Plea to continue FX 3.6 security updates for Mac PPC

[James]

I tried it briefly--have you used it? It exhibited some strange behavior: Long hang-ups with the spinny wheel, then some admittedly fast page-rendering. Because of this, I reverted to 3.6 immediately. I admit I haven't used it extensively. If anyone who has experience actually using it wants to plug for it or help me change a setting, I'm open to it.

If you try TenFourFox 7.0 again.

Type about:config in the Location (address) bar
Filter for network.http.max-connections
Right-click and Modify the Value from 256 to 48 or even 30
Restart Firefox.

[RyanVM]

I tried it briefly--have you used it?

I'm on Windows 7, so no.

[diderot]

If you try TenFourFox 7.0 again.

Type about:config in the Location (address) bar
Filter for network.http.max-connections
Right-click and Modify the Value from 256 to 48 or even 30
Restart Firefox.

Thanks for the suggestion, but sadly, it has no effect. TenFourFox hanged immediately on a test site (nytimes front page), and I had to force-quit (even that took awhile, for some reason). Unfortunately, that's the kind of problem that has been ubiquitous. 3.6, on the other hand, is extremely snappy and stable.

[JayhawksRock]

@diderot
I am in no way a Mac expert, but have you explored the idea of running FFx 3.6 in a sandbox when it is no longer supported a year from now.
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?s ... 8044558156

[diderot]

have you explored the idea of running FFx 3.6 in a sandbox when it is no longer supported a year from now.

I hadn't, but thanks--I might give it a try. It looks like some people who tried that hint had trouble, but it could be the kind of thing that would work with some fussing around.

I might have to try it soon, since support will actually cease in the next couple of months according to everyone on this thread and on the Mozilla support page (unless someone can convince Mozilla otherwise).

[James]

Actually support for 3.6.* may end early next year.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Fir ... t:Proposal
Fireox 3.6 will be end-of-lifed 12 weeks after the initial ESR is offered (to allow sufficient time for those groups using 3.6 to qualify and transition to the ESR)

[diderot]

Actually support for 3.6.* may end early next year.

Okay...well, I'm marginally glad it will be February (or whenever) instead of December. It doesn't change the main problem, of course.

One of the things that ESR document points out is that it is not only PPC Mac users who will have issues. The software that I log on to for work, for example (Angel Learning Management System--I teach at a state college) still only supports Firefox 3 and 4, and doesn't support Safari at all. Of course, there will eventually be upgrades to the software and our IT people will eventually upgrade (there's a budget crisis at the moment, so I doubt any major expenditures are happening soon). Since I have found that using unsupported browsers (Safari, TenFourFox) with that system does in fact cause trouble, it is highly possible that people in this kind of situation will be forced to use a non-secure browser next year (to be fair, Windows users could use an older but probably-supported version of IE; Linux users will be in my situation, though) or try to navigate the system glitches with the latest version of FIrefox.

In an ideal world, everyone would keep on top of things, but the reality--often, the financial reality--is usually different.

[diderot]

have you explored the idea of running FFx 3.6 in a sandbox

So, having looked into this and deciding it was a good idea, I tried this method, since it didn't involved running a shell script every time:

http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?s ... 2702082736

I ran the script without any errors (with suggested additions in the comments) but for some reason the FirefoxSandbox application that the script creates doesn't launch. Anyone have experience doing this? I'm on 10.5.8 on PPC.

[Stefan2]

It's not only PPC people who will run into trouble. A friend of mine is using Intel Mac OS X 10.4 and can't use anything later than Firefox 3.6 either. On the other hand, Intel computers could maybe be upgraded (although it might slow them down) to reenable updates, but this costs money.

I guess that this is always a problem when old OS versions get too few users. I heard that Mozilla is considering dropping support for Windows 2000 and old pirated copies of Windows XP, whereas old non-pirated copies of Windows XP will require a free update from Microsoft in order to continue working. I assume that other people will start complaining when this happens. Hopefully, those people will at least get an ESR release to use for some time.

[RyanVM]

Windows 2000 support will be dropped whenever they switch to MSVC 2010 as their compiler. Originally they were shooting for Fx10 to make the switch, but that's not going to happen. I believe there's still some issues with making sure that people on now-orphaned OSes don't get offered an update they can't use.

[diderot]

this is always a problem when old OS versions get too few users. I heard that Mozilla is considering dropping support for Windows 2000...Hopefully, those people will at least get an ESR release to use for some time.

At this juncture, I feel the need to point out that my "orphaned" operating system (10.5, PPC) was first released exactly four years ago, in October of 2007!!!

[Michael Goff]

Yeah, it's a shame that OSX systems are considered "out of date" so quickly.

[RobertJ]

Yeah, it's a shame that OSX systems are considered "out of date" so quickly.

It's not the OS but the hardware (PPC) that is outdated (PPC introduced in 1996 and killed in 2006 because, among other reasons, IBM stopped building it). The cycle on the actual OS is about 18 months and is inexpensive to do; my last OS update 10.6 -> 10.7 cost me $29.95 for all my home computers; and, even Office X (circa 2001) still runs on it although I was "forced" to upgrade because of the change in file formats (doc -> docx, xls -> xlsx).

EDIT: In talking to my Win expert he says to think of MS Service packs like OSX updates. I don't know if this makes sense.

.

[Stefan2]

No Mozilla products for PPC Mac OS X, but Ubuntu (and other distros?) seem to provide PPC Linux builds of the latest version. How does this work?

[diderot]

t's not the OS but the hardware (PPC) that is outdated (PPC introduced in 1996 and killed in 2006 because, among other reasons, IBM stopped building it).

I know, I know--I am unfortunately aware of the problems. Even 2005-2006 isn't that long ago, though. I mean, Windows 2000! If I had an 11-year old operating system, I wouldn't be complaining about the upgrade. Do you guys get Windows 3.1 support, too?

Is it true that there is Ubuntu PowerPC support? I'm curious about this, as well. I would assume it has the same drawbacks--I can't imagine that Flash for PPC Linux would still be supported, if it ever was...