Firefox 3.6 EOL

[Jay Garcia]

Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
"over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/

[WLS]

On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>

Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?

--
Thunderbird Beta | openSUSE 12.1 | KDE 4.7.2
Humans aren't a color of skin, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation,
or a flag. We are human beings and that is how we need to see and treat
each other. - Justin Sane

[David H. Lipman]

From: "WLS" <wls1...@REMOVEyahoo.com>

> On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
>> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
>> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
>> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
>> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>>
> Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?
>

I see it released March 6th.



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[WLS]

On 03/27/2012 10:33 AM, David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "WLS" <wls1...@REMOVEyahoo.com>
>
>> On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
>>> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
>>> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
>>> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
>>> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>>>
>> Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?
>>
>
> I see it released March 6th.
>
>
>

I probably should have included this link in my first post.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Other_releases

[Jay Garcia]

On 27.03.2012 09:29, WLS wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
>> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
>> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
>> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
>> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>>
>
> Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?
>

My post was a direct quote from Mozilla, guess "today" wasn't really
"today". ;-)

However, the message is quite clear nonetheless.

[Jay Garcia]

On 27.03.2012 09:33, David H. Lipman wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> From: "WLS" <wls1...@REMOVEyahoo.com>
>
>> On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
>>> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
>>> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
>>> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
>>> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>>>
>> Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?
>>
>
> I see it released March 6th.
>
>
>

That is correct. Irredpective of all these "correct" dates, the message
is what is important.

[Jay Garcia]

On 27.03.2012 09:23, Jay Garcia wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>

3.6.28 was actually released on March 6, 2012. Even the release notes
say March 13, 2012. However, the message is quite clear regarding "no
more security fixes ....", etc.

For more ...

http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2012/03/23/upcoming-firefox-support-changes/

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Jay Garcia" <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com>

> On 27.03.2012 09:33, David H. Lipman wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> From: "WLS" <wls1...@REMOVEyahoo.com>
>>
>>> On 03/27/2012 10:23 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
>>>> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
>>>> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
>>>> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
>>>> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6
>>>>
>>> Wasn't Firefox 3.6.28 released on March 13th?
>>>
>> I see it released March 6th.
>>
> That is correct. Irredpective of all these "correct" dates, the message
> is what is important.
>

For sure!

[Good Guy]

Jay Garcia wrote:

> That is correct. Irredpective of all these "correct" dates, the message
> is what is important.
>

So what you are saying is that the 3.6.* is finished and people should
move to a later version ideally to version 11.

Thanks for the info JG.

--
Good Guy
http://mytaxsite.co.uk
http://html-css.co.uk
Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us

[Jay Garcia]

On 27.03.2012 20:11, Good Guy wrote:

--- Original Message ---

>
>

> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>> That is correct. Irredpective of all these "correct" dates, the message
>> is what is important.
>>
>
> So what you are saying is that the 3.6.* is finished and people should
> move to a later version ideally to version 11.
>
> Thanks for the info JG.
>

"Finished" as in no longer supported, no updates, etc. Advise moving to
the latest release version. Moving up to a beta is not suggested unless
the user is fully aware of any caveats that may exist.

[JohnQPublic]

"Jay Garcia" <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote in message
news:uqCdnQuLVarAUOzS...@mozilla.org...

> Ever since Mozilla started its controversial new versioning scheme,
> Firefox 3.6 was still maintained as a stable and supported version of
> Firefox. Today, Mozilla announced that Firefox 3.6.28, to be released
> "over the next few weeks", will be the final version of Firefox 3.6. As
> of April 24th, no more security fixes will be published for Firefox 3.6

Gone but not forgotten! I for one absolutely *hate* the design changes in
the 4-11...series. Nothing good was done. It's all falderal and
fiddlesticks, and I would support a splinter group to adopt 3.6.x as its
permanent basic GUI!

In the meantime, websites won't accept older browser versions after awhile
so... You can still keep the 4-11...series looking and acting similar to
3.6.x with the following modifications, although there's no guarantee about
the future:

(1) Install this theme: "Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4+"

(2) Put the http:// back into Firefox URLs:
Enter about:config and set browser.urlbar.trimURLs to False.

(3) Get rid of the light gray coloring in Firefox URLs:
Enter about:config and set browser.urlbar.formatting.enabled to False.

(4) Activate the menu bar, title bar, and status (add-on) bar if you want
it.

(5) Rightclick somewhere on the toolbars, select "Customize...", then drag
the toolbars and icons around like you want.

(6) Add the following lines to the "userChrome.css" file.

/* Do not remove this @namespace line -- it's required for correct
functioning */
@namespace
url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /* set
default namespace to XUL */

/* Remove unimportant Location Bar Icon Text
-- click on the favicon to see information
-- http://eriwen.com/firefox/use-the-dom-inspector/
-- Firefox 4.0+ again respects browser.identity.ssl_domain_display set to
0 */
#identity-icon-label { display: none !important; }

/* Turn Location Bar Yellow for HTTPS */
#urlbar[level] .autocomplete-textbox-container { background-color: #FFFFB7
!important; }

/* remove that superfluous bookmark star on the right side of the URL bar */
#star-button { display: none; }

--
JQP

[Ron Hunter]

On 3/27/2012 10:12 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Jay Garcia graced us with on
> 3/27/2012 8:04 PM:

>> On 27.03.2012 20:11, Good Guy wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>>
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is correct. Irredpective of all these "correct" dates, the message
>>>> is what is important.
>>>>
>>> So what you are saying is that the 3.6.* is finished and people should
>>> move to a later version ideally to version 11.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info JG.
>>>
>> "Finished" as in no longer supported, no updates, etc. Advise moving to
>> the latest release version. Moving up to a beta is not suggested unless
>> the user is fully aware of any caveats that may exist.
>>

> Just to remove any uncertainties, Fx 11.0 is the latest production
> release version as of this post. Fx12.0b1 is the current beta.
>
I am on 12.0b2...

[Greywolf]

On 27/03/2012 11:51 PM, JohnQPublic wrote:
> "Jay Garcia"<J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote in message

[snip]You can still keep the 4-11...series looking and acting similar to

> 3.6.x with the following modifications, although there's no guarantee about
> the future:

[snip details]

Thanks for this, it's good to have all these tweaks in one place.
Several are new to me.

I have no objection to introducing new GUI features, but they should all
be easily reverted to earlier versions, not as defaults that are a
hassle to modify. People can try them, and keep or reject as they wish.
That's been one of my constant themes, and I've been scolded by some
MozOrg people for my sometimes exasperated tone.

The listed tweaks imply that much of the recent dev effort was devoted
to basically irrelevant bling. That's my opinion, of course, but it's
supported by a slew of ignored psychological research that shows that
when it comes to arbitrary standards, such as those of GUI, it's best
to stick with the ones that people have become used to, even if they are
"inefficient" compared to newer versions.

HTH
Wolf K.

[Ron Hunter]

I don't object to changes, but some of the whole philosophy of the
'minimalist UI' concept just isn't consistent with how I use my
computer. For one thing, I really TRIED to use the 'Firefox button',
but found I constantly had to activate the menu bar to access a
function. IF it were possible to move the items I USE that aren't on
the Firefox button, into that menu, I would cheerfully use it. Even
better would be ability to get rid of menu items there that I DON'T use.
Firefox has always been the most flexible of UIs, and it still is, but
making the Firefox button a fixed and uncustomizable feature runs
against the Firefox tradition. I rarely use any default theme on any
program that offers themes, and Firefox and TB are no exceptions.
Otherwise, my interface is enough like 3.6 that my wife didn't notice
when I changed to FF4.