7 ms·

Mozilla Discontinues Security Updates For Firefox 4

17 points by dkd903 15y ago

JadeNB 15y ago
I would like to whinge about this aggressive expiration policy leaving PowerPC users like myself in the dust (since they gave up support for the PowerPC architecture in Firefox 4.0), but I can't really; they just released Firefox 3.6.18 yesterday, which I found an impressively long-term support period. (For folks like me who have trouble hunting it down—the Firefox landing page just says “Unfortunately, the latest version of Firefox isn't compatible with your operating system”—it's at the misleadingly named https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html. https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html.) P.S. If you're stalking me, then you may wonder how to reconcile this post with yesterday's about upgrading to Firefox 5.0 (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680536 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680536). That was on my work computer. :-)
- yuhong 15y ago
  Yea, only Firefox 4.0 and later are subject to the Chrome-like release cycle.
- lordgilman 15y ago
  FYI there is a fork of Firefox 5 for PPC here http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ .
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    Yeah, I just discovered this today, and it's great. YouTube videos actually play smoothly on my 1.5GHz G4, for the first time in at least 3 years. Everything else feels smooth and snappy again. Whatever this guy is doing, he's doing it better than the Mozilla team has in a long time.
  - JadeNB 15y ago
    Wow, that's great! I'm trying it now, and it seems smooth'n'snappy. It also pointed me to Perian (which I'd forgotten about after a recent re-image) and MacTube (which I'd never heard of), and reminded me that my Flash Player wasn't up to the latest-and-greatest-for-PowerPC. Thanks!
keyle 15y ago
So they are still supporting Firefox 3.X but not 4? I find that terribly confusing for users, like my mum.
- azakai 15y ago
  It's confusing, yeah. The reason is that the release schedule is completely changing between 3.X and 4. 4 and above will work like Chrome: When version N is released, N-1 is EOL and will not get further updates. There is no simple way to make the transition from 3.X to that, so it ends up being confusing.
  - guptaneil 15y ago
    Does Firefox support autoupdating? I feel like Chrome's aggressive update and EOL cycles only work because it updates in the background, so users never have to worry about what version they're running.
    - azakai 15y ago
      The goal is to autoupdate silently like Chrome. This is being implemented in stages, it isn't all there yet, but updates are already simpler than before.
      - thaumaturgy 15y ago
        I think Mozilla has seriously mis-predicted what this is going to do to their adoption in the very large user base of people who were convinced to move from IE to Firefox by some well-meaning computer tech. Considering that the majority of our clients really dislike it when software changes without their specifically asking it to, we can no longer recommend Firefox to our clients. ...which is unfortunate, because AB+ made a really nice first line of defense against malicious ads on websites.
        CrazedGeek 15y ago
        You can turn it off in Options -> Advanced -> Update, if it bothers your clients that much. FWIW, I can't actually notice a difference between Firefox 4 and 5 UI-wise (I'm sure there are some changes, but they must be incredibly subtle).
ggchappell 15y ago
Well, this is bizarre. I was planning on upgrading my 3.6 to 4.0 shortly. I guess I won't. Better stick with 3.6 until the dust settles (?). Can anyone point me to a concise-but-thorough explanation of just what I can expect from the new FF release plan? I take it they're moving to something like the Ubuntu normal vs. LTS normal distinction. The thing is, Ubuntu explicitly labels some releases as LTS ("10.04 LTS" vs. "10.10"). FF doesn't even put version numbers in their press releases anymore. (What's the logic behind that?)
- azakai 15y ago
  4 and above will work like Chrome's release process: New stable release every 6-12 weeks. Releasing version N means N-1 is EOL and gets no further updates. No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Nightly, Autora (alpha, basically) and Beta channels to test unstable versions. There is talk about having an LTS version, just like Ubuntu, yeah. I think it's a good idea. Don't know if it will happen, though, but I am guessing it or something similar to it will.
  - ggchappell 15y ago
    Thanks for the info. > No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Meaningless? Maybe. That depends on how automatic updates are handled. I have 3.6. Updating to 3.6.x is done without asking me. Updating to 4.0.x asks (and so far I've always said no). There is a difference between these two: same-version updates that I get automatically, and next-version updates that ask for permission first. The difference is traditionally expressed using version numbers. If we get rid of version numbers, then it still needs to be expressed somehow. One solution is to make all updates automatic. Perhaps that is what they are doing? Is an update from 4.0 to 5.0 done without asking for permission? If so, then installing 4.0 really means installing the latest version forever. But if not, then how is the difference going to be explained to a nontechnical user? "A new Firefox is available, and has been installed for you" vs. "A new Firefox is available; do you want to install it?" does not, IMHO, explain things well enough.
MichaelApproved 15y ago
At first I thought: "Why would they go with such an aggressive release schedule before getting the auto update to work? People like my parents will never upgrade." But then I realized that if they won't upgrade from 4->5 then they probably won't upgrade from 4->4.1 anyway. Either way, they're exposed to bugs and security holes. It's mainly tech geeks like me that think there's a major difference between 4.1 and 5 and postpone upgrading to major releases. Perhaps my parents think "An upgrade is an upgrade. Who cares what the version number is?". I'll have to ask them.
awakeasleep 15y ago
The downside I see: Crap companies that used to develop for IE exclusively had just started to throw in FF 3.6 support, and now FF has moved onto distant pastures leaving 'the enterprise' back in 'this version and this version only' land. So, as a tech-support wage slave... actually we're not allowed to complain.
st3fan 15y ago
Firefox 5 is the security update for Firefox 4. Don't get too attached to version numbers. Firefox is a work in progress with rapid release cycles. Before you know it you will be updated to Firefox 7.0.
- wvenable 15y ago
  I hate the new version scheme -- for Firefox, version numbers still meant something; the numbers gave you some indication of how much stuff had changed and how painful (or not) the upgrade was going to be. Why go from a scheme that gave out some information about the level of change expected to a scheme that gives little to no information at all?
  - ryannielsen 15y ago
    I suspect that's because they're attempting to move to a scheme like Chrome's: all you need to know is you're on the latest, most secure, most capable version and there's extremely little pain from having upgraded.
    - wvenable 15y ago
      The sort of assumes that Firefox is exactly like Chrome and historically that hasn't been true. For example, Firefox 4 has a very different UI from Firefox 3. Extensions are much more involved in Firefox than in Chrome and major versions tend to be indications of whether or not they'll break (which is an important consideration for upgrading). Extension compatibility is checked by version number, and it seems the greatest problem in moving to Firefox 5 has been that extensions don't think they're compatible (even if they are). They're trying to copy what Chrome is doing without considering how they're different from Chrome and without having a completed auto-update scheme. If version numbers are meaningless, does it even matter what scheme they're using. If they're merely counting upwards isn't 4.1 just as valid of choice as 5?
      - ryannielsen 15y ago
        It does assume that Firefox will become more like Chrome. In fact, the Mozilla foundation has explicitly said they want features that are very similar to what Chrome offers today. They're working towards a transparent auto-update mechanism, they just shipped a new add-on mechanism in FF5 (http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk-builder-_beta/ http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk-builder...) that is much like Chrome's and is thus less likely to break on major upgrades, and they have explicitly stated they plan to release major new versions every three months. Just as with Chrome, they're de-emphasizing the major version number. Expect FF6 soon and FF7 before the year's end. Expect the version number to become less meaningful.

17 points by dkd903 15y ago

I would like to whinge about this aggressive expiration policy leaving PowerPC users like myself in the dust (since they gave up support for the PowerPC architecture in Firefox 4.0), but I can't really; they just released Firefox 3.6.18 yesterday, which I found an impressively long-term support period. (For folks like me who have trouble hunting it down—the Firefox landing page just says “Unfortunately, the latest version of Firefox isn't compatible with your operating system”—it's at the misleadingly named https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html. https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html.) P.S. If you're stalking me, then you may wonder how to reconcile this post with yesterday's about upgrading to Firefox 5.0 (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680536 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680536). That was on my work computer. :-)

yuhong 15y ago
Yea, only Firefox 4.0 and later are subject to the Chrome-like release cycle.
lordgilman 15y ago
FYI there is a fork of Firefox 5 for PPC here http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/ .
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  Yeah, I just discovered this today, and it's great. YouTube videos actually play smoothly on my 1.5GHz G4, for the first time in at least 3 years. Everything else feels smooth and snappy again. Whatever this guy is doing, he's doing it better than the Mozilla team has in a long time.
- JadeNB 15y ago
  Wow, that's great! I'm trying it now, and it seems smooth'n'snappy. It also pointed me to Perian (which I'd forgotten about after a recent re-image) and MacTube (which I'd never heard of), and reminded me that my Flash Player wasn't up to the latest-and-greatest-for-PowerPC. Thanks!

keyle 15y ago

So they are still supporting Firefox 3.X but not 4? I find that terribly confusing for users, like my mum.

azakai 15y ago
It's confusing, yeah. The reason is that the release schedule is completely changing between 3.X and 4. 4 and above will work like Chrome: When version N is released, N-1 is EOL and will not get further updates. There is no simple way to make the transition from 3.X to that, so it ends up being confusing.
- guptaneil 15y ago
  Does Firefox support autoupdating? I feel like Chrome's aggressive update and EOL cycles only work because it updates in the background, so users never have to worry about what version they're running.
  - azakai 15y ago
    The goal is to autoupdate silently like Chrome. This is being implemented in stages, it isn't all there yet, but updates are already simpler than before.
    - thaumaturgy 15y ago
      I think Mozilla has seriously mis-predicted what this is going to do to their adoption in the very large user base of people who were convinced to move from IE to Firefox by some well-meaning computer tech. Considering that the majority of our clients really dislike it when software changes without their specifically asking it to, we can no longer recommend Firefox to our clients. ...which is unfortunate, because AB+ made a really nice first line of defense against malicious ads on websites.
      - CrazedGeek 15y ago
        You can turn it off in Options -> Advanced -> Update, if it bothers your clients that much. FWIW, I can't actually notice a difference between Firefox 4 and 5 UI-wise (I'm sure there are some changes, but they must be incredibly subtle).

ggchappell 15y ago

Well, this is bizarre. I was planning on upgrading my 3.6 to 4.0 shortly. I guess I won't. Better stick with 3.6 until the dust settles (?). Can anyone point me to a concise-but-thorough explanation of just what I can expect from the new FF release plan? I take it they're moving to something like the Ubuntu normal vs. LTS normal distinction. The thing is, Ubuntu explicitly labels some releases as LTS ("10.04 LTS" vs. "10.10"). FF doesn't even put version numbers in their press releases anymore. (What's the logic behind that?)

azakai 15y ago
4 and above will work like Chrome's release process: New stable release every 6-12 weeks. Releasing version N means N-1 is EOL and gets no further updates. No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Nightly, Autora (alpha, basically) and Beta channels to test unstable versions. There is talk about having an LTS version, just like Ubuntu, yeah. I think it's a good idea. Don't know if it will happen, though, but I am guessing it or something similar to it will.
- ggchappell 15y ago
  Thanks for the info. > No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Meaningless? Maybe. That depends on how automatic updates are handled. I have 3.6. Updating to 3.6.x is done without asking me. Updating to 4.0.x asks (and so far I've always said no). There is a difference between these two: same-version updates that I get automatically, and next-version updates that ask for permission first. The difference is traditionally expressed using version numbers. If we get rid of version numbers, then it still needs to be expressed somehow. One solution is to make all updates automatic. Perhaps that is what they are doing? Is an update from 4.0 to 5.0 done without asking for permission? If so, then installing 4.0 really means installing the latest version forever. But if not, then how is the difference going to be explained to a nontechnical user? "A new Firefox is available, and has been installed for you" vs. "A new Firefox is available; do you want to install it?" does not, IMHO, explain things well enough.

MichaelApproved 15y ago

At first I thought: "Why would they go with such an aggressive release schedule before getting the auto update to work? People like my parents will never upgrade." But then I realized that if they won't upgrade from 4->5 then they probably won't upgrade from 4->4.1 anyway. Either way, they're exposed to bugs and security holes. It's mainly tech geeks like me that think there's a major difference between 4.1 and 5 and postpone upgrading to major releases. Perhaps my parents think "An upgrade is an upgrade. Who cares what the version number is?". I'll have to ask them.

awakeasleep 15y ago

The downside I see: Crap companies that used to develop for IE exclusively had just started to throw in FF 3.6 support, and now FF has moved onto distant pastures leaving 'the enterprise' back in 'this version and this version only' land. So, as a tech-support wage slave... actually we're not allowed to complain.

st3fan 15y ago

Firefox 5 is the security update for Firefox 4. Don't get too attached to version numbers. Firefox is a work in progress with rapid release cycles. Before you know it you will be updated to Firefox 7.0.

wvenable 15y ago
I hate the new version scheme -- for Firefox, version numbers still meant something; the numbers gave you some indication of how much stuff had changed and how painful (or not) the upgrade was going to be. Why go from a scheme that gave out some information about the level of change expected to a scheme that gives little to no information at all?
- ryannielsen 15y ago
  I suspect that's because they're attempting to move to a scheme like Chrome's: all you need to know is you're on the latest, most secure, most capable version and there's extremely little pain from having upgraded.
  - wvenable 15y ago
    The sort of assumes that Firefox is exactly like Chrome and historically that hasn't been true. For example, Firefox 4 has a very different UI from Firefox 3. Extensions are much more involved in Firefox than in Chrome and major versions tend to be indications of whether or not they'll break (which is an important consideration for upgrading). Extension compatibility is checked by version number, and it seems the greatest problem in moving to Firefox 5 has been that extensions don't think they're compatible (even if they are). They're trying to copy what Chrome is doing without considering how they're different from Chrome and without having a completed auto-update scheme. If version numbers are meaningless, does it even matter what scheme they're using. If they're merely counting upwards isn't 4.1 just as valid of choice as 5?
    - ryannielsen 15y ago
      It does assume that Firefox will become more like Chrome. In fact, the Mozilla foundation has explicitly said they want features that are very similar to what Chrome offers today. They're working towards a transparent auto-update mechanism, they just shipped a new add-on mechanism in FF5 (http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk-builder-_beta/ http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk-builder...) that is much like Chrome's and is thus less likely to break on major upgrades, and they have explicitly stated they plan to release major new versions every three months. Just as with Chrome, they're de-emphasizing the major version number. Expect FF6 soon and FF7 before the year's end. Expect the version number to become less meaningful.