|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

[Posted December 17, 2008 by corbet]

From:  Samuel Sidler <ss-AT-mozilla.com>
To:  announce-AT-lists.mozilla.org
Subject:  Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 now available for download
Date:  Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:30:16 -0800
Message-ID:  <8FB196E4-8CF0-40BB-A78C-496832E9E7B0@mozilla.com>
Cc:  "dev. planning" <dev-planning-AT-lists.mozilla.org>

(follow-up to mozilla.dev.planning / dev-planning@lists.mozilla.org)

As part of Mozilla Corporation's ongoing stability and security update  
process, Firefox 3.0.5 and Firefox 2.0.0.19 are now available for  
Windows, Mac, and Linux as free downloads:

     * Firefox 3.0.5 is available at http://getfirefox.com/
     * Firefox 2.0.0.19 is available at http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/all-older.html

Mozilla is not planning any further security & stability updates for  
Firefox 2, and recommends that you upgrade to Firefox 3 as soon as  
possible. It's free, and your settings and bookmarks will be preserved.

Also, the Phishing Protection service will no longer be available for  
Firefox 2 users. Firefox 3 offers a free Phishing and Malware  
Protection service, which will continue to protect you from online  
scams and attacks.

If you already have Firefox 3 or Firefox 2, you will receive an  
automated update notification within 24 to 48 hours. This update can  
also be applied manually by selecting "Check for Updates?" from the  
Help menu.

For a list of changes and more information, please review the Firefox  
3.0.5 Release Notes and the Firefox 2.0.0.19 Release Notes:

     * http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/3.0.5/releasenotes/
     * http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/2.0.0.19/releasenotes/

Note: All Firefox 2.0.0.x users are strongly recommended to upgrade to  
Firefox 3.0.5 by downloading it from http://getfirefox.com/.

_______________________________________________
announce mailing list
announce@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/announce

to post comments

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 14:36 UTC (Wed) by kfiles (subscriber, #11628) [Link] (2 responses)

Moving to 3.0 would be fine -- if there were a replacement ready for Google Browser Sync. As it is, Mozilla Weave is still in closed beta, and apparently still very unstable and with no centralized server available.

With 3 computers I move between, having bookmarks, passwords, and open tabs synced as I switch from desktop to laptop to home laptop is critical.

Obviously, YMMV. Some people may be fine with just one computer.

I've also noticed problems with performance of page rendering and scrolling in 3.0 for linux (e.g., NYT, slashdot). I don't know if this is due to cairo changes or what, but it's quite a bit worse. Overall, from my personal testing, 3.0 is generally better (I don't have to restart each day to avoid slowness due to massive memory leakage), but there are some pretty bad regressions for some page layouts.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 14:58 UTC (Wed) by damic (guest, #7275) [Link]

Perhaps Foxmarks could be an option to synchronize bookmarks and passwords.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 18, 2008 12:03 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

So people are trapped on Firefox 2 because of an extension from one part of Google requires it, but ought to move to Firefox 3 because a different extension from a different part of Google is now supporting version 3 only?

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 14:41 UTC (Wed) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (19 responses)

Maybe it's time to fix the Firefox 3 bug where the browser autoraises when it finishes rendering a page? How hard can it be?

Mozilla 2 mostly does not have this problem.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 14:44 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (11 responses)

Do you have a bug report on this?

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 18:52 UTC (Wed) by bucky (guest, #53055) [Link] (8 responses)

Uh, if I don't like a particular brand of peanut butter, I do not write to the CEO of the company and complain. I simply use a different brand of peanut butter.

In general, one does NOT constantly whine and complain to manufacturers about their products. It is NOT my responsibility to make Skippy better as long as Jif is available (for example).

This guy is disappointed that his preferred brand of peanut butter is being discontinued. He has a right to his feelings. He does NOT have a responsibility to participate in the manufacture of his favorite brand of peanut butter every second of his waking life.

Indeed, I can't seem to find Jif available in decent size containers very much anymore (except for the icky crunchy one, for some reason). I may indeed switch to Skippy Natural. Whether I change or not, I won't be writing to anybody about it, and I frankly resent the implication that I should.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 19:47 UTC (Wed) by vomlehn (guest, #45588) [Link] (7 responses)

So, you don't write to the CEO and complain, but you're willing take up my time by complaining in a forum that may go completely unread by anyone with the power to make a change. How do you think your problem will ever be addressed if you don't communicate it to the people who can fix it?

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 20:17 UTC (Wed) by bucky (guest, #53055) [Link] (6 responses)

I wasn't really responding to the guy complaining about Firefox 2 reaching end of life.

If an end user explains to you--ANYWHERE--what he doesn't like about your product, that information is valuable. It's valuable even if he's saying something you don't want to hear. It's valuable ESPECIALLY if it's something you don't want to hear. It's valuable even if it would have been more useful in another place or at another time.

I see this kind of conversation all the time:

User: "I use product X, because product Y sucked/crashed/has fewer features/didn't suit me."

Developer: "Did you file a bug report?"

If the user offers his opinion at all, you have the freedom to take it or leave it, but (1) it's his opinion and he's entitled to it, and (2) whether he's filed a bug report or not has no bearing on whether his comment is apt or not.

This is a very difficult truth, but it's the truth nonetheless: It isn't the user's responsibility to explain to the developer why his product sucks. If he offers his opinion at all, it's a GIFT and should be treated as such.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 20:37 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

I wasn't passing any judgment about the aptness of his comment. From the description, it wasn't clear what he was talking about. Maybe he has filed a bug report. I was merely asking for a reference. Nothing wrong with it. Btw, I am not a developer of Firefox an your analogy seems to not fit at all to me.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 20:39 UTC (Wed) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link] (2 responses)

At the risk of feeding a troll...

We don't write to retail consumer goods manufacturers because in general there is very little chance that they will respond in any useful way. Since these goods tend to be highly interchangeable, brand switching is a reasonable alternative strategy. We do write bug reports for open source software packages because in general they have a history of fixing reported bugs. Since these packages tend to be minimally interchangeable, brand switching is not a reasonable alternative strategy.

Open source software is different enough from retail consumer goods to make most analogies between the two useless.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 23:32 UTC (Wed) by massysett (guest, #52736) [Link] (1 responses)

"We do write bug reports for open source software packages because in general they have a history of fixing reported bugs. Since these packages tend to be minimally interchangeable, brand switching is not a reasonable alternative strategy."

If this were true, there would not be so many examples of products that were forked because users and developers were not satisfied with the rate of development of a particular product. EGCS and XEmacs immediately spring to mind, and one could even put Firefox in this category. I can also think of projects that were started not as forks but solely because the author was thoroughly disgusted with an existing product--for example, the author of Getmail discusses many bugs that were not fixed in Fetchmail for years.

Furthermore, there often is interchangeability. There are lots of Vi clones (and different editors altogether), multiple desktop environments, different Web browsers, multiple music players.

I recently had a problem with a music player. I thought of bugreporting it, so I looked at the bug database. There were multiple bugs similar to the one I had reported. Many had never been dealt with; others were marked invalid. This is for a product that is not a hallmark of stability in the first place. I did not bugreport it. That would have been a waste of time. Instead I found another solution. My solution is not entirely comparable--I use multiple products where before I used just one--but it works just fine and is much more stable.

Obviously every project is different. But the comparisons to commercial products are entirely valid. Why should I continue using a product that has problems that are (at least for me) crippling, when I can go use another product that has fewer problems? I'm supposed to reward the sloppy project with bug reports, instead of using the project that has taken the time to code carefully so that there aren't so many bugs in the first place?

Free software bug reporting

Posted Dec 21, 2008 22:51 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

We are talking about a Free software project here. Most probably you have not payed a dime to them but still you are using the product of their work. It is hard to see the analogy with commercial products that actively seek your money, when all you do is use their software for free.

There are a lot of brands for peanut butter. There are also a lot of music players out there. But there are not so many alternatives for Firefox that we can discard it just for one (annoying but) little bug. Helping them with bug reporting -- or even better bug fixes -- is in the end helping us all.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 21:54 UTC (Wed) by TxtEdMacs (guest, #5983) [Link]

RE: If he [the user] offers his opinion at all, it's a GIFT and should be treated as such.

I am struck by my ignorance, in the case of Firefox, I thought the gift was a useful application. Indeed, I regretted I could not help out on the beta stage with the most recent version as I tried with 1.5 and 2.0.

Now I am enlightened to learn I had it all wrong. I need not be neither appreciative nor feel any responsibility for the gift ... oops, why do I keep getting it so wrong. I guess I will have to learn with practice I owe nothing to anyone but am entitled to take freely. Sounds like the small government people.

Thanks for the wisdom.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 19, 2008 23:27 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

> It isn't the user's responsibility to explain to the developer why his
product sucks. If he offers his opinion at all, it's a GIFT and should be
treated as such.

It depends on the form of the gift and the situation. To offer another
bad analogy; if passing dogs would gift my lawn with their turds, my small
children might treat them with delight. I would be more ambivalent.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 21, 2008 0:06 UTC (Sun) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (1 responses)

The bug was filed long ago. There is no interest in a fix, it seems.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 21, 2008 0:08 UTC (Sun) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

That is, the developers don't seem to be interseted in investigating the regression. Given the complexity of the software, I'm not either.

Not sure what I should expect, but some projects are more attentive.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 15:09 UTC (Wed) by dag- (guest, #30207) [Link]

I have not seen this, but what annoys me is that if you do not accept cookies by default, the browser will focus the tab with a cookie pop-up. So when starting the browser with a lot of TABs be prepared to follow Firefox's focus bouncing a few times around.

Similarly, if you have a password manager password set and you are behind an authenticated proxy server, every TAB using the proxy will pop-up the password entry dialog. So you end up with a massive amount of pop-ups, while in fact you'd expect to only enter the password once. You have to cancel all the other dialogs and then reload the TABs manually.

I should go and report these (but I doubt they have not been reported already).

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 16:29 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (5 responses)

> Maybe it's time to fix the Firefox 3 bug where the browser autoraises when it finishes rendering a page? How hard can it be?

It's a "feature."

It's past time that the X Windows System was fixed so that it doesn't allow clients (other than the window manager) to raise windows.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 17:45 UTC (Wed) by uravanbob (guest, #4050) [Link]

policy vs mechanism - X has pretty much always strived to provide mechanism and avoid policy which has resulted in the wealth of ideas and products available - then again, YMMV

Good news for you then

Posted Dec 17, 2008 20:31 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

It's past time that the X Windows System was fixed so that it doesn't allow clients (other than the window manager) to raise windows.

X Windows System never had such ability. You need Window Manager to do that. Try to kill your WM and Firefox will never be raised. Of course nothing else will be raised either...

Good news for you then

Posted Dec 18, 2008 6:13 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (2 responses)

Incorrect. If there is no window manager, then the raise will simply succeed. If there is a window manager, then it will intercept the raise request, and it can decide to allow it or not (or do something else entirely -- my impression is that metacity refuses to raise windows on request, and sets the window's "attention requested" flag instead; but OTOH if an app creates a transient window then the parent window gets auto-raised).

Good news for you then

Posted Dec 19, 2008 22:19 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, I confused the issue in my first comment.

What I should have said was that X should be fixed so that an application can't grap the focus.

Good news for you then

Posted Dec 19, 2008 22:50 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

That would be nice, but it's baked into the design pretty bad... the window manager commonly doesn't actually assign focus itself; when it wants to give some app the focus, it signals that app and the app is responsible for stealing focus itself. So to do this non-intrusively, you have to distinguish between normal focus stealing and bad focus stealing. Sigh.

not everybody can upgrade yet

Posted Dec 17, 2008 15:09 UTC (Wed) by gjvo (guest, #951) [Link] (3 responses)

That leaves us in a fix... firefox 3 does not run on our SuSE enterprise desktop boxes. Drop back to seamonkey?

not everybody can upgrade yet

Posted Dec 17, 2008 18:34 UTC (Wed) by muwlgr (guest, #35359) [Link]

I would call that "drop forward", as Seamonkey has always provided more complete and seamless experience by virtue of including mail/news. Seamonkey2 promises to have RSS feed reader as well.

not everybody can upgrade yet

Posted Dec 18, 2008 6:18 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] (1 responses)

Doesn't "enterprise" mean that you can ask SuSE that question and they have to come up with an answer (or already have)?

not everybody can upgrade yet

Posted Dec 18, 2008 8:19 UTC (Thu) by gjvo (guest, #951) [Link]

In our case, "enterprise" means we have not been able to download *any* patches yet (for over a
year), which is pretty bad value for money. I think we'll switch to OpenSUSE.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 17:18 UTC (Wed) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (1 responses)

Still no solution to the bug which sometimes randomly chooses an action(open the link, bookmark it, etc.) when you click with the right button on a link? It's been there since 3.0.

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 23:13 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

I vote +1...

OSX 10.3 users *can't* update...

Posted Dec 17, 2008 19:40 UTC (Wed) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link]

I'm in the unpleasant position of using a old Mac with 10.3.9 on it -- I can't update to Firefox 3, because it requires 10.4 or later. Well, I guess I'll just hope I don't run into any security problems...

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 20:53 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link] (2 responses)

And for those who doesn't want to upgrade to gtk 2.10 just for the sake of a web browser?

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 17, 2008 23:14 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (1 responses)

They can choose not to upgrade...

Firefox 3.0.5 and 2.0.0.19 released

Posted Dec 18, 2008 3:10 UTC (Thu) by a_hippie (guest, #34) [Link]

shame they can't provide a statically linked version for folks who want to run slim/older systems.

Guess Opera is still available for users seeking a good browser.

regards,


Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds