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
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
-
That is why I have moved to Chrome/IE. Not only are they versions coming out soon, it has become less stable.
-
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?
All those problems are subservient to the bigger benefit of always running the latest version. Running old versions of software results in the IE6 problem, with all the security nightmares that entails.
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
Worse, to change the version number, they are using increasingly marginal features and changes that are poorly tested. (Were Microsoft to fix the UI issues I dislike in IE--namely the inability to customize it--I'd switch to it and never bother with Firefox, or Chrome, again.)
-
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 think all the browser developers switched to Minor.Major instead. So going to v22 by next year means they're fixing bugs.
-
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 was always under the impression that it was a psychological thing. Chrome and IE had these big awesome numbers after them and poor little Firefox was still back in the stone age at version 3. So I thought it was a marketing ploy more than anything.