they will be too unemployed to make such retarded decisions again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It pisses people off because Mozilla has inflated their versioning system. They are incrementing quickly not because they are integrating major, watershed features but because they want to pump up the version number quickly. This is because marketers believe consumers view version numbers as an indicator of a product's maturity. To such people, Chrome would seem to be way out in front. So they are forcing all of these reinstalls and obsoleting extensions over and over for little gain, all because their
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been on nightlies since... 6? I've had very few crashes.. maybe one every two weeks or so. I do not run with many extensions any more.. pretty much just adblock noscript and ghostery.
Shut Off Auto-Update!Re:Finally abandoned FF at v8 (Score:2, Insightful)
For the luff of ghod shut off auto-update, and when a new version comes out just download it and then run a dry-run test in a temporary fashion before committing to the next version. Oh and stop kvetching about having to abandon a product because your skills are sloppy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter. Firefox updated and broke his shit. Therefore, it is firefox's "fault". If they don't want to be responsible for this, then quit the brain damaged 6 weekly auto update cycle that breaks people's shit, and go back to making releases that break things MAJOR updates that people need to manually upgrade to, complete with change logs that can be read before deciding to upgrade.
No other browser auto updates and breaks people's stuff like firefox does.
Re: (Score:3)