Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#51

Post by webwanderings »

sabret00the wrote: post #43
webwanderings wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know one person's opinion doesn't matter, but I owe it as my duty to tell a parting friend that I am parting ways. Given that this friend has no interest in taking people's opinions (there is no official mechanism in place to take opinions), HN is as good as any other place to make statements. Now, why the "fuck" do you care if what I write here has anything to do with the article or not? Perhaps something is lurki…

Thanks for putting some context on your content. I too was wondering what you were getting at with it. In regards to Mozilla "not listening", did you file bugs for your ideas/gripes?

No, I didn't and I wouldn't. I already mentioned, as an average user .... I don't think average users care for bugs or gripes via reports.

In any case, given that my comment is being treated like any other noise, here's a few words to make it distinguishable...for whatever it is worth and for whoever that cares.

1. Whatever the heck is happening with Tags in bookmarks? Is anyone working on adopting any standards? People don't realize but holding up your bookmarks in FF via Tags is a death trap. Chrome apparently is not willing to support the tags and you will be stuck with FF if you care deeply about Tagging your bookmarks. Besides, FF for long has stopped innovating (read developing) their Bookmarks Manager.

2. Speed: No matter what anyone says and no matter the reasons, Chrome is certainly speedier. Besides, in my example (I use only two add-on and limited number of tabs) my hard drive spins and makes noise whenever I am on FF and it is absolutely silent when I am on Chrome (please don't blame my profile for it, I use multiple profiles and I know how to clean etc).

3. Syncing on Chrome is as straightforward as it should be and they also encrypt data.

Just a few on top of my list.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#53

Post by DEinspanjer »

melling wrote: post #30

How many people here have stuck with 3.6? It looks like it's only a few percent of FF users ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox It was a really long road but with 3.6 essentially gone and silent updates, developers can worry a lot less about legacy in the Firefox world.

That is correct, only a few percent of active Firefox installations still run 3.6, and the majority of those are active less than once per week.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#54

Post by dangoor »

ineedtosleep wrote: post #52

I hope they keep plugging away at making their developer tools better. I use Firefox as my main browser, but I often have to switch to Chrome because Firebug's performance is pretty crappy even on my Ivy Bridge laptop (with 16GB of RAM).

We are indeed plugging away on the tools (and they are getting better each release :)

Firebug will be getting faster as well as they are working on putting Firebug on top of the new debugging API in Firefox (which has much better performance than the old).

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#55

Post by mburns »

freehunter wrote: post #18
superxor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's time to cut this 'version number' debate. Mozilla has been pretty clear about the plan to use such a system. The only problem was from enterprise users which Mozilla has addressed. The background auto-update is in the stable builds now, should be enough to keep FF updated. I am really tired of this versioning non-sense. Users complained, Mozilla addressed legitimate concerns. Now it's just a difference i…

I know they've been very open about why they're using major revision numbers for minor features. I don't like it when Chrome does it either. I just don't like the arms race that is developing to have the higher revision number. I just get a little disappointed when I see a new major number and the changelog is minor additions and bugfixes. Just because Mozilla has their reason for making the change doesn't mean every…

The Linux kernel does it too. Ubuntu and Gnome do a steady release as well, just not quite as rapidly. Chrome isn't alone by a longshot.

This rapid release schedule is just the most efficient way for these teams to deliver new features in a stable way. Taking 1-2 years to land code in the next major, stable version of the product just isn't practical anymore.

People get way too hung up on the actual number.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#56

Post by Achshar »

SeanDav wrote: post #14

Still my favourite browser by far. I usually have 3-4 windows open and up to several hundred tabs and Firefox handles this better than anything else.

I can't fathom a reason for "several hundred tabs" unless your job specifically requires you to open that number of tabs for some (albeit strange) reason.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#57

Post by Achshar »

freehunter wrote: post #18
superxor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's time to cut this 'version number' debate. Mozilla has been pretty clear about the plan to use such a system. The only problem was from enterprise users which Mozilla has addressed. The background auto-update is in the stable builds now, should be enough to keep FF updated. I am really tired of this versioning non-sense. Users complained, Mozilla addressed legitimate concerns. Now it's just a difference i…

I know they've been very open about why they're using major revision numbers for minor features. I don't like it when Chrome does it either. I just don't like the arms race that is developing to have the higher revision number. I just get a little disappointed when I see a new major number and the changelog is minor additions and bugfixes. Just because Mozilla has their reason for making the change doesn't mean every…

> I just get a little disappointed when I see a new major number and the changelog is minor additions and bugfixes.

Don't be. There will be no "major additions" anymore. They will now release small features, quickly. So no major feature bump. Hence no need to wait for one either. It's like a number of small steps instead of one giant leap.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#58

Post by dangoor »

vnuk wrote: post #32
sabret00the wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web Apps are a very real part of the future of the web. The fact that this space exists in the first place whereby there was only desktop apps previously should be testament enough to that. I may not personally agree with Mozilla in regards to the role of web apps, but I think that we all agree, it's better to be in a position to allow users to make their own minds up rather than go off of what a few loud naysayers w…

If Wev Apps are a very real part of the future of the web why isn't there a standard for that? Or in another words, if it is the future why haven't they all sat down and agreed upon a standard?? This way we'll be begging jQuery for Web Apps or some other abstraction layer that will do all the dirty work of cross browser compatibility... I don't see a standard for Web Apps on http://www1.webplatform.org/ anywhere ...

Most of Web Apps are already in the standard (appcache, indexeddb, etc.) and I know there has been some communication around manifest formats (but I'm not directly involved in that).

Generally speaking, though, the difference between one definition of "web app" and another is very small, in terms of what the platform has to support.

I'll also note the perspective that sometimes it takes a couple of implementations before the "right" solution is known. Many evolutions of the web standards have followed varying implementations being played with in the field.

Re: Firefox 16 live: Here's What's New

#60

Post by cutie »

chousuke wrote: post #37
freehunter wrote: post #3

I wish they'd just bump the version number to 30 then save major revision numbers for major revisions. I don't see anything in here that would warrant anything but a bump from 15 to 15.5 under the old Firefox revision standards.

The thing is, given the Firefox project's new development model, their old versioning scheme makes absolutely no sense. Deciding which version numbner to bump would be completely arbitrary and exactly as informative as just using a single number that tells the user "this version is newer than the one with a lower number", which is the only useful information they can convey using version numbers. Would you also be on…

Linux versioning now makes more sense--in that every new release is a minor release. Fits better with the historical use of such numbers.
Post reply on HN