Firefox 5
Jeff Grossman
be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
Mozilla FTP site.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Sorry, but it's not June 21st yet. And no, it's not available on the
Mozilla FTP site.
This is what you get when you click on the 5.0 release on the ftp site:
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/
--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Jeff Grossman
<J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
>On 18.06.2011 20:36, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> I guess you can download the final build of Firefox 5 now. It won't
>> be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
>> Mozilla FTP site.
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/
>
>Sorry, but it's not June 21st yet. And no, it's not available on the
>Mozilla FTP site.
>
>This is what you get when you click on the 5.0 release on the ftp site:
>
>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/
I said the FTP site, not the HTTP site.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:54:09 -0500, Jay Garcia
> <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18.06.2011 20:36, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I guess you can download the final build of Firefox 5 now. It won't
>>> be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
>>> Mozilla FTP site.
>>>
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/
>>
>>Sorry, but it's not June 21st yet. And no, it's not available on the
>>Mozilla FTP site.
>>
>>This is what you get when you click on the 5.0 release on the ftp site:
>>
>>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/
>
> I said the FTP site, not the HTTP site.
>
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/5.0/win32/en-US/
That link I posted is what I got when I clicked on the file from the ftp
site like I mentioned. It's changed in the last few hours since I first
posted.
FYI, the http ftp link brings you to the same place as the ftp link. The
only basic difference is the protocol. FTP predates HTTP by seven years.
My current UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/5.0
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:54:09 -0500, Jay Garcia
> <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
>
>>On 18.06.2011 20:36, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> I guess you can download the final build of Firefox 5 now. It won't
>>> be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
>>> Mozilla FTP site.
>>>
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/
>>
>>Sorry, but it's not June 21st yet. And no, it's not available on the
>>Mozilla FTP site.
>>
>>This is what you get when you click on the 5.0 release on the ftp site:
>>
>>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/
>
> I said the FTP site, not the HTTP site.
>
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/5.0/win32/en-US/
And on firefox.com it's still 4.0.1
Jeff Grossman
<J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
>On 18.06.2011 21:26, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:54:09 -0500, Jay Garcia
>> <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 18.06.2011 20:36, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> I guess you can download the final build of Firefox 5 now. It won't
>>>> be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
>>>> Mozilla FTP site.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/
>>>
>>>Sorry, but it's not June 21st yet. And no, it's not available on the
>>>Mozilla FTP site.
>>>
>>>This is what you get when you click on the 5.0 release on the ftp site:
>>>
>>>http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/
>>
>> I said the FTP site, not the HTTP site.
>>
>> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/5.0/win32/en-US/
>
>And on firefox.com it's still 4.0.1
I am sure that page won't get updated until it is officially released
on the 21st. I was just saying that there was an article on
engadget.com that mentions you can get the release build of 5.0 before
it is officially available.
Jeff
Good Guy
Downloaded and it works fine on my clunky machine! who needs IE9? I don't.
Jeff Grossman
wrote:
What does the user agent say under about:support?
Good Guy
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
Good Guy
Application Basics
Name
Firefox
Version
5.0
User Agent
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0
Profile Directory
Open Containing Folder
Enabled Plugins
about:plugins
Build Configuration
about:buildconfig
Extensions
Name
Version
Enabled
ID
Java Console
6.0.07
true
{CAFEEFAC-0016-0000-0007-ABCDEFFEDCBA}
Java Console
6.0.22
true
{CAFEEFAC-0016-0000-0022-ABCDEFFEDCBA}
Java Quick Starter
1.0
true
j...@sun.com
View Source Chart
3.02
true
{68836a21-fc7d-4ea1-a065-7efabd99d414}
XULRunner
1.9.1
true
{2BCAC28A-F851-4061-A5DA-8ACCD4C25492}
Browsing Protection
1.10
false
litm...@f-secure.com
MeasureIt
0.4.8
false
{75CEEE46-9B64-46f8-94BF-54012DE155F0}
Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant
1.0
false
{20a82645-c095-46ed-80e3-08825760534b}
Modified Preferences
Name
Value
accessibility.typeaheadfind.flashBar
0
browser.places.smartBookmarksVersion
2
browser.startup.homepage
http://www.google.com
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID
20110615151330
browser.startup.homepage_override.mstone
rv:5.0
dom.disable_window_flip
false
extensions.lastAppVersion
5.0
gfx.blacklist.direct2d
2
gfx.blacklist.layers.direct3d10
2
gfx.blacklist.layers.direct3d10-1
2
network.cookie.prefsMigrated
true
places.database.lastMaintenance
1308452079
places.history.expiration.transient_current_max_pages
10705
print.print_bgcolor
false
print.print_bgimages
false
print.print_command
print.print_downloadfonts
false
print.print_evenpages
true
print.print_in_color
true
print.print_margin_bottom
0.5
print.print_margin_left
0.5
print.print_margin_right
0.5
print.print_margin_top
0.5
print.print_oddpages
true
print.print_orientation
0
print.print_page_delay
50
print.print_paper_data
0
print.print_paper_height
11.00
print.print_paper_size_type
1
print.print_paper_size_unit
0
print.print_paper_width
8.50
print.print_printer
print.print_reversed
false
print.print_scaling
1.00
print.print_shrink_to_fit
true
print.print_to_file
false
print.print_unwriteable_margin_bottom
0
print.print_unwriteable_margin_left
0
print.print_unwriteable_margin_right
0
print.print_unwriteable_margin_top
0
privacy.cpd.siteSettings
true
privacy.popups.showBrowserMessage
false
privacy.sanitize.migrateFx3Prefs
true
privacy.sanitize.timeSpan
0
security.warn_viewing_mixed
false
security.warn_viewing_mixed.show_once
false
Graphics
Adapter Description
Intel(R) 82815 Graphics Controller (Microsoft Corporation)
Vendor ID
8086
Device ID
1132
Adapter RAM
Unknown
Adapter Drivers
i81xdnt5
Driver Version
6.13.1.3198
Driver Date
6-8-2001
Direct2D Enabled
false
DirectWrite Enabled
false (0.0.0.0, font cache n/a)
WebGL Renderer
(WebGL unavailable)
GPU Accelerated Windows
0/1
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
More than likely the reason you see it on the official ftp site is that
they run download tests for load balance throughout the entire server
farm which can be as many as thousands of servers, one of those mirrors
being hosted on one of my servers in San Jose, CA. and another in
Herndon, VA.
There was always a buzz of activity in the community when Netscape used
to do the same thing for years. And then all of a sudden the files was
no longer to be found until official release day.
Chris Ilias
Sites like engadget and majorgeeks unfortunately don't know much about
open source, and don't realize that every Firefox 5 build (alphas,
betas, release candidates) are publicly available, and that anything you
see before an announcement still needs testing and verification.
Putting builds on the FTP server is just part of the release process.
They builds on FTP need to be verified, and then it takes time for them
to propagate to FTP mirrors, and those need to be verified. And
unfortunately, the press starts advertising it before the release
process is done. That's why nightly builds used to be called "Minefield".
It's an issue that happens with every release.
http://beltzner.ca/mike/2006/10/23/its-not-like-were-ashamed/
http://soberbuildengineer.com/blog/2006/10/the-anti-release/
http://ilias.ca/blog/2006/03/firefox-1502-has-not-been-released/
http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/11/looking-at-ftp-sites-for-mozilla-releases/
http://ilias.ca/blog/2006/04/looking-at-ftp-sites-for-mozilla-releases-part-ii/
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/8893f5c2d81805ac
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.support.firefox/msg/2dc08aa8b9cd02d1
As usual, it's best to use the Firefox Update system. See
<http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Updating%20Firefox>.
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
WLS
or wait until it shows up the repository of your Linux distribution,
since they remove the ability to check for updates via the Firefox,
SeaMonkey and Thunderbird update systems.
Good Guy
This version appears to be very fast on my clunky machine! I am a very
happy man now that I can continue using my old machine which has still
some life left! I am doing my best to help our environment!
Dave Symes
Why is there going to be a release of Fx 5 when Fx 4 has not been around
that long?
Is/was Fx 4 a disaster and needs to be replaced?
While all my Win machines have Fx 4.nn as the Browser of choice, I'm also
running a test version of 5 betas... Now on 5b7 but can't say I see any
particular difference in the UI or the way it runs.
Thanks
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Chris Ilias
Mozilla has moved to a rapid release process, where Firefox gets updated
every few weeks. See <https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease>.
Ron Hunter
To 'flesh out' what Chris I. said:
The rather long process of updating/upgrading Firefox has been
streamlined. Basically, before, Firefox issued a new 'major release'
about every year, with 'point releases' for security updates, and bug
fixes, but new features were held until the next major release. This
process meant keeping track of several 'in process' versions of the
software, and keeping up with multiple alpha, beta, and nightly, builds
of the software. It also impeded the introduction of new features be
holding them even after they were ready, and tested.
The new process maintains a beta and nightly build system, with an
alpha build for the next release (with nightlies), and then updates
whatever is ready for release every 6 weeks, with the next version
number. It is hoped that this new process will deliver improved
features, as well and bug fixes, and security updates in a more timely
way, to the benefit of all of users.
It will, I hope, minimize the 'shock' value of a new version that
has so many differences that user are sometimes intimidated by so many
changes that they are reluctant to update, and that many extensions are
broken, and don't work.
Wayne
Will FF5 support 64-bit Java on Win-7 x64?
--
Wayne
Ron Hunter
release. I suspect that until the bugs are worked out with Flash, there
won't be an official x64 release. But it you want to test, you can find
64 bit builds.
Simon Sheehan
won't the version numbers start getting a bit high?
On the note of x64: To the average user, there does not seem to be much of
an advantage so far. Flash also has not been updated since November for x64,
leading me to become a bit concerned on the use of x64 browsers. I hope we
can see some more updates on it.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 6/19/2011 4:44 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/2011 9:36 PM, Jeff Grossman wrote:
>>
>>> I guess you can download the final build of Firefox 5 now. It won't
>>> be officially released until the 21st but it is available on the
>>> Mozilla FTP site.
>>>
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/**06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-**
>>> ahead-of-schedule-gets-**official-june-21st/<http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/18/firefox-5-slips-out-ahead-of-schedule-gets-official-june-21st/>
>>>
>>
>> Will FF5 support 64-bit Java on Win-7 x64?
>>
>> It isn't a case of supporting 64 bit Java, but of having an official x64
> release. I suspect that until the bugs are worked out with Flash, there
> won't be an official x64 release. But it you want to test, you can find 64
> bit builds.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> support-firefox mailing list
> support...@lists.mozilla.**org <support...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/support-firefox<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to support-firefox-request@lists.**
> mozilla.org?subject=**unsubscribe<http://support-fir...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
Ron Hunter
> Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to using a more rapid release? And
> won't the version numbers start getting a bit high?
>
> On the note of x64: To the average user, there does not seem to be much of
> an advantage so far. Flash also has not been updated since November for x64,
> leading me to become a bit concerned on the use of x64 browsers. I hope we
> can see some more updates on it.
>
As I see it, the chief advantage to the rapid update schedule is that
new features will become available as soon as they are ready for
release, rather than waiting for the next major release. Another
advantage is that users will see changes to the UI as less dramatic as
it evolves, rather than a rather shocking change such as between FF3 and
FF4.
Simon Sheehan
like that, and just push updates once they are tested and ready?
I currently have no issue with what we have now - Nightly, Aurora, Firefox -
as it seems to be getting a LOT of bugs fixed faster, especially with the
Test Day's that have been going on. I'm very impressed, but I feel it might
be even easier if it was just pushing smaller updates when needed. Patching
instead of full release.
Good Guy
Simon Sheehan wrote:
> Would it not just be easier to do as Chrome has - to stop doing releases
> like that, and just push updates once they are tested and ready?
>
Yes that is what I have suggested before. Instead of having any version
numbers, just have one name called firefox and behind the scenes there
are build numbers which users don't need to know about. I think adobe
has started doing this for its mainstream products like DW, FW, PS etc.
We should just call it Firefox (build 6954) but the headline name is
still FF. Updates should be applied automatically where ever possible
or an alert message in the system tray.
.
If every month there are 2 or 3 updates then we would start talking
about Firefox version 106 soon! This is not going to help anybody and
the product will lose credibility! People will just give up with the
updates.
Simon Sheehan
is still a good idea, and they should continue with that. Maybe Aurora could
be a bug fixes one, and Nightly would turn into long-term feature
development and improvement.
> _______________________________________________
> support-firefox mailing list
> support...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-firefox
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
Ron Hunter
> Would it not just be easier to do as Chrome has - to stop doing releases
> like that, and just push updates once they are tested and ready?
>
> I currently have no issue with what we have now - Nightly, Aurora, Firefox -
> as it seems to be getting a LOT of bugs fixed faster, especially with the
> Test Day's that have been going on. I'm very impressed, but I feel it might
> be even easier if it was just pushing smaller updates when needed. Patching
> instead of full release.
>
That is pretty much what the fast release thing is. When something is
ready, it goes out in the next release, whether it be a bug fix,
security update, added feature, or UI change. Evolution, rather than
revolution. If the changes aren't drastic, it is more of a 'patch
update' than a full download. Actually, 'patch' isn't really the right
word since many of the changes are just modules that don't need the
whole download.
Ron Hunter
If you will look, only the version is visible to the user, unless you
look at troubleshooting modes. I find this rather a disadvantage from
the standpoint of user peer support. It is necessary that I know if you
are using 4, 5 or 6 if a problem needs to be addressed, or a user needs
help using a feature. It's difficult to explain how a feature works if
it turns out it isn't in the version the user HAS. Grin.
6 weeks times 100 is about 11 years. Time to work out a better
numbering scheme. Frankly, there is some perception problem with IE
being at 9, with 10 in sight, and Chrome at 12, and FF at 4.
I sometimes accuse Mozilla of 'copying Chrome', but in this case, it is
a matter or perception of users. If you can get version 4 of something,
or version 12, the perception is that 12 is probably better. Not
logical, but it is pretty much how people think.
I really would rather have a build number than just FF5 or FF6, but then
they didn't consult me....
Simon Sheehan
Nightly x64, so I do see a difference there.
WLS
They do have build number. It is in the troubleshooting information
under Modified Preferences. The following is for the RC of Fx5.
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID 20110615151330
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>
Please bottom post, thanks.
You could have actually downloaded/installed FF 5.0b7 but the UA will
still show /5.0 anyway. The way I understand it, they have abandoned the
use of minor release beta versioning and will show only the major
version, etc., FF 5.0, 6.0 and so on.
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
Please bottom post, thanks.
Most if not all your questions regarding rapid release:
http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/04/13/new-channels-for-firefox-rapid-releases/
Tarkus
> To 'flesh out' what Chris I. said:
> The rather long process of updating/upgrading Firefox has been
> streamlined. Basically, before, Firefox issued a new 'major release'
> about every year, with 'point releases' for security updates, and bug
> fixes, but new features were held until the next major release. This
> process meant keeping track of several 'in process' versions of the
> software, and keeping up with multiple alpha, beta, and nightly, builds
> of the software. It also impeded the introduction of new features be
> holding them even after they were ready, and tested.
Or to put it another way, they were feeling the heat from Chrome and
their rapid release schedule.
Dave Symes
Thanks to Chris, and also thanks to Ron for indeedy fleshing out the info.
I now understand.
Thank
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Ron Hunter
The general public seems to perceive version 4 as somehow inferior to
another product version 12. May not be accurate, or reasonable, but
there it is. As for the faster release process, I am all for it. It
gets new features to the user faster.
Ken Springer
> It gets new features to the user faster.
Hoping those new features aren't bug ridden. :-)
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.7
Firefox 3.6.17
Thunderbird 3.1.10
LibreOffice 3.3.2
Ron Hunter
> On 6/20/11 11:36 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> It gets new features to the user faster.
>
> Hoping those new features aren't bug ridden. :-)
>
waiting for a completely bug-free program, you will be waiting a LONG
time, and it won't do much either.
Ken Springer
True, for sure, but only time will tell if this faster release schedule
will allow for adequate testing for bugs. I wouldn't mind if there was,
oh, just say 5 bugs. But, if there were 500, that would be another
story. :-)
Tarkus
Same here. Competition is good.
Chris Ilias
> The general public seems to perceive version 4 as somehow inferior to
> another product version 12.
In the rapid release plan, version numbers are not marketed.
Chris Ilias
> Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to using a more rapid release? And
> won't the version numbers start getting a bit high?
The intent is to focus away from what version you are on. For instance,
you probably have never known which version of gmail you are using.
Tarkus
> On 11-06-19 6:59 PM, Simon Sheehan wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, what are the advantages to using a more rapid
>> release? And
>> won't the version numbers start getting a bit high?
>
> The intent is to focus away from what version you are on. For instance,
> you probably have never known which version of gmail you are using.
But we still know what version of Firefox we're using: 5. Why call it
Firefox 5 if the intent is to focus away from what version we're on?
Chris Ilias
Focusing away from something does not equal keeping it a secret.
Remember that it's not Mozilla that's pointing you to the FTP site.
Tarkus
> On 11-06-20 6:00 PM, Tarkus wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 2:11 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> The intent is to focus away from what version you are on. For instance,
>>> you probably have never known which version of gmail you are using.
>>
>> But we still know what version of Firefox we're using: 5. Why call it
>> Firefox 5 if the intent is to focus away from what version we're on?
>
> Focusing away from something does not equal keeping it a secret.
> Remember that it's not Mozilla that's pointing you to the FTP site.
I was talking about the branding, not the download site. With no title
bar, I hadn't noticed they removed the version number there (though it
remains in TB5). My mistake.
Cy Burnot
We had an axiom back in the 60's. Any program that has been completely
debugged is obsolete.
The Real Bev
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>> 6 weeks times 100 is about 11 years. Time to work out a better numbering
>> scheme. Frankly, there is some perception problem with IE being at 9,
>> with 10 in sight, and Chrome at 12, and FF at 4.
>> I sometimes accuse Mozilla of 'copying Chrome', but in this case, it is
>> a matter or perception of users. If you can get version 4 of something,
>> or version 12, the perception is that 12 is probably better. Not
>> logical, but it is pretty much how people think.
>> I really would rather have a build number than just FF5 or FF6, but then
>> they didn't consult me....
>
> They do have build number. It is in the troubleshooting information
> under Modified Preferences. The following is for the RC of Fx5.
>
> browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID 20110615151330
This number also shows up on the title bar of the window occupied by FF.
--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------
"Tough? We drink our urine and eat our dead!"
-- N. Heilweil
The Real Bev
"Moore's First Law of Cybernetic Entomology: There's always one more bug."
Maybe it's not Moore...
Dave Warren
claiming to be Ken Springer <word...@greeleynet.com> typed:
>True, for sure, but only time will tell if this faster release schedule
>will allow for adequate testing for bugs.
It shouldn't make too much difference, between automated testing doing
the lion's share of the "what other functionality might we have broken?"
and the smaller number of code changes in each release, the burden on QA
shouldn't be dramatically different.
Dave Symes
Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
> On 11-06-20 1:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> > The general public seems to perceive version 4 as somehow inferior to
> > another product version 12.
> In the rapid release plan, version numbers are not marketed.
Mnnnn! Brings to mind another thought.
How will this impact on Addons and the Min-Max version within Install.rdf?
I only have a small set of Addons, but with every number change most of
them (Not all) fail with the usual "will not work with Firefox nn"
Okay, some of them I can tweak myself, but a few I've found cannot be
modded by the user... (Well they can, but refuse to play afterwards).
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Chimak111
Jeff Grossman wrote:...
> on the 21st. I was just saying that there was an article on
> engadget.com that mentions you can get the release build of 5.0 before
> it is officially available.
Is there any particular benefit to getting it before "it is officially
available"? If someone wanted to be ahead of the curve, they could be
on the beta channel.
Given how stable Aurora is, being on beta would not be a terrifying
experience.
Ron Hunter
a RC? I don't see any way to tell. Troubleshooting information doesn't
seem to reveal this information either. Should a problem arise, how do
peer support people know if I am using the final release version, or an
early beta? We NEED this information or we will be chasing problems
already fixed.
As for the extension compatibility issue. One can either wait until the
extensions update, in which case Firefox will update them automatically,
or install Add-ons Compatibility Report which will enable testing the
old extensions to see if they really do work. This carries a risk in
that if they really are not compatible, crashes, or worse, may happen.
You pays your money(time), and you takes your chances.
WLS
> On 6/21/2011 1:03 AM, Dave Symes wrote:
>> In article<L5GdnTFLDtMSK2LQ...@mozilla.org>,
>> Chris Ilias<nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
>>> On 11-06-20 1:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> The general public seems to perceive version 4 as somehow inferior to
>>>> another product version 12.
>>
>>> In the rapid release plan, version numbers are not marketed.
>>
>> Mnnnn! Brings to mind another thought.
>> How will this impact on Addons and the Min-Max version within
>> Install.rdf?
>>
>> I only have a small set of Addons, but with every number change most of
>> them (Not all) fail with the usual "will not work with Firefox nn"
>>
>> Okay, some of them I can tweak myself, but a few I've found cannot be
>> modded by the user... (Well they can, but refuse to play afterwards).
>>
>> Dave
>>
> I am running Firefox 5. Is it the final version? Is it a beta version, a
> RC? I don't see any way to tell. Troubleshooting information doesn't
> seem to reveal this information either.
>
I just downloaded and installed Fx5 in a separate location and the
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID
from Troubleshooting Information is the same as the one from the RC I
was running and that happens to be 20110615151330.
That is how you tell what build/version you are running.
HTH
Ron Hunter
WLS
Well, when I check About Firefox in Fx 3.6.17, I see Firefox with
version 3.6.17 below Firefox. In Firefox 4.0.1, I just see 4.0.1 below
Firefox and the same with Fx 5.0.
So you are whining because they removed the word version?
IIRC Fx5.0 did have Firefox 5.0a(x) and Firefox 5.0b(x) for the Aurora
and Beta builds before the RC was released on 20110615.
nobody
For whatever it is worth, I currently have about 16 addons, *ALL* of
which work fine after upgrading to 5.0. None of them complained or
failed to work. This is the first time that has happened.
Chris Ilias
> Mnnnn! Brings to mind another thought.
> How will this impact on Addons and the Min-Max version within Install.rdf?
>
> I only have a small set of Addons, but with every number change most of
> them (Not all) fail with the usual "will not work with Firefox nn"
A month ago, Firefox 4 compatible add-ons on AMO were scanned for
components which changed in Firefox 5. Those that passed, had their
compatibility bumped to Firefox 5. Approximately 93% passed.
See
<http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/05/21/firefox-5-compatibility-bump/>.
Ron Hunter
Last I looked, I had 22 that also seem to run with no problems. One of
the long-term goals in Firefox seems to be better compatibility with
extensions over version changes. It will still be a problem with those
extensions that are heavily involved in changing the way FF works.
Ron Hunter
just said 5.0 in the About Firefox dialog. They even removed the
'channel' information.
Worse, they removed the Help item pointing to release notes. Just HOW
are users supposed to learn about new features, or known issues?
Chris Ilias
> I am running Firefox 5. Is it the final version? Is it a beta version, a
> RC? I don't see any way to tell.
If you're even asking that question, you're not on an end-user release
anyway. Firefox 5 is a transitional release, in which the release date
is actually 2 weeks shorter than the interval for Firefox 6, 7, etc.
What that means is that when Firefox 6 is released, users on the beta
channel will get updated to Firefox 7 beta.
Chris Ilias
> On 06/19/11 19:28, WLS wrote:
>
>> browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID 20110615151330
>
> This number also shows up on the title bar of the window occupied by FF.
You most likely have an extension like nightly tester tools, which adds
the build ID to the title bar.
Ron Hunter
> On 11-06-20 9:16 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 06/19/11 19:28, WLS wrote:
>>
>>> browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID 20110615151330
>>
>> This number also shows up on the title bar of the window occupied by FF.
>
> You most likely have an extension like nightly tester tools, which adds
> the build ID to the title bar.
>
Dave Symes
Aardvark, which I use a lot is incompatible with Fx5, as is the Fx
synchronisation extension for Nokia bookmarks etc. (I have a Nokia
smartphone).
Of course I've never managed to get the Snagit Firefox extension to work
with Fx4 let alone with Fx5... I guess I'll have to give up on that one as
Techsmith didn't seem particularly interested.
There were a couple of others I used, but I've now got to the stage where
if it doesn't work, get rid...
But yes, many of the Addons/extensions do continue to work in Fx5
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
david wells
work and Real player plug in disabled due to compatibility issue. Does any
one know how long before this is fixed
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110621-0, 06/21/2011
Tested on: 6/21/2011 3:59:48 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com
Ron Hunter
with them NOT working. But the obvious solution is to check with the
vendors of those plugins. The Microsoft NET Framework may already have
an update as I did notice a new version of Microsoft NET installing last
Tuesday. I don't use McAfee, so I can't comment on their upgrade speed.
Real Player is not allowed on my computers because of 'excessive
integration', which is to say it puts it hooks into EVERYTHING.
clarjon1
> Installed this and now find that MacAfee site advisor . Microsoft net frame
> work and Real player plug in disabled due to compatibility issue. Does any
> one know how long before this is fixed
>
>
> You'll have to wait until MacAfee, Microsoft, and Real update their plugins
-- which is completely up to them.
Dave Warren
claiming to be Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> typed:
>I am running Firefox 5. Is it the final version? Is it a beta version,
>a RC? I don't see any way to tell. Troubleshooting information doesn't
>seem to reveal this information either. Should a problem arise, how do
>peer support people know if I am using the final release version, or an
>early beta?
It doesn't matter whether you're running a final release or an early
beta, only the build number matters.
Ron Hunter
So we have to tell people who don't understand the program to do
about:config and look for an obscure line to see what the build number
is before we know if they have the most recent build, or stopped
downloading updates after the third beta? Oh joy!
WLS
Ron, write on the blackboard 1000 times
You have to go to Troubleshooting Information > Modified Preferences >
browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID to see what the build number
is before I know if I have the most recent build.
It is a lot easier than messing with about:config, and both ways work.
Choose your preference.
Chris Ilias
Ron, did you not understand my previous reply?
Good Guy
WLS wrote:
> Ron, write on the blackboard 1000 times
>
> You have to go to Troubleshooting Information > Modified Preferences >
> browser.startup.homepage_override.buildID to see what the build number
> is before I know if I have the most recent build.
>
> It is a lot easier than messing with about:config, and both ways work.
>
> Choose your preference.
If he wants to continue using keyboard and address bar then this also works:
about:support
Same thing!
Chimak111
> If every month there are 2 or 3 updates then we would start talking
> about Firefox version 106 soon! This is not going to help anybody and
> the product will lose credibility! People will just give up with the
> updates.
I won't lose sleep over that.
Good Guy
Some of us will who have come to rely on Firefox. Microshit's products
dont't run on my machines so Firefox is my lifeline!
Ron Hunter
My preference would be to have it in Help/about Firefox, at least in the
"Application Basics" section of Troubleshooting Information.
Clunker
add-ons work