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.
Oh Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> And Firefox4.0 also updates silently in the background (check the About tab right after opening)
It doesn't if you are logged in as a normal user. Although it sometimes tries and fails horribly. I had to reinstall and delete my profile before it would work again.
Re: (Score:2)
I always love when a browser company gives me more versions (and their individual idiosyncrasies) to test and support.
You'll have to understand... comes "cheaper by the dozen" for them.
Re: (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......
Still problematic (Score:2)
My big problem is that this might end up breaking addons that don't need to be broken. Firefox install manifests allow extension-writers to specify the maximum version of the browser that the addon supports. From using FF4, it seems that a lot of addon authors will just select the current major version of Firefox---in this case, Firefox 3---as the "maximum supported version." Sure, that makes a lot of sense from their perspective, since when the addon was written the author had no idea whether it would work
Re:Still problematic (Score:4, Informative)
Firefox obviously won't install the addon if its specified "max version" is lower than the version you're using. So I have a couple of addons that I use in Firefox 4, where I've had to manually change the "max version" to FF4. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. More to the point, it's kind of annoying to deal with, and I don't expect your Average Joe user to go around editing XML files just to see if it's possible that their favorite addon works.
That is what this extension is for: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/ [mozilla.org]
Magic version numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Magic version numbers (Score:4, Informative)
Fewer features in each major release should mean more time spent fixing bugs. Would hope so, anyway. Firefox 4 beta 10 uses 100% of my CPU almost constantly (on Mac OS X 10.6) and I have no idea what new "feature" is responsible for this.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
If they abolish "major releases" as we know them, and start doing point releases only, then you might as well call them major releases. They introduce so many bugs with each new version, that I think this is a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I learned a long time ago that when a vendor is playing hocus-pocus with major version numbers, they're either doing something shady or the marketing department has gotten out of control. In which case, you can bet they're doing something shady.
Yes, I know Firefox
Re:Magic version numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's one of your addons, try disabling them all and reenabling them one at a time until you find the culprit.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't expect to find that. I switched to Chrome today because of this. Turns out that I had Greasemonkey installed for some unknown reason and I didn't even know it. On the other hand, just typing in this comment box spikes my CPU usage on Chrome to 75+%. That might just be the new design.
Re: (Score:2)
but how responsive is it? With an advanced threading model you'd hope it would max out the CPU(s) more often. So long as it's doing something useful with those cycles and doesn't slow down the user, surely it's a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Not very smart threading - maxes out one of my cores, leaves the others untouched.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be totally fine with all web standards going on hold for 2 or 3 years, and just getting out stable versions of the major browsers. Unfortunately, all anyone ever talks about are new features - and not speed and stability. I prefer Firefox, but it looks like Chrome's winning that war.
Re:Magic version numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Like accelerating the version number major releases suddenly makes the release cycle better. More bugs?
I don't think so, and I don't think they'll rush the features. To make that equation work, I assume each major release will be less major than before. Like with Google Chrome. Why do that? Marketing? No, I think it's to stay more current with the latest web standards. In today's web, waiting a year for each major release will lead you to hopelessly fall behind. This is the reasoning to why Google are now doing this anyway (and of course, I'm sure they don't mind catching up with IE's version numbers either).
Re: (Score:3)
Like accelerating the version number major releases suddenly makes the release cycle better. More bugs?
I don't think so, and I don't think they'll rush the features.
Really? Why not? They're already rushing new features. They're currently at Beta 10 and working on Beta 11. And they just added a new feature -- the Do Not Track thingee. Who the fuck adds a new feature in Beta 10? And by their own admission they didn't properly integrate it into the configuration UI because they wanted to hurry up and get this new feature out -- despite the fact that its benefit is highly questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with you there, if Firefoxsync was possible as an addon, I'm not really sure why they needed to push the Do Not Track feature into a beta release. Granted it could be simple, but it strikes me as poor practice given that it adds complexity which requires QA.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you use stairs or just jump to the next level of a building?
Focused, incremental improvements can reduce the number of bugs that have to be chased down with each version upgrade. The numbering system is arbitrary but does signal to users when they should upgrade. So yes, in the right circumstances, the release cycle will be better. And fewer bugs.
But no guarantees.
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: (Score:2)
Accelerating the release cycle can improve the quality. Less stuff merged in each major version means less bugs to deal with for the release, finding the cause of a bug is easier, low quality code has less pressure to get merged because it can wait another 3 months...
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.
Re:Versions (Score:5, Funny)
So users should respond by adding a "0." to the front of all the version numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
... in order to catch up with IE's version number, no doubt.
Yes, many end users really are that stupid, and unfortunately, too many developers think that those are the users you have to oblige.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Chrome for that matter. It's already at 10 within 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
>> ... in order to catch up with IE's version number, no doubt.
To be honest, IE6 was a major version, as was IE7. I am not sure about IE8, but IE9 promises big improvements again (and about time).
Planning ahead (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably because you have no idea what you're talking about. These releases are going to be what were previously point releases. So, rather than calling them 4.1, 4.2 etc or 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and such, they're giving them major numbers. Which is pretty much just rearranging the deck chairs, it's not in and of itself going to make any difference, but it will give the appearance that they aren't falling behind when in reality version numbers have nothing to do with anything and they're still ahead.
As long a
Re: (Score:3)
They're doing exactly what the Java Runtime Environment did: promoting a minor release number to a major release number. And we all know how much more stable or innovative that made Java...
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: (Score:2)
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.
In all fairness though, if they wanted to do that, they could just make the next version Firefox 10, and when people complain saying "where's the other versions?" simply say there are none. Doesn't sound any more ridiculous than having 3 or 4 full version releases in one year.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could just call them Firefox 2011-A, B, C, & D. That would give them a version number that makes sense, AND is the highest. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are conventions involved, they aren't mandatory, but they are supposed to give the end user some idea as to what to expect. Alphas are generally not feature complete and might destroy data, betas are supposed to be feature complete but still have significant bugs before issuing a release candidate. The release candidates are supposed to be more or less bug free, but typically have a bug or two that needs to be fixed before release.
A minor version increment is supposed to mean that there are no signif
Re: (Score:3)
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?
The motivation is the motivation for everything in a lean operation: eliminate waste, in this case, specifically reducing the waste of work that is done but not delivering value to the userbase. This is done by reducing the time between the time features are first implemented and the time they are in generally-available, stable software.
This means more stable frequent feature releases with smaller sets of new features, and tighter focus in each new release.
If you don't understand the concept, I suggest you
Wait, I recognize that cough... (Score:5, Funny)
Someone has caught the chromoenza!
I'll wait... (Score:2)
until it can go to 11.
Math, Mozilla-style (Score:3)
3.6 --> 4.0 --> 5.0 --> 6.0 --> 7.0 = 3.6 --> 4.0 --> 4.1 --> 4.2 --> 4.3
It's "big version number envy". Nothing more. The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12". Is this a sign that marketing people are now running Mozilla? Will the budget go to engineers or Superbowl ads?
Re: (Score:2)
The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12".
Unfortunately you just described how 90% of end-users think. If Firefox is to take more of the market share they have to take more of these "regular Joes"... not that I'm particularly thrilled with this decision but I understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a tendency in the software industry to think that anyone not in the software industry is stupid. On any security-related topic you will see hordes of Slashdotters describing anyone who can't configure and compile their own Linux kernel and set their own iptables rules as "idiots". I, on the other hand, describe engineers incapable of writing inherently secure software with a decent user interface (or, at the least, acknowledging that the UI is as important as the core functionality) as "incompetent
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to add a "GT", "FX" or "HD" in there to let them know that not only do they need to upgrade, but it will be more awesome when they do.
Re: (Score:3)
i agree. i haven't seen a single person who really thinks chrome 9 is better than firefox 3.6 because 9>3.6.
Re: (Score:2)
To a certain extent, but I'd wager a huge portion of the user base is using Firefox because it was recommended and most of the remainder is technically inclined enough to know that it's superior. Or at least comparable depending upon ones requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
3.6 --> 4.0 --> 5.0 --> 6.0 --> 7.0 = 3.6 --> 4.0 --> 4.1 --> 4.2 --> 4.3
It's "big version number envy". Nothing more. The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12". Is this a sign that marketing people are now running Mozilla? Will the budget go to engineers or Superbowl ads?
Then they should go with Firefox 2011, Firefox 2012, Firefox 2013, Firefox 2014, Firefox 2015, all released in 2011.
Much bigger numbers. More impressive. "Hey, dude. I'm running Firefox from 2015! The future!! You still running this years' Internet Explorer? Loser!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
3.6 --> 4.0 --> 5.0 --> 6.0 --> 7.0 = 3.6 --> 4.0 --> 4.1 --> 4.2 --> 4.3
It's "big version number envy". Nothing more. The Mozilla folks have given in to the idea that "3.6 is less than 8.0 and is less than 12, therefore FireFox 3.6 is less than MSIE 8.0 and Chrome 12". Is this a sign that marketing people are now running Mozilla? Will the budget go to engineers or Superbowl ads?
Perhaps they've gotten enough complaints or questions from their users that they decided this change was better. Perhaps there are a bunch of people on Firefox 3.0.x and 3.5.x that aren't upgrading to 3.6.x because the number isn't that much bigger. I'm sure there was similar grumbling when Slackware decided to jump from version 4 to version 7, but I suspect nobody really cares now.
On a related note, though it bugged me at first, Ubuntu's simple YY.MM version numbering is growing in popularity and now I q
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, I'm not hating on Slack -- I used it on my ancient (even at the time) laptop all through college, and it never let me down.
Hopefully... (Score:2)
...one of these releases won't suck. Not holding my breath.
tl;dr from the roadmap (Score:5, Informative)
This is a major reason why I use firefox, chrome may be open source but firefox extends that to open governance.
I would encourage everyone to read through the full roadmap: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap [mozilla.org] you shouldn't be disapointed.
Edit: Ugh, slashdot ol means ordered list, stop styling it like a ul.
Re: (Score:3)
Always respond to a user action within 50 ms
Do not want!
Explanation: If I do A/V recording or other timing sensitive work at the same time as browsing, I most certainly don't want a browser with any kind of RT guarantee, but a "best effort" one.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not going to be messing with the linux scheduler (Nor the are they even allowed touching the windows or mac one for that matter). The only way for them to achieve that goal is to level work load. This might mean optimizations or caching. You'd have to look at specifics to know which interactions are currently taking longer than 50ms to determine what exactly needs to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's that big a deal for you, you really ought to be setting the thread priority anyways. With the exception of DOS every OS I can think of has some method of doing that and certainly the major ones do.
You're running an RTOS? (Score:3)
I most certainly don't want a browser with any kind of RT guarantee, but a "best effort" one.
In order for the browser to make any sort of guarantee like this in a multitasking system it must be running in an RTOS. Concordantly, your fears are very likely misplaced, because everything in normal OS'es is some flavor of "best effort" (again, unless you are actually running an RTOS).
Protip: process priority level "Realtime" in Windows NT kernels... isn't. Similarly, setting a -20 nice level doesn't magically turn your MacOS/*n?x processes into realtime either.
Re: (Score:3)
Explanation: If I do A/V recording or other timing sensitive work at the same time as browsing, I most certainly don't want a browser with any kind of RT guarantee, but a "best effort" one.
This complaint is utterly nonsensical. If you are doing real-time sensitive work on the machine, you should not be web browsing on that machine at the same time. A/V gear is expensive compared to a PC. In such a situation, you need (and can easily afford) a second machine, separate from your recording machine, for web browsing.
Most people benefit greatly from a more responsive browser. It makes no sense for Mozilla to cater to the infinitesimally small proportion of users who somehow need simultaneous A/
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what they mean. What they mean is, the browser itself, including plugins, should never freeze the UI for periods longer than 50ms. Currently you get situations where something is happening, say there's a tiny java-applet in one tab, and the entire UI is unresponsive for seconds on end. This is completely inacceptible.
They're not talking of the situation where Firefox doesn't get CPU due to -other- stuff going on with the machine, that's an entirely distinct case, and not one I've heard any plans
Re: (Score:2)
Always respond to a user action within 50 ms
Never lose user data or state
So it runs on faerie wings and pixie dust...
Build Web Apps, Identity and Social into the Open Web Platform
...and will be some Web 3.0 monstrosity.
Maybe they can pull it off but the roadmap isn't really worth anything, it sounds a lot like other products I know where the next version will fix all the slowness and data/state bugs. Combined with the buzzword bingo, I wouldn't put money on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed two important ones:
8. multi-threading support
9. privilege separation
10. proper AMD64 support
Synchronization with HTMLX (Score:4, Funny)
Mozilla should move the other direction. They should follow the W3C lead and dispense with versions altogether and simply release "Firefox" that displays "HTML".
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I'm trying to decide what version of LOL to use with this reply.
Release Cycle Numbers... (Score:2)
The new Version Number War (Score:3, Interesting)
When Internet Explorer was at version 5, Netscape released version 6 of their browser. There never was a Netscape version 5. They jumped from v4 to v6 because they wanted to be newer than Microsoft. Apparently, Mozilla now feels they are "behind" Chrome which is currently at version 9, so instead of Firefox 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc., they will call them Firefox 5, 6, 11 and 23 so that they can be newer than Chrome.
It is sad how far off the rails the Firefox development process has gone.
Re: (Score:2)
reminds me of Solaris 2.7 -> SunOS 5.8 -> Solaris 9
(granted, Solaris 2.x and SunOS 5.x lived in parallel for a long while)
Hey, Mozilla Foundation, why don't you cater to the Far East market and skip version 4 altogether? You'll gain a whole digit by going straight to 5! /irony
Re: (Score:2)
When Internet Explorer was at version 5, Netscape released version 6 of their browser. There never was a Netscape version 5. They jumped from v4 to v6 because they wanted to be newer than Microsoft. Apparently, Mozilla now feels they are "behind" Chrome which is currently at version 9, so instead of Firefox 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc., they will call them Firefox 5, 6, 11 and 23 so that they can be newer than Chrome.
It is sad how far off the rails the Firefox development process has gone.
No, they have emacs envy.
(FYI, the current stable emacs release is 23.2.)
Speaking as a plugin developer... (Score:2)
Maybe they're just trying to get to 9 fast, so they can match Microsoft, kinda like how the Xbox 2 became the '360'...
Re: (Score:2)
Less changes in every release means it will be easier to port extensions.
Worried (Score:2)
So they're going to go from 1 a year to 4? Or is it going to be 1 'normal' version chopped up into 4 bits. Each having a different version number to make development look like it isn't glacial.
Do Not Want (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want four browser versions in a year. I want one that works right. I'm tired of their browser hanging, taking minutes of compute time to exit, and unable to close some obnoxious hostile pages.
When the Mozilla crowd gets a bug-free 4.x out the door, with all reported bugs fixed, then they can talk about later versions.
(I'm underwhelmed with the Mozilla crowd. They come across as a bunch of Javascript hackers. There was a problem with duplicate entries in the internal SQLite databases, and I sug
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of the memory use. I've seen FF gobble up 1.5 GB of memory when doing nothing but staying on a standard web page for a week. And that's not even a memory leak, but considered "normal".
Re: (Score:3)
Don't dwell on the version #, read the roadmap (Score:2)
What's actually born out in many software companies is that having more frequent releases with fewer features in each release actually creates software that works! The difference is your focus on features is more narrow, and you are changing less code. Once you focus on making that code as stable as possible, you move on to the next project. This also has the added benefit of making a software company able to adapt to change more quickly.
The roadmap implies they may be moving to a scrum or agile development
Re: (Score:2)
Hello Marketting! (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it won't make any difference technically. I'm sure they won't be moving any quicker, slower or whatever compared to usual.
Just when people go "WOW Chrome is better than Firefox because it updates so regularly!!!111one" - I guess mozilla marketting is pandering to those idiots now.
Let me tell you how much difference it makes to me whether its Firefox 4.1 or Firefox 5... none at all.
So what's all the fuss about?
Missing the Forest for the trees (Score:3)
I read TFA. It has some interesting ideas about promoting a semantic web of sorts, and pretty much showing an amount of hate for propriety stuff which bypasses the web. Why not have an interesting story on that? This is news for nerds.
Instead no lets go for a DUUUUUUUUUR THEY HAS QWIKER VERZION NOS NOW! DUUUR! Story.
Good Bye (Score:2)
Ever since the last 3.6 update I've had a ridiculous amount of crashes with FF when viewing any site that has some flash ad or element on it. As a result I've almost completely stopped using it with exception to check browser compatibility issues. Now that I know it's going to be requesting updates every quarter this year I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why any user would really want to stick with this browser.
Hell, IE8 seems to run more stable, and chrome has become my default browser of choice
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Resolutio
Re: (Score:3)
"As long as I don't notice it and it's not malicious I don't care."
- Most End Users.
Wake up, Mozilla (Score:2)
Pride is a vicious thing.
That's all fine and good... (Score:2)
... but where's the love for Thunderbird? If they gave it even half this degree of attention perhaps they could finally fix the years-old showstopping bugs. It's frustrating to see software with such potential left to rot.
Awesome! (Score:2)
... as long as at least one of those releases fixes some of the decade-old bugs [slashdot.org] discussed here just a couple weeks ago.
Why not just... (Score:5, Funny)
Why not just express version numbers in binary?
Thus version 4 would be released as version 100, and version 5 would be 101
That should be enough for this year , and jump way ahead of the opposition.
Just look at the roadmap (Score:3)
What does sharing in the front end mean? Why the hell are you animating my user interface? Why is smart search being removed? What the hell is electrolysis?
"TBD"? Really?
Oh for the love of...! This isn't so much a roadmap as a scrawling in the sand. "Addons story that doesn't suck" gets us nowhere. A roadmap should be something more substantial than a brainstorm.
Why oh why is Firefox providing diffs? Should these things not be some sort of official plugins for those that need it, rather than baked-in features? and I can only assume the integration with GitHub is for the back-end, because otherwise that's not a feature my grandma needs. Someone sort this feature list out first before we can move on to sorting out whatever genius thinks moving major version numbers makes a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
> Why the hell are you animating my user interface?
Because users find it less jarring when things move smoothly instead of abruptly. This is why most modern window managers animate things, for example.
> Why is smart search being removed?
Because no one is using it and it's a significant maintenance burden, I would assume.
> What the hell is electrolysis?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=electrolysis+mozilla [lmgtfy.com] first hit (multi-process stuff, basically).
> "TBD"? Really?
Yes. There are several different things bei
What worries me more.... (Score:3)
What worries me more about the strange shift in numbering, is that they are planning to axe a number of features to favor sync.
(Source: http://decafbad.com/blog/2011/02/06/pay-phones-and-firefox-features/comment-page-1#comment-467395 [decafbad.com] )
I can do without the microwhatever, but after all the time I spent tagging and getting the routine of tagging new bookmarks, I am not going to enjoy this. Fortunately there seems to be some vocal support for them.
Same with places queries, they are quite powerful and helped me organize my bookmarks a lot...
If there's anyone with a minimal of "influence" (AKA his/her opinion won't be disregarded as null), please step in and help preventing the browser from being directly wired to the cloud, as many mozilla people is suggesting. They can't axe tags because of sync. (I am not making this up unfortunately, check the bugzilla links in the article and how some suggest the whole bookmark system to rely on web services).
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you find this upsetting or controversial. Is there some other platform variant that is not supported presently by Firefox that you expected to see listed there?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Firefox will support them. This is good not bad.
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: (Score:2)
I think it's better to talk of backwards and forwards compatibility, either at a system or UI level.
For example to use one of the great debate subjects, the move from menus to a ribbon is clearly what I consider a major version because people who are used to the old version can't continue working in the same way they have. Typically it's the kind of change that in a corporate setting would require training to use and cause temporary productivity loss, that you would never (semi-)silently upgrade your users
Re: (Score:2)
Those are very subjective definitions, and there is no universally accepted standard for what each field of a release number really means. I generally agree with your definitions, but I suspect that even if we agree in broad strokes, if you asked us to assign release numbers to an arbitrary set of 20 different releases of the same software, we'd end up with fairly different results.
Point is, if you're taking the version number as anything more than a rough & highly subjective interpretation of "how big
Re: (Score:2)
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?
You have not been listening to the Marketing people. They need to create the illusion of progress since notrhing magical will occurr to the developent process to speed it up, so they're going to change their versioning method, not their development process.
The terrorists have won.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that this will also produce changes (or reflect them) in the development process, I'd hope that they'd take the opportunity to focus tightly on specific functionality for each release, rather than spend months tinkering all over the code base to get a single "big bang" release out the door, and present us with better-tested results at the end of each smaller release cycle, rather than one massive code dump at the end of a year.
I'm simply not clear on why somebody would get so upset over the di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the marketers at the Mozilla Foundation focusing on getting Firefox up to version 10 before Internet Explorer just for marketing purposes?
Quite likely, this is precisely why.
And why I'll likely start shopping around for a different browser Real Soon Now. The moment you aim for your competitor, and not the sky, you're destined to no longer be a winner.
Re: (Score:2)
In this way, the version number could be an apples-apples comparison across browsers. It does make radical new features somewhat less obvious, I guess, as the "major version number" would likely just be the year.
Re:FF4 is crap (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the latest nightlies have a statusbar-esque thing in the bottom left when you hover links or load a page, now. It's a bit like how Chrome does it.
Re: (Score:2)
What is currently being called FF 4.0 actually started out as FF 3.7, but after a short time they changed the version number. Since FF 4 is still in beta they should do the same thing they did to the FF 3.7 beta -- just change the version number again. Call it FF 12 and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Even at this rate, that won't be until late 2012.