Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla News

Mozilla To Remove User-Facing Firefox Version Numbers 683

Posted by Soulskill
from the numbers-are-a-distraction dept.
MrSeb writes "A great collective gasp issued from tuned-in Firefox fans when Mozilla announced that it was switching to a Chrome-like release schedule for its browser. Now Mozilla wants to take things one step further and remove Firefox version numbers entirely — from the user-facing parts of the browser, anyway." You can see the Bugzilla entry for this change, and keep up on Mozilla's reasoning and discussion through a thread on the mozilla.dev.usability newsgroup. Mozilla's Asa Dotzler explained, "We're moving to a more Web-like convention where it's simply not important what version you're using as long as it's the latest version. ... The most important thing is confidence that they're on the latest release. That's what the About dialog will give them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla To Remove User-Facing Firefox Version Numbers

Comments Filter:
  • by cstec (521534) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#37096802)
    Someone needs to let them know that they have a huge base of very useful, non-trivial plug-ins that people actually use, and they tend to break at least some of them with every update. We're still stuck on 3.6 waiting for the plug-ins to catch up because frankly they're more important to us than FF itself. And now the new hotness is your addons will just start being continuously breakable at any time?
    • by i.r.id10t (595143)

      Not to mention other web "apps" like learning management systems, etc officially supporting specific versions or a range of versions.

      Seems like this decision will kill FF as a "supported browser" for this type of thing on non-windows platforms... Which I guess is OK since most can support Safari for the Mac users... but what about us Linux users?

      • by vlm (69642)

        Not to mention other web "apps" like learning management systems, etc officially supporting specific versions or a range of versions.

        That is a huge management mistake by the LMS programmers, its simply not the browsers problem.

        Insert standard /. car analogy: Imagine if my local gas station pumps were so stupid as to only support certain named car brands, going to great effort to ensure I can't buy gas unless my vehicle is on the approved list, instead of just supporting some mostly common sense federal and state EPA standards for all machines.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          If only the interfaces in question weren't so trivial, your lame analogy might actually mean something.

          As things really are, the best thing you could call such an argument demagogy.

        • by Qzukk (229616) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:41PM (#37097376) Journal

          Imagine if my local gas station pumps were so stupid as to only support certain named car brands, going to great effort to ensure I can't buy gas unless my vehicle is on the approved list

          Better yet, that the model year needs to be on the supported list, and then every year getting all defensive when patrons start showing up in the newest model and asking why they can't get gas. They tell them that they can't have gas until it's tested in that model year car because "who knows, maybe the 2012 Ford Focus runs on hydrogen", before finally blaming Ford for changing the year number even though the fuel didn't change.

          What's really needed is an engine (API) version number that gas stations (addon developers) can target, and that only changes when the engine (API) changes. A well designed number would capture both added features and removed features in a way that a plugin can be marked with a range of versions that provide the required API features.

    • by dynamo52 (890601) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:11PM (#37096952)
      Exactly. Add-ons are the only reason I use Firefox. If they simply start breaking at random I might as well just use Chrome.
      • by Toonol (1057698)
        I'd go Opera instead of Chrome, but yes. Plugins and standard adherence were the two reasons to use Firefox. Now, honestly, all the browsers are pretty good at meeting standards.

        I can't even imagine what is going through the minds over at the Mozilla foundation.

        I was a big Firefox booster, but the marketing-driven decisions that have been coming down have been troubling me ever since the damn Awesomebar. Not the existence of marketing; they needed marketing. The problem was that marketing was cons
        • by Rockoon (1252108)

          I can't even imagine what is going through the minds over at the Mozilla foundation.

          "Our deal with Google, the deal that supplies the money for all our paychecks, is up this year and needs to be renewed."

    • by Machtyn (759119)
      Slimsearch. Granted some of the functionality already exists in current FF releases, but it's not the whole thing.
      But, yes, there are a good number of add-ons that just haven't been updated to work in FF4, let alone 5.
    • by _0xd0ad (1974778)

      We're still stuck on 3.6 waiting for the plug-ins to catch up

      There is no justifiable excuse for this. First, because the add-on developer should maintain the add-on and update its max-version (currently, the Mozilla add-on website permits max-version all the way up to 8.0a1). Secondly, because you can always override it anyway. It's not likely that the add-on will actually break.

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/ [mozilla.org]

      After installing the Add-on Compatibility Reporter, your incompatible extensions will become enabled for you to test whether they still work with the version of Firefox or Thunderbird that you're using. If you notice that one of your add-ons doesn't seem to be working the same way it did in previous versions of the application, just open the Add-ons Manager and click Compatibility next to that add-on to send a report to Mozilla.

      Even if your add-ons all work fine, if they're marked incompatible, please let us know that they work fine by submitting a success report so we can encourage the add-on developer to update their compatibility information.

      • by hymie! (95907)

        the add-on developer should maintain the add-on and update its max-version

        You're saying that any person who writes software is automatically required to provide lifetime support of said software?

      • currently, the Mozilla add-on website permits max-version all the way up to 8.0a1

        max-version was 7.0a1 a few weeks ago, and 6.0a1 a few week before that.

        A moving target for max-version is a bad thing. It's amusing to see web developers encouraged by browser developers (including Mozilla [mozilla.org]) to do feature detection instead of version detection, and then Mozilla's own extension system requires version detection.

    • As Linus Torvalds recently said, if you're checking for a specific version, you're doing it wrong. Just assume that you're on the most recent one and do the most modern thing unless you're specifically told otherwise. Basically, an addon should work on version X and anything higher, not specifically versions X.A, X.B, and X.C.
      • But that assumes that Firefox doesn't break the API the extension uses. With the Linux kernel it works exactly because great care is applied to keeping the kernel calls stable. Note that the kernel's driver API isn't stable, and therefore you have the same problems there (guess why distributions tend to backport bug fixes instead of simply using a new kernel version).

    • I am getting real, real close to pulling Firefox from all the lab images. I am not interested in playing the support game with the "Major version numbers all the time," thing and I am far less interested in playing around with having to dig in to shit to find out if a copy is up to date or not.

    • Apparently they don't understand they aren't a web app...
  • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#37096804)
    ... of users not liking the inane rapid development cycle --- try to hide the rapid release of versions from the customers.
  • by Yaur (1069446) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#37096812)
    Sure it works in a world where no change ever causes a regression its fine. In the real world not so much.
    • by mickwd (196449)

      Agreed. Was it really that difficult for them to hold their hands up and say "sorry guys, we goofed with that last idea about version numbers. Now we've listened to what people have been saying, and their reasons for saying it, and we're going back to the previous way".

    • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:56PM (#37097608)

      Sounds to me like this is how they looked at the recent outcry over their rapid release schedule:
      Problem: People are upset about our rapid changes in major versions.
      Solution: Don't show people the version numbers!

      I expect this kind of reasoning from the PHB in a Dilbert cartoon. I expect a bit more from an organization that is trying to create the bestest browser ever. I mean, I understand that they're setting themselves up for failure with trying to be everything to everyone, but at least there are good ways to aim too high, and then there is aiming high and shooting yourself in the foot.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      So if I have version "??" and it turns out it has a feature I don't like or a bug in it, then I can downgrade to version "??" to fix it?

  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#37096814)

    That's the problem here. Firefox's ever changing APIs which are always breaking add-ons. The Chrome add-on API is much more limited and as such doesn't need to change as frequently or as drastically. How Firefox thinks they're going to succeed by becoming a crappier version of Chrome is beyond me.

  • by Verteiron (224042) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#37096816) Homepage

    This is a really stupid idea.

    If the user wants to hide the version number, someone will write an extension to do that. Quit dumbing down Firefox.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:05PM (#37096866)

      Moz devs: "No, no. We need an add-on that shows the version number. Someone will write it."

      User: "What version of FF is that add-on compatible with?"

      Moz devs: "Yeah about that....fuck you."

    • by jo42 (227475)

      Did the Gnome guys take over Mozilla or something?

      In case you haven't noticed, those making decisions these days, be it government (politics), big business, or software development, have all gotten serious cases of dumbtarditis.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        have all gotten serious cases of dumbtarditis.

        THIS! exactly THIS!

        and Yes I have notice that it seems that almost everyone in a position of power lately have become complete retards.

        Good ideas innovative ideas forward thinking... None of that exists lately. It's all changes for the sake of trendy change.

    • by dslbrian (318993)

      Exactly. Hide the status bar, hide the full URL, hide the version number. Obscuring things is apparently their new development model.

  • First the version number is important so we bump it up a few notches. Now it's not?

    I hope they don't write code while smoking whatever it is they are smoking before coming up with such ideas.
    • by TWX (665546)

      First the version number is important so we bump it up a few notches. Now it's not?

      That's what I'm trying to understand.

      I guess it's their way of trying to get us to stop being so angry by their versioning scheme.

      The thing that is really getting on my nerves, though, is that they seem to be out-of-touch with the way big web developer groups work, which is to write to version numbers, kind of like how older developers wrote to RFC. There are some fairly big software packages like OnBase that probably will b

  • How do you know if the machine is up to date? And how do you avoid the dot zero releases? I've always said i'd wait for the dot one release of eternal life.
    • by jandrese (485)
      You know if your machine is up to date when you go to the about page and it says "this copy of Firefox is up to date".

      Presumably they just accidentally forgot to mention the part where they're changing the fundamental nature of plugins so that they never break when the version is updated, so nobody would ever have a reason not to update immediately.
      • by vlm (69642)

        You know if your machine is up to date when you go to the about page and it says "this copy of Firefox is up to date".

        How does it fight "web proxy gone wild"? https connection, I suppose?

    • about:support
    • by vlm (69642)

      I've always said i'd wait for the dot one release of eternal life.

      Yeah we'll good luck picking the right one, there's about ten thousand forked versions of life 1.1 all of which are literally in a holy war with each other, conflicting featuresets, etc. No wonder I opt out of that entire flamefest, just don't need the aggravation.

  • Addon breakage (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bloodwine77 (913355) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:03PM (#37096834)

    Now people will think their addons break at random. I doubt the typical user will ever look at about:troubleshooting

    Mozilla needs to rethink a lot of things about addon support before pushing their new release and version philosophy any further.

    • What is this about:troubleshooting you're talking about? My copy of Firefox (technically it's Aurora) doesn't recognize that...

      • They were referring to about:troubleshooting in the mozilla.dev.usability discussion linked in the article summary. I think it is the "Help > Troubleshooting Information" page (about:support in Firefox 5). Either they have plans to rename about:support to about:troubleshooting or add a new about:troubleshooting in the future ... or they misspoke in the conversation.

    • Mozilla needs to rethink a lot of things about addon support before pushing their new release and version philosophy any further.

      One of the things I'd like them to provide is the ability to remove extensions and add-ons, instead of just disabling them. I have been accumulating unwanted extensions that I have disabled but I see no button to uninstall them.

      • by vlm (69642)

        One of the things I'd like them to provide is the ability to remove extensions and add-ons, instead of just disabling them. I have been accumulating unwanted extensions that I have disabled but I see no button to uninstall them.

        You sure about that? "Tools" "Add-ons" look at the right column for the "remove" buttons. Maybe its a version thing, I'm running 5.0, you can click "help" "about firefox" to see what version you're ... Oh, very smooth move there sir, I must applaud you...

  • by waterbear (190559) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:04PM (#37096846)

    Maybe the developers want me to have the latest version, but it's not always what I want, and above all, whether latest version or not, I want to know what I've actually got.

    From my pov, this will ensure that I never go back to Firefox (after abandoning it a while back because of the memory leaks and denials that there was a problem.)

    -wb-

    • by bored (40072) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:08PM (#37096912)

      From my pov, this will ensure that I never go back to Firefox (after abandoning it a while back because of the memory leaks and denials that there was a problem.)

      Don't worry the memory leaks are still there, a couple times I week I kill it and restart it just to lower its memory usage.

      • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:41PM (#37097378) Homepage Journal

        Wait, you mean you don't constantly restart Firefox? My good sir, you are clearly doing it wrong!

        By which I mean that Firefox no longer checks for addon updates while Firefox is running. As of Firefox "Several Months Ago, I think, I dunno" (previously known as "Firefox 4") Firefox only bothers checking for addon updates when you start Firefox.

        Or maybe it only bothers mentioning that there are updates when you restart, but will happily and silently download them in the background. I dunno.

        Clearly, the proper and intended way to run Firefox is to constantly close and reopen it to make sure your addons and plugins are kept up to date.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by paulkoan (769542)

          I don't need to close Firefox and reopen it. It is perfectly able to close itself at random times for me.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Reading stuff like this makes me wonder why people aren't upgrading to 3.6 en masse. Sounds awfully lot like vista rollout, with people upgrading to xp.

  • If I have to certify my product x, works with y browser then how can my clients truly know what version of Firefox they use?

    Unlike IE updates the api changes every 6 weeks and so does the html rendering and everything else. It looks like IE is the only game in town.

    I am beginning to like the browser more day in and day out. Even if your job is just a help desk job it is going to be a pain to figure out which verison of the browser the client is using. If I owned a tech support company I would be strongly in

  • by PJ6 (1151747) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:06PM (#37096884)
    and I'll also be dumping Firefox from the list of "supported browsers" on the sites I release
  • by maxwell demon (590494) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:06PM (#37096886) Journal

    "I've found this bug in Firefox ..."
    "Do you run the latest version?"
    "I don't know. I'm running the version my distro gives me."
    "So which one is it?"
    "I don't know. It won't tell me."
    "Please update to the latest version."
    "Well, I already have the latest version my distro gives me. If this is actually the latest version, I have no idea."

    • by Reapman (740286)

      Yeah, too bad Mozilla doesn't include a bug reporting feature that automatically would submit data like a version number to the developers.

      • by _xeno_ (155264)

        Yep, that's great help if you don't work on Firefox, but rather with, say, an addon for Firefox or a website in Firefox.

        "Your site doesn't work in Firefox."
        "Huh. It works for me. What version are you using?"
        "Uh... Windows 7?"
        "No, I mean, what version of Firefox does it say in the About dialog?"
        "There are no numbers in the About dialog."
        "What? See, when I go to About, it says, ... oh, right, fuck."

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#37096902)

    Why does Mozilla keep treating Firefox like it's something they need to apologize for? Firefox has the best add-ons out there, hands down. And it's been around for years. Why are they acting like Chrome and others are setting the standards now? Why do they act like they're in some kind of pissing contest with Google? Google is the one with something to prove here, not Mozilla.

    Just knock it off and stick to your strengths.

    • by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:19PM (#37097052) Journal

      I used to be a fan of Alex St John in MaximumPC.

      Basically, he used to work for Microsoft and helped write a bad clone of postscript for Windows 95 and was influential engineering DirectX1 & 2 when it was called WinG for Windows 3.11.

      He had an article detailing how Microsoft wins over its rivals. How? The rivals see the big bad scary Microsoft and end up doing something stupid and killing themselves out of fear. MS had nothing to do with it. I look at Mozilla and you know what I see? Someone freaking out trying to be something they are not in a market they are not.

      I believe in 2 years Firefox will start to become irrelevant. Grandmas might use it and of course some geeks will have it on their computers even if they do nto use it but the marketshare will drastically go down and that is a shame. What Firefox had that Chrome didn't was a stable release cycle and some limited enterprise use for clients who had to stick with IE 6, but needed a secure more up to date browser for the internet. But Mozilla wanted to be cool like Chrome and follow all of its disadvantages and be something that they are not.

      Chrome was well planned to be gradually updated with stable api's and a similiar rendering engines with all versions with slight additions rather than complete changes. Firefox was in such a hurry it didn't implement it right. May they rest in peace.

  • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#37096904)

    I'm going to start using his name for boneheaded changes done for "me too" reasons and decision by committee.

    "Man, T-Mobile really Dotzler'd their unlimited plan."

  • Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#37096906) Homepage

    I'm not so sure I'm entirely keen on this.

    From an IT perspective, it's helpful to know what versions people are running. And, from a practical perspective, who the heck updates every single day?

    This is like agile development and continuously running the steaming build from last night ... it seems to completely violate any notion of a tested, supportable version of software, and turns it into a thing that is completely difficult to nail down. It's just a constantly evolving piece of software. So if something was broken for a day or so, you'll never really know WTF it was.

    Hell, having done QA and the like ... the version of the browser you're running is part of the stuff you need to know so you know what you support. You can't even begin to say your software supports Firefox if you can't say anything more than "well, whatever Firefox looked like in January, we know it works on that".

    I've dealt with a vendor who pretty much does constant releases of their software (several times/week), and their idiot support people mostly won't listen to you until you're running the latest version. It takes me several weeks to promote a version through my environments to do testing and get approvals, and you think my production instance is running the steaming turd you released on Friday?? How do you expect I've managed to do that? By having no control whatsoever as to what is deployed?

    I'm pretty sure that for some organizations, this is going to make it really difficult to use Firefox. I'm pretty sure that in at least one or two places I've worked, this would be a complete non-starter.

  • Standards... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HockeyPuck (141947) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:08PM (#37096914)

    From one of the posts in the group...

    Microsoft Guidelines show version number in their About Box example.

    ----------

    Excerpt from Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines:

    About ApplicationName
    Opens the About window, which contains the app's copyright information
    and version number.

    ----------

    Excerpt from GNOME Human Interface Guidelines 2.2.2:
    Help About ...contains the name and version number of the application, a short
    description of the application's functionality, author contact
    details, copyright message and a pointer to the licence under which
    the application is made available.

    ----------

    Could someone please post references to the relevant standards Firefox
    will comply with after implementation of bug 678775?

  • I like it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vlm (69642)

    No responses so far in favor of the idea... I'll toss one out:

    1) No more coding some bizarre non-standard garbage code to a specific version of the software anymore. I'm looking at you, JAVA coders. And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorizati

    • Re:I like it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PJ6 (1151747) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:15PM (#37097864)

      And those guys still stuck in Internet Explorer 6 or whatever from 1999. You want it to work? Don't write to a browser version, write to a standard. I LIKE IT that it will be impossible to write for a browser version. I want a standards compliant browser, not version 12.345.2-19 of a browser and memorization of which sites require -20 and with can't work on anything newer than -18.

      You think that browsers are all magically going to be standards-compliant just because version numbers are removed?

      You think web developers *like* developing around browser idiosyncrasies and coding conditionally to specific versions? They do it because the HAVE TO.

      You think every organization is going to allow all their machines to do automatic, arbitrary versioning of the browsers they allow their users to run?

      Maybe you should get your head out of your ass.

  • Hell! No!!!!

    What are they thinking about?

    If they remove that, then they should have a display with a list and version of all components of Firefox available.

    How am I going to figure out what kind of version I have when I arrive at a system I haven't touched before?

    This is incredible dumb!

  • Did a large fraction of the FOSS developer community recently get hit with a Retardo Ray or something?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:17PM (#37097024)
    Caller: "My computer will not boot into Windows"
    Support: "What version of Windows are you running?"
    Caller: "Windows"
    Support: "But what version of Windows are you running?"
    Caller: "Windows"
    Support: "..."
  • Version numbers have always worked for years. And now suddenly they collapse. What's happening?

  • What about plugins?

  • by farbles (672915) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:36PM (#37097316)

    Oh for the love of God, Firefox admins, what's going on, does the sweet, sweet, wall candy taste good? Your Aunt Mom tell you you are a special little snowflake and never mind what the bad, bad real world has to say?

    I love Firefox. I really do, but honestly, it's like they are trying to be as stupid as humanly possible. I'm getting sick of "my way or the highway" program developers breaking things and telling me that they've been fixed. Do you morons notice how your market share is shrinking? Do you notice that you're producing nothing but bad press these days and people are getting pissed off at you? So your answer to this is to get in everyone's face and tell them to suck it up or go away? What are you, Tea Party-ists?

    I work in tech. I need version numbers to tell what the hell people have. "You have the latest version" lies all the time like a cheap rug.

    Firefox - it's this type of attitude that got me to switch from Ubuntu, where they've developed the same attitude that negative feedback means they're doing the job right. Learn a lesson here or lose more market share.

    Time to purge some MBAs from management, you bozos.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:44PM (#37097432) Homepage

    The fricking bug that makes it hang and sit (not responding) for 4-12 seconds at a time at random intervals on page loads once in a while? I am about to completely give up on it because of that. IT happens a LOT of slashdot, I would blame the poorly written CSS that slashdot uses (still get the jump to the top of page when you click on the commend dialog text box once in a while as well) but I've see it on Cisco.com as well as motorola.com

  • by ISurfTooMuch (1010305) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:01PM (#37097670)

    Have the Firefox developers gone entirely mad? I thought their rapid release schedule was stupid, but this is just plain asinine. No, in a perfect world, we would all be happiest and more productive if we were using the newest version, but we don't live in a perfect world. New versions introduce new bugs, they break addons, and, even if the new version is completely bug-free, it may not play nice with a Web site that has problems with its content or Web server.

    And, as someone else already said, IT departments aren't going to like this. It's not that they're inefficient or resistant to change, but, when you're supporting several thousand desktops, you have to make sure that shiny new release isn't actually a polished turd or that it won't break something else. If something goes wrong, it may be easy to fix a problem if you're only concerned with a few machines, but what happens when that update you just pushed out to 3,000 desktops has a show-stopping problem you never saw coming? And yes, it happens. Just ask HTC about the disastrous update to the HTC Thunderbolt that caused the phone to start randomly rebooting, sometimes several times a day. I have no doubt the update was tested, and both they and Verizon were confident it was ready for deployment. Well, it wasn't. Bugs, often serious ones, can get by the most stringent testing.

    Someone at Mozilla needs to put the brakes on this harebrained idea immediately, if not sooner.

  • Fuck you Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:08PM (#37097770) Homepage Journal
    it's simply not important what version you're using as long as it's the latest version. ...

    Not all of us WANT to run the latest version. Not all of us WANT to update every time you push your supposed "latest and greatest".

    This, next to Linux, is the clearest example of Rule #1 of IT: Never let a programmer program your application.

    This constant push to have "shiny" shoved down everyone's throats without regard to what the end user wants must stop. People have no idea what they're running now so your dictatorial forcing of upgrades does nothing to make people feel comfortable with the software they're using.

    Maybe YOU want to have the latest version, but I don't. And as is said on here on a daily basis, once it's on my machine, I'll do what I want with it.

    It looks like it's time to move to another browser and stop suggesting people move from IE to Fx. Congratulations you arrogant pricks, you've jumped the shark.
  • Mozilla Corporation gets most of the funding from Google, and so it's no surprise that Firefox is becoming more like Chrome.

    Are many of the influential people involved with Firefox development Google employees? And/or many Google die-hard fanboys? If so that alone explains much of it ...

    As to what the end game is?... Firefox, while keeping its branding / look, becoming a Chrome clone? -or- Firefox simply being made redundant, and eventually killed off, by getting most Firefox users over to Chrome - from anecdotal reports, people are switching in droves.

    What gets me is where are the FORKS? ... if big corporations and developers rely on Firefox, why aren't any forking recent versions of it? Imho, 3.6x would be a fantastic fork point, and improve on that.

  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:23PM (#37097968)

    1- take a perfectly working version numbering scheme
    2- mess it up to try and look like Chrome, come with all love Chrome for its sexy, round version numbers. And for nothing else.
    3- get rid of version numbers entirely rather than admit you're idiots,lose face, and backtrack
    4- enjoy the entertaining confusion about updates, addon compatibility, features, security....
    5- watch your userbase exodus to saner pastures
    6- ???
    7- Profit ! (for Google)

  • by Tridus (79566) on Monday August 15, 2011 @03:37PM (#37098154) Homepage

    The discussion thread link is pretty illuminating reading. It shows just how disconnected from what people actually want FF to work on these guys have become.

    Why does the UI team want to remove something from Help > About that exists in basically every program there is (and is a standard on basically every major OS)? Because they think they're cool. That's why. Don't like it? You're not cool.

    They need to fire Asa and the entire UI team over there. That's the only way they'll stop the bleeding of users that is going on now. These guys are completely out to lunch and are just wasting effort chasing their own tail instead of doing things that users are actually asking for.

    Oh well. At one point this was a great project, now it's just a dysfunctional one. That's what happens when you get management heavy and management gets spooked about market share. They try to take shortcuts instead of simply improving the product.

  • by Jaktar (975138) on Monday August 15, 2011 @10:02PM (#37102148)

    My wife has about 10 websites that she frequents that don't support anything above FF3.6. IIRC Chrome stopped being supported around Chr6 on most of these sites. IE is supported up to IE8.

    This is the same thing you see with all the add-ons.

    Please fix this Mozilla. I hate having to explain to my wife how to check the supported browser page for these sites, now I have to show her how to check the FF version as well (which certainly won't be supported for what she intends to use it for anyways)?

  • by atomicbutterfly (1979388) on Monday August 15, 2011 @11:58PM (#37103008)

    For anyone concerned about tech support situations, the troubleshooting URL about:support will stay. Initially I was concerned about this as well, but it's not THAT serious.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...