9397724
story
Comments: 440 + - Apple: Mozilla Puts Tiger Out To Pasture on Monday February 08, @10:11AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmozilla.gif); width:80px; height:64px;
mozilla
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
Barence writes "Mozilla is ready to exorcise support for Mac OS X 10.4 from Firefox's development code, closing the door on Apple's aging OS. The foundation stopped supporting 10.4, codenamed Tiger, in September 2009, but, according to Josh Aas, a Mozilla platform engineer, 'we left much of the code required to support that platform in the tree in case we wanted to reverse that decision." We had come to a point where we need to make a final decision and either restore 10.4 support or remove this (large) amount of 10.4 specific code,' he notes on the Mozilla developer planning forum."
Related Stories
Do people know you have freckles everywhere?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Please no !
There are a lot of old G3 macs around that can run only Tiger and are perfect as a browsing machine (if you don't want to watch flash videos).
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Interesting)
More to the point, what the hell gigantic change could Apple have possibly made to 10.5 to make 10.4 support some kind of giant anchor weighing everything down? Seriously?
Either:
1) Someone's exaggerating and the 10.4 code is actually very small, or
2) That's a gigantic WTF from Apple and they should be called on it.
Normally I'd get pissy over removing support for something that's not really that old, but I guess Mac users are used to that and don't care... so... bully for Mozilla.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Leopard added a slew of new libraries and API improvements. Presumably Mozilla, up until Leopard, were implementing those features internally. Moving forward, Mozilla can now rely on Apple to do the work in these areas except when they want to run on earlier versions of OS X (i.e. Tiger).
The question here is, should Mozilla continue to duplicate the efforts of Apple to provide compatibility with people running older systems?
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Insightful)
The question here is, should Mozilla continue to duplicate the efforts of Apple to provide compatibility with people running older systems?
The answer is: Mozilla should have a very clear policy about backwards compatibility and follow it to the letter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't currently have that.
Barring that, the answer should be: Until Apple actively does something to break the older "deprecated" code in Firefox, they should support older OSes. From another reply, it sounds like a new version of the Java plug-in Apple is releasing will meet this criteria. Also, being Apple, this is going to happen every 3 years anyway.
Here's what should *not* determine when to end support: "I'm a programmer and working with this old API is soooo painful and my compiles take a few seconds longer! Whine!"
Or in other words, support decisions should *never* be made just based on developer preferences. The purpose of writing software is to serve your users. Either you're a professional developer and you deal with the slightly older APIs/compilers to serve your users, or you're a hack.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that both you and I are not qualified enough to answer the reason as to why, however I'm rather confident the reason wasn't because it added "a few seconds" of compile time. Supporting legacy systems isn't just a matter of how long it takes code to compile, there's issues with maintainability, as well as speed and performance. Which DOES affect the end user.
I imagine that the userbase that uses Firefox with 10.4 is small enough, and the issues with supporting it big enough, that it makes sense to drop support.
Besides, isn't BLOAT one of the biggest complaints with Firefox on here? Worst case if 10.4 support is really that huge of an issue someone will fork it.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Supporting legacy systems isn't just a matter of how long it takes code to compile, there's issues with maintainability,
Well, a new API could make the codebase easier to maintain, but that doesn't affect the end-user. (Unless you're admitting that the codebase was impossibly-difficult to maintain before the new API came out.)
as well as speed and performance.
I concede this, but I doubt it's significant. (Again: unless the code was a complete mess before.) Nothing 10.4 did made the user's hardware any faster, and there's no reason to believe that the libraries Apple added are faster than the ones Mozilla was using before. (They might be, but you can't just *assume* they are.)
I imagine that the userbase that uses Firefox with 10.4 is small enough, and the issues with supporting it big enough, that it makes sense to drop support.
True. The reason I brought up the developer line is that I've seen a lot of open source projects, especially on Mac, drop old technologies like a hot-potato time and time again. There are tons of apps I stopped getting updates to, apparently punishment for the heinous crime of owning a G5 computer a full 6 months after Apple switched to x86.
Let's face it, if your development staff is:
1) Volunteer
2) Really, really excited about technology
They're not going to want to use an "old" API or IDE, even if it's only 3 years old. They're not going to want to get their PPC computer out of the closet to QA. (Assuming they even QA in the first place.)
Hell, the Mac software community used to point out "Cocoa!!" as a feature. And got pissy with me when I told them that Cocoa isn't a feature, it's an implementation detail and your users don't give a flying crap.
If left to their own devices, the *only* OS support you'd offer is "whatever the very latest is, until the next one comes out." That's why support needs to be a managerial decision, and why it needs to be data-backed. It's also something that's likely to slide unless there's enforcement.
Maybe Mozilla's done the user research and they know that they're not dropping many users, but just from reading the comments in this Slashdot thread, I think they may be dropping more users than they realize.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, Google couldn't easily make a universal binary of Chrome, because the javascript engine is x86-specific.
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a user, Cocoa most certainly is a feature.
If you're an end-user and you know what Cocoa *is*, that means Apple screwed up somewhere. What framework an application uses is an implementation detail.
The Windows world doesn't advertise an app as being ".net!" because it doesn't freakin' matter... .net apps are the same as Win32 apps. The only reason there's a difference in OS X is because Apple has always treated Carbon as a second-class citizen, since they just didn't give a crap about UI anymore.
The Mac experience is built around the idea of consistency.
Dude.
You're talking to a Mac Classic user. Back then, yes, consistency mattered. Now? Now there's no consistency. None. Nada.
OS X took that and flushed it down the crapper, from when they decided to ship both chrome and aqua windows.
Windows 7 is significantly more consistent, UI-wise, than newer versions of OS X. If consistency is something you care about, you should be using Windows. There was a time when Apple was the only good place to go for us rare users that valued usability, but that time is long-passed. Mac has gone downhill while everybody else is racing upwards, and there's no real noticeable difference anymore.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
There are at least five different menu styles in Windows, multiple dialog styles (including some dating back to Windows 3.1), toolbar styles including ribbons, and more.
OS X had...textured windows. And those were unified in Leopard.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude.
You're talking to a Mac Classic user. Back then, yes, consistency mattered. Now? Now there's no consistency. None. Nada.
OS X took that and flushed it down the crapper, from when they decided to ship both chrome and aqua windows.
Windows 7 is significantly more consistent, UI-wise, than newer versions of OS X. If consistency is something you care about, you should be using Windows. There was a time when Apple was the only good place to go for us rare users that valued usability, but that time is long-passed. Mac has gone downhill while everybody else is racing upwards, and there's no real noticeable difference anymore.
Please don't even mention consistency and Windows in the same sentence. It's an obvious troll.
There's at least 3 classes of windows, with some being resizable, some not, some being scrollable, others not. Some you can cut and paste from, others not. And these are all in various system administration applications installed in a plain vanilla default installation. We won't even start with the the classic vs category vs "new" view of Control panel, or any of the other multitudes of changes that were made for apparently no good reason other than to drive new revenue in the MCSE training/certification program.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What framework an application uses is usually obvious from the application's appearance, behavior and interaction with the rest of the system.
Sadly, yes, but only because most frameworks are awful. For example, GTK+ looks like an total alien on every OS except Linux. Java, likewise, is crappy on everything.
But it shouldn't be that way.
Every Windows app advertises whether it's .NET or not. Right in the system requirements and installer - "Requires .NET Framework X.Y" and the installer makes it very obvious t
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Funny)
Java, likewise, is crappy on everything.
I thought consistency is a good thing?
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Or just switch to one of the other options (Score:3)
Or use one of the other options: Safari, Camino, iCab, or Omniweb. Probably some others that I've missed.
It's interesting these folks don't have any apparent problem with supporting 10.4.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the latest Safari still support Tiger?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question is, how many 10.4 users had donated to Mozilla prior to them being told to fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
How about keeping a security-patched branch? There can be some middle ground between bringing everything forward and dropping support completely. I mean sooner or later the world has to move on where new features are only on those platforms that support them.
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Informative)
> Mozilla should have a very clear policy about backwards compatibility and follow it to the
> letter.
The basic setup is:
1) Once an OS vendor drops support for an OS, support for it will not be maintained unless
it's really easy to do.
2) Whether an OS is supported depends on whether there are resources to support it and on
how many users are using it.
It's not exactly a clear policy, but the important part is that support decisions are pretty complicated and involve a lot of factors.... it's not clear to me what a sane policy would be that would not lead to dropping support in some cases when there's no real reason to do it.
> Until Apple actively does something to break the older "deprecated" code in Firefox,
> they should support older OSes
10.6 dropped ATSUI support. 10.4 doesn't have Core Text. So the only way to support both is to have codepaths to use both text rendering backends and switch at runtime. Does that count as "does something to break"? ;)
Thing is, it's all software. Everything can be worked around. The question is the cost (to users, in the end, either in terms of money or in terms of things users want that don't happen).
> and you deal with the slightly older APIs/compilers to serve your users
Not that simple. You have to use gcc 4.0 if you're going to run on 10.4. So doing that serves the 10.4 users. But on 10.5 and 10.6, using gcc 4.2 gives a pretty significant across-the-board speedup. So to properly serve those users, you want to be using gcc 4.2. Where that leaves you is either underserving 10.5/10.6 users to better serve 10.4 users or vice versa (at which point relative numbers of users start to matter), or shipping separate binaries with the ensuing user confusion during downloading, etc. So there's not an obvious course of action here that best serves "the users". It's a matter of compromise.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
But the process of writing software doesn't happen without developers. And the messier and kludgier a codebase is, the harder it is to get devs to work on it.
Yah, I get that.
What I'm really trying to do is appeal to their professionalism and maybe get open source developers to take a little bit more pride in their work. Probably not going to work in a community that doesn't understand the difference between "development" and "coding," but I'll try anyway.
If nothing else, I still have a G5 with 10.4 on it my
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple does provide a reasonably stable platform. All of the older APIs will continue to work for many years to come. Firefox has chosen to start using the newer and more powerful APIs which are not available on older systems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Call us back when you've had to write reams of code to put backward-compatibility hacks into your programs just to support an already-tiny, ever-decreasing, perpetually-complaining, and ultimately unpleaseable audience of people who refuse to upgrade their systems. We'll see how relative "whine" is when you're the one writing the code.
Yah. I maintain a 15k line Javascript application that's compatible with IE 5.5. IE 5.5. And we're not wussing-out using any of those frameworks or anything, either. Nor are w
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a taste of the changes between Tiger and Leopard/Snow Leopard [google.com]. Even though Leopard->Snow Leopard was (relatively) incremental stabilization and refinement, remember that Leopard was a *big* upgrade.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nooo ! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's exactly this issue that pisses me off about Apple. While your typical /.er might be on a 1-3 year upgrade cycle, a lot of people (ie older parents/grandparents) buy a Mac because it's "easier" and are more inclined to be on a 5-10 year cycle. Their machines serve them well and do what they need--WP, email and web. Speed is NOT an issue when you're reading the news online or writing your Xmas letter. As far as my mom is concerned, there is no difference between the versions of OS X-- and why new versions of Firefox won't run anymore will baffle her.
Yes, Apple is trying to be revolutionary and keep themselves at the forefront of technology, as well as maintain a manageable codebase. But this has been coming at the expense of (prematurely) obsoleting still-good hardware in the hands of a market that Apple has decided to ignore.
Parent
Re:Nooo ! (Score:4, Insightful)
That is one of the things I like about Windows. Say what you want about MSFT but their support cycles are pretty damned long and if you know anything at all about Windows it isn't hard to get it running well on older hardware. Thanks to those nice long support cycles and easy tweaking my GF is using a spare 733MHz office box with a 5200 PCI and 384Mb of RAM with XP Pro to surf the net while I replaced her motherboard in her 3GHz P4. For the things she does, surfing, webmail, Facebook, it works just fine and she is quite happy with it. I just added Comodo AV+Firewall and set everything to auto and she is a happy little camper.
And with the spare LGA775 board I had lying around and a $30 memory upgrade her P4 will probably last her until 2014 easy, and if she still has the box by then I'll just max out the RAM and give her Windows 7/8, which I'm sure will run just fine on it. Say what you want about MSFT but you really do get a pretty long time when it comes to security updates. I just now retired my 1GHz P3 Celeron with Win2K with a 1.8GHz Sempron box with XP that I'm sure will run Windows 7 just fine when XP is EOL. It makes a great whisper quiet netbox and uses very little electricity.
If all you are doing is basic tasks there really isn't a need with Windows to have the latest and greatest hardware, and it is certainly nicer than shitcanning working hardware. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Apple only released 10.4 in 2005, correct? Man you really gotta stay on the upgrade treadmill with those guys. I think I'll stick with the OS that lets me build monster quads for less than $700 and keep them for a decade, thanks anyway. I gotta admit those Apples are pretty, but they ain't replace my machine every other year pretty, at least not to me. I guess for all those 10.4 guys getting dumped by the Moz there is always Opera. It still works on 10.4, right?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually all those old 10.4 running macs are Grandma's and Auntie's browsing machines. Switching those machines to Linux is not advised unless you want to spend the next 3 months re-training their users.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a free unix fan, but if you've got OS X, as far as usability and "getting shit done" goes, linux or any of the other Free unices is a step backwards.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's got nothing whatsoever to do with "plug and play" or "object orientation", unless you use your own special ad hoc definition -- which was what I suspected, and the reason why I asked: to show that you don't know what you're talking about.
To further show that you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to drag a picture from Firefox into the Gimp (Gimp opens the image) and OpenOffice Writer (Writer opens the image), into Google Chrome (Chrome opens the image), into vim in editing mode (it past
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Tiger still getting updates?
Wait, I don't undersand this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait, I don't undersand this... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wait, I don't undersand this... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not a Mac person so I don't keep track of every update, but why is it that OSX 10.4, a version which only came out in 2005 according to Wikipedia, has so much code that prevents Mozilla from trivially continuing to maintain compatibility in Firefox?
According to the article:
Adding 10.4 support back to mozilla-central would mean switching back
to ATSUI from Core Text, switching back to gcc-4.0 from gcc-4.2, and
doing a bit of porting work for code that has been added to the tree
since we dropped support for 10.4. Other areas where 10.4 support
consumes our time, makes our code more complex or error-prone, and/or
limits our capabilities include complex text input (IME), out-of-
process plugins, printing, native menus, and Core Animation.
Furthermore, Apple's upcoming JavaPlugin2 will not support Mac OS X
10.4.
Sounds like OS X's API has evolved quite a bit in the last 5 years.
The weird part in the article was when the Mozilla platform engineer said "Neither Safari nor Chrome have to deal with this". I don't know about Chrome but from Apple's website [apple.com] it looks like Tiger is still supported for Safari 4:
Tiger System Requirements
Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.11 and Security Update 2009-002 or later
Parent
Premature (Score:5, Insightful)
This is far too premature. Firefox is still supported on Windows 2000, yet Tiger was still shipping on new Mac less than three years ago. Lots of people are still running this on G3 machines that can't upgrade to Leopard. I think this is just too soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Minor version (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised that so much version specific code is needed to support a minor release of the OS. Why is that?
We still have a computer running 10.2 hooked up to a microscope. It still works just fine, and I'm hesitant to upgrade without a real good reason. It would be really nice to continue to get updates for Firefox.
Re:Minor version (Score:5, Informative)
With Apple and OS X "point releases" (10.x) are not minor version changes. They include major shifts in APIs and decrements of complete frameworks (ie. Carbon to Cocoa). Apple operates on a different timing and structure scheme than Microsoft. Neither necessarily better or worse, but different.
If your 10.2 machine works for your application and doesn't need any upgraded software for fulfill it's purpose in the grand scheme of things, just leave it alone.....
Parent
How can I upgrade? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, where can I get a guaranteed legal version of Leopard? I've got a G4 Powerbook that I never upgraded, and it seems that Apple doesn't sell 10.5 anymore.
Re:How can I upgrade? (Score:5, Informative)
I called up my local Apple store with exactly this question. They said "Come in and buy a retail copy of 10.6, we'll burn you a disc with 10.5 on".
YMMV.
Parent
exorcise? (Score:3, Informative)
excise
Phasing out support for 10.4? I still run 10.3! (Score:3, Insightful)
A shame. I know people who bought nice new Macbooks running 10.4 in 2008, and they won't want to upgrade their OS after just over a year. I have a 700 mhz ibook that is great to travel with and does everything I want it to, but is slowly becoming insecure because it's gradually becoming unsupported. Yet it runs fine, and I'd cheerfully stick with it if I could.
Buy, buy, buy...what a pain. How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How hard is it to just keep up on security patches for old browsers?
A security patch isn't as simple as deciding "Oh, we don't want to have that vulnerability any more" and commenting out a setting. If it was that easy, there wouldn't be very many vulnerabilities at all.
On the one hand, any time you find a new vulnerability (or a new class of vulnerabilities), you have to audit all the nooks and crannies of the code base in order to identify either the problem itself, or the problem areas that are affected.
On the other hand, any time you change a line of code, you have to r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Mozilla pure and simple. Apple offers Safari 4 for OS X 10.4 (Tiger), so it's clearly not an impossible task to have an up to date browser on the OS.
Re:Good decision. (Score:5, Insightful)
And as many posts above demonstrate, 10.4 is hardly obsolete, having come installed on new Macs purchased two and a half years ago. The official upgrade cost is around $100. 17% of the cost of a new Mac Mini.
So the operating system is in wide use by people faced with a pretty substantial upgrade cost.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Leopard won't install on anything with a cpu slower than 867 Mhz so the following machines are forced to remain on 10.4 Tiger:
- Dual 800Mhz G4 Powermacs and slower.
- All G4 cubes
- All G3 iMacs and most of the iLamp G4 iMacs
- All G3 iBooks, a some G4 iBooks.
- Almost all Titanium Powerbooks
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox on OS X updates automatically. Users just have to push a "OK" button in a dialog to re-open their current windows in tabs in the updated version.
Re:Loose the (almost) dead weight (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it's important to note that this is being discussed for the next major release of Firefox - i.e. 3.7 or whatever they end up calling it. If they hit their targets, that won't be out at the earliest until the end of the year. Adding in security updates, 10.4 users wouldn't be left out in the cold until the middle of 2011 at the earliest. It stands to simple reason that the proportion of 10.4 is only going to continue dropping over the next year and a half. Why should Mozilla continue to devoting limited resources to an OS that requires disproportionate resources to support at that point?
Parent