Judging by the posts on the support forum on the Firefox web site makes me wonder if anyone at Mozilla is talking to each other or even listening to their users.
I've never seen so many complaints about 2.0.0.18 and 3.0.4 as I've seen since the latest "upgrade" was released.
I spent too much time talking clients through downgrading back to 2.0.0.17 (so much so that I have a copy of the installer for 2.0.0.17 that I email to them to run and get rid of 2.0.0.18!).
Before they decide kill off the 2.x version, they should address all the complaints that have arisen.
Mozilla to end support for Firefox 2
Summary
Stability and security releases for the browser will end next month, despite ongoing problems with Firefox 3
Topics
The Mozilla Foundation is planning to end support for the Firefox 2 browser in mid-December, despite the persistence of significant flaws in the most-recent version of the popular browser.
The 'end of life' (EOL) plan for Firefox 2 is part of Mozilla's policy of ending support for previous versions of a product six months after a new version's release. It is designed to allow Mozilla developers to focus their efforts on the current browser version, Firefox 3, released in mid-May.
For users, the policy means an end to security and stability updates for the existing versions, as well as an end to releases of new features.
Support will also cease for the Gecko 1.8 layout engine that underlies both Firefox 2 and the Thunderbird 2 email client. The move will affect a range of third-party Gecko-based browsers, such as SeaMonkey, the Mac-only Camino and the Unix/Linux browser Galeon.
Mozilla confirmed the move on the web page devoted to older versions of its software, stating: "Firefox 2.0.0.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until mid-December, 2008. All users are strongly encouraged to upgrade to Firefox 3."
Mozilla is pressing on with the transition despite criticisms of Firefox 3 from some quarters, including some organizations that have found the newer browser unusable due to particular bugs. Some users have noted that Firefox 3 appears to be more prone to crashing than the older browser, and has problems with using too much memory. The browser's new location bar has also come in for criticism. Earlier this month, a system administrator for the University of Bergen commented that a bug related to the use of network drives had meant the organization could not install Firefox 3.
Firefox 2 is still receiving significant numbers of bug-fixes in new releases. Last week, Mozilla released Firefox 2.0.0.18 and Firefox 3.0.4, addressing a dozen security flaws, half of which were ranked as critical. Mozilla's current plan is to release only one more update to Firefox 2, version 2.0.0.19.
Mozilla assured developers that support would continue for Thunderbird 2 past December, despite the fact that it is based on the now-outmoded Gecko 1.8 engine.
"Mozilla (in some form) will provide support for Thunderbird based on the official lifecycle policy," said Mozilla's Michael Connor in a recent message to the Mozilla planning mailing list.
The support situation for third-party browsers based on Gecko 1.8 is more ambiguous, according to Firefox director Mike Beltzner. While he acknowledged that Mozilla developers' focus would no longer be on Gecko 1.8, he said third-party developers would still be free to maintain the software and fix bugs.
"EOL doesn't mean 'everyone stop coding and doing reviews', more that 'we don't have a team doing weekly triage on blockers and milestone releases'," Beltzner wrote in a recent Mozilla mailing list post.
In October, Beltzner said two-thirds of Firefox users were already using version 3. Mozilla set a world’s record for its more than eight million downloads of Firefox 3 in June.
Just In
There may be some odd cases where FF2 works better, but, in the vast majority of cases FF3 is faster, more stable, and uses less RAM. I have 8 examples of FF3, and they all work better on both Macs and Windows than FF2. In one case, FF3 on a WinXP machine has started crashing in the last 24 hours. Have to find which extension is causing the problem.
There are still plenty of people out there using the DOS-based versions of Windows (95, 98, 98SE, Me). I know that support for these versions are dwindling and the use of these versions is on the decline, but I question whether it's the time to cut off those users. After all, a compromised Windows 95 system can still be a decent zombie machine. And that's what everybody else gets the results from when security support is terminated.
Oh, well. At least Opera still supports the DOS-based versions of Windows.
Oh, well. At least Opera still supports the DOS-based versions of Windows.
why worry if the browser support is discontinued? If you can handle an unsupported OS, the browser should be no problem.
Admission: I used mostly Win98 for a Windows machine up until six months ago.
Admission: I used mostly Win98 for a Windows machine up until six months ago.
At my job, we manage remote firewall devices over HTTPS. Since the hostname is custom for each device the SSL certificate is always different. In IE6 and FF2, that's not a problem, and in FF2, the act of logging into the firewall for the first time is so easy I've memorized the keyboard strokes, up twice, enter, up, enter, login screen. In FF3, you have to open up two separate menus, explicitly allow an exemption, go back, log back in, and go from there. And FORGET doing it in IE7.
The time lost from having to upgrade these browsers would be highly detrimental to us. For what we use browsers for on that server, we'd rather stick with FF2.
The time lost from having to upgrade these browsers would be highly detrimental to us. For what we use browsers for on that server, we'd rather stick with FF2.
Sounds like the switch was almost as bad as XP to
Vista.
You must be one unlucky guy.
Vista.
You must be one unlucky guy.
If your XP machine happens to have AVG then check the add-on safe search.
My machine was crashing with this enabled. I disabled and thus far no more crashes.
My machine was crashing with this enabled. I disabled and thus far no more crashes.
I've noticed a tendency for FF3 to lock up completely with certain web pages. That very rarely happened, if ever, with FF2. I shall not be upgrading at home until I see the problems with FF3 properly resolved.
Our experience with FF3 is that it is faster and more stable than FF2. Let's face it, it costs money to continually maintain each release. I can easily understand why the Mozilla Foundation would put FF2 out to pasture. Frankly, it's about time.
What's so much fun in the "computer press" is how much so many people grumble about applications. An application could have 1,000 great improvements over its previous version, but the computer press -- and its readers -- will complain like crazy about 1 or 2 minor problems instead. So it goes.
What's so much fun in the "computer press" is how much so many people grumble about applications. An application could have 1,000 great improvements over its previous version, but the computer press -- and its readers -- will complain like crazy about 1 or 2 minor problems instead. So it goes.
Well as someone who uses their browser all the time, I can say I do not see any appreciable performance difference between FF2 and FF3. I'm sure it's measurable but it's not noticeable (yes, I am on broadband). But in addition to that, there are many things about 3 that I don't like, so I disagree with the "about time" sentiment. I have even thought about degrading back to 2. 3 crashes, and 2 NEVER did for me, some extensions that I had come to rely on in 2 don't work in 3, and I HATE the location bar. For me, FF3 is a net step backward for my experience.
I have to use FF2 because my online banking will not let me pay bills or do transfers with FF3. I do not know if it is FF or the banks problem.
What are these significant problems? I've been using FF3 since its inception and have not had a single error. (Yes- it's locked up a couple times, but what windows-based program doesn't?)
FF3 runs Flash and Javascript at legendary speeds. (Chrome's Javascript engine is unreal.)
Take www.understand.com for example, run FF2 and FF3 side-by-side (on the homepage), FF3 blows 2 away, try the same with IE and Chrome.
If you are using Win98, it is unreasonable to expect support beyond a decade.
From a web developer standpoint, the fewer the browsers, the better.
FF3 runs Flash and Javascript at legendary speeds. (Chrome's Javascript engine is unreal.)
Take www.understand.com for example, run FF2 and FF3 side-by-side (on the homepage), FF3 blows 2 away, try the same with IE and Chrome.
If you are using Win98, it is unreasonable to expect support beyond a decade.
From a web developer standpoint, the fewer the browsers, the better.
Well there have been numerous bugs with FF3, which a casual go-on-myspace/facebook type person would not encounter, but it has data handling issues, most addons that were compatible with FF2 were incompatible with FF3 for a long time, and some which I use have yet to be upgraded. While I will admit that FF3 has many new features and is great to use as well as looking very stylish, there are still a few kinks to work out with java, flash and streaming abilities (sometimes they fail to start and moving onto another web page causes the browser to crash). I stopped using FF2 because I thought FF3 would fix the memory issue, but it's still there. The browser has a tendency to just randomly close for no reason on Windows XP, and a significantly reduced chance of that on Windows Vista. I like some features of FF3 but I don't see much of a problem for those who are reluctant to upgrade. I'm not giving a reply really, just giving the good and the bad of FF3. This is using Windows Vista and Windows XP.
FF3 is unusable on ebay. The refresh doesn't work so late
bidding is impossible. FF2 works fine.
bidding is impossible. FF2 works fine.
I have several "older" Mac that are still running 10.3.9 because some applications only run on this older OS.
I can only run Firefox 2.0.18 on Mac 10.3.9.
Life is a *&#W!#
I can only run Firefox 2.0.18 on Mac 10.3.9.
Life is a *&#W!#
Sad. This is all I use although I have all the other browsers I never use them.
They're going to stop wasting time on the old one and
focus on improving the new one more.. what's there to
be sad about? o.0
focus on improving the new one more.. what's there to
be sad about? o.0
Anti-phishing support will be removed from the final version of FF2, at Google's request, due to the use of an obsolete protocol.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/120408-mozilla-to-pull-anti-phishing-feature.html?page=1
Those who must use FF2 may wish to check out OpenDNS as a possibility for an anti-phishing replacement, among other options. If not, check it out anyway.
http://www.opendns.com/
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/120408-mozilla-to-pull-anti-phishing-feature.html?page=1
Those who must use FF2 may wish to check out OpenDNS as a possibility for an anti-phishing replacement, among other options. If not, check it out anyway.
http://www.opendns.com/
as stated in several posts above.
I personally won't count on FF and Google alone for anti-phishing, anyway. (Actually, I prefer SeaMonkey.) The appropriate extensions and OpenDNS will do much better, and OpenDNS stops phishing at the DNS level. It has other cool features and is a very quick to set up.
I personally won't count on FF and Google alone for anti-phishing, anyway. (Actually, I prefer SeaMonkey.) The appropriate extensions and OpenDNS will do much better, and OpenDNS stops phishing at the DNS level. It has other cool features and is a very quick to set up.
But Windows 95? Come on.. lol
I bet you a $15 cpu and $15 stick of RAM is all you'd
need to have 2000 or XP running just fine.
I bet you a $15 cpu and $15 stick of RAM is all you'd
need to have 2000 or XP running just fine.
As I asked in an earlier post, why worry about support for FF2, when Win98 is no longer supported anyway? Be that as it may, individuals will continue to use whatever OS they like, and some corporate networks can't really afford to change. There also appears to be network issues that are independent of what OS may be in use.
Where might one get copies and licenses for Win2k at this point? Getting XP any more seems hard enough.
My only point here in the bottom of this thread is that, for those who, for whatever reason, are going to continue to use FF2, and will update to the final version which will no longer have anti-phishing capabilities, and want anti-phishing, there is an option available for them. OpenDNS is downright useful anyway, so I suggest that anyone should check it out. It has a lot to offer, and for the record, was already "patched" long before Dan Kaminsky announced the DNS flaw.
As for hardware, depending on the system, one may be able to upgrade RAM, less likely the processor, to run a newer OS. That would entirely depend on the system board. However, a used, older, or new low-end computer is pretty cheap. That is a possibility for individual users, but still doesn't help corp networks that are stuck with a lot of legacy apps. Corp users shouldn't have to worry about browsing through a corp firewall/NAC/NAP setup, though.
The internet could potentially be much safer if everyone did upgrade to a modern OS, keep it patched, and use proper security software, devices, and practices. It is too bad that this isn't possible for everyone.
Where might one get copies and licenses for Win2k at this point? Getting XP any more seems hard enough.
My only point here in the bottom of this thread is that, for those who, for whatever reason, are going to continue to use FF2, and will update to the final version which will no longer have anti-phishing capabilities, and want anti-phishing, there is an option available for them. OpenDNS is downright useful anyway, so I suggest that anyone should check it out. It has a lot to offer, and for the record, was already "patched" long before Dan Kaminsky announced the DNS flaw.
As for hardware, depending on the system, one may be able to upgrade RAM, less likely the processor, to run a newer OS. That would entirely depend on the system board. However, a used, older, or new low-end computer is pretty cheap. That is a possibility for individual users, but still doesn't help corp networks that are stuck with a lot of legacy apps. Corp users shouldn't have to worry about browsing through a corp firewall/NAC/NAP setup, though.
The internet could potentially be much safer if everyone did upgrade to a modern OS, keep it patched, and use proper security software, devices, and practices. It is too bad that this isn't possible for everyone.
It's abandonware now, so should be legal to get it off
thepiratebay.
Problem solved.
Actually nevermind, there wasn't a problem to begin
with, because.. if you have no problem with your
OPERATING SYSTEM no longer being updated, you
DEFINITELY shouldn't have a problem with some program
on it no longer being updated.
thepiratebay.
Problem solved.
Actually nevermind, there wasn't a problem to begin
with, because.. if you have no problem with your
OPERATING SYSTEM no longer being updated, you
DEFINITELY shouldn't have a problem with some program
on it no longer being updated.
And thanks for repeating in the second half of your post that which I have already stated twice.
The capitals, line breaks, and attitude are a definite bonus, as is your deep technical insight on the matter. Thank you for playing.
The capitals, line breaks, and attitude are a definite bonus, as is your deep technical insight on the matter. Thank you for playing.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
