Comments for tech ramblings http://www.laurathomson.com Laura Thomson's random thoughts and rants about tech and FOSS Sat, 4 Feb 2012 05:14:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Christopher Blizzard http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1659 Christopher Blizzard Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:17:27 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1659 From our Chairwoman: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process/ From our Chairwoman: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process/

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Pete http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1643 Pete Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:12:10 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1643 Laura, I'm not talking about a vision statement. I'm talking about a CEO who should give a binding direction right now as a reaction of the heated discussion and to show some employees a direction. And regarding the hidden version numbers: html5 is a moving target with a) specs coming and going and b) some time until they are implemented into the browser. To give you an example: the progress meter elements are now implanted in the latest firefox build. As a web developer, how shall I test if the clients browser supports it or not? For all other browsers except firefox, I can lookup a feature table like caniuse.com and I'm done. Any idea how this should work with firefox in the future? Laura, I’m not talking about a vision statement. I’m talking about a CEO who should give a binding direction right now as a reaction of the heated discussion and to show some employees a direction.

And regarding the hidden version numbers: html5 is a moving target with a) specs coming and going and b) some time until they are implemented into the browser.

To give you an example: the progress meter elements are now implanted in the latest firefox build. As a web developer, how shall I test if the clients browser supports it or not? For all other browsers except firefox, I can lookup a feature table like caniuse.com and I’m done.

Any idea how this should work with firefox in the future?

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Mook http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1640 Mook Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:07:55 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1640 To extend your metaphor: You are Facebook, except for some reason all of your production machines are not under your control and pushes are staggered beyond your control; also, every time you push, people have to wait for twenty seconds for the page to load. Every time you push to production, all games like Farmville break and can't be played until their developer gets around to certifying it against the new page. You have plans to auto-certify eventually. There is some unknown but large number of people who have somehow managed to build moderately popular sites of similar games, who you can't reach, and can't certify yourself. That corresponds, in order, with 1) Mozilla doesn't control all the installs of Firefox and multiple versions in the wild simultaneously (and time needed to download); 2) addons on AMO; 3) addons off AMO. To extend your metaphor:

You are Facebook, except for some reason all of your production machines are not under your control and pushes are staggered beyond your control; also, every time you push, people have to wait for twenty seconds for the page to load. Every time you push to production, all games like Farmville break and can’t be played until their developer gets around to certifying it against the new page. You have plans to auto-certify eventually. There is some unknown but large number of people who have somehow managed to build moderately popular sites of similar games, who you can’t reach, and can’t certify yourself.

That corresponds, in order, with 1) Mozilla doesn’t control all the installs of Firefox and multiple versions in the wild simultaneously (and time needed to download); 2) addons on AMO; 3) addons off AMO.

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Bill D http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1637 Bill D Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:02:11 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1637 Laura - I'm a user, nto an add-on developer - but I've pushed Firefox and Thunderbird to family and friends and I keep them all maintained. Where this process has gone wrong is that users simply want their add-ons to work - and my mother doesn't want a message to say that if she upgrades some of her add-ons will be disabled. I've got Adobe Acrobat - Create PDF and Java Console disabled in Firefox and Eset NOD32 disabled in Thunderbird. I've had to edit install.rdf for Contacts Sidebar to work in Thunderbird - which it does, since it's just a version number change that was needed. I don't think Mozilla can push this off and say that the add-on developers should update more frequently - you need to find a way to stop breaking the full experience from using my browser and email client every 6-8 weeks. Again, as a user, I really like Firefox 4 - but there are no real changes in FF5 or FF6 that make a noticeable difference to me. I do hope you find a solution! Laura - I’m a user, nto an add-on developer - but I’ve pushed Firefox and Thunderbird to family and friends and I keep them all maintained. Where this process has gone wrong is that users simply want their add-ons to work - and my mother doesn’t want a message to say that if she upgrades some of her add-ons will be disabled.
I’ve got Adobe Acrobat - Create PDF and Java Console disabled in Firefox and Eset NOD32 disabled in Thunderbird. I’ve had to edit install.rdf for Contacts Sidebar to work in Thunderbird - which it does, since it’s just a version number change that was needed.
I don’t think Mozilla can push this off and say that the add-on developers should update more frequently - you need to find a way to stop breaking the full experience from using my browser and email client every 6-8 weeks.
Again, as a user, I really like Firefox 4 - but there are no real changes in FF5 or FF6 that make a noticeable difference to me.
I do hope you find a solution!

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Wladimir Palant http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1636 Wladimir Palant Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:46:37 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1636 Laura: Feel free to share them with whoever you want. I wish that I had more suggestions. So far this is the only one I could come up with: https://adblockplus.org/blog/on-rapid-releases-and-version-numbers Laura: Feel free to share them with whoever you want. I wish that I had more suggestions. So far this is the only one I could come up with: https://adblockplus.org/blog/on-rapid-releases-and-version-numbers

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by groovecoder http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1635 groovecoder Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:45:25 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1635 A great post as usual, Laura. re: addon compatibility ... AMO already uses a tool to scan addon code and to give compatible addons the version bump. It seems like the same tool could be used to create bugs for incompatible addons. e.g., "AdBlock Plus uses the preferences.method() call which is deprecated in Firefox 8" ? A great post as usual, Laura.

re: addon compatibility …

AMO already uses a tool to scan addon code and to give compatible addons the version bump. It seems like the same tool could be used to create bugs for incompatible addons. e.g., “AdBlock Plus uses the preferences.method() call which is deprecated in Firefox 8″

?

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by laura http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1633 laura Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:16:43 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1633 Wladimir: Thanks for your feedback, you raise some interesting points. (Do you mind if I share them?) Pete: Some of the community discussion has been really heated. It's part of the reason I wanted to post something. Re CEO/Chairman, there was recently posted a vision statement which is worth a read. I'd also encourage you to engage with anyone involved Mozilla all the way up to Mitchell - people are generally pretty approachable. Marcus: I just have moderation turned on to control spam (in addition to akismet). I go through and approve stuff daily or so, never had to censor anything that I recall. (I likely would if it was particularly obscene or something, but I'm happy for people to offer differing opinions.) Wladimir: Thanks for your feedback, you raise some interesting points. (Do you mind if I share them?)

Pete: Some of the community discussion has been really heated. It’s part of the reason I wanted to post something. Re CEO/Chairman, there was recently posted a vision statement which is worth a read. I’d also encourage you to engage with anyone involved Mozilla all the way up to Mitchell - people are generally pretty approachable.

Marcus: I just have moderation turned on to control spam (in addition to akismet). I go through and approve stuff daily or so, never had to censor anything that I recall. (I likely would if it was particularly obscene or something, but I’m happy for people to offer differing opinions.)

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Markus http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1631 Markus Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:49:31 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1631 I'm surprised that there seems to be kind of a censorship when commenting your blog: Are comments that are not inline with your thinking not published? I’m surprised that there seems to be kind of a censorship when commenting your blog: Are comments that are not inline with your thinking not published?

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Pete http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1629 Pete Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:29:02 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1629 The problem is not the rapid release cycle nor the version numbering. In fact it's bad very communication to a loyal user base: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775#c36 Also no statement of mozilla's CEO or chairman is heard. One can very easily get the impression that mozilla currently has no direction. The problem is not the rapid release cycle nor the version numbering. In fact it’s bad very communication to a loyal user base: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775#c36

Also no statement of mozilla’s CEO or chairman is heard.

One can very easily get the impression that mozilla currently has no direction.

]]> Comment on Rapid releases: one webdev’s perspective by Wladimir Palant http://www.laurathomson.com/2011/08/rapid-releases-one-webdevs-perspective/#comment-1628 Wladimir Palant Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:02:43 +0000 http://www.laurathomson.com/?p=136#comment-1628 Laura: That's a good question and I don't think that I have any real answers. Fact is, the compatiblity center (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/compatibility/) currently shows a phenomenally high level of support for Firefox 6 - 98% is something that we could only dream of for Firefox 4 and earlier releases. But you have to keep in mind that this statistic is weighted by the add-on usage. And some people tend to accumulate obscure add-ons that didn't even make it into this statistic, those seem to be still likely to break with an update. Given that the same people tend to be very loud in forum discussions, it doesn't help to instill trust into the update process. Maybe Mozilla doesn't actually need to do something and in a few years the majority of those obscure add-ons will really be using the Add-on SDK (most of them are pretty simple anyway). It would be nice to see some statistics on how many add-ons are already based on the SDK and what the tendency is right now. The main question is whether this change will happen fast enough because the current situation seems pretty devastating for Firefox. Frankly, I don't really know what Mozilla could do to speed up the process - offer help rewriting the add-ons? In the end, if an add-on isn't really supported this won't help. It isn't a new issue but users are going to hit it more frequently now. And then there is the problem of add-ons that are not hosted on AMO. Unfortunately, those are a problem no matter how you take it. I've noticed this tendency a while ago already - almost all problem reports that I get and that are caused by other extensions are due to extensions not hosted on AMO. They are typically developed by companies which lack real expertise but don't even get the rudimentary review that you have on AMO. And: yes, implementing similar mechanisms to what you have on AMO is hard for them. But they wouldn't want to give away their distribution channels. Laura: That’s a good question and I don’t think that I have any real answers. Fact is, the compatiblity center (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/compatibility/) currently shows a phenomenally high level of support for Firefox 6 - 98% is something that we could only dream of for Firefox 4 and earlier releases. But you have to keep in mind that this statistic is weighted by the add-on usage. And some people tend to accumulate obscure add-ons that didn’t even make it into this statistic, those seem to be still likely to break with an update. Given that the same people tend to be very loud in forum discussions, it doesn’t help to instill trust into the update process.

Maybe Mozilla doesn’t actually need to do something and in a few years the majority of those obscure add-ons will really be using the Add-on SDK (most of them are pretty simple anyway). It would be nice to see some statistics on how many add-ons are already based on the SDK and what the tendency is right now. The main question is whether this change will happen fast enough because the current situation seems pretty devastating for Firefox. Frankly, I don’t really know what Mozilla could do to speed up the process - offer help rewriting the add-ons? In the end, if an add-on isn’t really supported this won’t help. It isn’t a new issue but users are going to hit it more frequently now.

And then there is the problem of add-ons that are not hosted on AMO. Unfortunately, those are a problem no matter how you take it. I’ve noticed this tendency a while ago already - almost all problem reports that I get and that are caused by other extensions are due to extensions not hosted on AMO. They are typically developed by companies which lack real expertise but don’t even get the rudimentary review that you have on AMO. And: yes, implementing similar mechanisms to what you have on AMO is hard for them. But they wouldn’t want to give away their distribution channels.

]]>