backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 67 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Nov 20 at 1:22 PM


Son, you need to watch out for bugs when you take Firefox 3.0 for a spin.  (Source: Spread Firefox)
A scandalous report has one Mozilla saying curse words

On Thursday the New York Times ran a story about Mozilla, manufacturer of the open-source Firefox browser, which brought to light interesting claims about internal decisions taking place.

Mozilla Firefox, which as of September had a 14.85% market share and recently hit 400 million downloads, is preparing to launch the final version of the third iteration of its Mozilla Firefox browser.  Firefox 3.0 is currently undergoing testing of its Beta 1 release.

The Times alleges that Mozilla only plans to fix 20% of the bugs currently in Firefox 3.0 before the final release.

The Times received an apparently leaked copy of Mozilla's the notes for Wednesday's internal status meeting on the state of the browser.  The note stated, "We have 700 bugs currently marked as blockers.  That's too many. We're asking [requiring] component owners to set priorities on blockers, as a first pass of what bugs should be Beta 2 blockers. You want it to be about 10% of blockers, or what you can get done in four weeks."

A bug that is serious enough to postpone the release is known in the Mozilla community as a "blocker".

The meeting notes went on, "We'll be doing pretty much the same thing for Beta 3, which means that something like 80% of the [approximately] 700 bugs currently marked as blockers will not be fixed for Firefox 3," the meeting notes continued.  "The hope is that by 'fixing the most important blockers' several times, we'll get to a point where we can cut the rest without feeling bad about the quality of the release. And if we do feel bad, we can add an extra beta or two."

The meeting notes did include an exception for security bugs, which Mozilla considers mandatory and expects developers to automatically fix.  Non-security bugs that effect browsing performance are being triaged, though, by how much they will hinder user's daily browsing experience.

Mike Beltzner, Firefox's interface designer is hoping developers will focus on fixing memory leak, performance and web-compatibility issues, as well as any major regression bugs that snuck into the code of Firefox 2.0.

Mozilla is stress testing the beta software.  It plans on releasing two or three more Beta candidates, before the final release.  Mozilla is struggling to keep up with schedule, as it said it would release the second beta by September and Firefox 3.0 by the end of the year.

The Times article elicited a fiery response from Mozilla developer Asa Dotzler, who posted a blog stating, "[The Times'] claim is simply horses**t.  We've already fixed over 11,000 bugs and features in Firefox 3 and now we're discussing how to handle the remaining 700 issues we wanted to get fixed for Firefox 3."

Dotzler makes no attempt to refute what the Times article did say, though -- that only 20% of the remaining 700 significant bugs will be fixed, and gave no indication of how many of the less significant bugs (non-"blockers") will be fixed.

Firefox typically releases solid products, but despite strong recent gains, it is clearly feeling the pinch as it prepares to release Firefox 3.0, and by all indications, is struggling to accomplish a trimmed back version of its initial goals, after missing deadlines and falling behind on its beta releases.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: so what
By Squibby on 11/18/2007 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's pretty short-sighted. If there are any security updates in Firefox 3.0 that aren't back-ported to 2.0 (and there will be some), you should upgrade. This sounds a lot like all those people who brag about not rebooting their Unix box for a year... you just have to look at the latest security hole that was fixed, and you have a direct route to hack their box.


RE: so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/18/2007 4:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not a nuclear scientist, i'm just a guy who surfs the web. if it ain't broke, why fix; and thereby risk breaking it?


RE: so what
By Squibby on 11/18/2007 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
Well, my point was that it is broke... =P


RE: so what
By Operandi on 11/18/2007 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 3
And FireFox 3.0 isn't?


RE: so what
By Flunk on 11/18/2007 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't know it is broke.


RE: so what
By Gul Westfale on 11/19/2007 12:04:41 AM , Rating: 3
what i was trying to say:

i am happy with what i am using, and upgrading to something new "might" introduce unforeseen problems, so i'm not upgrading. the unix box analogy is wrong; hackers would be pretty fast to exploit a well-known bug in a new browser as well as in an old one. but i have not had any problems with the old one... so why bother with the new one?

eventually i will upgrade, of course; but i'm in no hurry.


RE: so what
By Topweasel on 11/19/2007 9:36:29 AM , Rating: 1
Your missing his point. Its not the unkown bugs that are the issue. If something gets fixed in 3.0 and is an issue with 2.0.9, they are not going to be making a 2.1.0 for that fix, its development is over. Because of that hackers now know how to attack the millions of people that have stuck with a Firefox 2 release.


RE: so what
By Zurtex on 11/19/2007 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if it's a security bug, the 2.0.x.x series will be supported for some time after Firefox 3 hits final release.


RE: so what
By Arribajuan on 11/19/2007 1:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you do not see any evident or annoying bug, does not mean that there are no security holes left there.

If it ain't broke why break it?

It will be surely broken and you won't know it.

It just how software works...


RE: so what
By mikefarinha on 11/19/2007 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
if it ain't broke, why fix;


So what is the MPG you get on your Model-T?


RE: so what
By Oregonian2 on 11/19/2007 2:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about his, but I understand a Model-T gets about 25 MPG.


RE: so what
By murphyslabrat on 11/20/2007 1:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
But they are incredibly reliable


RE: so what
By kelmon on 11/19/2007 2:46:07 AM , Rating: 3
In all honesty I'm a habitual upgrader but I can certainly understand your point and in the context of this article it is certainly a valid position. In this case your current software may indeed have problems but given the information provided you can be damned sure that the new version will have problems as well, perhaps more than the current one. I'm running Mac OS X and the last OS release (10.4) has been around long enough that the major issues that it suffered from at release have been fixed while the new OS (10.5) has loads of issues for me. Yeah, the new OS offers features that are really useful to me but the bugs that exist mean that its going to take a while to mature. In this respect you probably ought to stick to Firefox 2 unless Firefox 3 has features that you want/need since Firefox 2 likely will have fewer bugs than the new version for the simple reason that it's been widely distributed and supported for a reasonable period of time.


RE: so what
By theapparition on 11/19/2007 7:21:18 AM , Rating: 4
Something I don't understand here. I was under the impression that Apple software was perfect, or at least that's what their commercials tell me.

Bugs, in Apple's flagship OS? Say it ain't so.......


RE: so what
By michael2k on 11/19/2007 3:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
Apple also happens to release features, too :)

You can't get bugs unless you introduce new features.


Big Deal
By shreddR on 11/18/2007 3:32:02 PM , Rating: 3
Its a browser.. omg Daily Tech.. quick quick they better rush it...
Am i missing something, or is my firefox 2 about to explode?




RE: Big Deal
By CheesePoofs on 11/18/2007 4:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's news ... they post what's interesting. Pretty much nothing on this site (or most sites for that matter) is a "big deal" in the grand scheme of things, but does that mean it shouldn't exist?

That and read the article, I think you have no idea what it said.


RE: Big Deal
By Zurtex on 11/18/2007 4:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest this article barely constitutes real news, with a tag like:

"Son, you need to watch out for bugs when you take Firefox 3.0 for a spin"

Well uh-yeah, given Beta 1 hasn't even launched yet because they're more concerned about getting everything feature perfect than releasing too early. This is the most sensationalist dailytech post I've seen not in the blog section.


RE: Big Deal
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/18/2007 4:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody is saying you shouldn't use FF 3.0 because of bugs, or anything like that. In fact, the context of the article is almost the opposite -- that what the Times reported is way out of proportion.