Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just like there can be snarky comments there can be snarky or not so snarky replies to them. Right? Right.Try I was just making a snarky comment in regards to how often Firefox seems to update their software. We all understand the concept of software updates.
Could somebody point me to the "no-humor" rule for these forums because I never seem to learn.
I find Firefox, with it's tab mechanism, highlight search function, implementation of pinch to zoom and privacy options more convenient to use than Safari. I really like the dictionary/Wikipedia lookup in Safari, but the fact that Safari doesn't have a clear cache when browser closes function is a deal breaker.
Same here. After heavy browsing., it eats up about 2GB of RAM and responds really slowly. It also gets slow when browsing sites like tumblr and after scrolling, it starts to lag and the fans start flaring.
Still, I use it cause of the add-ons.
For anyone who's wondering why some people hate the new "fast major version numbers" thing, here's the explanation.
When signing contracts with clients, we used to be able to say things like "your website will work on the current versions of browsers and one previous major version". So if Firefox was version 7 when signing, the website would be compatible with a version from a year or so ago, more or less. Different browsers had different update windows.
But now, what can you say? By the time you start talking to the client about their website and delivering it, both Chrome and Firefox will probably have increased by 5 versions, if not more.
When signing contracts with clients, we used to be able to say things like "your website will work on the current versions of browsers and one previous major version". So if Firefox was version 7 when signing, the website would be compatible with a version from a year or so ago, more or less. Different browsers had different update windows.
But now, what can you say? By the time you start talking to the client about their website and delivering it, both Chrome and Firefox will probably have increased by 5 versions, if not more.
No, don't be silly, it would not be mystically better, but releasing updates numbers in a X.Y.Z makes it much easier to track as a consumer which major improvements you can expect from each version. Everyone who says "its just a number, what does it matter" ask yourself, why not just release their updates in a completely random, non sequential order, and just pick a number between 1 and 1000 out of thin air. The answer is obviously that the number gives you an indication of what to expect from the version you are running, and by having an order you can assume that the higher the number, the better the program, and for developers it gives them an idea of what features they can and can't utilise in this version to made a successful addon or module for the program. Using decimal points just gives the user even MORE information about the quality of the update: is it a big leap or a little leap. It is a well established convention in computing and Mozilla are choosing to ignore it just to have the biggest number.
When I used Windows I preferred IE or Opera over Firefox, when I used Linux I used Konquerer or Opera, my Android phone had Dolphin or Opera, and now that I have my Mac I stick with Chrome.
So, no I don't remember.
A running joke, think like "Safari is snappier
". I think FF's especially slow release cycle for major point upgrades contrasted with the new system is the joke.Whether that is funny or not... well...
At least it's snappier.
This made me laugh. Thank you.
Because ONLY developers can have a discussion about developer matters.
His total ignorance of APIs made it impossible to continue a discussion with him. As someone who makes plugins, I need to be told if a new version is going to require my plugin to change. Firefox's lack of organization with their numbering makes it impossible for me to be able to gauge how different their API without me looking at it all, and given they release a new version every week, I don't want to bother. Fortunately, I don't make Firefox plugins so it doesn't matter, but if Apple started following the same pattern, that would be problematic for me.
Actually, I basically just said that it should work how it does work.
I'm the ignorant one, though, right?
If you can read API documentation*, it shouldn't be a problem at all. I don't think Michael Goff exhibited any "ignorance." You jumped on your high horse and automatically eschewed him from your special developer club.
*This of course assumes decent and navigable documentation.
They update it every few weeks. I don't want to have to check to make sure the API hasn't changed every week - generally if the major number hasn't changed, it's a good indicator that nothing from the API has been removed. It's interesting that Mozilla sends out automated notifications to developers when their plugins break during beta tests - that does seem to resolve my complaint.
