Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Firefox Mozilla Software Upgrades News Technology IT

Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility 366

snydeq writes "Mozilla's 'endless parade' of Firefox updates adds no visible benefit to users but breaks common functions, as numerous add-ons, including the popular open source TinyMCE editor, continually suffer compatibility issues, thanks to Firefox's newly adopted auto-update cycle, writes InfoWorld's Galen Gruman. 'Firefox is a Web browser, and by its very nature the Web is a heterogeneous, uncontrolled collection of resources. Expecting every website that uses TinyMCE to update it whenever an incremental rev comes out is silly and unrealistic, and certainly not just because Mozilla decided compatibility in its parade of new Firefox releases was everyone else's problem. The Web must handle such variablility — especially the browsers used to access it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox: In With the New, Out With the Compatibility

Comments Filter:
  • by dmacleod808 ( 729707 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:49PM (#39514383)
    I edit the add-on package (they are easy to download and are just renamed zip files) and change the version number manually and hope that there wasn't some fundamental code change in Firefox that breaks it. Maybe Add-on writers should push it up a few versions and hope it works? I dunno.
  • Too Late (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hugh Pickens writes ( 1984118 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @03:52PM (#39514447) Homepage

    I stuck with Mozilla starting with V1.0 in July 2002 but about a month ago the bloat and crashes from Firefox 11.0 got too much for me and I gave Chrome a try.

    Chrome is faster with no crashes.

    I don't know where Firefox went wrong but I'm not going back.

  • by spire3661 ( 1038968 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @04:23PM (#39514855) Journal
    This is /thread right here. I just want my browser to be fast, efficient and mostly stay out of my way. IE8 infuriates me with all the bullshit they want you to setup before you can actually use the damn thing.
  • by VGPowerlord ( 621254 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @04:58PM (#39515295)

    Maybe Add-on writers should push it up a few versions and hope it works? I dunno.

    Mozilla forbids Add-on writers from putting it more than 2 major version numbers ahead. This policy worked fine when 2 major version numbers took years... but right now, that's 12 weeks.

  • by gnick ( 1211984 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @05:25PM (#39515683) Homepage

    It's not so much about processing speed - It's about memory hogging. I don't have much of a problem with that concerning Chrome or FF, but depending on what you have open using just a few tabs under IE can quickly eat a half-gig of RAM. With a couple of GB in the computer that may or may not be an issue, but it seems rude and makes me feel a little violated and dirty...

  • Re:It's a madness (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KingMotley ( 944240 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @06:15PM (#39516287) Journal

    That's because chrome wasn't doing any hardware acceleration. I don't want Firefox not using a feature just because your video drivers are buggy. The problem is definately in them. I don't care what calls you make to the video driver, it still should not bsod. Ati is just being stupid. Sorry you are stuck with them, but it's not surprising. It's been very well known that the ati drivers are terrible.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @06:33PM (#39516439) Homepage

    From an add-on developer perspective, Firefox's frantic updates are a pain. I have the same add-on for Firefox and Google Chrome. [adlimiter.com] Most of the code is common. On the Firefox side, I have work-arounds for two bugs in Firefox, and they've been open bug reports in Bugzilla for many months. There's a new bug this week because the last update to the Mozilla add-on SDK broke something in message passing. That's supposedly fixed in the next version of the SDK being released today. Now I have to rebuild, update and test my add-on, then run it through the Mozilla approval bureaucracy again. (Yes, the AMO web site says this happens automatically. That's only true if you let them host the source code.)

    Over on Google Chrome, it just works. No workarounds needed. A stable API. No updates needed from my side.

    I get far more downloads of the Firefox version, though.

  • by amicusNYCL ( 1538833 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @07:22PM (#39516931)

    What, like Opera? Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, speed dial, several other things that later browsers copied. Those only became features once someone created an extension for them in Firefox, right?

    Have you looked at a vanilla install of Firefox? Compare that with Opera and the number of features in Firefox is pretty much approaching zero.

    If the only thing you want to compare is plugins or add-ons, instead of actual browser features, then you should look at things like this [google.com], this [opera.com], and this [iegallery.com] to avoid making yourself appear uninformed in the future.

  • Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday March 29, 2012 @08:13PM (#39517415)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Trahloc ( 842734 ) on Friday March 30, 2012 @01:47AM (#39519531) Homepage
    As I responded to people above. I have 32gb of ram on my workstation, that enough? When 64bit FF uses 6gb of ram performance nose dives into the ground at that point ... but that's about double the ram of 32bit before its useless. So no, ram isn't the issue, the memory bloat is a side affect of whatever the hell kills performance, it isn't the direct cause. I've still got 20 gigs of memory free.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...