Firefox 5 In Aurora Channel 161
blair1q writes "Mozilla.org has added a new intermediate development state, Aurora, to its Firefox development chain. Coming between Nightly-Build and Beta, it adds a fourth sense to the meaning of 'the current version of Firefox' (the Release version fills out the trope). And now they have populated the Aurora channel with what will eventually become Firefox 5. The intent is to reduce release-version cycle times by allowing more live testing of new features before the integrated code gets into a Beta version. The inaugural Aurora drop includes 'performance, security and stability improvements.' Firefox 5 is scheduled to enter Beta on May 17, and Release on June 21. Downloads of all of the active channels are available from the Firefox channels webpage."
Only half as good as Chome (Score:2)
I have Chrome 10!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I forked Firefox just to add larger version numbers!
Firefork changelog:
200.0.1: Changed version number to 200.0.1
80: New feature! Version number now 80!
63: Bug fix: new version number!
7: New feature, dynamic version numbering geared for competitive synergy, current version number updated to show immensity of new versioning social media.
6: New and improved version number! Now renders about the same as other browsers. OpenGL support (only for version number on about pane at this time).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have 3.6, and it seems I'll be sticking to it until this "my version number is bigger then yours" insanity finally ejaculates and comes back to being a quality release rather then "lookie how fast we can release miniscule updates" like a premature ejaculator competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually they will all switch to a YYYYMMDD release number. Until someone first gets the idea to use a Unix timestamp instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The only proper version number is the 40-digit git commit id.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Only half as good as Chome (Score:5, Interesting)
Won't happen. What *is* insanity today, however, is sticking to a yearly or bi-yearly release cycle when the HTML standards evolve faster than that. Shorter cycles implies less features indeed, but this also means that there's not as much to test before each release, so the risks of following the evolution of the web better isn't increased despite following it better.
This is basically a very simplified version of the Chromium dev's motivation to move to this.
But it's of course more fun to think it's a version number game. However, just wait 'til Chrome 27 and you'll see that version numbers will lose their meaning soon enough, just like Google and others intended.
Re: (Score:3)
What *is* insanity today, however, is sticking to a yearly or bi-yearly release cycle when the HTML standards evolve faster than that
Seriously? We are still waiting for CSS3 to be finalised 12 years after the first draft was released. The precursor to HTML5 began its life in 2004 and HTML5 itself had its first draft release in 2008.
As a web developer, I wouldn't want to create a site that relied on people using a browser that was only a couple of months old. Sure it might work for Firefox and Chrome users, but what about the smaller browsers that can't keep up or the ones in embedded devices and phones.
On the other side of the coin, as a
Re: (Score:2)
If the standard is evolving at a faster rate than the implementation, then the standard is not really a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
So you missed Firefox 4.0, the last major release then ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting that I haven't "missed it", it's just that like many other who mainly want a stable browser where all their add-ons "just work" and a familiar look and feel, upgrading to latest version is an exercise of epic stupidity. Half of your add-ons won't work, there are no well documented ways to remove the new UI crap that firefox people seem to think we all get horny over and so on.
Personally, I'm not even touching FF4 until there is an easy way to revert all UI changes with minimal hassle. Most of m
Re: (Score:2)
So what you want is the major versions to disappear and any major changes too? *rolleyes*
Some people are hard to please. Thanks but FF4 seems to be the best release thus far and not one of my 15 plugins isn't working. As for the UI changes ... clicking "Firefox" > "Options" > "Menubar" is too hard?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, last time a major change occured (awesomebar), there was no way outside about:config editing to disable the damn thing.
In the end, I ended up just getting an add-on because it was easy.
Before that, we had nice flat menus that for some reason lost 3d effect. Apparently "microsoft's fault". Strange considering no other programs, nor previous versions of firefox had any problems but whatever.
Fixed with an add-on.
Before that...
P.S. Still can't disable personas completely. Ended up removing all personas-r
Re:Only half as good as Chome (Score:5, Funny)
I have 3.6, and it seems I'll be sticking to it until this "my version number is bigger then yours" insanity finally ejaculates
<Sigh> Just close your eyes really tight, and say "It's version 3.8! It's version 3.8! It's version 3.8!" and click download. And then stop whining about something that was completely arbitrary to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
I would, but I, personally, can't stand Firefox4... ahem... 3.8. They added bloat (the new tab system... panorama, or whatnot), they removed a feature I liked (ability to modify previously clicked links). The GUI is ugly as sin, trying to compete with Chrome/Chromium but completely failing (why the hell does the menu button hover above everything, wasting space?). Why look like Chrome, there should be some variation out there. The interface still feels clunky and slow compared to even the newest iterati
Re: (Score:3)
I would, but I, personally, can't stand Firefox4... ahem... 3.8.
FF4 would be 3.7, FF5 would be 3.8.
They [did bad things]
The OP was acting as if all those things were somehow caused by the change from N.n versioning to N versioning. I was trying to point out that the previous versioning system was completely arbitrary, and the new versioning system is completely arbitrary. Calling it version 5, or 4.1, or 3.8, or 1.12.2, doesn't make the slightest difference to the actual product.
willing to sacrifice their original base users (techies and geeks) for greater popularity among normal users.
Gasp! The monsters!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we all understand that version numbers are arbitrary. However, there are certain problems with the current system:
1) It's not internally consistent. This bothers some people. It doesn't bother others. I would guess that some people were using version numbers to decide when to update, for example, and this kind of versioning system doesn't really lend itself to such things, since every minor update to the browser is now a major release. Personally, I think it's a bit silly, but it doesn't offend m
Re: (Score:2)
If I wasn't posted, I'd mod you insightful. You pretty much summed up most of my thoughts and opinions on the matter, but so much better than I've been doing. Good job!
Average consumers won't care.
You over-estimate "average consumers", I'm afraid. In a lot of people's minds "bigger number = better". This is at least true with the non-geeks I personally know.
Re: (Score:2)
Gasp! The monsters!
And my point was; this is pointless.
What do they get for having millions of grandmothers use their browser that they didn't get for hundreds of thousands of geeks using it?
Also, alienate the geeks at your own risk, the only reason that Firefox is so widespread now is that these hundreds of thousands of geeks stuck it on their grandmothers' computers. Geeks could as easily jump ship and start spreading Opera or Chrome, or even suggesting using IE9 (doubtful, but possible since IE9 isn't... erm... bad).
My ex
Re: (Score:2)
And my point was; this is pointless.
And my point was; refusing to upgrade because of the version number is the sort of retarded obsessive geek stupidity that hurts open source projects.
You want innovation, then scream every time they move a fucking button. When a browser has the sort of market share of Firefox, nothing the devs do will be respected. Especially because it's popular with geeks. Make it easier to use, and they scream about dumbing it down "for Grandmothers". Remove the menubar by default, and the same fucktards whine about havin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
4.0 is a major upgrade from 3.6, not a miniscule update. I suggest you download it. There are significant perf improvements, in the JS engine and elsewhere.
Re:4.0 (Score:2)
I agree that 4.0 was big news, and I followed the betas for 4.0 because I wanted an early warning of "the state of things to come".
However since these 3 month releases are indeed more like minor point versions, I'll likely go back to the style I use for MS Op Systems, and only use about every second-third one.
Re: (Score:1)
It DOES affect the software when they start adding bloat just to get a jump on their competitors with a new version number.
Re: (Score:2)
CSS3 Animations (Score:3, Informative)
Current version (Score:3, Insightful)
No it doesn't, most of us aren't testers. If you want to use the latest development build, alpha build, beta build or release candidate, do so, but don't pretend it's a release. That's just hyperbole at best. Me? I'll wait for the next release, and thanks to all you folks who are prepared to run intermediate builds in the form of mass QA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll usually download a Beta and try it out a bit, and will install and move to RC1 when ti goes live. I figure that, as a "power user", I can at least give intelligible bug reports when something breaks. It's the least I can do in return for a free, awesome browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't pretend it's a release. There's a release channel that lets you download versions called "Release" so that this mistake won't happen.
It is a version, however. At any one time, there's a current Release version, a current Beta version, a current Aurora version, and a current Nightly Build version. I list them here in the order by which they get "more current" as you go down the list. The first three are downloadable by anyone in the public to use. Beta and Aurora come with feedback features ena
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't have time to work out how they should be re-written to work with a beta.
There's a setting in about:config that you can use to turn off extension version checking. Most of the time, this is enough, IME. And I bet given the new release cycle, that 99% of extensions written for 4 work with 5.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're a real fuck tard, aren't you?
Firefox extensions are aftermarket products. That means it is not mozilla's job to fix them, but rather the extension author.
When was the last time you saw larry wall patching people's perl scripts? Does Bill Joy fix your java programs when they break because Java got an update?
Grab a brain, moron.
This is all getting slightly ridiculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting rather tired of everyone paying more attention to release dates, version numbers, and now the names of production and testing phases than the quality of the actual product/program.
I think this is a pretty useful one - for developers at least. Now it's much easier to keep two copies of Firefox next to eachother. One is the normal release, stable, like FF4 now. The other is in alpha or beta, and shows where it's going. Firefox developers can use and test it, website developers can see how their site looks in the upcoming release.
There is only one problem that I see, you cannot run them next to eachother, and that is because they both have the same process name (I suppose). I have Firef
Re: (Score:2)
> Now it's much easier to keep two copies of Firefox
> next to eachother.
This was always just as easy as now. Nothing has changed in this regard.
> There is only one problem that I see, you cannot run
> them next to eachother
Sure you can; just have them use different profiles. See http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing%20profiles [mozilla.com]
Re: (Score:2)
did you try -no-remote or FoxTester [mozilla.org]?
Thanks for the tip! On my mac (at home) it doesn't work, but at work I use Ubuntu, and I think it'll be very useful there.
Fourth Sense (Score:2)
Is that like a fourth state of matter? What are the other three senses of the 'the current version of Firefox' anyway?
----
Sorry, you're foreign.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Senses of meaning, i.e.:
"Something or other is meant in the sense that..."
Re: (Score:2)
There was a link to them. And descriptions of them in the summary and in TFA.
Do we have to start licensing computer users now?
Actually, I think I know what happened. You don't know the meaning of the word "trope", so you didn't understand that the sentence containing it was closing the meme for you. Pay attention in school in your next life.
Oh god another version (Score:3, Insightful)
So they want to have two months between major versions, and expect all add-on developers to update and test, all web developers to check their layouts, web site and magazine editors to update their tutorials, useful forum posts to be obsolete, people get used to the new UI...
WTF is this shit?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Oh god another version (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Constantly? I'm sorry, but that's incredibly stupid, having to release a browser ever few months because neither the web developers nor the W3C can figure out how to branch revisions or handle updates gratefully is hardly a reasonable thing to have to work around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Less testing to be done since each update will bring with it less changes...
You won't need to do more testing, you will need to do less testing more often.
Re: (Score:3)
1) There will be work going into handling add-on compatibility more smoothly than before. There are plans to bump the compat version on AMO-hosted add-ons automatically, unless they're flagged as possibly being broken. In the latter case the add-on developer will be asked to update it, of course.
2) There should be much less in the way of churn between versions for web developers, reducing the need to check layouts.
3) There should be much less in the way of UI churn between versions, reducing the need f
Re: (Score:2)
We will have to wait and see I guess. Historically Mozilla likes to break^H^H^H^H^H improve the UI with every major version. If they are no longer doing that and the changes will be more minor then all they have achieved is version number inflation.
I think this is what people can't understand. Either they plan to carry on with similarly big changes with each major version number (bad) or they are just inflating the version number for some inexplicable reason (pointless). I stand by my original question: WTF
Re: (Score:2)
> If they are no longer doing that and the changes
> will be more minor then all they have achieved is
> version number inflation.
No. What they have achieved is getting web features into users' hands quicker. Please don't confuse web features and UI features.
As a simple example, WebM support was done in July 2010 or so, but didn't end up in a final release until March 2011. That's 8 extra months of having to watch Youtube via Flash for users. There are lots and lots of web-facing features which d
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just include WebM in a point update then? In fact that would be a better solution IMHO because it would allow backend stuff like WebM to be introduced quickly and still allow plenty of time to beta test UI changes. Look at how many betas FF4 went through and how much the user interface stuff was revised.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the old promise for point updates was that they did not significantly change internal APIs (not true for the way WebM was integrated) and were generally limited to security and stability fixes (something that WebM clearly is not).
All that's happened is that this promise is gone. There is no more "minor" vs "major" update distinction. Updates are just updates. They add features, or not, if none are ready; in that case the update will just have security patches. Updates can always change internal
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings me back to my original point: The release cycle is too fast to get UI changes properly debated and tested. FF4 was bad enough.
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of discussion about how to do UI changes in this setup, yes. I don't think anyone is planning to roll out sweeping UI changes within a single 18-week cycle; they would land on mozilla-central, get disabled after the aurora merge, and keep getting disabled until people are happy with them on mozilla-central. Just like any other big feature, by the way; just because something is in mozilla-central doesn't mean it ends up in the next final release.
Chrome has so far sidestepped this issue
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FF4 is a good example of why they need a longer testing period. In early betas they moved the link destination URL from the bottom of the screen in the status bar to the right hand side of the address bar. It was a really jarring change because everyone is used to instinctively looking in the lower left corner for link URLs. For the RC it was moved back to the lower left, but it took many beta versions to be discussed and sorted out. If they were in a rush to get V4 out we would now be stuck with it mis-fea
Re: (Score:2)
> but with a major release people will want to know
> what added benefit it brings
For what it's worth, not a single developer I've talked to is worrying about that. The current plan is to release things as they're ready and not worry about what version number marketing decides to put on it.
Or (Score:1)
Firefox today took another step towards ripping off Chrome completely by adding another release channel.
Re: (Score:1)
Please win back the long-time users (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been with Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox from the beginning; custom builds, bug reports, tech evangelism, extensions/userscripts; I have made more than one offline XUL application for personal use (JS application programming before it was cool!); the whole ten meters. It had been so good for so long.
In 2008 a few things happened. 1. The extremely sensible and welcome features added in the 2.x release cycle, coupled with the unique browser landscape, ended up derailing the original goals of the project (streamlined browser, minimal yet viable for mainstream use, with robust extension capabilities for anything else anyone could want) back into some ridiculous browser arms race; 2. I switched to OSX and I think the memory problems are even worse there; and 3. Chrome started shaping up to be everything I wanted technically, with its new extension and built-in userscript support (even if it was inferior), its sandboxing, and its sort of remotely sane memory usage, even if it didn't have the warm fuzzy feeling I had from my closeness to the Mozilla project.
I am still so guilty about my switch to Chrome but I spend so much of my life in a browser window that I really had to go the practical route.
And since then it's just been getting worse and worse, with all resources going into either JS performance to keep up in benchmarks or features to be able to add some more bullet points to a release announcement. All anyone wants is better memory management, and then tab sandboxing would be nice after that since Flash/Silverlight can really bring down an embedding process. Give us some core improvements that aren't marketing driven and move all the AWESOMENESS into extensions that can be disabled after install! That's all anyone (on /.) wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree. FF 4 has jumped the shark.
- Took forever to address the memory leak; devs constantly ignored it in 1.x and 2.x. (Hello, a web browser should NOT consume 1.5 gigs when no tabs are open when it has been runing for a month.)
- Keep breaking plugins/extensions. Useful extensions like SunCult (shows Moon Phases) is broken 3.6. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/sun-cult/)
- The UI team can't focus on _useful_ tab management, such as giving me a list of ALL tabs across ALL windows,
Re: (Score:2)
Flash is already sandboxed in its own process in Firefox; not sure about Silverlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to a troll... nothing good can come of this.
Chrome memory usage is much worse than Firefox.
Its higher overall, but not worse. So far I haven't noticed any large leaks on Chrome, unlike Firefox. Also Chrome has 1 process = 1 tab or extension, which does push up its memory usage a bit, but also gives a ton more stability and security. Its a trade off I'm willing to take, at least. When I close a tab in Chrome, 99% of the time that memory is cleared back, in Firefox it often just lingers there allocated but useless. I can leave Chrome open o
Stupid (Score:1)
Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (Score:3)
What the fuck Mozilla... Firefox 4 is crashing 20 times a day for me. I'm not even joking, here's a copy paste from the 7 last entries of my about:crashes
bp-... 2011-04-14 20:01
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:59
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:05
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:05
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:00
bp-... 2011-04-14 19:00
bp-... 2011-04-14 18:31
Basically I've switched to chrome now to be able to to my work. Your new strategy is fucking ridiculous. Build a quality browser instead of jumping onto the "we must increment the major version number faster than the others" bandwagon. Once upon a time the major version number was only incremented when you restarted a project from scratch. Nowadays that number doesn't mean anything anymore - to anyone. I don't know what major version number chrome is and I don't care either - and I don't think most people don't know or care.
You can start plan new features when you've fixed all the bugs. Planning for version 5 when your browser can't even run 10 minutes without crashing is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
from his experience with ff4.
incidentally, i'm facing the same problem. leave open ff4 for ~90 min, crash. this was not happening in any of the beta builds. dunno why now.
posting from ie9, which is rock-solid, fast but not customizable at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you able to post a link to one (or more) of your crashes on the crash stats web page?
It sounds like you're having an unusual experience, hopefully somebody will look at your crash reports. I run 4 all day, all night, and have for months. I haven't had a crash since beta 8 or so (and that was OOM related)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me you had crash dumps turned on. This behaviour is unacceptable. Hopefully the FF team can figure out how your plug-ins were getting angry and tame them.
FWIW, I run AVG with FF4 on XP, zero issues. But I'm not really a windows guy, so I don't use it much.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this is fucking ridiculous. The rule with browsers has always been "wait for the point release or the 0.5 release for stability". Now Mozilla has done away with those niceties - so FF4 is a steaming pile of instability still and they are going to call the bugfix release FF5. This is retarded. It's Firefox 4.1. I fear this new naming convention is going to drive everybody away. The only way I can be won back right now is a stabilized version of FF4. I still love Firefox 3.6, and am still runn
Re:Firefox 5? Fix firefox 4 first. (Score:5, Informative)
This is my entire crash log dating back to when I originally installed FF on my current work laptop:
25 crashes in a span of 3 years and I use plenty of extensions. You must be doing something very wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You just want to see the nasty bug- and malware-ridden sites I've been visiting from work ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
> bp-... 2011-04-14 20:01
Mind including the whole crash id, or even just the link? I'd love to fix your crash, but I sort of need to know what the crash is to do that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks!
I assume you're not using the "kikin" addon mentioned in the bug?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That shouldn't have the same effect; Firebug doesn't inject any binary code.
The Firefox I used to know.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not Firefox's fault, it's most likely the drivers on your system. I don't have any trouble with fonts, and a lot of other people don't. Just run the grafxbot that you can find in the addons page and it'll tell them what's going wrong.
Unfortunately videocard drivers vary wildly across the numerous combination of OSes and vendors.
No Home button (Score:2)
I physically wince at that. I frequently use the home button to pull myself to my homepage on multiple different tabs (it has links leading off to various places). The first thing that needs to happen here is an extension restoring the Home button. They could just hide it instead of removing it. The UX team has basically taken over at Mozilla, and they like changing stuff to suit their whims.
Funny thing + don't know if want (Score:2)
What is it with v5 and Aurora? (Score:2)
Wasn't "Aurora" the name of the prototype sidebar-like-thing (or maybe it was a sidebar on steroids, or the original RDF reader?) that was intended to go into Netscape Communicator 5? How is it that the name comes back two app-series later (with Mozilla/Seamonkey in between) just in time for Firefox version 5?
(The original version was in the original Netscape open-source codedrop and was abandoned with the switch to nglayout and XUL, which became Mozilla/Seamonkey and Netscape 6).
Webbrowser in top secret aircraft? (Score:2)
Darn, I was hoping this article would prove the Aurora existed. Of course browsing the web in a military airplane seems dangerous.
Aurora [wikipedia.org] is the name of a top secret airplane that has been denied for a decade and a half although it did show up on a budget line item once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought along these lines: "phase out: To bring or come to an end, one stage at a time." (TheFreeDictionary ).
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why Corporate America wont touch a .0 release and waits for service packs before upgrading.
Software quality has gone down the tubes. I would tend to argue (flameware here) that Ubuntu is beta level when it's releases have come out until a few weeks after the updates get it stable. Just my opinion since you cited it
Re: (Score:1)
'Seize' was the beta version of the word. The production version is 'cease'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They can't make Firefox 5.0 the Alpha, becauseFirefox 6.0 is already the Alpha:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2446957 [ycombinator.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with simultaneous Alphas of Firefox 5.0 and Firefox 6.0? Surely it's better than coming up with another non-standard term for a pre-release state that is neither a Greek letter, nor a plain English word, so who knows where the hell it fits into things?
Or if they are really convinced that their users are too thick to handle two Alpha's at once, they'd have been better off redefining the May17 release as a Gamma release (if an RC is too conventional for them) and calling this the Beta.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not the ones I have seen. In Linux, Chrome wipes the floor off of FF as FF is not hardware enabled and uses direct2d and directx for acceleration. I use Chrome over Firefox 4 on my 3.5 year old laptop because sites like msnbc.com have lots of javascripts which make FF 4 unresponsive in comparison.
This demo here [chromeexperiments.com] is much faster with Chrome. IE 9 wont run it however. Micorosft has their own 3d demo showing IE 9 ahead in their fishtank tool.
IE 9 seems to render html sites with javascript and html the fastest wh
Re: (Score:2)
[Chrome wi]pes the floor off of FF as FF is not hardware enabled and uses direct2d and directx for acceleration. I use Chrome over Firefox 4 on my 3.5 year old laptop because sites like msnbc.com
Appeal to emotion. [wikipedia.org]
Where's the appeal to emotion here? That he reads MSNBC?
By the way, a lot of the others are wrong too.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't CLICK ON LINK (Score:1)
It is good old fashioned goatse.cx.
Moderators please do your job
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, I don't care what FF5 does if there's no status bar in FF4+. I'll keep using FF3.6 until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers if I can't find a new browser with a native status bar (screw the idea of having to install a plugin to get a status bar).
Re: (Score:2)
Goatse
(dude, seriously, you tried it like 3 posts prior as haxor32)