Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla

Ninth Anniversary of Firefox 1.0 Release 153

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the time-flies dept.
Nine years ago today, Firefox 1.0 was released. Mozilla writes "Mozilla created Firefox to be an amazingly fun, safe, and fast Web browser that embodies the values of our mission to promote openness, innovation and opportunity online. In the nine years since we first launched Firefox, we have moved and shaped the Web into the most valuable public resource of our time." The first release of the little project to write a lighter alternative to Seamonkey is a bit over a year older.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ninth Anniversary of Firefox 1.0 Release

Comments Filter:
  • don't care. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:02PM (#45377575) Homepage Journal

    phoenix was where it was at.

    it all started going downhill after politics and marketing departments of mozilla got involved.

    the 1.0 release was pretty much meaningless milestone in the big picture for the project. imho phoenix 0.2 should be the release to celebrate if any.

    • Re:don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maugle (1369813) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:06PM (#45377609)
      Phoenix 0.2 was amazing for its day, but what we should really be celebrating is how the web was freed from the curse of "this site works in IE only". And that happened after Phoenix became Firefox.
      • Re:don't care. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:25PM (#45377691) Homepage Journal

        Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose. We would still have four major browsers available, all largely "standards compliant", along with a number of less popular browsers. Firefox changed the landscape, dramatically.

        I can't even remember which milestone I started on now, but it seemed to take FOREVER for 1.0 to come out. I guess it's close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now. To lazy to look up the dates for all the point.whatever releases.

        • Re:don't care. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by linebackn (131821) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:46PM (#45377813)

          Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose.

          This.
          People may not realize it, but we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser. If Mozilla and Firefox had not gained popularity, it is quite probable that IE would have dominated enough market share to push out all other browsers. And nobody would bother creating sites that worked in anything else. Furthermore this would have virtually killed any OSes that Microsoft didn't feel like supporting with IE.

          As is is now, we have several open source browsers that are ported to many different OSes, and no dignified web site would even think of only supporting one browser.

          • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @09:20PM (#45380269) Homepage

            > we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft
            > Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser.

            We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.

            It's not Mozilla's fault but, as Stallman says, freedom is about controlling your computing on your computer, so it's a real problem that a lot of computing is being done on Facebook's servers.

            (That said, it would be useful if Mozilla Firefox did more to make its users aware of what free software is - such as putting a clearer link in the menu or in the About dialogue box.)

            • by NotBorg (829820)

              We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.

              If that were true, there would be no point in search. Yes there are a few that are very popular, but their relative popularity doesn't come at the expense of the very long tail [wikipedia.org].

          • by Lennie (16154)

            Mozilla, behind the scenes, no in the open, at W3C and IETF is making sure it stays that way as much as possible.

            If you think things can't change you clearly don't live in the real world.

            Mozilla was important and Mozilla remains important.

            As an example is iOS. An other example is Androidm which is getting more and more closed:
            http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ [arstechnica.com]

        • by antdude (79039)

          FYI, it's = it is/has. ;)

          ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/phoenix/releases/ [mozilla.org] doesn't even show v1.0. Only v0.1 to v0.5. However, its readme says to go to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ [mozilla.org] that show v1.0 as 12/10/2004 (DOOM shareware's release 11 years old! 20 in 2013!).

          • "I guess it is close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now."

            If you choose to live life as an anal retentive, you could also choose to know what the hell you are being retentive about. ;)

          • Alright - I clicked the links. I really didn't understand what you were saying, I guess. You're stating "it is" to confirm that it's been a decade? That being the case, I apologize for the snappy comeback.

            I think I got onboard about here:

            0.4/ 12/11/02, 6:00:00 PM

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Nimey (114278)

        Truth. Back then websites were typically written for IE5 or 6 and sometimes Netscape 4. Writing web pages to standards was for activist nerds, because at that point IE's market share was around 90%.

        • by tsa (15680)

          Those were very dark times. Sometimes I would go to a 'website' only to find out that it really was a .exe file that IE could run (of course with full privileges). My friend, who back then was an avid supporter of all things Microsoft, came to me once to tell me he had been looking for registration keys on the internet and now his computer was infected with so many viruses that it was completely unusable. I laughed and said: I warned you many times to not use IE! He went to FF and never looked back.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        funny thing is that I don't remember having any such problems with phoenix. everything worked or the things that didn't work were irrelevant.

        granted that I didn't have to use any intranet web apps or such...

      • Sadly, the web is now falling into the curse of "this site works in Google Chrome only". (*)

        (*) Google controls the "living" HTML.

    • by antdude (79039)

      You don't care but NBA, CBS, Comcast, Care More, etc. care though! :P

  • wtf happened... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:11PM (#45377627)

    to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

    • Re:wtf happened... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rudy_wayne (414635) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:19PM (#45377661)

      to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

      Exactly.

      The problem isn't just that Firefox is bloated and full of unnecessary crap. Even worse, they keep changing or removing existing features that are actually useful. Every new version now brings more pointless changes that make Firefox just a little bit worse. And no matter how much users complain about all the constant pointless tinkering and the nonstop treadmill of unnecessary changes, the response from Mozilla is always the same. A thinly veiled Fuck You We Don't Care What You Think.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Have to wonder if they even use their own browser
      • by Anonymous Coward

        to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

        Exactly.

        The problem isn't just that Firefox is bloated and full of unnecessary crap. Even worse, they keep changing or removing existing features that are actually useful. Every new version now brings more pointless changes that make Firefox just a little bit worse. And no matter how much users complain about all the constant pointless tinkering and the nonstop treadmill of unnecessary changes, the response from Mozilla is always the same. A thinly veiled Fuck You We Don't Care What You Think.

        Their response is more along the lines of if you don't like you can customize it anyway you like. My Firefox is functionally and aesthetically pretty similar to Firefox 2.0. A clean install a of Firefox uses less than 100mb of RAM when first launched. It was very close second to chrome in Benchmarks [tomshardware.com]. There are enough plugins out there you can get the functionality/aesthetics you want. It just might require a bit of tinkering on your part.

        • by Zenin (266666)

          It was very close second to chrome in Benchmarks.

          Which seems more evidence of how badly Tom's Hardware botched the testing than anything else.

          In real use Chrome is so wildly faster than Firefox it's incredible, thanks largely to its Javascript engine and the fact most modern web sites are incredibly JS heavy. I'm not even talking 20% faster, but closer to 200%, literally running circles around Firefox.

          It's to the point that just taking raw performance into consideration, I can't stand using Firefox lately

          • by Ark42 (522144)

            Chrome's Javascript is terrible in my experience. Every time I write something that needs speed, both Firefox and IE are way better. The last example was a page that did nothing more than scroll and resize images across a page, so they were bigger when in the middle of the page, and smaller by the edges. The page just runs the images in an infinite loop, and the images are only about 600 pixels big, and there are only 70-80 of them. For maximum smoothness, I ran setInterval at 4ms for 250fps, and easily obt

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Blakey Rat (99501)

        My most recent Firefox experience was finding out that they broke their own Jetpack AddOn API, making it impossible to build an AddOn that works in both Firefox 17 and Firefox 24.

        That wouldn't normally be a big deal, but 17 and 24 are both LTS versions-- meaning our client was moving directly from one to the other! And it was impossible for us to make a single .xpi that supported both!

        Mozilla's a clown college now, I can only assume any real software engineer with talent has long since moved on.

        • by vlueboy (1799360)

          I got a support call recently from a user whose whole office puzzled me when they said their local IT branch has them on version 17.
          Our official policy only observes 2 versions and I had never thought hard about those stray callers that blatantly appear to be ~10 versions "behind".

          Thanks for reminding me that LTS is the reason behind this. I much preferred the days of you could say "you're running 2.0 and should upgrade to 3.0" You can no longer tell that the huge number gap is no more than 12 months becau

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's an updater.

    • by lennier1 (264730)

      Well, it allows you to visit websites while you're waiting for the next update. That's why people mistake it for a browser.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    FF1.5 was and still is the only good version.

    After that it went downhill with them adding crap features, bloating the hell out of the browser and breaking the API EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN TIME. THEY STILL DO THIS NOW. LEARN WHAT AN API IS YOU MORONS, APIS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BREAK, THAT IS THEIR POINT!
    I gave up caring about their nonsense when Chromium became stable enough. (v0.3, still on my desktop for some reason)

    I still have one installed, webdev, etc.
    The only thing I mainly use it for is for a couple ex

    • by Nimey (114278)

      Pfft. Firefox 2.0.0.x was pretty good, it was with 3.x that it got slower and I eventually switched to Chrome for better speed.

      • by Lisias (447563)

        On the other hand, that API issue is serious.

        For a lot of time, I were using Firefox instead of Chrome because of my NetBanking plugin. Chrome was a bit faster than Firefox at that time, but not that faster - and I enjoyed my Firefox add-ons.

        And then, suddenly, Mozilla start to spit new versions in a crazy way, and my NetBanking stop working after every single new (sub)version of Firefox. Hell by hell, I decided Chrome's "hell" was a bit more worthy - at least, I got some faster renderings and the Google's

  • Lost its way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by schwit1 (797399) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @12:41PM (#45377775)

    They got off track when the goals stopped being about speed, standards, stability and security.

    At that point it became just another app.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If that was true, they wouldn't have rewritten their Javascript engine twice, been obsessing about hardware acceleration, wouldn't have bothered to make it the browser using the least amount of RAM after being the one that used the most two years ago, etc. They haven't even finished implementing HTML5 yet because they're so focused on performance, including threading the browser and efforts to improve their DOM engine's performance that won't pay off for at least another year at this rate.

      In the face of tho

      • by Zenin (266666)

        The fact is they have to focus on performance, especially their Javascript engine...precisely because their performance sucks big harry balls, most especially their Javascript engine!

        Call me back when/if they ever actually make progress. All I've seen as a user is a browser that has gotten nothing but slower and slower with each release, a sharp contrast to Chrome and IE.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Almost every new iteration of FF removes or detrimentally alters a feature that people use and rely on.

    It's really starting to piss me off as I have to find extensions or workarounds to replace the functions they keep taking away.

    The most recent annoyance is to the find-in-page function, before it was well laid out and I had absolutely no issues with it, but now it's ruined, the close bar X button has been moved from immediately left of the search box to the right edge of the bar which is really far away on

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      Yep. Switch to SeaMonkey.

      By the way, I'm working on a patch to make fork SeaMonkey's find bar code back to the old find bar so it's no longer reliant on the stuff in /toolkit/. Time will tell whether it gets accepted.

    • You do realize that you can close the find bar by pressing the Esc key, and that search next/previous is available as F3/shift-F3 or ctrl-G/shift-ctrl-G. It's a matter of taste, but I think the new search bar is an improvement. And that the find bar is now local for a single tab is more logical, IMHO.
  • by icannotthinkofaname (1480543) on Saturday November 09, 2013 @06:10PM (#45379453) Journal

    Maybe I'm getting hung up on the wrong thing here, but how the fuck do you measure how "fun" a web-browsing experience is? What does that actually mean? What is it that makes Firefox fundamentally more enjoyable during recreational use that, say, Chrome/Opera/Safari/IE/etc. are missing?

    I'm fine with the rest of this and happy birthday to Firefox and all, but what is it that actually makes for a "fun" browsing experience, other than the specific websites that I choose to use?

    • It's not just you - this is precisely the word that I was coming in here to comment about.

      Firefox is still my primary browser, and I still think it's the "most free" and potentially most "featureful" one left (even Chromium is subject to Google's whims and reluctances - as an example, in my case I find it irritating that Firefox has had native .opus support for <audio> tags by default for over a year, while Google only implemented perhaps six months ago...and still has it disabled by default. Apparent

  • It went from Phoenix to Firebird, then to Firefox
    • by tsa (15680)

      Me too. I started with Netscape. I never used IE and I marveled at people who kept using the rusty and bent piece of junk IE6 was when the rest of the world had moved on.

  • Chrome's tab-model is a literal Fork-Bomb. If I have to explain it to you, you need to get off /.

    Unlike Firefox where it JIT loads tabs as you need them. Try restoring a 30+ multi-tab session with Chrome, good-luck.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Moreover, Firefox realized how stupid it was to load all your tabs at once when you restarted the browser. It's insane. 50 tabs open, and I have to wait for them to load? No thanks! I can see maybe wanting a specific subset of the tabs load that way upon restart, but given how quickly pages load and how infrequently you're going to use each of those 50 tabs, it's just insane not to wait until you switch to them to reload them from cache/website.

      Especially given that whenever I reopen Chrome that way, a good

  • When they decided to start hiding or removing useful settings while adding so much bloatware into it that they might as well have renamed it FireIE 6.0, I quit using it for daily browsing habits.

    Now that it is up to version 25+ (which is fucking stupid in its own right, trying to play version catch-up with Google just because), I still find that I don't use it for anything but Twitch.tv and Disqus.

    For some reason the chat interface for Twitch never loads in Chrome no matter what I do, and Disqus comments ne

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Working...