Do you like Firefox rapid release model?

[Inodoro Pereyra]

You can customize all of that. Just right click on anything on the toolbar, customize, and off you go.

Maybe, but, as a layman, it's much easier for me to stick with the version I don't have to customize at all. So I just use 3.6, and the only thing I add is ABP.

[uRock]

It doesn't matter to me how they do the numbering scheme. I keep the latest stable version of Firefox on my machines. As for those who do not add Mozilla's PPAs, I can see where it would be a problem since the Canonical doesn't upgrade to the newer version unless they have to.

[Thewhistlingwind]

The model is fine, the versioning is however, ridiculous. I think that the problem stems from the idea that in contemporary usage, a number after a title refers to a sequel. (eg. Halo 2/3)

To indicate that this is not the case, a letter or word should come before the version number simply to indicate that it's not a sequel. My personal candidate is some form of "Build" (Release build, Final build, Stable build, etc.) adding this would make the numbering seem less ridiculous, and would indicate that the numbers refer to releases, not that the program is the latest sequel in a series of programs spanning say; 36 other codebases.

[Erik1984]

It's tempting to say that I don't care as each version seems to work fine for me (from 3 to 4 to 5 without any trouble) outside some Flash issues, but I don think that's Mozillaś fault. However I imagine it's inconvenient for environments where long term stability is required like businesses, student workplaces at universities and of course Linux distros with slow release cycles.

[forrestcupp]

I don't mind rapid release, but I don't like the version numbering. It'll be awkward in a couple of years when we get to Firefox 69.

I don't mind it as long as all the plugins can keep up with it.

[BeRoot ReBoot]

It isn't "just a number", and you shouldn't "just get over it". The way you number versions matters a lot to people's perceptions. If your computing environment requires the slightest semblance of security and stability, you will opt for a well-aged, stable release. What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version. Also, the rapid release schedule puts entirely too much focus on ultimately useless features that are bright and visible (so they can claim they made significant changes just because they change the interface) instead of focusing on security and stability.

[forrestcupp]

What Firefox is doing makes it impossible to do just that, because there is no well-aged version, there's just the NEW! SHINY! version and the OLD! DEPRECATED! version.

I agree with this. It's crazy that as soon as a new version comes out, the old one is deprecated. You're forced to use the bleeding edge, and not everyone wants to do that.

[SoFl W]

Can you hate the version numbers AND still be using 3.6.18?

I look forward to version 13427896³ being released by the end of next year.

[Thewhistlingwind]

I agree with this. It's crazy that as soon as a new version comes out, the old one is deprecated. You're forced to use the bleeding edge, and not everyone wants to do that.

I didn't even think of that.

And after I read beroot reboot's post I couldn't help but feel that a stable release was noticeably absent from the firefox ecosystem.

I think that for the best results they should have a release they support long term, and then a bunch of minor (Read: regular) releases in between. Ubuntu style.

[SoFl W]

When I tested FF4 on my laptop I didn't like it, I also had a problem with a few addons not workings so I stayed with 3.6.x on my desktop. All but one addon eventually was updated but that made me wonder if every time a new version of FF comes out will I have to worry the addons are not going to work.

I like the status bar at the bottom, I hate this change for the sake of change crap. I also hate, "hey the other guys are doing it so why don't we make our browser like theirs?" If I wanted that browser, I would use that browser. I like FF because it isn't like Chrome.


Constantly having to upgrade look so..... so.... Windowsish.