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.
  1. Steve Evans

    "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. David Gosnell

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

    2. Roger Varley

      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

      1. Stuart 22

        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. Miek
          Thumb Up

          Firebug 1.8.4 running on FF10 here too.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            People still use Firebug?

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

    3. Simon_E

      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.

    4. Drew V.

      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.

  2. Turtle

    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?

    1. Patrick Finch

      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. )

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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?

        1. Grease Monkey

          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.

          1. Not That Andrew
            Thumb Up

            Great explanation!

          2. LordWilmore
            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.

          3. Patrick Finch
            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

            1. Grease Monkey

              "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.

              1. Patrick Finch

                "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.

          4. John Sanders
            FAIL

            Mozilla have becomed

            Browser Cargo cultists.

          5. John Sanders
            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.

          6. Mark 162

            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."

          7. MaxRenn

            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."

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Not That Andrew
        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)

      4. John Sanders
        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.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        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!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

      6. Jean-Luc Silver 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.

        1. Patrick Finch

          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.

      7. BlueGreen

        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.

      8. Turtle

        @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?

        1. Patrick Finch

          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.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    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...

    1. ChrisInBelgium

      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...

    2. Patrick Finch

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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. Grease Monkey

        "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. Not That Andrew

          "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).

          1. Patrick Finch

            Silent updating for Firefox plans

            @Not That Andrew

            Short answer is no.

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

    3. 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!

  4. Locky Silver badge
    Coat

    As Nigel Tuffnal says

    Its amazing, its a whole one faster

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

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

      1. Grease Monkey

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

  5. Andrew Baines Silver badge
    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.

    1. mikeyboosh
      FAIL

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

    2. Not That Andrew

      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.

  6. mikeyboosh
    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.

    1. Grease Monkey

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

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        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.

    2. Craig 12

      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.

    3. Tigra 07 Silver badge
      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

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    chrome

    Chrome might be on version hundred and something by now, but you're still stuck with the same crappy interface of the very first version. While what is under-the-hood is certainly important, nobody would want to drive the latest Audi or Merc if they still came with a manual choke, 8 track and handles to wind the windows up and down.

    And the apps in FF have far better integration; maybe it's a blessing and a curse, but I like the fact that if there is anything slightly annoying about any aspect of it, someone will have produced an app that deals with it.

    1. mikeyboosh

      I think Chrome looks *far* better than Firefox, there's something about that default font in firefox that I'm not keen on.

      1. druck
        WTF?

        Well change it then!

        1. Grease Monkey

          @druck you could say the same to the OP complaining about Chrome.

          The thing is I happen to like the uncluttered GUI in Chrome (and of course Opera) when compared with FF. The reason I do is again to do with intrusion, a web browser is a tool and I want to see the web page, not other stuff.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If it ain't broke...

      @cap'n

      "but you're still stuck with the same crappy interface of the very first version"

      The Chrome interface is great and devoid of clutter. Why change it if it works?

      Okay you may not like it, but then you have that nice bloated Firefox thingy to use... assuming you're happy waiting for it to update nearly every time you open it that is ;)

  8. moepstar
    Mushroom

    Bury it already

    It's about time to bury what was once a lean, fast and secure browser.

    Then it became that obese pile of rubbish which is bloated, slow and doesn't just seem to get any better any more.

    Try to do more than just light surfing and shutting down the computer after an hour and you'll get to see and feel the surplus of fat it has built up over the years: it lags like hell, eats up your RAM like there's no tomorrow and in 2012 it is still possible to crash the whole browser from a single tab.

    I, for one, am fed up with Firefox after using it since the 1.x days and am not going back. Google being evil and all that, at least they're able to build a browser that doesn't make me want to throw my laptop against a brick-wall every other day...

    1. Wibble
      Windows

      Finally, my Firefox memory problems are solved...

      I've been really fed up with the constant demands for greater memory that Firefox has. So finally I've solved it; installed 16Gb of RAM in the laptop. Lightweight my arse.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gah....

    ...upgraded last night and now some of the stuff I work on is rendered all over the palce. Strangely, Chrome, ie9 and Opera all render correctly.

    1. Grease Monkey

      Which probably points to updates being fired out too fast for the testers to keep up.

  10. Ian Tunnacliffe

    Switched to Chrome

    Tried Chrome on the Mac a year or so ago and wasn't impressed. About a month ago I got so annoyed with Firefox grinding my computer to a halt that I gave Chrome another go. It's improved in the interim as FF has gone backwards. I imagine I'll stay with Chrome until it starts to annoy me and the whole cycle starts again.

    1. Wibble
      Childcatcher

      Choice

      At least we have choice in our browsers. Interesting that Safari's not mentioned:-)

      1. Grease Monkey

        @Wibble

        Your point being?

        1. Wibble
          Gimp

          If only...

          If Microsoft had their way there'd be one browser. Thankfully we have choice of several which are far better for the competition.

          I, like you Grease Monkey, am fed up with Firefox's shenanigans. The problem with having only one version is there's nothing to differentiate a "real" update (that's a Major one in old money) with a "pseudo" update (wot we called a minor upgrade last year).

          As a developer I'm particularly pissed off -- that's way more than mildly miffed -- at the constant issues with the addins. I absolutely have to have certain addins working; without them there's no point in using Firefox. Therefore I need to differentiate between a viable upgrade and, well, bollocks.

          I particularly hate being used as some marketing gimp by Mozilla.

          For me, there's no other browser which comes anywhere near Firefox for web development. I couldn't imagine what work would be like without Firebug, the Web Developer Toolbar, Life of Request, and the minor tools (which to be honest are available on Chrome) such as Measure It and Colorzilla. I morn for the excellent HTML Tidy which got hammered in one of the architectural changes.

          If Firebug and the full Web Dev Toolbar were available on another browser (and not that MS shite which is Windwos VII only), I'd be out of here like a shot.

          Gimp icon as I know my place.

  11. The BigYin

    Why...

    ...do I need "Page Inspector" when I have "FireBug"? "Page Inspector" just adds bloat for those who do not need it, those who do can seek out the likes of "FireBug" easily enough.

    Stop reinventing the wheel, Mozilla and release proper enterprise support ASAP.

    ps "FireBug" is freaking awesome!

    1. Not That Andrew
      Facepalm

      Because Opera and Chrome and even IE9 have it, that's why!

      1. The BigYin

        So what?

        Joe Schmoe does not need it and getting "FireBug" is but moments and one is very likely to install a slew of add-ons anyway.

        Bloat is bloat - it's not needed by default.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @The Big Yin

          "Bloat", of course, being something *you* don't want and therefore pretty meaningless as a criticism, easy as it is to trot out. Why not build your own from the source, then? You could even try to sound cool by calling it "lean and mean" - that wouldn't be cringe inducing ...

          1. The BigYin

            @AC

            Ah, I see. Because I am not a 1337 h4x0r with time on my hands to roll a fork of Firefox I am not permitted an opinion? Nice.

            My point was that for those who need it, FireBug works great and is simple to add.

            Their "Page Inspector" is just one more thing to occupy resources, maintain and (potentially) be exploited.

            But, you know, that's just my opinion. That thing that I'm not allowed to have.

            1. Grease Monkey

              You're allowed an opinion and people are allowed to disagree.

              I'm one of the ones who disagrees. It's a (rare) good move on the part of Mozilla. It's something that other browsers have. You know them they're the ones that aren't hopelessly bloated. Coding something into the product should always be less bloaty and more secure than bunging it on top as a plugin.

              I find Firefox starts about as slowly as Opera, but Opera is also my mail client so it should always be slower than just a plain browser. Chrome, however is much faster. Running the three of them Chrome and Opera are Faster than FF, IME. However I do hear a lot of people moaning about how slow FF is and I usually find I can solve their problems by switching off a plugin or two.

              FF users seem to feel that their favourite browser needs a lot of plugins. They'll always tell you that FF with this, that and the other plugin is the best browser. It seems to me that they seem to be missing the point that FF isn't the best browser if it needs those plugins to be the best.

              Chrome users don't seem to feel the need to extend their browser. And while Opera users certainly have the facility to extend their browser they don't tend to use it beyond maybe Adblock.

              1. Not That Andrew

                You realise I was being sarcastic when I said FF had it because other browsers do (although that's the reason). Firebug is effectively an official plugin, so why duplicate it with an inferior built-in version?

                If Chrome set fire to it's users formatted their hard disks would Mozilla add that to Firefox? (Yes)

                1. The BigYin

                  @Not That Andrew

                  Sorry, didn't get your sarcasm.

                  I tried to use the dev tools in IE the other week...oh dear god...the pain!

              2. Florence

                And I'll partly disagree with you too - even though Opera is my main browser too.

                I still use Firefox for the few sites that just won't support Opera and I find it bloated, and that's with hardly any extensions. Firefox was my main browser for quite a while, in fact I used it from the Phoenix days until FF3 'broke' the URL bar, which is when I made the switch back to Opera.

                The early versions of Firefox were indeed rather minimal and extensions were indeed required to get decent functionalities - but it remained a fast and efficient browser - esp. if you were careful to only install what you needed. (I know, most people didn't.)

                There are indeed more built-in functionalities now - but nowhere near as many as Opera (I don't know about Chrome, I don't want Google doing sneaky stuff on my PC...), yet they've managed to make it slower and heavier on resources than Opera.

                I like both approaches: that of the very fast minimal browser that you can customize with extensions to fit your needs, and that of the full-featured browser where I will accept a slight dip in performance if it means convenience. However nowadays Firefox misses the mark on both counts, it's not there in terms of features, and it's not fast either.

                You seem to favour the full-featured approach - but we already use Opera for that! I'd rather FF went back to its original minimalistic concept.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fnuh

    Still crashes almost every time I log out of Gmail. I've been a loyal Mozilla fan for a long time, but I'm starting to get fed up, especially when nothing seems to happen to the crash reports I've been logging for 8 months or so.

    1. Northern Fop
      Stop

      Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!

      Maybe you're the only one with that problem.

      Maybe they couldn't replicate it.

      Maybe they've got 100 more important issues causing grief for 1,000s of people.

      Maybe, just maybe, the World doesn't revolve around you and your problems.

      We need a STFU icon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        bah!

        I'm sorry but in this case the world *should* revolve around the user.

        If users get annoyed, they won't use the program, the program will not bring in any money, the program will die.

        They changed it, they should sort it out. End of.

        Whats the point of having the "bestest app eva" if nobody uses it?

        Maybe, just maybe you should get off your little eggbox and STFU? :P

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Northern Fop

        "Maybe you're..."

        "Maybe they..."

        "Maybe they've..."

        "Maybe, just maybe..."

        You assume an awful lot about the OP. Maybe, just maybe, you could stop assuming in a maybe kinda way. Well, maybe.

        I hope you are not an ISV or similar - but you may be, maybe. Telling a userbase to STFU? Maybe, just maybe, that's not very intelligent, but it maybe sounds OK to you. Maybe.

      3. Grease Monkey

        "We need a STFU icon."

        Sure do. Guess who I'd use it on?

    2. Version 1.0 Silver badge
      Devil

      log out problems

      What do you expect - you're not supposed to log out ... come on, who do you think you are? You're just a consumer feeding the machine.

  13. Patrick O'Reilly

    Two Digit Browser

    And that's why Opera will forever be Opera 9.80, Mozilla should have followed Opera's lead (again)

    1. CD001

      Ummm ... you know the latest Opera build is 11.61 right?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Errm

        Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; U; Edition Next; en) Presto/2.10.238 Version/12.00

        1. Grease Monkey

          Erm. Help > About

          Version information

          Version 11.61

          Build 1250

          Platform Win32

          System Windows XP

          1. Not That Andrew
            Flame

            Patrick O'Reilly and Barry Shitpeas are talking about the user agent string string you numpties!

            If you look carefully at Barry's, he's actually running the Alpha of Opera 12.

            Opera has reported its user agent as 9.80 since Opera 10 as some badly designed sites throw a tantrum if there are 2 digits before the point in the user agent string.

  14. King Jack
    Thumb Down

    New Version?

    The only new (read annoying) feature that I can immediately see is they have split the taskbar icon. So now there are two. The pinned icon and the running one. I liked having one icon with pages stacked. And for this we get a new version number? All the fools are doing is to annoy their users. I predict a turnaround soon as they lose market share to rivals. Please grow up Mozilla and stop trying to be Chrome.

    1. Fuzz

      Not a feature

      That's something wrong with your task bar, unpin the one you've pinned to the task bar and pin the running one and you'll be good.

      1. King Jack
        Pint

        Thanks, it worked. Funny it worked on all versions before this one so they must have 'improved' something.

  15. Jeff 11
    Thumb Down

    I fail to understand why Firefox needs to duplicate, in core, the features that are and have always been historically provided by (the infinitely superior) Firebug - but it may be motivated by the fact that Chrome, Safari and IE all now have their own internal developer tools.

    I seem to remember a developer Javascript console being added in an earlier version too, despite that this has also been provided by Firebug. Spending time on undercutting the features provided by FF's plugin community, rather than on improving the core browsing experience, may be part of the reason why Firefox usage is in decline.

  16. the-it-slayer
    Pint

    I don't get the version logic here

    Okay, it may be easy peazy lemon sqeezey to go up in solid numbers, but traditionally in most people's minds that a new version is a new revision of the whole package in a stable release. Or am I wrong?

    Is it Mozilla have called the shots and not bothered to defend their reasons? A 6 week time scale doesn't give you long to test a very sensitive product that has to cope with a lot of standards (especially in the world of Web 2.0 going into Web 3.0). It worries the common person more than the geeky person. Mozilla's territory are people who were fed up with IE7/8 becoming hijacked by viruses/malware/spyware every month. Mozilla can't win on the corporate ground as IE is probably first choice (based on deployment/config) and Google Chrome is the google-fanboi's choice based on the fact it's established a reputation on its branding of Youtube, Gmail etc and the Google Chrome OS.

    IMHO it should be like this...

    x.00 = Major release for multiple features or revised packaged based on a new GUI etc.

    1.x0 = Minor release for a singluar created/revised feature or major security flaw patched.

    1.0x = Bug fix release.

    The latter of the two should be silent updates to give off the impression that there's no need to panic on revising the product AGAIN!

    Seriously Mozilla, have a beer on me and get your coders thinking straight again. It's not practical for the consumer user in a very security concerned public domain as encryption and major flaws are being reported left, right and centre in this day of age.

    1. Grease Monkey

      I'm out of the corporate world now, but the policy we always followed is that no software or new version of software could be deployed without full testing. With browsers that meant that they had to be tested with all the common apps they would be used with. Since more and more internal apps were web interfaces that meant more and more testing. As such the current Firefox release schedule meant that users ended up grounded at V4.

      You could slip a minor version upgrade past with much less work and a bug/security fix with even less. Now I don't suppose for a minute my former employer was alone in having this policy. As such I suspect that many corporates will abandon Firefox.

      And yes before the FF Fanbois jump on me, my employer had the same policy on Chrome. Nor would they allow the use of any of those Google products that seem to remain permanently in beta.

      I'm sure Mozilla and Google might argue that their version numbers do not follow the accepted practice of x.00, 0.x0 and 0.0x that you describe, but the corporates would surely respond that they are not going to rewrite their entire software acceptance policy around the peculiarities of a couple of web browsers.

      Mozilla, it's less than a year since you suddenly stepped outside accepted practice with your version control. Please step back again. You don't have to copy Google. I suspect that Google will be number 1 browser before too long because they appeal to the man in the street with their simplicity. I believe you have lost that battle already and will never win it back. As such you should maybe try to concentrate on consolidating your user base and producing a quality browser rather than chasing user numbers.

  17. Peter Lee
    Happy

    I may be on my own here, but...

    I'm glad Firefox is updated so frequently. The updates are generally security fixes and, unlike IE updates, don't need you to reboot the entire machine. Who cares what version number you're on at the moment really, so long as it is the latest, most supported, and most secure? I've also never had a problem with my add-ons and if one suddenly stops working as the developers haven't pulled their finger out and tested it on the betas and auroras of the product they always seem to rectify this within a few hours, days at the most.

    I'm running the nightly build of Firefox (just checked: 12.0a1 (2012-01-31) apparently) and it works like a dream, it does what I want, and I can customize it if I wish to. I tried Chrome and although it was fast I hated the interface and found lots of things that irritated me, but Firefox just works the way I want, and if they change things I know it is pretty simple for me to make my own alterations to tweak it back.

  18. Mattyod
    Thumb Down

    No Firebug...

    No update.

  19. fronty
    WTF?

    Oh FFS!

    We produce our own software, we have just certified our latest release against FF9. Now FF10 is out, I can't redo all our certification. How are we supposed to keep up? How are corporates supposed to keep up?

    Stop incrementing the major version number as it causes us and our customers an application certification nightmare!

    1. Wild Bill

      I feel for you, but surely you knew this was going to happen with Mozilla's current policy? The solution surely is to not support Firefox?

      1. Wild Bill

        inb4 'don't call me Shirley'

      2. Grease Monkey

        "The solution surely is to not support Firefox?"

        That, Shirley, is exactly the correct solution. And it's the one that Mozilla should be worrying about.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I really feel for you...

      Last August I'd gone to the trouble of installing the latest version of Firefox across our school and locking it down (I think it was version 5? jeez, and we're on 10 now!?).

      Anyway, we made it as far as September whereby a NEW version was 'excreted', and guess what? All my lockdowns no longer worked! So, with all the chaos that usually ensues after a summer break, the net result was everyone having to put up with the older version until I could bring myself to find out what they'd f*cking changed... again.

      (Not that the staff noticed any of this... @_@)

      So, cheers Moz; seriously considering a Chrome rollout this coming August.

  20. Pete ThSplendiferous

    Firebug?

    Do the developer tools do anything firebug doesn't?

  21. Dave K Silver badge
    FAIL

    And another one

    I'm also getting royally sick of all these new version numbers. Firefox 10 now? It's getting ridiculous. I know Google do the same, but that doesn't make it right.

    Please Mozilla: Stop this insanity. Try going for a new version number when you've actually added a few noticeable features. As it stands, I can hardly tell the difference between Firefox 4 and Firefox 10!

  22. Bonus

    Clean profile?

    Anyone with crashing or performance issues bother to try in safe-mode and see if the problem is crappy extensions or old crud in the profile, rather than the browser?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Desktop = Great . Mobile = Needs work...

    I must be in the minority here as for the last 5 years I've had no issues with Firefox and even memory consumption is better than Chrome's. It's also as fast as I want it to be - I cannot notice a difference to Chrome (unless my reflexes are just slow....)

    The real issue for Mozilla is the desktop version. I've been using the latest Nightlies, which are now using the Native UI on Android and they are really, really slow...but improving.

    Having said that it's the only browser on Android which gives you as close a desktop experience on mobile, i.e. in terms of pages looking exactly as they do on desktop. The others, i.e. stock, Opera struggle with complex pages and do not draw elements correctly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The real issue for Mozilla is the desktop version."

      Sorry, that should read: "The real issue for Mozilla is the mobile version."

  24. Nick Pettefar

    Shutdown Cancelled, Firefox failed to close.

    EVERY time I shutdown my Mac (for serious software updates for example) I have to force close Firefox. Tedious.

    I can't see ANY difference between FF9 and FF10. Can anyone enlighten me? Work on XP (yes, really, the retards) and home on Mac Lion (gradually getting used to it but still have a Vista feeling about it).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      SNAP!

      Me too!

      I have one of my Mac's set to auto shut down at about 4am (in case I nod off... don't ask =P) and the only thing that stops this is Firefox. This does not happen with Safari at all, even if I leave it open...

      "I can't see ANY difference between FF9 and FF10"

      +1? :)

  25. JDX Gold badge

    How come we don't get a Reg story every time a new version of Chrome is out? FF seems to be doing a major release every 6 weeks and making the same fuss as when it was every 6 months. If you're going to do such frequent releases, you need to stop telling us about them

  26. Wensleydale Cheese Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Update broken (again!) for non-admin accounts on Windows

    I thought this one had been fixed several versions ago (sorry, lost count of which one).

    When working in a non-admin account in Windows, FF does its download stuff and then, (not entirely unsurprisingly) says that the update failed.

    The error message suggests that you have another instance of FF running. Nope, that's not it at all.

    Solution: log into an admin account and do the update from there.

    1. Grease Monkey

      Surely it shouldn't even try to update if the user doesn't have admin privileges?

      1. Not That Andrew

        Yup, I seriously object to software that does that. No better than malware - I'm looking at you Chrome

  27. John Sanders
    Linux

    Credit where credit is due

    I just upgraded to 10.0 and the new inspector is quite good.

    Well done Mozilla!

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ever so glad

    That I STOPPED using mozilla crap over a year ago, it just gets uglier and uglier with this POS.

  29. Scott 67
    WTF?

    Oh Lovely....

    There's an issue where firefox will lose it's cursor focus and need you to alt-tab AGAIN to get it back...this is annoying.

  30. william_7

    'scanning for viruses' and other bothersome bugs

    Firefox downloads a file, and claims it is scanning for viruses, yet I have not antivirus installed, what gives there? Shit coding.

    Fire freezes up, honestly why not have a thread for each tab, with the interface on a higher prioity?

    (talking about ver 5 and before)

  31. Adam Nealis

    I thought they promised no more restarts after add-on updates.

    Maybe I got it wrong, or confused that feature with another browser.

    Annoyances that still remain:

    1. Go to the Add-Ons screen. There is "Get Add-ons", but once you get an Add-On, it becomes an "Extension". Why two name sfor the same thing? And WTF are "Plugins" for anyway?

    2. This dialogue box has always been broken. Else I carry round some Add-On/ Extension/ Plugins that are messing it up:

    http://www.learningally.org/SiteData/images/screen_tro/a66a2ee8104c488d/screen_trouble_03.gif

    So suppose one checks "Do this automatically" and downloads, the next time, "Do this automatically" is checked, but I still get the damned dailogue box and I still have to click OK. Is this PICNIC or is this "Windows Automation" at work?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019