Firefox 2.0.0.11 Released

BrianAU writes "Firefox 2.0.0.11 has been released, the Release Notes show the only major change as a correction of a compatibility issue with some websites and extensions as discovered in Firefox 2.0.0.10."

one sentence summary and it makes front page..

[LingNoi]

Firefox 2.0.0.11 has been released, the Release Notes show the only major change as a correction of a compatibility issue with some websites and extensions as discovered in Firefox 2.0.0.10.

If you think it wasn't that big of a change then why did you sumbit it to Slashdot?!

Re:one sentence summary and it makes front page..

[calebt3]

You'd be amazed what goes into the Firehose. The fact that it actually made it through is a bit mind-boggling though.

As if this is news?

[garcia]

Maybe it was different in the past when software didn't automatically tell its users to upgrade but now that Firefox reminds you automatically when a new release is out I don't see the reason why Slashdot would put this on the front page... Not only that but this release was pushed out yesterday (or the day before, I can't recall when I picked it up). In addition to even that aside, 2.*.10 was out just several days before that and was a bigger update. If anything, we should have heard about that instead and not this minor fix.

Until the "editors" stop pushing garbage through w/o letting the firehose "fix" stupid submissions, Slashdot will continue to lag other sites in the quality coming through. If you really want to keep it up let the firehose do its job -- if not, let it degrade to the steaming pile that is Digg and be done with it already.

Anxious for 3.0

[a_nonamiss]

Firefox is a terrific product which I use and wholeheartedly endorse, but I think they have lost sight of their original intentions a bit. I originally started using Phoenix way back when because of the fast, simple interface. People have been so enamored with lots of pretty icons, plug-ins and add-ons, that in many cases, IE is a faster, leaner browser. ::shudder:: I like many of the add-on features on more powerful systems, but I pine for a browser that I can run quickly and easily on low-end machines. I've ever once used a Firefox theme. The default one is just fine for me. I've heard rumors that FF3 is headed in that direction, and I just hope that they keep that focus. Maybe they could even have separate installations or installation options for low-end and high-end machines.

Re:As if this is news?

[a_nonamiss]

C'mon... It's Saturday. I guess lame content is better than no content.

Re:More Crashes

[bunratty]

Try the suggestions from the MozillaZine Knowledge Base article Firefox crashes [mozillazine.org].

bugfix

[SolusSD]

A simple bugfix release is definitely !news. If slashdot were to consistently post stories for simple bugfix releases for major software packages these would be 90% of the news! Imagine MS patch Tuesdays.

Re:Full Changelog

[Harmonious Botch]

It is a sad day when the crapflooding is more interesting than TFA.

Re:Full Changelog

[Das Modell]

Even this is more interesting than the "news" of Firefox getting a minor update.

You are kidding us, right

[Orig_Club_Soda]

How is this a news item? All 4 of my computers updated automatically. NAtural as breathing. Reporting this is like reporting "The sun rose today for the nth time this year...."

News behind the news

[kimanaw]

As someone who was bitten by the bug fixed in 2.0.0.11, I think the terse /. description needs a little backstory.

2.0.0.10 f*cked up a lot of AJAXy web apps, and, frankly, Mozilla's initial response [mozilla.org] was less than "customer oriented". The "shoot the messanger" attitude exhibited in some of those early Bugzilla posts - despite there being numerous random URLs provided to point out the flaw - is a bit troubling.

As is the fact that Firefox's release process seems to be either lacking basic tests for std. API's, or is choosing to skip those tests.

And of course, the lack of an easy 1-click "Revert" menu item/button to back down versions when an auto-updater introduces such a bug further compounds the impact of these sort of bugs.

Of course, the /. crowd are somehow spinning this serious failure of both software and processes into proof of Firefox's superiority, due to the quick turnaround time. However, those of us that were actually bitten by this - and esp. had customers bitten by this (see the Bugzilla link above) - are having to rethink the usual practice of recommending FF over IE/Opera/etc.

Re:one sentence summary and it makes front page..

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where you could have been confused. 2.0.0.11 looks very similar to 3.x.x.x

Re:News behind the news

[Achromatic1978]

And when you stopped reading, you should have continued, because there you have "helpful" suggestions like "Owners of high traffic sites should be QAing their sites against our nightlies to ensure bugs don't affect them or they can report them" (uh, huh? Why is it a site owner's responsibility to track Firefox development for regression of introduced bugs?) Seriously? Daily checks of the Firefox nightly build to ensure such basic functionality as canvas.drawImage isn't completely fucked by the developer's inability to test a release properly?

Re:TO ALL DEVELOPERS

[suv4x4]

Do not use revision numbers on your software that look like IP addresses. ESPECIALLY please don't use them in the user agent string so that these numbers appear in web log files. Such numbers muck up many things.

By the time you wrote your rant, you could've fixed your regex to not look for IP addresses in the *user agent*.

Re:If only...

[As_I_Please]

Ubuntu's Update Manager handles the updates for all applications, including Firefox. The apt repositories are generally a day behind the official releases.

Re:Yay....

[wwahammy]

You don't sound like you really care that much about it being fixed.

Re:News behind the news

[BZ]

> And when you stopped reading, you should have continued

That's not the initial response, now is it?

> there you have "helpful" suggestions like

You mean comment 30?

The commenter in question is not a Mozilla developer. He's not Mozilla Corporation QA. I'm not sure why you're taking "Mozilla" to task for something someone not particularly affiliated with Mozilla said in a comment in the bug database. A bug database in which anyone can create an account and then say things.

If you want the actual "Mozilla" response after the point where I stopped reading, you want:

Comments 34, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46: QA.
Comments 41, 43: The guy in charge of the security releases.