Mozilla readies to pull support plug on Firefox 3.6

yabbado, if your thinking is that browser vendors can't innovate, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not going to get much support there. Firefox (or any other browser) is not an operating system; they have never promised nor have they ever designed for a "windows style" track record of backwards compatibility. Personally, I don't like the update scheme that they've decided upon either; they're trying to follow on Chrome's footsteps which also updates something like every 6 weeks.

But maintaining backwards compatibility with everything, yet still continuing to innovate? Sorry, but that's just impractical.

Billy3

Hi Billy,
Mozilla can innovate as much as they like, I am only concerned with my browser/Internet compatibility. Jolly jelly beans to Mozilla.

If Mozilla want to update their browser every 5 minutes to outstrip all the other facilities that make Internet life wonderful, then I wish them good luck and a happy death.

When my browser controllers go berserk and embark on some idiotic, brainless dash to becoming a complete mess, then it is time to change browsers. Like I said, IE seems to be mentally stable at present so reluctantly I will go back to Microsoft. IE do not have some brainless fetish to even touch that insult to browsing called Chrome let alone compete with them.

Why Mozilla has embarked on a path to self destruction, my mind cannot comprehend. Any suggestion that this insane activity is some attempt to compete with that utter shambles of a browser called Chrome is too much for an intelligent brain to understand.
It looks like a Lemming syndrome to me.

Chrome is about as useful to Internet browsing as a broken hammer is to banging nails in. So why completely wreck one of the finest browsers that ever existed just to compete with a load of amateur rubbish ?

yabbado, if your thinking is that browser vendors can't innovate, then I'm sorry, but you're probably not going to get much support there. Firefox (or any other browser) is not an operating system; they have never promised nor have they ever designed for a "windows style" track record of backwards compatibility. Personally, I don't like the update scheme that they've decided upon either; they're trying to follow on Chrome's footsteps which also updates something like every 6 weeks.

But maintaining backwards compatibility with everything, yet still continuing to innovate? Sorry, but that's just impractical.

Billy3

Well, my mind keeps focusing on the Billion dollar support that Google invests in Mozilla. When finance is involved the ethics of common sense and logic go out the window. It looks like Google controls the financial puppet strings of Mozilla and is forcing this wonderful enterprise to commit Hara-Kiri and to embark on a course of ever decreasing circles until they disappear up their own rectum.

Just to ensure that the ersatz and ultra-economic browser Google Chrome has an unobstructed path to the hearts of users who appear to be fascinated with it.

First, almost all browsers are now using a more frequent update process, following the model of Chrome.
Second, there is a lot of communication between the browser folks and those who write the third party software, so the latter are able to make timely and co-ordinated application changes for the revisions; consequently the compatibility problems are very few and usually fixed quickly. It isn't the case that code revisions are built in secret and then suddenly released---browsers and applications both rely on a close-knit community for the process. And isn't it in the best interest of the browser to make sure third party applications work with each revision?
Third, many of the browser upgrades (revisions)do not effect the way third party software works on the browser or how they use its code to interface.


Since NoScript was mentioned, I can only say from personal experience that no Mozilla revision has ever caused it not to work properly. Like many AV and anti-malware applications, NoScipt also updates its software (not just definitions) frequently, and many of these revisions are independent of needed interface changes.

First, almost all browsers are now using a more frequent update process, following the model of Chrome.
Second, there is a lot of communication between the browser folks and those who write the third party software, so the latter are able to make timely and co-ordinated application changes for the revisions; consequently the compatibility problems are very few and usually fixed quickly. It isn't the case that code revisions are built in secret and then suddenly released---browsers and applications both rely on a close-knit community for the process. And isn't it in the best interest of the browser to make sure third party applications work with each revision?
Third, many of the browser upgrades (revisions)do not effect the way third party software works on the browser or how they use its code to interface.


Since NoScript was mentioned, I can only say from personal experience that no Mozilla revision has ever caused it not to work properly. Like many AV and anti-malware applications, NoScipt also updates its software (not just definitions) frequently, and many of these revisions are independent of needed interface changes.

This comment is superbly put and very, very informative. In fact all the comments made so far on this issue are remarkably good and add some vital user reactions without any adverse trend towards argument. It is very impressive.

My own interest in this subject is extremely high and somewhat worrying. I have used Firefox for many years without any trouble and found the luxury of a wide range of add-ons and the complete compatibility with all other programs impeccable. So it is a harsh prospect to lose this Shangri-La lifestyle of Internet activity.

I have no wish to prompt any argument on browsers and apologise for any adverse remarks I have made about Chrome. Those are just my personal opinions and I will attempt not to say more.

All I want is to obtain as much information on this Mozilla drive to eternity, so I can judge when to see how their new browser performs with all the facilities I use, then to make a decision - stay with it, or go to IE. This thread looks very promising to supply such information in view of the mature responses made so far. I will not jeopardise my Firefox version 3.6+ until I am forced to.

One point I am concerned about is that with a Billion dollars invested in Mozilla by Google, then Mozilla is now not an independent competitive company any more, they are a subsidiary of Google and as with all subsidiary companies, when Google plays the tune, Mozilla will do the dancing.

Unfortunately, it seems that we have now acquired an International monopoly where the world of Internet is divided between two industrial moguls - Google/Mozilla/Chrome/Firefox and Microsoft/IE. Monopolies are bad news in any industry, so much so that Governments pass laws to prevent them so as to protect against consumer abuse.

Mozilla has announced a date for the end of support for Firefox 3.6. April 24, 2012. Mark it in your calendar, Firefox 3.6 users!

Why is this date significant? Because after this date there will be no more new releases to fix security patches. The browser will get real old (and real dangerous to use) real fast. Using Firefox 3.6 beyond the end of life date is NOT RECOMMENDED.

Full article here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-readies-to-pull-support-plug-on-firefox-36/17567

I use Firefox 3.6.25, it works perfectly. I am told that version 9.0.1 will be deficient on 15% of add-ons which I currently enjoy and that Google in their infinite and user inconsiderate wisdom have not configured their toolbar to work with 9.0.1. It is a colossal joke that Google do not even allow their toolbar to be installed on their beloved but skeletonised Chrome ! How more balmy can you get than that ?

Well, my guess is that the new Firefox will still be far superior to all other browsers and no doubt there are substitutes for the missing add-ons, so i will give it a try. If all else fails, I can always go back to the safe haven of Microsoft IE.

A lack of support for 3.6+ because security will be degraded ? Who cares, I use Sandboxie and have no personal data on my computer, so what do I care about Firefox security features ? Not a lot. I can still use 3.6+ as long as it connects me to the Internet and my add-ons and other programs all work.

A lack of support for 3.6+ because security will be degraded ? Who cares, I use Sandboxie and have no personal data on my computer, so what do I care about Firefox security features ? Not a lot. I can still use 3.6+ as long as it connects me to the Internet and my add-ons and other programs all work.

Feel free to do so. But you may find it hard to find help in the event your machine does get wreaked due to such reckless disregard for security.

Billy3

A lack of support for 3.6+ because security will be degraded ? Who cares, I use Sandboxie and have no personal data on my computer, so what do I care about Firefox security features ? Not a lot. I can still use 3.6+ as long as it connects me to the Internet and my add-ons and other programs all work.

Feel free to do so. But you may find it hard to find help in the event your machine does get wreaked due to such reckless disregard for security.

Billy3

I kind of agree with both sides here. Security is very important, since you can lose your whole system... or worse, get important data stolen. But to be honest, I never believed in the importance of constantly updating your web browser. The internet has existed for decades. I find it kinda hard to imagine that every day, someone invents a new attack never attempted before, and web browsers need security updates for it. I heard Firefox automatically downloads and applies dozens of security updates each day, that your computer would be unsafe without. I don't know how important they really are, but TBH I find it weird... especially since I don't see how anything you do in FireFox could affect the rest of your system (unless it's a file with a virus or something).

The internet has existed for decades.

And people's machines have been getting infected. For decades.

I find it kinda hard to imagine that every day, someone invents a new attack never attempted before, and web browsers need security updates for it

What you believe is nice. I'd prefer to follow fact rather than belief. Most attacks don't invent some completely new kind of security fault; rather, they exploit the fact that web browsers are enormously complicated pieces of software. The same kind of attack (let's say, a stack buffer overflow) could exist in thousands of places inside a code base the size of Firefox or Internet Explorer or Chrome. A given security patch closes only one given hole, not the entire class of attacks.

I heard Firefox automatically downloads and applies dozens of security updates each day

Chrome does this; Firefox does not.

I don't see how anything you do in FireFox could affect the rest of your system

Exploits are in no way limited to "inside Firefox". If an attacker gets remote code execution, they get remote code execution -- they can supply whatever processor machine code they wish. They can do anything to your system that Firefox.exe can do, which is the same thing that YOU, the user, can do, to your machine. Delete/create/modify files/registry/memory, etc. Windows' (and other operating systems') security model is based on the user, not the application.

Billy3

Wow... I see. Good to know this. One thing I don't understand though: Why is firefox.exe allowed to modify any system file or external file? Is there no way to run it without giving it read access to files it doesn't need in order to run (such as browsing for files to upload) and no write access outside of its settings folder and the location where you save downloaded files?

Did you read the article I linked to? http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/18/705957.aspx

No -- there's no way to restrict firefox.exe in that way. Quoting that article

The Windows security model is based on identity. Applications don't have privileges. Users have privileges. If an application is running in your user context, then it can do anything you can ... Same goes for DLLs. ... when you are running an application, the application is you. If you can do it, then an application can do it because the application is you.

Billy3