Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Firefox Beta Touts Advanced Engine, Solves 8 Flaws 493

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the more-is-better-right dept.
nandemoari writes "Mozilla may be this year's winner in the 'browser battles' as they ready the next beta version of their tour-de-force, Firefox 3.1. Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox — a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users. As this year's crop of new browsers emerges, enhanced features are becoming secondary to one thing: speed. Mozilla is nearly ready to release the next beta version of Firefox 3.1 to the public for testing, and insiders predict that it will outpace even Safari 4, which has been the fastest browser in wide release since its beta began last week." It looks like they also will be upping the next major release to v3.5 to better show the significance of the release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Beta Touts Advanced Engine, Solves 8 Flaws

Comments Filter:
  • by Nursie (632944) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:12AM (#27077243)

    Right-click is a nightmare on linux platforms (don't know if it affects others, I'm exclusively a linux shop these days).

    It randomly follows an action rather than bringing up the menu about one time in ten. Opening up email programs, choosing a new window, bringing up link properties... needs fixing, badly. (Workaround for fellow sufferers - install mouse gestures add-on)

    Also it seems really really processor-hungry on one of my machines. Wish I knew why.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jamesmcm (1354379)
      Hmm.. I find it does the right-click thing on my iMac but it might be 'cause the Mighty Mouse is so awful.

      I've started using bash for file management instead of Finder because I can't trust the mouse to accidentally move folders etc.
      • by Doug Neal (195160)

        Hmm.. I find it does the right-click thing on my iMac but it might be 'cause the Mighty Mouse is so awful.

        I've started using bash for file management instead of Finder because I can't trust the mouse to accidentally move folders etc.

        Have you not considered getting a nice Logitech mouse or something? The latest "MX Revolution" mice are very pleasant to use, and work fine in OS X...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by donstenk (74880)

        I concur - the Mighty Mouse is not so mighty, Apple's worst product in a long time. I have the problem you describe in Safari 3 and 4 beta. Plus scrolling down has worn out somehow.

        I am now back at using an unbranded (but white!) mouse bought 4 years ago for under 10 euro! The bluetooth one may have a function in the living room for BBC iPlayer etc.

        • by name_already_taken (540581) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:39AM (#27077579)

          I concur - the Mighty Mouse is not so mighty, Apple's worst product in a long time. I have the problem you describe in Safari 3 and 4 beta. Plus scrolling down has worn out somehow.

          Right clicking on the Mighty Mouse appears to have been designed by someone who only used one-button mice before. You have to pretty much take your fingers off of the mouse and only click on the right side of the mouse. It would have made much more sense to make it signal a right click if the right "button" area of the mouse was being touched, regardless of what's happening on the left. It sucks, and they really should fix it (probably could be done with a firmware update).

          As for the scroll ball, I have used the "turn the mouse upside down and run the scroll ball around on your pants leg" method with some success. It only works until you get something inside the scroll ball that won't come out. My primary Mighty Mouse (I have four, two are bluetooth and on the same desk) would not scroll right, and even throwing it at the floor and wall didn't work, so I decided to break the damned thing open.

          It's actually not hard to crack the mouse open, if you don't mind breaking that little collar that runs around the bottom of the mouse. There are two flexible connections that you have to disconnect, but you can remove the scroll ball mechanism with a small phillips screwdriver, disassemble it, clean it out, and reassemble it. I did it a month ago with no further problems. There is an order to reassembling the mouse and not having one of the flexible connections pull out, but it's not hard to trial and error your way through.

      • by 1stvamp (662375) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:24AM (#27077381) Homepage

        Have you considered using a mouse that doesn't suck?

    • by Ythan (525808)
      Also happens for me in the Windows version.
    • by Xtravar (725372)

      I have that right click problem with a few things in Linux. Mostly Azureus/Vuze. Never really noticed it in FF though.

      I just assumed it was a GTK/library bug.

    • by electrosoccertux (874415) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:46AM (#27077681)

      I don't even bother with Firefox on Linux anymore. It's dog slow, and clear that the work goes into the Windows version.

      A year or so ago I thought I'd try something out...if it's so slow in Linux native, what if I tried browsing in Firefox under Wine? Surprise! Wine+Firefox is _much_ faster than native Firefox. Sure enough, this was confirmed a month or two ago on /. The AwesomeBar, in particular, is SLOW in Linux; this is coming from someone running a 3.4Ghz Core 2 Duo chip.

      Not sure why it's this way, but it's pretty clear the work goes into the Windows version and hardly any goes into the native version.

      As a matter of fact, the lack of an alternative decent browser (no please not Opera) on Linux is one of the major reasons why I don't bother with it at all, currently. Yes, I've tried about 7 others (insert your favorite one here); about the only alternative I would be OK with using is Chrome but that's not available for Linux.

      So, I'll just check Linux out again when Chrome comes out for it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You can speed up firefox especially with the super bar by using tmpfs to put the firefox profile in your ram. A guide can be found at http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-717117.html

      • Try Swiftweasel. The native Linux firefox versions are all compiled completely unoptimized. Swiftweasel just enables some of the i686 and -O2 optimizations and it's still Firefox, all my plugins work, but it doesn't dog down like Firefox proper (I still have it installed, I've compared the two).
    • Jeez... I'm sure glad I'm not the only the only one who has been seeing this in the recent FF release. I've been seeing right-clicks ignored and then when you try again -- and successfully perform what you wanted to do -- the basic right-click menu would pop up, requiring yet another click to make it disappear. Intensely annoying. I was afraid that my beloved Kensington track ball was going bad. Glad to hear it's not a hardware problem.

    • I've seen the same exact behavior in the gnome desktop, but only in VMware images and usually Fedora Core. For example, even left clicking the close box sometimes doesn't take. Sometimes I'll click maximize and the window just disappears (I think something 'accidentally' clicked the close buttom). Sometimes it will double click. The mouse seems to work okay for moving, but it 'feels' a little jittery. The workaround for the right button is to hold it down, like another poster said.

      In any case, this isn't a

  • RAM usage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nmg196 (184961) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:14AM (#27077267)

    I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks. My firefox process is currently using 1.1GB of RAM and I have to restart it about twice a day just to free up some RAM. I've only got about 4 extensions installed and I've tried disabling each of them in turn to ensure the problem didn't lie in an extension.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You must be doing something wrong (seriously). I have 4 extensions and 16 Addons installed and have routinely checked my Firefox memory usage; it's gotten to 700MB before a few times but not twice per day, it was after 3 days of having it open.

      • by nmg196 (184961) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:27AM (#27077419)

        > You must be doing something wrong (seriously)

        If "by doing something wrong" you mean "you're a web developer" then you're probably right - I am. :)

      • Re:RAM usage (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EvilIdler (21087) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:40AM (#27077587)

        Yikes! Opera peaks at 250MB, and stays there. They really need to work on the memory issues. Even though I don't even touch computers with less than 4GB RAM, it's pretty sick to see 25% of that eaten by a web browser.

      • by frieko (855745)
        Can you verify that whatever you're using to measure doesn't include disk cache? Linux's policy is to use all free memory for disk cache, which results in some pretty inflated usage numbers in 'top' and elsewhere.
    • I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.

      I have the exact opposite experience.

      My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.

      Even if it crept up to 500 MB, I wouldn't mind much (I'm using almost 1 GB of core and 800 megs of cache ATM). If it was always fast and snappy, I'd be much happier.

      I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...

      Also, when it restores the last session, why doesn't it load the tabs in MRU order? Does it think I want to lo

      • by Jugalator (259273)

        My firefox currently uses 13% of my 2 GB, which is 266 MB. Sometimes it becomes horribly slow.

        Yes, this is an oddity I have heard about before. :-S I wonder what's going on there. I know a friend who used Firefox 2, but she can't switch to Firefox 3 due to this problem that understandably drives her mad on especially heavy sites. Personally I'm not seeing it at all, and it should of course not consume CPU especially on a static web site without Flash or many GIF animations.

        • by Jugalator (259273)

          I mean, come on---I'm having 50-60 tabs open but I'm only looking at one at any given moment in time...

          Btw, this... IF some tabs have Flash content up, I don't think it helps to have them inactive, and I think that's a limitation of Flash / addons.

      • Amen to that. Firefox has CONSTANTLY been using 100% of one of the cores on my macbook pro. Finally yesterday I fired up safari 4.0 beta and loaded up all of the exact same tabs. Current cpu usage is 7.2%.

        I don't know what's wrong with firefox but thats pretty sad. And yes, I have tried the "disable all plugins", uninstall/make sure all profiles are gone/reinstall. Same behavior.
      • by Mprx (82435)
        http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.capacity [mozillazine.org] . I think the autodetected default values are too low.
    • Re:RAM usage (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:37AM (#27077551) Journal

      I don't really care about the speed. It's already fast enough. I just wish they'd sort out the RAM consumption issue and all the memory leaks.

      Firefox 3 is the best performing browser memory-wise according to all independent tests that I have seen. It barely ever creeps beyond 200 MB RAM usage for me over days of usage. In comparison, Safari 4 Beta and IE 8 easily grows to 300-400 MB after a bunch of tabs browsed. It doesn't even take much effort to get those there.

      • by Tx (96709)

        Yes, I see much the same. I have ~30 extensions, and currently five tabs open, been running all day, and only ~160MB in use.

        But I don't think the people that are complaining about this are making it up, so the question is, what is going wrong for them? On Windows I recommend trying Firefox Portable [portableapps.com] as a diagnostic aid (make sure you close your installed Firefox before running the portable version). That will run with it's own profile and extensions all in it's own directory, completely separate from your in

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      That sounds pretty bad. Have you considered filing a bug with a testcase? That would be infinitely more helpful than complaining on Slashdot. Believe it or not, there are people at Mozilla who do care about such things.
  • by McFadden (809368) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:14AM (#27077271)

    Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox

    Interesting how stories spin out differently depending on the browser in question. If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.

    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:36AM (#27077537)
      Yes, but Firefox has a faster turnaround time as it is. Microsoft only patches once a month, often misses critical patches and then didn't update their browser for years. Mozilla was the first true competition that IE had, has a fast turnaround time, and patches vulnerabilities fast, often within days of being made aware of them. Sometimes they don't do as well as they could, but when they're able to put out 3 major versions of their browser, 2 .5 versions and many smaller ones within the time that IE's able to put out 2 new versions, they deserve praise instead of scorn.
    • by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:39AM (#27077577) Homepage Journal

      I know. Check out this discussion I had with my neighbor Bob the other day.
      me: Hey Bob, was that your mom just leaving?
      Bob: Yeah, she came over to hang out this afternoon.
      me:Oh - little hypocritical Bob?
      Bob: What do you mean?
      me: Well when that homeless guy that tried to rape and kill your wife came by the other day you called the cops. But you just let your mom right on in and hang out.

      I've decided people are just like that - that can't seem to be impartial. They have some crazy desire to take past actions and relationships into account. Weird.

    • by Xtravar (725372)

      The difference is that Mozilla actually resolves issues with their browser. Those are probably the only known critical vulnerabilities. :P

    • by Jugalator (259273)

      If it were an IE story, there would be howls of derision that the vulnerabilities existed in the first place and questions about why Microsoft didn't fix them more quickly.

      It could have something to do with IE usually leading the browser pack with unfixed major vulnerabilities at Secunia.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonaskoelker (922170)

      Interesting how stories spin out differently depending on the browser in question.

      Humans aren't perfectly reasoned or objective, nor do they apply the same standards fairly to everyone and everything. More news at 11 ;)

      What would be interesting to point out is why we treat FF better than IE (the interesting question is always "why?").

      I think it's fair of "us" to hate IE, because we are the ones suffering from its bad security. We are the ones who have to clean up after the messes that IE allows others to make. Instead of MS making their browser less flammable, they have us put out unn

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by reashlin (1370169)
      I was actually thinking why do 8 critical vulnerabilities exist without ASAP patching...hell a patch with a minor revision number would be good. The idea that I should wait for the next major release of a browser to fix a critical vulnerability is insane.
      • Critical vulnerabilities aren't necessarily easy to patch, and waiting to patch them in a 3.x release might make more sense than doing so in a 3.0.x version if you can't fix the vulnerabilities without high-impact changes.
  • Stuck at beta 2 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by javacowboy (222023)

    It seems like 3.1 has been stuck at beta 2 for several months. This is while Chrome and Safari have leapt ahead with the taps and top interface and other improvements.

    I still prefer Firefox, but the difference in screen real estate between Firefox and Safari Beta 4 is jarring.

  • 8 flaws (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GerardAtJob (1245980)

    I love Firefox, I currently use it... but only one question : 8 flaws solved / how many vulnerabilities not solved?

  • Dear Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HockeyPuck (141947) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:25AM (#27077389)

    Please fix your flash plugin. Seems that once a day if I go to a page with considerable flash (which is most pages these days), the browser will crash and when I examine the crashfile, it's *gasp* always you. I've reinstalled flash and FF 3.0.6.....

    • Re:Dear Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LordKaT (619540) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:38AM (#27077569) Homepage Journal

      While you're at it, Adobe, could you also consider fixing the streaming video issues in Firefox? There's no reason on this planet why Firefox's version of flash has to take up 99% CPU on a quad-core system to play video, while the IE version takes a measly 2% to play the same video.

      Oh, and if you could do something - anything - about your 64bit linux support, that would be fantastic. Kill it if you must, or open source it, because your engineers are simply not talented enough to make it work.

      • Re:Dear Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:54AM (#27077797)
        Oh ugh, yeah, Adobe + 64bit = Fail. Which is rather ironic considering how much many of their products would benefit from it. I suppose they're too busy adding new DRM and activation schemes to add working 64bit support. 'Cause, you know, those have really stopped people from pirating their software - What a waste of time.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Jamamala (983884)
      Not a fix, I know, but have you considered Flashblock? [mozilla.org]
    • Please fix your plugin backend. I hate Adobe's crappy flash plugin, too. On Linux it makes Firefox almost unusable imho.

      But only Firefox. Somehow Konqueror and Opera manage to survive the crash* of one measly plugin while the great and mighty Firefox goes down in flames.

      *Chrome's allegedly designed to do so, too. Although the one time I tried it shortly after release it almost immediately crashed when, you guessed it, Flash decided to take the day off

    • I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one with Flash problems on FireFox. Mine seem to fall into two main categories:

      1) Annoying: Flash file doesn't load for some reason forcing me to use IE (usually in the form of IETab) to load the content.

      2) System Breaking: Flash file tries to load a JavaScript function in IE. Fine if the file was *OPENED* in IE, but it wasn't. It was opened in FireFox. My default browser is FireFox. Why is it opening an IE window at "javascript:SomeFunction();"? And, when that fails

    • Re:Dear Adobe (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thelasko (1196535) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:22PM (#27078195) Journal

      Please fix your flash plugin. Seems that once a day if I go to a page with considerable flash (which is most pages these days), the browser will crash and when I examine the crashfile, it's *gasp* always you. I've reinstalled flash and FF 3.0.6.....

      This is Slashdot, not Adobe's bug reporting system. [adobe.com] Please fix your bookmarks. They won't fix the problem if you don't post it where they will read it.

  • by the time you install all of the essential add-ons to firefox, it becomes slow again.

    a few things I can't live without are adblock, rip, forecastfox, ietab, twitterfox, firebug, foxmarks and ubiquity.

    With these installed, the browser is no longer fast.

    Oh well.

  • Multithreading (Score:5, Insightful)

    by owlnation (858981) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:28AM (#27077433)
    This article sounds like empty hype to me.

    I still use Firefox, and will continue to do so for the time being. The reason being adblock and flashblock, exclusively. I am not as happy with Firefox as I was when I first used the 0.8 something version. I feel Mozilla have lost their way. Too much bloat like the awesome bar -- which frankly just does not work for me at all, it's an hindrance, not a help.

    I want to use chrome, because of the multithreading. Firefox absolutely needs to have multithreading to compete. It can be a true dog to use if you have tabs that reload in the background.

    The second that there is some sort of adblock and flashblock for Chrome I'm gone. No more Firefox for me.

    I'm sorry to have to do that. I actually bought the firefox T-Shirt. I was active in the GetFirefox campaign. But now, I use it only because of the extensions.

    Please, Mozilla get your act together. Now more useless features that should really be extensions, and get multithreading sorted. I want to be a Firefox fan again.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Seconded, sick to death of FF grinding to a halt whilst a background tab is doing something (not even JavaScript in many cases, just loading/rendering a scriptless page or image).

      Add this to the fact that the future is multicore CPUs and you have to wonder how Mozilla can justify sticking with a single threaded model.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BenoitRen (998927)

      Did you know that there are other Mozilla Gecko-based web browsers that you can install Adblock Plus and Flashblock into? They're SeaMonkey (cross-platform as well) and K-Meleon (Windows only). Try them.

      By the way, Chrome doesn't do multi-threading. It has a multi-process architecture.

    • Re:Multithreading (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Renegade88 (874837) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:53AM (#27077759)
      I agree, although I had Opera ranked over FF for casual browsing. I only used FF for it's web developer tools and firebug. Now I have made the move to Chrome for casual browsing, so now FF is in 3rd place.

      Where Chrome is really better than opera is closing down. I can have 20 tabs open in Chrome and when I close the application, I recover all the memory pretty much instantly. Opera needs about 2-3 minutes where it actually takes more memory (e.g. jumps from 170MB to 210MB ram) before finally closing down internally. As I mentioned elsewhere, FF in windows normally just crashes upon closing, taking 100% CPU usage and requiring killing from the task manager. Therefore I use it as little as possible.

      Adblock is not a dealbreaker. I have it installed in FF but it's normally off. The sites I visit don't require blocking ads. I won't visit a site so obnoxious that it would require adblocking to be functional.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by reashlin (1370169)
      I know I know - yet another Opera user. But disable plug-ins and javascript and re-enable them on site I want them on. I have a very happy browsing experience and its three clicks away from re-enabling flash/javascript. If .gif adverts are a pain you can also block moving images. All without any impact on an already respectibly fast browser. Sorry, I'll go back to my little Opera hole now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fallingcow (213461)

      Ditto, extensions are the only things keeping me on it.

      Too much bloat like the awesome bar

      Ugh, no kidding. Perfect example of what's wrong with the project these days. Is it occasionally useful? Sure. Does it slow me down the other 99% of the time because it takes way longer to do a huge history search than a simple match on just URLs? HELL yes. Should have been an extension, or at least have had some sort of toggle next to the address bar or via a right-click menu.

  • Has anyone heard when or if Tamarin is going into FF at any point in time? I checked the site quite vigorously the other day and could find no estimates, time-lines, or even projected version.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Firefox 3.1 (3.5) uses NanoJIT from Tamarin for Tracemonkey. They scrapped the other plans (Actionmonkey) a long time ago.
  • by trifish (826353)

    Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users.

    Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?

    (I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by m0i (192134)

      Excuse me if I'm missing something, but aren't eight critical vulnerabilities supposed to be patched in the stable branch instead of a beta branch?

      (I also am not entirely sure whether fixing so many critical vulnerabilities should garner applause from Firefox users...)

      RTFA: "The beta Firefox 3.1 will still have a few bugs to work out, but Mozilla officials have promised that eight of the security flaws found in the current browser, six of which have been rated critical, will be fixed in the updated version. The most serious of these vulnerabilities are already being repaired, and can be downloaded as patches from the Mozilla website."

  • when you read (Score:5, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [erauqssemitelcric]> on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:36AM (#27077533) Homepage Journal

    "Microsoft is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of IE -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted IE users."

    slashdot users laugh at the propaganda

    but when a firefox shill says

    "Mozilla is resolving eight critical vulnerabilities found in the current version of Firefox -- a move sure to garner applause from devoted Firefox users."

    slashdot puts it in the story summary reverently

    propaganda is propaganda is propaganda. no matter the source, even if you love the source. just say "firefox fixed some bugs." and leave the sleazy ad copy out of it please

    what next?

    "the exploit found in firefox is a feature, not a bug" maybe?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mgblst (80109)

      We hate and distrust Microsoft...does this really need to be explained every single fucking time.

      Just because this place has been invaded by Microsoft shills, and people who don't know anything but Microsoft, and people who don't know how to use a cmd line so Microsoft lets them pretend to be IT experts, doesn't mean Slashdot should change the way it is.

  • Seriously, do you really think Apple and Opera won't be upgrading their browsers for the next 9 months?

  • The meetings notes says they are "considering" changing the numbering. Until there's an official announcement saying that they are changing the numbering this shouldn't be taken as anything other than "yup, we discussed it".

    From the wiki page:

    "Version numbering

    * considering 3.1 -> 3.5 to indicate increased scope
    * will need to figure out how to update all our tools effectively (build, bugzilla, AMO, etc.) -- detailed plan coming this week

  • by buddyglass (925859) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @01:08PM (#27079011)

    The speed boost is attributed to TraceMonkey. I've been testing nightly builds for a while now with TraceMonkey enabled and they're generally outperformed (barely) by Webkit nightly builds, and pretty much trounced by Chrome. So if the author is betting on TraceMonkey to give Firefox as massive lead in Javascript performance then he may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

    He then raves about how eight critical flaws will be fixed in the upcoming version. Say what? That means there are eight critical unpatched flaws in the current released code that have yet to be repaired. That's a bad thing, not a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BZ (40346)

      Speaking as a Gecko developer, the article's author is just confused. Either that, or in desperate need of copy, no matter how inane.

      What _is_ true is that Tracemonkey at ship will be reasonably competitive with then-shipping Safari (as opposed to Webkit nightly builds, which should be compared to the then Firefox nightly builds) and V8 (depending heavily on the test; it'll be a lot slower on the V8 tests).

      Due to the way the jits involved work, it's pretty easy to find tests where one or the other of the e

  • Whoever cleared this for the front page?

    If a free software team announced "our current stable version is insecure, but if you install our test version, you'll be safe", there would be serious hell. If you have security holes in your current stable branch, you bloody well fix them immediately instead of asking users to download a beta version. (Well, unless you're Google, in which case the whole universe is in beta.)

    Just to be sure this wasn't the case, I traced the source through this poorly researched blog entry on infopackets.com back to CNet, and lo and behold:

    Firefox 3.0.7 targets security issues
    Mozilla on Wednesday released an update to the Firefox Web browser that its developers said fixes eight security issues found in Firefox 3.0.6

    Nope, no mention of a beta. Yes, a beta of 3.1 was released at the same time as a stable 3.0.7, and yes, 3.1 has an advanced JS engine that will boost performance. I'll even wager that if the 3.0.6 bugs were also in the 3.1 branch, then this beta fixed them as well.

    But no, users do not have to download a beta version to ensure security, and to mislead them otherwise is pretty irresponsible as there is already enough FUD going on about Mozilla.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...