Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Mozilla Firefox 24 Moves Ahead With Modest Changes

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkmorris View Post
    What is missing is TLSv1.2 by default (instead of an 'optional' security feature).
    Indeed, this security feature is very important.
    Chrome (since v29) and Internet Explorer (since v11) support it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transp...y#Web_browsers

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Dortmund, Germany
    Posts
    11

    Smile

    Hell, yeah! Another Major Release with enough improvements to fill a whole patch release of a properly version-numbered software!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demonkoryu View Post
    Hell, yeah! Another Major Release with enough improvements to fill a whole patch release of a properly version-numbered software!
    oh shutup. release early, release often, thats the open source way. the version numbers are meaningless, theyre completely arbitrary. they don't even effect Enterprise anymore thanks to the LTS releases. The only reason to even have release tags is for marketing and PR-- which despite what some open sourcers seem to think IS actually important.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moiman View Post
    You still need flash to play some videos. This is because of drm requirements.
    Use Flashgot. I've yet to find a video I can't just download the .webm even when it complains that you need Flash installed. I've only found 2 videos in about a year that didn't have a .webm, and when that doesn't work I can always grab the .mp4, .flv or .3gpp file all without having Flash instaled.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    29

    Unhappy Animated gifs

    It'd be nice if gif animation could finally be made user-selectable, e.g with a click.

    For now it's "about:config" and them common pests set to "none".

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    136

    Default Slaves of the Beast of Redmond

    With every new release Firefox looks more like Internet Explorer: can't hide the tab bar, no status bar, "paste & go", "paste & search", etc etc etc.

    What's next from Mozilla, an open source implementations of Mac OS 10 UI?
    Last edited by hoohoo; 09-17-2013 at 05:30 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    oh shutup. release early, release often, thats the open source way. the version numbers are meaningless, theyre completely arbitrary. they don't even effect Enterprise anymore thanks to the LTS releases. The only reason to even have release tags is for marketing and PR-- which despite what some open sourcers seem to think IS actually important.
    All true, but still, on the other hand... the new versioning scheme of Firefox goes against all convention, making it confusing for users, and there's a reason why most software uses the usual major.minor scheme: it gives users some kind of guesstimate about the amount of changes made between releases. This lacks in Firefox's new versioning - you can't tell if the changes between 23 and 24 are more significant than the changes between 22 and 23.

    Another thing, the major.minor scheme allows the use of minor numbers for regular updates, leaving the major numbers for updates that bring really big and revolutionary changes - see: Python 2 vs Python 3, GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3 etc... using a one-number versioning, Mozilla has now abandoned a very simple and clear way to signal to their users that "hey guys, this new version is seriously different, there's seriously very big changes now" - if they at some point do a total revamp of their browser, they will need to use some other kind of branding changes to make the message clear.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    All true, but still, on the other hand... the new versioning scheme of Firefox goes against all convention, making it confusing for users, and there's a reason why most software uses the usual major.minor scheme: it gives users some kind of guesstimate about the amount of changes made between releases. This lacks in Firefox's new versioning - you can't tell if the changes between 23 and 24 are more significant than the changes between 22 and 23.

    Another thing, the major.minor scheme allows the use of minor numbers for regular updates, leaving the major numbers for updates that bring really big and revolutionary changes - see: Python 2 vs Python 3, GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3 etc... using a one-number versioning, Mozilla has now abandoned a very simple and clear way to signal to their users that "hey guys, this new version is seriously different, there's seriously very big changes now" - if they at some point do a total revamp of their browser, they will need to use some other kind of branding changes to make the message clear.
    Emphasis mine. I think thats the exact thing they are trying to AVOID though. NOT doing revolutionary updates (Gnome 2 to Gnome 3. KDE 3 to KDE 4) but instead incremental evolutionary updates. I know there some UI changes planned, and instead of stalling the whole project while they were all done, the devs instead to just merge the changes in one by one over time, as they completed. In many ways I think ALL software is starting to head into the direction of 'evolutionary, not revolutionary,' just based off what I've been seeing in various projects lately. And when you have a situation like that, where its just many smaller (on their own) changes over and over, rather than a code-dump of big changes... the version numbers matter even less.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    This lacks in Firefox's new versioning - you can't tell if the changes between 23 and 24 are more significant than the changes between 22 and 23.
    Err... Every release is now 6 weeks worth of work. They should all have about the same amount of significant changes in them (as in, not many).

    Mozilla has now abandoned a very simple and clear way to signal to their users that "hey guys, this new version is seriously different, there's seriously very big changes now" - if they at some point do a total revamp of their browser, they will need to use some other kind of branding changes to make the message clear.
    This is somewhat true - but i don't think they are worried about that. They have no plans to go back to a longer release model, and if they do they've shown in the past some ability to market themselves as needed.

    Here's the thing - how many people are complaining about Chrome being on version 29? Almost no one, because no one even knows what version of Chrome they're running. There's no need to. Firefox should (or at least wants) to be in the same position, where nobody even knows what version they are using. It's just whatever the newest version is.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    With every new release Firefox looks more like Internet Explorer: can't hide the tab bar, no status bar, "paste & go", "paste & search", etc etc etc.

    What's next from Mozilla, an open source implementations of Mac OS 10 UI?
    Well it's good to see that Chrome still offers you that choice while being free and open source.

    Oh wait, it doesn't.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •