

Firefox 6 available, version 8 to offer add-on control - carusen
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Firefox-6-available-version-8-to-offer-add-on-control-1322874.html

======
jcromartie
How you can know Chrome is doing this kind of versioning correctly: when you
_don't know or care_ what version of Chrome you're running.

~~~
dpcan
YES! I have never been happier with my switch to Chrome.

I'm actually quite frustrated with myself for having put my friends and family
on Firefox as it's constantly needing updates, getting new versions, changing
its look, etc.

It's more frustrating than dealing with IE now.

Mozilla's game of "look how fast we are moving" is absolutely frustrating and
painful.

I can just click my "About Chrome" link now, and it says it's up to date. How
refreshing.

EDIT: All a Firefox update means to me anymore is that my plugins won't work
anymore so I need to stick with an outdated, probably less secure, and slower
Firefox version.

~~~
AndrewDucker
I've not had a problem with addons since 3.6. They've autoupgraded all the
ones on the Mozilla site, so far as I can tell.

------
fedorabbit
Just downloaded Firefox 6. Umm... I don't have benchmark software to test
internal improvements, but I don't really feel like any difference. Probably
because Firefox 5 is already fast enough for me. But Xmarks addon is broken
now, and I experienced some issues with trying to install some of the add-ons.
Everything else is fine.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Yeah, it doesn't look like there are massive changes in 6. 7 is where the
changes for memory are coming in, I'm rather looking forward to that.

On the other hand, the list of fixed bugs is pretty massive:
[http://www.mozilla.com/en-
US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglis...](http://www.mozilla.com/en-
US/firefox/6.0/releasenotes/buglist.html)

------
jpdoctor
Won't bother with the upgrades until add-ons upgrading is dealt sensibly.

~~~
AgentConundrum
This is my biggest problem with Firefox. Up until Thursday, I was still
running 3.6 because I really dislike dealing with add-on issues during
upgrades. When a new version of Firefox comes out, I tend to backup my
install, upgrade to see how badly it breaks, then revert back out to the older
version.

When I finally upgraded to v5, I spent a solid hour trying to get the thing
back into a workable state.

The biggest mistake I ever made with Firefox was installing Tab Mix Plus,
because now I have easily manageable rows of tabs, which led me to using tabs
as ephemeral bookmarks - things I want to read but not now. I currently have
175 tabs open (and no, I don't complain about memory usage - it's not that bad
and I know what usage there is is my own fault).

To keep things in check, I use an extension called BarTab, which keeps tabs
unloaded on restart until I switch to that tab. Upon upgrading to FF5, that
extension broke horribly, leading all of my tabs to fire at once. Turning off
compatibility checking didn't fix it, and neither did installing a beta
version upgrade to the extension. In the end, I had to go searching the
extension library until I found something called BarTab Lite, which worked.

Also, my theme was incompatible with Firefox >=4, but I resigned myself to
just deal with it, since I was tired of being made fun of for not upgrading a
not-quite-five-months out-of-date browser (the community seems to be becoming
one of the worst parts of Firefox). Eventually, I found a new theme, which was
a non-linked upgrade to my old one. It would be nice if that was a little more
obvious.

That was a long winded way of saying I'd like to see more explicit links
between extensions. Rather than saying "there are no upgrades for this broken
extension", I'd prefer that there be a way to identify "spiritual successors"
so that Firefox can tell you "it's got a different name, but this is where
extension Foo lives now."

It would have saved me a lot of time and trouble, because as it stands right
now it seems a lot of broken extensions don't have upgrades when really they
do - they're just hidden and you need to spend some time looking for them.

(Sorry.. /rant)

------
alok-g
As far as you can "trust" the updates that come, version numbers are not very
useful. I generally see minor versions as bug fixes (number of bugs reduced
hopefully) and major versions as major feature changes (number of bugs most
likely increased).

Now I just cannot tell anymore whether to upgrade or not. Believe it or not,
the current browser* is running just fine for me. I am OK with a speedier
browser etc, but not at the cost of more trouble.

* Does it really matter which? (Firefox 5)

------
jolie92
Rapidrelease is really confusing me wildly, and all my customers. You support
which of the 50 combined Chrome and FireFox versions now?

~~~
AndrewDucker
There are three versions of Firefox: Release (the version that you should be
using) Beta (If you want to do some testing, or don't care about minor
instability) Aurora (If you are feeling particularly risky and need a new
feature NOW).

That's it.

------
samic
the only thing that changed for me is disabling of some add-ons due to
compatibility problem!!

------
ivanbernat
Unfortunately, FireBug doesn't work in FF6.

~~~
capnrefsmmat
The latest Firebug claims to be compatible with FF5 and 6:

<http://blog.getfirebug.com/2011/08/10/firebug-1-8-1/>

You should try updating all your addons.

------
josscrowcroft
What the heck, I seriously updated to FF 5.0.1 TWO DAYS AGO

Still, this is great.

------
ck2
Firefox _9_ will be out this December, lol,
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar>

Who on earth though this was a good idea?

So, every six weeks a new release - that means Version _15_ this time next
year. Seriously?

~~~
kylec
I agree, the new version numbers are stupid. If they wanted to copy Chrome's
rapid-release schedule, they should have just ditched the version numbers
altogether (like Chrome) and just continuously and transparently kept their
install base up to date.

There's also a real practical problem to fast-growing version numbers.
Historically, a major release would have major new features and might break
existing extensions. Minor releases were typically safe to install and were
designed to be as compatible as possible with the version they were
supplanting. With new major versions of Firefox coming out every 6 weeks
you're constantly checking to make sure they haven't changed something
critical.

~~~
nxn
Chrome has version numbers. And similarly, firefox doesn't make a big deal
about new version releases since 4.0 was out. The ones that do make a big deal
out of them are blogs and tech sites, but those will get bored of doing so
soon enough.

~~~
tghw
Chrome hides the version number, because 98% of the time, it doesn't matter.
There's no mention of it on there download page
(<http://www.google.com/chrome/>). They make it available only if you need to
get specific.

Firefox, OTOH, still advertises their version number right on the download
button (<http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/>).

~~~
mtogo
Chrome has no version number, firefox has a tiny version number on the button.
You're really going to say that chrome is better because of that?

So HN has gotten past the language holy wars, but now they're arguing about
something ridiculous like which browser is somehow better. Fantastic.

~~~
tghw
No where did I say it was "better", I'm just pointing out that Google has
effectively made Chrome version-less, while Firefox is still making a big deal
about each of their new versions, despite them having fewer changes.

I think you're looking for conflict where there is none. I use both browsers,
depending on what I'm using them for.

~~~
mtogo
How do you check the chrome version? Wrench -> About Chrome

How do you check the firefox version? Firefox -> Help -> About firefox

Does chrome post a blog post when there is a new version? Yes.

Does firefox post a blog post when there is a new version? Yes.

Does someone on HN make a thread when there is a new version of either?
Usually.

Neither one is making a big deal about their versions. _You_ are.

~~~
tghw
I'm just pointing out differences. Hardly a big deal, it's just clear that
Mozilla is still transitioning to thinking less about distinct versions.

A couple of examples of where Mozilla does make the version number clear:

* The download link

* The downloaded file (Firefox Setup 6.0.exe)

* The new version page that automatically comes up the first time you run the new version (<http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/6.0/whatsnew/>)

* And, most annoyingly, the add-on version check and resulting incompatibilities.

That last one actually is kind of a pain, since, as other people have
mentioned, not all add-on authors have updated their add-ons to be compatible
with 6.0, despite that being a single character change to an XML file for 98%
of them. (Fortunately, addons.mozilla.org does this for authors, so it is only
the ones hosting the add-ons themselves that are a problem.)

