Firefox 16 Pulled To Address Security Vulnerability

Shortly after the release of the newest major version of Firefox, an anonymous reader writes with word that "Mozilla has removed Firefox 16 from its installer page due to security vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could allow 'a malicious site to potentially determine which websites users have visited' ... one temporary work-around, until a fix is released, is to downgrade to 15.0.1"

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[buck-yar]

Their numbering scheme makes it look like they're not fixing anything, just releasing on a whim. Then this...

Oh well

[scdeimos]

I guess the decades-old saying still holds true, "never install a point-O release."

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[BenJury]

Why is it 'mad'? I don't understand why people have such issues with this. Its just a damn number. If it really irks you so much just add a decimal point to the start of it in your head and move on.

Sad but expected

[Arker]

Considering all the stuff "16" was supposed to have fixed, recommending a rollback over this sounds completely incompetent. And therefore expected.

Remember, these are the same geniuses that decided to start rolling the version number everytime someone fixes a typo a few months ago, and thus calling the current version (what is it really, 5.3 or so?) 16. And it isnt truly new either, take a look at this old bug for example: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78414 [mozilla.org]

Been sitting there well over 10 years now. Not one serious attempt to fix it. How many new features that no one wanted and random gui changes to confuse users have they managed to implement in that time period?

So yeah, no surprise here. Please, someone, make a browser that doesnt suck.

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[tuppe666]

It's simply replicating Chrome's numbering scheme. The idea that a higher version number is a better product is still ingrained in people's heads for some reason.

As part of the process. Large features get to be rolled out when they are ready, rather than waiting for a release every one to two years, or even delaying those releases if they are not.

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[dietdew7]

It's mad because we never know whether we're getting a patch with a few bug fixes or a completely different UI. I guess I'm mostly annoyed that Mozilla and other software producers feel the need to make-over their UI every six months. It feels like change just for the sake of change.

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[runeghost]

Fortunately, Firefox is well on it's way to helping destroy that idea.

Re:It's more than just decimal points

[BenJury]

That argument completely falls apart, however, when you consider the system admin or the advanced user who ends up asking himself whether he should upgrade a non-conforming piece of software on a computer or not.

If you're making this decision based on the version number alone, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Firefox *16*!?

[jfengel]

And they seem to have celebrated by screwing it.