Firefox 6 ships, but we shouldn't really pay attention

[Guest Code Hunter]

Firefox 6 ships, but we shouldn't really pay attention

By Peter Bright

The Mozilla organization has shipped Firefox 6, eight weeks after the release of Firefox 5. Just as with Firefox 5, not a lot has visibly changed. The domain name in the address bar is now highlighted, to make phishing more apparent—mimicing a similar feature already found in Internet Explorer—sites with "extended verification" certificates appear slightly differently in the address bar, and Mozilla is claiming that there's some speed improvement. And that's about the extent of it. More substantial improvements are in the pipeline for Firefox 7—most notably a JavaScript engine that uses much less memory—but nothing so substantial is evident in version 6.

This smaller release—bug fixes, behind-the-scenes improvements, but little user-visible difference—is likely to be the norm for future Firefox versions. Bigger features will still arrive from time to time, but for the most part, users will just experience a continuous improvement. Firefox updates should be automatic and essentially invisible. Even articles such as this one, which attach some significance to the new release, are probably not what Mozilla wants—press coverage should focus on features, not version numbers. Mozilla—as with Google—wants developers to cease targeting specific browser versions, and instead target standards; the regular releases are one step towards achieving that goal.Another key part is downplaying version numbers.

Again, Chrome is the obvious example here; if you look at the Chrome download page, for example, there's no indication of which version of Chrome you're going to get. It's just "the latest."However, Mozilla wants to take this a step further. A feature request entered into Mozilla's bug system (feature requests aren't bugs in any traditional sense, but Mozilla uses one system for managing everything) calls for the removal of the version number from Firefox's "About" dialog. Instead, the intent is to make the About box do two things; show the product name and links to legal information, as it already does, and show how long ago Firefox checked that it was up-to-date, with some kind of provision to check right now.

There won't be a version number—just an indicator of whether the browser is up-to-date or not.This was no mere trolling or attempt to start a discussion: the request was made by Asa Dotzler, Firefox's Product lead, and he says he filed the bug at the suggestion of Firefox's usability lead, Alex Limi. The desire to get rid of the version number is coming from the top.The reaction, however, was almost universally negative. While many commenters agreed with the broader desire to downplay version numbers, they disagreed with the change, since the version number remains useful when diagnosing problems, and users expect to see it in the about dialog.

Quotes were made from the Windows, Mac OS X, and GNOME user interface guidelines to bolster this point; in all three, the about dialog is meant to specify a version. Getting rid of the version number breaks this expectation. Version information would still be visible, but only through the little-known "about:support" page.While we have agreed with Mozilla that the rapid release policy and downplaying of the version number is the best way forward for the Web itself, the virtue of making this change is harder to fathom. For most people, the only reason to even have an "About" dialog is to see which version you're running—the number of users who care about the legal mumbo jumbo, or Mozilla's mission-statement, is vanishingly few. Even having the update feature in the

About box (as Chrome also does) runs contrary to expectations—checking which version you're currently running shouldn't change that version.And for what gain? Even if the version number isn't very important, it's a piece of trivia that users expect to see there. Putting it there hurts nobody, and is consistent with their expectations. The biggest problem with browser version numbers is not browser users—it's Web developers, making decisions on the basis of the version string. If Mozilla were really serious about preventing people from depending on the version number, it's not the About dialog that would lose the version number—it's the version information sent to every Web server every single time the browser requests a page that should disappear.

Leave the information accessible to users; just prevent developers from having access to it. That's where it really matters.The argument is made that you don't know what version of, say, Twitter or Facebook you're using, so why should your Web browser be any different? One rather big, obvious difference is that Web sites aren't installed locally and don't have to be manually updated. Firefox at the moment still does. The browser still doesn't have a robust automatic update mechanism. It doesn't perform Chrome-like silent updates, so the user is made painfully aware that she is switching versions. If you're going to force the user to know about every update, it seems a little unfair to refuse to even tell her what version she's using.In similar with the enterprise issue, it also seems that the entire problem could have been avoided if Mozilla had simply switched to a date-like version number.

This would both end one of the enterprise gripes—that major version number bumps incur extra testing—and the About box could then say something equivalent to, "this version of Firefox was created on 2011-08-11. It is up-to-date," which would both tell users how stale their version was (if at all), and serve as a version identifier of sorts.Dotzler's mind appears to be made up, however. Though he "relinquished" the bug report "to the mob", apparently due to the negative reception, he regards the entire discussion as crazy. So the change looks as if it's going to go ahead, user expectations be damned.

Photograph by Brooke Novak

http://arstechnica.c...ay-attention.ars

[goldhound]

I tried version 6 today and for the first time i remember the download was slow and dodgy. Cancelled it and tried again which worked fine but i rolled back to version 5 a few minutes later after seeing there were issues with Java along with Norton safe search, some extensions and addons. I am quite ticked at FF over this. Expect you to update your browser and not tell that there will be old problems back again.

They seem to be going backward.

[Guest Code Hunter]

I tried version 6 today and for the first time i remember the download was slow and dodgy. Cancelled it and tried again which worked fine but i rolled back to version 5 a few minutes later after seeing there were issues with Java along with Norton safe search, some extensions and addons. I am quite ticked at FF over this. Expect you to update your browser and not tell that there will be old problems back again.

They seem to be going backward.

If you were disappointed with FF 6 don't give FF 7 a try, it doesn't get any better.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

I was surprised that it does not support Java 6 Update 27, but the latest Java 7 which some programs don't support yet being a major release(back to my LibreOffice ordeal). So now I have to have both Java 6 and 7 installed.

[Guest Code Hunter]

I was surprised that it does not support Java 6 Update 27, but the latest Java 7 which some programs don't support yet being a major release(back to my LibreOffice ordeal). So now I have to have both Java 6 and 7 installed.

I would just find another browser instead of having two versions of Java installed.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

I would just find another browser instead of having two versions of Java installed.

Yeah I switched to Opera for the time being as having two Java versions caused problems with some sites that required it.

[AdvancedSetup]

This one still works fine for me

[DarkSnakeKobra]

This one still works fine for me

Or this one on CentOS. I don't really have a choice....

[Guest Code Hunter]

Yeah I switched to Opera for the time being as having two Java versions caused problems with some sites that required it.

I installed version FF 5.01 and added all the addons I normally use on FF and then upgraded to version 6.0 and Java 6 Update 27 is working fine with FF 6.

[GT500]

Or this one on CentOS. I don't really have a choice....

Here's what I'm using on my CentOS server:

I'd be using something newer, but newer versions of Opera 10 had a dependency that was not available for CentOS/RedHat servers the last time I checked, so I'm still coasting along with a massively outdated browser on my poor server.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

Here's what I'm using on my CentOS server:

I'd be using something newer, but newer versions of Opera 10 had a dependency that was not available for CentOS/RedHat servers the last time I checked, so I'm still coasting along with a massively outdated browser on my poor server.

I use the latest version as my primary browser. It does okay, but I receive crash notices often and have to disable and renable the spell check on facebook in order for it to work.

[GT500]

I use the latest version as my primary browser. It does okay, but I receive crash notices often and have to disable and renable the spell check on facebook in order for it to work.

Probably means that you need to delete operaprefs.ini and then launch Opera so that it will recreate it. This will, of course, reset all Opera settings to defaults, but it will not delete your mail or speed dial if you have those set up.

On Windows 7 and Vista the operaprefs.ini is usually found in the following folder:

C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Opera\Opera\

I'm sure you can figure out the Windows XP path, as the profile folders were much simpler in Windows XP.

In Linux/Unix, the profile path is even easier:

/home/<username>/.opera

And, of course, if you have trouble figuring it out, then Opera can tell you where it is. Just type opera:about into the address bar and press Enter and you will get all of the info about the config file paths (and plenty of other paths as well).

[DarkSnakeKobra]

Probably means that you need to delete operaprefs.ini and then launch Opera so that it will recreate it. This will, of course, reset all Opera settings to defaults, but it will not delete your mail or speed dial if you have those set up.

On Windows 7 and Vista the operaprefs.ini is usually found in the following folder:

C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Opera\Opera\

I'm sure you can figure out the Windows XP path, as the profile folders were much simpler in Windows XP.

In Linux/Unix, the profile path is even easier:

/home/<username>/.opera

And, of course, if you have trouble figuring it out, then Opera can tell you where it is. Just type opera:about into the address bar and press Enter and you will get all of the info about the config file paths (and plenty of other paths as well).

Thanks. Hopefully that fixes it.

Edit: Spell check still does not function correctly. No biggie though.

[GT500]

Edit: Spell check still does not function correctly. No biggie though.

They use the Hunspell engine, just like OpenOffice.org, which is a terrible spell check engine (Aspell had better word suggestions, and Hunspell often can't figure out what word you are trying to spell even when you are only a single letter off). I don't expect it to be great, however there may be a way to fix it. Try closing Opera, renaming the dictionaries folder in Opera's profile (same path as operaprefs.ini), then launch Opera again and see if it works better afterwards. I don't know enough about the hideous Hunspell engine to know how to fix it, so no guarantees.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

It only takes a second to get the spell check to work with the reply box/status updates which I'm not really gonna worry about it. One of the annoyances that comes with a free enterprise based Linux system I can live without.

[GT500]

It only takes a second to get the spell check to work with the reply box/status updates ...

You mean Text Fields (single-line) as opposed to Text Areas (multi-line)? Yeah, Opera's spell checker never worked right with those.

I hate to say it, but their real-time spell check was never properly implemented...

[DarkSnakeKobra]

You mean Text Fields (single-line) as opposed to Text Areas (multi-line)? Yeah, Opera's spell checker never worked right with those.

I hate to say it, but their real-time spell check was never properly implemented...

Exactly. I checked it out on Windows(haven't used FB with Opera on windows before) and the same thing happens so I guess it's on Opera's part.

Ah yes. I like Firefox's spell check better.

[GT500]

Ah yes. I like Firefox's spell check better.

Konqueror always had good spell check too. If I'm not mistaken, Konqueror was also the first browser to have spell check. I remember seeing it at least a year before Firefox implemented it, and it was in there before I noticed it, so it could have been years ahead of everyone else.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

Konqueror always had good spell check too. If I'm not mistaken, Konqueror was also the first browser to have spell check. I remember seeing it at least a year before Firefox implemented it, and it was in there before I noticed it, so it could have been years ahead of everyone else.

I love Konqueror. Sweet.

[GT500]

I love Konqueror. Sweet.

I like its layout engine. I don't find it anywhere near as functional as Opera though.

[Bobc11]

Did anyone know this even existed? It's Firefox 9. It also tries to mimic IE. But I really like the improvements.

[Guest Code Hunter]

Unlike Santa and the Easter Bunny Firefox Nightly Builds do exist.........

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

[DarkSnakeKobra]

I like its layout engine. I don't find it anywhere near as functional as Opera though.

Ah gotcha. I like the option on what information is reported to websites such as os version, browser and so forth. Don't like giving my OS out to websites as they don't really need it unlike browser info.

[mountaintree16]

So is Firefox going to change its name to NIGHTLY? Weird... big change.

[Guest Code Hunter]

So is Firefox going to change its name to NIGHTLY? Weird... big change.

Nightly is just a Firefox test version.. like Google's Nightly Canary version.

They both will run beside the release version of their make and don't use the same profile.

Seems like Google's version handles extensions and addons better than Firefox Nightly 9.0.

I could only get Adblock Plus and the element hiding extension to install on Firefox Nightly.