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
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.
-
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 remember when I was a kid, when Nintendo games were released, they got it right the first time :D
-
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
There is no meaning to flood up with numbers of insignificant number of major/minor version unless there is something striking in it. mostly they have fixed up the bugs and very minor enhancement that really make sense in real-time usage. On side note really impressed with chrome's silent updates. On other side its die note(backward countdown) for Internet Explorer....
Believe Yourself™
-
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
Judah Himango wrote:
Running old versions of software results in the IE6 problem, with all the security nightmares that entails.
That however is a problem with the browser, not the application that relies on the browser. Dealing with differences in the browser versions is something that an application must do. And silent upgrades means that support service will be harder. As an example of that look into the number of application problems introduced by minor but automatic upgrades made to Java (in browsers) over the last year.
-
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
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Running old versions of software results in the IE6 problem, with all the security nightmares that entails.
That however is a problem with the browser, not the application that relies on the browser. Dealing with differences in the browser versions is something that an application must do. And silent upgrades means that support service will be harder. As an example of that look into the number of application problems introduced by minor but automatic upgrades made to Java (in browsers) over the last year.
Yep. There's really 2 issues at play here: -Browsers shouldn't break public APIs unless migrating to a major version, which should be a rare event. -Breaking public APIs is a problem not limited to browsers; it applies to any software that interacts with other software. The former is being addressed in Firefox, as I understand it. Plugins will be compatible by default, and breaking the public APIs in Firefox would be grounds for a major version increment, and should be done rarely.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
And how does that work with silent upgrades that will, presumably, push that break right onto many user systems?
The idea is that breaking a public API should be a rare event, requiring a major version increment. The issue isn't that browser are pushing updates regularly. The problem is that they're pretending they're major version upgrades, and too regularly are breaking public APIs.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
-
Yep. There's really 2 issues at play here: -Browsers shouldn't break public APIs unless migrating to a major version, which should be a rare event. -Breaking public APIs is a problem not limited to browsers; it applies to any software that interacts with other software. The former is being addressed in Firefox, as I understand it. Plugins will be compatible by default, and breaking the public APIs in Firefox would be grounds for a major version increment, and should be done rarely.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
-Browsers shouldn't break public APIs unless migrating to a major version, which should be a rare event.
Sounds good. However as an application developer how will you know? Chrome already does major version number upgrades silently. IE 9 will do that. And now apparently so will Firefox.
Judah Himango wrote:
-Breaking public APIs is a problem not limited to browsers; it applies to any software that interacts with other software.
Yes, but Oracle doesn't silently upgrade 90% of the servers in the world when a new major version is released. Windows/linux OSes don't silently upgrade to a new major version.
Judah Himango wrote:
nd breaking the public APIs in Firefox would be grounds for a major version increment, and should be done rarely.
That isn't the way that I read the OP (firefox), and it isn't the way that Chrome works now and isn't the way that IE will work starting with 9.
-
The idea is that breaking a public API should be a rare event, requiring a major version increment. The issue isn't that browser are pushing updates regularly. The problem is that they're pretending they're major version upgrades, and too regularly are breaking public APIs.
My Messianic Jewish blog: Kineti L'Tziyon My software blog: Debugger.Break() Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
The idea is that breaking a public API should be a rare event, requiring a major version increment.
As this point I don't think you understand the issue. Chrome already does major version upgrades silently. I presume that in some cases, desktop computers, a user can stop that from happening. But in many cases major version updates happen automatically when they are available and without the user being aware. And Windows IE is going to that model with 9. It appears, from the OP, that Firefox might be going down that path at least to the extent that major version upgrades will occur far more often. But perhaps that is just an aberration but the problem remains with the other browsers.