That's right, Mozilla just announced that they will stop supporting Firefox to 64bits for Windows. This sounds strange and counterintuitive given that current systems tend to use 64bits for performance reasons.
This is a cheap blow to Windows users, but clearly great news for Linuxers. Since there is a clear preference towards open source systems ..
Mozilla lists the reasons why it decides to do this:
- Many Plugins are not available for 64bits
- Plugins that are available are not working properly.
- Errors reported by 64bit users do not have priority because we are working on other things.
- Frustration for 64bit users because they feel (and are) in the background.
Additionally, Mozilla thanks all the team that collaborated with the project.
«Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. Given the existing information, I have decided to proceed with disabling windows 64-bit nightly and hourly builds. Please let us consider this discussion closed unless there is critical new information which needs to be presented. »
And now that?
Good. Turns out Mozilla has another project called waterfox. A browser based on Mozilla Firefox that only supports Windows and exclusively 64 bits.
Waterfox is a high performance browser based on the Mozilla Firefox source code. Waterfox is specifically for 64-bit systems, with one thing in mind: speed.
My personal concept is that this is done with the intention of separating Mozilla Firefox y Waterfox between Linux and Windows. I say this because in some years most (if not all) of the computers will work in 64bits ... And if I am a Windows user I will use Waterfox and if I am a linux user I will use Mozilla Firefox.
How are you? What do you think will happen?
I find it surprising. It does seem like they want to separate firefox into two projects, but why would they want to do that ???
What if they are going to start selling Waterfox in order to have support? :ALIENS:
Yes. It may be a reasonable explanation. Although, as Pavloco says below, it doesn't look like it's a Mozilla project. Rather, it seems like a fork made by people who have not liked the bad support that firefox has on 64-bit windows. There is more information here: http://www.neoteo.com/waterfox-firefox-alternativo-de-64-bits and that post is almost a year old, so this is not from now.
I share the link too
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html - There the Waterfox project comes out.
There are software projects that somehow make use of Mozilla code, it does not mean that they are being carried out by Mozilla.
Waterfox, as they have already said, is a fork of Firefox that seeks precisely to make up for the lack of an official 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows.
It is the code of Mozilla Firefox, but the project does not belong to Mozilla
The truth is that I do not think the best of ideas, being they who want to begin to have greater market penetration ... I mean, they are very well positioned but they want to go higher, obviously they want to compete, and separate their projects into two different products that they make The same thing, then, does not seem ideal to me, much less today, that it is not seeking to separate the free systems from the proprietors but rather there is a trend towards interoperability….
I don't look at it with the best eyes I must admit
It is like the case of eMule which is called like this for the Windows version and aMule for the Linux and Mac versions ……… but they are the same program.
eMule is for Windows and aMule is for Windows, Linux and Mac, they are different but similar programs.
On the other hand, I wanted to say that giving importance to this and crucifying Mozilla seems like "stupidity" to me, since 64-bit applications consume more RAM and serve to take advantage of more than 3GB, who in the browser consumes more than 3GB RAM? Also, the 32-bit version works perfectly in 64-bit Windows and is something that the ordinary user cares 3 cumin.
Google Chrome also does not have a 64-bit version for Windows and I have not seen all this alarm anywhere. Let's stop whimsical and let's face it, Firefox will continue to work the same with the 32-bit version on both Windows 32-bit and Windows 64 without any problem.
Like Nano, I think it is not a good idea besides the redundancy that this implies
The interoperability and integration of the software to run on various devices I think is a better idea, since you are everywhere and this provides better positioning (assuming that was the vision of the people at Mozilla).
Being a little bad thought, is this not a way to give Microsoft a little slap by leaving it out of Windows 8 in the exclusive Microsoft ironworks?
What a good theory ... You should work on History and the subject of ancient astronauts .. hehe
That is interesting, maybe yes. Perhaps they were offended.
Firefox has never been one of my favorite browsers, I think everything has been a clever plan, abandon a project and charge for another, when I had 64-bit windows, it crashed on YouTube videos, when running or downloading them, the plugins never they were well integrated, I think there are better alternatives in linux. Cheers
Better alternative than Firefox There is none for me, neither on Linux, nor Windows nor Mac OS X. This browser, with its ups and downs, has proven to be the best and most complete, both for the end user and for developers. Of all the ones I have tried, it is the one that best renders websites, fonts, and the one that most complies with the standards. But of course, that's just my opinion.
I think the same. The one that comes closest to it may be Chromium, but for my personal experience it falls short compared to Firefox.
Exactly, really, for me, none. The truth is neither Chrome, Opera, nor Chromium, although it supports the latter.
I don't see anything wrong with the Mozilla Foundation deciding to charge Windows users for using their browser (if that's the idea). It has its advantages and disadvantages of course but if we take into consideration that explorer leaves much to be desired and that it is a jar of honey for the harmful fauna of the network, because Windows users have more options to consider.
Firefox is if not the best one of the best browsers and its ability for navigation and development is first class.
Good for Linux !! Little by little, little by little,… we are occupying the place we deserve.
I think that Waterfox is not a Mozilla project. In fact I think it violates the Firefox license, since I could not find the source code.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html
There the project comes out.
Excuse me I understood that only for windows 64 bits? and the ones with 32 bits? or is it for windows in general.
Only for Windows 64bits
I am convinced that Linux will prevail on the desktop in a few years. Cloud solutions are gradually eliminating the border between Linux and Windows, in terms of software, so that it will no longer be necessary to choose the Windows OS "by force" because the application you need is only developed for that platform.
+1
I believe that web and cloud applications will help linux a lot
My theory, although it seems outdated, is that they are taking the first step to eliminate firefox and begin to gain market with waterfox, initially in 64-bit windows and then in other 64-bit systems, both linux and mac, slowly leaving 32-bit systems aside.
Anyway I don't use windows so the truth doesn't affect me, but if in the end this change benefits all Linux users, then welcome!
I think it is the worst decision they could make, if firefox did not work well in 64-bit windows, they should at least force the 32-bit one, or call it firefox64-bit, but leaving the brand aside I do not think it will benefit them.
People will go to download firefox and when they read waterfox they will prefer to download chrome or stick with IE.
“This is a cheap blow to Windows users, but clearly great news for Linuxers. »
Rejoice in the misfortunes of others? My favorite system is debian, but for example from the computer I write I have windows for compatibility and for games. And I do not agree on that.
Why do you suppose I'm glad? I just wrote that it is a cheap blow for Windows users .. Which is not it?
Given the positioning as an operating system, it doesn't seem reasonable to go against Windows. But it seems to me that the fundamentals are being overlooked, "a bad support only gives reasons to the competition."
From my point of view, and without the need to enter into speculation, that is a compelling reason.
Greetings.
Well, like that, in a super troll way, hehehe, I'm happy, although I am aware that it was not a good idea. After all, even though the guys at Microshit have made it clear that they will stop developing 32-bit Windows, I don't think it's possible, they won't.
Hello, excuse me but this is bad news, I have seen that this news has been published by several technology blogs, however there has never been an 'official' version of firefox for 64-bit windows, Waterfox is a group that makes a version for said system, but it is still an 'unofficial' version, on the other hand, our friends from mozilla found this a little funny and they demonstrated it by making a meme of the subject in http://mozillamemes.tumblr.com/ It's always good to see the nice side of things 😀
This is good:
http://mozillamemes.tumblr.com/post/21375669546/and-more-secure-and-faster
Alternatives to Firefox:
http://getswiftfox.com/download.htm
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/seamonkey-internet-suite.html
regards
Swiftfox was an excellent alternative to Firefox, especially since it was optimized according to the processor, but I think it is discontinued.
In the last Debian installation I installed swiftfox, they considered that staying in version 3.6.3 was the best, and the browser ran fine. And Seamonkey, has followed its development, in the link that I sent they enable it quite well and take away the old air of it. Cheers