×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 16 Pulled To Address Security Vulnerability

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the cautious-cautious dept.

Firefox 165

Shortly after the release of the newest major version of Firefox, an anonymous reader writes with word that "Mozilla has removed Firefox 16 from its installer page due to security vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could allow 'a malicious site to potentially determine which websites users have visited' ... one temporary work-around, until a fix is released, is to downgrade to 15.0.1"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

16 AND PREMATURE EJACULATION PROBLEMS ?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618165)

Well, it was v3 not too long ago !!

Firefox *16*!? (2, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618167)

Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?

Re:Firefox *16*!? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618197)

Finally Firefox got legal in my state.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

KBentley57 (2017780) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618207)

If you have been anywhere near any tech site in the last year or more, you would know that firefox has gone mad with the numbering scheme. So, either you've been offline for longer than usual, or are trolling mozilla.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618217)

... or it's a joke.
* Whooossh*

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618275)

It's simply replicating Chrome's numbering scheme. The idea that a higher version number is a better product is still ingrained in people's heads for some reason.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (4, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618421)

It's simply replicating Chrome's numbering scheme. The idea that a higher version number is a better product is still ingrained in people's heads for some reason.

As part of the process. Large features get to be rolled out when they are ready, rather than waiting for a release every one to two years, or even delaying those releases if they are not.

Then why use numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618745)

Why not use dates? Or even fancy marketing names? Using conventional release numbers (i.e. 16.0.1) implies some sort of logical structure to the release schedule, does it not? Well, if there is no logical structure to it, then certainly it doesn't make sense to use numbers.

Re:Then why use numbers (2)

VFA (1064176) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618957)

I think Firefox should only use irrational number for their version numbers. that would be logical :)

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618795)

I think there's a limitation to this. You don't see a lot of stuff out there being marketed as version 735 of the product.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (2, Insightful)

buck-yar (164658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618279)

Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...

Re:Firefox *16*!? (5, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618505)

Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...

The delayed release contains a new Developer Command Line, unprefixes a number of stable features including: CSS3 Animations, Transitions, Transforms, Image Values, IndexedDB and Values and Units. Firefox also unprefixes Battery API and Vibration API, two Web APIs. [Mac users will find that preliminary support for the VoiceOver screen reader]

It also fixes for numerous critical vulnerabilities. Holes associated with a full 14 security advisories were closed in the new Firefox 16, in fact, 11 of them rated “critical.” [memory corruption and memory safety hazards, a buffer overflow bug, and a spoofing and script-injection flaw]

That sounds like enough to more than enough to justify a release. The fact that they have pulled its release for security reasons, seams pretty sensible to be.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619429)

This is all very fucked. Should have just been creating a portable POSIX operating system with OpenGL stack -- I mean, that's what we'll have in the end. Fuck HTML5 -- I've been waiting for over a decade since v4.01 came out. I can build a native App for every platform and get pixel perfect results with far more flexibility and performance via cross platform toolchains. What's the web offer? A grab bag of Javascript Frameworks for Javascript loaded each time I click a link. Fuck that shit, I'm out.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618351)

So, either you've been offline for longer than usual, or are trolling mozilla.

If he were trolling Mozilla he would have said "here's the patch!" and linked the IE download page. Um, did the IE vuln get fixed yet? Opera is looking better and better!

Re:Firefox *16*!? (4, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619055)

If he were trolling Mozilla he would have said "here's the patch!" and linked the IE download page. Um, did the IE vuln get fixed yet? Opera is looking better and better!

You can prise Mosaic from my cold, dead, Compaq Presario PC with 200MB hard drive and Pentium MMX CPU!

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619887)

Opera is looking better and better!

But Opera is only on version 12.02!

Re:Firefox *16*!? (4, Insightful)

BenJury (977929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618355)

Why is it 'mad'? I don't understand why people have such issues with this. Its just a damn number. If it really irks you so much just add a decimal point to the start of it in your head and move on.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618495)

It's not just a number, it's a number that denotes compatible versions.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619225)

Hardly! Most addons default to compatible now. Those that cannot, simply set the max version to 50. The UI hasn't changed significantly since 4.0

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618675)

Never, ever, did I hear these fossils complain about the version numbering of the web browser of their darling ad broker.

Firefox does it, bang, default complaints with every release.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (5, Insightful)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618725)

It's mad because we never know whether we're getting a patch with a few bug fixes or a completely different UI. I guess I'm mostly annoyed that Mozilla and other software producers feel the need to make-over their UI every six months. It feels like change just for the sake of change.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619017)

You'll never know what they're changing unless you look at the release notes you lazy git. I guess that would be too inconvenient for you and pretty much deflate any argument that allows you to tiresomely bitch about Firefox's versioning system.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619239)

I agreee with OP. Its makes numbering releases irrelevant rather than convinient way to index releases by usefulness. Obviously you're a fan of reading the release notes over and over again everytime you need to know what's in a particular release.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (2)

mattOzan (165392) | about a year and a half ago | (#41620181)

Firefox Extended Service Release (ESR) is available for those who require consistency in the UI for a longer term.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/.

Major version releases are only every 12 months. There is a minor patch release every six weeks which coincides with "normal" Firefox version updates. All security patches are deployed to both release channels, but feature enhancements are not deployed to the ESR channel between major version releases..

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618823)

To many it signifies major API changes are happening rather frequently. This can come across as the Firefox team not knowing what they're doing or they've explicitly decided that marketing trumps software development conventions. I suppose the latter isn't as bad, but it's not encouraging.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

BenJury (977929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618929)

I'd rewrite that as 'To many who do not have a vested interest it signifies major API changes are happening rather frequently'. Those who do care will know all about the new version and its changes as they'd be on the beta channel. For us normal users, we don't care, which incidentally is why they are not marketing the version number at all. Its just 'Firefox'.

It's more than just decimal points (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619379)

Why is it 'mad'? I don't understand why people have such issues with this. Its just a damn number. If it really irks you so much just add a decimal point to the start of it in your head and move on.

It's not just a damn number. By convention in typical software versioning, version X.Y.Z means:

- X: major version number
- Y: minor version number
- Z: bug fix version number

Taking a house analogy:

- The major version number is akin to the building itself; it's the overall architecture. You bump this when you basically tear part or all of the whole thing down and rebuild it on more solid foundations.
- The minor version number is akin to the interior floor plan, plumbing, cabling, etc.; it's the API. You bump this when you introduce new features, or change or deprecate existing ones.
- The bug fix version is akin to everyday maintenance and the interior design; it should have zero impact on whatever is interfaced with or relying upon your software. You bump this when you find something defective and make it work the way it should.

You could argue that consumers don't care, and that power users will be well aware of what's really in a new version, and thus that not conforming to the above convention is no big deal. That argument completely falls apart, however, when you consider the system admin or the advanced user who ends up asking himself whether he should upgrade a non-conforming piece of software on a computer or not. If the latter two need to waste time on a BS versioning scheme, they'll replace the offending piece of software as soon as they get the chance for peace of mind.

Re:It's more than just decimal points (3, Insightful)

BenJury (977929) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619959)

That argument completely falls apart, however, when you consider the system admin or the advanced user who ends up asking himself whether he should upgrade a non-conforming piece of software on a computer or not.

If you're making this decision based on the version number alone, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619777)

If you had to re-package every revision for your enterprise customers you'd be upset too. I's easy to tell management that increment from 3.0.0.01 to 3.0.0.02 isn't rally necessary, but 15.01 to 16.0.0? "Rawer! get it done now!" Good thing Firefox ESR's versioning isn't so crazy.....

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619033)

In Capitalist America, Mozilla trolls you!

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618213)

Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?

If you're lucky, it'll be the year you get a browser upgrade. Change can be scary though... I warn you, they changed the url bar and everything.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618295)

To FF10, since that's the stable version that upcoming distributions will ship. The glorified trunk snapshots you hear so much about are not supported (beyond "pull the newest snapshot"), so have no place on serious non-dev machines.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618661)

The trunk snapshots have a name, Aurora.

Theyve moved to Chrome's dev model, which as an end user is awesome (especially now that their autoupdater actually WORKS). Bugs get fixed faster, and I dont have to wait 6-12 months for them to add a feature that everyone's been clamoring for for months (as back in the 1.0, 1.5 etc days).

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618693)

Yeah it works so awesome that now people need to know to downgrade because they too rapidly released a product with a huge security hole.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618803)

Bugs get fixed faster

Weird. I remember downloading bugfix versions of Firefox 3 all the time. Seems 3.6 got 15 bugfix releases before 4.0 was released. Where as nowadays, we get only ONE bugfix version, before we get a stack of new bugs (aka. a major release).

I'm still waiting for bug fixes for bugs introduced in 4.0, and it does not look like they will care about bug fixes before version 16 either.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618215)

Please, enough with those old jokes. Firefox is buggy and slow enough to create new ones.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618231)

"Election Panic" all around - so 2012 I guess

Firefox jumped on the Chrome/Chromium bandwagon regarding version-numbers. Even though it seems a little absurd after the time it took them to release 3.x after 2.x I'm still very glad for the momentum Chromium brought to browsers-development - especially if you think about the progression javascript engines made the last few years.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618307)

3.6 is to modern versions of Firefox as IE6 is to...well, a better version of IE that has yet to be released.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618571)

3.6 is to modern versions of Firefox as IE6 is to...well, a better version of IE that has yet to be released.

I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not. IE6 is very much kill it with fire, the fact that Microsoft has limited the update to XP of IE is a disgrace. As a user of Firefox I would argue strongly that 15 is head and shoulders above 3.6 whatever the version number a browser released January 2010 well over 2 years ago.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (4, Funny)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618343)

Wow, I'm still using FF 3.6.12. I must have fallen into a time wrap bubble... What year is this?

Don't worry, Mozilla switched from miles to meters. It's only three weeks ago. Expect FF 238 around Christmas.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619001)

The asymptotic release shortening means they'll have to start using scientific notation shortly after the new year.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619521)

The newest version of Firefox glows an eerie blue due to the Cherenkov Radiation emitted as the electrons making up it's version number accelerate faster than the speed of light can travel in the OS medium it's suspended in.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618395)

Then wait for firefox 32.

Time to upgrade from Fedora 14 .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618689)

EOM

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

higuita (129722) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619065)

Dont worry, they dropped the 3.7 from the version... just imagine that its version 3.7.16 :)

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619327)

IS 3.6.28 bugged for you? It's the last release of the 3.6 "not chromefox" family.

Re:Firefox *16*!? (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41620031)

I tried Firefox 3, but it kept losing tabs on me. I downgraded to Firefox 2 and have not looked back.

Temp Solution? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618203)

My butthoal brings David Boises to the Bard
and your mom is uh effin tard
and your mom is uh effin tard
I could do you but your butt is large.

Re:Temp Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41620193)

Worst haiku ever.

Darn it Mozilla (1)

thomas8166 (1244688) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618239)

Well, guess that serves me right for being on the Firefox beta channel. I honestly don't even remember how long I've been using the FF16 beta. TFA didn't mention if beta users are affected, but I'm going to assume that we are.

Not so smart (5, Interesting)

SirDice (1548907) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618297)

Why the hell did they pull it? Firefox 16.0 fixes 24 bugs, of which 21 are considered important. They're advising people to downgrade to THAT version because of ONE minor privacy issue. Seriously? Why don't they urge people to upgrade to 16.0 and start pushing out 16.0.1 as fast as they can?

Re:Not so smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618365)

They'll take my upgrade from my cold-dead hands !

Re:Not so smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618415)

Yeah, I don't understand that. I mean, unless you're running NoScript or Adblock, tons of sites are already tracking you, so this privacy issue doesn't seem all that important. Plus, Mozilla has said that the fix will probably be out next Thursday, so why go to the trouble of downgrading just to turn around and upgrade again in a day or so?

Re:Not so smart (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618451)

Yeah, I was thinking "We're all going to die!" How is this considered that major of a bug? I guess maybe they can get the session ID in a GET request and get to your banking website?

Re:Not so smart (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618565)

As I understand it, sites can access stored URL's and URL parameters. An obvious example of a URL you wouldn't want exposed would be ftp://username:password@someserver.foo.

Re:Not so smart (1)

SirDice (1548907) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619889)

I can deal, for a short while, with this relatively simple issue. I can't deal with 21 serious bugs while Mozilla takes their sweet time to fix that one issue.

Re:Not so smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41620343)

Hmmm, I see to be having trouble connecting to that server....

Re:Not so smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618519)

Looks like 16.0.1 is already out, according to yum update on fc17. Unless that was the original numbering of the release.

Dependencies Resolved
Updating:
  firefox x86_64 16.0-1.fc17 updates 24 M

Re:Not so smart (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618597)

It's easier to just wait a week and upgrade to 18 beta.

Oh well (3, Insightful)

scdeimos (632778) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618305)

I guess the decades-old saying still holds true, "never install a point-O release."

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618473)

I assume you're joking, but if you aren't, then I feel compelled to inform you that firefox version numbers are now meaningless.

Re:ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618613)

I don't think he's joking. These people at Mozilla have screwed the pooch.
There have been 10 full version number Firefox releases in just over a year 6 -> 16.
The only possible explanation is that all of these new version releases really translate if you base them on 4.0

4.6, 4.7, 4.8 last fall, and 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 this fall.

I don't know what cult they're following at Mozilla now, but I don't like it and from the other postings here a lot of other people are also with me.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618647)

They're mostly point0 releases now; and automatically installed to boot. :)

No auto-downgrade?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618313)

Why don't they issue an 'update' that downgrades me back to 15.0.1 then? They can even rename it 16.1 or whatever to keep the auto-update happy with a version number increment.
I got upgraded yesterday, do I have to manually downgrade myself - seems ridiculous.

Firefox? FIRESUCKS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618371)

Since Mozilla start to transform Firefox into a Chrome-wannabe, Firefox simply sucks. If I wanted a Chrome-like browser, I'd just go Chrome. Now we have to deal with all those shitty moves, with ridiculous version numbers and rushed versions plagued with mistakes.

Sad but expected (3, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618401)

Considering all the stuff "16" was supposed to have fixed, recommending a rollback over this sounds completely incompetent. And therefore expected.

Remember, these are the same geniuses that decided to start rolling the version number everytime someone fixes a typo a few months ago, and thus calling the current version (what is it really, 5.3 or so?) 16. And it isnt truly new either, take a look at this old bug for example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78414 [mozilla.org]

Been sitting there well over 10 years now. Not one serious attempt to fix it. How many new features that no one wanted and random gui changes to confuse users have they managed to implement in that time period?

So yeah, no surprise here. Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.

Re:Sad but expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618789)

Every browser I know seems to have that issue, so I'm not sure if it actually has to do with the way plug-ins work in general. I don't understand why it's tolerated though.

Re:Sad but expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41620095)

It's the way NPAPI works. ActiveX doesn't have this problem, it has other problems.

About halfway through the bug, someone points out that it's the plugin API's fault, and suggests that if someone wants to rewrite the API they're welcome to submit a patch.

Re:Sad but expected (1, Funny)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618961)

> Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.

Oh, they already did that. It's called Firefox 2.0.0.20.

Open-source programmers famously don't like to re-invent the wheel, so naturally since making a browser that doesn't suck has already been done, it's now a solved problem and therefore no longer interesting to work on.

The community has therefore moved on to newer and better things, like combining related toolbar buttons into one (back/forward), unnecessarily changing how user data (such as bookmarks) are stored on disk, combining unrelated toolbar buttons into one (stop/reload), eliminating useful features (e.g., the status bar), moving UI elements to new and interesting parts of the screen (stop/reload again, not to mention the notorious Tabs On Top), and so on and so forth.

Re:Sad but expected (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619307)

So yeah, no surprise here. Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.

True. As a web developer I like HTML5 and CSS3 but it's interesting how browser engines are often still lacking in fairly basic things. For instance, WebKit apparently can't handle hover states on pseudo-elements properly [webkit.org].

Perhaps the browser/engine devs should spend some time on making sure that the existing functionality works well before trying to one-up each other in who supports the latest first-draft CSS feature. Then again that's not how competition works so I guess I'll be looking forward to CSS5 Accessible Teledildonics support while hoping that all engines support position: relative properly...

Perhaps I should move towards a field where there's at least one working implementation of my language of choice.

Re:Sad but expected (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619481)

So, a Java emulator with a QuickSave binding at F11 or ^s you would rather hit F11 and Firefox wanks to fullscreen? What about arrow keys? I can't scroll up/down a page (or left/right for that matter) when a plug-in OR an input box has focus! So horrible when I'm trying to play Pacman flash games, jamming up/down/left/right on twitch reactions, and the page just SITS STILL AND WON'T SCROLL! That's a total bug, must fix it.

Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618423)

... or wait till tomorrow for Firefox 17

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618485)

I'm waiting for Firefox 26 which comes next Friday. I hear it will have full HTML10 support.

Already? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618427)

I know about the new speedy release scheme, but how is it possible that version 16 is released when 15 is only at 15.0.1?

Re:Already? (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619109)

> I know about the new speedy release scheme, but how is it
> possible that version 16 is released when 15 is only at 15.0.1?

Apparently you've *heard* of the new speedy release scheme but don't actually _know_ about it.

Point releases are no longer planned in to the release schedule. After 15.0.1, the next planned, scheduled release would be 16.0, and after that 17.0 then 18.0. That's the whole point of the new speedy release scheme: every planned release, no matter how minor, gets a new major version number, so that Firefox can be more like Chrome.

Thus, there would only be a 15.0.2 release in the event that a security flaw is discovered in 15.0.1 that needs to be fixed before 16.0 is ready.

(The fact that Chrome is still actively gaining market share while Firefox has plateaued couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Chrome is much newer and therefore still finding its place, nor could it have anything whatsoever to do with the aggressive advertising that Google does for Chrome on several of their very popular services. No, surely it must be because Chrome has a weird and confusing UI design and is in version twenty-something already. Obviously if Firefox is to be successful it must copy the _least_ attractive features of Chrome to the greatest extent possible. Soon new versions of Firefox will start installing themselves in user-writable locations in each user account separately by default, just to make sure all network administrators hate it with a fiery passion.)

Still? (-1, Flamebait)

Lillebo (1561251) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618435)

2012.

People still use Firefox.

Re:Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618589)

No kidding!

Apparently there are still enough people out there who either:

- Haven't consumed enough of the Apple/Safari Kool-Aid and
- Still value their 'privacy' enough to resist being sucked into the Google Void,

to justify the choice. If you wait a generation or so, though, those folks will die off and be replaced. Then you won't even have to hack facebook to steal 500 million phone numbers--just do a Google Search!

Re:Still? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618629)

Yeah like 35% of the market and declining. But whatever bro its cool you can still be snarky! And if you are having trouble with the math that is 1 in 3 people.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

The number thing is *silly* to get upset over. I personally like having better browsers every few months/weeks instead of every few *years*. The memory thing was something to get upset over. They are almost starting to get it under control. But it may be too late at this point. Or we could go back to what they had before and we would still be waiting on v5 after the 17th delay because some other feature was not 'just right'. Some of the stuff in v4 was done for 2 years and just sitting there not getting used. Then suddenly it was getting used bugs being found but being written 2 years earlier... Yeah the old way was so much better!

I am looking forward to 17/18. It has some cool stuff in it. Such as moving proxy into its own thread. The garbage collection goes in at 16. Plus a wide variety of css3 stuff. Oh and per tab memory reporting so you can figure out which website is to blame for snorking up 200 meg... That sort of thing.

Re:Still? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618719)

Yeah because W3Schools is totally a realistic sampling of the general population. On the other hand Wikimedia's stats peg it as under 20% [wikipedia.org].

Re:Still? (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619967)

> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Bear in mind, those are stats from a site visited almost exclusively by web content developers, most of whom are fairly active on the computer, use it a lot, and are less averse to upgrades than average. It's not an entirely representative sample of the internet at large. Out-of-the-box defaults, such as what comes on a computer when you buy it at the store, would naturally be expected to be significantly underrepresented in such a sample. Newer browsers would tend to be somewhat overrepresented.

I estimate Firefox usage at something more like 20% and holding fairly steady with minor fluctuations month by month. (New versions of other things come out, and people switch over, then new versions of Firefox come out, and people switch back...) IE is around 45% and has been declining steadily since the turn of the century. Chrome, which has been increasing since its introduction, has recently or will soon surpass Firefox if its trend continues, but the most marked increase I've seen in recent quarters is in mobile devices, most of which either use or convincingly spoof Mobile Safari.

Google presumably has more precise stats, broken down by geographic region, although their numbers may be somewhat skewed toward Chrome, much as Microsoft's are skewed toward IE. Slashdot's stats would be skewed in a manner similar to that of W3Schools, with perhaps an additional skew toward browsers that run on *nix systems and/or from the command line. Know your audience.

Re:Still? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#41619369)

Add-on locked. I stayed on 3.6 though, chrome's interface is intolerable for me. So I just run it sandboxed now.

Thanks for publicising the vulnerability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618479)

Thanks for publicising the vulnerability, ya bastards

Gee I wonder how this will go (2)

teslatug (543527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618517)

Let's see, they make it super easy to upgrade, but much harder (in comparison) to downgrade. Can you guess what the majority of users will do?

Of course the fast upgrade cycle has a downside, it's only a matter of time before Mozilla would let its users down with this newfangled upgrade methodology they've subscribed to.

If you're going to have a quick and seamless way to upgrade, you better have a quick and seamless way of downgrading too!

Re:Gee I wonder how this will go (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618933)

It funny you say that, because the new rapid release cycle allows for twice as much bug finding/fixing time compared to the old way

Pointless pull (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618539)

I don't get why they bothered, By the time anyone gets around to bothering with an exploit on a mass scale Firefox 17 would have been released. Besides, who really wants to know I visit "extra lunch money" on a daily basis?

Re:Pointless pull (1)

bsmedberg (955986) | about a year and a half ago | (#41620099)

Malware authors work a lot faster and more efficiently nowadays. Public security holes show up in the rootkits within hours or days and are exploited within a week.

PITA!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619137)

I just upgraded to 16 yesterday too...

Why not use svn commit as version number? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41619917)

I'd much rather run Firefox 16239.0.1!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...