Mozilla

A lot of people are interested in Firefox, the progress that is being made and what we plan to do. Therefore, I’d like to outline the things we accomplished with Firefox in 2011, and what we have already done, and plan to do, in 2012.

Firefox in 2011

The major things we did with Firefox in 2011 were:

Rapid releases
We moved into new releases every 6 weeks of Firefox, to ensure both new features and fixes got out there faster to end users, instead of having to wait up to one year before – enabling a better web for end users and web developers alike. A concern was raised was about enterprises and releases, and therefore we established the Extended Support Release for Organizations. There were also questions about add-on compatibility and update approach, that is covered below for 2012.
Performance work
During 2011, we saw the latest Firefox release that year being up to 7 times faster than Firefox 3.6!
Memory usage
A lot of work went into this area, and there were improvements resulting in up to 50% less memory usage.
Firefox release channels
To give web developers more options to test new features, we introduced the Firefox Aurora channel. Together with Firefox Beta and Firefox Nightly, that means a lot of ways to try new things.
Firefox for Android
We released Firefox for Android and have some exciting features lined up, available for testing in the Firefox Aurora and Firefox Nightly channels.
Privacy
Firefox introduced Do Not Track to the industry, something that was quickly followed by others. In 2011, the adoption for Firefox was 17.6% on mobile and 6% on desktop.
Improvements and features
In 2011, we made 10 881 enhancements/changes to Firefox, together with 83 new features and 135 new APIs.
Add-ons
A staggering 480 000 000 add-ons were installed!

Firefox and version numbers

With rapid releases and new version numbers, we have had questions about what they mean and communicate.

Version numbers will play a lesser and lesser role for users, but they will still matter to web developers, IT administrators and similar. The reason for having major version number bumps (e.g. version 6 to 7, 7 to 8, etc) is that new versions have had cases of non-backward compatible APIs, and the version number have been there to signal that it is not a minor release or maintenance update.

From a branding perspective, it will likely more go into being just Firefox, and that versioning will be more transparent.

Firefox in 2012

To continue to build on our progress and momentum for 2011 we evaluated what the next steps would be, and have already started implementing a number of them. Outlined below are some of the most important ones.

Add-on compatibility
To address the issue of people updating Firefox but having their desired add-ons stop working, from Firefox 10 add-ons were made Compatible by Default. This means that all add-ons that were marked compatible for Firefox 4 and higher will automatically be enabled in Firefox 10 and later.
Add-on sync
Firefox Sync are being used by a lot of people, and in 2011 there were 25 billion items synced. To complement that, from Firefox 11 you can now also sync add-ons.
Silent updates
To cater to update fatigue, updates will now be downloaded and installed silently in the background. It means that startup and shutdown of the web browser won’t be affected by installation routines. Additionally, the What’s New page displayed after an update can now be displayed depending if there is important information needed to be displayed to the end user. Silent updates are currently planned to land in Firefox 12, and some supporting enhancements including background updates will land after Firefox 12 (the silent update mechanism is broken down into several parts, described in detail in the Silent Update planning).
Developer Tools
Our Developer Tools in Firefox continue to evolve, with a number of features outlined in the Developer Tools roadmap.

All Firefox plans are available in the Firefox roadmap.

Web platform updates

When it comes to the web platform, we have a number of exciting new features in store:

WebRTC
Support for real time audio, video and data communication between two web browsers. The implications of this are huge and it will enable a lot of interesting real-time communication solutions, richer web games and overall take the web to the next level!
Completing Web Sockets
Make Web Sockets match the W3C protocol and API parts. Web Sockets are an interesting solution to offer bi-directional and full-duplex communications over TCP, and it enables pushing things from web servers without the need for a web page to constantly poll it and ask. Low-latency.
SPDY
Allows for multiplexing and connection sharing, described more in detail in SPDY Brings Responsive and Scalable Transport to Firefox 11. It’s SSL only, and will offer faster page loads and better scalability for SPDY-enabled web servers. The goal is for end users to have a much faster web experience with all kinds of content, from more regular web sites to high-performing ones in the form of games and media.
HTTP Pipelining
Offers a significant performance gain, in particular in regards to high latency connections. Will also help in those cases where SPDY is not enabled/an option and build on existing infrastructure.
HTTP Pre-connections
Opening HTTP connections before page loads to improve performance, and is based on the assumption that users will go back to the same sites. A complement to SPDY and HTTP Pipelining in offering a faster user experience on the web.
DASH WebM
Brings adaptive streaming of WebM video with DASH, and is outlined in Matroska/WebM in MPEG DASH. Offering proper streaming of video on the web could vastly improve user experience, and allows Firefox to adapt to changing network conditions and resolution changes (for instance, to/from fullscreen viewing).
Web Apps improvements
A huge number of features to make Web Apps more integrated into Firefox, to offer users a seamless integration and to complement the Mozilla Marketplace. All improvements are listed in the roadmap for Apps in Firefox.
Uploading directories and accessing to Local Media Storage
Gives access to entire directories through File API or to upload them, with their subtrees intact, and additionally gives access to upload, sync or other actions with Local Media. This is intended to give a richer integration with devices out there and make the web platform and experience richer for users.
CSS Flexbox and CSS Grid
Implementing support for the latest versions of CSS Flexbox and CSS Grid, where the idea is to offer a number of improved ways of doing layout on the web.
Capturing keys in fullscreen mode and Mouse Lock API
With fullscreen support in web browsers, the next step is improve the gaming and interaction experience for building more advanced web sites with key input in fullscreen mode and also being able to use the mouse as a controller instead of as a pointer.

More details on the web platform is available in the Web Platform roadmap.

Moving forward!

As you can see, we have, and continue, to work hard on Firefox and the web platform to offers users the best experiences and number of options we can!
Need help with something? Please check out the extensive Need Help With Firefox?

140 comments

Comments are now closed.

  1. Tom wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:12:

    I wont new Australis theme! Plz hurry up. I can’t wait. Thanks!

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:29:

      Yes, the Australis theme seems very appreciated. It is a work in progress.

      1. Stephen Horlander wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 06:56:

        That wiki page has most of the current details.

        Implementation is underway and I will be updating that page frequently.

        Thanks! :)

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 07:04:

          Thanks Stephen!

        2. Deo Domuique wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 12:16:

          Australis seems a very refreshed, totally clean and modern theme, BUT please, release it with squarer tabs, not those extremely wavy ones… The tabs is bit more serious change, and I wouldn’t like to rely on any hack/css etc to get the normal-shaped back. Anyway, it’s not rant, just my wish.

          1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 12:18:

            Thanks for the input!

  2. Andi Smith wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:16:

    Thanks for the update – that’s really useful.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:30:

      Thanks, glad you liked it!

  3. Ed wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:26:

    I hope Firefox will Adopt YY,MM for release Number

    SuperSnappy – Thread version of e10s
    Snappy – Async Work
    IonMonkey – End of this year?
    Generational GC – we have IGC, GGC possible?
    More MemShrink Work.
    New Paint Engine
    Hardware Graphics Acceleration work.
    Discussions on supporting OS / Hardware Acceleration decoding of Video Codec.

    Properly a lot of others that i hope Firefox will really catch up on in Year 2012.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:57:

      Thanks for your input. With version numbers, I don’t believe year and month will be adopted.

      SuperSnappy is ongoing work, and more of that can be followed in the assigned bug.

      IonMonkey and Electrolysis (e10s) are also work in progress, and from what I know, I can’t say any dates. Usually shipping happens when it is ready, and if things change, we rather focus on making sure it works than to ship what we have no matter what.

      Generational Garbage Collection is a good read to get an overview on that work.

      Regarding the other things you mention, naturally there are ongoing discussions on how we move forward and how to make Firefox as good as we can!

  4. Paul Rouget wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:41:

    Very good wrap-up.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:57:

      Thank you, Paul – it’s appreciated! :-)

  5. Karan Singh wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:58:

    I waited for sync feature with addons from long time.. This is great :-)

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 03:59:

      Yes, it was the natural progression and now it’s here!

  6. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:03:

    I keep hoping someone else but Microsoft will implement CSS3 grid layout. Obviously that’s because they have created it, but it is by far the best GUI layout solution I have seen for HTML5.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:15:

      I agree that it’s a great alternative to doing layout, and I’m happy we will do that later this year.

      1. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:46:

        OK, I’ve figured out what’s going on. The following three things are an evolution of the same spec:

        1. CSS Grid Positioning Module Level 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-grid/
        2. Grid Layout. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-grid-layout/
        3. CSS Grid Layout. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-grid-align/

        #1 is mentioned above, I was aware of #2 and thought it was different, the version to actually support should probably be #3.

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:49:

          I’m sure there will be some work, discussions and input on what will be implemented and what the draft will look like, but we intend to do CSS Grid.

  7. Zéfling wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:30:

    For Grid Layout, it’s a totally obsolete version of the recommendations. There was a lot to add in the last draft.

    1. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:33:

      @Zéfling Can you explain what you mean? AFAIK, no version at all (not even an obsolete one) is currently supported by Firefox.

      1. Zéfling wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 05:08:

        You answer at your question in your other answers. :-)

  8. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:30:

    CSS3 grid layout will really come to Firefox? That is awesome news! Is this documented somewhere? I’d love to blog about it.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:45:

      CSS Grid is listed above in this blog post as part of the plans for 2012. :-)
      It is also mentioned in the Web Platform Roadmap, layout section.

  9. Robson Sobral wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:46:

    Thank you so much for the update, Robert!

    Why implement CSS Grid now, instead of prioritize especifications that are already in the revising state? http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work.en.html There are a lot of properties almost being droped from specification because of lackness of support: attr(), cycle(), hanguing-punctuation, image(), etc…

    Thanks again!

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 04:56:

      Thanks, glad you liked it!

      For me, personally, I’d say that doing layout on the web has not been a very pleasant experience with tables, floats etc. So it’s about time that we’re offering flexbox and grid to give developers better ways layouts on the web.

      I can’t comment specifically on the ones you mention that are in a revised state, but I believe the people working for Mozilla that are in the CSS Working Group make a thought-through decision on all of these.

      1. Robson Sobral wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 07:51:

        I believe, Robert, grid is still too raw. But flexbox is great! attr() is incredible useful too. Sadly, any browser support it.

        Changing topics, why isn’t Metro interface on Platform Roadmap?

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 08:44:

          I think we need to look at CSS Grid, work with it and give feedback the problems it might have to W3C. The attr() has basic support in web browsers so far. Please see a CSS attr() demo.

          The Metro interface is mentioned in the Firefox roadmap, Q2 (linked in the post).

          1. Robson Sobral wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 09:07:

            Thanks for your answer, Robert.

            I know about the basic support. Your demo is the same we can find at MDN [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/attr]. Even on MDN, we can read about the CSS3 syntax, but we can’t use it.

            By the way, thanks again, Robert! Bye!

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 10:08:

            Right, so attr() is supported, but not to match the CSS3 specification that extends its original capabilities. I’m sure that will happen, but I don’t have more information on when.

        2. Axel Rauschmayer wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 09:12:

          @Robson Sobral: “grid is still too raw”

          Just curious: do you have any more information on that? AFAIK, Microsoft uses it to write some important HTML5 apps (email + app store) for Windows 8, so I would expect it to mature quickly.

  10. miraj wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 08:27:

    One more thing i expect in 2012 is..search from url…it really wil make difference!!

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 08:30:

      You have always (well, a long time) been able to search directly from the address field (if that’s what you mean). Just type in a term and press Enter.

      1. Oliver wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:07:

        Just to make sure – I’ve just tried searching by URL bar (didn’t actually now) but response is a lot slower than with the extra box.

        I guess it’s because Firefox first looks for a (wrong) website…

        Just my personal feeling or is there a more general truth behind it :) ?

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:36:

          It should not be slower. However, to give you complete control over that experience and behavior, please look at the Location bar search to customize that.

          1. Oliver wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 02:09:

            Thank you very much. I couldn’t change the behaviour significantly, though. Would be great if I find it faster in a next Firefox release (I still wonder how many even now about the search in the location bar!)

          2. Oliver wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 02:17:

            sorry for double post – I’ve just found out about a “hack” to improve speed – just add spaces and firefox instantly switches to google search. I guess other behaviour is hard to integrate from a developer’s point of view?!

          3. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 06:14:

            That could help, but generally shouldn’t be faster. You should ask the people in Firefox Support as well for any tips and tricks. And I do agree, I think many people don’t know it’s a possibility.

  11. Maurizio wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 09:41:

    I love Firefox, I use it since it was born, you’re on the right way, just improve WebGL support (especially on Linux): I’m a linux user and a web developer and I would like to be able to develop webgl experiments on Linux/Firefox.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 10:10:

      Thank you!
      With Linux as far as I know, it depends on the distribution and current user base. I do hope we can make your life better over time!

  12. Jason wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 09:55:

    Is there any plan in 2012 to implement the other html5 form input types?

    I can understand how there is difficulties with how the date/time input types and the color type might be implemented or what they would even look like. But I think there’s far less ambiguity in particular on how input type number and range would be implemented or look like, even if it’s whether to use the system default or not for those 2 types.

    On the non-DOM side of things, how is the Electrolysis thing for separate processes actually going? And related to that will there be any sort of plans for security sandboxing FF from the system?

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 10:17:

      It’s a good question about HTML5 Forms.

      Like you point out, some are easier than others, so it depends on the input type. At this time, there are no clear plans in the roadmap, but I do agree that implementing HTML5 form types and connected UI is the next thing that needs to be done on the HTML side.

      When it comes to Electrolysis, it encompasses desktop Firefox, mobile Firefox and plugins. Best way to keep track on that is following the Electrolysis page and also the overall Electrolysis tracking bug to see the progress.

      With regards to sandboxing, there are ideas outlined in Sandbox both content and chrome.

  13. the_dees wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 10:28:

    Hi Robert,

    can you tell us anything about CSS Ruby?

    According to roadmap [1] HTML5 will be added in late 2012. There are also patches in Bug 256274 [2] which I fear are bitrotting at the moment.

    I didn’t want to spam the bug. I’m just curious.

    [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Roadmap
    [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=256274

    1. the_dees wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 11:19:

      Sorry, “HTML5″ was meant to be “HTML5 ruby”.

    2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 11:33:

      Sorry, I don’t know more about that progress than what’s described in the bug. But please feel free to comment follow-up!

  14. jive wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 10:44:

    Looking forward to the growing developer tools :)

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 11:34:

      Good to hear! I think we will be having a blog post here on Hacks soon about their progress as well.

  15. Galaxy wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 11:31:

    This is awesome!! Lots of new things! :)

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 11:34:

      Indeed! :-)

  16. Joe wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 13:03:

    Will there be a whitelisting option for the full screen and mouse grab APIs? I shudder to think of what the next generation of machine-hijacking websites might look like.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:26:

      Work is being discussed about how to make the user aware of the change and perhaps requesting access. As mentioned in our article Using the Fullscreen API in web browsers there is a suggestion for a requestFullscreenWithKeys method that would trigger this behavior.

  17. qwertyZA wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 16:18:

    Is there a plan to release 64bit version of Firefox this year ? 64bit Flash, Java and Silverlight plugins are available, Internet Explorer has 64bit version, Opera 12 will have it too. I know web browser doesn´t need more than 4GB RAM, but it could gain 5 or 10 % performance boost.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:15:

      There are currently no plan to release a 64-bit release of Firefox for Windows in 2012. This is a question of priority. Especially as it means a lot of work just to reach the same level of performance than the 32-bit version which is much quicker under Windows for the moment than the test 64-bit version. 64-bits is not a free meal for performance.

      1. Andrew Hime wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 20:59:

        This is extremely disappointing. Guess I’ll stick with Chrome, then, since you guys can’t be bothered.

        1. Erunno wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 04:20:

          I’m curious, where did you get an official 64 bit version of Chrome?

          1. Andrew Hime wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 10:49:

            If I’m stuck using a 32-bit browser, Chrome is clearly better.

        2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 06:32:

          Feel free to elaborate on what you find disappointing? The lack of a 64-bit version?

          1. Andrew Hime wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 10:52:

            You have 64-bit versions for Mac and Linux, but can’t do one for Windows. You’ve been working towards a 64-bit version for what, years now? (I follow the tracking bug.) And yet there’s *still* no official plan for it? Hell, I run Nightly, and it works. This can’t be as hard as you make it out to be. If anything, it sounds like half the team wants it and half the team doesn’t. Don’t worry about the performance of it, just finalize it to a point where it’s ready, and release the damn thing. We want it. Give us what we fucking want.

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 19th, 2012 at 02:00:

            Naturally we want to give everyone what they want. It’s just a matter of decisions and priorities, and at this time, it’s not clear where a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows fits in. I hope it happens and makes you happy.

  18. Micah wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 17:00:

    I love the progression with CSS, thank you for being so forward!

    Any thoughts about separating processes so that each tab is its own process? I read something about this a while ago but haven’t seen it since.

    Also, is memory management in relation to plugins in the pipeline? Firefox still consumes a ton of memory because of the amount of plugins I use and the leak forces me to close the browser regularly. Is there any proper way we can take care of this or maybe Mozilla will be more forward/strict with plugin creators?

    For example, on OSX 10.6, I open Firefox with just one page and it immediately has >300MB memory usage and goes up b/c of different leaks! I’m sure plugins like Firebug are the culprit but I’m also not certain about this either.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:19:

      There are very few work right now about separating processes right now. Especially as several processes mean a great increase in RAM. They are interesting for security and stability reasons, but that’s all.

      There is a big work in progress in finding add-ons with poor memory management (read leaks). When found, Mozilla work with their authors to fix them, and if the author is reluctant to do it, some big offender may even be blocked to be installed (but that’s a last resort action).

      If you can identify an offending add-on and fill a bugzilla entry with that info, it would help.

      1. Micah wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:29:

        Thanks for the reply.

        re: separating processes – What do you mean by “that’s all” when you say security and stability are the reasons to separate the tabs into different processes? I’d say these are two of the biggest reasons that this should happen. Firefox should absolutely take security, stability and speed as the two priorities! Speed won’t be completely fixed until the add-on plugin holes and leaks are fixed, but to dismiss security and stability as “interesting” is not a good sign! I hope Mozilla will sincerely rethink its position on this idea!! You’re lunch is STILL getting eaten by other browsers very much in part because of this type of dismissal!

        re: add-ons – I’m really glad to read about this! If this problem can be mostly fixed (as very soon), it will make me give Firefox another consideration as my main browser. But, as it stands, I can only use this browser occasionally since it still feels and performs way behind the others in reality WITH these add-ons that I use so often.

        1. Micah wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:30:

          *top three priorities, I should have said.

        2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:29:

          The work you wonder about in regards to processes is outlined and discussed in the Electrolysis project. And definitely, security, stability and performance are three very important factors for us.

          1. Micah wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:39:

            Awesome, thanks again for the reply! I appreciate and support Firefox’s efforts so if I come across a little aggressive, my apologies. :)

            Is Electrolysis being maintained or considered? The proposed milestones don’t look like they’re even being considered this year and are a year or two out of date.

            I’ll stand back and appreciate what’s being done, but I do hope FF will consider certain things that should bring it into a better match of speed, security and stability to the others out there.

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:02:

            No worries, I’m glad you ask. :-)
            Electrolysis, together with Snappy, is ongoing work, and performance definitely is a high priority.

  19. Jack wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 20:16:

    This is ridiculous! Firefox 11, 12 and 13 are 7 times SLOWER than Firefox 3.6. I stopped using Firefox many time ago, because it gets slower and slower with each version.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:21:

      If you stopped using it long time ago, you probably didn’t conducted any test… If you are genuinely interested in fixing your problem, I urge you to go to support.mozilla.org, where you are likely to find people helping you diagnose why your system is slower than expected.

  20. yabbin wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 21:05:

    Well I’d sure like to see that happen. The not having a major version number every couple of weeks that is.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:22:

      The numbering scheme won’t change in 2012.

    2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:31:

      What I referred to is that it is likely that the numbers won’t be as visible to the end users, especially in combination with silent updates. So, like Jean-Yves said, I don’t think the numbers will change – it’s just that they won’t matter that much to end users anymore.

  21. Yousif Anwar wrote on March 14th, 2012 at 23:46:

    This is really appreciated!
    I hope Memory issues being TOP PRIORITY for the next releases as well as the overall smoothness!

    Thank you Mozilla!

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:33:

      Thank you!
      And yes, overall performance is definitely one of the main priorities for us.

  22. Robs wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 00:47:

    More than a half year after the public release (and more than a year after the beta release) of Mac OS Lion, there is still no support for the most Lion features.
    E.g:
    – No new (Lion-) Scrollbars in FF
    – No (Lion- )Fullscreen support

    I loved to use Firefox, but because the new Fullscreen is a killer feature for me, i switched to Safari. (And Tab-to-Zoom is also very cool).

    So when will FF support these features?

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:47:

      There’s ongoing work for add fullscreen support for Mac OS X 10.7 Lion and add support for new scrollbar style in Mac OS X 10.7 Lion.

      Out of curiosity, what is it in Firefox own fullscreen mode that you’re missing/think is better with the Mac OS X Lion implementation?

      1. Robs wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:01:

        Firefox’s own fullscreen mode opens on my desktop and hides my desktop.

        Lions fullscreen support opens the apps in an own space and i can still work on my desktop.

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:10:

          I understand. Thank you!

  23. Antonio wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:05:

    Some estimated time or firefox version where the gtk3 port (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=627699) will be released?

    Thank you.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 02:52:

      Sorry, not any more information that is in the bug and its comments.

  24. Joe wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:04:

    Ok… this is getting off topic, but I have two other questions:

    I currently use the 64-bit Linux build of Firefox. For whatever reason, when I download the 32-bit build that’s offered by default onto my 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 machine, it just won’t run.

    With my normal use patterns, this build runs very choppily and has many quirks. Currently, it’s consuming 4G RAM (3.2G resident), and about 50% CPU almost constantly. I do keep several windows and many, many tabs open, though. Also, right clicking to “open new tab” often opens an incorrect link–instead of opening the selected link, it opens the most recent link I clicked on before that.

    Do you have any pointers on how I can diagnose either of these issues? And how exactly do I report the bogus link-following issue? I have tried to construct isolated test cases that I could put in a bugzilla report, but have failed. I can say that links from “fark.com” trigger the “previous link” bug regularly, though.

    1. Joe wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:06:

      I should say “right clicking to ‘Open link in new tab'”.

    2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 03:07:

      I’m sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I have no good suggestions for how to delve deeper into them. Please put as much as you can in bugzilla bug, and I hope they can find a way to help you, and isolate/fix the problem.

  25. Jeff wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 06:16:

    Maybe I am overlooking this, but what happened to the ability to add/update Firefox add-ons without restarting Firefox. I know some add-ons have been developed to be “restartless”, but I didn’t think that all add-ons were going to have to have their code tweaked for this. Was I mistaken and add-on developers do in fact have to change their code to make their add-ons “restartless” to avoid a required Firefox restart?

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 06:50:

      Being restartless only applies to add-ons developed with the Jetpack SDK. You could do it to XUL-based add-ons as well, but, as you say, then developers need to change their code.

  26. david wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 06:31:

    I have a kind of lame question..
    Does anybody know how it’s going to be with the audio api in firefox? Are they going to implement chrome’s Web Audio API or continue with their Audio Data API? I think I read somewhere that they are going to implement the MediaStram Processing API..but that is not a replacement for the audio apis right?

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 06:54:

      As far as I know, the Media Stream Processing APIs will, among other things, unify the Audio Data / Audio Web APIs. At this moment, that progress is being tracked with WebRTC.

  27. Dava Gordon wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 10:04:

    How about fixing the memory draining issue caused by ff when having several tabs open at one time but other than that the new features sound great

  28. Robert Nyman wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 13:27:

    As mentioned in the comments above, projects like Electrolysis and Snappy are meant to tend to that.

  29. George wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 14:50:

    It is not true that all add-ons of firefox 4 were made compatible in Firefox 10.
    Google tool bar is nota compatible.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 23:03:

      You mis-read: add-ons are not modified to be made compatible. Until Firefox 10, add-ons were considered incompatible by default, now they are considered compatible, except if testing proves the opposite.

      The Google Toolbar has been discontinued by Google and is not compatible. To make it compatible, modifications to the closed source should be done. Only Google has the source code, but legally they are the only who can do this. There is nothing that Mozilla can do for that add-on.

  30. Matthew Gamble wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 14:55:

    Nothing should be changing things on my computer without my permission and without my knowledge. Silent updates violate that. Just because Chrome is pulling crap like that doesn’t mean Firefox should.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 23:04:

      Unlike Google, it is an opt-out thing. You are not forced to use it. More, the system used is completely different.

  31. hakim wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 15:11:

    Awesome work team Firefox, you’re the best, Firefox still the best web browser ever for me !! Good luck in 20121

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 06:27:

      Thank you very much!

  32. Lo nuevo de hoy wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 15:18:

    Firefox is a success, a good browser, we hope you always continue to have as successful as it has had, millions of people use it, thank you very much for sharing the plans for this year 2012

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 06:30:

      Thank you, and glad you liked the plans!

  33. Al wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 16:05:

    May I have some clarification on the ‘silent updates’, please?

    I will still retain the ability to opt-out of automatic updates, correct?

    Regards

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 23:05:

      Yes, it is opt-out. On Windows, there will be a service in the background downloading and installing the upgrade.

      1. Al wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 07:59:

        Thank you for the reply.

        Another service to disable, oh joy!

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 08:51:

          As with any options/preferences, the default choice will be to the one that most people will want and will gain from.

          1. Al wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 10:21:

            I understand.

            I simply need to be able disable any and all ‘automatic’ updates on my rig.

            Thank you for the reply.

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 19th, 2012 at 01:59:

            Sure thing – hope you will be happy with it.

  34. Nexso wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 17:21:

    I wish 2 things for next versions of Firefox: Speed Dial and upgrades’s add-ons without restart.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 23:10:

      A Speed Dial-like tool is on the current Nightly of Firefox. It should be ready for public consumption around Fx 13-14. Upgrading add-ons without restart is really difficult as add-ons may be in use at some point.

  35. bull500 wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 19:13:

    how is the performance going to be faster? I mean will it beat chrome? And if possible make the tab moving effect similar to chrome. its eye candy ^_^

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 23:30:

      There is no one performance metric. The Snappy project aims at making the user interface reactive. There is no metric set as a goal, though informally any action should see a reaction in less than 150 ms, and every related bugs is prioritize according its impact. One of the main action is to remove any I/O from the UI thread so that the interface will stay reactive.

      Taras Glek, leading this effort, do post (almost) weekly report on the progress: http://blog.mozilla.com/tglek/category/snappy/

      Working this way proved very effective with memory management which is now far better than the competition (though there are still a lot of work in progress).

      The tab moving effect was removed as it lowered snappiness. It will come back in the future (no set date).

  36. Jay wrote on March 15th, 2012 at 21:17:

    I was a totally firefox guy a year back, now I am on Chrome
    but looking at the roadmap, I am definitely going to shift back to firefox again.

    :)

    thanks a lot for the great work guys.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 06:25:

      Sounds good – hope you will like it!

  37. Hieu Le Trung wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 09:44:

    I think firefox team should implement the multi-column of CSS3 completely in 2012, the column break feature is so important but have not implemented yet.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 17th, 2012 at 14:48:

      I’ve seen plans to implement the break features (not of CSS3 Columns, but of CSS2.1). If this is prioritized high enough, that certainly will means that the column-break features will be done at the same time.
      Also note that all the break features (CSS3 Columns, CSS 2.1, …) are refactorized in a new CSS Fragmentation module (First published working draft has been publishes earlier this very same month). This is really interesting to make them work well with all the new CSS layout features coming in the next couple of years.

      But there is more demand for CSS3 Flex and CSS3 Grids than for CSS3 Columns.

  38. kickass69 wrote on March 16th, 2012 at 10:55:

    It sounds like Silent Updates are going to be mandatory which I’ll easily switch to another browser if it doesn’t remain optional in options or About:config for advanced users. Part of that Silent Update mechanism entails Firefox needing to bypass OS dialogs (UAC in Windows Vista/7) as per your Silent Update Planning link. I actually want to know when a program is making or attempting any change to my system. I prefer manually updating anything I use for compatibility and other issues that can arise as well as to examine new features. Forcing updates in the background might come across as a great feature for some until something unsavory from the organization who makes said program gets passed on that can cause you problems or a botched update that causes system issues.

    Catering to update fatigue is the same excuse I hear from any other program that forces this upon it’s users, more like it caters to the lowest common denominator who uses their PC as an appliance instead of learning and knowing how to use it.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on March 17th, 2012 at 14:45:

      I’ve never heard any plan to have silent updates mandatory. Though they will be on by default on Windows if the installation is done with enough privileges to allow the Service to be installed, silent updates won’t be mandatory. Also Firefox will not bypass OS dialogs, the user will have to give the service the authorization once, at installation time, that’s all. Then the OS won’t throw other dialogs.

  39. Carlo wrote on March 19th, 2012 at 13:59:

    Be very careful with silent updates. I, like other people said above, personally hate this feature and I’ll block it. But please think also of all the people who use a notebook with a mobile connection charged on traffic basis and aren’t tech-savvy. I don’t think they’ll like to pay for Firefox to be updated, as few hours later they can download it for free while connected to a LAN at office or home. Some of my colleagues had to deinstall Chrome because it costed them too much with that malware-like bahaviour the user can’t control — and deinstalling does not remove the Google’s update executable. I hope that Firefox stops copying the worst things from Chrome, like the absurd fact that if the menu bar is removed we have no more a way to see a full page title in the browser, without installing a (buggy) extension.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 20th, 2012 at 01:47:

      There will be need to block it or similar. As it is planned, it will be a setting and you you’ll be able to control if you get automatic updates or not.

  40. Mukesh wrote on March 21st, 2012 at 00:35:

    waiting for New firefox updates.. :)
    Bring some thing awesome In It..

  41. george wrote on March 22nd, 2012 at 02:40:

    the whole point of accelerating the version numbers of Firefox was to match the numbers of Chrome and Internet Explorer.
    Now that it’s done, they go back to something more reasonable.
    That’s all there is to it.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 22nd, 2012 at 06:57:

      The version numbers of Firefox are meant to keep increment in the same pace as before.

  42. Andy Lyn wrote on March 22nd, 2012 at 09:05:

    I can understand the frequent releases of firefox and trouble keeping track the new version numbers. But you have also improved the interface and speed of the browser along with numerous fixes – for which you’ve got my vote.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 22nd, 2012 at 09:51:

      Thank you!

  43. Danny wrote on March 22nd, 2012 at 21:37:

    I am seriously considering whether to abandon Firefox entirely, move users to the ESR version, or just prevent upgrades for six months to a year at a time. Quite simply, the version changes have become insane.

    It is less and less clear what a version increment means in terms of features, security, performance, or anything else, except inconvenience, and the idea of software that silently updates itself sounds more like a virus than a desirable program. At this point, version numbers do not seem to correspond to either security updates or significant feature enhancements, which makes it very difficult to decide whether to proceed with a given update.

    Using silent updates to remove that decision from the user is not a solution to that problem so much as it is an invitation to disaster! It is not going to matter if someone is a sole end-user or an IT manager when one day they find that an automatic update has caused a problem with some other application or changed the interface in a way that users were not expecting – when that happens Firefox will probably loose those users forever; with good reason, I believe.

    Firefox currently seems determined to become the “New Coke” of the software world and there is simply no way for that to be seen as a compliment. I urge you to slow down and provide some stability for users while we still care enough to bother asking for it.

    Lastly, try to remember, most users want to spend time actually using their software applications, not maintaining them.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 04:31:

      Thanks for your feedback.

      First of all, as outlined in the blog post: the main reasons for rapid releases is to be able to ship both new features and fixes to users – something that could have to wait up to a year before. We see this as a way to continually make the web experience better, for both users and web developers.

      To pair with that, most users don’t want to know about updates, they just want it to be the latest and work. This is where the silent updates come in. And as already mentioned in a number of comments here, you will be able to opt out of silent updates if you don’t want that.

      1. Joe wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 04:50:

        I’m all for being able to get new features quickly, if it turns out there’s something whizzy I just have to have. Most of the time, I’m content with what I have. All I really want are just nice, conservative security and stability updates.

        The fast release schedule makes it easy for me to dip in and get something relatively fresh. But putting us on an upgrade treadmill just to get security and stability updates (while simultaneously changing a bunch of other random things) seems to be making a lot of people very justifiably cranky.

        For my next upgrade, i’m moving to an ESR release. I hope it makes me less cranky.

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 12:04:

          The idea is to improve the web browsing experience in a number of ways, all from security, stability, performance and more.

          It would be interesting to know which things in there that doesn’t make it worth it to you.

          1. Danny wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 15:00:

            R. Nyman: “The idea is to improve the web browsing experience …… It would be interesting to know which things in there that doesn’t make it worth it to you.”

            It amazes me that this still is not getting through, but in an effort to be more specific, here is some of what makes it all not worth it:

            – Version numbers that do not indicate whether a version represents a significant change, or just a patch. For the sake of argument, lets say a significant change is something that modifies the interface, is clearly noticeable to the end user, and is generally the sort of thing the majority of all software users would agree requires a full version number change rather than a more typical “x.y.z” change. For example, Microsoft Office’s change from Office 2003 to 2007 was a major change, the change from Office 2003 to Office 2003 with service pack 1 was not a major change. In Firefox language, this should be comparable to version 10 (Office 2003) to version 10.x (Office 2003 w/SP1 but instead you feel compelled to call it version 11 which seems to have no visible changes.

            – Software that users spend more time wondering whether they should update rather than learning to use and understanding all of the latest changes is not worth the effort. As if it is not clear already, asking users to evaluate new versions for installation every six weeks is not worth the effort.

            – Software that threatens to bypass security protections and install itself, like a virus, is not worth the effort. (The fact that this alleged “feature” can be turned off begs the question of introducing a change that requires additional evaluation and training of both users and, in organizations, IT managers.)

            – In fact, Firefox is wrong: most users do not really want the absolute latest version of a given piece of software, more importantly, they want software that is reliable, stable, and does the essential job for which it has been selected. Almost all users will accept less than the latest version in exchange for not needing to worry about whether their software is being changed in a way that might cause problems, require extra installation or troubleshooting effort and most of all, they do not want to be forced to change the way they are working several times a year due to the whim of some developer.

            – Most software users have never liked being treated as beta testers, which is what rapid release seems to be doing more than ever before. The mere length of the list of bug fixes between versions 10 and 11 is a clear indication that version 10 was not really a “ready for prime time” release. We can only guess at this point whether version 11 is equally bug laden.

            – At least in the Windows environment, it is no small feat to convince people, even more so organizations, to move from IE to Firefox. Hard to believe is this now sounds, however, increasingly, IE is looking like the more stable browser. Stability, whether it be real or perceived, is an important attribute for software. When it can no longer be argued that Firefox is the more stable, consistent, and easy to manage alternative to IE, then Windows users and managers will certainly not consider it “worth it” to continue forward with Firefox.

            Above are only a few of the points that are serving to make “vapid release” not worth it. One could easily go on. Hopefully, however, if anyone is really listening this should help illuminate the issue.

            This nonsense has already forced me start switching everyone I work with that uses Firefox to the ESR. To be clear, that means a lot of individual, not just organizational users, are now moving away from what you seem to consider your prime product. If the ESR does not provide adequate stability along with a reasonable schedule of truly necessary security patches, when they are really needed, then the only remaining option is going to be moving those users to another browser entirely and saying goodbye to the Firefox experiment.

            So, to return to Mr. Nyman’s question above, is there really anything about “rapid release,” aka “change for the sake of change,” that truly makes it worthwhile to stick with Firefox at this point? I am very hard pressed to see anything in the new strategy that clearly merits a “yes” to that question.

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 17:21:

            So, “still not getting through” and not agreeing is not the same thing. There are different opinions, desires and wishes out there, where we naturally choose what we believe the most people want and what is best for the majority.

            – Version numbers: as outlined in the blog post, is about that “versions have had cases of non-backward compatible APIs”. We could discuss back and forth whether a major version number change should have visible changes or not, but it has been decided that the changes warrant a major version number update. At the end of the day, for users, version numbers generally don’t really matter, they just want a product.

            – Software and wondering users: this contradicts your point that nothing happens with each update, but you believe users have to spend a lot of time considering if it’s worth updating or not. The idea with rapid releases is to have incremental improvements such as performance, security etc without the user having to visibly see the update.

            – You are definitely in title to your opinion, that software that can software automatically updating itself is a virus. I don’t agree with that assessment. But sure, it warrants knowledge in IT departments.

            – “most users… …want software that is reliable, stable, and does the essential job for which it has been selected. ” Exactly. And to make sure it is, we need to continually keep on updating it. As with any product, there will always be cases and combinations where it can be improved, and where it can be made to be more secure.

            – Because bugs are discovered , listed and fixed, you find that as a shortcoming. I see that as a strength, that they get tended to. I’d argue that most software out there have a number of bugs, but it’s not always they are pinpointed or fixed.

            – If organizations deem it better for their needs to have their web browsers update only, for instance, a year that’s their choice and we offer an option for that too. We’re the only web browser that offers both rapid releases with improvements and the ESR release, and you can choose whichever one that fits you.

            I think it has been stated above, in the blog post and elsewhere why we believe rapid releases is the default way to move forward. We continually make Firefox more secure, stable and faster while giving web developers new features faster to build more compelling web sites.

            If those reasons don’t fit your needs or values, that is just fine, and there’s an option for you with the ESR release.

  44. Danny wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 18:52:

    Yes, we all entitled to our opinions. However, it seems that no one at Firefox is really listening to user opinions anymore. It reminds me of Fox News – everyone has the rapid release talking points along with marching orders to do whatever it takes to convince users who do not believe in this flawed strategy that they, not Firefox / Mozilla are mistaken.

    No doubt as those users that actually care lose energy for the debate and simply go away, the reduced discussion will probably be seen as some sort of victory or acceptance at Firefox. In reality, it will be the beginning of the product’s demise.

    In a paradoxical sort of way, perhaps Firefox will be saved by some flaw that harms enough user’s systems badly enough due to its untimely rapid release that you folks will wake up and return to a strategy of making sure everything really works and truly merits a new version release before such things are distributed to an unsuspecting user base. Of course, at that point it will take a long time to recover credibility for the product, but at least you will be able to say you made it to version 15 or 25, or whatever.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 23rd, 2012 at 19:06:

      What you are missing here, though, is that you imply that we don’t listen to user opinions because our implementation approach doesn’t match your values. We have had a lot of input from people wanting silent and automatic updates.

      Regarding marching orders: I personally blogged about my opinions about this in Web browser versions are dead – automatic updates is the future almost a year ago. Mozilla is quite different there in the sense that we are very open for different opinions, and we all discuss this openly.

  45. Suny wrote on March 25th, 2012 at 20:14:

    Thanks to the Mozilla community for the many years of great innovations! FF road-map, as I know, will add some extra ideas and projects than what is listed. That’s what makes this Organization a force to reckon with.
    Glad to have learned that “automatic updates” will have an opt-out button. That’s the whole idea of Choices(and what open source means). The rapid release cycle, contrary to other commenter’s view or understanding, is simply a perception by any user or web developer that some changes or no changes were made (visibly). I disagree. Every time I get an update and the browser restarts, I get presented with a page enumerating the changes. I click the “release notes” to gather more relevant info. I am not a savvy web developer, but I use SeaMonkey’s Composer to build web pages and any tools made available, I’ll research on it and utilize it, if necessary. From the end user’s perspective, FF is Awesomely fast, has great engine (Gecko), and is the only one with great varieties of add-ons, preferences (options), and an overall Great look. What more do you need?
    Mozilla’s total strategy has been, and always will be, to Innovate, Improve, and Implement the next best Browser on the Web. Mozilla’s FF was the First to introduce HTML5, the first to introduce HTML5 Video (OGG), the first to introduce Tab(s) on a browser, allow developers and users to create extensions, themes, and later to implement Personas. Yep Mozilla continues to be a World-Community Web Developing Organization. They aren’t perfect, but they sure kick-ass with some of the ideas that get landed on the browser. That said, I await the next best thing to catapult Mozilla as the organization to keep an eye-on by the competitors.
    Just to add some more congrats here: congrats on making a FF Android-based browser, congrats on introducing Boot-2-Gecko (B2G or BTG), an awesome Web-based OS for the Mobile/phone and perhaps also Tablet, and congrats on making the best of 2012 and beyond!
    Suny

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 29th, 2012 at 11:26:

      Thank you for all the kind words!

  46. Nigelle wrote on March 28th, 2012 at 07:41:

    Automatic and silent updates

    -Please explain how it is possible when you run Firefox on a limited rights Windows user (e.g. with Windows XP).
    After many crashes, I have completely stopped Firefox (and Thunderbird) update features and taken a subscription to a site that send me a mail each time my favourite programs have a new release. Then I download it and install it from my administrator account (not connected to the net).

    -Don’t ask me to be connected to the Net with an administrator account : FF will be able to update automatically but also all the MALWAREs may install : with limited rights they need to be able to escalate their privileges…

    -I deeply depend on some add-ons and I cannot take the risk to be blocked by a FF release that makes them incompatible. So I have installed the “Is It Compatible” extension and I check their compatibilities before updating FF.
    I think that the announced levels (low and high) of compatibility of extensions should be shown by the standard FF extension manager program without needing the “Is It Compatible” extension.

    I think that all the time you devote to automatic update programs is wasted and should be devoted to more needed features or bug corrections…

    Please also note that CAPTCHA does not show if you have blocked in FF options the loading of distant (external to the site to which you are connected) informations/files. Allowing them is a security exposure !

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 29th, 2012 at 11:29:

      One of the biggest requests we have gotten from users is to make updates silent and automatic, to ensure they have the latest and most secure version. The idea is not to have to expose your computer for a bigger risk.

      Regarding add-ons, they are treated as compatible by default unless they contain any specific code/access.

      Thanks for the note about the CAPTCHA.

  47. Nigelle wrote on March 28th, 2012 at 08:06:

    Add-on compatibility
    “…from Firefox 10 add-ons were made Compatible by Default. This means that all add-ons that were marked compatible for Firefox 4 and higher will automatically be enabled in Firefox 10 and later.”

    Firefox 4 was a very BAD choice : Some extensions between 4 and 10 are truly incompatible and may crash FF if you re-enable them.
    In particular old dictionaries were installed system wide and remained in the FF files with a disabled state because they are very difficult to uninstall (there is no way in standard FF) see : “[Bug 731692] Obsolete dictionaries seems to crash Thunderbird but cannot be erased”.

    I think that you should consider as incompatible extensions that have not been updated (at least their compatibility range) for a shorter period of time (6 months ?) or range of releases (3 or 4 previous ?). That means that they are no more supported by their author…

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on March 29th, 2012 at 11:32:

      Some other criteria go into that check as well. Those who won’t be considered as default are (as listed in Compatible by Default and the Add-ons Compatibility Reporter):

      – Add-ons marked to work with a Firefox version less than 4.0
      – Add-ons with binary components
      – Add-ons explicitly marked by the author as incompatible, i.e. opt-out of Compatible By Default
      – Add-ons tested and determined to not be compatible with a given version of Firefox, and marked as incompatible by Mozilla
      – Themes

      1. Nigelle wrote on April 21st, 2012 at 05:56:

        “- Add-ons marked to work with a Firefox version less than 4.0″
        This should be changed to a moving limit increased for new versions of Firefox : e.g. the version 4.0 should be replaced by the number of the version that is just older than 1 year or 6 months (to give reasonable time to the author to update the compatibility).

        1. Robert Nyman wrote on April 21st, 2012 at 09:48:

          The idea there is that the API will be stable enough and backwards compatible, so hopefully it won’t be needed and just be automatic in the future.

          1. Nigelle wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 03:27:

            This is a long standing hope but the success is not always here !

            Are you sure that FF does not re-enable an add-on that I have disabled on purpose in the past but not erased because there was no button to do it. It seems that this has occurred to me with an old dictionary.

          2. Robert Nyman wrote on May 16th, 2012 at 05:40:

            It should not re-enable add-ons that have been disabled. If you experience that, please file a bug. Thanks!

  48. Very Sad wrote on April 18th, 2012 at 19:46:

    I can’t believe you intend to remove version numbers or hide them from users. This information is important to users, developers, and company support desks. You are very mistaken if you believe everyone wants to update immediately whenever there is a new version. Like it or not, new versions of software often include new bugs. So some people do not want to be beta testers and suffer unfortunate side effects when a new feature doesn’t work as planned. Some people are also happy with the existing user interface and what you perceive as an improvement may not be considered as such by your entire user base. Please reconsider your position on this. I really think you need to lose the attitude. Yes, it’s your software, but there are alternative browsers should you continue to do things that are unacceptable to “your” users.

    1. Robert Nyman wrote on April 19th, 2012 at 01:36:

      We have not stated that version numbers will go away, but that they will be more transparent. And as stated many times in the comments here, automatic updates will be optional.

  49. Julio Jimenez-Agüero wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 23:33:

    Dear Jean-Yves:

    Please, could you show us, the Firefox community, the Native 64 bits firefox release planned from Mozilla.
    Thanks for your work on 32 bits version.

    1. Jean-Yves Perrier wrote on May 14th, 2012 at 15:25:

      As I said there is no real plan to push this into a Tier-1 platform in the near future (that is 2012). But Intel 64-bit versions for Windows are available there: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/ .

      Beware, this is alpha quality and is slower than the 32-bit version on Win 64-bits.

Comments are closed for this article.