Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility 366
snydeq writes "Mozilla's 'endless parade' of Firefox updates adds no visible benefit to users but breaks common functions, as numerous add-ons, including the popular open source TinyMCE editor, continually suffer compatibility issues, thanks to Firefox's newly adopted auto-update cycle, writes InfoWorld's Galen Gruman. 'Firefox is a Web browser, and by its very nature the Web is a heterogeneous, uncontrolled collection of resources. Expecting every website that uses TinyMCE to update it whenever an incremental rev comes out is silly and unrealistic, and certainly not just because Mozilla decided compatibility in its parade of new Firefox releases was everyone else's problem. The Web must handle such variablility — especially the browsers used to access it.'"
Extended Support Release (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Insightful)
Use another browser and don't stress about major changes ever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think just about every Chrome user is a former Firefox user.
How long before Safari passes Firefox as well?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that computes from the market share development.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had no problems with Firefox to be honest. I tried chrome once and it just didn't run a lot of scripts successfully. I mean literally sites that used to work didn't. Also I don't get the fuss about a faster browser, most modern computers are capable of running some seriously high end games and programs without blinking, even a crufty old browser like IE isn't going to slow up the show for more than a half second. Connection speeds are far, far more of an issue.
The moral of the story kids is that if you
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not so much about processing speed - It's about memory hogging. I don't have much of a problem with that concerning Chrome or FF, but depending on what you have open using just a few tabs under IE can quickly eat a half-gig of RAM. With a couple of GB in the computer that may or may not be an issue, but it seems rude and makes me feel a little violated and dirty...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What are you people running Pent 2s? RAM is dirt dirt cheap. If you have less that 2gb you are doing it wrong.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you have abundance does not mean you can become lazy with efficiency. If we learned anything with the economic collapse that we have had to deal with in the last few years, it is that people and corporations (not people) that operated fairly well in the good times started to get eaten alive by their own inefficiencies.
I may have 8GB in my laptop, and looking for more, but I also run a *lot* of programs at the same time while I am working. Having 10-20 tabs open at any one moment is not unusual, and even more when I am developing/debugging APIs, websites, etc. That does not include a separate browser on another screen with references open, etc.
If IE and Firefox want to be lazy buttheads and use twice the memory just because it is cheap, I can also use Chrome when I could use that gig or two of memory back for other processes.
That's just for single users. That kind of inefficiency is more evident on remote desktop environments where you have 50-100 sessions running at any one time with employees using 5-10 tabs for web portals to 20-30 SaaS vendors. When you get to that level, you will see the difference between using Chrome and IE very quickly.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Informative)
Chrome on the other hand will quite happily use 20 GB or more of RAM...
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Informative)
I have over 90 tabs open for weeks on end in firefox, memory usage rarely if ever goes past half a gig.
Re: (Score:3)
How long before Safari passes Firefox as well?
Depends on your needs. For Mac OS X, vanilla Safari is just as good as vanilla Chrome.
If you want AdBlock and NoScript, then it's still a bit behind. Although I just discovered that there is an AdBlock for Safari (no idea how well it works) and there are extensions that provide rudimentary script blocking as well.
So, under Mac OS X at least, Safari is already nearly to Chrome levels. Under Windows, I'd have to recommend just sticking with Chrome.
Re: (Score:3)
I use AdBlock for Safari and it works just as well as the Chrome version I use at work. It's virtually the same.
I don't bother with NoScript at home, so I can't comment on that.
Re: (Score:3)
Ghostery is where it's at for Safari. For some annoying reason, though, Safari does very poorly on Youtube videos on my systems. I'm not sure if it's some extension problem or if it's inherent in the browser, but I generally use Chrome for Youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
I will be a chrome user as soon as I can find an add-on that supports Opera-style tabs.
The only reason I turned away from Opera was becaues it's so standards-compliant it breaks a lot of the webpages I need to use. And that isn't a dis on Opera...
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Funny)
IE 6 forever!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, look and see! That's the benefit of other browsers! One can find the lack of stress *and* have the features, also!
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, you don't have to worry about having any features then, either.
Not necessarily. I use Opera as choice 1 and Chromium as choice 2 (both on the Windows laptop at work and the Linux laptop/PCs at home). Both have adequate anti-scripting and ad-blocking support.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Insightful)
At work, I'm only allowed IE or FF. I use both depending on what I'm doing, but FF as my primary. At home I'm typically a Chrome user, but I have all three installed and use them all, again depending on what I'm doing. IE is the only way I can remote in to work. Chrome is light-weight and great for browsing or Netflix. Some applications (excuse me for admitting that I'm a Facebook user, but primarily Facebook apps) are much more reliable under Firefox than under IE or especially Chrome. I haven't used Opera for many years - Ever since they started using ad-support, even though I realize that's long gone. I've never bothered with Safari.
So, even though I usually live in Chrome, I see no reason to completely ditch the alternatives - They all have their place. Can't we all just get along?
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't apologise for being a Facebook user. Also don't apologise for being a Windows user, or an IE user. Don't make excuses for it, just use what works best for you. Anyone that disagrees can go suck a fat one - Technology is about making our lives easier, about seamlessly connecting with other people around the planet and about having the choice in which way you want to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, you don't have to worry about having any features then, either.
Great gobs of gooseshit, you're telling me that Firefox is the only browser that contains features? My god man, I had no idea. Tell me, is it also the only software program in general to support "features"? Don't keep this knowledge to yourself, the world needs to know! Wake up, sheeple!
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Interesting)
What, like Opera? Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, speed dial, several other things that later browsers copied. Those only became features once someone created an extension for them in Firefox, right?
Have you looked at a vanilla install of Firefox? Compare that with Opera and the number of features in Firefox is pretty much approaching zero.
If the only thing you want to compare is plugins or add-ons, instead of actual browser features, then you should look at things like this [google.com], this [opera.com], and this [iegallery.com] to avoid making yourself appear uninformed in the future.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Informative)
I've come across a number of websites that don't work with Opera Browser unless I change the setting to "mask as firefox". Then the site works. The problem wasn't Opera; the problem was the website not recognizing the browser, and therefore sending some old broken page.
You asked for examples. Yahoomail is one. Facebook is another. Had to change the Agent-ID to "mask as firefox" to get them to work.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good solution as their rolling releases will have bugs pop up from time to time. The tinyMCE issue was a BUG in FF and has been resolved in the nightly build. See the source: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=737784 [mozilla.org]
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped using Firefox and don't stress at all. I want my fucking browser to just work, and since i have no particular emotional investment in it, it got uninstalled, and it is unlikely, unless I start doing a lot of web work again, to ever reappear on my machine.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft's Exploder 8 infuriates me with how it FREEZES for like 30 seconds, until it finishes downloading all the ads and Flashcrap. What on earth is it doing??? I prefer Opera's instant draw feature better (it draws whatever it has, even incomplete pages).
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Funny)
The ESR version sometimes rants about libertarian issues when I'm trying to browse the web. Is there a Bruce Perens version?
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck getting the visitors to your site to use the browser/version you want them to.
This comment looks best in IE6.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:5, Funny)
But if you use the RMS version instead of the ESR, you show yourself as Truly Committed to the cause . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:3)
Simple answer - You only officially support the ESR versions, and make your users entirely aware of both that fact, and the "why" behind it.
And maybe, just maybe, if Mozilla notices 90% of their market share only runs the ESR version, they'll get the fucking hint.
Re:Extended Support Release (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple answer - You only officially support the ESR versions, and make your users entirely aware of both that fact, and the "why" behind it.
I see. So sort of like a note somewhere on the page that says "This site looks best in Firefox X". What's old is new again?
Re: (Score:3)
Right, because things like Flash and Java applets aren't Real Web Technologies and anyone who uses them must just be some dumb amateur relying on "crufty, legacy proprietary features".
Technologies like these got badly broken when Firefox 10 -- the nominated extended support release -- was pushed out. They actually had the bug in their tracker several days before the release, but went ahead with it anyway, with the result that vast numbers of web sites were then broken for several more days before they pushe
My solution Works most of the time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My solution Works most of the time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Add-on writers should push it up a few versions and hope it works? I dunno.
Sir (or miss, or ma'am, or droid ... what are you?), you have no business implying that add-on authors should test in the Aurora channel (or even Nightly) to make sure that their add-on continues to work. Clearly, the old Mozilla method in which base versions were allowed to stagnate for months and even years — allowing add-on developers to relax and not worry about things like version updates — must be catered to!
My Solution Works Also (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My solution Works most of the time (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe Add-on writers should push it up a few versions and hope it works? I dunno.
Mozilla forbids Add-on writers from putting it more than 2 major version numbers ahead. This policy worked fine when 2 major version numbers took years... but right now, that's 12 weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla forbids Add-on writers from putting it more than 2 major version numbers ahead. This policy worked fine when 2 major version numbers took years... but right now, that's 12 weeks.
Add-ons default to compatible since Firefox 10. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Add-ons/Add-ons_Default_to_Compatible [mozilla.org] and http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2012/01/05/default-compatibility-is-coming-and-your-help-is-needed/ [mozilla.com].
Crazy Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe TinyMCE isn't actually as "platform independent" and "cross-platform" as it claims?
Code to standards (with appropriate polyfills) and ye shall prosper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The relevant spec ( http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#refsEDITING [whatwg.org] ) was last edited yesterday (28th March 2012). Damn hard to hit a moving target and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Gyah; apologies, correct spec was edited the 12th ( http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/editing/raw-file/tip/editing.html [w3.org] ).
Re:Crazy Idea (Score:4, Informative)
TinyMCE is not a plugin, it's a script library. Like jQuery. The bug is in FireFox, and probably would have been there regardless of the release schedule. IF they don't test releases with TinyMCE, they would not have noticed a regression.
It was confirmed as a bug in FireFox, and the newer versions of TinyMCE work around it. The relevant comment is:
I'm pretty sure TinyMCE is cross-platform, as much as it can be when each browser can add bugs (or at least unexpected changes in behavior).
What I haven't searched for is whether the onload event order for iframes is documented in a standard, or by convention. Either way, if you write to the standard and the browser doesn't, your plugin looks broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Code to standards (with appropriate polyfills) and ye shall prosper.
Yea, that'd be fine if there wasn't a ton of unspecified or "up-to-vendor" behavior in the HTML, CSS and DOM standards as they stand now. The reality is that any moderately complex JavaScript page has to be tested against all the browsers. The advantage of things like jQuery, etc. is they do a lot of that and hide the inconsistencies from you.
In this case, it seems tinyMCE tickled odd behavior in Gecko's window.onload event. But, as with a lot of DOM events, figuring out what should fire and in what order i
Too Late (Score:2, Interesting)
I stuck with Mozilla starting with V1.0 in July 2002 but about a month ago the bloat and crashes from Firefox 11.0 got too much for me and I gave Chrome a try.
Chrome is faster with no crashes.
I don't know where Firefox went wrong but I'm not going back.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately I've found chrome to really drag once you get a whole bunch of tabs open, and all too often I have a LOT of tabs open. Other than that I was pretty impressed with how far it's come, if I could get it to a useable speed with lots of tabs open, I'd use it as my primary browser. Unfortunately until then I'm sticking with firefox.
Re:Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
puts an unbelievable amount of tentacles into your system
Citation?
I've seen no evidence (nor even claims, before yours) of this.
Re: (Score:3)
puts an unbelievable amount of tentacles into your system
Sounds like it might be a good idea for you to avoid 4chan.
Re: (Score:3)
Use the non-google Chromium instead. I downloaded the EXE and installed it in windows. Very nice and lightweight.
And to the guy asking about tracking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Usage_tracking [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Tons of websites, including those with advanced features work perfectly with updated versions of firefox.
So what's wrong with this particular feature? And why is it that FF is getting the blame?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because FF is the only one that has developed the compatibility problem.
From my point of view, it's not a question of "blame". It's a question of "does this tool meet my needs"? And for FF, the answer is increasingly "no" due in no small part to these kinds of issues. Is that the fault of FF? It doesn't matter. If FF doesn't work, it doesn't work, regardless of the reasons.
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
And the new features being added to Firefox of course are no reason to keep updating it.
Technology always moves forward. Should we pause all advancements to ensure that everything stays compatible? And why is it that this library (not sure what to call it) is the one with the problems? If firefox updates are breaking it, then something must be broken with the library itself. I use tons of different websites every day, so far I haven't seen any which have been broken by firefox (I'm using Aurora). So this seems to be a very rare occurance - I'm pretty sure where we can place the blame.
Re: (Score:3)
And the new features being added to Firefox of course are no reason to keep updating it.
For me, no, the new features are not compelling (and I wish many of them would cease to exist).
This is one of my main issues with the rapid-release stuff, that it's impossible to get bug fixes without getting unwanted new features.
Technology always moves forward. Should we pause all advancements to ensure that everything stays compatible?
No, but on the other hand, advancements come with a cost. Depending on the user's needs, it can be that the cost isn't worth it to them. In the case of FF, the cost is nowhere near worth it for me. I cannot even imagine a new browser feature that would be so compelling that I'm wi
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:4, Informative)
This is one of my main issues with the rapid-release stuff, that it's impossible to get bug fixes without getting unwanted new features.
Or the best type of Firefox feature, the new bug!
There's a new bug in Firefox 11 that prevents tabs from reloading on startup correctly. Unfortunately it's caused by a new "feature" that's designed to restore tabs from startup more correctly.
Essentially, when Firefox 11 starts and reloads tabs from a previous session, Firefox 11 will now fire some JavaScript events that are only supposed to be fired due to user interaction. Except it A) sometimes fires these events when it shouldn't at all due to a race condition and B) is now automatically firing an event that should only ever fire due to user interaction with the webpage. Thereby completely breaking webpages that assume that events fired by a user interacting with the webpage only ever fire when the user intends to interact with the page. And not because some developer at Mozilla decided to randomly fire JavaScript events for no readily apparent reason.
Unfortunately this is a "feature" and therefore will not be fixed. Because Firefox is supposed to do that, as of Firefox 11. Despite the fact that, as far as I know, no other browser ever fires events in that fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
What new features? As it happens, another side effect of version spam is that people stop paying attention to changelogs, since most of the time they have nothing important. That's another reason most programs do multi-part version numbering: bugfix releases are just that, minor releases might have some tweaks or enhancements to existing features, and major versions contain major new features you should take time to exp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With most browser extension APIs (Chrome, Safari, etc.), the browser vendors promise API backwards compatibility and their development teams go to great lengths to avoid making changes that would break that compatibility. By contrast, the Firefox extension API makes no such promises, and as far as I can tell, requires each extension to provide a minimum and maximum compatible version that is hard-coded into the extension itself. When the browser changes versions, if the maximum version in the extension is
Version Numbers not following API features (Score:5, Insightful)
The real annoyance for me is the version numbering / compatibility scheme. There are add-ins that are still relevant, and still work perfectly, but you have to go through a song and dance to install them every time the version numbers change, the song and dance being unpacking them, editing the version numbers in their metadata, and repacking them, or finding the add-in in your profile from an older version and editing it there.
If they could fix this, that would be much better. Instead of add-ins declaring which versions they are compatible with, it should be possible to compute which APIs they access, and whether their behaviour has changed.
In the case of TinyMCE, I'm not sure what the issue is, unless people are packaging it as an add-in - my only encounters with it are as something embedded in a web page, so it would naturally have to cope with a wide variety of browsers by default.
Re: (Score:3)
Except they did since version 10.
Re: (Score:2)
They did? I just fired up version 11 for the first time in ages (because now I use Chromium most of the time), and it's add-on compatibility checker just switched off my favourite add-on for the 8th time. I guess it's because it has an explicitly defined upper version number which I've been raising (but I didn't know you could leave the upper end off).
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox_(Rapid_release_development_cycle)#Version_10 [wikipedia.org]
They did. Authors must explicitly disable an add-on now.
Re: (Score:2)
There was an easier method to fix that - involved installing an addon called the Add-on Compatibility reporter. No need to unpack and change.
But now if I remember correctly stuff will just work unless the creator marks it otherwise.
works for me (Score:5, Informative)
None of the extensions I use break with 'every' revision. Most I don't even think have needed to be upgraded from 8.0 to the current 13.0a2[Aurora], and it updates Firefox essentially every time I restart Firefox. It makes me think TinyMCE are the one's doing something wrong.
Article is misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
TinyMCE is not an addon - the article seems to be talking about a Firefox bug, but doesn't provide a bug ID.
Addons are now up-issued automatically where possible; I have found fewer addons breaking compared with the sweeping changes made using the old model of major releases.
The article also misses the benefits from regular releases: features and improvements get in front of users more quickly, and changes are incremental, rather than jarringly abrupt. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox_(Rapid_release_development_cycle) [wikipedia.org] for a list of changes since Firefox 4.
Updating Add-Ons (Score:3)
Solution: API version apart from FF version (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so obvious, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Users see the Firefox version. Plugin developers see the plugin API version. So if FF 10, 11, 12 ,13 all have the same API, then they are automatically compatible. New features added to the browser can be tested for. Removing features causes a API rev.
ffs, just do it and stop with all the noise!
-d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you. There's no reason to depend on one version number for everything.
compatibility or vulnerability. choose one. (Score:2)
You have to find a balance somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I choose compatibility. Vulnerability can be addressed in other ways.
Why is there a compatibility problem? (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason there would be a compatibility problem is if programs/scripts/modules/whatever are using user-agent identification to determine what features are available. This is (and always has been) a very bad practice - You check to see if the functions (or alternatives) are available, rather than checking against UA. That way you don't have to continually update scripts to maintain compatibility with the latest versions. When when browsers start supporting new functions coded in, those functions just work. When deprecated functionality is removed, the check for that particular function fails and the code moves on to another branch.
For example, rather than the following:
function getXMLHTTP() {
if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer')
{
var ua = navigator.userAgent;
var re = new RegExp("MSIE ([0-9]{1,}[\.0-9]{0,})");
if (re.exec(ua) != null)
rv = parseFloat( RegExp.$1 );
if (rv try { return new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP.6.0"); }
catch (e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP.3.0"); }
catch (e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); }
catch (e) {}
} else
return XMLHTTPRequest;
} else
return XMLHTTPRequest;
}
Which uses nasty browser detection to try and cope with IE 8 and below, you should use:
function getXMLHTTP() {
if (XMLHTTPRequest) return XMLHTTPRequest;
if (ActiveXObject) {
try { return new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP.6.0"); }
catch (e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP.3.0"); }
catch (e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); }
catch (e) {}
}
throw new Error("This browser does not support XMLHttpRequest.");
}
Which nicely checks to see both if the newer/proper XMLHTTPRequest Javascript object exists, and if not, tries to use the latest ActiveX object (Necessary for IE 8 and below), while only using the "ActiveXObject" function if it is available. It also means that if MS put out a version of IE that falls back to the ActiveX Object route, this code will still work with it, whereas the first will not. It's a minor example, true, but it's an example nonetheless.
never heard of tinymce (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this something people actually use?
Re:never heard of tinymce (Score:4, Informative)
You might not have heard of it, but if you've ever typed a comment on a site with a richtext editor, you've probably used it (it or CKEditor)
Gruman again?! (Score:3)
How is it that this asshat's "stories" continue to reach the front page?
Opera (Score:3)
Yes, Firefox breaks things. (Score:5, Interesting)
From an add-on developer perspective, Firefox's frantic updates are a pain. I have the same add-on for Firefox and Google Chrome. [adlimiter.com] Most of the code is common. On the Firefox side, I have work-arounds for two bugs in Firefox, and they've been open bug reports in Bugzilla for many months. There's a new bug this week because the last update to the Mozilla add-on SDK broke something in message passing. That's supposedly fixed in the next version of the SDK being released today. Now I have to rebuild, update and test my add-on, then run it through the Mozilla approval bureaucracy again. (Yes, the AMO web site says this happens automatically. That's only true if you let them host the source code.)
Over on Google Chrome, it just works. No workarounds needed. A stable API. No updates needed from my side.
I get far more downloads of the Firefox version, though.
Never autoupdate anything (Score:3)
Rule number one. Never auto update, it just screws things up.
Re:It's a madness (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like Chrome's rapid release cycle?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I hate this rapid-release fad. The downsides far outweigh the upsides for me.
Re:It's a madness (Score:4, Funny)
I hate this rapid-release fad. The downsides far outweigh the upsides for me.
Solution: http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/ [debian.org]
Re:It's a madness (Score:5, Insightful)
b) Chrome doesn't fucking break everything every upgrade!
Honestly. Does Firefox still give you a XUL error instead of sensible HTTP error pages if it's upgraded and you haven't restarted it yet?
Re:It's a madness (Score:5, Insightful)
b) Chrome doesn't fucking break everything every upgrade!
I have to agree with this. Despite Chrome's background updates, I haven't woken up and launched it to find half of my plugins are dead. Nor have I had to turn compatibility check off or any of the other coaxing I've needed to do to get my FF plugins working.
I've been told in the past that a large part of the compatibility breaking is due to add-on developers, not Firefox itself (something about writing the add-on to ignore a version incompatibility), but either way, the net result is the same.
Admittedly, I can't speak as to the last couple years or so, because starting at Firefox 4, the combination of Flash, two ATI video cards in crossfire, and Firefox has resulted in regular, yet completely unpredictable BSoD's, and everyone I've ever talked to in support has pointed to a fault with one of the other two parties and said there's nothing they can do. Upgrading to 5 didn't help, and upgrading to 6 didn't help as well. That's when I uninstalled Firefox for good. Chrome has never done that, even with Flash, and even with hardware acceleration turned on.
Now that Chrome has AdBlock Plus and ScriptNO and all of the other plugin equivalents I care about, I no longer pine for Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
BSoD's are the video card driver's fault. Nothing that software does on your system should be able to cause the driver to BSoD. Drop your ATI cards and buy Nvidia and your problems will go away instantly.
Re:It's a madness (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because chrome wasn't doing any hardware acceleration. I don't want Firefox not using a feature just because your video drivers are buggy. The problem is definately in them. I don't care what calls you make to the video driver, it still should not bsod. Ati is just being stupid. Sorry you are stuck with them, but it's not surprising. It's been very well known that the ati drivers are terrible.
Re: (Score:3)
a) Chrome have always done it that way.
b) Chrome doesn't fucking break everything every upgrade!
While I haven't had issues with Firefox breaking add-ons, Chrome also has another advantage[1]: it installs and runs as a user's account, rather than requiring admin rights to install and update. Updates can occur in the background without annoying the user with UAC popups (or their equivalent).
Firefox installs system-wide and requires admin rights to update. This is somewhat annoying.
[1] Some on Slashdot have complained that this is a disadvantage, particularly on managed systems in a workplace, as users s
Re: (Score:3)
The UAC prompt issue is fixed. In the latest Firefox versions it's no longer needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a madness (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're telling that anyone who knows Chrome v4 will feel right at home with Chrome v18? Awesome!
The thing is, I'm not using Firefox, I'm using Slashdot. Firefox is analogous to the display, keyboard and mouse here: it's a necessary evil that ideally stays in the background as much as possible. Any new and innovative features are more likely to get in the way than be helpful, especially if they happen in the UI.
Or even better analogy: browser UI is like inept political propaganda the author just couldn't stop himself from inserting into an otherwise decent book: it's there and you can't do anything but skim over it hoping to get back to the good parts soon.
Re:It's a madness (Score:4, Informative)
Some pointless comparisons.
Numbers below are rounded off, does not include beta versions (including pre-1.0). Also, my math is probably off.
Internet Explorer - Averages new version every 21 months
First Version: IE1 - August 1995
Current Version: IE9 - March 2011
Firefox - Averages new version every 9 months (every 1.7 months since version 4.0)
First Version: Fx1 - November 2004
Latest Version: Fx11 - March 2012
Chrome - Averages new version every 2.2 months
First Version: Chrome 1 - December 2008
Latest Version - Chrome 18 - March 2012
Opera - Averages new version every 17.5 months
First Version: Opera 2 - April 1996
Latest Version - Opera 11 - December 2010
Safari - Averages new version every 18 months
First Version: Safari 1 - January 2003
Latest Version: Safari 5 - June 2010
Lynx - Averages new version every year or so
First Version: Lynx 1 - sometime in 1992
Current Version: Lynx 2 - sometime in 1993
I threw Lynx (actually currently on 2.8, June 2010) on there because it's proof version numbers mean nothing anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they still put a static "3" or "4" before the actual version number, so the current version was Firefox 4.11 instead of Firefox 11, nobody would bat an eye. Everyone is losing their shit over Firefox releases when they're really just whining over a numbering scheme.
Re:It's a madness (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not whining over a numbering scheme, they're whining over a plugin compatibility scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't give a shit about numbers.
I do, however, give a shit about my add-ons not working right. Sure, the blockbuster stuff like NoScript and AdBlock work just fine on Day 1... but I also use a lot of niche stuff (something /.ers can empathize with).
Re: (Score:2)
it is mozilla's fault! Mozilla doesn't provide an API version that the add-ons can test against to see if they will work in the new browser version. previously when FF had a major/minor versioning scheme that sort of, but not entirely, took the place of the API versioning. now with the fast release schedule the add-ons have no way to tell if they are compatible with the new version or if they will fail horribly because mozilla decided to remove something.
that is all the developers want is a method to kno
Re:damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Informative)
people bitched that there add-ons were getting disabled for no reason due to version compatibility checking, so they removed it. Now people are bitching that there add-ons are breaking?! How it this mozilla's fault? you got what you wanted! It is the add-on developers responsibility to either enable compatibility checking, or test there add-on before each new version.
besides, why would you even need an add-on like tinymce? If your website requires a Firefox add-on for full functionality then YOUR SITE is broken. Don't blame the add-on, and definitely don't blame the browser when things go wrong. Joomla and wikipedia can do it without problems! do it right or STFU
tinymce isn't an addon. tinymce is a JavaScript library for making a standard HTML textarea look and act like a RichText text box.
Which is why it breaking is a Firefox bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... I can't exactly certify my software on the latest version of Firefox when we're doing new releases every 5 months on average and Firefox is doing a new release every 5 WEEKS.
Instead, we're certifying on the ESR release version. Sure, our stuff will probably work on the newer releases, but we can't guarantee it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll tell you what the problem is.
There are two ways to write Firefox extensions: JetPack, and the old way.
JetPack gives you compatibility like Chrome, and capabilities a lot like Chrome's extension API.
The old way has extension developers linking directly to deep C++ library interfaces. It's fast, and you can do anything. ANYTHING.
The problem with allowing ANYTHING is that to maintain perfect compatibility, you can't change ANYTHING.
See the problem now?
If I was running Firefox, I'd just deprecate old-styl