J_RaD
msg:4412827 | 8:23 pm on Jan 31, 2012 (gmt 0) |
whew finally made it beyond IE.
Now in 2 years is it going to look funny seeing FF30?
|
dstiles
msg:4412860 | 9:50 pm on Jan 31, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Typical of developers. Add in everything you can think of to make your own life easier but forget that real users want something that's lightweight, quick and easy to use. :(
Surely a simple installation option could be arranged: Do you want the simple (and safe) User version or the complicated Developer version?
PS: I'm a site developer. :)
PPS: It's still a dumb idea to issue so many full version numbers in one year. :(
|
tedster
msg:4412943 | 3:03 am on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| delivers smoother updates by making add-ons compatible by default |
|
I don't know how they accomplish that - but it sounds awesome to me. But if it's true, why do I still get a notice that "some of your add-ons won't work with this update and will be disabled"?
|
graeme_p
msg:4412963 | 4:22 am on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
@dstiltes, these improvements are probably fairly lightweight. One is just syntax highlighting, one seems to catch up with Chrome(ium), and the last is just lightweight editing of properties.
They are also not making their own life easier, as they are browser developers, not web developers.... it is important for platforms to keep developers happy - to quote Steve Ballmer "developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...." (the video is easy to find, as is the rather better dance one)
@tedster, I think it just means that add-ons are assumed to be compatible unless declared incompatible with the new version, whereas previously add-ons were assumed to be incompatible unless declared compatible. It makes sense as most add-ons will work fine with new versions of Firefox, so waiting for an upgrade to all of them before they would work with a new versions was unnecessary - but it will mean more bugs in add-ons because some are sure to break. It works for Chrome....
|
enigma1
msg:4413006 | 9:34 am on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| PPS: It's still a dumb idea to issue so many full version numbers in one year. :( |
|
Yes indeed, it seems like a marketing thing to surpass IE version numbers. They should still be at version 4 or something.
| Now in 2 years is it going to look funny seeing FF30? |
|
Depends if they switch from decimal to binary we may see really long version ids.
When they will give the option to completely remove plugins from the UI, that's something I like to know.
|
graeme_p
msg:4413019 | 10:31 am on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Its not IE, its Chrome : it is partially justified by adopting the same frequent release practice as Chrome.
It is linked to the dropping of support for past releases (i.e. if you want bug, including security, fixes you move to the current version), which they subsequently compromised on.
The idea now is that there will be rare stable releases (for organisation that want a stable platform) and very frequent releases of the latest version. Its a bit like Ubuntu, except, I think, the support for the current version will cease as soon as the new one comes out (except Ubuntu provides 1.5 years support for six monthly releases).
|
zuko105
msg:4413148 | 5:19 pm on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Maybe they needed a newer release to comply with something to do with their renewed agreement with Google
[allthingsd.com...]
...and bundled the developer tools that they've already had available to make it worth a version upgrade?
I'm just speculating.
|
dstiles
msg:4413259 | 10:03 pm on Feb 1, 2012 (gmt 0) |
They still have another update number to go before they catch up with Opera. :)
|
mcneely
msg:4413668 | 9:32 pm on Feb 2, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Well I don't know about the rest of you, but I downgraded back to 9
The 10 is still too buggy out of the gate for me ..
For instance? .. I prefer all history, and cookies go away when I close the browser session .. I have it in 9 .. I don't have it in 10
I guess that makes 9 the winner :)
|
graeme_p
msg:4414405 | 3:41 am on Feb 5, 2012 (gmt 0) |
My Ubuntu install just upgraded to Firefox 10 and Chromium 16 on the same morning.
|
piatkow
msg:4414435 | 9:07 am on Feb 5, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I prefer all history, and cookies go away when I close the browser session
|
|
Pressure from the affiliate marketing community perhaps? There is a thread referring to loss of commission because of nasty people who delete their cookies before they get around to buying on the Affiliate forum.
|
graeme_p
msg:4414681 | 1:25 pm on Feb 6, 2012 (gmt 0) |
@mcneely. I can see the settings for that under Preferences > Privacy
Looks just like 9 to me.
@piatkow, I doubt affiliate marketing people have much influence on Mozilla. How can they apply pressure?
|
bigbusideas
msg:4427533 | 2:20 pm on Mar 10, 2012 (gmt 0) |
These are the most valuawble tools of this browser. That's why it's my favourite
|
BillyS
msg:4427545 | 2:45 pm on Mar 10, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Wow, they are fast. I just went from 10.0.1 to 10.0.2! Catching up to Chrome at 17.
|
|
