Do you like Firefox rapid release model?

[krapp]

As long as it stays free and open, secure and customizable I have no complaints.

[drawkcab]

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.

What you need to get over is the expectation that engineers are somehow the driver's seat. When push comes to shove, marketing trumps engineering every single time.

The fact of the matter is that the competitive context has dramatically changed. No longer is Firefox the obvious alternative to IE because Chrome is now a more than viable alternative. Firefox has to do more to sell itself. It has to show that it's progressing, offering new features, etc.

The analogy that strikes me is aluminum bicycle frames. Aluminum bicycles ride like garbage compared to steel, but they are lighter in the showroom and are more fun to test ride around the parking lot. They're a marketer's dream so that, nowadays, you have to look around a bit and pay a lot more for a quality steel frame.

I think we're seeing a shift in Mozilla's general strategy that, for better or worse, emphasizes strategic marketing.

[krapp]

The analogy that strikes me is aluminum bicycle frames. Aluminum bicycles ride like garbage compared to steel, but they are lighter in the showroom and are more fun to test ride around the parking lot. They're a marketer's dream so that, nowadays, you have to look around a bit and pay a lot more for a quality steel frame.

As I know very little about bikes, this is news to me. Why is steel > aluminum?

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

while i don't think the version number needs to change so much i do like it this way i dont get impatience and start using the nightly like i did waiting for firefox 4
sadly the update manager makes you download the entire firefox when you probably only need 5mb through firefox's updater (i just have slow Internet < 1Mbps)

[BrokenKingpin]

Why do they need to jump full version numbers each time? We will be at version 97 by the end of next year.

[lovinglinux]

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.

Well, they did not just change the UI. I wouldn't call html5 video support and javascript engine optimizations useless. Sure, you could say for example Tab Groups is not for you, but it is innovative and potentially very useful, depending on your browsing behaviour.

You can see the list of changes at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking

In regard to stability, keep in mind that changes between major versions are not radical like they used to be and features that are not ready are simply disabled or removed. Additionally, before a new version is released, it passes through the beta, aurora and nightly channel. Channel switch occurs every 6 weeks, so each new version has at least 18 weeks development cycle, which is only 1,5 months shorter than Ubuntu release cycle. Sure, Ubuntu offers LTS, but you need to consider that a new Ubuntu version is probably much less stable than a new Firefox with the new release model. Not to mention Firefox is just a browser and not an entire OS. Ubuntu Beta testing period is of...guess what...6 weeks.

Another thing to consider is that with the new channel switcher and with the introduction of the Aurora channel, more users are capable of testing development versions, which will increase bug reporting. You don't see many users using the nightly channel, just like before, but you already see many users happy with Aurora builds. The only issue that prevents me from moving to Aurora is actually add-on compatibility, but I am happy with the beta.

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 wouldn't call it bleeding edge. Firefox 5 is essentially an improved Firefox 4 and Firefox 6 is not looking different either.

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.

Answer: http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/201...-break-add-ons

Mozilla is also discussing the possibility of marking add-ons as compatible by default and disabling those that are known to be incompatible: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Ad..._to_Compatible

I have 74 add-ons installed and only 8 are not compatible with Firefox 6.0b4. I disable compatibility check and most of them still work. Only Google Redesigned doesn't work at all. Tabloc works, but gives a lot of errors, so I disabled it.

To check compatibility of dd-ons, see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ibility/report

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.

I was against the end of the status bar, but now I actually prefer the new add-ons bar, because you can easily customize it and drag any toolbar item to it. To get the old status bar functionality, use Status-4-Evar extension.

[uRock]

They're just numbers.

[lovinglinux]

while i don't think the version number needs to change so much i do like it this way i dont get impatience and start using the nightly like i did waiting for firefox 4
sadly the update manager makes you download the entire firefox when you probably only need 5mb through firefox's updater (i just have slow Internet < 1Mbps)

Me too. Firefox 4 took so long to be released that I moved to Opera and even considered not going back, because I couldn't run most add-ons I like with the nightly or even Firefox 4b. Now I am already using Firefox 6.0b4 and the transition was so smooth...

Why do they need to jump full version numbers each time? We will be at version 97 by the end of next year.

Actually, it will be something like 15 or 16. Chrome is already version 13 and I don't see anybody complaining.

They're just numbers.

+1

[hyper2hottie]

I'm liking the new model. So far I have had no issues with stability. Anything that has issues gets fixed quickly.

[Khakilang]

I don't really care, its just number. As long as it is not retarded or crash. But I have Chromuim stand by just in case.