Feeds

back to article Mozilla releases Firefox 10, adds developer tools

Mozilla has released version 10 of its Firefox browser as part of its accelerated six-week build cycle, and has also included a pack of developer tools aimed at simplifying life for website operators. Firefox 10, available for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android, includes eight security fixes, but the most noticeable change in …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

"According to Mozilla, most add-ons will now work by default"

Curiously I was offered this upgrade about an hour ago... It told me the FDM (free download manager) integration wasn't compatible, and it would be disabled.

So I declined it's offer for the time being.

1
0

I expect they've enabled the nightly tester tools by default, that ignores version-related directives.

0
0

According to Mozilla, most add-ons will now work by default

Same thing here, except in my case, it was FireBug that was going to be disabled.

I too, declined the offer

0
0

Firebug OK here

Firebug is running happily in my version of 10.0

But agree, security (dot) updates are needed as and when. Whereas upgrades should be grouped and designed not to hinder day-to-day operation. Every six months rather than six weeks would be fine by me.

1
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Firebug 1.8.4 running on FF10 here too.

0
0

same here...

...though that was this morning.

Last night, when I installed it, it told me abcTajpu - an addon with every character and symbol under the sun - wasn't compatible...

Ho hum.

0
0
FAIL

People still use Firebug?

Clearly they haven't heard of Dragonfly.....

0
5

I was warned about three add-ons becoming incompatible. I took the plunge anyway, and to my surprise, all three are enabled and working perfectly.

I can't speak for everyone but it would seem that the updater was excessively cautious this time...or maybe this is in some way part of the changes? Beats me.

0
0
Silver badge

Who and why?

They are incrementing the version number with every maintenance release now, aren't they? It is Firefox 10 today, and by the end of the year it will be Firefox 22.

Who do they think that they're fooling, and why are they trying to fool them?

24
3

Us and because we need it

(N.B. I work at Mozilla)

We don't seek to promote version numbers, but they are useful for, well, versioning.

On the one hand, we want to be able to release features to users and developers as soon as they are ready. On the other, the presence of those features needs to be machine readable. Not to mention, for the business of building, testing and releasing software, you need to know which version you are talking about. I would suggest that Reg readers can agree that is axiomatic.

Version numbering (major / minor) is something that reasonable minds can disagree on, but we've chosen major revisions predominantly because we are able to ship new feature in any new release. We use the numbers to control the versioning of the software, not because we think we're fooling anybody

(By the end of the year, we won't be at v22, rather might expect to have version 17 as a stable release, with version 18 on a Beta release and 19 as an "Aurora" build. )

18
9
Anonymous Coward

A factual and informative reply?

@Patrick Finch - you come here and tell the truth in a reasoned and calm way...

This is the Register - just what do you think you're playing at?

25
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Bronze badge
Flame

As the poster above said, I would rather have several new features every 6 months than 1 new feature every 6 weeks. Why can't Mozilla grasp this simple fact?

And is 10, going to be the extended support version or not, because 3.6.25 is getting a bit long in the tooth. Which is another thing, you squeezed in new features in point releases before, you can do it again.

And that's the other thing, 9 months is now your idea of extended support? Seriously? Though it could be worse, it could be 6 months.

(let's try again - major factual error in my previous attempt to post)

6
0
Bronze badge

Why? Well the Firefox user base is sliding almost entirely at the expense of Chrome. It seems that somebody at Mozilla has looked at Google's method of version numbering and decided to copy it in the ridiculous belief that the version numbering must be the reason Chrome is surging ahead.

The thing that they seem to have missed is that Google don't make a big deal, or indeed any sort of a deal, about Chrome's version number. The vast majority of users don't know what version of Chrome they have any more than they know what software version their PVR is running. Visit the Chrome homepage and you have to dig to find the version number. Visit the Firefox homepage and it's right there.

Google have realised that version numbers are for geekboys and that normal people don't care about them. They are useful for internal controls, but customers don't care. I have no idea what software version my PVR is running and I don't care. I only recently found out that my car is a "Phase 2" and as such some parts differ from the "Phase 1" version. That's because I don't really care. And ordinary people don't really care about the version of their browser, their computer is just an appliance like their TV.

Mozilla need to get wise to the fact that in the last few years the market has shifted from being dominated by geeks to being dominated by ordinary people. These people not only don't care what graphics card they have, they don't even know what a graphics card. Mozilla's intrusive policy on version numbering is probably turning these people off in droves. If you're going to change your version number every eight weeks do it quietly. If you're going to make a big deal about your version numbers then only increment the major version when you are introducing big changes.

The way it's going Mozilla are just hastening the slide in their user base.

22
1
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Great explanation!

0
0
Coat

" It seems that somebody at Mozilla has looked at Google's method of version numbering and decided to copy it in the ridiculous belief that the version numbering must be the reason Chrome is surging ahead"

This would indeed be a ridiculous belief, and as such is probably not the case.

Strange how some people claiming that version numbers are insignificant get so upset about them. And if you're upset about features changing on you, such as add-on management, then disable those updates - it's your choice. Lovely.

Mine's the one with the Opera browser embedded in the collar.

0
3
Paris Hilton

Intrusive, you say?

@Grease Monkey

It's certainly true to say that Chrome's release process has influenced Firefox's. But I don't think that we publicise Firefox version numbers any more than Google does Chrome's, do we? The trade press (such as El Reg) uses the numbers in their reporting of the release, but I don't think there's much mention on the Mozilla blog, or the download page.

Indeed, we agree with your perspective that we expect majority of users not to care about the version. There is at the same time a class of users who certainly do care - people deploying in managed environments, people with specific compatibility requirements etc., and we're also seeking to meet their needs. (These are also people who read the trade press and are perhaps well served by El Reg and others reporting the numbering)

Paris, because I feel people are seeing more of me than perhaps they should

2
1
Bronze badge

"but I don't think there's much mention on the Mozilla blog, or the download page."

As I said, go to the home page and the version number is right in front of you. Chrome users have to dig to find their version number. And Google don't shout about their updates, they do it on the quiet. I know I've mentioned my PVR before, but the process is just like Google's. The PVR quietly updates over the air over night without prompting, IOW Google treat their browser and their users just like manufacturers of other appliances.

Somebody said to me this morning that they didn't see the problem because Opera was on version 11 (11.61 if we're being picky) however IIRC Opera has been around for 17 years, Firefox has only been around for 7. While 9 major version upgrades in 7 years may not seem much, 6 of those have happened in the last year. That may not be intrusive for the tech savvy, but you can bet it is for Josephine public to whom the computer is just another box like the TV or the phone. And that is the market you're dealing with.

3
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

What is the problem with using release or subversion numbers:

10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3

Firefox used to use 3.6.24 and it was perfect, why change that?

Those numbers do not mean anything to regular users, but to the rest of us (which by the way are the ones who really care about FF) is quite useful.

4
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Mozilla have becomed

Browser Cargo cultists.

1
0
Bronze badge
Flame

Most of what Chrome does unconventionally

From the point of view of this 20+ years IT guy is style-farting.

And sadly the Mozilla guys rather than producing a solid browser with no stupid bugs or with worth it functionality they decide to style-fart too.

I will reason this so everybody will understand what I mean:

Chrome as a standalone browser with no extensions whatsoever is a nifty application, and something worth of my time.

Firefox without extensions as a standalone browser is a waste of time.

Take for example its really poor download manager, its record retarded bookmark dialog (search something, give me back results, but doesn't tell me under which folder the found bookmark is) and its sad devotion to try to solve problems that bother no one like the stupid page manager to group pages which is clearly inferior (and ugly) to for example the extension showcase.

Thunderbird is the same, the same old boring email client missing functionality that has been present in outlook for 10+ years, but copying the bloody vote button functionality of outlook is not as cool as copying Chrome's stupid version system.

And let's not talk about the bugs, like the one that prevents Firefox in Linux from using the pop-up menus until you minimize-unminimize the window.

Or the pervasive Thunderbird crashes each time you close Thunderbird, etc.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

You may think you need it, but you're hurting your user base

Pat,

Versioning and features are fine. However we live in a world of business and home users. You'll see from the various posts in this thread that we're all on the same page of needing a supported browser that does not change. Be it on a corporate desktop which requires patching. Or to support an app, or a web page.

Home users will be the main share and want the latest features -- mainly performance gains. However, the major updates are quite frustrating and have the potential to bork an upgrade. I've had to fix many a FF upgrade -- majority when v9 added GPU support. FF added the feature, but it would never start and the fix was use another browser to guess at why it was crashing. It didn't automatically restart in safe mode, or give a hint as to why it was failing. I also recall the upgrade not carrying over the majority of the plugins. Your average home user does not want to deal with this and will find themselves flipping to IE.

I've found that there is a supported version:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

For myself, I plan on upgrading to it after a few patches come out. As well as then install it on the family/friend PCs I "support." I want stability, security, and ease with performance and features. Not the wild west. I don't want to be a beta tester.

That being said, keep up the good work with firefox!

2
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

@Patrick Finch

We were perfectly OK with FF's previous major/minor revision schemes, as major releases were... well, major. That's what most sane version numbering schemes try to track.

I itched to vote you down, but it's a case of shoot the messenger, so I didn't.

But frankly this whole numbering scheme is an insult to our intelligence. From v9 to v17 by the end of the year? If I wasn't aware of what was going on, I would think it was April 1st, not Feb 1st.

You hit the 3 digit main versions in what, 2025 by this scheme? And probably be the first major piece of software to bill itself, very publicly I am sure, at "v101.0".

Daft & laughable.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Security patches?

And what happens when FF users opt of the upgrades? You'll end up with users on multiple UNPATCHED versions. FF will soon be labeled as the most unsecure browser. This versioning chaos will bring nothing but pain. Stop the madness before it's too late.

2
0
Bronze badge

speaking for myself, it's not version numbers, it's the dicking with the interface

Increment as you please, I don't mind, but I'm still on 3.6 because someone couldn't upgrade the motor without replacing the whole cockpit. And messing that up. It is totally counterproductive to end users.

I'll be on 3.6 until EOL.

Thanks for posting here though.

2
0
Silver badge

@Patrick Finch

Thank you for the answer, and for tolerating my semi-humorous (but also kind of serious) post in the first place.

Although I am sure that you will offer your assurance to the contrary, I myself can not but be concerned about quality control in that speedy a release cycle. And I am not even an enterprise, I am just me! Doesn't the stream of new releases make life difficult for enterprises which need to test every release before they adopt it and then install it on hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of actual production machines?

0
0

"not much mention" != "no mention"

Our updating will become quieter - I've posted a link the feature page elsewhere on this thread. If that's what you mean by "shouting" about updates, we have demonstrable progress already with this release around add-on compatibility, and (much) more to come this year.

If by "shouting", you mean writing a blog pointing out all the changes in a release, the assumption I have operated under is that it is a matter of transparency - would you challenge that? I'd be interested. Similarly with "digging" to find version numbers in Chrome; something similar has been proposed in Firefox, but it was not uncontroversial. (bug 678775 in Bugzilla, if it's close to your heart).

I agree with your observations about the general technology consumer.

1
0

I don't believe that we are insulting anyone's intelligence

@Jean-Luc

The difference in the new scheme is that features - major features - are permitted to be integrated into the product when they are ready, rather than waiting for a major release.

The version numbers are not really intended for any purpose other than that of version control of the software. Contrary to the beliefs of many here, we do not actively promote a version number: it is associated with the build you download and install...that's about it. What the Register, or any other publication, chooses to put in their headline about the release is of course beyond our control.

1
0

Stable releases and testing

@Turtle

Your points have been very well made. We now have:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ where we will maintain a stable release on extended support.

For the stable release channel (with 6-week releases), you should know that the build first lives in our "Aurora" channel for 6 weeks, followed by 6 weeks on a Beta channel and of course, the number of features integrated into each build is smaller than a "traditional" release.

1
0

Agreed. Many uses I support call Firefox "Mozilla" -- they don't even know the name of the browser they're using. "That orange icon on the screen."

0
0

Agreed. Many uses I support call Firefox "Mozilla" -- they don't even know the name of the browser they're using. "That orange icon on the screen."

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I'm expecting to get shot down in flames for this but...

Am I the only one in the world who gets seriously pissed off by these updates?

Yes it's good that it's so secure, but what happens if I want to actually use the bloody thing?

*opens Firefox*

[Please wait while Firefox updates]

*loses patience and switches to another browser*

I'm actually at the stage where I will gladly forsake use of decent addons just so I can open a webpage...

11
5

Not the only one

No, you're not. It's bloody annoying. Sometimes, updates go into an infinite loop as well, seriously thinking of switching to another browser on the 60 PC's I have to support in the field.

Chrome is starting to look better due to Firefox looking worse recently...

3
1

I don't think anyone will shoot you down in flames...

(N.B. I work for Mozilla)

You hit the nail on the head: we've always released security updates with a high frequency, and we're attempting to make all updates less "noisy" for the user: this is still a release or two away.

I'm not going to argue that our update frequency is at an "acceptable" level - for you, it clearly is not. On the stable release of Firefox you can probably expect one to two updates every 6 weeks: a version update and potentially a maintenance update.

We feel our release process is producing a better browser - I'd say that's demonstrably the case - but we're not ignorant to the impact on users and are working hard to address (amongst other things) how verbose updates are and add-ons compatibility.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

So

Does 'xpinstall = false' work again in about:config, or is there some other way of stopping e.g. the likes of Microsoft installing whatever the hell add-on/plug-in they want and sod the user (which despite the Windows Presentation Foundation with DotNet 3.5 debacle they pretty much immediately went back to installing plug-ins etc with 'uninstall' greyed out, i.e. Mozilla let them)? Because if the situation remains as it was at FF4, whatever other explanations you have for this and that annoyance/feature, you are insulting your users by removing a reliable way to block software installation and leaving it that way.

2
0
Bronze badge

"we're attempting to make all updates less "noisy" for the user: this is still a release or two away."

That would be about two months away in version twelve then?

1
0
Bronze badge

"we're attempting to make all updates less "noisy" for the user: this is still a release or two away."

What does this entail? NOT installing to the user profile by default, I hope (please say no).

0
0

Silent updating for Firefox plans

@Not That Andrew

Short answer is no.

Long answer is: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update

0
0
M.

I Agree... And Switched to Chrome

I got tired of Firefox actually scaring me with security warnings, saying that I was constantly vulnerable to security breeches because I didn't have their latest version. But their latest version wasn't compatible with the add-ons I relied on every day, so I couldn't upgrade. So to stop worrying, I switched to Chrome, found that some of what I needed is already built into it, and have moved on.

Now, all that I use (the apparently "insecure") Firefox browser for is to load the old add-ons and test a website here or there.

Too bad. Firefox used to be the best. Now they're just bloatware, and patches upon patches, like other software vendors... <sigh> Sad to see FF get binned!

1
1
Coat

As Nigel Tuffnal says

Its amazing, its a whole one faster

4
0
Anonymous Coward

It will be even more amazing when it goes up to 11

3
0
Bronze badge

In that case we only have to wait until next month for FF to become amazing.

1
0
Coat

IE Starting to look a good alternative

Never thought I'd say it, but I keep looking at IE and thinking - give me a decent ad blocker and I'll switch.

6
8
FAIL

haha good one. Oh, wait - you're serious?

8
1
Bronze badge

Actually you can use IE9's tracking Protection feature to block ads. Just drop an adblocking lis in (Fanboy has a version for IE9).

Best way still is if you have a half decent router or custom router firmware. That way you can edit the firewall and load a hosts file to block the ads for everyone on your (I'm assuming home) network.

2
1
Happy

Chrome has the right idea (IMO) with it's silent, background updates. Not to mention it's better in almost every way as well.

2
4
Bronze badge

I'm an Opera user, but I have to agree that Chrome is better than FF.

0
4

Steady on! This is why I'm still tolerating Firefox.

You think it's good that Google can silently upgrade your software without you knowing, or that it's good that they install processes other than chrome, that run on start up?

It's almost as bad as Apple and their 10 processes to support/update their awful itunes software.

Auto-updating software is handy, but please let me know and give me a chance to say when or no.

9
0
Facepalm

RE:

Chrome Doesn't even support RSS Feeds or Google Documents like Firefox does and it's a pain to rearrange bookmarks!

I did like how fast it was though but Firefox has been good to me

...I think we can all agree they're both better than IE

0
0
Silver badge

maybe not.

the fact that non-admin users all have their own private copy of chrome means that even if your copy of chrome is up-to-date, if there are 10 users of the machine, what are the chances that they all have different versions of chrome.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.