Firefox 9?
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Think FF just did it to keep up with the competition... there really is no good rhyme or reason. It annoys me as well to see the version numbers rolled with really no significant changes.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
major.minor still makes the most sense to me. FF's numbering seems totally retarded.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Google's Chrome is very quite about updates
Myes, indubitably.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions
It's only real purpose is to make users feel up to date and allow for easy bug reporting. I'd say version numbers seem a little more user friendly than build version. Where major versions become useful are software that you have to pay for. With a major build release, you can stop supplying updates to users of the previous major build so they don't get the new features, but you can still supply them bug fix updates that have a minor version increase. Maybe since Firefox versions have less of a purpose than paid software version numbers, there are no real reasons to restrict version number increases. Though, after increasing version numbers so rapidly, they start to become meaningless. I no longer get excited to download a new major release of Firefox, as nothing really major has changed. On the other hand, I can see one aspect that can be seen as a downside or a positive. With these constant version number changes, it will become harder to make fixes for a specific version of the browser, as that would require a lot of work to target so many versions. When you make hacks for IE, you pretty much have to worry about 7, 8, and 9. However, with Firefox, you might have to worry about versions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (i.e., there will be more versions running around in the wild). On the plus side, hopefully that means people will be more intelligent about their fixes (i.e., target the bug, not the browser version). And with Chrome leading the way for automatic updates, maybe older/outdated versions will not be as common as they are now.
When it comes to pay the rent no matter what [...] I just blew a tranny [...] you do what you gotta do.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
We are moving to a time when software version doesn't matter, as long as it's the latest version. I like Chrome's silent updater. FYI, Firefox is introducing silent updates in version 9 or 10, if I recall. As far as version number goes, I'm persuaded by the arguments for SemVer[^].
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Major.minoris an acceptable format. Breaking changes are always major, non-functional changes can be major too, e.g. when an essential part is rewritten to significantly improve some metric. How often a new version is released is of little importance, however all software should have a version number. And it should be easy to locate, best at the top of the main form or page. I didn't find Firefox history information on their site, however it can be found here[^]. :)Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
It'd only be logical to use the Major.Minor.Build format, but the Marketing-department has a say in it too. ..as long as there's no "millennium" or "gold"-edition, let them have their fun.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss:
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I don't trust version numbers. If FF did get to say, version 22, within a year but you only saw it for the first time at 22, you'd be forgiven for assuming that there had been a substantial development history behind it. Then again, if you saw it punted as version 1.0.22 you'd think, why so many bug releases? If it ain't fit for purpose then it ain't worth a spit and it ain't worth the keyboard taps that coded it.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
So long as the numbers continue to increase (as opposed to going backwards or jumping randomly in either direction) it matters little to me which version is current. The frequency of the releases, however, is fairly annoying for a browser that relies on Add-ons/Plug-ins for much of it's functionality, breaking many of them at each new version.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
-
So long as the numbers continue to increase (as opposed to going backwards or jumping randomly in either direction) it matters little to me which version is current. The frequency of the releases, however, is fairly annoying for a browser that relies on Add-ons/Plug-ins for much of it's functionality, breaking many of them at each new version.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
Henry Minute wrote:
is fairly annoying for a browser that relies on Add-ons/Plug-ins for much of it's functionality, breaking many of them at each new version
Yeah, that's pretty darn annoying.
When it comes to pay the rent no matter what [...] I just blew a tranny [...] you do what you gotta do.
-
So long as the numbers continue to increase (as opposed to going backwards or jumping randomly in either direction) it matters little to me which version is current. The frequency of the releases, however, is fairly annoying for a browser that relies on Add-ons/Plug-ins for much of it's functionality, breaking many of them at each new version.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
If I recall right, whereas Firefox has traditionally broken plugins with each new version, requiring said plugins to be built for the specific FF version, in v9 or v10, they're changing this policy: they're moving to a new model that preserves compatibility with plugins by default.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
If I recall right, whereas Firefox has traditionally broken plugins with each new version, requiring said plugins to be built for the specific FF version, in v9 or v10, they're changing this policy: they're moving to a new model that preserves compatibility with plugins by default.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
If that's correct, on implementation, it might be worth their releasing a new version.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.” I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus! When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Nice to see you posting in the Lounge more. :thumbsup:
Just along for the ride. "the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
That is why I have moved to Chrome/IE. Not only are they versions coming out soon, it has become less stable.
-
I'm pretty good at keeping up with browser versions, but Firefox 9? And FireFox 10 is due for release Jan 31? I don't understand the thinking in this since it makes version numbers essentially pointless. At this rate we'll be at FireFox 22 by next year, yet I challenge anyone halfway observant to tell me what is so significant between any FF release after 4 that makes it a major change from a previous release. Is it time we simply scrapped software version numbers? Lots of software is no longer released as a once-a-year event - it's now a continuous process of innovation and (more often) bug fixes and UI fashion changes. The software also auto-updates, so should manufacturers simply move to a build number or build date and simply drop the version number? Google's Chrome is very quite about updates and versions and is simply referred to as Chrome, and frankly I don't care about the version of Chrome you or I are using. Or should software houses such as Mozilla et al. simply stop being cheesy about it and stick to useful and informative Major.Minor versions?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I am a fan of major.minor.revision I suppose it depends on your interpretation of "major" changes. I have always assumed that when the second version goes up, compatibility may or may not be an issue with the previous version.. which in the case of the browser may be more relevant to the developers. If the api is not longer the same is that constitute a new major or minor? I know wiki isn't the most stable source of info , but: Versions with changes They are on a rapid release cycle. I think they are increasing major versions too often. In my opinion, an overhaul of significant pieces the user will see should increment major, while developer api should increment the minor. But, my opinion is just that. I'm not on their team :D
-
We are moving to a time when software version doesn't matter, as long as it's the latest version. I like Chrome's silent updater. FYI, Firefox is introducing silent updates in version 9 or 10, if I recall. As far as version number goes, I'm persuaded by the arguments for SemVer[^].
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
We are moving to a time when software version doesn't matter, as long as it's the latest version.
I like Chrome's silent updater. FYI, Firefox is introducing silent updates in version 9 or 10, if I recall.Having you ever tried to track a bug that was either directly or indirectly associated with the browser? Have you ever tried to certify an application to be usable with a specific browser version? Have you ever dealt with a new rollout which had been based on certification with one browser when a new browser version had been just recently released?
-
If I recall right, whereas Firefox has traditionally broken plugins with each new version, requiring said plugins to be built for the specific FF version, in v9 or v10, they're changing this policy: they're moving to a new model that preserves compatibility with plugins by default.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Hopefully in a couple of years nobody will even remember FireFox and Google will be broken up by the European Union. Internet Explorer 12 will own 95% of the market share and all will be good again.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
they're moving to a new model that preserves compatibility with plugins by default.
What happens when that API requires a breaking change?
If they follow SemVer, then that's a major version increment, which includes breaking changes. Only then will plugins need to be updated.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango