Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mozilla Pitches Firefox 3.1 Alpha For July Release

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jul 01, 2008 01:01 AM
from the fast-track dept.
Mozilla The Internet Software
An anonymous reader writes "Just a week after Mozilla shipped Firefox 3.0, the open-source developer has proposed ship dates for the next version that, if approved, would produce an alpha release next month and a final no later than early 2009. According to a draft schedule discussed at a recent meeting, Mozilla wants to have the first Firefox 3.1 developer preview ready by July, then move to a beta by August. The schedule slates final code delivery in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of 2009. A month ago, when Mozilla first started discussing Firefox 3.1 internally, Mike Schroepfer, the company's vice president of engineering, said the upgrade's target ship date was the end of 2008. If Mozilla holds to that plan, Firefox 3.1 would be its first fast-track update. Firefox 3.0, for instance, launched approximately 20 months after its predecessor, Firefox 2.0."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Mozilla pitches Firefox 3.1 alpha for July release by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Mozilla Pitches Firefox 3.1 Alpha For July Release 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • No Offence To The Devs or Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vectronic (1221470) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:07AM (#24012291)

    But so what?

    There's nothing in the article or summary that hasn't already been covered in the other 76 articles about Firefox in the last 2 months.

    Firefox team is still developing Firefox... shit, so is Opera, so is IE, Safari, etc, etc...

  • Acid 3 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:08AM (#24012295) Homepage Journal

    Let's hope the Mozilla devs get the Acid3 test [acidtests.org] to work with Firefox 3.1.

    Well, I can dream, can't I?

    • Re:Acid 3 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:34AM (#24012459) Homepage

      You can keep dreaming. While Firefox 3.1 is certainly going to improve on Firefox 3.0 (Firefox 3.0 gets 71/100, Firefox 3.1 pre-alpha 1 gets 80/100, I predict Firefox 3.1 final to get 80-90/100), the aim to make changes drastic enough to make Firefox 3.1 pass Acid3 and the aim to get Firefox 3.1 released in a Q4 2008/Q1 2009 timeframe are plainly incompatible. I'd expect Acid3 to pass in Firefox 4.0 myself. Shouldn't be much of a surprise given how long it took Firefox to pass the Acid2 test, but then that never stopped us from using it. ;-)

      • Re:Acid 3 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @03:12AM (#24012959)

        I'd really rather they focus on important things first. The Acid tests are specifically much harder than what a browser needs to handle to do a good job with web browsing, in fact a few of the tests specifically use broken code IIRC.

        Really the updates to the bookmark system scheduled for 3.1 are probably going to make a bigger impact on most users than Acid compliance would.

        I think the main point of getting 3.1 out there is to get the features in that couldn't be completed for 3.0 but weren't necessities. And with the level of rebuilding that 3.0 required it's not a shock that a few less important features would have to be dropped to get the important stuff finished.

        • Re:Acid 3 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Goaway (82658) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @06:31AM (#24013823) Homepage

          The Acid tests are specifically much harder than what a browser needs to handle to do a good job with web browsing, in fact a few of the tests specifically use broken code IIRC.

          The things tested by ACID3 are not in general use because browsers don't reliably support them. Many would be in use if they were actually supported. That is the aim of ACID3, to drive browser makers to actually fix these things so people can finally start using them.

          • Re:Acid 3 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jellybob (597204) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @06:13AM (#24013735) Journal

            I would agree, but they HAVE to shoot for Acid 3 compatibility for the next release or browser nerds will be up in arms and it will be a huge PR problem.


            It'll only be a PR problem in the small circle of "browser nerds", everyone else will just get on with their lives, having realised there's more to life then what score your favourite browser gets in the Acid 3 test.

    • "Well, I can dream, can't I?"

      I dream of a Firefox that doesn't have CPU hogging problems. Firefox 3 seems to be a little worse than the previous version.

      For those of us who open a lot of windows and tabs and leave them open a long time, as when doing research, Firefox is a hassle. It slows the entire computer until all windows and tabs are closed.

        • Just kick flash out (Score:5, Informative)

          by DrYak (748999) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @05:11AM (#24013477) Homepage

          Just kick out the damn buggy Adobe Flash plug-in.
          It runs in the same process as Firefox :
          It eats to much memory, slows too much the browser, and take the whole browser down with it.

          Either disable it, or at least use adblock+ and noscript to avoid having 80 flash widgets running inside your 30 tabs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mdew (651926)
      80/100 on the current nightly builds, http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7533/acid3trunkok0.jpg [imageshack.us]

  • And after Firefox 3.1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by NovaHorizon (1300173) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:25AM (#24012399)
    Comes Firefox 95!

    • Comes Firefox 95!

      Nope, it will be 3.11 and FWG... THEN we can get to 95, though I'm probably going to wait until FF98 if past experience is a guide.

  • Firefox 2.0 was also supposed to be a quick development, based on the same gecko branch. It eventually took about a year.
    I think the past record of Mozilla.org has repeatedly shown that it is unable to release a product on time, given the huge amount of testing/fixing iterations that must come before the final release. A Firefox "quick release" will take time, and divert resources from important future projects such as Gecko 2.
    I would have thought Mozilla.org would have finally admitted that the architecture and development model of Firefox is characterised by long maturation times. This is needed to keep up its high quality level.

      • Re:There is no such thing as a quick Firefox relea (Score:4, Interesting)

        by trawg (308495) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @02:31AM (#24012741) Homepage

        I'm passing up the opportunity to moderate you as 'troll' despite your obvious troll post on the basis that maybe, just maybe, you have some evidence to back up those statements. I'm not sure what bugs you're talking about but I use Firefox all day long every single day and very rarely have any problems.

        I also use an application (MediaCoder) that I believe uses the XUL parts of Firefox seemingly without any problems (other than annoying load times for what should really be a simple control panel thing).

      • I hope to see the html 5 video support added for Fx3.1

        You're almost certainly going to get it, with Ogg Theora support at the very least (a DirectShow backend for Windows, QuickTime backend for Mac OS X, and GStreamer backend for Linux are also in the works). But the real question that no one seems to be asking is, where is HTML 5 audio support? It's just as much a part of the specification, and Ogg Vorbis is well-known enough that corporate entities aren't so worried about patents. I've seen some work [bluishcoder.co.nz] on it recently, but I'm not sure it's mature enough to make the deadline. HTML 5 audio and video support in Firefox 3.1 would be a dream though. Safari already has at least some support [webkit.org] for both, and Opera has partial support [opera.com] for audio with video surely not far off. Internet Explorer is obviously going to take a long time to catch up, but I guess we can't have everything...

  • Schedule has slipped before (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anders (395) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:32AM (#24012443)

    Of course, at one time, Firefox 3 was targeted for a Q3 2007 release [mozillalinks.org].

  • A good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Monoman (8745) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @06:06AM (#24013693) Homepage

    It would be great if the Firefox team could release updates on a schedule ... I know, I know it is a crazy dream.

    But think of it this way. Release the incremental updates (.x) every quarter or six months and release them on time. Release version updates every 12 -24 months, up the the FF team, but stick to the schedule. If the FF team could do that it would show constant improvement and drive MS nuts.

    Isn't this how the Ubuntu team operates? I know it is an apples to oranges comparison but I think it could work. There is no way MS could keep up with a consistent release schedule.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Vectronic (1221470) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:25AM (#24012397)

      6 months isn't "quick", its only the Alpha in a month...that's about normal for most smaller software, especially for a point (*.1) update, this isn't Firefox 4.0.

      Hell, Opera released 9.51 RC1 (now on RC2) just a few days after 9.5...

      Its pretty normal as far as I see it, and I'm glad they are (or seem to be) returning to a more consistent release schedule, it may eventually become my default browser again, which it hasn't been since Phoenix.

    • At this rate, Microsoft better start working on the next cake!

      MSIE developers already figured out the cake is a lie long ago.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by risk one (1013529)

      Try installing flashblock. Those ads tend to steal a lot of cycles. Worked for me anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by deek (22697)

      I see something similar as well. I use linux and Firefox 3 on my work laptop, and at home while browsing www.smh.com.au, cpu will hit 100% and the browser becomes barely usable.

      Interestingly enough, at work, I can browse www.smh.com.au without any issues.

      I noticed that the stop button is clickable during the 100% cpu periods. When I click it, and it eventually registers, the cpu usage plummets back to regular levels.

      I suspect there's some DNS shenanigans going on, because the DNS service at home can be fl

    • Re:End users don't want constant change (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2008, @02:36AM (#24012767)

      People getting bent out of shape about the address bar is simply absurd. While I admit, the option to turn it off should appear somewhere, if only in about:config, the development team isn't ignoring it's users. I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it. I certainly find it very useful at times. I also happen to find the new user interface to be well thought out and designed.

      The "it's only one option in the config dialog" argument is wearing a bit thin. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding on what testing is required for even simple options. Perhaps terms like "decision coverage" and "condition/decision coverage" are meaningless to you, but they are quite important to software testers. Also important is the psychological concept of the paradox of choice in which many people will not make a choice if presented with too many options. I really am quite sick of hearing, "But it's just one little check box in the option dialog." Take a second and think about how many features that has been said about. Then take a second to consider how much your really now about good user interface design and how much research is done in the area of human/computer interaction.

      The changes presented in Firefox 3.0 are actually quite minor when compared to other UI modifications such as Office 2007 or KDE 4. Such drastic language on your part is quite uncalled for. The changes presented in Firefox's front end are, in fact, not for the sake of change but rather for the sake of improvement. I hope comments like yours don't encourage the developers to stagnate on a single UI design because every time they work to improve it, a vocal minority of rigid people can't pull a stick out of their ass.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dlevitan (132062)

        I have a feeling far more people LIKE the new address bar than dislike it.

        I'm one of the people who, for the most part, really likes the new address bar. Being able to type in a site's title to get to the url is a great time saver for me. However, there is one thing I can't stand about it, which is that sometimes it takes a second or two for it to load (especially if I'm on battery power and the hard drive is spun down) and in the meantime firefox freezes. If they could just sort that problem out I'd be very happy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ikkonoishi (674762)

          Try playing around with "browser.urlbar.search.chunkSize" and "browser.urlbar.search.timeout" in about:config. The prefs file says this about it.

          // Size of "chunks" affects the number of places to process between each search // timeout (ms). Too big and the UI will be unresponsive; too small and we'll // be waiting on the timeout too often without many results.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by clickety6 (141178)

        People get "bent out of shape" because something that worked well for them has been taken away and replaced with something that (for them) works less well, is less intuitive (when I'm in a URL entry box, I don't expect to have searches on titles), looks awful (that two line layout is not nice to read, despite having pretty colours) and does not allow a return to old functionality. If "awesome bar" had been an option, then there wouldn't be a fuss. But the developers seem to have decided they know what is be

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.