How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
Seems to be a lot of issues with this.  Seems to me many add-on writers
aren't all that fast in making their products compatible.  And users
won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>
> Terry R.

There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
burn.  On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
updated to show FF5 compatibility.  Users should update their extensions
if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible.  Extensions not
on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some third
parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
version until you see that your extension has updated.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
> burn.  On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
> updated to show FF5 compatibility.  Users should update their extensions
> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible.  Extensions not
> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some third
> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>

I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
added to any of them.  But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
about their add-ons not working.  And there appears to be noise in the
support group also.

You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
their current setup.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their extensions
>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions not
>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some third
>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>
>
> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
> support group also.
>
> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
> their current setup.
>
>
> Terry R.

There are several reasons for the problem.  First, users are using
extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed.  Users of those extensions are
on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
updated.
Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.

It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
still work.  Most will actually work.  Because they hook into a lot of
places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar) will
not work.  The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
chance that they will fail.

Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox.  NO OTHER BROWSER
has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox.  Most, in order to
minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
  This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
want the power, it will come at some cost.

Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.

To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
latest security updates.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their extensions
>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions not
>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some third
>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>
>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>> support group also.
>>
>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>> their current setup.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> There are several reasons for the problem.  First, users are using
> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed.  Users of those extensions are
> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
> updated.
> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>

Yes.  But that doesn't calm users who don't have their browser screwed
up.  They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
concerned, Mozilla broke it

> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
> still work.  Most will actually work.  Because they hook into a lot of
> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar) will
> not work.  The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
> chance that they will fail.

Again, this isn't me.

>
> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox.  NO OTHER BROWSER
> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox.  Most, in order to
> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>    This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>

Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.

> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>
> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
> latest security updates.
>

Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
breaking their trusted browser.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

PhillipJones
Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their extensions
>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions not
>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>> third
>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>
>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>>> support group also.
>>>
>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>> their current setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those extensions are
>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
>> updated.
>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>>
>
> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who don't have their browser screwed
> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>
>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar) will
>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>> chance that they will fail.
>
> Again, this isn't me.
>
>>
>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER BROWSER
>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>
>
> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>
>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>
>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>> latest security updates.
>>
>
> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
> breaking their trusted browser.
>
> Terry R.
That's what "will Happen.

see this article:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217837/Mozilla_retires_Firefox_4_from_security_support?source=CTWNLE_nlt_dailyam_2011-06-22

read especially the comments at the end of the article. (click on the
comments link at bottom of second page.)

and this;
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217896/Enterprise_IT_unhappy_with_Firefox_4_s_quick_demise?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2011-06-23

Mozilla isgoing to regret doing this rapid release crxx.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

WaltS-3
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>
> Terry R.

Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
the community as in donations.

Have you donated to any extension authors?

I know I haven't.

Everyone that has, raise their hand.
--
Thunderbird 5
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their extensions
>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions not
>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>> third
>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>
>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>>> support group also.
>>>
>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>> their current setup.
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those extensions are
>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
>> updated.
>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>>
>
> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who don't have their browser screwed
> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>
>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar) will
>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>> chance that they will fail.
>
> Again, this isn't me.
>
>>
>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER BROWSER
>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>
>
> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>
>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>
>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>> latest security updates.
>>
>
> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
> breaking their trusted browser.
>
> Terry R.
And just where are they going to go?  Google Chrome that updates
silently, without permission, or notification?  Their extensions are
subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either.  Same goes for IE9.
People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same.  I don't get it.
At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
want, and find extensions to do what they want.
There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
foot if that is what they want to do.
So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
or any other feature."  Do you think people would be happy with that?

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were automatically
>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their extensions
>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions not
>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>>> third
>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the old
>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>>>> support group also.
>>>>
>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and many
>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>>> their current setup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those extensions are
>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
>>> updated.
>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>>>
>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>
>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar) will
>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>> chance that they will fail.
>> Again, this isn't me.
>>
>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER BROWSER
>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>
>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>
>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>
>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>> latest security updates.
>>>
>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>
>> Terry R.
> And just where are they going to go?  Google Chrome that updates
> silently, without permission, or notification?  Their extensions are
> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either.  Same goes for IE9.

I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it.  I gave up
on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking.  And that was the
main reason I moved all my clients off of it.

> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same.  I don't get it.

Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now.  You can
appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.

> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
> want, and find extensions to do what they want.

You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so much
as they just want it to work.

> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
> foot if that is what they want to do.
> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
> or any other feature."  Do you think people would be happy with that?
>

Some would I'm sure.  Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
breaking their trusted browser.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by WaltS-3
On 6/23/2011 5:44 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard

> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
> the community as in donations.
>
> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>
> I know I haven't.
>
> Everyone that has, raise their hand.

Well, if they're going to flake now, maybe they should have charged from
the get-go.  Like phone apps, charging $1-$5 for something useful isn't
bad.  But if it breaks after I paid for it, I'd be upset.

Evernote has a major bug in their version for the Palm Pre.  They
stopped supporting it until they knew what HP was going to do.  Many
users lost data because of it.  I'm glad I didn't pay for that one right
away.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

WLS (CompTIA A+ Certified - Retired)
Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/23/2011 5:44 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
>> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
>> the community as in donations.
>>
>> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>>
>> I know I haven't.
>>
>> Everyone that has, raise their hand.
>
> Well, if they're going to flake now, maybe they should have charged from
> the get-go. Like phone apps, charging $1-$5 for something useful isn't
> bad. But if it breaks after I paid for it, I'd be upset.
>
> Evernote has a major bug in their version for the Palm Pre. They stopped
> supporting it until they knew what HP was going to do. Many users lost
> data because of it. I'm glad I didn't pay for that one right away.
>
>
> Terry R.

I think there is a difference between paying for a phone app, where you
have to pay for it, if you want it, and an extension where you can
donate to the author if you so desire.

I wouldn't know for sure since I don't do phone.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ken Springer-3
In reply to this post by WaltS-3
On 6/23/11 6:44 PM, WLS wrote:

> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
> the community as in donations.
>
> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>
> I know I haven't.
>
> Everyone that has, raise their hand.

I have.  :-)

And possibly some of the add-ons authors don't have the time to update
their extensions to match Mozilla's schedule.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.7
Firefox 3.6.17
Thunderbird 3.1.11
LibreOffice 3.3.2
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Sailfish-2
In reply to this post by WaltS-3
My bloviated meandering follows what WLS graced us with on 6/23/2011
5:44 PM:

> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
> the community as in donations.
>
> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>
> I know I haven't.
>
> Everyone that has, raise their hand.

Not tooting my horn but I've donated to every extension that I find
useful and the author has requested a donation. Mind you, I only have 12
installed and many of them don't request donations.

--
Sailfish - Netscape/Mozilla Champion
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://www.projectit.com/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 6/23/2011 8:34 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on
>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the
>>>>>>> past, at
>>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were
>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their
>>>>>> extensions
>>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>>>> third
>>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the
>>>>>> old
>>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>>>>> support group also.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and
>>>>> many
>>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>>>> their current setup.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those extensions are
>>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
>>>> updated.
>>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>
>>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
>>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>>
>>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
>>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar)
>>>> will
>>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>>> chance that they will fail.
>>> Again, this isn't me.
>>>
>>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER BROWSER
>>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
>>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>>
>>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>>
>>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>>
>>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
>>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>>> latest security updates.
>>>>
>>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>> And just where are they going to go? Google Chrome that updates
>> silently, without permission, or notification? Their extensions are
>> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
>> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either. Same goes for IE9.
>
> I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it. I gave up
> on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking. And that was the
> main reason I moved all my clients off of it.
>
>> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
>> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same. I don't get it.
>
> Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now. You can
> appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
> version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
> dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.
>
>> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
>> want, and find extensions to do what they want.
>
> You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so much
> as they just want it to work.
>
>> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
>> foot if that is what they want to do.
>> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
>> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
>> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
>> or any other feature." Do you think people would be happy with that?
>>
>
> Some would I'm sure. Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
> breaking their trusted browser.
>
> Terry R.
Perhaps Firefox should just have a version that they will promise never
to change for those Luddites.  Wait, they DO have such a version.  FF4
won't be changed.  It has reached EOL.  Now everyone can be happy.  The
Luddites can have their unchangeable Firefox, and the rest of us can go
farther into the great unknown browser future.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
On 6/24/2011 12:44 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 6/23/2011 8:34 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on
>>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the
>>>>>>>> past, at
>>>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature addition.
>>>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were
>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their
>>>>>>> extensions
>>>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the update.
>>>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the
>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with nothing
>>>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user complaints
>>>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in the
>>>>>> support group also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>>>>> their current setup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those extensions are
>>>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not they are
>>>>> updated.
>>>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>>>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
>>>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>>>
>>>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>>>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really does
>>>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>>>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar)
>>>>> will
>>>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>>>> chance that they will fail.
>>>> Again, this isn't me.
>>>>
>>>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER BROWSER
>>>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>>>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension can do.
>>>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if they
>>>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>>>
>>>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>>>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a working
>>>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>>>> latest security updates.
>>>>>
>>>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>>>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> And just where are they going to go? Google Chrome that updates
>>> silently, without permission, or notification? Their extensions are
>>> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
>>> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either. Same goes for IE9.
>> I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it. I gave up
>> on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking. And that was the
>> main reason I moved all my clients off of it.
>>
>>> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
>>> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same. I don't get it.
>> Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now. You can
>> appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
>> version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
>> dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.
>>
>>> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
>>> want, and find extensions to do what they want.
>> You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so much
>> as they just want it to work.
>>
>>> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
>>> foot if that is what they want to do.
>>> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
>>> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
>>> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
>>> or any other feature." Do you think people would be happy with that?
>>>
>> Some would I'm sure. Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>
>> Terry R.
> Perhaps Firefox should just have a version that they will promise never
> to change for those Luddites.  Wait, they DO have such a version.  FF4
> won't be changed.  It has reached EOL.  Now everyone can be happy.  The
> Luddites can have their unchangeable Firefox, and the rest of us can go
> farther into the great unknown browser future.
>

Yeah, kind of like you with POP and IMAP... ;-)

Oh, I still refer back to 3.6 if they need it.  Whatever it takes.  Some
just want things to work like they did, and aren't that concerned with
updates.




Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by WLS (CompTIA A+ Certified - Retired)
On 6/23/2011 6:47 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard

> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 5:44 PM On a whim, WLS pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
>>> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
>>> the community as in donations.
>>>
>>> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>>>
>>> I know I haven't.
>>>
>>> Everyone that has, raise their hand.
>> Well, if they're going to flake now, maybe they should have charged from
>> the get-go. Like phone apps, charging $1-$5 for something useful isn't
>> bad. But if it breaks after I paid for it, I'd be upset.
>>
>> Evernote has a major bug in their version for the Palm Pre. They stopped
>> supporting it until they knew what HP was going to do. Many users lost
>> data because of it. I'm glad I didn't pay for that one right away.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> I think there is a difference between paying for a phone app, where you
> have to pay for it, if you want it, and an extension where you can
> donate to the author if you so desire.
>
> I wouldn't know for sure since I don't do phone.

I don't see any difference.  Many phone apps are free, or free to try.
Someone offers something useful and others are willing to pay for it,
regardless of the platform.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 6/24/2011 10:37 AM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/24/2011 12:44 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/23/2011 8:34 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the
>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on
>>>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And
>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the
>>>>>>>>> past, at
>>>>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break
>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature
>>>>>>>> addition.
>>>>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were
>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their
>>>>>>>> extensions
>>>>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the
>>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the
>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user
>>>>>>> complaints
>>>>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> support group also.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>>>>>> their current setup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>>>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>>>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those
>>>>>> extensions are
>>>>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> updated.
>>>>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or
>>>>>> FF5.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>>>>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
>>>>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>>>>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>>>>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar)
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>>>>> chance that they will fail.
>>>>> Again, this isn't me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER
>>>>>> BROWSER
>>>>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>>>>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension
>>>>>> can do.
>>>>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>>>>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a
>>>>>> working
>>>>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>>>>> latest security updates.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>>>>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
>>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> And just where are they going to go? Google Chrome that updates
>>>> silently, without permission, or notification? Their extensions are
>>>> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
>>>> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either. Same goes for IE9.
>>> I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it. I gave up
>>> on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking. And that was the
>>> main reason I moved all my clients off of it.
>>>
>>>> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
>>>> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same. I don't get it.
>>> Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now. You can
>>> appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
>>> version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
>>> dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.
>>>
>>>> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
>>>> want, and find extensions to do what they want.
>>> You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so much
>>> as they just want it to work.
>>>
>>>> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
>>>> foot if that is what they want to do.
>>>> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
>>>> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
>>>> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
>>>> or any other feature." Do you think people would be happy with that?
>>>>
>>> Some would I'm sure. Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>> Perhaps Firefox should just have a version that they will promise never
>> to change for those Luddites. Wait, they DO have such a version. FF4
>> won't be changed. It has reached EOL. Now everyone can be happy. The
>> Luddites can have their unchangeable Firefox, and the rest of us can go
>> farther into the great unknown browser future.
>>
>
> Yeah, kind of like you with POP and IMAP... ;-)
>
> Oh, I still refer back to 3.6 if they need it. Whatever it takes. Some
> just want things to work like they did, and aren't that concerned with
> updates.
>
>
>
>
> Terry R.
I checked, and my gmail account IS IMAP.  You happy now.  BTW, I HATE
the way it works, and it WON'T let me change the way it handles deletions.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Terry R.-3
On 6/24/2011 1:56 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 6/24/2011 10:37 AM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 6/24/2011 12:44 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 6/23/2011 8:34 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the
>>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on
>>>>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And
>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the
>>>>>>>>>> past, at
>>>>>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break
>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature
>>>>>>>>> addition.
>>>>>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to crash and
>>>>>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were
>>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their
>>>>>>>>> extensions
>>>>>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible. Extensions
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as some
>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the
>>>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with the
>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>>>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user
>>>>>>>> complaints
>>>>>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> support group also.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with, and
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will break
>>>>>>>> their current setup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>>>>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>>>>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those
>>>>>>> extensions are
>>>>>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not
>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>> updated.
>>>>>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or
>>>>>>> FF5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>>>>>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they are
>>>>>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN RISK),
>>>>>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a lot of
>>>>>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar)
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>>>>>> chance that they will fail.
>>>>>> Again, this isn't me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER
>>>>>>> BROWSER
>>>>>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in order to
>>>>>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension
>>>>>>> can do.
>>>>>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a user
>>>>>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>>>>>> latest security updates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>>>>>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at Mozilla
>>>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>> And just where are they going to go? Google Chrome that updates
>>>>> silently, without permission, or notification? Their extensions are
>>>>> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it isn't
>>>>> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either. Same goes for IE9.
>>>> I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it. I gave up
>>>> on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking. And that was the
>>>> main reason I moved all my clients off of it.
>>>>
>>>>> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to Google
>>>>> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same. I don't get it.
>>>> Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now. You can
>>>> appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
>>>> version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
>>>> dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.
>>>>
>>>>> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
>>>>> want, and find extensions to do what they want.
>>>> You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so much
>>>> as they just want it to work.
>>>>
>>>>> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
>>>>> foot if that is what they want to do.
>>>>> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
>>>>> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
>>>>> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or HTML,
>>>>> or any other feature." Do you think people would be happy with that?
>>>>>
>>>> Some would I'm sure. Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>
>>>> Terry R.
>>> Perhaps Firefox should just have a version that they will promise never
>>> to change for those Luddites. Wait, they DO have such a version. FF4
>>> won't be changed. It has reached EOL. Now everyone can be happy. The
>>> Luddites can have their unchangeable Firefox, and the rest of us can go
>>> farther into the great unknown browser future.
>>>
>> Yeah, kind of like you with POP and IMAP... ;-)
>>
>> Oh, I still refer back to 3.6 if they need it. Whatever it takes. Some
>> just want things to work like they did, and aren't that concerned with
>> updates.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
> I checked, and my gmail account IS IMAP.  You happy now.  BTW, I HATE
> the way it works, and it WON'T let me change the way it handles deletions.
>

?  I know Gmail has IMAP, as well as POP.  You are the one who said
nothing could be done about your Charter POP account, not me.  I was the
one who suggested you forward your POP email to Gmail so you can utilize
IMAP.

What do you HATE (being specific rather than so generalized)?  What
about "the way it handles deletions"?  Here you are sounding as vague as
some of the posters you complain about in the support groups.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ken Springer-3
Ken Springer wrote:

> On 6/23/11 6:44 PM, WLS wrote:
>> On 06/23/2011 04:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on writers
>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And users
>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the past, at
>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break things.
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>>
>> Maybe, just maybe the add-on writers aren't all that fast in making
>> their products compatible, because they aren't getting any support from
>> the community as in donations.
>>
>> Have you donated to any extension authors?
>>
>> I know I haven't.
>>
>> Everyone that has, raise their hand.
>
> I have. :-)
>
> And possibly some of the add-ons authors don't have the time to update
> their extensions to match Mozilla's schedule.
>
That's most likely the problem , they working their backsides of just
trying to keep up with changes. Some are going to burn out and say to
Hexx with it.  Many came in to  fill a need and because they enjoyed a
challenge. but when the challenge becomes a daily grind. Some are going
to say to hexx with it. I can't blame then with all the changes.

I've downloaded FireFox.

I'm in process of copying all of my user-names and passwords I haven't
got even halfway.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How will Firefox weather the rapid release with add-ons?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 6/24/2011 4:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> On 6/24/2011 1:56 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 6/24/2011 10:37 AM, Terry R. wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2011 12:44 AM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 6/23/2011 8:34 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>> On 6/23/2011 6:16 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 6:08 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:57 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the
>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 4:07 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 1:50 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the
>>>>>>>>> keyboard
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2011 3:36 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to be a lot of issues with this. Seems to me many add-on
>>>>>>>>>>> writers
>>>>>>>>>>> aren't all that fast in making their products compatible. And
>>>>>>>>>>> users
>>>>>>>>>>> won't really know what major changes occur like we did in the
>>>>>>>>>>> past, at
>>>>>>>>>>> least knowing that a major version release could likely break
>>>>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>>>>> There were a lot of bug fixes, and one significant feature
>>>>>>>>>> addition.
>>>>>>>>>> None of these are particularly likely to cause add-ons to
>>>>>>>>>> crash and
>>>>>>>>>> burn. On their scan of AMO, 94% passed the tests and were
>>>>>>>>>> automatically
>>>>>>>>>> updated to show FF5 compatibility. Users should update their
>>>>>>>>>> extensions
>>>>>>>>>> if the upgrade process suggests they aren't compatible.
>>>>>>>>>> Extensions
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> on AMO may be a different kettle of fish.
>>>>>>>>>> Third party toolbars are most likely to not be compatible, as
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>> third
>>>>>>>>>> parties wait until a release is final to start working on the
>>>>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>>>>> If you just can't live without a specific extension, stay with
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>> version until you see that your extension has updated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't have a problem, as I only have the 3 versions on this
>>>>>>>>> workstation for user support, and they are clean profiles with
>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>> added to any of them. But I have been getting a lot of user
>>>>>>>>> complaints
>>>>>>>>> about their add-ons not working. And there appears to be noise in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> support group also.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know what it's like to have your configuration messed with,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> of these complaints are about not trusting updates if it will
>>>>>>>>> break
>>>>>>>>> their current setup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>>>> There are several reasons for the problem. First, users are using
>>>>>>>> extensions loaded on FF3, and not updated so that the new extension
>>>>>>>> reports compatibility with FF4 or FF5.
>>>>>>>> Second, the extensions aren't AMO listed. Users of those
>>>>>>>> extensions are
>>>>>>>> on their own, because Mozilla has no control of whether or not
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> updated.
>>>>>>>> Third, some extensions that worked with FF3 won't work with FF4 or
>>>>>>>> FF5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. But that doesn't calm users who have their browser screwed
>>>>>>> up. They find something they like add-on wise, and as far as they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> concerned, Mozilla broke it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is possible to turn off compatibility checking (at your OWN
>>>>>>>> RISK),
>>>>>>>> and actually test the 'incompatible' extension to see it it really
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> still work. Most will actually work. Because they hook into a
>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>> places to do their work, some third party toolbars (Google Toolbar)
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> not work. The more places they hook into Firefox, the greater the
>>>>>>>> chance that they will fail.
>>>>>>> Again, this isn't me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Extensions are a large part of the success of Firefox. NO OTHER
>>>>>>>> BROWSER
>>>>>>>> has as many, or as powerful, extensions as Firefox. Most, in
>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>> minimize this very problem greatly limit just what an extension
>>>>>>>> can do.
>>>>>>>> This is a double-edged sword, and users should understand that if
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> want the power, it will come at some cost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and when they break, they blame the one who last touched it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Usually, with the vast reservoir of extensions to choose from, a
>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>> will be able to find a substitute for a failing extension.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, it seems preferable to at least make an effort to find a
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>> alternative than to continue to operate with a browser lacking the
>>>>>>>> latest security updates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, either they go back to the old version with their add-ons
>>>>>>> working, or move to another browser because they are upset at
>>>>>>> Mozilla
>>>>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terry R.
>>>>>> And just where are they going to go? Google Chrome that updates
>>>>>> silently, without permission, or notification? Their extensions are
>>>>>> subject to breakage also, but since they operate ONLY on data, it
>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>> as likely, but then it isn't as powerful, either. Same goes for IE9.
>>>>> I haven't had Chrome break anything since I've been using it. I
>>>>> gave up
>>>>> on customizing FF, as I grew tired of things breaking. And that was
>>>>> the
>>>>> main reason I moved all my clients off of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> People complain about the FF4 UI, and then say they are going to
>>>>>> Google
>>>>>> Chrome/IE9 which are basically the same. I don't get it.
>>>>> Because they wanted FF the way it was, not what it is now. You can
>>>>> appease some of them by showing them how to make it like the older
>>>>> version, but for most of them, the only way to show their
>>>>> dissatisfaction is to not support the browser.
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least, with FF, one can customize the appearance to look as they
>>>>>> want, and find extensions to do what they want.
>>>>> You'd be surprised how many people don't care what it looks like so
>>>>> much
>>>>> as they just want it to work.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is really no way to keep people from shooting themselves in the
>>>>>> foot if that is what they want to do.
>>>>>> So, do you think people would be happy if Firefox just said; "Well
>>>>>> people don't want change any more, so we will just freeze everything,
>>>>>> not fix bugs, not patch security issues, and never improve CSS or
>>>>>> HTML,
>>>>>> or any other feature." Do you think people would be happy with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Some would I'm sure. Definitely the ones who are pissed at Mozilla for
>>>>> breaking their trusted browser.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terry R.
>>>> Perhaps Firefox should just have a version that they will promise never
>>>> to change for those Luddites. Wait, they DO have such a version. FF4
>>>> won't be changed. It has reached EOL. Now everyone can be happy. The
>>>> Luddites can have their unchangeable Firefox, and the rest of us can go
>>>> farther into the great unknown browser future.
>>>>
>>> Yeah, kind of like you with POP and IMAP... ;-)
>>>
>>> Oh, I still refer back to 3.6 if they need it. Whatever it takes. Some
>>> just want things to work like they did, and aren't that concerned with
>>> updates.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Terry R.
>> I checked, and my gmail account IS IMAP. You happy now. BTW, I HATE
>> the way it works, and it WON'T let me change the way it handles
>> deletions.
>>
>
> ? I know Gmail has IMAP, as well as POP. You are the one who said
> nothing could be done about your Charter POP account, not me. I was the
> one who suggested you forward your POP email to Gmail so you can utilize
> IMAP.
>
> What do you HATE (being specific rather than so generalized)? What about
> "the way it handles deletions"? Here you are sounding as vague as some
> of the posters you complain about in the support groups.
>
>
> Terry R.

Well, if I delete an email on my phone, HOW do I prevent it from being
deleted on the server?  Before I trust my email to IMAP, that will have
to be resolved.  Worse, gmail won't let me CHANGE the way deletions are
handled.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
12345