New Firefox 6 belies rapid-release complaints

[Xilo]

oh really? what are the new features in firefox 6 that arent in firefox 5? or even 4?

Don't be facetious. Go check the change logs.

[spudtrooper]

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

They would lose their job..

It doesn't pass corporate controls, security requirements, audit requriments, change control and application testing.

Imagine if a public company with 50,000 IT users had firefox auto-upgrade to 6.0 and 6.0 doesn't work with time and expenses and the public company has to delay their quarterly statement because they have to go back and fix a failed automagic implementation.. it would be a disaster.

Firefox and chrome should build MSI installs that can be deployed and managed through group policy deployment and management and only then, will they be able to get timely corporate adoption as a hole.

Right now some end users upgrade, but they probably leave IE, old firefox or old versions of chrome on their systems to use apps.

I know for example a lot of ERP systems are only certified for IE 7-9, Firefox 3.5 and Chrome 6.. If you call oracle and can't use EBS don't tell them you auto upgraded to ff 6 or chrome 16 without testing

[Laurë Veteran]

Good post DrCheese. I think the people moaning about IT departments in large organisations are fairly naive.

Where I work we test things fairly extensively in our development environments. The other IT dudes have a *lot* of control over how machines are set up and what gets on them, users generally have little power to break them. We still run into trouble sometimes when new stuff goes live. When you have thousands of computers on a large and complex network things get ... complex. It's not unknown for things to just not go as they should. If something does go wrong it's really embarrassing for the IT departments involved and they get a lot of stress to put it right under an avalanch of angry and frustrated users who love any excuse to complain about IT stuff. You are not going to risk that happening without very good reasons and solid evidence that things won't go badly wrong.

The other thing that gets me about these complaints is the sense of entitlement. Sure you probably do have to use what you're given at school or work, but it's not your computer. When you get home, you can do whatever you like with your own computer..

[ViperAFK]

I don't need to. you're the one making the claim.

I don't see or feel anything different while using version 4 and 6. All looks, acts the same. and is still huge resource hog.

Maybe you need to say what you're personal definition of "feature" is. Maybe my idea of a feature is wrong.

I don't see/feel anything between the two versions that could make having a whole new version number worth it.

The features and differences between FF 2, and 4 are HUGE.

The development time between 2 and 4 was much longer. What do you expect in 6 weeks? And the version numbers are on a different system now, its time based so there is no "major" or "minor" version numbers. You are trying to apply a completely different numbering scheme to it, which of course doesn't make any sense.

If people would use their brains, and look at the new time-based release cycle for what it actually is we wouldn't have any of these ridiculous complaints. Who cares if you didn't "feel" a difference between versions 4 and 6? neither are major releases and there's only been 12 weeks of development time between them.

People are trying to stick a square peg into a round hole and then complaining about it...

[+Warwagon MVC]

neither are major releases and there's only been 12 weeks of development time between them.

The version numbers say otherwise.

[ViperAFK]

The version numbers say otherwise.

Programs use various numbering schemes. Increasing by 1 doesn't necessarily denote a major change, it depends on the version scheme that particular software is using. They only "Say otherwise" if you keep trying to apply firefox's old numbering scheme to the new one. Which obviously doesn't work.

[7Dash8]

Increasing by 1 doesn't necessarily denote a major change.

You really don't seem to get this do you? Incrementing a build by a whole number usually indicates significant changes in the build. This has always been the case. I usually hate to quote wikipedia, but in this case they've got it right when they say this:

In principle, in subsequent releases, the major number is increased when there are significant jumps in functionality, the minor number is incremented when only minor features or significant fixes have been added, and the revision number is incremented when minor bugs are fixed. A typical product might use the numbers 0.9 (for beta software), 0.9.1, 0.9.2, 0.9.3, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1, 1.1.1, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2, etc. Developers have at times jumped (for example) from version 5.0 to 5.5 to indicate significant features have been added, but they are not enough to warrant incrementing the major version number. This is improper. It is usually done to create a visual differential between software versions. A person may be less inclined to go through the trouble of installing, reinstalling, and/or removing old versions of software if a minor change is made instead. (I.E. Version 5.0 to 5.01, or 5.0 to 5.1)/

It's common knowledge among software developers, so I don't think the quote is out of line.

Firefox established the significance of their version numbering system by having major changes between each whole number increment. Now they've decided to have minor changes between each increment. This is both against standard practice, and against the precedent their own system set. It causes confusion, and in the long run it's going to bite them on the ass as people get tired of upgrading to each new "major" version, watching their extensions and themes break, for no apparent benefit in terms of features or speed.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

You really don't seem to get this do you? Incrementing a build by a whole number usually indicates significant changes in the build. This has always been the case. I usually hate to quote wikipedia, but in this case they've got it right when they say this:

It's common knowledge among software developers, so I don't think the quote is out of line.

Firefox established the significance of their version numbering system by having major changes between each whole number increment. Now they've decided to have minor changes between each increment. This is both against standard practice, and against the precedent their own system set. It causes confusion, and in the long run it's going to bite them on the ass as people get tired of upgrading to each new "major" version, watching their extensions and themes break, for no apparent benefit in terms of features or speed.

no YOU don't seem to understand

times are changing and mostly in the case of web browsers, version numbers are starting to be viewed differently

[ViperAFK]

You really don't seem to get this do you? Incrementing a build by a whole number usually indicates significant changes in the build. This has always been the case. I usually hate to quote wikipedia, but in this case they've got it right when they say this:

It's common knowledge among software developers, so I don't think the quote is out of line.

Firefox established the significance of their version numbering system by having major changes between each whole number increment. Now they've decided to have minor changes between each increment. This is both against standard practice, and against the precedent their own system set. It causes confusion, and in the long run it's going to bite them on the ass as people get tired of upgrading to each new "major" version, watching their extensions and themes break, for no apparent benefit in terms of features or speed.

A few things:

The extensions complaint is legitimate, but is greatly exaggerated and is being worked on. Most of the time they don't actually break, and just need a version bump. With the smaller changes between releases they are even less likely to actually break.

It can indeed cause confusion because of how different it is compared to the old numbering scheme. But the fact is, it is different. changing the number by 1 is no longer a major version. Mozilla plans to remove user-facing version numbers which will eliminate this confusion, which really only effects the more ignorant 'average' users who generally don't care about version numbers anyway.

Firefox auto updates and it only takes a few seconds. Updating from firefox 4 to 5 takes no longer than say 4 to 4.0.1. Its automatic and simple. There is benefits in features and speed, because while development is obviously not literally faster, performance increases and features to get to the end users faster, just in smaller increments. Just because you don't feel a huge difference between 5 and 6 does NOT mean 6 is just a pointless update that adds absolutely nothing. features are no longer rolled into huge updates, they are rolled out more consistently, not as many new things in each release, but faster releases.

People that are complaining about this seem to have some sort of absurd addiction to "exciting" releases, and ignore the any benefits of this release cycle. There's no version number standard that programs have to follow. Technology evolves, paradigms change, get used to it. IMO this release cycle is a great thing for web browsers. Chrome has the same release cycle, and it was received very well. I honestly don't think this backlash against firefox is deserved.

[~Johnny]

no YOU don't seem to understand

times are changing and mostly in the case of web browsers, version numbers are starting to be viewed differently

Just 2 web browsers are making times change? Chrome can kind of get a pass because they rarely bother mentioning version numbers, but Mozilla less so. Everyone else still has their heads screw on straight quite frankly. The only reason they call it 5 & 6 instead of 4.1 & 4.2 is quite frankly marketing, to make it seem like they're actually doing something after the long wait for Firefox 4.0. There's no actual technical reasoning to it at all.

For everyone else, and especially consumers, major version numbers are still there to show significant change and updates. For Firefox, it's just marketing. The sooner they phase out user facing version numbers the better for them, unless they decide to join back with the more normal numbering scheme.

<img>

[ViperAFK]

hey dont attack me, im just sayin there arent any real new features.

the numbering system they are using now makes no sense and is completely silly. period. thats all we're saying.

the rest of what you said is pretty much what i was going tos ay, but you left out key words such as "ridiculous".

edit:

btw, version numbers do mean something on browsers, which rely on version numbering to see if addons will work. Since addons are the biggest advantage of Firefox, you'd think the guys at mozilla would've figured out something.

Chrome can update two a new silly version number all the time and it doesnt seem to break the addons. Mozilla didnt seem to plan for this.

And I am just saying making 1:1 comparisons between the old version numbers and the new ones is silly.

[+Warwagon MVC]

no YOU don't seem to understand

times are changing and mostly in the case of web browsers, version numbers are starting to be viewed differently

The correct term is "Version number inflation" :laugh:

[7Dash8]

no YOU don't seem to understand

times are changing and mostly in the case of web browsers, version numbers are starting to be viewed differently

Translation: The Internet has well and truly caught the stupid.

Next up: let's stop doing any internal testing of our products and put everything up for public alphas, betas etc...... because that's all the rage now!

[Nexus-]

Ive been saying it before and I'll say it again. Firefox and chrome have the correct approach but the wrong execution. It should be point releases, like apple does, NOT major number releases.

That would be so much more calmer for IT departments. On the other hand I understand where Chrome and Firefox are going. They want to leave the concept of versions behind, like games on steam, where you are just always up to date, and you don't care what version you are on.

[+Warwagon MVC]

See I don't understand why they are doing this for 3 reasons

1) Smart educated computer users know that they are just "version number inflating" and that it's a retarded thing to do. Just because chrome is at ( can't even remember what the **** they are at now, they change it so often) it doesn't make it better than firefox 6 or ie 9.

2) The average user is an idiot when it comes to web browser. You could give them Firefox 1.1 and they wouldn't even know nor would they care.

3) it ****es the hell out of the IT word

[ViperAFK]

They aren't raising the version number just to raise the version number. Why would they do that and then remove user-facing version numbers. It makes no sense, and insinuating they are simply trying ti inflate the number is absurd.

[+Warwagon MVC]

They aren't raising the version number just to raise the version number. Why would they do that and then remove user-facing version numbers. It makes no sense, and insinuating they are simply trying ti inflate the number is absurd.

Then in that case if they are removing user-facing version numbers why not just keep the traditional version numbering system?

[7Dash8]

See I don't understand why they are doing this for 3 reasons

1) Smart educated computer users know that they are just "version number inflating" and that it's a retarded thing to do. Just because chrome is at ( can't even remember what the **** they are at now, they change it so often) it doesn't make it better than firefox 6 or ie 9.

2) The average user is an idiot when it comes to web browser. You could give them Firefox 1.1 and they wouldn't even know nor would they care.

3) it ****es the hell out of the IT word

Exactly. There's absolutely no logic to what they're doing. It's pretty obvious they tried to accelerate the version numbers as a marketing ploy. It then failed - or maybe there was internal resistance to the idea - and they're now doing away with numbers altogether. But it was never about anything more than marketing.

Let's look at it another way: name one reason why you actually would start increasing the rate at which you jacked up the major number increments all of a sudden? If users don't care, and if it doesn't mean anything, then why do it in the first place?

So mozilla's actions obviously fly in the face of their words.

[7Dash8]

Just because chrome is at ( can't even remember what the **** they are at now, they change it so often) it doesn't make it better than firefox 6 or ie 9.

The Chrome version numbering system works something like this:

[ViperAFK]

Exactly. There's absolutely no logic to what they're doing. It's pretty obvious they tried to accelerate the version numbers as a marketing ploy. It then failed - or maybe there was internal resistance to the idea - and they're now doing away with numbers altogether. But it was never about anything more than marketing.

Let's look at it another way: name one reason why you actually would start increasing the rate at which you jacked up the major number increments all of a sudden? If users don't care, and if it doesn't mean anything, then why do it in the first place?

So mozilla's actions obviously fly in the face of their words.

No, it was never about numbers. I don't get why you are so obsessed with them, or where you guys get so idea that version numbers have such a big effect on the average user, but they don't. They wouldn't totally overhaul the release cycle as some conspiracy to jack up version numbers (and then remove them) as a marketing ploy.

If you guys don't realize how ridiculous you sound I guess there is no helping you.

[adipose]

Then in that case if they are removing user-facing version numbers why not just keep the traditional version numbering system?

They shouldn't keep the traditional version numbering system with a 6 week dev cycle. Here's why: there would never be any major revisions. If you release something new every 6 weeks, all changes will be minor by comparison to the 0.x - 4.x days. The idea is to release a feature or two every 6 weeks, so we don't have to wait several years for new features. The downside is, each release hurts a little bit in terms of compatibility. The upside is, each release isn't a nightmare, like 3.x - 4.x was. Oh, and you get new features every 6 weeks, unlike the stale 3.x days.

Ive been saying it before and I'll say it again. Firefox and chrome have the correct approach but the wrong execution. It should be point releases, like apple does, NOT major number releases.

That's great, but what is the result? Since 2002, Apple has gone from OS 10 to OS 10.7. To suggest 10.7 is only a minor release change from 10.0 is laughable. So that's equally bad. They might as well have called it OS X 1, OS X 2 ... OS X 7.

If Google followed the same principle, Chrome would be version 1.11 or so. And no one would care, it would still just be Chrome.

Certainly, Mozilla could "keep" the current numbering system, and still release every 6 weeks. But now that the dev cycle has dramatically changed, that old numbering system would be meaningless (which is why I put "keep" in quotes). In a few years we would be at 4.25 and it would be far different from 4.0. You could never change the major revision except because "enough has changed" or "it's been long enough" to justify it, which is usually arbitrary (see several open source projects which arbitrarily decide to bump the major revision for what would otherwise be a point release).

Major version numbers make sense from a certain development standpoint: a company goes into a cave, and a year or two later comes out with a brand new version that is partially or completely incompatible with the old version. That changes the major version number. A point release would be a small change released during the life of the major version. And a point-point release would be when you fix a specific issue or other tiny change.

What Mozilla is saying is, they don't follow that type of dev cycle. So that type of numbering makes no sense. They aren't going to come out with several major changes in a new release, ever again! Once you recognize that there are no more major releases, you might as well change the major version number for each 6 week release.

I know this is annoying for extensions, in theory, but so far I have had no issues except with one extension...and that extension is still listed as compatible with 3.6. What is lost here is the 2 years of stability after a major release, for those extensions listed as compatible with 4.*.*. But, the truth is, that extension could have broken on 4.5, just as easily as 9.0. So, it would technically be wrong to list it as compatible with 4.*.*, since you don't know what releases will bring. And if you are so sure it's not an issue, mark it as *.*.*, I guess.

[Phouchg]

Someone is wrong on the internets, I think. :shiftyninja: