New Firefox 6 belies rapid-release complaints

[+Warwagon MVC]

New Firefox 6 belies rapid-release complaints

Mozilla pushed Firefox 6 out the door today, updating the vast majority of its users to the browser's latest stable build.

Firefox 6 is available to download for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. This is the second stable version of the browser to arrive under the new rapid-release cycle, which promises a new stable build of Firefox every 6 weeks. As such, the changes to the browser are smaller in nature, and are more likely to be about stability and security concerns. However, Mozilla has taken the opportunity of this second stable rapid release to also address complaints from fans who want version numbers "to mean something," to summarize the tone and gist of many CNET readers.

(Credit: Mozilla)

Firefox users aren't the only ones with concerns. Competitors, such as Opera, have a vested interest in opposing the rapid-release cycle, which puts the browser in the news cycle far more often than before. "Web developers and IT administrators have expressed concern about the pace of new browser releases from Chrome and Firefox. We believe in a more balanced pace," said Jan Standal, vice president of desktop products for Opera Software.

http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20093070-12/new-firefox-6-belies-rapid-release-complaints/?tag=rb_content;main

[ViperAFK]

"More ignorant firefox release cycle circlejerking"

[testman]

Why did they mention Chrome? Google doesn't make a big deal of version numbers, it's for internal use only in general.

[DrakeN2k]

why cant IT administrators just allow it to auto upgrade -.-

[thenotavenger]

why cant IT administrators just allow it to auto upgrade -.-

Because that would break tradition and IT administrators are hard core traditionalists.

[+Warwagon MVC]

why cant IT administrators just allow it to auto upgrade -.-

Are you kidding?

Before you roll out and update to thousands of machines they first have to be internally tested. You just can't let Firefox "auto" update 10,000 machines.

[DrakeN2k]

But why do you make a website / software which stop working if a new version comes along, bad design. Also these versions are not that much different why cant it not work each version.

nice edit -.-

[+Warwagon MVC]

But why do you make a website / software which stop working if a new version comes along, bad design. Also these versions are not that much different why cant it not work each version.

I would say, it's more of a "Better being, safe than sorry"

[threetonesun]

But why do you make a website / software which stop working if a new version comes along, bad design. Also these versions are not that much different why cant it not work each version.

nice edit -.-

It won't, they're just making up that part of the story. It will break plugins, at least for a few days.

[DrakeN2k]

It won't, they're just making up that part of the story. It will break plugins, at least for a few days.

I understand that.

[SteelToast]

why cant IT administrators just allow it to auto upgrade -.-

Compatibility issues, and that general IT theory that 'If it works for me with enough security, I ain't gonna upgrade'

Other reasons include that some 'not so smart' employees might have problems getting used to the UI of FF6, which decreases efficiency of the work that is produced.

[Xtreme $niper]

The idea is that firefox is simply going to stop making reference to their version numbers soon just like Chrome. Soon enough both browsers will not even have the version number visible for anyone other than developers.

At the end of the day, this is very much an Apple-esque approach, which is: Don't busy yourself with these little nitpicks, if it works and works well, then why care about it?

And I agree to a certain extent, at least for the average consumer user who has no reason to hold back on upgrading to a new release. When they launch the browser is should just work, and if that means automatically updating it to cover patches and improve stability, then go for it. If corporate doesn't like the idea, then just allow them to flip a switch to disable such functionality.

But I think the primary point here is that the days of browser upgrades breaking legacy things are over. Browsers are kept so up to date now that withholding upgrading because it might break some random site that you rely on is a non-existent problem... unless the site in question is poorly written and expects an exact browser version number.

[alexalex]

Would the update been ok if it were FF 5.0.1 (which is what it is) ?

[+Warwagon MVC]

Would the update been ok if it were FF 5.0.1 (which is what it is) ?

Yes, tell it like it is.

[+Heartripper Subscriber¹]

Why did they mention Chrome? Google doesn't make a big deal of version numbers, it's for internal use only in general.

Because, actually, Firefox and Chrome have the same release pace, so you can't say Firefox's release pace is accelerated without implying that chrome's is too.

Actually, i find the 'IT administrators concerns' pointless. Yes, new versions come out every 6 weeks, but before that they stay in beta and before that in aurora for 12 weeks. And when a version comes to aurora, it's feature are stabilized. So you have about 3 months to test the compatibility of your addon.

Moreover, being the release pace so fast, groundbreaking changes will happen very rarely: Most of the times it's enough to manually edit the installation file to bump the maxversion settings and the extension will work.

The only point in which Mozilla failed miserably is that they haven't made addons auto-mark as compatible when a version bump occurs. Shame on them for this.

[ViperAFK]

Why did they mention Chrome? Google doesn't make a big deal of version numbers, it's for internal use only in general.

And firefox is going to do the same thing...

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1018764-mozilla-to-remove-user-facing-firefox-version-numbers/

[FMH]

I believe in a fast refresh rate cycle that is not based on a fixed timetable, and for a significant update, and not for a couple of features.

[wellofsouls]

But why do you make a website / software which stop working if a new version comes along, bad design. Also these versions are not that much different why cant it not work each version.

nice edit -.-

Better safe than sorry, especially in enterprise environment, when a little mishap can lead to millions in damage.

Also most enterprise don't make their own software, they buy them from other vendors, and sometimes they don't buy the newest version due to cost concerns. For example, I have a customer who uses TeamSite CMS, but due to different costs of different versions (which can mean millions between two major versions), they buy an older version, so their IT admins need to be extra careful when updating the browsers for their content editors, to make sure the new browser version doesn't break the older version TeamSite CMS, or it can mean more than a half-day delay of content uploading, which can lead to quite big loss depending on the circumstances.

[DrakeN2k]

Better safe than sorry, especially in enterprise environment, when a little mishap can lead to millions in damage.

Also most enterprise don't make their own software, they buy them from other vendors, and sometimes they don't buy the newest version due to cost concerns. For example, I have a customer who uses TeamSite CMS, but due to different costs of different versions (which can mean millions between two major versions), they buy an older version, so their IT admins need to be extra careful when updating the browsers for their content editors, to make sure the new browser version doesn't break the older version TeamSite CMS, or it can mean more than a half-day delay of content uploading, which can lead to quite big loss depending on the circumstances.

Understandable thanks

[tsupersonic]

The thing is rapid release cycle doesn't work for a browser that has a huge framework that supports addons. It absolutely sucks, because most of my add-ons are late to be updated.

[Boo Berry]

Regarding those having issues with addons due to the rapid release cycle... some of you guys should research how to manually update addons yourself and bump the maxversion to something 4 or 5 versions higher. It's not hard to do at all (for most of them, sans Xmarks and Lastpass).

[NEVER85]

Mozilla can't win.

Firefox with minor version number updates: LOL FIREFOX HAS BEEN STUCK ON VERSION X FOREVER. SO FAR BEHIND CHROME AND EVEN IE LOL!

Firefox with major version number updates: ROFL WHAT'S MOZILLA DOING? THIS ISN'T A NEW VERSION! MORE LIKE 4.2 AMIRITE?

[Boo Berry]

People really put too much emphasis on the version number and how it actually matters.

[DrCheese]

Actually, i find the 'IT administrators concerns' pointless.

That's probably because you've never really worked in IT. If you have, I doubt it's anywhere that has a large amount of employees/money riding on the stability of the system.

At the end of the day, IT exists souly to assist the business/organisation in it's primary role. Constant upgrading can cause no end of issues, like.

• User Training
  

Many of the current workforce still aren't confident with computers. Changing things all the time will cause them confusion and time wasted retraining.

• Untested system
  

There is no way in hell a browser that is rushed out as fast as this can be properly compatibility tested the way software that is developed more slowly is. It will be full of bugs that would have usually been squashed. On the flip side, they could possibly get fixed quicker.

• Moving Target/IT Support
  

How can IT, usually a small department that has hundreds of other things to deal with be expected to support a product that changes every 30 seconds, not to mention the large amount of testing that will need to be done with every release to ensure it doesn't break any line of business applications. It's just not possible. Instead of helping users with their problems we'd be forever deploying new versions of software and dealing with the problems that arise. Something that works fine one day would be broken the next, only to be fixed later.

With something like IE, the product changes very little between major versions and any issues can be resolved. The older versions are supported for much longer, giving IT time to fix any issues with the new version before rolling out.

• Vendor support
  

Even if IT support is ok to deploy it, you often have pieces of software that your business relies on that will break with certain versions. For example, our MIS software (Student database, full of personal detail/exam results/student reports blah blah) didn't support office 2010 until late last year. If we'd just smacked out office 2010 and ignored them, they would have refused to support us with any problems we had with the software until we went back to a supported version. Usually for the same reasons above, i.e how can they support hundreds of different versions.

• Benefits to the business
  

Is there really any? Does what the business currently use work fine? In that case, there's precious little reason to upgrade. If the system is setup and running fine the last thing you want to do is introduce rash changes. Remember, in the corp world any downtime or minor issues could cause the business to lose a fair amount of money.

Don't get me wrong, I do my best to support new software at work, i.e I usually push out new IE versions within weeks of release and even have firefox (4, for now..) installed. I want to replace firefox with chrome but as it stands, there are a number of issues with the enterprise deployment kit that needs resolving first (yes, they are logged as bugs) but calling the concerns of IT "pointless" smacks of ignorance. Remember, most of us like using new toys and features as much as you but we have to weight up other concerns first.

[Xilo]

I don't see why people complain when we are now getting new features at a faster pace compared to the 3.X days.

Also, you can install the Addon Compatibility Reporter to disable version checking. Most addons will work without issues.