Will Google Kill Firefox?

[Silvgearx]

Firefox 4.0 was release on March 2011, now it is up to 8.0 and 9.0 is in beta. WTF. All these updates are so minor and useless. FF has pushed me to the edge....

Chome? no thanks I'll use opera or if I must, back to IE.

[Avenger212]

I use to love firefox, because they did not update as much! Now they looked like google chrome but slower. But I have used this browser since it was released so I am going to stay. Because I believe it is still a safer browser even though it is slower.

[Jebusman]

Originally Posted by Desiato

Are you sure you're not projecting meaning onto their words? Personally, I'm in favour of a more or less corporation-neutral browser; especially after the mess IE caused and became. I'm not comfortable with Microsoft, Apple and Google collectively dominating the browser market and the web platform(s). In any case, what does the ideological views of the Mozilla Foundation -- which it has always had -- have to do with the quality of their software?

The web is evolving rapidly, in a large part because of Google's aggressive Chrome development that has changed expectations, and therefore Firefox must also be developed more rapidly.

My personal recent experience with Firefox has been very good. The memory management in version 8 is amazing compared to prior versions.

Look, I appreciate the ideological views of the Mozilla Foundation as much as the next guy, and I would love for the world to be a nice land of free and open source software, and maybe my post was worded a "little" too over the top, but Mozilla can't just play the underdog card anymore and hope to succeed. It needs to compete, and it hasn't done much in the past while to really help itself. If anything all they've done is shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly with mistake after mistake, and focusing more on adding new features than fixing old problem.

The fact that it took up to version 8 for Mozilla to seriously fix the memory issues (which have been around as long as the browser existed) is testament to that.

[Desiato]

Originally Posted by Jebusman

Look, I appreciate the ideological views of the Mozilla Foundation as much as the next guy, and I would love for the world to be a nice land of free and open source software, and maybe my post was worded a "little" too over the top, but Mozilla can't just play the underdog card anymore and hope to succeed.

What does this even mean? And again, what does it have to do with the quality of their software? Mozilla attempting to educate users on the value of Free Open Source software is neither an indictment on commercial software nor does it relate to the quality of their products. It's essentially marketing.

It needs to compete, and it hasn't done much in the past while to really help itself. If anything all they've done is shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly with mistake after mistake, and focusing more on adding new features than fixing old problem.

Which mistakes? It goes without saying they've made them, but which ones bother you so much? Firefox has become more competitive by improving performance and fixing some old issues. It's not perfect, but it's probably better than ever -- as far as I can tell.

The fact that it took up to version 8 for Mozilla to seriously fix the memory issues (which have been around as long as the browser existed) is testament to that.

That they fixed an old problem is a testament to the fact the browser needed to be updated. As far as I can tell, each new version has brought significant new features and optimizations. These are necessary to compete in the present and in the future. Firefox wasn't going to resolve its memory issues, javascript performance or prepare the foundation for upcoming web features without updates.

Chrome's development has been just as rapid, only updates occur silently in the background with no easy option to rollback versions. I prefer the flexibility and security of traditional software updates. I definitely don't want every single software publisher to be installing their own update service in Windows as Google has.

Frankly, I find the recent animosity towards Firefox to be baffling. The really crazy part is that updates may be more significant, but they're not necessarily more frequent.

Version 3.5 went up to 3.5.7 in six months (currently 3.5.19). 3.6 sits at version 3.6.24. In the five months since rapid release development began, there has been 5, 6, 7, 7.01 and 8 -- I believe.

So contrary to perception, updates have become more significant and less frequent.

[Bond007]

I still use firefox and love it. Hopefully they don't go away or get so ridiculous that I have to switch.

[Shadowmeph]

my firefox is actually version 11.0a1 (2011-12-05) but is is brand a spanking new 64 bit Nightly build ;)

[MacJunky]

Originally Posted by Desiato

In the five months since rapid release development began, there has been 5, 6, 7, 7.01 and 8 -- I believe.
So contrary to perception, updates have become more significant and less frequent.

Except that they did not make much in the way of changes aside from v4. The point of rapid release is to pad your version numbers for epeen.

[YukonTrooper]

Firefox is not even close to pushing me away. The frequent updates are a little bewildering, but Firefox still offers me the most functionality and personalization of all the browsers. There are too many add-ons that I consider sacrosanct to let Firefox go.

[Desiato]

Originally Posted by MacJunky

Except that they did not make much in the way of changes aside from v4. The point of rapid release is to pad your version numbers for epeen.

I disagree. In fewer releases over roughly the same period of time, we've seen *much* more change in versions 5 through 8 than in 3.5 from its release through version 3.5.7 before 3.6 was released.

As the name implies, the purpose Rapid Release development is to increase the pace of development and roll-out new features in less time. The goal is to release new features with 12-18 weeks after conception as they're completed within a six week browser development cycle -- which the new versions represent.

Under the old system, Firefox 5 would not have fit as 4.02 or 4.1 or 5, but rather a combination of the three. This is true of each release under the new development system: a combination of fixes, updates, new features and optimizations; whereas before almost all updates were for only security and stability fixes.

Whether potential marketing benefits affected the version numbers as assumed by some, I cannot say; however the coinciding changes to the development process were substantive and not superficial in the least.

Here's an article that outlines the pros and cons pretty well:

Mozilla proposes not-so-rapid-release Firefox | Deep Tech - CNET News

Originally Posted by cnet

The rapid-release plan is designed to bring new features to Firefox users sooner and to smooth the development process. Instead of waiting a year or so for a large set of new features, Firefox users wait a few weeks for a small set. And no more can a single new feature hold up an entire release. Instead, it's pushed back six weeks while the other changes are shipped. With a focus on a schedule rather than a version number, developers ideally can ship a new feature when it's done, not hastily push it into users' hands before its ready.
<snip>
Google pioneered the rapid-release schedule with Chrome, starting with a three-month process then spinning faster with a six-week cycle.

[Supergrover]

Palemoon and when I am on other rigs Comodo dragon.
I doubt I will move from Palemoon (FF clone for those that dont know) since it has all my add on that I use daily. IDC about resourses TBH I mean it isnt like this rig is slow or under powered. Other rigs in the house I dont use as many add ons.