On 2016-04-12 at 11:43, Harris Paltrowitz wrote: > On 04/12/2016 11:06 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Tuesday 12 April 2016 15:14:08 Harris Paltrowitz wrote: >> >>> I tried Firefox 45 last week but as you may remember from my >>> recent emails, I experienced major issues with choppy videos in >>> Youtube using Firefox 45, but not with Iceweasel 38.7.1. I've >>> since done a Debian re-install and I want to start fresh using >>> optimal applications, so I'd like to stick with 38.7.1 (as it >>> appears to be more compatible with Jessie) but I'm curious about >>> the security updates to it. >> >> Would firefox-esr (same site) solve that? I wouldn't bank on many >> updates for iceweasel now it is somewhat deprecated. > > I realize now that the selection list on that Mozilla/Debian website > has several release options that I don't understand -- besides esr/45 > (which is the version I had problems with) there's release, beta and > aurora. Do you know what the differences are here? The Firefox development process follows a type of cascading release: http://www.askvg.com/mozilla-updates-firefox-update-channels-nightly-aurora-beta-and-release/ There are nightly builds, which are compiled every night from the public source tree (assuming it actually builds at the moment), and made available for developer use. These are bleeding-edge, potentially unstable and buggy code. There's the 'Aurora' release channel, which is the next stage of stability after nightly builds. It's more or less the "experimental release" niche, the first step towards designating something as a release; think of it as comparable to an alpha release. After the old 'Aurora' becomes the new 'Beta', a version of the latest nightly code becomes the new Aurora. Not every new patch gets into Aurora - only patches which the developers agree are important for the coming release. There's the 'Beta' release channel, which is the next stage of stability after Aurora. After the old 'Beta' becomes the new 'Release' version, the old Aurora becomes the new Beta. As with Aurora, not every new patch gets into Beta - and the standards for what qualifies to get in are tighter than with Aurora. There's the 'Release' release channel, which is what gets published as a new official Firefox version. Once every six weeks (or thereabouts), the old Beta becomes the new Release. No patches at all are accepted into Release, unless a critically urgent oh-shit-that's-bad issue is discovered and the developers decide to make a "chemspill" point release (e.g., the difference between 45.0 and 45.0.1). There's the 'ESR' release channel, which is maintained over roughly a year-long period. Once every seven Firefox major versions (which come once every six weeks), a copy of the new Release version becomes the new ESR. In theory, only security and stability patches make it into the ESR; new features, and anything which might introduce a regression, are verboten. (In practice, the developers sometimes don't live up to that ideal.) The more you need stability, the lower down this list you should go with. The newer and faster you need new features and potential bug fixes (at the risk of new bugs being _added_), the higher up the list you should go with. For myself, I always recommend that anyone not actively developing Firefox should run the ESR. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature