Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ronjor, Jan 10, 2012.
The solution is to completely hide the version number and update process from users, like Chrome does. Everyone benefits from newer updates. I think Mozilla already plans to do this.
Considering there's nearly always security flaws/fixes in every 'major' release of Firefox, I wouldn't be surprised if this "ESR" build ended up being updated just as frequently as the standard build. Unless they can somehow convince users to feel safe using software with known exploits? Also, they risk fragmentation on the level of IE6/7/8 by doing this.
Sounds like a terrible idea to me.
Sounds like they can't figure out what they want to do, jumping all around and changing plans.
Just the impression I get.
I'm sure there are some FF users who will disagree with this observation.
lol this is a really silly idea. I thought managing two versions (3.x + current) was bad enough.
Are they this idiotic and scared of corporate users? Dumb move, but whatever, doesn't affect me.
They are desperately trying not to lose business. Right now Chrome doesn't really appeal to businesses - it's hard to administrate. Firefox and IE are both vying for enterprise but Firefox is also trying to get regular users too and is going to end up alienating both of them.
I think you nailed it. Nobody can please everyone, try it and you just go down in flames. I really do think enterprise complains far too much over these things. Though I'm not sure this would affect your normal user, as their updates will roll merrily along (although you had the "we hate fast updates" crowd for a while). I hope they don't start going backwards again, after getting past all the other crap they were doing and getting back to what they did best.
People hate fast updates on Firefox because they notice them. Big UI changes, lots of feature changes, extensions breaking.
I wish they would just focus on what they want to do and stop worrying about everyone else.
Thankfully Chrome has gotten over its BS slump where it was adding almost nothing other than a few fairly lame UI/ features and it's back to focusing on security, performance, and usability.
They will continue managing two versions. According to this article: http://arstechnica.com/business/new...rt-will-mitigate-rapid-release-challenges.ars
Looks like a good plan, after all:
It's still not a good idea, but, as you said, FF3 is being put in its grave (we hope).
Reminds me of patch Tuesdays. Just not admitting to flaws/fixes doesn't make a browser safer.
I think it's a wonderful idea and wish Mozilla all the best.
Not sure what you intended to say with this. Could you explain?
It's a move to regain potential for corporation adoption.
I refer you to this:
Considering there's nearly always security flaws/fixes in every 'major' release of Firefox,
On that argument alone, which browser is suited for business? And just because bug pages are not open to the public does it mean flaws/fixes don't exist in other browsers?
Which is the major browser used by business? Does it not have flaws/fixes? I don't see why people have to go in for bashing particular browsers, operating systems, desktop environments, search engines, that's all.
I think the important part for corporations is that security updates don't introduce new features that need further testing too often. Currently, for those not on 3.6x series, new Firefox features are being "enforced" every 8 weeks - because sometimes security fixes only come together with new major versions that introduce new features.
With the implementation of the ESR idea, new Firefox features will be "enforced" every 1 year and twelve-weeks (time for a new ESR major version release + grace period designed for transition time between versions). This is much better for corporations and will enable Mozilla to discontinue support for the 3.6x series.
As a side note: when a new major version of Firefox gains the "ESR" label, I hope that we see detailed changelogs/release notes comparing the new major version gaining the ESR label with the previous major version which had the ESR label - not only a "Firefox release XX is now ESR".
Hmmmm ... ostensibly, this looks a tad crackers, but who knows? It might just work.
Calm down dear, no need to get so uptight that Firefox got mentioned with a negative light.
IE gets patched (if needed) at least every 2 months, that's 8 weeks, 2 more weeks than Firefox's scheduled releases. With that in mind, how do you justify having an an "ESR" build which gets patched even LESS than that?
As guest already explained, patching security flaws is one thing that usually doesn't modify functionality. However, changing functionality/adding features is another, which makes mainstream firefox a difficult choice for enterprise. Bringing me to my point of updating the ESR build "just as often" as the mainstream build, which would be 6 weeks, to fix security holes.
And this isn't necessarily bad for corporations: they won't need to apply thoroughly testing on the security updates for the ESR build. Just like they don't apply thoroughly testing whenever IE gets a new cumulative security update (sometimes containing fixes of other kinds) every 2 months or so.
Don't you agree that this move will increase Firefox's potential to be more competitive on the enterprise market?
Together with a good implementation of this other idea...:
...I would say that Firefox can be nearly as competitive as IE on the enterprise market + without holding progress for too much time (because a new ESR major version release of Firefox will be "enforced" every 1 year and twelve-weeks, remember).
It's nice to see that Mozilla now appears to have the resources to make these things possible. Some months ago, the talk was very different.
This is the part that gets me. It would be fine if there we're any other browser that didn't have "nearly always security flaws/fixes in every 'major' release".
I don't see why this type of selective prejudiced nonsense is posted.
Extensions breaking is the only one I have really noticed since v4. Everyone should stop trying to mimic Chrome. If I wanted something that was "like" Chrome I would run Chrome. They are all free. Giving another product credibility by copying it is not the smartest business model. Imitations only work when yours is cheaper. Not the case here.
Possibly, but in that case you might as well just call it Firefox Enterprise and be a proper separate product (more like a fork) no?
You're joking right? You're finecombing the point I was trying to make and spinning it in yet another attempt to troll, what a surprise. No where did I say that this was unique to firefox, infact, Chrome patches even more security flaws than Firefox does due to the terrible idea of using Webkit instead of creating their own engine, or even using Gecko. The sandbox saves their butts.
lol thats interesting...
FireFox is losing sight of what got them to where they are, smarter users that wanted a better alternative than IE. Hiding updates by hiding version numbers is a joke. Any security package that checks the signatures of the executables will scream about this.
This "competing for customers" is senseless. It's not a purchased product. It's free. They need to quit playing the corporate numbers game and focus on what made them good in the first place. Giving users what they want, not what a corporate built browser thinks they need.
A "consensus" browser.
not to mention Apple.