9 ms·

Firefox 6 available, version 8 to offer add-on control

46 points by carusen 15y ago

ck2 15y ago
Firefox 9 will be out this December, lol, https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar Who on earth though this was a good idea? So, every six weeks a new release - that means Version 15 this time next year. Seriously?
- ch0wn 15y ago
  I don't see the problem. Version numbers no longer matter as long as browsers are concerned. IE is an exception, as always.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Through my line of work I end up seeing a lot of nuanced differences between browser version numbers. It's kind of a myth that browser versions (usually read as releases -- not actual version numbers) don't matter any more. I see things break quite regularly that people don't expect. And while browsers on the whole are getting better, the slow introduction of CSS 3 and HTML 5 features make a huge difference.
- st3fan 15y ago
  What is the problem exactly? You don't like updates that improve things a lot? Really, it is just a version number.
  - ck2 15y ago
    They are MAJOR version numbers. Are all these going to major changes in GUI, API, backend? Are you okay with Version 20 by next December? Version 35 the December after that? Or should version 6 really be version 5.2 ?
    - ordinary 15y ago
      This really, really does not matter.
      - jellicle 15y ago
        The problem is that, like the boy that cried wolf, they have no way to get attention if they actually want it. Say that version 32 introduces a "do what I mean" feature where the browser simply goes to whatever site you want, no user interaction required. How are they going to publicize that version 32 is more important than 31 or 33 or 27, all of which were tiny incremental upgrades?
        ordinary 15y ago
        They could name it Firefox XP, I guess. All silliness aside, I see your point. But is the browser really still at a point where such earth-shifting changes are likely to occur? The biggest single change of the last few years that I can think of is the addition of tabs to browers, and even that is a feature that's been around for 20 years in other programs. Any change that's much bigger than that almost warrants a whole new product, regardless of your numbering scheme.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - zobzu 15y ago
      So? Is it suddenly bad if its version 20 or 409? It could also be 0.409 or 20112012 Or 0293.3948.2933.12.409 Or FE39D9A of all these, 409 is the most readable anyway.
      - tom9729 15y ago
        If the version number is meaningless (hint: it doesn't have to be) then why bother mentioning it at all?
  - tom9729 15y ago
    Version numbers aren't meaningless if you have a good system, e.g. major/minor/patch. You just can't use them to compare between two different products. I know Moz wants to be a bit more like Chrome with frequent releases but it seems like this could be done a bit more sensibly wrt the version number.
    - wmf 15y ago
      When you release every six weeks, there will never be a major release. Thus you end up with version numbers like 2.6.39.
      - tom9729 15y ago
        1) The patch number is for things like bug and security fixes, and gets reset every time the major/minor version gets bumped. 2) Every 6 week release you bump the minor version _unless_ some big feature(s) are ready to be rolled in, in which case you bump the major version instead.
- kylec 15y ago
  I agree, the new version numbers are stupid. If they wanted to copy Chrome's rapid-release schedule, they should have just ditched the version numbers altogether (like Chrome) and just continuously and transparently kept their install base up to date. There's also a real practical problem to fast-growing version numbers. Historically, a major release would have major new features and might break existing extensions. Minor releases were typically safe to install and were designed to be as compatible as possible with the version they were supplanting. With new major versions of Firefox coming out every 6 weeks you're constantly checking to make sure they haven't changed something critical.
  - markokocic 15y ago
    Why is this a problem for FF, and not a problem for Chrome, since they are doing practically the same thing now?
  - nxn 15y ago
    Chrome has version numbers. And similarly, firefox doesn't make a big deal about new version releases since 4.0 was out. The ones that do make a big deal out of them are blogs and tech sites, but those will get bored of doing so soon enough.
    - tghw 15y ago
      Chrome hides the version number, because 98% of the time, it doesn't matter. There's no mention of it on there download page (http://www.google.com/chrome/ http://www.google.com/chrome/). They make it available only if you need to get specific. Firefox, OTOH, still advertises their version number right on the download button (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/).
      - nxn 15y ago
        Not sure if I'd call that "advertising" -- it's a small green number on a green background. Before the rapid release schedule you'd have a 72pt version number hitting you in the face when you went to their main page within a week of a major release. Never the less, I see what you mean about it being still "visible" to the user.
ivanbernat 15y ago
Unfortunately, FireBug doesn't work in FF6.
- capnrefsmmat 15y ago
  The latest Firebug claims to be compatible with FF5 and 6: http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/08/10/firebug-1-8-1/ http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/08/10/firebug-1-8-1/ You should try updating all your addons.
- mtogo 15y ago
  Firebug works great for me in firefox 7.
fedorabbit 15y ago
Just downloaded Firefox 6. Umm... I don't have benchmark software to test internal improvements, but I don't really feel like any difference. Probably because Firefox 5 is already fast enough for me. But Xmarks addon is broken now, and I experienced some issues with trying to install some of the add-ons. Everything else is fine.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  Yeah, it doesn't look like there are massive changes in 6. 7 is where the changes for memory are coming in, I'm rather looking forward to that. On the other hand, the list of fixed bugs is pretty massive: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglist.html http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglis...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
jcromartie 15y ago
How you can know Chrome is doing this kind of versioning correctly: when you don't know or care what version of Chrome you're running.
- dpcan 15y ago
  YES! I have never been happier with my switch to Chrome. I'm actually quite frustrated with myself for having put my friends and family on Firefox as it's constantly needing updates, getting new versions, changing its look, etc. It's more frustrating than dealing with IE now. Mozilla's game of "look how fast we are moving" is absolutely frustrating and painful. I can just click my "About Chrome" link now, and it says it's up to date. How refreshing. EDIT: All a Firefox update means to me anymore is that my plugins won't work anymore so I need to stick with an outdated, probably less secure, and slower Firefox version.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - AndrewDucker 15y ago
    I've not had a problem with addons since 3.6. They've autoupgraded all the ones on the Mozilla site, so far as I can tell.
jolie92 15y ago
Rapidrelease is really confusing me wildly, and all my customers. You support which of the 50 combined Chrome and FireFox versions now?
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  There are three versions of Firefox: Release (the version that you should be using) Beta (If you want to do some testing, or don't care about minor instability) Aurora (If you are feeling particularly risky and need a new feature NOW). That's it.
jpdoctor 15y ago
Won't bother with the upgrades until add-ons upgrading is dealt sensibly.
- AgentConundrum 15y ago
  This is my biggest problem with Firefox. Up until Thursday, I was still running 3.6 because I really dislike dealing with add-on issues during upgrades. When a new version of Firefox comes out, I tend to backup my install, upgrade to see how badly it breaks, then revert back out to the older version. When I finally upgraded to v5, I spent a solid hour trying to get the thing back into a workable state. The biggest mistake I ever made with Firefox was installing Tab Mix Plus, because now I have easily manageable rows of tabs, which led me to using tabs as ephemeral bookmarks - things I want to read but not now. I currently have 175 tabs open (and no, I don't complain about memory usage - it's not that bad and I know what usage there is is my own fault). To keep things in check, I use an extension called BarTab, which keeps tabs unloaded on restart until I switch to that tab. Upon upgrading to FF5, that extension broke horribly, leading all of my tabs to fire at once. Turning off compatibility checking didn't fix it, and neither did installing a beta version upgrade to the extension. In the end, I had to go searching the extension library until I found something called BarTab Lite, which worked. Also, my theme was incompatible with Firefox >=4, but I resigned myself to just deal with it, since I was tired of being made fun of for not upgrading a not-quite-five-months out-of-date browser (the community seems to be becoming one of the worst parts of Firefox). Eventually, I found a new theme, which was a non-linked upgrade to my old one. It would be nice if that was a little more obvious. That was a long winded way of saying I'd like to see more explicit links between extensions. Rather than saying "there are no upgrades for this broken extension", I'd prefer that there be a way to identify "spiritual successors" so that Firefox can tell you "it's got a different name, but this is where extension Foo lives now." It would have saved me a lot of time and trouble, because as it stands right now it seems a lot of broken extensions don't have upgrades when really they do - they're just hidden and you need to spend some time looking for them. (Sorry.. /rant)
josscrowcroft 15y ago
What the heck, I seriously updated to FF 5.0.1 TWO DAYS AGO Still, this is great.
alok-g 15y ago
As far as you can "trust" the updates that come, version numbers are not very useful. I generally see minor versions as bug fixes (number of bugs reduced hopefully) and major versions as major feature changes (number of bugs most likely increased). Now I just cannot tell anymore whether to upgrade or not. Believe it or not, the current browser* is running just fine for me. I am OK with a speedier browser etc, but not at the cost of more trouble. * Does it really matter which? (Firefox 5)
samic 15y ago
the only thing that changed for me is disabling of some add-ons due to compatibility problem!!

46 points by carusen 15y ago

ck2 15y ago

Firefox 9 will be out this December, lol, https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar Who on earth though this was a good idea? So, every six weeks a new release - that means Version 15 this time next year. Seriously?

ch0wn 15y ago
I don't see the problem. Version numbers no longer matter as long as browsers are concerned. IE is an exception, as always.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Through my line of work I end up seeing a lot of nuanced differences between browser version numbers. It's kind of a myth that browser versions (usually read as releases -- not actual version numbers) don't matter any more. I see things break quite regularly that people don't expect. And while browsers on the whole are getting better, the slow introduction of CSS 3 and HTML 5 features make a huge difference.
st3fan 15y ago
What is the problem exactly? You don't like updates that improve things a lot? Really, it is just a version number.
- ck2 15y ago
  They are MAJOR version numbers. Are all these going to major changes in GUI, API, backend? Are you okay with Version 20 by next December? Version 35 the December after that? Or should version 6 really be version 5.2 ?
  - ordinary 15y ago
    This really, really does not matter.
    - jellicle 15y ago
      The problem is that, like the boy that cried wolf, they have no way to get attention if they actually want it. Say that version 32 introduces a "do what I mean" feature where the browser simply goes to whatever site you want, no user interaction required. How are they going to publicize that version 32 is more important than 31 or 33 or 27, all of which were tiny incremental upgrades?
      - ordinary 15y ago
        They could name it Firefox XP, I guess. All silliness aside, I see your point. But is the browser really still at a point where such earth-shifting changes are likely to occur? The biggest single change of the last few years that I can think of is the addition of tabs to browers, and even that is a feature that's been around for 20 years in other programs. Any change that's much bigger than that almost warrants a whole new product, regardless of your numbering scheme.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
  - zobzu 15y ago
    So? Is it suddenly bad if its version 20 or 409? It could also be 0.409 or 20112012 Or 0293.3948.2933.12.409 Or FE39D9A of all these, 409 is the most readable anyway.
    - tom9729 15y ago
      If the version number is meaningless (hint: it doesn't have to be) then why bother mentioning it at all?
- tom9729 15y ago
  Version numbers aren't meaningless if you have a good system, e.g. major/minor/patch. You just can't use them to compare between two different products. I know Moz wants to be a bit more like Chrome with frequent releases but it seems like this could be done a bit more sensibly wrt the version number.
  - wmf 15y ago
    When you release every six weeks, there will never be a major release. Thus you end up with version numbers like 2.6.39.
    - tom9729 15y ago
      1) The patch number is for things like bug and security fixes, and gets reset every time the major/minor version gets bumped. 2) Every 6 week release you bump the minor version _unless_ some big feature(s) are ready to be rolled in, in which case you bump the major version instead.
kylec 15y ago
I agree, the new version numbers are stupid. If they wanted to copy Chrome's rapid-release schedule, they should have just ditched the version numbers altogether (like Chrome) and just continuously and transparently kept their install base up to date. There's also a real practical problem to fast-growing version numbers. Historically, a major release would have major new features and might break existing extensions. Minor releases were typically safe to install and were designed to be as compatible as possible with the version they were supplanting. With new major versions of Firefox coming out every 6 weeks you're constantly checking to make sure they haven't changed something critical.
- markokocic 15y ago
  Why is this a problem for FF, and not a problem for Chrome, since they are doing practically the same thing now?
- nxn 15y ago
  Chrome has version numbers. And similarly, firefox doesn't make a big deal about new version releases since 4.0 was out. The ones that do make a big deal out of them are blogs and tech sites, but those will get bored of doing so soon enough.
  - tghw 15y ago
    Chrome hides the version number, because 98% of the time, it doesn't matter. There's no mention of it on there download page (http://www.google.com/chrome/ http://www.google.com/chrome/). They make it available only if you need to get specific. Firefox, OTOH, still advertises their version number right on the download button (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/).
    - nxn 15y ago
      Not sure if I'd call that "advertising" -- it's a small green number on a green background. Before the rapid release schedule you'd have a 72pt version number hitting you in the face when you went to their main page within a week of a major release. Never the less, I see what you mean about it being still "visible" to the user.

ivanbernat 15y ago

Unfortunately, FireBug doesn't work in FF6.

capnrefsmmat 15y ago
The latest Firebug claims to be compatible with FF5 and 6: http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/08/10/firebug-1-8-1/ http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/08/10/firebug-1-8-1/ You should try updating all your addons.
mtogo 15y ago
Firebug works great for me in firefox 7.

fedorabbit 15y ago

Just downloaded Firefox 6. Umm... I don't have benchmark software to test internal improvements, but I don't really feel like any difference. Probably because Firefox 5 is already fast enough for me. But Xmarks addon is broken now, and I experienced some issues with trying to install some of the add-ons. Everything else is fine.

AndrewDucker 15y ago
Yeah, it doesn't look like there are massive changes in 6. 7 is where the changes for memory are coming in, I'm rather looking forward to that. On the other hand, the list of fixed bugs is pretty massive: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglist.html http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglis...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

jcromartie 15y ago

How you can know Chrome is doing this kind of versioning correctly: when you don't know or care what version of Chrome you're running.

dpcan 15y ago
YES! I have never been happier with my switch to Chrome. I'm actually quite frustrated with myself for having put my friends and family on Firefox as it's constantly needing updates, getting new versions, changing its look, etc. It's more frustrating than dealing with IE now. Mozilla's game of "look how fast we are moving" is absolutely frustrating and painful. I can just click my "About Chrome" link now, and it says it's up to date. How refreshing. EDIT: All a Firefox update means to me anymore is that my plugins won't work anymore so I need to stick with an outdated, probably less secure, and slower Firefox version.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  I've not had a problem with addons since 3.6. They've autoupgraded all the ones on the Mozilla site, so far as I can tell.

jolie92 15y ago

Rapidrelease is really confusing me wildly, and all my customers. You support which of the 50 combined Chrome and FireFox versions now?

AndrewDucker 15y ago
There are three versions of Firefox: Release (the version that you should be using) Beta (If you want to do some testing, or don't care about minor instability) Aurora (If you are feeling particularly risky and need a new feature NOW). That's it.

jpdoctor 15y ago

Won't bother with the upgrades until add-ons upgrading is dealt sensibly.

AgentConundrum 15y ago
This is my biggest problem with Firefox. Up until Thursday, I was still running 3.6 because I really dislike dealing with add-on issues during upgrades. When a new version of Firefox comes out, I tend to backup my install, upgrade to see how badly it breaks, then revert back out to the older version. When I finally upgraded to v5, I spent a solid hour trying to get the thing back into a workable state. The biggest mistake I ever made with Firefox was installing Tab Mix Plus, because now I have easily manageable rows of tabs, which led me to using tabs as ephemeral bookmarks - things I want to read but not now. I currently have 175 tabs open (and no, I don't complain about memory usage - it's not that bad and I know what usage there is is my own fault). To keep things in check, I use an extension called BarTab, which keeps tabs unloaded on restart until I switch to that tab. Upon upgrading to FF5, that extension broke horribly, leading all of my tabs to fire at once. Turning off compatibility checking didn't fix it, and neither did installing a beta version upgrade to the extension. In the end, I had to go searching the extension library until I found something called BarTab Lite, which worked. Also, my theme was incompatible with Firefox >=4, but I resigned myself to just deal with it, since I was tired of being made fun of for not upgrading a not-quite-five-months out-of-date browser (the community seems to be becoming one of the worst parts of Firefox). Eventually, I found a new theme, which was a non-linked upgrade to my old one. It would be nice if that was a little more obvious. That was a long winded way of saying I'd like to see more explicit links between extensions. Rather than saying "there are no upgrades for this broken extension", I'd prefer that there be a way to identify "spiritual successors" so that Firefox can tell you "it's got a different name, but this is where extension Foo lives now." It would have saved me a lot of time and trouble, because as it stands right now it seems a lot of broken extensions don't have upgrades when really they do - they're just hidden and you need to spend some time looking for them. (Sorry.. /rant)

josscrowcroft 15y ago

What the heck, I seriously updated to FF 5.0.1 TWO DAYS AGO Still, this is great.

alok-g 15y ago

As far as you can "trust" the updates that come, version numbers are not very useful. I generally see minor versions as bug fixes (number of bugs reduced hopefully) and major versions as major feature changes (number of bugs most likely increased). Now I just cannot tell anymore whether to upgrade or not. Believe it or not, the current browser* is running just fine for me. I am OK with a speedier browser etc, but not at the cost of more trouble. * Does it really matter which? (Firefox 5)

samic 15y ago

the only thing that changed for me is disabling of some add-ons due to compatibility problem!!