Re: No Way Firefox 5.0

[Ron Hunter]

On 6/28/2011 4:45 AM, Graham P Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:52:15 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2011 12:55 AM, Graham P Davis wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:51:54 -0500, nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2011 2:14 AM, Graham P Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:31:24 -0400, David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "KristleBawl"<Krist...@some.email>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From David Zeit:
>>>>>>>> I've read enough crap here about it to realize I'd be a fool to
>>>>>>>> try it. Let us know when you get it fixed. Previous versions were
>>>>>>>> good. 5 appears to suck. Was everyone on the development team
>>>>>>>> blonde? My faith in Mozilla is gone. And I'm gone too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be joking. There have always been some individuals with
>>>>>>> upgrade problems with every major release. This time, there are far
>>>>>>> fewer problems than usual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And one can always revert back to a previous version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that FF4 is no longer supported in that there will be no
>>>>> security updates for it. So you can revert to FF4 but it's no longer
>>>>> safe to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> FF5 has two serious bugs that make it unusable for me. Bug reports
>>>>> will be in later today.
>>>>
>>>> Care to share them? I have had no issues with v.5 to date. I wonder
>>>> what I am missing?
>>>
>>> Both now solved - I think - and were due to a problem with an
>>> extension; the sort of problem that will arise when you bring out a new
>>> version. Unfortunately, these will happen much more often due to
>>> Mozilla's idiotic idea of bringing out new versions every few months.
>>>
>>>
>> Why is it 'idiotic' for Firefox to be updated frequently, but Google
>> Chrome is great because it updates frequently? While extensions are a
>> very powerful feature of Firefox, it is inevitable that changes will
>> break some of them. It is still a very useful feature, and should not
>> prevent Firefox from making progress, and keeping up with other
>> browsers.
>
> Where did I say Google Chrome is great? Also, where did I say Firefox
> shouldn't be updated? What I object to is what seems to be a bug/security
> fix masquerading as a new version. As far as I can see, this only
> deserved to be 4.1 - or even 4.0.2. New versions, if that's what this is,
> require plenty of time for alpha-beta-RC-testing before publication to
> ensure everything works. I do not see how this can happen on such a short
> time-scale as is planned for Firefox.
>
> [FU set to mozilla.feedback.firefox. However, this is the first time I've
> tried this with Pan so it may not work. Wish me luck!]
>
I don't think that 18 weeks is that short a cycle. What you get are
incremental improvements, and any new features that are ready for
release, in addition to any security fixes. What Firefox calls a
release is entirely up to them. If the developers want to call it
Firefox 799, they can, and it will work the same. There is some feeling
that they should just call it 'Firefox', and not have any version
number. As long as there is some way to distinguish it from other
releases for support purposes, I can't see that it matters.

[Caesar Romano]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:45:08 -0500, Graham P Davis
<new...@scarlet-jade.com> wrote Re Re: No Way Firefox 5.0:

>Where did I say Google Chrome is great? Also, where did I say Firefox
>shouldn't be updated? What I object to is what seems to be a bug/security
>fix masquerading as a new version. As far as I can see, this only
>deserved to be 4.1 - or even 4.0.2. New versions, if that's what this is,
>require plenty of time for alpha-beta-RC-testing before publication to
>ensure everything works. I do not see how this can happen on such a short
>time-scale as is planned for Firefox.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.