I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear: this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in order to get feedback.
First, some facts:
Mac OS X Release Dates) 10.5 was released in October of 2007, 10.6 was released in June of 2009, 10.7 was released in July of 2011.
Mac OS X User Breakdown) The following ADU (Active Daily User) numbers are from November 8, 2011. Mac OS X users make up 6.6% of all Firefox users across all versions going back to Firefox 3. Of those Mac OS X users, 9% are on Mac OS X 10.4, 24% are on Mac OS X 10.5, 53% are on Mac OS X 10.6, and 14% are on Mac OS X 10.7. If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
Apple releases new versions of its operating systems relatively quickly and each new version contains significant changes that we must adapt to. This requires resources, and with limited resources this sometimes means we have to make tough decisions about where to invest.
Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
Furthermore, there are already some significant ways in which Firefox on Mac OS X 10.5 has fallen behind Firefox on newer versions of Mac OS X. Accelerated compositing and WebGL are not available on Mac OS X 10.5. Users cannot run plugins out-of-process on Mac OS X 10.5.
Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
> Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
We've always only dropped support of platforms because of significant technical challenges in supporting them, and the fact that TenFourFox exists tells that even maintaining something for older Macs seems to have value at times (but it doesn't have to be us doing it ourselves either, as that example shows).
What are the actual things it costs us?
"Accelerated compositing and WebGL" are good examples you brought, but we don't support those for a whole range of supported users out there, on different Windows and Linux versions at least in addition to 10.5 users. What are the real technical problems that bring 10.5 over the top? I think a decision should mainly base on those, with all the other data you gave being a reason why it doesn't make sense to put too much effort into taking on those challenges, but still we need to understand the challenges first, I think.
Robert Kaiser
-- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
I'm not sure this is the only relevant metric. The proportion of all
Mac users on 10.5 is of course decreasing as people buy new Macs. But
how quickly is the absolute number of 10.5 users decreasing? How many
people would we be leaving out in the dust if we stopped supporting
10.5, and how does that number compare to OS'es which continue to
support?
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Josh Aas <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear: this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in order to get feedback.
>> First, some facts:
>> Mac OS X Release Dates) 10.5 was released in October of 2007, 10.6 was released in June of 2009, 10.7 was released in July of 2011.
>> Mac OS X User Breakdown) The following ADU (Active Daily User) numbers are from November 8, 2011. Mac OS X users make up 6.6% of all Firefox users across all versions going back to Firefox 3. Of those Mac OS X users, 9% are on Mac OS X 10.4, 24% are on Mac OS X 10.5, 53% are on Mac OS X 10.6, and 14% are on Mac OS X 10.7. If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
>> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
>> Apple releases new versions of its operating systems relatively quickly and each new version contains significant changes that we must adapt to. This requires resources, and with limited resources this sometimes means we have to make tough decisions about where to invest.
>> Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
>> Furthermore, there are already some significant ways in which Firefox on Mac OS X 10.5 has fallen behind Firefox on newer versions of Mac OS X. Accelerated compositing and WebGL are not available on Mac OS X 10.5. Users cannot run plugins out-of-process on Mac OS X 10.5.
>> Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-planning mailing list
>> dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
Also FWIW, Apple desktop software (eg. iPhoto, Aperture) engineering teams are only required to support two OS versions back.
I think we'll be OK, especially with the June 2012 ship date.
-- Jet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Lebar" <justin.le...@gmail.com>
To: dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org, "Josh Aas" <j...@mozilla.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:25:57 PM
Subject: Re: Discussing Mac OS X 10.5 Support Plans
> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
I'm not sure this is the only relevant metric. The proportion of all
Mac users on 10.5 is of course decreasing as people buy new Macs. But
how quickly is the absolute number of 10.5 users decreasing? How many
people would we be leaving out in the dust if we stopped supporting
10.5, and how does that number compare to OS'es which continue to
support?
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Josh Aas <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear: this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in order to get feedback.
>> First, some facts:
>> Mac OS X Release Dates) 10.5 was released in October of 2007, 10.6 was released in June of 2009, 10.7 was released in July of 2011.
>> Mac OS X User Breakdown) The following ADU (Active Daily User) numbers are from November 8, 2011. Mac OS X users make up 6.6% of all Firefox users across all versions going back to Firefox 3. Of those Mac OS X users, 9% are on Mac OS X 10.4, 24% are on Mac OS X 10.5, 53% are on Mac OS X 10.6, and 14% are on Mac OS X 10.7. If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
>> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
>> Apple releases new versions of its operating systems relatively quickly and each new version contains significant changes that we must adapt to. This requires resources, and with limited resources this sometimes means we have to make tough decisions about where to invest.
>> Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
>> Furthermore, there are already some significant ways in which Firefox on Mac OS X 10.5 has fallen behind Firefox on newer versions of Mac OS X. Accelerated compositing and WebGL are not available on Mac OS X 10.5. Users cannot run plugins out-of-process on Mac OS X 10.5.
>> Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-planning mailing list
>> dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
The latest Apple has ever released a security update for version N-2 (currently 10.5) is at the same time as the release of the N.1 update (in this case 10.7.1, which shipped on August 16)
The last update that would apply to 10.5.x at all was Quicktime 7.7 on August 3.
> Mac OS X User Breakdown) The following ADU (Active Daily User) numbers are from November 8, 2011. Mac OS X users make up 6.6% of all Firefox users across all versions going back to Firefox 3. Of those Mac OS X users, 9% are on Mac OS X 10.4, 24% are on Mac OS X 10.5, 53% are on Mac OS X 10.6, and 14% are on Mac OS X 10.7. If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
Just to be clear, I believe the relevant metric (based upon your estimates) is that you're proposing we EOL ~.6% of our updating user base (although updates to FF8 have not yet plateaued). If we were to assume that all 10.5 Mac users would desire to update at some point in the future (and aren't on PPC), we'd be EOLing ~.9% of our users. So somewhere between a half and one percent would be affected as of FF13.
> Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
There are other similar discussions ongoing with the MSVC 2010 migration. The current criteria being used there is:
Estimated user population being EOL'd (sounds like we have a good idea of this, but we should work with metrics to get a final estimate)
User benefit for users on later versions of the platform (if any)
Engineering benefit (recent related bugs, estimated engineering time)
Strategic considerations
I think this would be good to roll into the MSVC 2010 migration discussion. Together these two scenarios will help us set precedents for EOLing in the future.
> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear: this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in order to get feedback.
> First, some facts:
> Mac OS X Release Dates) 10.5 was released in October of 2007, 10.6 was released in June of 2009, 10.7 was released in July of 2011.
> Mac OS X User Breakdown) The following ADU (Active Daily User) numbers are from November 8, 2011. Mac OS X users make up 6.6% of all Firefox users across all versions going back to Firefox 3. Of those Mac OS X users, 9% are on Mac OS X 10.4, 24% are on Mac OS X 10.5, 53% are on Mac OS X 10.6, and 14% are on Mac OS X 10.7. If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
> Trends) Mac OS X 10.5 users have been declining by 1-2% per month (as a share of our total Mac OS X users). This means that when Firefox 13 ships, Mac OS X 10.5 users will likely make up about 13% of Mac OS X users across all versions of Firefox. This number should be around 9% for users of the most recent version of Firefox.
> Apple releases new versions of its operating systems relatively quickly and each new version contains significant changes that we must adapt to. This requires resources, and with limited resources this sometimes means we have to make tough decisions about where to invest.
> Maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support consumes a non-trivial portion of the resources we have available for Mac OS X development. Not maintaining Mac OS X 10.5 support will allow us to devote more resources to the product as used by the majority of our Mac OS X users (those on Mac OS X 10.6 and 10.7).
> Furthermore, there are already some significant ways in which Firefox on Mac OS X 10.5 has fallen behind Firefox on newer versions of Mac OS X. Accelerated compositing and WebGL are not available on Mac OS X 10.5. Users cannot run plugins out-of-process on Mac OS X 10.5.
> Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-planning mailing list
> dev-plann...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-planning
> > I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012.
[...]
> I think this would be good to roll into the MSVC 2010 migration discussion. Together these two scenarios will help us set precedents for EOLing in the future.
It seems to me that the best point to end support for an OS would be
on an ESR branch, should that proposal bear fruit; at least they would
get some modicum of updates. It would certainly help stabilize us in
TenFourFox-land, since we could be assured that there would only be
security-related widget bustage. There are certain things in 10.6+ we
probably can't find good equivalents for in the 10.4 SDK (even working
around CoreUI proved tricky, though I think I have most of the old
code merged correctly), so even if the roof collapsed and we fell off
rapid release, we would still be able to merge with and build from a
branch that still got security updates.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Josh Aas <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear: this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in order to get feedback.
I think it would be valuable to wait until
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684227 has been fixed.
All the remaining Mac OS X 10.5 users we have using current Firefox
are on Intel, since Firefox 4 already dropped support for PowerPC.
Since Mac OS X 10.6 support all Intel systems that 10.5 ran on, all
10.5 users have a realistic upgrade path that we could inform them
about if a fix for https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684227 enabled us to.
The main problem is finding a way to buy a 10.6 disc, though. B&M
Apple Stores reportedly no longer carry it and refuse to order it, but
it's available from the online Apple Store:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA If we end
up telling users to upgrade their OS, we should probably link all the
way to a page that allows them to order the disc.
Users might lack a realistic upgrade path only if they have other
important software that no longer runs on 10.6.
What I'm saying above about all 10.5 users having an upgrade path to
10.6 includes users of early Intel Macs with 32-bit CPUs. If 10.5
support is dropped, is the plan still to keep 32-bit code in a fat
binary only for 10.6 users who have 32-bit CPUs?
> If you limit the scope to the more recent Firefox 7 release, then only 20% of Mac OS X users are on Mac OS X 10.5.
One in five is a big portion of our Mac user base to abandon. I'm
uncomfortable with abandoning that big a proportion of our Mac users,
but I don't feel the downside of continued 10.5 support, because I
don't work on platform-specific code.
> Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
It's worth noting that Chrome and Opera haven't dropped 10.5 support
yet. If Chrome and Opera still support 10.5 when we drop support, will
we value the security of our users more than we value not giving users
to competitors and inform the users about the possibility of switching
to Chrome or Opera? Or are we willing to instruct users to run
TenFourFox on Rosetta?
> What I'm saying above about all 10.5 users having an upgrade path to
> 10.6 includes users of early Intel Macs with 32-bit CPUs. If 10.5
> support is dropped, is the plan still to keep 32-bit code in a fat
> binary only for 10.6 users who have 32-bit CPUs?
The plan is to keep the 32-bit code so we can run 32-bit plug-ins, I would think. At that point support for 32-bit-only CPUs is sort of free.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12/1/11 2:21 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> What I'm saying above about all 10.5 users having an upgrade path to
>> 10.6 includes users of early Intel Macs with 32-bit CPUs. If 10.5
>> support is dropped, is the plan still to keep 32-bit code in a fat
>> binary only for 10.6 users who have 32-bit CPUs?
> The plan is to keep the 32-bit code so we can run 32-bit plug-ins, I would
> think. At that point support for 32-bit-only CPUs is sort of free.
Doing QA on a 32-bit Gecko seems like a very different issue from
supporting a 32-bit plug-in container process even if getting a 32-bit
plug-in container meant building the whole app as a fat binary.
> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in
> Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear:
> this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in
> order to get feedback.
A couple of questions, the answers to which which may have some bearing:
1) Is the TenFourFox team interested in expanding their OS range, or doing a TenFiveFox?
(Relatedly: if 10.4 and 10.5 are no longer supported by Apple, should we be recommending TenFourFox, or should we be telling people to upgrade, for the reasons given at the bottom of that page?)
3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
> 1) Is the TenFourFox team interested in expanding their OS range, or
> doing a TenFiveFox?
This is really a three part question:
- We do support 10.5 PPC and have users who run it on 10.5. It is the
"minority" OS based on my version ping data, but a significant
minority.
- We only build against the 10.4 SDK, because we specifically support
G3 and Classic users. Heck, all of my PPCs and my daily driver quad G5
run 10.4; Power Macs seem to bog down in Leopard. I certainly have no
plans to drop support for it -- it's just a matter of what we can hack
to build.
- I have no plans to build or support an Intel 10.5 version
specifically. I only have a single Intel C2D Mac, and it will shortly
be running Lion so I can still use it for Android development (that's
all I use it for). People can run TenFourFox in Rosetta (unsupported)
and this is known to work, and if someone takes the 10.4Fx patches and
spins them into an Intel version I would be happy to direct people to
that project, but 10.4Fx will itself always be PPC. This would not be
difficult to manage; they would just need to undo the PowerPC-specific
stuff. The rest of it should "just work." It may need some minor
changes to build properly against the 10.5 SDK since I don't test
that.
> (Relatedly: if 10.4 and 10.5 are no longer supported by Apple, should we
> be recommending TenFourFox, or should we be telling people to upgrade,
> for the reasons given at the bottom of that page?)
All 10.5 Intel Macs can upgrade, given sufficient RAM, to 10.6. There
are good reasons for Power Mac users not moving to 10.5, but I'm not
aware of any reasons for any Intel owner to stay with 10.5. (10.4,
yes, because it could still run CFM Carbon binaries with Rosetta, IIRC
-- 10.5 only runs Mach-O.)
> 3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who
> are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is
> supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
This to me really seems like the best option. It's pretty much the
role 3.6 is serving now, unofficially.
> 3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
The ESR branch is meant for organizations and institutions with their own internal support structure in order to enable them to qualify and roll out new releases on a timeline that they're comfortable with. Sending our other users to a release which doesn't have the full support and attention that our newer releases have likely isn't the right call. If we were to start sending non-organizational users to the ESR, it would quickly grow the scope of ESR in a way we've been trying to avoid.
-Alex
On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 30/11/11 20:59, Josh Aas wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in
>> Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear:
>> this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in
>> order to get feedback.
> A couple of questions, the answers to which which may have some bearing:
> 1) Is the TenFourFox team interested in expanding their OS range, or doing a TenFiveFox?
> (Relatedly: if 10.4 and 10.5 are no longer supported by Apple, should we be recommending TenFourFox, or should we be telling people to upgrade, for the reasons given at the bottom of that page?)
> 3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
>> 3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
> The ESR branch is meant for organizations and institutions with their own internal support structure in order to enable them to qualify and roll out new releases on a timeline that they're comfortable with. Sending our other users to a release which doesn't have the full support and attention that our newer releases have likely isn't the right call.
If we ship an ESR in early 2012 (for example), my understanding is that we'll "support" that with critical security updates for at least a year or so. OTOH, a 10.5 user on the non-ESR track would receive _no_ updates even for critical security issues as soon as FF13 ships at the beginning of June (under Josh's proposal).
Surely it's better to suggest 10.5 users who can't update their OS should move to Firefox ESR than to leave them on a non-ESR release for which they can no longer receive _any_ updates, because the only supported update we offer for it won't run on their platform.
They'll still face the problem once the ESR is EOL'd, of course, but at least that would buy them some additional time.
> If we were to start sending non-organizational users to the ESR, it would quickly grow the scope of ESR in a way we've been trying to avoid.
> -Alex
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> On 30/11/11 20:59, Josh Aas wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose that we remove support for Mac OS X 10.5 in
>>> Firefox 13, which should ship on or near June 5, 2012. To be clear:
>>> this is not a decision that has been made, I’m proposing it here in
>>> order to get feedback.
>> A couple of questions, the answers to which which may have some bearing:
>> 1) Is the TenFourFox team interested in expanding their OS range, or doing a TenFiveFox?
>> (Relatedly: if 10.4 and 10.5 are no longer supported by Apple, should we be recommending TenFourFox, or should we be telling people to upgrade, for the reasons given at the bottom of that page?)
>> 3) Is there a possibility that we might recommend an ESR to people who are unable to run the latest Firefox but still want something which is supported? (I suspect not, but it's worth asking the question.)
I'm sorry to intrude into this discussion,
but i want you to give an user feedback (and not a developper)
(english is not my mother tongue, i hope you'll excuse any mistake i
can make)
the facts :
- i'm working in computer graphics company, and like many other we're
nearly no other choice than work on Mac (specially for print),
- Mac create a new version of Mac OS X nearly each 2 years, it may
seems a lot for software, but in fact, most user change of Mac OS X
version ONLY when computer is out of order, burn or unable to do his
job.
- In many case, you can't upgrade OS version on a Mac because of
hardware problem, or apple restriction (that was specially the case
for 10.3, but it still happens)
- Most of the time, a company changes his computer each 5 to 7 years,
and by the way, have a new OS X version/license in the same time.
- Most of the time too, a company don't install new OS X before 4 or 6
months on computer after gold version (because of stability of os, and
because of software who are not still compatible with the os, ...)
- this was really an huge problem with the end of OS 10.3 support.
If you're dropping OS 10.5 support, it means that you'll drop support
for a period going from 2 to 4 years for any user in this situation...
4 years !!!
To give you an idea of our current situation :
here, we are currently using around
- 5% 10.3,
- 90% of 10.5,
- 5% 10.6,
and this will not gonna change before at last 1 or 2 years at last,
with, or without firefox.
i know that firefox has to focus ressource,
i know you're doing a fantastic work,
but it not a solution to make the final user in a situation where
he'll not have anymore choice than using chrome
last, but not least :
i'll not speak here about checking the compatibility of website on
next version of firefox, or so one, but that may become a true problem
too.
in my mind, there'll be (i don't know if it's possible) an alternative
solution :
since the main problem is that some component are not compatible/
support by the system, why not create a "degraded" (omega ?) version
who will simply shutdown this component.
Honestly, i nearly don't know anyone who have use of webgl, websocket
and some useless feature who looks so nice on roadmap but who are and
who wont be used before years.
I prefered a browser who works perfectly than a browser full of
useless features
Like that, it'll be clear, when a version goes "omega", you'll have
not all features, but the most usefull, and security issues will be
fixed.
thank you for reading this, and please take that in consideration
On Dec 1, 9:54 am, Cameron Kaiser <ckai...@floodgap.com> wrote:
> ... I'm not
> aware of any reasons for any Intel owner to stay with 10.5. (10.4,
> yes, because it could still run CFM Carbon binaries with Rosetta, IIRC
> -- 10.5 only runs Mach-O.)
I am running CFM binaries perfectly well in even 10.6. Maybe you're
thinking of something else?
> I'm sorry to intrude into this discussion,
> but i want you to give an user feedback (and not a developper)
> (english is not my mother tongue, i hope you'll excuse any mistake i
> can make)
You are very welcome to contribute.
I understand that you have machines running 10.5, but if Apple is no
longer providing OS security fixes for them, then those machines are
insecure and should not be put on the Internet. This is true whether you
use Firefox or anything else.
> but it not a solution to make the final user in a situation where
> he'll not have anymore choice than using chrome
On 1 Dez., 00:03, Aleksandr Milewski <za...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 30 Nov, 2011, at 12:59 , Josh Aas wrote:
> > Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping security updates and updating applications like Safari.
> The latest Apple has ever released a security update for version N-2 (currently 10.5) is at the same time as the release of the N.1 update (in this case 10.7.1, which shipped on August 16)
But they do offer an updated Flash version 10.3.183.11 for MacOS 10.5,
with all known security vulnerabilities fixed.
However they have dropped PPC-Support already with version 10.2.
Version 10.3 requires an Intel-CPU. And all Macs with Intel-CPU could
be upgraded to MacOS 10.6.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:47 AM, <hartn...@uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
> On 1 Dez., 00:03, Aleksandr Milewski <za...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > On 30 Nov, 2011, at 12:59 , Josh Aas wrote:
> > > Finally, Apple has stopped supporting Mac OS X 10.5. While they do not
> officially drop support for older OS versions, they have stopped shipping
> security updates and updating applications like Safari.
> > The latest Apple has ever released a security update for version N-2
> (currently 10.5) is at the same time as the release of the N.1 update (in
> this case 10.7.1, which shipped on August 16)
firefox needs to stop supporting so many platforms.
Who is firefox trying to target?
Mac OS X 10.5 is apple's problem. It is their users. They paid big
money to apple, not mozilla. They can use safari.
Mozilla seems to be spreading pretty thin, It is losing on so many
fronts. It needs to go back and win back power users that want speed.
It's time to leave laggards behind. I dont understand the point of
being apple's end of life support, mozilla doesn't get paid for it.
Mozilla needs to allocate their resources better and put it in making
the fastest and most flexible browser.
Let apple support 10.5, let microsft deal with windows 98, me, 2000.
Moziila will cease to exist if it thinks it can be everything to
everybody. I think mozilla needs to learn how to prune a tree. You
need need to cut of some branches to improve the strength of the whole
plant.
On 7 déc, 23:58, Tommy B <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mac OS X 10.5 is apple's problem. It is their users. They paid big
> money to apple, not mozilla. They can use safari.
Don't forget a large part of Mac OS X user use it on graphical
purpose, to create website, and so one
So, not only you'll tons of people who are using firefox + 10.5 to
test and support website for firefox
but you'll loose lot's of prescriber user who help to spread firefox
on "simple" user.
Like a small green man said, "Do or Do not. There is no try."
If you choose to do something, do it fully :)
On 5 déc, 17:50, Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> You are very welcome to contribute.
thank you :)
> I understand that you have machines running 10.5, but if Apple is no
> longer providing OS security fixes for them, then those machines are
> insecure and should not be put on the Internet. This is true whether you
> use Firefox or anything else.
The last update for Safari on that page is July 2011 (5.0.6). Since
then, 5.1 and 5.1.1 have been released - for 10.6 and above only.
Similarly, the 9th September and 12th October security updates were 10.6
and above only.
Yes, they are still releasing some software for 10.5 (e.g. iTunes), but
it seems not security updates.
Please don't EOL Firefox on Mac OS 10.5, TenFourFox (based on it) is
the last supported browser on my PowerBook! Opera and Safari are
abandoned, Chrome doesn't work, many apps are not supported too, but
please allow us to see HTML5 at least!
