Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
Firefox 76
11–20 of 274 posts
Re: Firefox 76
#12>Firefox now supports Audio Worklets that will allow more complex audio processing like VR and gaming on the web; and is being adopted by some of your favorite software programs. > With this change, you can now join Zoom calls on Firefox without the need for any additional downloads.
Does anyone know if this is something that will benefit Jitsi too?
As an outsider that has done some reading, I believe the biggest thing it still needs is simulcast support, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1210175 tracks that for H.264 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=simulcast is barebones, 1210175 is more interesting). That should be part of the https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1607238 match-WebRTC-spec-updates work. Short story seems to be “nothing is happening at this time”.
Re: Firefox 76
#13>Firefox now supports Audio Worklets that will allow more complex audio processing like VR and gaming on the web; and is being adopted by some of your favorite software programs. > With this change, you can now join Zoom calls on Firefox without the need for any additional downloads.
Does anyone know if this is something that will benefit Jitsi too?
Indications are "likely yes", given this issue on Jitsi Meet's tracker with lots of Firefox 76 discussion and bug links in it:
Re: Firefox 76
#14Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
I prefer date-based version numbers so that I can easily tell how out of date something is - assuming it's updated frequently enough.
But either way, I don't think this is a particularly important issue.
Re: Firefox 76
#15In the security bug fixes: >>> CVE-2020-12387: Use-after-free during worker shutdown >>> Impact: critical >>> A race condition when running shutdown code for Web Worker led to a use-after-free vulnerability. This resulted in a potentially exploitable crash. And: >>> CVE-2020-12388: Sandbox escape with improperly guarded Access Tokens >>> Impact: critical >>> The Firefox content processes did not sufficiently lockdown…
> CVE-2020-12388: Sandbox escape with improperly guarded Access Tokens
Perhaps it's the same as the Chromium one reported here recently? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22945630
Re: Firefox 76
#16Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
I want to figure out who to talk to on both Firefox and Chrome sides to beg that they adopt a scheme like YYYY.MM.minor for their version numbering. I believe that would be superior for basically everyone—web developers, users, &c. (In the case of Firefox, it works especially well since they’re releasing approximately monthly now. I could imagine people on Chrome puzzling over why some month numbers got skipped—not that people actually look at those numbers often.)
Re: Firefox 76
#17Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
I want to figure out who to talk to on both Firefox and Chrome sides to beg that they adopt a scheme like YYYY.MM.minor for their version numbering. I believe that would be superior for basically everyone —web developers, users, &c. (In the case of Firefox, it works especially well since they’re releasing approximately monthly now. I could imagine people on Chrome puzzling over why some month numbers got skipped—not…
Might affect (dumb) uses that rely on the current increasing version number scheme in user agent strings and package/deployment scripts.
Re: Firefox 76
#18[deleted]
Re: Firefox 76
#19Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
I want to figure out who to talk to on both Firefox and Chrome sides to beg that they adopt a scheme like YYYY.MM.minor for their version numbering. I believe that would be superior for basically everyone —web developers, users, &c. (In the case of Firefox, it works especially well since they’re releasing approximately monthly now. I could imagine people on Chrome puzzling over why some month numbers got skipped—not…
Try talking to the guys who keep "improving" location bar. Maybe that will keep them busy for a few releases.
Re: Firefox 76
#20Firefox made a huge mistake following in Chrome's trail with the version numbering scheme. I just don't care about Firefox 76, is it a big change? Is there some new feature I would want to try? Who knows, I'm sure Firefox 77 will be out soon though!
How is that addressed by a more traditional version number? There are many examples of major software upgrades reflected by a change in minor version number, minor software updates reflected by a change in major version number, or a major new release having less functionality than the previous version (e.g. Final Cut Pro X). With mature software like Firefox, what even is a "major change"?
Calling it Firefox 13.17.6 is not an improvement.