Firefox 1.1 Scrapped

An Anonymous Reader writes: "The Firefox team has decided to scrap the planned 1.1 release (already in Alpha 2) and instead release the final version as 1.5 due to the significant number of bug fixes and changes. The 1.5 feature complete beta is expected next month." From the article: "We are planning for a Firefox 2.0 and 3.0, but will divide the planned work over (at this point) three major Milestones, 1.5 (September 2005), 2.0 (unscheduled) and 3.0 (unscheduled). All major development work will be done on the Mozilla trunk, and these releases will coincide with Gecko version revs."

So shouldn't the headline be

[Anonymous Coward]

"Firefox 1.1 renamed"?

Re:if you're gonna just throw it away...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nigh tly/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Scrapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because if you read the post, it says that a 1.1 release would be different from a 1.5 release. The 1.1 release would simply fix some bugs without introducing many new features. The 1.5 release will contain the bug-fixes, as well as the new features. So, no, it would not be more appropriate to say that.

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate

[recoiledsnake]

If you read the comments yesterday you would have found that mozilla does staggered updates to ease the pressure on their servers and hence the auto update feature will be working in a day or two.

Re:They really need to fix autoupdate

[linuxci]

One of the main advantages of 1.5 is the improved update system. Everyone knows that the 1.0 one was not up to scratch that's why they spent a lot of effort improving it. Based on current nightlies I'd say they've done a good job.

Re:Can you read this?

[generic-man]

Just get Opera. For years (as in, since their Windows 3.1 days) they've supported a zoom feature that enlarges text, graphics, and even Flash animations. They also support CSS-based modifications that, with one or two mouse clicks, render a site easily readable by anyone with bad eyes, no tolerance for Comic Sans, and/or people who disagree with the decision to render a page in 7-point grey-on-white text [nynewsday.com].

Firefox and its army of extension developers will eventually re-implement Opera, but in the meantime the real thing is much better.

Re:Can you read this?

[linuxci]

They do have a preference where you can set the minimum font size which would make things easy to read for you while not zooming text that's already big enough to read.

Look in prefereces/options for fonts and there's a pref to set the minimum font size. It's not like it's a hidden pref or anything it's in the standard dialog

Re:I'd be happy if

[linuxci]

Different people work on Firefox than work on Thunderbird and lightning. Most of the developers work on whatever interests them or wherever their particular skills lie.

People working on Firefox is not stopping those who want to work on other projects doing so (and Thunderbird is coming on well too, just a little bit more slowly than Firefox)

Re:Alas, SVG

[Anonymous Coward]

SVG is useless unless it's advertised in the accept header and it wasn't when the DP nightlies last ran on Win32 without bombing.

Re:Corporate deployments

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you have an unofficial MSI for firefox [mozillazine.org]. It also has an administrative template, so that'll ease a lot of the corporate deployment needs.

BTW, if you didn't know, part of the 1.5 work is related to create an official MSI.

Re:Does this mean they'll fix launch.yahoo.com bug

[kbrosnan]

I gave you a full answer yesterday.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=131 16785 [slashdot.org]

Not to mention you posted the same comment
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156428&cid=131 14118 [slashdot.org]

Here's how to fix that, EASILY

[Khyber]

I feel I should point out that if you're running Windows, one of FF's abilities is to zoom the text or enlarge it simply by holding down ctrl and scrolling the mouse wheel (if you have one) to make text larger or smaller. It's not permanent, but it's alot simpler than having to use some additional plugin to make it work. It only takes a mere moment to get the text to the size you want.

I haven't tested this on my Linux box, as it's primarily in command-line mode for about 95% of the time I'm using it.

Re:Can you read this?

[slapout]

Try Opera. I don't know if you can make the zooming permanent, but the "text zoom" doesn't "break page layouts" in Opera.

Sun Java VM

[jeti]

AFAIK current exploits exist only for the MS Java VM. So installing the Sun Java VM would secure the system against current exploits.

So your friend could have both, a secure PC and Java. As far as I am aware, Suns Java VM had extremely few exploits so far.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:This is all getting quite confusing...

[MasterSLATE]

"I could however see sevearl situations where someone would genuinely need Windows for something... like... i dont know, does jedi knight dark forces 2 run under wine?"

Yes.
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/games/view.mhtml?ga me_id=2367 [transgaming.org]

Re:Slashdot should be more positive

[smokestacklightning]

Please - take the gloves off just because it's an OSS project. My personal experiences with the fox have been rapidly going downhill. I have it running on three machines right now, it's eating up 56MB, 98MB and 100+MB of system memory on each of the machines. I was hoping that they would have the resource leaks fixed in the upcoming release, but if I have to wait much longer - I am jumping ship.

The lack of progress made since 1.0 is really dissapointing. It seems like they put everything they had into getting that release out (apparently a little hastily as my frequent crap-outs attest to) and they don't have much left.

Oh - and don't give me that song and dance about how it's some rogue plugin causing all my headaches - two are fresh installs and the one topping out at 100MB is stripped down to just the Google toolbar plugin.

Maybe the delay will give them time to get this release right ...

Firefox needs to adress dhtml/css hover ads.

[zymano]

These are NOT popups.

http://dhtml-menu.com/menu-demos/demo347.html [dhtml-menu.com]

A tutorial on how they are made.
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/ [maxdesign.com.au]

We need to control scripts.

I know there is a javascript extension but it's a hassle. Noscript 1.0.9 .

Re:Version-Number Junkies?

[BillyBlaze]

As I understand it, it's not at all a political move, it's certainly not just to have a higher number. As I understand it, the way Firefox development works is, there's the CVS HEAD, which I guess you could consider similar to the 2.5 kernel series back in the day - unstable and quickly changing. Every so often, they make a branch off the head that will become a stable release. These releases are kind of dead ends, but that allows them to be more stable and have more static APIs. So what this article actually means is, a while after the 1.0 fork, they started the 1.1 fork, but now they've decided that even the 1.1 fork is too far behind the head, and so they've opted to focus their stabilization efforts on the 1.5 fork, which already includes bugfixes that would otherwise have to be backported.

Re:So what's different?

[Lawrence_Bird]

Perhaps its just my system, but I've been actually less
happy as the version numbers went up. I've found it to be
less responsive, more likely to either crash or time out
on connections, and just in general act flakey. And the
memory use can become excessive. (what is it doing with
125Mb of memory?)

Re:....ummmm, what about 1.6???

[smart.id]

It's 1.0.6, not 1.6. Check your Help > About Mozilla Firefox.