Mozilla Aims To Release Four Firefox Versions In 2011 263
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla is planning to release four new versions of its open source browser by the end of this year. That means Firefox 4, Firefox 5, Firefox 6, and Firefox 7 are all slated to ship in 2011. Mozilla was originally planning on having Firefox 4 out by the end of last year, but it had to delay the release. The last release was Beta 10 but there are still probably two more betas, at least one release candidate, and of course a final build. It's clear the company no longer thinks this model is a good one, and wants to accelerate its release cycle, much like Google did with Chrome."
More detailed information on the accelerated development cycle and the major features intended for each new version are available on Mozilla's Firefox 2011 Roadmap.
Magic version numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Versions (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear the company no longer thinks this model is a good one, and wants to accelerate its release cycle
It sort of sounds more like they want to remove minor version numbers, and make every update a new major version.
That's just dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Releasing 4 major versions in one year is immature, and Mozilla should no better. What motivation do they have other than competing with the other browsers that have higher version numbers? Stupid.
Hariyfeet, if you read this, I want to remind you once again that Firefox deciding not to make use of Windows Integrity Controls is not equivalent to running the browser as a root process. Sigh.
Re:Magic version numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, one might argue, makes them point releases instead of major releases. If 5 is only adding a few features from 4, and fixing bugs, then why isn't it 4.1?
I'm shaking my head at the prospect of going through four major releases of Firefox this year, and sort of going "why?".
Re:Magic version numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The change to calling each one of them "major" versions appears to be simply cosmetic - who cares what the number is, people will use the latest stable version, whichever that happens to be; if there is no stable version, they'll simply move to using Chrome or Safari.
Basically, all Mozilla has done is said, "Everything we would have released in a big chunk next November will be delivered in 4 smaller chunks, one each quarter."
In theory, the releases will be more tightly focused, with shorter durations, and fewer features to implement translating to more thorough bug testing and bug fixing. This is a good thing.
In practice, as you noted... no guarantees. I expect at least 2 of them will be significantly late and / or significantly reduced in scope from their current roadmap.
Re:This just in: (Score:4, Insightful)
A version number increment is only as important as you want it to be. The difference between "3.6" and "4.0" is entirely subjective, as is the difference between "4.0" and "5.0".
By convention, a "major" release increment signals significant changes, but what constitutes "significant"? Is expanding Windows support to 32-bit AND 64-bit versions "major"? Could be. Is implementing a new feature to support "identity," as the roadmap suggests? Could be. So is adding Windows 64-bit support worthy of a major revision number? If it is, do they have to increment again when they release "identity" support? Is one "more major" than the other?
The answer is: who cares, really? The only thing that users really need to worry about:
1) What version am I using presently?
2) What is the latest stable version?
3) What's changed between #1 and #2, and is it worth upgrading?
Whether #1 and #2 are "3.6" and "3.9", respectively, or "4.0" and "7.0", it really doesn't matter. It's the delta, #3, that really matters - what's been added, removed, updated, fixed, and broken between the two?
Re:Oh Great (Score:2, Insightful)
But I have to search for updates to get an updated Chrome.....oh wait....I run Chromium - which doesn't auto-update......
Re:Good Bye (Score:3, Insightful)
For a good while now it seems their development strategy has been "upset geek users".
At the top of my head:
Idea: The options dialog is not mac-like enough, let's put icons on top of the options!
Response: That's not even mac-like, its not a good idea on wide displays, laptops or old smaller displays.
Resolution: Implemented, throughly.
Idea: Change the address bar so that it also becomes a history search bar, and title based rather than URL based.
Response: Not too bad but maybe it should be an option.
Resolution: Implemented, not configurable, make your own extension.
Idea: Not everybody is installing the "Personas" extension, let's make them like it!
Response: Ok you want to promote it but it's going to bloat the binary, why not include it like a default add-on like dictionaries? It's actually easier than embedding it!
Resolution: Compiled into the core, load on mouse over always active, not configurable.
Idea: Firefox doesn't look enough like a rip-off, let's put the tabs on top!
Response: That's such a pathetic way to ape Google! Come on that's so non-standard it going to break a gazillion work flows and is not compatible with . There are already extensions for it. Why?
Tentative Resolution: Compiled into the core not configurable (probably)
Idea: People have too much extensions standardized on the status bar, let's pull the carpet of their feet!
Response: Do we have any recourse?
Resolution: Make your own extension, try to standardize on that, if you can.
Future Idea: People are not keen on jet-pack, let's remove add-ons (except for 3rd party not uninstallable add-ons like MS's .NET)
Response: Are you enjoying this?
Resolution: Not until you complain more!