Discussion:
Recent firefix?
(too old to reply)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
2013-07-02 12:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Is anybody working on porting a recent[1] version of Firefox to OS/2?
The last one I know of is about 10 releases behind.

[1] At least current enough to use the wiki Visual Editor.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to ***@library.lspace.org
Dave Yeo
2013-07-02 14:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Is anybody working on porting a recent[1] version of Firefox to OS/2?
The last one I know of is about 10 releases behind.
[1] At least current enough to use the wiki Visual Editor.
17ESR is currently being worked on.
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/mozilla-os2
Dave
madodel ptd News
2013-07-02 22:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Is anybody working on porting a recent[1] version of Firefox to OS/2?
The last one I know of is about 10 releases behind.
[1] At least current enough to use the wiki Visual Editor.
I'm using Firefox 22 on Mac OS X and I find myself having to use Chrome or
Safari for some sites, especially shopping sites like buy.com and woot.com.
Can't add things to the shopping cart, pages shown as not found, but work
under Chrome. Not sure what is going on with that, but those sites work
with the last Firefox on eCS. Anyone else seeing this?

Mark
Dave Yeo
2013-07-03 04:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by madodel ptd News
Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Is anybody working on porting a recent[1] version of Firefox to OS/2?
The last one I know of is about 10 releases behind.
[1] At least current enough to use the wiki Visual Editor.
I'm using Firefox 22 on Mac OS X and I find myself having to use Chrome
or Safari for some sites, especially shopping sites like buy.com and
woot.com. Can't add things to the shopping cart, pages shown as not
found, but work under Chrome. Not sure what is going on with that, but
those sites work with the last Firefox on eCS. Anyone else seeing this?
Seems that I heard that they changed quite a few things under the hood
with FF22 and possibly these sites haven't updated their code.
Try 17ESR
Dave
James J. Weinkam
2013-07-03 17:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Seems that I heard that they changed quite a few things under the hood with FF22 and possibly these sites haven't
updated their code.
Try 17ESR
Dave
What ever happened to backwards compatibility?
Dave Yeo
2013-07-04 02:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James J. Weinkam
Post by Dave Yeo
Seems that I heard that they changed quite a few things under the hood
with FF22 and possibly these sites haven't
updated their code.
Try 17ESR
Dave
What ever happened to backwards compatibility?
Replaced by the rapid release cycle. Regular users are supposed to use
the latest and sites are supposed to test with version next+
To be honest I haven't been following that closely so I could be wrong
about changes, hopefully Mark will test with 17ESR on his platform and
report.
Dave
ps 25 is supposed to be changing quite a bit more to make Firefox look
and act more like chrome
James J. Weinkam
2013-07-05 01:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by James J. Weinkam
Post by Dave Yeo
Seems that I heard that they changed quite a few things under the hood
with FF22 and possibly these sites haven't
updated their code.
Try 17ESR
Dave
What ever happened to backwards compatibility?
Replaced by the rapid release cycle. Regular users are supposed to use the latest and sites are supposed to test with
version next+
What an ill conceived notion.
To be honest I haven't been following that closely so I could be wrong about changes, hopefully Mark will test with
17ESR on his platform and report.
Dave
ps 25 is supposed to be changing quite a bit more to make Firefox look and act more like chrome
A.D. Fundum
2013-07-07 15:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James J. Weinkam
Post by Dave Yeo
Replaced by the rapid release cycle. Regular users
are supposed to use the latest and sites are supposed
to test with version next+
What an ill conceived notion.
Not if the followed underlying industry, claiming to be "agile", is
usualy paid by the hour. More unavoidable overhead, more turnover. If
needed, hire yet another "professional" agile website tester. Quality
isn't important, being compliant to the industry's method is
important. As usual, it's not an ill conceived notion, it's their
definition of satisfied customers. There's a rapid release cycle, so
you ARE a satisfied customer (Wikipedia: "Customer satisfaction by
rapid delivery of useful software").


--

Loading...