In September of 2009 we stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") on mozilla-central but we left much of the code required to support that platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision. We have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific code.
Here are usage numbers from 2010-01-25:
=========== Firefox 3.5 =========== 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 1,497,221 (26%) 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 2,855,842 (50%) 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 1,379,770 (24%) All versions of Mac OS X: 5,732,833
=========== Firefox 3.6 =========== 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 186,825 (59%) 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 91,478 (29%) 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 35,960 (12%) All versions of Mac OS X: 314,263
Mac OS X 10.4 was released in April of 2005 and a lot has changed since then. We would like to take advantage of more modern technologies on Mac OS X and 10.4 support has been a hindrance. Where we can work around supporting 10.4, doing so consumes valuable time and effort. Neither Chrome nor Safari has to deal with this.
The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end of service, which won't be until several months after the next major version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4.
Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of- process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation. Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X 10.4.
We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections please let us know now.
Absolutely Not. I still have two PowerPC machine That use OSX.4.11. My Laptop I could if I had the funds go to OSX.5. but it would make it slower than the molasses It already is. As it stand now it impractical for me update either machine due to lack of funds. Maybe in 2011 I can upgrade my Laptop. But not this year . I am going to have to dip into my savings to maintain a decent amount in my Checking this year. My Desktop will have to wait even longer. Its a G4-500 and and even OSX.5.8 is not recommended for it. So if support for 4.11 is removed then that means I will have to go to something else such a iCab, Opera, or OmiWeb rather than FF. (FireFox) and you don't need to loose users.
And I am not the only one. I just happen to be the only one to voice an opinion. Most just take what they are given and stew in the background. Silly me I don't. So in the end my opinion doesn't count for anything. You' do what you do. Do what a lot of shareware do, use a two track method. designate one for older versions and one for newer versions.
You can create a one with all the fancy new stuff. Then one for us poor people that can drop 3k at the drop of the hat and have to hang on to older equipment out of necessity.
Josh Aas wrote: > In September of 2009 we stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") on > mozilla-central but we left much of the code required to support that > platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision. We > have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either > restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific > code.
> Here are usage numbers from 2010-01-25:
> =========== > Firefox 3.5 > =========== > 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 1,497,221 (26%) > 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 2,855,842 (50%) > 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 1,379,770 (24%) > All versions of Mac OS X: 5,732,833
> =========== > Firefox 3.6 > =========== > 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 186,825 (59%) > 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 91,478 (29%) > 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 35,960 (12%) > All versions of Mac OS X: 314,263
> Mac OS X 10.4 was released in April of 2005 and a lot has changed > since then. We would like to take advantage of more modern > technologies on Mac OS X and 10.4 support has been a hindrance. Where > we can work around supporting 10.4, doing so consumes valuable time > and effort. Neither Chrome nor Safari has to deal with this.
> The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would > continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end > of service, which won't be until several months after the next major > version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this > year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share > when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the > last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I > suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves > have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4.
> Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back > to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and > doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree > since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support > consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or > limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of- > process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation. > Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X > 10.4.
> We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and > remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections > please let us know now.
Realize that doing this plan now means that Mozilla will stop supporting Firefox 3.6 (and thus 10.4) sometime in 2011. At least a year from now, possibly even later than that.
> Absolutely Not. I still have two PowerPC machine That use OSX.4.11. My > Laptop I could if I had the funds go to OSX.5. but it would make it > slower than the molasses It already is. As it stand now it impractical > for me update either machine due to lack of funds. Maybe in 2011 I can > upgrade my Laptop. But not this year . I am going to have to dip into my > savings to maintain a decent amount in my Checking this year. My Desktop > will have to wait even longer. Its a G4-500 and and even OSX.5.8 is not > recommended for it. So if support for 4.11 is removed then that means I > will have to go to something else such a iCab, Opera, or OmiWeb rather > than FF. (FireFox) and you don't need to loose users.
> And I am not the only one. I just happen to be the only one to voice an > opinion. Most just take what they are given and stew in the background. > Silly me I don't. So in the end my opinion doesn't count for anything. > You' do what you do. Do what a lot of shareware do, use a two track > method. designate one for older versions and one for newer versions.
> You can create a one with all the fancy new stuff. Then one for us poor > people that can drop 3k at the drop of the hat and have to hang on to > older equipment out of necessity.
> Josh Aas wrote: >> In September of 2009 we stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") on >> mozilla-central but we left much of the code required to support that >> platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision. We >> have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either >> restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific >> code.
>> Here are usage numbers from 2010-01-25:
>> =========== >> Firefox 3.5 >> =========== >> 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 1,497,221 (26%) >> 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 2,855,842 (50%) >> 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 1,379,770 (24%) >> All versions of Mac OS X: 5,732,833
>> =========== >> Firefox 3.6 >> =========== >> 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 186,825 (59%) >> 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 91,478 (29%) >> 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 35,960 (12%) >> All versions of Mac OS X: 314,263
>> Mac OS X 10.4 was released in April of 2005 and a lot has changed >> since then. We would like to take advantage of more modern >> technologies on Mac OS X and 10.4 support has been a hindrance. Where >> we can work around supporting 10.4, doing so consumes valuable time >> and effort. Neither Chrome nor Safari has to deal with this.
>> The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would >> continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end >> of service, which won't be until several months after the next major >> version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this >> year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share >> when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the >> last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I >> suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves >> have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4.
>> Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back >> to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and >> doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree >> since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support >> consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or >> limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of- >> process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation. >> Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X >> 10.4.
>> We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and >> remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections >> please let us know now.
> And I am not the only one. I just happen to be the only one to voice an
If you had read Josh's post, you'd know that we all understand you are no the only one. There are curerntly approximately 1.5 million people using Firefox on 10.4 and we're fully aware of that.
> opinion. Most just take what they are given and stew in the background. > Silly me I don't. So in the end my opinion doesn't count for anything. > You' do what you do. Do what a lot of shareware do, use a two track > method. designate one for older versions and one for newer versions.
Does this suggestion come with a donation for doubling of full-time development resources, QA and testing, build and release infrastructure, and user support for this second track that would cover a shrinking minority of Firefox on Mac users?
> You can create a one with all the fancy new stuff. Then one for us poor > people that can drop 3k at the drop of the hat and have to hang on to > older equipment out of necessity.
If you cannot afford to "drop 3k at the drop of a hat" perhaps you can afford to save up over the next year or so while this transition happens so you can by a newer Mac (Apple has refurbished iMacs running Snow Leopard for ~USD850 http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac In a year, I'll bet you could find one for half that price.)
That being said, I suspect that any sane outcome of this discussion will have to prioritize Mozilla's project resources over your personal resources.
Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 2/5/2010 8:17 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
>> And I am not the only one. I just happen to be the only one to voice an
> If you had read Josh's post, you'd know that we all understand you are > no the only one. There are currently approximately 1.5 million people > using Firefox on 10.4 and we're fully aware of that.
>> opinion. Most just take what they are given and stew in the background. >> Silly me I don't. So in the end my opinion doesn't count for anything. >> You' do what you do. Do what a lot of shareware do, use a two track >> method. designate one for older versions and one for newer versions. > Does this suggestion come with a donation for doubling of full-time > development resources, QA and testing, build and release infrastructure, > and user support for this second track that would cover a shrinking > minority of Firefox on Mac users?
If I had the funds I'd sure give a donation.
You have to remember that, with today's recession while many people are buying computers. There are many more such as I, that are having to use old equipment.
-------------------snip-------------------
> That being said, I suspect that any sane outcome of this discussion will > have to prioritize Mozilla's project resources over your personal resources.
> - A
That's what I suspected. That no matter what opinion is given it doesn't make a difference. It will happen regardless of 1.5 million people needs (not want).
Just to be clear on this, Mozilla is officially dropping support in 1.9.3. Mozilla will not do anything to prevent someone (or many) in the community from creating builds which will work on 10.4 -- correct?
Historically, Mozilla (the community) has been pretty awesome about filling the voids which Mozilla (the company) creates out of necessity.
Cheers,
Anthony Hughes (:ashughes) Jr QA Engineer, Mozilla QAE
> Asa Dotzler wrote: >> On 2/5/2010 8:17 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> And I am not the only one. I just happen to be the only one to voice an
>> If you had read Josh's post, you'd know that we all understand you are >> no the only one. There are currently approximately 1.5 million people >> using Firefox on 10.4 and we're fully aware of that.
>>> opinion. Most just take what they are given and stew in the background. >>> Silly me I don't. So in the end my opinion doesn't count for anything. >>> You' do what you do. Do what a lot of shareware do, use a two track >>> method. designate one for older versions and one for newer versions. >> Does this suggestion come with a donation for doubling of full-time >> development resources, QA and testing, build and release infrastructure, >> and user support for this second track that would cover a shrinking >> minority of Firefox on Mac users?
> If I had the funds I'd sure give a donation.
> You have to remember that, with today's recession while many people are > buying computers. There are many more such as I, that are having to use > old equipment.
> -------------------snip-------------------
>> That being said, I suspect that any sane outcome of this discussion will >> have to prioritize Mozilla's project resources over your personal >> resources.
>> - A
> That's what I suspected. That no matter what opinion is given it doesn't > make a difference. It will happen regardless of 1.5 million people needs > (not want).
> I don't know why I tilt at windmills, it does no good. :-(
> Just to be clear on this, Mozilla is officially dropping support in > 1.9.3. Mozilla will not do anything to prevent someone (or many) in the > community from creating builds which will work on 10.4 -- correct?
> Historically, Mozilla (the community) has been pretty awesome about > filling the voids which Mozilla (the company) creates out of necessity.
> Cheers,
> Anthony Hughes (:ashughes) > Jr QA Engineer, Mozilla QAE
In this case, Mozilla already dropped it on the trunk and now the Module Owner is proposing code removal. That means that it will be exceedingly difficult for someone to just build a working Firefox 3.next for 10.4. To do so would mean creating a branch before the code removal and then keeping it fully in sync with the trunk. I don't see that happening.
> We > have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either > restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific > code.
So, this is another decision where it seems like knowing the plan/timing for the next release might be useful...
It seems like if we were to ship a trunk release soon (Q2/3?), then there could be a stronger argument for retaining 10.4 support. But if the next trunk release is more of a 2011 thing, then there's less of a reason to support 10.4.
As a historical data point, I dug up some posts from when we discussed dropping 10.3 support for Firefox 3.0, back in May/June 2007...
At the time, it was ~3.5 years since 10.3 had been released, Firefox 3.0 was expected to be ~6 months away (reality was 1 year). AUS data indicated that 16% of Firefox users were running 10.3.
Now it's ~3.5 years since 10.4 was released, ?? months until Firefox ?.? ships, and Josh's data indicates that 25% of our current users are on 10.4 (but that early signs are that it's much lower for 3.6).
So, offhand it seems reasonable to me, and roughly comparable to what we did w.r.t 3.0/10.3. It would give me greater confidence to see what happens with 3.6 uptake and .Next release schedule, but that's offset by 3.6 being a much better version for 10.4 users to be "stuck" at than 2.0 was for 10.3 users.
> In this case, Mozilla already dropped it on the trunk and now the Module Owner is proposing code removal. That means that it will be exceedingly difficult for someone to just build a working Firefox 3.next for 10.4. To do so would mean creating a branch before the code removal and then keeping it fully in sync with the trunk. I don't see that happening.
> On 2/4/10 9:16 PM, Josh Aas wrote: >> We >> have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either >> restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific >> code.
> So, this is another decision where it seems like knowing the > plan/timing for the next release might be useful...
> It seems like if we were to ship a trunk release soon (Q2/3?), then > there could be a stronger argument for retaining 10.4 support. But if > the next trunk release is more of a 2011 thing, then there's less of a > reason to support 10.4.
> As a historical data point, I dug up some posts from when we discussed > dropping 10.3 support for Firefox 3.0, back in May/June 2007...
> At the time, it was ~3.5 years since 10.3 had been released, Firefox > 3.0 was expected to be ~6 months away (reality was 1 year). AUS data > indicated that 16% of Firefox users were running 10.3.
> Now it's ~3.5 years since 10.4 was released, ?? months until Firefox > ?.? ships, and Josh's data indicates that 25% of our current users are > on 10.4 (but that early signs are that it's much lower for 3.6).
For clarity, isn't the 25% of current users on 10.4 actually 25% of current Mac users (also the previously mentioned 16%)?
> It seems like if we were to ship a trunk release soon (Q2/3?), then > there could be a stronger argument for retaining 10.4 support. But if > the next trunk release is more of a 2011 thing, then there's less of a > reason to support 10.4.
If whatever is shipping off trunk ships later than about end of Q3 or beginning of Q4 of this year, then imho we've screwed up.
Mulder wrote: > While Mozilla may think that dropping support for Mac OS X 10.4 is a > good idea, you're dead wrong. There is no need to do this
1) It's not about "good" vs. "bad" idea, it's about how much pain it is to support 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 32bit and 10.6 64bit all at the same time, and how much time we as a community can invest into developing for and testing on all those systems - and all that in the end for a rather tiny minority of our total users, which the whole Mac user base still is. We all know that it's not a "good idea", the question is how much it is a necessity for going forward overall, as we have limited resources.
2) How do you know there's "no need to do this"? Have you actually looked at the code and found a way to easily support 10.4 in addition to the newer systems? I'm sure Josh as our main Mac system support developer would be very happy to see that option and its implementation and would welcome your work on it.
50% of the Mac's here can't run anything newer than OSX 10.4.x because they're running a 700 MHz G3 and a 700 MHz G4 processor. One of these machines is used on daily basis. I strongly suggest you rethink your strategy of dropping OSX 10.4 support.
Judging from the comments I've read on some Mac support forums, most folks say they're not happy with OSX 10.5 performance unless they're running an Intel Mac - and those have only been shipping for 4 years.
On Feb 4, 11:16 pm, Josh Aas <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would > continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end > of service, which won't be until several months after the next major > version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this > year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share > when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the > last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I > suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves > have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4. > We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and > remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections > please let us know now.
I would object, since I am using an older PowerPC PowerBook under 10.4, and even 3.6 seems a bit slow or buggy to me. I am still in process of checking if some add-ons are part of this, but since I prefer ad-blocking and script-blocking, etc., if Firefox drops 10.4 support, I will have to look elsewhere instead of staying with FIrefox, as I cannot afford a new(er) 'Book at this point in time. In case somebody missed it, money is not flowing like water for the majority of us out here (though that might not apply to all, I'm sure).
I'd rather stay with Firefox, but if support for Tiger (which doesn't require me to buy a GHz CPU-ed G4 or above) is dropped, you'll find me on the other side of your imposed digital divide. Sorry to see that this is being considered, since with Firefox being available for my 'Book and also for the (newer) Wintel box I have to use at work, I have been able to maintain similarity of commands between the two platforms with Firefox.
On Feb 5, 6:07 pm, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at> wrote:
> 1) It's not about "good" vs. "bad" idea, it's about how much pain it is > to support 10.4, 10.5, 10.6 32bit and 10.6 64bit all at the same time, > and how much time we as a community can invest into developing for and > testing on all those systems - and all that in the end for a rather tiny > minority of our total users, which the whole Mac user base still is. We > all know that it's not a "good idea", the question is how much it is a > necessity for going forward overall, as we have limited resources.
> 2) How do you know there's "no need to do this"? Have you actually > looked at the code and found a way to easily support 10.4 in addition to > the newer systems? I'm sure Josh as our main Mac system support > developer would be very happy to see that option and its implementation > and would welcome your work on it.
> Robert Kaiser
Robert, your own bias appears to be showing... (Not meant as a criticism, but the reality is, it's not "your ox that's being gored", as you don't seem to have any personal investment on behalf of the Mac version)
> 50% of the Mac's here can't run anything newer than OSX 10.4.x because > they're running a 700 MHz G3 and a 700 MHz G4 processor. One of these > machines is used on daily basis. I strongly suggest you rethink your > strategy of dropping OSX 10.4 support.
We have much better statistics than your anecdotal evidence of usage. If you'd read the original post carefully, you'd have seen that we have fairly precise numbers for people using Firefox on 10.4 and so your advocacy on this front with far less precise numbers isn't helpful.
> Judging from the comments I've read on some Mac support forums, most > folks say they're not happy with OSX 10.5 performance unless they're > running an Intel Mac - and those have only been shipping for 4 years.
10.5 and 10.6 far outweigh 10.4 according to all of the publicly available measures.
> On Feb 4, 11:16 pm, Josh Aas<josh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would >> continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end >> of service, which won't be until several months after the next major >> version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this >> year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share >> when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the >> last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I >> suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves >> have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4. >> We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and >> remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections >> please let us know now.
> I would object, since I am using an older PowerPC PowerBook under > 10.4, and even 3.6 seems a bit slow or buggy to me. I am still in > process of checking if some add-ons are part of this, but since I > prefer ad-blocking and script-blocking, etc., if Firefox drops 10.4 > support, I will have to look elsewhere instead of staying with > FIrefox, as I cannot afford a new(er) 'Book at this point in time. In > case somebody missed it, money is not flowing like water for the > majority of us out here (though that might not apply to all, I'm > sure).
Since this decision won't be made because a few users visiting this forum are still bound to 10.4, this kind of advocacy doesn't help much. If you can add more precise usage data to this discussion than what Josh offered in the initial post, please do. If you know of other kinds of data that represents large numbers of Mac or Firefox users that hasn't already been mentioned, please add that.
> I'd rather stay with Firefox, but if support for Tiger (which doesn't > require me to buy a GHz CPU-ed G4 or above) is dropped, you'll find me > on the other side of your imposed digital divide. Sorry to see that > this is being considered, since with Firefox being available for my > 'Book and also for the (newer) Wintel box I have to use at work, I > have been able to maintain similarity of commands between the two > platforms with Firefox.
Obviously some users will always be left behind when we unsupport a platform.
I (and I'm sure others here) recognize that tens or even hundreds of thousands of users will be left behind in a year or so if we stop support for 10.4. We understand that. If we tried to support 100% of operating systems out there, the project would collapse.
That means we have to pick our target versions carefully. Do you have some suggestion about what that cut-off should be that goes further than "not the platform I'm on" ?
> While Mozilla may think that dropping support for Mac OS X 10.4 is a > good idea, you're dead wrong. There is no need to do this; it's a > short-sighted plan to avoid supporting well over a million users who > are still running 10.4 for various reasons;
And you think it will still be well over 1 million users a year from now?
> You can't claim poverty, either. Mozilla takes in many millions of > dollars per year from Google by having their search engine as the > default in Firefox, so don't even try to use that as a justification > for keeping your software working.
No one is claiming poverty. We are talking about how we best utilize our limited resources. I can count the serious Mac platform experts we have on one hand and splitting those resources more than is critically necessary isn't something I'm excited about. One of those top experts is making this proposal and I doubt he'd be making it if he thought we had the resources to easily support 10.4 and 10.5&6.
> If you're going to drop support for 10.4 no matter what people say, > then what's the point of asking for our feedback? When you can explain > that, you might be getting to the root of the problem: yourselves.
Can you provide further insight than we already have into the number of people using 10.4 or using Firefox on 10.4 or into Apple's future support schedule or how much work is actually involved in maintaining support for 10.4? Those kinds of things would be useful feedback. "I'm on 10.4 so you're stupid for dropping it in a year" isn't valuable feedback.
User of the Mac OS do not typically use UNIX They use the Mac GUI (Finder) to view files and operate applications. I've been a Mac USER since about 1986 and I've yet create a Build. we have two ways of installing programs. DMG (pronounced DIM-edge) and stands of Disk Image the overwhelming majority of the way applications are delivered; and PKG (Package). Unless we are application developers.
That's the only way deal with programs. with the possible exception of Apple-scripts and automator actions. I've only dealt with two or three apple-script and those were given to me; all I had to do was compile and run them using the Script Editor. I've yet to use Autmator actions for anything (unless they are done behind the scenes).
Anthony Hughes wrote: > Just to be clear on this, Mozilla is officially dropping support in > 1.9.3. Mozilla will not do anything to prevent someone (or many) in the > community from creating builds which will work on 10.4 -- correct?
> Historically, Mozilla (the community) has been pretty awesome about > filling the voids which Mozilla (the company) creates out of necessity.
> Cheers,
> Anthony Hughes (:ashughes) > Jr QA Engineer, Mozilla QAE
> On 05/02/2010 12:51 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
-------------------snip-------------------
>> I don't know why I tilt at windmills, it does no good. :-(
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Asa Dotzler wrote: >> In this case, Mozilla already dropped it on the trunk and now the Module Owner is proposing code removal. That means that it will be exceedingly difficult for someone to just build a working Firefox 3.next for 10.4. To do so would mean creating a branch before the code removal and then keeping it fully in sync with the trunk. I don't see that happening.
Not at Mozilla. When they have their head set on doing something complaints against doing so does no good. I've never seen where typical user input influenced anything.
Robert Strong wrote: > On 2/5/2010 1:52 PM, Justin Dolske wrote: >> On 2/4/10 9:16 PM, Josh Aas wrote: >>> We >>> have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either >>> restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific >>> code.
>> So, this is another decision where it seems like knowing the >> plan/timing for the next release might be useful...
>> It seems like if we were to ship a trunk release soon (Q2/3?), then >> there could be a stronger argument for retaining 10.4 support. But if >> the next trunk release is more of a 2011 thing, then there's less of a >> reason to support 10.4.
>> As a historical data point, I dug up some posts from when we discussed >> dropping 10.3 support for Firefox 3.0, back in May/June 2007...
>> At the time, it was ~3.5 years since 10.3 had been released, Firefox >> 3.0 was expected to be ~6 months away (reality was 1 year). AUS data >> indicated that 16% of Firefox users were running 10.3.
>> Now it's ~3.5 years since 10.4 was released, ?? months until Firefox >> ?.? ships, and Josh's data indicates that 25% of our current users are >> on 10.4 (but that early signs are that it's much lower for 3.6). > For clarity, isn't the 25% of current users on 10.4 actually 25% of > current Mac users (also the previously mentioned 16%)?
> Robert
the 16% are users of other Mac OSes as related to all OS of any type supported. The 800 pound Gorilla being MS-DOS. Then Mac then UNIX, then Linux and so on -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.nethttp://www.vpea.org mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 2/5/2010 3:18 PM, Mulder wrote: >> While Mozilla may think that dropping support for Mac OS X 10.4 is a >> good idea, you're dead wrong. There is no need to do this; it's a >> short-sighted plan to avoid supporting well over a million users who >> are still running 10.4 for various reasons;
> And you think it will still be well over 1 million users a year from now?
> In September of 2009 we stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.4 ("Tiger") on > mozilla-central but we left much of the code required to support that > platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision. We > have come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either > restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific > code.
> Here are usage numbers from 2010-01-25:
> =========== > Firefox 3.5 > =========== > 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 1,497,221 (26%) > 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 2,855,842 (50%) > 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 1,379,770 (24%) > All versions of Mac OS X: 5,732,833
> =========== > Firefox 3.6 > =========== > 10.6 (Darwin 10.x): 186,825 (59%) > 10.5 (Darwin 9.x): 91,478 (29%) > 10.4 (Darwin 8.x): 35,960 (12%) > All versions of Mac OS X: 314,263
> Mac OS X 10.4 was released in April of 2005 and a lot has changed > since then. We would like to take advantage of more modern > technologies on Mac OS X and 10.4 support has been a hindrance. Where > we can work around supporting 10.4, doing so consumes valuable time > and effort. Neither Chrome nor Safari has to deal with this.
> The approximately 25% of our Mac OS X users still on 10.4 would > continue to be supported by Firefox 3.6 until that product reaches end > of service, which won't be until several months after the next major > version of Firefox is delivered (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this > year. Past data shows that we do not lose appreciable market share > when we stop supporting a Mac OS X version. We are often one of the > last vendors to continue supporting older Mac OS X releases, and I > suspect that by the time this becomes an issue Apple may themselves > have stopped issuing security updates for Mac OS X 10.4.
> Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back > to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and > doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree > since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support > consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or > limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of- > process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation. > Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X > 10.4.
> We are planning to make the decision to remove 10.4 support final and > remove the code from the tree. If you have any strong objections > please let us know now.
If you are working with Apple's latest Xcode 3.2.2 and SDK's 10.4 Tiger support is not enabled by default. Leopard and Snow Leopard are actually substantially different than Tiger really when you look at all the Core Frameworks, I think they should really just worry about innovation, speed, and using the very latest technology rather than supporting and older OS and old technology if not they will really just suffer the fate of MS, stop supporting legacy software and move on with the latest technology, hardware, and software (OS included); the browser "wars" are very competitive! I feel bad for those who cannot upgrade, but no need to slow the pace of innovation for those who can upgrade and are new to the Mac platform.
