Mozilla has renamed the oft-delayed Firefox 3.1 to Firefox 3.5 and said a fourth beta of the browser is slated for a 14 April release. A possible name change has been batted around inside Mozilla Towers for several weeks, but the outfit finally confirmed the decision yesterday. “As recently proposed, the version number of the …
What's in a name?
They can call it "Wilbur the Waltzing Wallaby" for all I care, so long as it is more stable than this 3.0.7 abhorrence.
Sort it out Mozilla!
(Cue much fanboi bleating about how their precious FF is perfect and must never be maligned).
It is nice that we have...
a release date for beta 4.
Now, how about one for beta 3.
Bloody stupid idea!
What idiot thought of this? All those add-ons that have been updated to be able to handle the 3.0 to 3.1 change will need to be changed yet again. Probably just another case of marketing gone mad!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an FF hater - I use FF as my primary browser (and, as a web developer, I have to use ALL of the common browsers anyway) and prefer it to all the others. This just a change for no real reason - they should spend their resources on preventing problems like the AJAX regression in 3.0.7 that has affected many users:
"could ruffle feathers"
What, because they changed its version number?
More new features = more new suck?
Lovely! Are these "new features" going to make Firefox 3 suck sufficiently less that it will actually be worth upgrading from Firefox 2 finally, or are they going to make it just that much worse all over again?
What's the problem?
I realise that third party developers / add-ons may have a problem with fitting into new releases etc. but come on! It's effectively free software; how can anyone complain about this.
I wanted a widget but I got a wedgie. (Not even sure I spelled that right - perhaps I can correct that in the next release!) But I'm sure you know what I mean.
Let's be sensible.
OT: you know what?
On Safari tonight's browsing of the illustrious information at el reg turned up a grey background that was soon flashed up into a white background.
I for one much preferred the grey background.
Partly because of these additive and subtractive colour things (there really is a difference between paper based and onscreen partly due to the glare (?) white creates on a monitor.
Go grey guys?
I haven't paid much attention...
...as I went recently from 126.96.36.199 to 3.x, saw how much control I lost over things like how much it "remembers" my browsing history, and how many add-ons needed updating, and how it _insisted_ I wanted to view Google in Spanish despite my repeated clicking on the "show me Google in English" link (I'm in Mexico right now), and how just-plain dog-slow it was -- and went straight back to 188.8.131.52. Problem solved.
It's a pity
Version 3.1x of several products have been stable and reliable over the years.
so long as they improve the bookmarks i dont care about the rest....
Did someone say "Plugin service"?
What fucking plugin "service"? We have a npruntime plugin for firefox that depends on a 3d game engine in an executable payload. So they have gone and disabled install.js in 3+ leaving no way to deliver the payload through an xpi, and you just *try* finding a way to submit an actual *plugin* to the pluginfinder "service" - no facility on addons.mozilla.org (only extensions there) and plugindev.mozdev.org is completely response-free. So our users are left with ominous "unknown plugin" dialogs, manual install, manual download, manual setup and restart. Even getting information on npruntime from the mailing lists is like pulling teeth.
And it's all as easy as pie with a signed cab in the IE version, the raving fuckwitts.
I am sticking with firefox 2 then. I tried 3.0 -it was rubbish,I uninstalled it.
Shiretoko is ace
I've heard a lot of bleating about FF3, but to be honest I've had no problems with it whatsoever. Works perfectly fine. That said, I've tried out the FF beta and it's luvverly - private browsing is a bonus, and not just for those among us who enjoy a bit of pr0n, and the browser is much faster, which can only be a good thing, as speed might be my one gripe with FF. Chrome was a huge kick in the nads after using FF3 for so long. I do hope it doesn't get delayed any further, because I'd really quite like a finished version.
Surprised at the amount of bile being spewed over this, to be honest. I mean yes, everyone in their right mind despises Internet Exploder, but apart from that, I'm no browser fanatic. I use FF3 all day every day because it has the developer plugins I use (along with a few more fun ones), it's stable, and it renders stuff properly. Job's a good 'un. That said, I do occasionally use Chrome, I've nothing against Opera or Safari, etc, etc. Why not just all calm the hell down? As long as it's not IE, who cares?
Here we go again
I am sick and tired of these updates and am seriously considering going back to Internet Explorer
@ Bloody stupid idea"
"What idiot thought of this? All those add-ons that have been updated to be able to handle the 3.0 to 3.1 change will need to be changed yet again. Probably just another case of marketing gone mad!"
As long as it's the same code and it's just the version number that changes, it's utterly trivial to update add-ons. Hell, the end user can do it provided the have something like 7-Zip and aren't a complete moron.
Meh, who cares..
Firefox is still massively bloated, and implementing features that Opera has has for years...
Opera 10 is where it's at..
"Beta 3 is expected to land this Thursday and will be the final Firefox release to carry the 3.1 tag."
@Mike Flugennock and various AC
Have you guys actually filed a bug describing the problem you have? One of the main reasons I use FF is that I can file a bug and see its progress meaning that if I have an issue with the software, I can help make it better.
And for those who will say: "yes but bug X has been filed for Y years and nothing ahs been done about it so how does that help!?", go and have a look at the bug and see if you can help decribe it better, provide test cases, etc. Also, when you describe or discuss a bug, don't forget to put it in proper English and stay polite: being aggressive doesn't help, even if you think it's a very annoying bug that should be sorted asap.
If you're not ready to spend a little time describing your issues properly or clarifying existing ones, why should developers spend their time addressing them?
"pledged developers wouldn't be hit by “surprises along the way”."
That's the problem with expecting the unexpected, it often doesn't go according to plan due to unforeseen circumstances.
I can't believe...
...the Luddites who think FF2 is better than 3 just because a few of their add-ons stopped working!
I've had nothing...
But problems with FF3 stability and it's incessant crashing when running under Windows Vista where the process remains in Task Manager but you cannot kill it to restart Firefox.
Have reverted back to 2.20 and guess what - no problems.
Re: OT: you know what?
"I for one much preferred the grey background. [...] Go grey guys?"
Yuk, but there is certainly a case to be made for web-sites deferring to the user agent in the choice of colours and (say) layout. Sadly, ever since the graphical designers took over the internet a decade ago, such niceties as letting the end-user decide have been abandoned in favour of what looks gorgeous (darlings!) when running maximised on their massive screens.
Even El Reg succumbed to this control freakery a few months ago.
Being peeved about losing control over one's computer and the functionality thereof is tantamount to Luddism now?
Have they given an option to disable the crap new URL bar yet?
@ AC17.07 and James Whale
You asked what I was going to - have they given option to disable the FF3 AwfulBar and go back the FF2 version (and don't give me the spout about the OldBar plugin - that's cosmetic and doeasn't affect the underlying way it works which is where my beef with it lies). Until they give that option or just scrap it altogether, I am not upgrading from FF2. Take me as a luddite for not upgrading because I don't like a new feature if you will, but it is utter shite.
@ Dale - Wedger
"I wanted a widget but I got a wedgie"
Sorry, WEDGER is the correct terminology. You're confusing having your pants upgraded to ear muffs with a common term for Glaswegians - although ear plugs usually come in handy if they're about.
I'm no fanboi
but I run the nightly 3.2 alpha build(or is that 3.6 or 4.9 or...), on windows server 2003, XP, & Debian & I just can't see what they're all moaning about. With NoScript & Adblock installed(& compatibility checking disabled) I've got no big complaints about FF3 and its streets ahead of IE..
Mind you, I'm weird, I've got Virgin cable & never have problems or less than the advertised speed... ever.
FoxySafari StarringIn OperaExplorer
@ Bruno Girin re: bug reports: I didn't send any...
...because they weren't really "bugs" as such -- that is, malfunctions that crashed the app or the OS -- but "improvements" which actually made for more PITA... like losing the ability to stop it from displaying recently-visited sites in the URL bar (yeah, it _is_ coyote-ugly, isn't it), nor has it yet given me the ability to get rid of the goddamn' thumbnail site icons in the bookmarks menu (which used to crash early builds of FF2 -- and _hard_). On top of that, they _still_ don't seem to have dealt with the cache bug that prevents updates/revs in things like wiki-ish updateable pages from showing until I quit/restart FF (even though I always set my cache to zero).
@ Ken Hagan re: graphic designers taking over:
I've been a graphic designer since the late '70s -- hell, pre-computer almost, let alone pre-MacOS -- and I can tell you that any designer in _any_ medium who doesn't consider the nature/limitations of the medium and the audience just isn't getting it. One of the first things I did when HTML started allowing things like background patterns and colors was to design all my sites on _white_ -- the color of ordinary paper, like in a magazine, book, or newspaper -- not colors, followed by promising to laugh any other designer out of the room who _dared_ to use background patterns or images, or to design image-heavy pages without considering the users/audience -- high-end home/corporate broadband users on high-horsepower gear? Home users on 56kbps with midrange gear? Public schools on 56kbps or overloaded 112k isdn's with old donated gear? ...Something else I ruled out very early was gratuitous rollover feedback -- i.e. shit that bounces or strobes or wiggles when you roll over it -- and, generally, any kind of moving, flashing, wiggling or bouncing shit at all, and not to mention embedded sound or video that auto-starts when the page loads (I sometimes want to find the home addresses of designers who design pages with big-assed auto-playing Flash intros that crank thudding dance grooves loud enough for the whole damn' studio to hear, so I can visit them personally and beat the shit out of them). And, of course, are the classic design do's and don'ts that apply across all media -- such as how to direct "gaze motion", and how to properly use type so that your page doesn't look like the cover of an old Sex Pistols 45.
Aaaa-aaanyway, long answer short: don't be so quick to diss the designers, man.
mf, proud member, the Colo(u)red Pencil Office (as I believe the BOFH calls them)
Crash and burn
It can make the tea for all I care, I just want it to be stable. I use ubuntu 8.04 as my primary OS for work. At any given time, I have about 10 Firefox windows open, each containing an average of about 8 tabs. I suppose that would be called heavy use.
To get around FF crashes, I have gmail open in epiphany, opera for flash movies or internet banking (never both) and everything else is in Firefox, but if I suggested running multiple browsers as a solution to any of my clients they'd go somewhere else.
@AC 10 Mar 09 17:19gmt
"Wilbur the Waltzing Wallaby"...?
Day-AM. That's sweet. I _like_ it.
Of course, most of us dopes here in the States won't get it, but screw 'em.
@AC 12 Mar 09 12:12gmt re: Crash and burn
Actually, after a while, I admitted to myself that yes, that's a totally cool solution, as I've noticed that many sites -- especially ecommerce-focused sites like MacConnection -- always have their layouts and functionality totally busted in Firefox, but run like a champ in Mozilla (1.7.13 under "Tiger" on a G4 iBook). So, if I need to do some serious business, such as actually buying stuff with a credit card, where I can't afford to have my browser shitting itself, I go with Mozilla. Otherwise, I use Firefox 2.
You're right, though, on the second point. If I were to suggest using more than one browser to any of the clients I design for, their heads would explode on the spot.