Browser

Has the Mozilla Foundation lost its collective mind?

After a long downward trend in quality for the Firefox browser, the Mozilla Foundation has decided to add insult to injury by eliminating the ability to at least stick with an older version until extensions are updated to the newest -- and to do so after only three months of release status for version 4.

Over recent years, my articles about Firefox have been getting less complimentary. Watch the trend, with a selection of articles:

  • Microsoft may be Firefox's worst vulnerability: In the words of Annoyances.org about a .NET service pack update in 2009, "This update adds to Firefox one of the most dangerous vulnerabilities present in all versions of Internet Explorer: the ability for websites to easily and quietly install software on your PC. Since this design flaw is one of the reasons you may've originally choosen to abandon IE in favor of a safer browser like Firefox, you may wish to remove this extension with all due haste." In a follow-up article, Microsoft makes Firefox vulnerable; Mozilla responds, I related to readers the message of a Mozilla Firefox warning, "Firefox has determined that the following add-ons are known to cause stability or security problems". It referred, of course, to extensions pushed by Microsoft updates.
  • Fine-grained cookie management in Firefox: While its functionality in this realm is far from perfect, this article explained that Firefox offers fine-grained cookie management capabilities unmatched by its biggest competitors. This offered a more hands-on, Firefox-specific explanation of how to accomplish what I described in an earlier article, Paranoid cookie management.
  • Is Firefox + Perspectives the most secure browser For TLS/SSL encryption?: Due primarily to the fact that, at the time, the Perspectives verification tool was available as a Firefox extension, but not as an extension on other browsers, I suggested that Firefox might be the most secure browser available for purposes of encrypted connection to websites. Since then, of course, Perspectives has made its way to Chromium. A later encrypted browsing security enhancement extension for Firefox, HTTPS Everywhere, was described in HTTPS Everywhere makes SSL/TLS easier; it is still not available on Chromium, the biggest competitor for Firefox, because of the functionality breaking limitations of Chromium's extension system.
  • Pentadactyl: Firefox for Vim junkies: This article could be summed up with a sentence near the end of the article that reads "Considering the annoyances imposed on my life over the last three major versions of the Firefox browser, starting with the memory leak that is not actually a memory leak (see 'memory fragmentation'), the usefulness of Pentadactyl for a heavy user of vi-like editors like me is the biggest reason I still use that browser." Once again, the limitations of the Chromium browser's extension system keep me tied to Firefox for now.
  • The Scrapbook extension: Better bookmarks for Firefox: Where the article about Pentadactyl described a reason to stick with Firefox, this article described a way to use an extension to make up for one of the more annoying problems of Firefox, since I end up having to use Firefox despite its failings. The tenor of my articles about Firefox has become distinctly sour.

Recently, the Firefox developers have evidently decided to engage in a bit of version number inflation, as if having a higher version number means a given browser is somehow "better" than a competitor with a lower version number. It is playing catch-up to Chromium and IE, not in functionality but in the marketing value of a version number. New major version numbers are being incremented where fewer and smaller changes have been made. Of course, with each new major version number, a lot of extensions break until their developers update them -- if the extension developers do not give up because of the sheer weight of development overhead imposed by version incompatibility. This struck me as a pretty poor way to keep users happy, but not the world's biggest problem (at least for now).

Then, I learned something new. Mozilla community development director Asa Dotzler posted the following to the mozilla.dev.planning discussion group:

So, this is a discussion section, not an authoritative answers section.

That being said, there already has been a 4.0.x release and there may be

another if a critical security issue arises that requires a "chemspill"

unplanned emergency fix. But that would be an unplanned emergency

release and not a planned one. The planned security update for Firefox 4

is Firefox 5.

In short, it looks like Firefox 4 is effectively getting its EOL (end-of-life walking papers). In case the full impact of that has not yet set in, recall this: Firefox 4 only reached release status in March 2011, and this is only three months later. As of today, I have received reports of Firefox 5.0 being pushed out as an automatic update for people running Firefox 4.0.1 on their computers, whether they wanted it or not, with a notification that the next time they start their browsers they will be running version 5.0 [1]. Expect broken extensions [2].

A three-month turnover rate is absurd, especially when this is not just an announcement that there will be no more functionality updates or non-security bugfixes, but also that there will be no planned security updates. This essentially came with zero warning to the vast majority of users, and even those paying the closest attention to such matters (but outside of core Mozilla development, presumably) got to measure their forewarning in days rather than months or years. Now, with the Mozilla foundation taking the extreme measure of treating 5.0 as the security update for 4.0.1, breaking extensions with changes unrelated to security along with the only way that needed security updates can be acquired, those of us who rely on our extensions to make Firefox usable are faced with a harsh dilemma. We must choose between two unpalatable options:

  1. We can take the update, and have critical functionality on which we rely break for an unknown period of time while we wait for extension developers to add support for the new Firefox version.
  2. We can refuse the update, sticking with a version of Firefox that no longer gets planned security updates, hoping that the potential security issues of doing so will not bite us.

This assumes that we have not been caught by surprise by an automatic update.

Well . . . there are other options. We could switch to Chromium, if the disruption would be less significant than the disruption of moving to the next major version of Firefox. We could switch to Uzbl, if that is a more palatable option, or even Surf if you finally decide that the benefits of highly functional, feature-rich, extensible browsers are no longer worth the bloat, instability, planned obsolescence, and security chaos that comes with such such benefits. The biggest problems with Uzbl, in my experience, are the license (your mileage may vary, but for my purposes the closer it is to copyfree licensing, the better) and the fact that a lot of functionality to which I have become accustomed would need to be implemented from scratch as extensions for it.

At least I can suffer through the use of Uzbl as my primary browser for short stretches. I have done so in the past. If I get effectively forced into an upgrade to Firefox 5.0 before the extensions I must have support it fully, I will just use a combination of Chromium and Uzbl as a stopgap measure. I already offload some of what I used to do in Firefox to Surf, though, just to escape the problems that plague the more-featureful Mozilla flagship browser.

Firefox has, in my experience, gotten worse with every version update in its lifetime. More specifically, ever since the name change from Firebird to Firefox (thanks to a clash with the name of the Firebird DBMS), it has all been downhill. I expect the future to be more of the same.

If Chromium adds the stronger extension support I need in the next couple years, I will probably switch to that. If it does not, and Firefox does not turn the ship around and start heading back to friendlier waters in terms of functionality, stability, security, and release policy sanity, I suspect I'll eventually just end up forking Surf to get the closest thing I can to an "ideal" Web browser. Now, more than ever, I feel like there is no such thing as a good browser.

There's only a "not quite as awful as the rest" browser. For today, I am not even certain which browser that is, though.

Notes

[1]: freebsd-questions mailing list example of "forced" upgrade

[2]: If you want to turn off automatic updates of Firefox, check the Advanced > Update tab in your Options/Preferences dialog.

About

Chad Perrin is an IT consultant, developer, and freelance professional writer. He holds both Microsoft and CompTIA certifications and is a graduate of two IT industry trade schools.

75 comments
oldbaritone
oldbaritone

I've been having ongoing issues with Chrome with the Flash objects embedded on the page; they don't size properly and I can't access the corners of the object. It works fine on FF 3.x but FF 4.x has the same issue as Chrome. When FF 3 is dead, I'll be moving on to another browser. There are plenty of choices. Too bad that FF has decided on bloatware like so many others.

WDMilner
WDMilner

I think what we're seeing here is a bit of "panic mode" reaction from Mozilla finally settling in. When Chrome came out with some admittedly nifty features it became (for many) an instant darling and gained rapidly in its user base. The novelty gradually wore off some of the shiny and for those with privacy and security concerns it wore off faster, but Mozilla saw some of it's user base shifting away. Sit the browsers together side by side and you can see where 4 (as compared to 3) has been heavily "borrowing" from it's newer cousins. Add into this the fact that people, rightly or wrongly, look at versions numbers and consider larger somehow better and we have Opera 11.x, Chrome 10, Internet Explorer 9 - and Firefox 3.x. So rather than continue a reasonable upgrade path, they have decided to try and cram all the latest and greatest in as fast as possible and increase the version numbers the same way so they can "catch up". This is not particularly new in the software world, but Mozilla seems to be doing it with a reckless speed seldom seen. I can sympathize somewhat with the companies because if you are providing a custom plugin or extension it isn't as simple as making a "standards based website". The internals are constantly changing as Mozilla maintains this headlong race to wherever (and the speed and direction they're going is into oblivion if they continue) that it is hard to impossible for a development team to test and deploy their software before the new version of Mozilla is out and the internals have changed again so requiring said plugin/extension to be rewritten and so be start over again. This kind of constantly moving target is unmaintainable in a corporate environment. And as companies stop developing for FF their customer, and their customers, etc. down the line to eventually the end users will find something else to use. This trickle down is a major reason Mozilla took share form IE in the first place and they're forgetting that. Soon it may be happening to them. As for the automatic updates - just change you options to "Ask me before updating" and it won't get pushed to your machine without permission. I can't believe anyone enables automatic updates on a personal machine they have control over. It's just not sound security policy.

JuDGe369
JuDGe369

I prefer the look and feel of Firefox 3.6 (I'm mostly Mac-based), so I was a little unhappy when the new Firefox 4 was automatically updated on the Intel Macs I use at work. However, my home computer is a dinosaur: a 1GHz "Northern Lights" G4 eMac, which won't even run Firefox 4. I don't have to worry about getting new updates and "improvements," because there are none!

billfranke
billfranke

I don't know about anyone else, but I do know that FF4 & FF5 won't even run on my desktop or my laptop. The exe file runs when I click on it -- I can see that in the Windows Task Manager -- but FF never shows up on my screen. I deleted FF from both machines yesterday. And I'm seriously considering deleting Google Chrome because it insists on giving me a print preview in the browser: I don't want a #$%^& print preview in the browser or anywhere else. At least Windows gives me the option to ask for or bypass the print preview, but I can't turn off that new feature in Chrome. I've been forced to use IE9 and Sea Monkey recently, so maybe it's time to change browsers and to think about how bad it will be when everything is in the cloud and your browser will try to be all things to all users. Whatever happened to small outfits that did just one or two things really well instead of trying to monopolize the computing and business worlds?

cwarner7_11
cwarner7_11

One of the beautiful attractions of Open Source solutions is choice- not having unwanted changes stuffed down your throat. It seems the entire community is abandoning this driver. Ubuntu forcing Unity on us (or forcing us to find a new distro), Gnome abandoning their traditional desktop (forcing us to look for alternatives that are compatible with our working style), now Firefox following the lead of their commercial competitors (forcing us to seek functional alternatives)...

jeeepers
jeeepers

Sounds like the classic example of preferred stockholders being out of touch with market trends.

rxgest
rxgest

I am one of those who is tempted to drop Firefox as well. I am sick and tired of it breaking the extensions. I count on using RoboForm and virtually each time Firefox comes up with one of these updates, whatever RoboForm version I have at that time, gets broken. Ugh! Can someone with some clout get to Mozilla and get them to stop the insanity.

cavehomme1
cavehomme1

Firefox and Seamonkey have a common origin, which was in fact the Netscape browser. Recently after having problems with FF 4 i tried Seamonkey. It still has the old-fashioned interface, but you know what, it is actually very functional, and surprisingly, MUCH faster than Firefox. It is looking good and I like the familiarity and stability of Seamonkey / Netscape. No script and many other FF add-ons work with it fine. I was tempted to go with IE, but there are no equivalent add-ons to the ones that I use on FF, and it still is too cluncky.

Drakaran
Drakaran

I thought one of the writers on zdnet was saying that FF was just matching up versions releases schedules with Chrome. If that's the case, you won't want to use Chrome either.

lehnerus2000
lehnerus2000

Locate the install.rdf file in your profile. Change the FF version number. Change the version number of your add-on. Set The FF and add-on versions numbers to something like 50, so you can remember which ones you've edited. I'm NOT saying this will work with ALL add-ons. Most of my add-ons seem to stop working because of the numbering scheme. REMEMBER to backup up your profile before you start editing!

seanferd
seanferd

You may want to disconnect from the internet before opening FF if the update is already available.

Gis Bun
Gis Bun

I don't think Microsoft has to inform anyone of changes to .net [or anything else they do]. So if .net causes a problem in Firefox, it is up to Mozilla to fix the problem and not be a bunch of wankers. At least Microsoft had the decency of providing a workaround. It's Mozilla's problem if a change occurs in the OS [either from an update, a service pack or a new version]. When an update to Windows is made that affects Symantec,m do you hear Symantec complain? No. They fix it. I'm sure it would be the same for any Linux distro or another OS [OK maybe not OS X].

steveracer67
steveracer67

Every since I switched to Aurora everything seems Much faster and after applying any update it reloads almost instantly, working Very good for me so far.

tbmay
tbmay

When we get something for free, we don't have much right to complain. It's for sure this is not going to work for businesses. It's equally certain the vast majority of user couldn't care less. This, of course, is who marketing people are interested in convincing. Not engineers.

Spitfire_Sysop
Spitfire_Sysop

FireFox 5 for HTML5, right? That would make sense. Then when HTML6 comes out we could get FireFox 6. These "major" updates used to just change the decimal point. They could go to 5.1 quickly... In the end, it's just a name right? Doesn't have to make sense, I guess.

apotheon
apotheon

ignore this edit: Hey, thanks everybody for the downvotes. I love receiving downvotes because TR doesn't have any mechanism for deleting a mispost.

apotheon
apotheon

> I can't believe anyone enables automatic updates on a personal machine they have control over. It's just not sound security policy. You're right, of course; it's not sound security policy. The reason people do it, though, is because Microsoft keeps telling them it is sound security policy. Credulous idiot IT journalists and commentators buy that line of garbage and repeat it to users, too.

pgit
pgit

My #1, primary use computer is running FF 3.6.16. It runs 4 and now 5 fine, I just don't like the new interface. Alas I will be forced to change one of these days.

bboyd
bboyd

No problems that i've had. Malware? Maybe a hijacker.

apotheon
apotheon

> Whatever happened to small outfits that did just one or two things really well instead of trying to monopolize the computing and business worlds? You've just articulated the core precept of the Unix philosophy pretty well, there. Too bad the world's most famous (nominally) Unix-like OS family -- namely Linux-based OSes -- is abandoning the Unix philosophy like rats abandoning a sinking ship. It looks like it's only downhill from here. Apparently, popularity is an infectious disease that affects software developers and turns their brains to mush. Maybe I should be happy my software has not been as popular as Firefox.

Lil ndn
Lil ndn

I have had no problems using Fx 4.0 -5.0,1 and all betas in between on a Windows 7 Home Premium x64. Also, as noted below change a few settings and avoid the headaches associated with updates. Lastly, I've found that adding these lines in "about:config" create a New Boolean "extensions.checkCompatibility. 5.0 another for 6.0 and 7.0 then set all values as "false" which has been allowing me to have all of my X-10s to work smoothly after I OK a version update. I been doing this since 3.0 came out. Probably will bite me in the arse next update, but for now, all is well.

pgit
pgit

I agree with your general point, a lot of change is "change for changes' sake" it seems. But I've been using open source for years, and one of my biggest complaints is massive changes being 'stuffed down your throat.' I've seen exceptional tools I used daily get thrown out entirely, no longer maintained, let alone packaged, and usually without warning. I've become familiar with package and print managing tools, only to have them abandoned for a different model. One distro would march along throwing new kernels at their "stable" release as fast as they were being developed, breaking many things along the way. I don't see basic stability, perhaps defined as 'lack of forced change,' as being an inherent quality of FOSS. As for "choice," I've more often been forced to move, rather than having elected to move based on the desirability of the other option. That's been going on since my earliest experiences with Linux ca 1999.

Bruce Epper
Bruce Epper

Ubuntu is not FORCING you to use Unity. If you want to use Gnome, KDE, Xfce, etc, you can still do so. Your choice is still there, you just have to exercise it. Just because it is installed as the default desktop does not mean you must use it. Now a forced upgrade from FF4 to FF5 is a different story...

pgit
pgit

You got me thinking; I can't imagine "market forces" are going to allow mozilla to operate this way for very long. Maybe rather than try to talk them out of it, we should tell them that their market share is going to drop like a stone, mark [my] words... People aren't going to put up with what you're doing there, (mozilla) oh well. Good luck with it.

JCitizen
JCitizen

except I'm using LastPass; at least it is working so far. I won't hold my breath, though!

BaapidMakwa
BaapidMakwa

Thanks for the reminder, Frank. For eye-rolling reasons, I have to run 3 independent browsers on my Windows laptop. Seamonkey might have just joined the fold.

interarticle
interarticle

And they don't fret about it. It's always in the background, and before you know it, you will get an increase of 3 in the major version number part. Perhaps chrome should add a '0.' before the 'major' version, because it seems like it will soon reach 20.

janitorman
janitorman

I like, and the typical Windows user WON'T do it. The typical user wants stuff that just works. They also typically have automatic updates turned on, so... SURPRISE tomorrow, your browser doesn't work properly.. all the buttons are moved, your extensions don't work, it's UNUSable, and you open IE and never look back to Firefox, which you liked because it was able to have extensions installed easily that you wanted, whereas IE didn't, and didn't have an option to install anything, or tweak anything, it was Use it out of the Box. me, I hate IE, and haven't bothered to update my IE version on my XP computer from 6, because 7 was so unusable and from what I've seen of 8, it's even less usable. (but, I don't OPEN IE very often anyway.) Note: get rid of the ubiquitous "menu button" or "ribbon" or whatever, in all products. I prefer visible menus with dropdowns. Thanks.

apotheon
apotheon

. . . it may already be too late.

seanferd
seanferd

Do you know what the referenced incident was? Check it out, and then give us your opinion. [edit: Not informing anyone was the secondary failure for MS. Touching a non-MS application was wrong (to put it mildly) in the first place.] I don't know about Mozilla, but I was pissed off. And if I'm going to be shoved under a wanker label, there had better be a reason, or I'll just return the favor.

seanferd
seanferd

Taken in the figurative sense, maybe not. But people will move away from the browser if it constantly breaks extensions. A lot of extensions still have not caught up to FF4. And I don't suppose the Mozilla Foundation wants that. Now, sometimes all you have to do is increment the version in the extension or turn off version checking or add some max compat lines to about:config, but sometimes that doesn't work or the extension does not work fully or properly. Or maybe they've hosed those options now.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

IE which opens my users up to a browser running in kernel space and the vendor's monthly update schedual. FF pushing a marketing agenda with major version numbers every six weeks weather needed or not. Chrome installing itself in user profiles and still delivering dirty for system management. Hm..

Justin James
Justin James

... given that the HTML5 spec is still being written and revised. J.Ja

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

It was really the only reason I upgraded while updates for 3.x where/are still flowing. With the FF 4 to FF 5 major version change though, there really is nothing "major version" note-worthy. I can't tell you how thrilling the FF5 was when I restarted and saw Pentadactyl auto-disabled thanks to compatability breakage. Still no update either and Vimperator is just not the same. If I had more critical plugins.. I'd be pissed. Thankfully, the Debian iceweasel 4 releases seem to be remaining sane.

APSDave
APSDave

Changing version numbers is more than just a naming convention. Extensions and operating systems actually look at this number to determine if they can work together or need to be updated. So now, even if the only thing that changes from Version 5 to Version 6 is they moved the Home button over a few pixels, the extensions you have installed won't work because the version numbers are off.

seanferd
seanferd

It seems to work occasionally. Then someone could flag mine. edit: Or, I guess one can flag his own. I forgot that. Last opportunity I had, I didn't have time, then couldn't find the thread at all later on. One of those cases where one comment was posted about twelve times. (Which is odd, because I'd swear I can recall a "rejected because you have already posted that same thing" notice. Then again, the notice was incorrect, so maybe that function was killed for bad behavior.)

Justin James
Justin James

... the window between a patch being released to plug a hole, and the hole being exploited, often is measured in hours. As a result, automatically updating and suffering some consequences on occasion is often less risky than holding back. :( J.Ja

seanferd
seanferd

4.x still is lacking extension compatibility with extensions I use -even themes, which is nearly ridiculous. I force compatibility, but some things are not quite right. Which is odd, seeing I've been able to force ancient and dead FF extensions to work in SeaMonkey rather well. Not many, but those which do work, work well. I got Platypus 0.8.1 to work, just for kicks. I'm not sad that I never made FF my default browser. I am sad that SM eventually incorporates the things I dislike about FF. I love SM, which is sort of an exception for me, as I normally dislike any sort of application suite. I really think the Mozilla Foundation picked the wrong path going from Mozilla to Firebird instead of SeaMonkey. Then again, they probably "saved" SM by doing so. Unfortunately, I was never able to get an SM port to compile on FeeBSD. Gah.

apotheon
apotheon

The subcommunities and software projects that are most closely wedded to the standard Free Software and GNU/Linux tunnel vision perspective produce and push the most changeable, unstable software in the open source community at large, generally speaking. OSes like any of the major BSD Unix systems, window managers that do not take a week to compile, and software that actually makes some attempt to adhere to the Unix philosophy of software development all tend to be much more stable and tractable for people who don't want the rug pulled out from under them every second Tuesday. This is why I prefer FreeBSD and i3, and why I would prefer a browser with a good extension system that closely adhered to the Unix philosophy of software development (if such a browser existed), rather than preferring Ubuntu, GNOME or Unity, and Firefox.

apotheon
apotheon

Are you absolutely certain there isn't Unity stuff running on your Ubuntu system even if you fire up KDE (for instance)?

JCitizen
JCitizen

Like an idiot, I let File Hippo download an update to FF, and of course - it was a beta version(even though I hid those), because FF had already updated to v 5!! I could kick myself! I hate BETAs!!!

pgit
pgit

It looked to me he was calling the mozilla devs the wankers, or admonishing them not to be wankers, which in his argument appears to mean 'just shut up and fix whatever any third party does to break FF.'

JCitizen
JCitizen

Hmm! Decisions - decisions; which is less crappy! HA!

michaelm2010
michaelm2010

If Ian Hickson predicted that identical HTML 5 cross-compatible browsers may arrive by 2022, then HTML 6 may be released sometime after 2025 or so.

apotheon
apotheon

It's not a big deal. It's just kinda silly the way some downvotes happen. I really don't understand people, I guess, because I can't fathom the thinking behind downvoting behavior sometimes.

apotheon
apotheon

The correct way to handle that is to have measures in place that allow you to closely control networking capabilities for the systems on your network, complete with the ability to disconnect systems entirely if needed with a single click or command -- and to do the same with specific services. Then, shut down whatever is most susceptible to attack while testing patches on your staging servers. If you need 100% public facing uptime, you need multiple systems, at least three, performing the same task, so that you can immediately patch one, hold off on another in case the patched system becomes a liability so you can replace it with an unpatched system, and a third system that just waits for patch testing to be completed. This is, of course, mostly necessary only for Microsoft Windows systems. If you can't afford all that, you had better arrange your affairs so you can withstand some downtime in case you need to restore from backups or just take a system offline while testing patches. The reason this is not worse than just deploying patches immediately is simple: often, the MS Windows patches will not only result in "some consequences" that are easily brushed away. Consider SQL Slammer as a case study. Patches being installed by the updater in the wrong order resulted in fixes for the vulnerabilities exploited by SQL Slammer being unfixed. That means that patches from Microsoft are not only prone to breaking stuff in general, but are also at times prone to making everything less security. Consider another case, where a .NET update a couple years back actually introduced a severe vulnerability by installing (without disclosure in the update description) a Firefox addon that basically turned Firefox into a malware installer. The idea that automatic updates are more safe than leaving things unprotected for a while is predicated upon the erroneous assumption that patches will not, themselves, make you vulnerable. On a somewhat related note, I haven't patched my testing MS Windows 7 install for months. I have remained safe because I also haven't booted it in months. This is, in the end, the only reasonable way to stay secure with MS Windows.

apotheon
apotheon

> Unfortunately, in a small number of cases it does fix a problem. Just enough to keep hope alive That sounds like Stockholm Syndrome.

pgit
pgit

I still haven't really tackled any of the BSDs very aggressively. Every time I've set aside the test unit and the time, something has come up requiring the use of that test unit and my time. Last attempt was in December, iirc. I have a number of friends and associates who use it, and the local community college has a bit of a BSD 'club' going among the IT students. Unfortunately, to a one these youths are absolutely atrocious teachers, they can't even answer a simple, straight question. Seriously. I don't even bother asking them for help anymore. But watching over their shoulders, I do see that their systems are solid and unchanging. You're right in that the phenomenon I described is all Linux. It's equally my fault, I'm the one that goes along with this idea of always having the newest of everything. Fortunately I'm smart enough to leave things well enough alone amongst the systems I get paid to touch. (the oldest have had their OS since 2006) But I just can't resist the temptation with my own machines, and as a result break as much as I fix. That last might be the basis of my rationalization; there's enough things that don't work at all (touch screens) or don't work well (flash, trackpads, hybrid video) that I will keep upgrading in hopes the given flaw will be eliminated. There's Einstein's "insanity." I think "this time it's gonna work." Unfortunately, in a small number of cases it does fix a problem. Just enough to keep hope alive... hey! ...there's one thing Linux has gotten right: software that perfectly mimics life!

BaapidMakwa
BaapidMakwa

Expecting your wife to do beta testing for your office environment isn't necessarily the best approach either. For one thing, if something goes wrong, you have to fix it, even if it means working through the night. A beta user in the office won't expect that...

pgit
pgit

I hate to admit it, but I somehow let 5 beta get through onto a couple of machines. I've left it in place for now, but I did disable automatically checking for updates. I run the latest development ff on my wife's laptop, generally there are very few problems. But still, running development versions of software isn't something the end users in the offices should be doing. :p

seanferd
seanferd

Although the statement was actually quite broad, so anyone who thinks MS was in the wrong or complained about what happened would then be a wanker, no? Anyway, I'm pretty sure Gis doesn't have an actual handle on the incident, as "if .net causes a problem in Firefox," would seem to indicate. It didn't cause a problem in FF, as FF (thank your lucky stars) does not require dotnet for anything. MS installed crap into FF without telling its customers or the vendor of the affected software. So, I give Gis the benefit of the doubt, and thus my questions.