FireFox 9.0.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaugustine
  • Start date Start date
J

jaugustine

Hi,
I recently downloaded and installed FireFox 9.0.1 on my WinXP computer.

I was surprised how far it advanced (version number)!! I was using
V3.6.12 before.

I have not found any issues with this version so far, but I have not
used it that much yet.

Has anyone found an issue(s) with this new version?

Thank You in Advance, John
 
| I recently downloaded and installed FireFox 9.0.1 on my WinXP
computer.
|
| I was surprised how far it advanced (version number)!!

The numbers don't mean much anymore. The Mozilla
people are just mimicking the Chrome people, who are
mimicking the Linux OSS people -- treating software like
an ongoing science fair project. (The WINE project releases
a "new version" about every 10 days, and they've been
working on it for something like 15 years now. Every time
I've looked at the update changes list they claim "lots of
bug fixes" as one of the major changes from the last
version!)

I saw a statement from someone at Mozilla that they
hoped to eventually phase out versions. The idea seems
to be that they'd like to redefine Firefox as a service that's
always up-to-date. The fact that it's installed on your PC
would be incidental. So the first step in their plan, apparently,
is to render version numbers so absurd and uninformtaive
that people will stop paying attention to them.
 
| I recently downloaded and installed FireFox 9.0.1 on my WinXP
computer.
|
| I was surprised how far it advanced (version number)!!

The numbers don't mean much anymore. The Mozilla
people are just mimicking the Chrome people, who are
mimicking the Linux OSS people -- treating software like
an ongoing science fair project.
Click to expand...


Even when the software manufacturer isn't mimicking anyone, version
numbers really don't mean anything. Whether to give a modification a
new version number (or name) or a sub-version number is more a
marketing decision than anything else. For example, think of Microsoft
and what it calls its versions of Windows.

There was Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, and Windows 98. But they could
have given Windows 98 the name 95 OSR3. Then there was Windows Me,
which could have been 98 OSR2 or 95 OSR4.

Windows 2000 was Windows 5 under the hood, and XP was Windows 5.1.

They were almost certainly much more successful calling XP XP than
they would have been calling it 5.1 or 2000 OSR2.

Similarly Vista was Windows 6 under the hood and Windows 7 is Windows
6.1 under the hood. Again, what they called it was clearly a marketing
decision.
 
| Even when the software manufacturer isn't mimicking anyone, version
| numbers really don't mean anything. Whether to give a modification a
| new version number (or name) or a sub-version number is more a
| marketing decision than anything else. For example, think of Microsoft
| and what it calls its versions of Windows.
|

Yes, and I think they skipped IE2 altogether to catch
up with Netscape.
This reminds me of a line from a comedian, years ago,
complaining about the pompous stylishness of the pop
band Sade and the way they insisted on pronouncing
their name: "My name's Dave, but I don't spell it B-O-B." :)

But there are still plenty of cases
where companies are reasonably honest about mirroring
the extent of changes in the version number. Mozilla,
unfortunately, seems to have become deeply corrupted by
Google's money... as has Google. The Register is running a
story today about how the Mozilla people are planning to
push their own ID system:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/20/browserid/

At the same time, I see people in this group talking about
managing the toolbars and searchbars that every major
online company seems to sneak onto IE. ... Then there's the
Kindle Fire with their web proxy browser, and Opera mini,
which sends all Opera phone URLs through the opera-mini
server... It's getting hard to find a simple browser that isn't
doubling as a portal in order to siphon ad dollars.
 
| Even when the software manufacturer isn't mimicking anyone, version
| numbers really don't mean anything. Whether to give a modification a
| new version number (or name) or a sub-version number is more a
| marketing decision than anything else. For example, think of Microsoft
| and what it calls its versions of Windows.
|

Yes, and I think they skipped IE2 altogether to catch
up with Netscape.
This reminds me of a line from a comedian, years ago,
complaining about the pompous stylishness of the pop
band Sade and the way they insisted on pronouncing
their name: "My name's Dave, but I don't spell it B-O-B." :)

But there are still plenty of cases
where companies are reasonably honest about mirroring
the extent of changes in the version number. Mozilla,
unfortunately, seems to have become deeply corrupted by
Google's money... as has Google. The Register is running a
story today about how the Mozilla people are planning to
push their own ID system:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/20/browserid/

At the same time, I see people in this group talking about
managing the toolbars and searchbars that every major
online company seems to sneak onto IE. ... Then there's the
Kindle Fire with their web proxy browser, and Opera mini,
which sends all Opera phone URLs through the opera-mini
server... It's getting hard to find a simple browser that isn't
doubling as a portal in order to siphon ad dollars.
Click to expand...

If you follow the Firefox newsgroup at Mozilla, you'll find a lot of
grumbling about the version numbers and UI changes. I don't know if
those posts are reflected in the Mozillazine forum, as I don't use it.

Firefox, as well as Thunderbird, does allow and have a wealth of add-ons
for extensions and visual themes. You'll find some of these can come
close to making the current version look much like version 3.X.X

I have a few installed, but don't even have those under control! LOL


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 9.0.1
Thunderbird 9.0.1
LibreOffice 3.4.4
 
Hi, Dave,

From: "Ken Springer"<[email protected]>

|
| If you follow the Firefox newsgroup at Mozilla, you'll find a lot of
| grumbling about the version numbers and UI changes. I don't know if
| those posts are reflected in the Mozillazine forum, as I don't use it.
|
| Firefox, as well as Thunderbird, does allow and have a wealth of add-ons
| for extensions and visual themes. You'll find some of these can come
| close to making the current version look much like version 3.X.X
|
| I have a few installed, but don't even have those under control! LOL
|

You have probably sen my post about the problems encountered with FF v4, 5,
6, 7, 8 and 9 but not with v3.6.xx
Click to expand...

I did, but didn't read the entire thread.

Personally, I think they've screwed up with the rapid release schedule.
Despite their protestations, I think they are trying to accomplish to
many changes, not just security updates, and there's insufficient bug
testing.
BTW: LibreOffice updated to v3.4.5 and soon v4.50 will be released (by the
end of February ?)
Click to expand...

That may be, I don't keep up with that. 3.4.4 was out a long time
before I updated. LO seems to have their own set of problems when it
comes to updates. I see the word "regression" used much too often.
Just did a document in 3.4.4 in the last couple of weeks, found 4 (it
might be 5) bugs. Filed one, but it turns out what I think should be a
bug is the way it's supposed to work. And it's really stupid what they
did, IMO, if you look at it from a user's perspective.

I first started getting into Open Source software a couple years ago,
and really pushed it. Now, I'm rather disgusted with the organizations
that produce the programs I use (not all are listed in my signature),
and only recommend Firefox.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 9.0.1
Thunderbird 9.0.1
LibreOffice 3.4.4
 
David said:
BTW: LibreOffice updated to v3.4.5 and soon v4.50 will be released (by
the end of February ?)
Click to expand...

Hah. I just now noticed that there's no option to update it, unlike
Open Office. Does one have to download the whole thing to update from
3.4.4 to 3.4.5?
And of course, they still haven't fixed the major fault of Writer -
inability to display the column number. It seems they never will.
 
Back
Top