FF 10.0.2

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:05 pm

Firefox 10.0.2 is out.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/f ... 0.2/win32/

RicaNeaga · Post by **RicaNeaga** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:15 pm

next week actually... http://mozilla-support.blogspot.com/201 ... -door.html

I think it's the release candidate in that folder, dated june 15... and that article is from june 17...

yumeyao · Post by **yumeyao** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:10 pm

Going to check it, and if it's as broken as FF 4, I'll revert to 3..

adric · Post by **adric** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:50 am

yumeyao, Let us know what you think. I'm still on 3

Al

ccl0 · Post by **ccl0** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:39 pm

i skipped 4 as well. i didnt like the 'new and improved interface'

but i might give 5 a try

yumeyao · Post by **yumeyao** » Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:18 am

much better than 4.

faster speed and fixing some very stupid bugs in 4. Haven't a full try because I only use firefox to jump over the f*cking GFW.

adric · Post by **adric** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:45 pm

I went ahead and installed version 5. I have everything pretty much set like FF3, but it looks like they removed the status bar and the hovering URL above the new addon-bar is very distracting. I found an addon called Status-4-Evar which brings back the old functionality of the old status bar.

Al

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:42 pm

I have had 5.0 installed since it came out and haven't discovered any major issues with my use of it.
I just installed 7.0a2 along side it and just checking the memory usage,
7.0a2 uses about 50 MB less memory than 5.0 with the same 10 tabs open in each.
On my system that is about a 25% drop in memory use.
One of my three addons doesn't work in 7.0a2 though.
This is something those gents are going to have to work on, (breaking addon compatability with each new release.)

Edit (supplemental)
After looking at 7.0a2 for a bit now it seems nearly identical to 5.0 externally. The changes all appear to be "under the hood."
It seems to run stable enough already.
I will probably skip 6.0 altogether.
The Mozilla brass need to re-evaluate the major version changing thing, that is, following Chrome and Opera like a sheep(not a fox.)
It seems 6.0 should be 5.1, and 7.0 should be 5.2. This would also probably end the addon compatability problem, which is one of main reasons that most users go with FF.

Post by **RyanVM** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:48 pm

Most addons on addons.mozilla.org are auto-updated between releases with no work necessary by the addon authors. If you're using a nightly build, you should install the addon compatibility reporter extension to override the checks for you.

Regarding the new numbering scheme - suffice it to say, a lot of thought went into the decision to go the direction they did (not just OMGZ WE HAVE TO BEAT CHROME!!!!). Keep in mind that with the new release cycle, any major new feature that lands can be disabled right up to the last day before going from a beta to final release. For example, Azure landed for Fx7 which makes major changes to the rendering pipeline for D2D-enabled browsers. What if they decide to turn it off at the last second? How do you propose they go backwards in numbering?

Add another layer on that - potential API-breaking changes can land at any time now that warrant a major version number increase. Again, what happens if it gets to beta and they then decide the change isn't ready for mass-consumption yet? Hopefully you're beginning to see that upping the major version number is probably the least-painful of implementing a rapid release cycle. Yes, they need to do better with addon compatibility, but that's a double-edged sword since less is changing between major releases too!

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:44 pm

RyanVM,
Thanks for giving your insights. I am a dedicated FF user and since you seem to be aware of a few things I will continue with my observations hoping you will respond again.

First, although memory use with multiple tabs open seems improved in Aurora 7.0a2, there still appears to be a problem of high mem use after closing most of those tabs. That is, is there an explanation for the memory use to be still relatively high with a single tab open (RyamVM forum) after closing say 9 tabs, and mem use doesn't seem to drop nearly to what it could drop to?

Second, just how high is the version numbering going to go? Are we going to see FF27.0 in 3 -4 years time?

Last, I like the Aurora name actually.

avexmode · Post by **avexmode** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:22 am

Firefox have too many versions now. 3.6, 4, & 5. On top of that they developing 6, 7, & 8 simultaneously. 9 might be in development in December.

ccl0 · Post by **ccl0** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:13 pm

shiner wrote: The Mozilla brass need to re-evaluate the major version changing thing

i agree with this b/c i have read that with each new version they drop all support and updates for previous versions. to me that is pretty irresponsible especially if some exploit is found later down the road

i've been using firefox as my primary browser long before it was even called firefox, but this makes me reconsider possible alternatives

Post by **mooms** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:05 pm

ccl0 wrote: i agree with this b/c i have read that with each new version they drop all support and updates for previous versions. to me that is pretty irresponsible especially if some exploit is found later down the road

i've been using firefox as my primary browser long before it was even called firefox, but this makes me reconsider possible alternatives

And what is the problem exactly ? you still had to update/upgrade !

Post by **RyanVM** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:03 pm

One of the points from this change was to emulate a Chrome-ism where the version number is basically irrelevant. People just use "Firefox" in the same way that people currently use "Chrome" without having any clue what version it is. So in that sense, it's very possible that they will eventually hit a version 27 at some point, but at the same time, nobody will be paying attention to such things (except for nerds like us, of course

). Of course, Chrome benefits from a completely silent update system (something that Mozilla is improving) and a more stable (though less flexible) addon API.

As far as unreclaimed memory, there are bugs on file for it. Take a look at this list below:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cg ... _id=766701

Of particular interest are bug 668809 and bug 668871.

I would also recommend following njn's blog, as he posts regularly about the progress of the MemShrink project.
http://blog.mozilla.com/nnethercote/

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:04 am

Thanks RyanVM.

I like 7.0a2 a lot and it sounds like 8.0 is even better so I not planning on any switching of browser anytime soon.
Just making suggestions which I hope are welcome.

ccl0 · Post by **ccl0** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:57 pm

there is another issue or thought process. why download version 4 when version 5 is right around the corner? and then a few weeks later: why download version 5 when version 6 is almost finished? or why not wait until version 7 comes out since it seems to be much improved in certain areas? well once version 7 comes out version 8 is just 6 weeks away. maybe i should wait then.

since so many new versions are coming out so fast it could put off many people from even bothering to download them. in other words, they might lose potential new users.

yet at the same time there are potential pitfalls if someone does NOT use the newest version.

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:16 pm

I'm not convinced that the average user cares about the next version coming, as long as they're getting the latest and greatest. I think that will be even more true as the version number becomes further de-emphasized.

FWIW, I do see valid reasons for an LTS release that gets security updates for a year. I just think that for the average user, getting new ship-ready features as soon as possible rather than having to wait on other features to land and mature (as was the case in releases up to 4.0) is for the best.

ccl0 · Post by **ccl0** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:11 pm

well at the same time ~some~ people dont like the latest and greatest forced on them (see windows xp)

also, maybe its just me, but the massive increase in major version numbers will muddy the waters and cause lots of confusion. at least in keeping track what is included/not included/fixed/updated etc in version xx

but i see some benefit to it as well.

i guess there was no elegant solution.

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:42 am

I miss Windows XP.

crashfly · Post by **crashfly** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:55 pm

dumpydooby wrote:I miss Windows XP.

As do I.

I am surprised they do not make the "addon" system a little bit more modularized. Something along the lines of an "API" to access the appropriate information/controls on the browser. That way the "versioning" problem becomes almost irrelevant as the updates do not destroy the API that could be put into place.

Meh ... just different thoughts on the matter ...

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:53 pm

That's sort of the goal of Jetpack, I guess.

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:19 am

ABP on Firefox is way more powerful than ABP on Chrome, particularly because it can intercept the code before rendering; that is, ABP on Firefox is able to remove ads before they're ever even downloaded. This is fantastic, especially from a security standpoint because the ad networks have occasionally been compromised by nefarious characters and used as delivery systems for naughty stuff. ABP for Chrome, on the other hand, simply removes the element once the DOM is already loaded, and by that time, the damage could already be done.

Firefox > Chrome

bphlpt · Post by **bphlpt** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:34 am

Hey dumpydooby!

I've been a faithful user of your past Firefox builds for XP. Now that you are using Win7 yourself, do you have a more recent version of the Web Developer's release for Firefox 5, or even one of the more recent nightly builds, that is compatible with Win7 that you are willing to share? Would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. If you have a script you use to update it and could share that as well, then I could customize it and wouldn't have to bug you about updates.

Cheers and Regards

=[FEAR]=JIGSAW · Post by **=[FEAR]=JIGSAW** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:23 am

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

The 64bit nightly works great with win7 x64

Would love to see a final version soon on the official site.

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:08 pm

They completely changed the installation routine in Firefox 4. I have a bit of a monkey-wrenched setup going, but nothing that has been tested to any worthwhile extent. Eventually I'll take the time to get it up and going like my old builds, but that might not be for a while.

ccl0 · Post by **ccl0** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:13 pm

Mozilla Hints At New Firefox Design, Closely Resembles Google Chrome http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/ ... gle-Chrome

why do they want to be like chrome all of a sudden =/

=[FEAR]=JIGSAW · Post by **=[FEAR]=JIGSAW** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:52 am

Post by **mooms** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:10 am

I hope they'll change their mind before it's to late

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:53 pm

Updated to FF 6.0.

Post by **mooms** » Fri Aug 12, 2011 8:55 pm

thanks for the info

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:25 pm

It appears some of the brass at Mozilla are wanting to remove the FF version number from the About menu and keep it tucked away in about:config instead.
I think this is going off the deep end.
See here for a glimpse at part of the discussion.

Post by **5eraph** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:28 am

Asa Dotzler wrote:When someone assumes or says outright that Mozilla UX and Product folks are removing things just to be removing things, I'm going to shout loudly. I stand by that. It's an argument, along with "You're just doing it because <other browser> did it" and "It's just change for the sake of change" that I'm not going to accept in these discussions and when it comes up I'm going to call it out and call for it to stop. I'm sick of it and I'm not going to accept those kinds of insults as arguments.

It sounds to me as though Asa has forgotten the open nature that Firefox is supposed to endorse. Strong leadership is good for a corporation, but ignoring the community that supports you is not the way to go here, in my opinion. If the Product Lead gets insulted when so much of the community disagrees then perhaps it's time for a new Lead...

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:19 pm

Addon makers aren't keeping up with the changes in version numbers. It's getting ridiculous.

Post by **RyanVM** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:57 pm

Most addons hosted on addons.mozilla.org have their version compatibility bumped automatically. Beyond that, IMO addon developers should really be running builds off the beta channel where they'll have 6 weeks to make whatever changes are needed to ensure compatibility before the final release (and given the nature of the rapid release cycle, those changes shouldn't be nearly as many as in the past). Doesn't seem too ridiculous to me.

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:37 pm

After thinking about it for a while since my previous post, if the 3rd party software compatibility problem and security issues can be resolved, then removing the version info from About would be fine. One less thing to think about. I've been using the Aurora build and it's OK.

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:16 am

RyanVM wrote:Most addons hosted on addons.mozilla.org have their version compatibility bumped automatically. Beyond that, IMO addon developers should really be running builds off the beta channel where they'll have 6 weeks to make whatever changes are needed to ensure compatibility before the final release (and given the nature of the rapid release cycle, those changes shouldn't be nearly as many as in the past). Doesn't seem too ridiculous to me.

Most? I'm pretty sure they only do that for the ones that are the most popular, which is not the most in general. Do you mean, "most of the ones that people use," or something similar?

Still no compatibility update for Facebook Blocker. I just did it myself. Lettuce hope it still works.

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:36 pm

They keep track of potential extension-breaking changes between releases and scan all hosted addons for any code that relies on those interfaces. If an addon doesn't, it is automatically marked compatible.

avexmode · Post by **avexmode** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:42 pm

NEW VERSION EVERY 40 DAYS.

Post by **mooms** » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:27 pm

imo, they should use a versionning like the catalyst: 11.8, or like Ubuntu: 2011.8
i prefer the first one and if they're smart, they could change for the version 12, in 2012

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:48 pm

FYI, here's a couple good posts by one of Mozilla's resident security experts (Jesse Ruderman) about rapid release and addon compatibility.
http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/ra ... -security/
http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/se ... ompatible/

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:29 am

updated to 6.0.1.

Probably blocks that bad certificate floating around.

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:00 am

oops, just noticed that 3.6 line got updated as well.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/f ... es/3.6.21/

avexmode · Post by **avexmode** » Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:55 am

Mozilla Firefox 9.0 Alpha 1 is out already.

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:44 pm

Two main features of 7.0:

Simple options for add-ons embedded in the main UI
Improve Responsiveness with Memory Reductions

Post by **mooms** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:12 pm

Since version 6 i only use the betas, they are rock stable !
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html

dumpydooby wrote: Still no compatibility update for Facebook Blocker. I just did it myself. Lettuce hope it still works.

No need for an (other) extension if you have Adblock!
Add these filters to adblock:

Code: Select all

facebook.com$domain=~www.facebook.com
facebook.net$domain=~www.facebook.com
fbcdn.net$domain=~www.facebook.com

Or better: use the antisocial adblock subscription: (this will block various social websites like facebook and twitter)
http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions (scroll to the bottom)
here is the direct link to view what is blocked:
https://adversity.googlecode.com/hg/Antisocial.txt

dumpydooby · Post by **dumpydooby** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:47 pm

That list goes above and beyond what Facebook Blocker does. I think I like it. Thanks.

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:38 pm

very quick update to 7.0 to fix a bug,
"due to bug 680802 (add-ons removed on update) "

avexmode · Post by **avexmode** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:35 am

New version and after 2 days a new patch already??

BTW, they already release FF 10 alpha. <- there on par with IE 10 based on numbers just 5 more release they will catchup to Chrome.

Post by **mooms** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:57 am

V8 final is out.

Now Firefox disable the "third party" addons (i.e: not installed by the user), even if thay are copied in Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\defaults\profile (if you don't know, everything in this special folder is copied in the new profile created on Firefox's first launch, very handy to make a default profile for all users automatically).

The users now have to enable each extensions manually. Not really unattended anymore.
I don't yet have found a way to avoid that "feature".
“extensions.shownSelectionUI” doesn't do the trick.
Is someone can fill a bug to mozilla (i don't have an account)....

shiner · Post by **shiner** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:41 pm

mooms, I haven't tested this yet because the past couple of days I have been having hardware problems, but googling I found the following:
quote MDN:

Starting in Firefox 8, on the first launch of a new version of Firefox, it presents user interface letting users select which third party add-ons to keep. This lets them weed out add-ons that were installed without their knowledge, or that are no longer needed.

However, this interface can be disruptive when debugging add-ons. You can avoid this by setting the preference extensions.autoDisableScopes to 14.

Perhaps worth giving a try.