Printable View
I got to say, I'm not happy with the new bizarre release strategy of Mozilla relating to "Firefox", but wow is "Firefox" version 5 working really well so far.
Every site I used to visit that had great bandwidth on its own but had slow sponsored advertisements without fixed form is now loading crazy fast.
Soma
I haven't tried it myself yet, but everyone who has whom I talked to says it's has a big performance increase over ff4
And about the major version bump; I think they are trying to appeal to the masses of mindless sheep using the "chrome strategy" I've actually heard plenty of people say something like
-Wow, chrome must be really good! They update the browser really fast!
What I don't like though is that they aren't doing security updates for ff4 anymore. And it's only been out for, what, a month or two?
Didn't they say FF4 was a big performance increase over FF3? Two of the most praised versions of FF. Bet FF6 users will hate FF5. And FF7 users will make jokes about FF6... and... ad nauseam.
Anyways, the release cycle... put an end of any hope of Firefox ever entering the corporate market and put Firefox toe-to-toe with Chrome, making now possible all and any comparisons between both products. My opinion: That's a battle FF can't win. And from here on it will be all downhill. I jumped out before I get hurt.
Chrome is changing the browser market more than it should be able to.
Not without help from those who should be competing with it.
I think that they should have just gone with 4.5 instead of 5, following established Firefox tradition post 1.0, heh. (Wait, there was the aberration that was 3.6!)
They have a strategy?
Who knew...
Come to think of it, 3.6 should have been 4.0, 4.0 should have been 4.5, so 5.0 is apt. All they need to do now is scrap any plans to call 5.5 6.0.
O_o
Was there a "2.5"?
Soma
Noooo....!
1.5, for what its worth.
You were saying something about tradition... :p
Do I see laserlight with the "Fffffffuuuuu" face? ^_^;Quote:
Noooo....!
Soma
ff5 has too many bugs that are not resolved. that should have been resolved way before they put anything out as the next ff. for example the "submit crash report" always now stays on in ff5. i fixed it by adding "Crash Reporter" then the value of "0" for the data now it stays off purrrmentaltly. honestly think the crash reporter should be removed and that will boost performance. uther wize i hast seen no increase in speed over ff3.6.16
8 years in a programming forum and you still don't kno how the development process works?Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
What have you been doing all this time? Throwing cats?
uther wize :D
Software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Software development process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
your false accusation is rather vague could you be more specific ? what exactly is it that you think i do not know about "software development" ?
you obviously missed the part " inevitable bugs must then be fixed before the product can be shipped " . of clarity i was talking about KNOWN bugs that have not been fixed before the software is released.
i believe in fixing bugs before sending it out. the exception to that is if i give up on a project then i would put it out there for someone else to finish.Quote:
Without much of a design in the way, programmers immediately begin producing code. At some point, testing begins (often late in the development cycle), and the inevitable bugs must then be fixed before the product can be shipped.
i still do not see how i am incorrect on the "software development" ?
have you seriously taken a look at the source code to firefox ? half of it is in python and the other is javascript. it looks like dogs and monkys coded it. i think it should be rewritten in cpp. all of it.
i would never throw a cat. ever.
That you actually think one should not release a new version before all the bugs of the previous one are fleshed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
And your solution to that is to not release a new Firefox version in the next 1 or 2 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
This reminds me of Things You Should Never Do, Part I :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
Oh, so you can say "........ you" to the developers when you get a crash? Thanks for screwing over the rest of us that can benefit from bug fixes which you might find.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptkat
Re-enable that crash reporter again. Pronto.
Users do not have to respect poorly designed software, which that bug reporter mostly is. Following my last update, after a crash it would endlessly repeat itself, meaning they frequently get the same bug reported ten times. I wouldn't be surprised if that thing isn't even attached to anything, lol -- they have so much data to ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
It's also oriented toward crashes caused by mis-handling content, which is a very optimistic approach: "Oh my software crashed? Somebody must have fed it the wrong thing, because it is bug-free otherwise!"
I still prefer firefox to chrome and the mozilla spin offs like icecat, which if you think firefox can get screwy, try icecat or epiphany for a while. Obviously maintaining and developing these things is a lot of work. But the bug reporter is pointless, methinks. WRT to widescale bugs, they are going to find out anyway. WRT to everything else, that tish goes straight into the garbage. The "bug reporter" is just another creep feature that now has to be debugged and maintained.
The bug reporter isn't related to how buggy (or not) the (a) software is.
I honestly don't think the bug reporter is useless--else why would they have it in there? I don't think the developers are dumb in a sense of maintaining a pointless feature.
I am just going to be optimistic on this one. Submitting a bug report via the crasher will mostly likely not hurt--it shouldn't possible be able to do, and it might do some good. It might help them find some bugs, or at least discover which bugs users are experiencing most.
No, the bug reporter is software all by itself, which relates to how buggy the bug reporter is. And it has at least one glaring bug I described that IMO warrants turning it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Read Voltaire.Quote:
I honestly don't think the bug reporter is useless--else why would they have it in there? I don't think the developers are dumb in a sense of maintaining a pointless feature.
I am just going to be optimistic on this one.
If one more reminder of how dumbing users down because the developers find them too irritating == devolution of life, software, and everything, I would say yes, it does hurt.Quote:
Submitting a bug report via the crasher will mostly likely not hurt--it shouldn't possible be able to do, and it might do some good.
It's worth noting what bug reporters like that are replacing: an intelligent, communicative system which promotes self-responsibility and involvement. I report a bug non-anonymously. You track, publicly, how the bug is being dealt with, and I receive messages informing me and asking for more information if required.
I really cannot see some black box popup which may or may not be doing anything to report the real problem to real people as any kind of improvement. This is like calling customer service and getting a machine, or some kid at a contracted out call center who provides "customer service" for 10 different companies but doesn't know anything about any of them, because they can't afford to train anyone for such an unimportant purpose.
It is not about doing things better. It is about deferring and placating and not having to deal with anything.
Well, if there was an ounce of good intention in there, that was hopefully it. Still not worth being treated like a fool for tho, so mine's off. When they institute a normal "old school" bug tracking system, I'll be happy to describe my problems. Otherwise, I don't need to waste my time.Quote:
It might help them find some bugs, or at least discover which bugs users are experiencing most.
It's not there to treat people like fools, but to allow them to submit useful information fast and quickly in case of crashes. It's not a substitute for real bug reports, so what is the harm?
I'd think everything in your post is harmful. You just admitted that people will get to send "useful" information that is not a substitute for a bug report. That in my opinion defines useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Still haven't turned it off and it hasn't really done anything at all except report when flash or silverlight died on my machine.
Useless? Is that how Microsoft have used their own crash reporting system to identify and fix the most common crash or problem reports?
They are not substitute for bugs reports, but they are not useless.
The fact that you send reports when flash or silverlight dies gives the developers knowledge that these are problematic software, needs patching, and they might even be able to isolate and fix the problem. Okay, so this is a known problem by now, but who says they cannot find other similar cases in the future?
Yeah, the bugzilla tracker is still there, I thought it was gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
That said, I don't need "bug reporting for dummies" because I'm perfectly fine using bugzilla.
Firefox crashes sometimes several times a day for me, but I never saw any feedback demonstrating the bug reporter's report served any purpose at all other than that of one more piece of automated annoyance. So I'm expressing my dissatisfaction with the form and function of the software by not using it.
If the bug reporter does something useful, let the developers be clear about what that is and provide some concrete evidence. If they cannot be bothered to do that, why should I, as a user, be bothered to use their software?
You are a typical user creating headaches for developers.
Oh, a new version (or new feature/software). But I don't see what does it does for me, so I'm just going to skip it.
So you've never customized software before? You've never changed any features at all from the defaults, because you've always been completely satisfied with what the developers decide you want and need? If so, I'm jealous. I want that experience. If not, then I think you're part of the rest of the world, but maybe if you recognize people don't have to like your pet feature you'll be less of a headache right now. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Oh, sure. I like features and customizing software. I don't crack open open source software and modify the code, though. This is what plugins and options are for.
Furthermore, if people dislike some thing, they can just ignore it. But upgrading to the latest software--if it's free, of course--is a given to reduce the headache to the developers and allowing them to produce a better experience.
What the...? But since when I'm obliged to follow every developer whim? I didn't sign an obligation contract with anyone from whom I purchased or adopted software from. I've been using the same Take Command v. 7.01 since 2005. I never upgrade, and never will. It serves my purpose and I don't agree with any of the "new features" introduced in later versions. I never upgraded to AVG 8.0 until I moved to Avast and then Microsoft Security Essentials more than an year later, because they turned a perfectly fine anti-virus into a piece of crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
What do I care if that poses problems to software developers? It's up to software developers (a group I belong to) to suck it up and try to do better software instead of forcing their users into this collaboration BS that just wants to turns users into freebie test subjects. The software on my machine... I use it to be productive. Not to cover the arse of some development team that can't be bothered to test before releasing, or some software development model that puts 75% of the testing process on the hands of their users.
If it works... you'll bet I'll think carefully before upgrading. Sue me.
I wasn't being that callous. I did have it on. It wasn't until it did the infinite loop ("Firefox has crashed, would you like to report a bug?" Click yes. "Firefox has crashed, would you like to report a bug?" ad infinitum) that I turned it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Maybe the thing will develop in a more user friendly direction. If it does, I'll reconsider. But the way it is now, like I said, it represents everything I don't like -- dumbing the user down, unnecessary and inconvenient blackboxing*, dubious functionality coupled with a lot of noisemaking and who-ha. This is the stuff comedy is made of. But the joke is only funny the first few times...
I don't feel I owe the developer anything if the developer can't be bothered to consider how I feel about what s/he's done. I do generally appreciate mozilla, but there must be quite a few cooks in that kitchen**, and obviously they aren't all meeting my standards. Boo hoo.
* blackboxing for convenience is good, but effectively "blackboxing" by default because you are too lazy to expose to the user some degree of functionality is just lazy.
** if bug reporting is important to any of the ones who didn't work on "the bug reporter", mebbe one of them can grab a throat and start asking the hard questions, lol.
How is upgrading when new free versions come out following the developer's every whim? There must always be balance, and I think that such a trivial thing as upgrading every once in a while won't kill you. Obviously, if the software starts to no longer serve your purpose, you simply discard it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Once again, the bug reporter is not in the software because they want to turn it into a testing system. It's in there in case something goes wrong. Do you know 100% bug free software? I certainly don't. And when a bug strikes, and it will regardless of how bug free the software is, you can a free bug report to help you track the bug. What is not to like there?
I don't see a problem. Firefox crashed. Usually, I'd expect either to a) restart it manually or b) get a question if I want to restart it. The crash reporting form does just that. And it submits a report to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by MK27
Firefox users do upgrade their software. They do it more than most people, and that will continue. Now what mozilla does, from what I hear, is automatically progress the browser version, and, unless it's a major version release, people don't get a say.
You're like a great number of people including programmers like us, unless someone here is actually developing a Firefox plugin or Firefox itself. (Sorry.) I'm happy you've never run into a wall with your plugins before though. Some things just don't keep pace with Mozilla development. Of course, you can hack the plugin and increase the max version number yourself....Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
Not to mention 5 is going to retire other versions; if it were like last time, they would be developing 4 and 5 together for a while. This is what actually mitigated the problem users have of upgrading and losing their features. All plugin platforms have this problem.
Oh, but I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
That is the single reason I don't jump on the bandwagon as soon as a new version is released.
Here's a problem: firefox crashed and what does the bug reporter have to say about it? "Firefox crashed." Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
There should at least be some button where you can "see details". This is what I meant by contributing to the "our users aren't dumbed down enough yet -- they still read words and are expecting some kind of information, the fools..." syndrome.
I see. Alright, fair enough. You have a point there.
elysia i just handed you and others a solution not the best solution but a solution that actually works purrrrmentally resolving the issue in a twenty four karat solid gold kitty food dish in a manner elegant enough to be served in a five michelin star restaurant.
that was a very interesting read laserlight thank you. it has some very interesting and valid points. noted and taken under advisement. also bookmarked. i read through 24 pages before i realized it was like a giant ball of string of 1100 pages. it is one thing to know you have a beta version to expect bugs vs a release version that is supposed to have said bugs fixed. well most of them. when it talked about testers that said that they only last three to four months and that anyone qualified to be a test does not want to be a tester and that one good tester is twelve times better than the average tester. but it is more than just testing it is design. there is a lot of cpp in the firefox tgz . i did not say to restart from scratch but i did leave that option open. by suggesting it be written in one lang in theory it should be faster and stream lined. by removing the crash reporter that in theory i believe it will also increase speed. there are some serious security concerns with a script like that. like exactly what information or personal information is being sent. ie when you first want to exploit a system what is the first thing you want to know ? what system what os what type of computer mac or pc or other ? known exploits for said system ? just handing them that system info on a silver tray is a serious security concern.
where exactly does it send the reports ?
it sends it to id.dmp file to be sent "chrome://global/content/crash-submit-form.xhtml"
one option that i would add to firefox would be the MDI CHILD window. like opening a browser in a new window but it would be in the MDI client window area. url box and everything. the advantage of this would be side to side comparison of two web pages or more.
At the current rate they will be at Firefox 23 in a matter of years. I don't like the idea of doing major version bumping at such an increased rate...simply because it seems weird to say "yeah I'm using Firefox 23". Why not use the year like a lot of companies are doing now? Firefox 2011. Firefox 2012. etc
Firefox 2011.1, Firefox 2011.2, Firefox 2011.3, Firefox 2011.4 anyone?