Gervase Markham wrote: > L. David Baron wrote: >> This would only be possible for open-source extensions. (I don't >> think AMO has metadata to indicate which extensions are open-source, >> so figuring out which these are can involve a bit of digging.)
> Right. I seem to remember I filed a bug saying a.m.o. should track this > metadata, but it didn't get accepted :-(
> On June 17th, 2008, we shipped Firefox 3 / Gecko 1.9. As per the > release roadmap (http://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap) we're > approaching the end of the six months for which Firefox 2 / Gecko > 1.8.1 support is planned. Support in this case means continuing to > develop the security and stability patches for those code-bases, as > well as issuing releases of Firefox and minor updates to the Firefox 2 > product.
> * ensuring that we don't offer major updates to people on unsupported > platforms
> If you can think of other reasons why we shouldn't move towards end of > life for Firefox 2 / Gecko 1.8.1, please let us know by replying (to dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org > or following-up to mozilla.dev.planning)
Those on Windows 9x will not be able to upgrade to Firefox 3. I've seen several computers reconfigured by some of my friends with Firefox 2 for seniors or as a starter computer, not your mainstream crowd But it provides a platform that is familiar to those that can provide help. Don't know if that is much of a reason for Mozilla. It going to be done whether there are security updates or not.
David McRitchie wrote: > Those on Windows 9x will not be able to upgrade to Firefox 3.
If you are still running Windows 9x on a computer connected to the Internet, an out-of-date browser is the least of your problems. I'm pretty sure it's no longer safe, given that there haven't been security updates for some time now.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:38 PM, David McRitchie wrote:
> Those on Windows 9x will not be able to upgrade to Firefox 3. I've > seen > several computers reconfigured by some of my friends with Firefox > 2 for seniors or as a starter computer, not your mainstream crowd > But it provides a platform that is familiar to those that can > provide help. > Don't know if that is much of a reason for Mozilla. It going to > be done > whether there are security updates or not.
All users on Windows 98, 98 SE, ME, and NT4 will not be able to upgrade. That's true. We can't support all OSes forever, nor do we want to. :)
We won't be offering Firefox 3 to these users on mozilla.com and definitely won't be sending them a major update. Doing so would automatically upgrade them to a version of Firefox they couldn't use...
It's sad to drop support for old OSes, but the most recent end of life for any of those was July 11, 2006 for Windows 98 and ME [1]. It's time to let them go...
(And, as Gerv said, they have many other security risks beyond the browser.)
On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, volker.sof...@ucpros.com wrote:
> So I would urge to not discontinue support for Firefox 2 until the > Firefox 3 printing issues are resolved.
As Boris said, I hope you filed a bug for this. If so, please link to it so we can evaluate if it's as serious as you're saying. Without specific bugs, there's not much we can do...
>> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>> No, and straw men aren't appreciated. Please read on in the thread >>> for where >>> I clarify Sam's words for Phil.
>> Thanks, I just wanted to get that clarified a bit more, as Sam's >> post sounded very much like anything browser-specific being ignored >> and dropped completely (which I felt was probably not the intention >> but the sound of it).
> No worries. Sam's hatred for Camino is well documented. ;)
It's good thing Mike's in town this week. Wrath shall be felt...
In any case, I should clarify: * Current branch drivers [1] will handle mailnews bugs and target them (and find owners) for upcoming Thunderbird 2.0.0.x releases. * Security bugs that do not affect Thunderbird 2.0.0.x will not be targeted or managed. * If bugs unrelated to Thunderbird 2.0.0.x get appropriate reviews, branch drivers will triage the approval requests appropriately, just as they do now. * The community can take over this branch, just as has been done for Gecko 1.8.0 (currently managed by Linux vendors)
I hope that helps clear things up... I didn't mean to have my hate on for SeaMonkey or Camino or any other Gecko 1.8.1 consumer. I <3 everyone!
The PDF in above bug report is similar to what we get when printing from Firefox 3 to PDF file (using Adobe Acrobat 8 PDF printer driver under Windows) and also when printing directly to our printer (Dell Color Laser with PCL printer driver). Firefox2, and IE7 both work fine in the same constellation.
>On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, volker.sof...@ucpros.com wrote:
>>So I would urge to not discontinue support for Firefox 2 until the >>Firefox 3 printing issues are resolved.
>As Boris said, I hope you filed a bug for this. If so, please link to >it so we can evaluate if it's as serious as you're saying. Without >specific bugs, there's not much we can do...
> Samuel Sidler wrote: >> * The community can take over this branch, just as has been done for >> Gecko 1.8.0 (currently managed by Linux vendors)
> I hope Linux vendors will help us there once again as I'm sure the > SeaMonkey and Camino communities are not able to maintain a Gecko/ > Platform branch.
The Firefox and Gecko communities are part of the Mozilla Community, Robert. One big happy family, despite the occasional squabble where Firefox puts rocks in SeaMonkey's schoolbag, or however you want to carry that particular metaphor. :) I know there are examples of people backporting maintenance patches to unsupported branches when asked nicely, and in many cases those patches are ripe for backporting with a little help and love to make them fit into the older trees.
Prioritization is a bitch, but we're an underresourced community which needs to focus on the things which will help us continue to grow our leverage within the wider web community, so in the larger picture I believe resolutely that this end of life policy helps the community more than hinders. Let it be known that we're not trying to inflict pain on the family, we're just trying to be pragmatic about the resources to hand.
Mike Beltzner wrote: > Prioritization is a bitch, but we're an underresourced community which > needs to focus on the things which will help us continue to grow our > leverage within the wider web community, so in the larger picture I > believe resolutely that this end of life policy helps the community more > than hinders. Let it be known that we're not trying to inflict pain on > the family, we're just trying to be pragmatic about the resources to hand.
I know, and believe me, I'd be very happy to kill off 1.8.1 for SeaMonkey, as this also means xpfe for us. I don't see any animosity between the Mozilla subprojects there, really, I just want to care that we can ship security updates for our old product line long enough to make the transition to the new toolkit backends in the 1.9.1 take over the role as the stable series. With that, we'll be pulling on the same rope as Firefox even more than in the past.
oersted wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:48:42 -0400, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com> > wrote:
>> Presently 2/3rds of our users are using Firefox 3, with more than 50% >> accepting the first major upgrade offer back in late August. We're >> looking >> through Hendrix and other sources to understand why people didn't want >> to upgrade and ensure that those bugs have been fixed - if you know of >> any that would result in the product not working on a user's system, >> please point it out.
> On Wednesday 2008-10-29 10:33 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > I think it might be worthwhile to devote some of our attention to > > popular but unmaintained extensions. We could, for instance, have > > some sort of "adoption agency" on AMO which lists unmaintained > > extensions and encourages third-party developers to take them over. > > (The Debian package adoption procedure might be a model.) It might > > even be worth spending internal developer effort on updating extensions > > where the fix looks to be easy.
> This would only be possible for open-source extensions. (I don't > think AMO has metadata to indicate which extensions are open-source, > so figuring out which these are can involve a bit of digging.)
