Mozilla thinking about eliminating Firefox version numbers

[forrestcupp]

Quoted from this article (http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/08/firefox-the-emperor-wears-no-versions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Ind ex+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher).


Mozilla has created a stir in the Firefox community by suggesting that the version number ought to be eliminated. The version number currently shown in Firefox’s "About" dialog has been filed as a bug. Instead of a version number Mozilla simply wants the box to read something like "Firefox checked for updates 20 minutes ago, you are running the latest version." Mozilla believes that eliminating the version number will reduce user confusion.

Pretty ridiculous idea, in my opinion. I feel sorry for the add-on developers.


Edit: Merk42 has shown us (http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_thread/thread/dd95891fa5f56f81?pli=1) that they are keeping the version numbers in the About dialog, and nothing is going to be changed. End of crisis! :)

[castrojo]

Pretty ridiculous idea, in my opinion. I feel sorry for the add-on developers.

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.

[Thewhistlingwind]

They've lost their minds.

They really have.

[kaldor]

They should keep some sort of version label. Even if it's just a date like 20110821 then it's better than just "Latest Firefox".

[galacticaboy]

I don't mean this to be offensive, but I told a friend about it and he said that they were gonna start to name their browers like this

Firefox Firebum
Firefox Firecrotch
Firefox Fireass
and so forth, made me chuckle...

[NightwishFan]

Why all the worry about version numbers!? Firefox please just pick a style of version number that makes sense and stop with this silliness.

[Lucradia]

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.

Exactly.

I think Firefox doesn't need numbers. For that matter, nothing really needs numbers. For example, you could call me 1094376, but that doesn't mean you will.


Why all the worry about version numbers!? Firefox please just pick a style of version number that makes sense and stop with this silliness.

Or this. Take Ubuntu for example. Or telltale:

GameName101.exe

First 1 = Season
The 0 = Version / Revision
Second 1 = Episode.

[IWantFroyo]

:(

And just when I switched back to FF as my main browser...

I wish Mozilla would just finally decide on something.

[whatthefunk]

In order to make things less confusing they should change the way they name their versions more often. Id like to see a new way of releasing and naming firefox versions being implemented on a weekly basis. This week, for example, we could refer to Firefox 5 as Firefox 3.02945. Next week, we could call it Firefox 10. The following week, simply Firefox. Then Firefox Diving Dolphin, Firefox Fireface, Firefox 狐, then Firefox Alpha Omega Pi, Firefox A2, Firefox 4,892,847, Firefox Einstein etc. This would eliminate all confusion.

[aysiu]

I kind of get where they're coming from... I just don't think the benefits outweight the pitfalls.

For example, I was troubleshooting a colleague's problem of trying to sync Firefox on his old computer to Firefox on his new computer. It was his first time trying to set up sync. In theory, you can set this up by installing the Firefox Sync extension on the older version of Firefox, but in reality it didn't work.

And an easy way for me to determine what should be done was to go to Help > About Firefox to see what version he was running (it was 3.6), so we just upgraded him to 6.0 and everything was good (syncing worked fine on both computers).

The problem is mainly a cultural one. On just about any program, if you go to Help > About name-of-program you can see the version number. Putting that version number somewhere else just causes a lot of confusion. And, yes, even in Chrome you can check the version number.

[aaaantoine]

It would be one thing if the plan was to stop telling people what version they downloaded, and instead only imply by saying whether or not you're using the latest version. But from what I've heard, they want to remove the version number from the Help -> About box as well.

And speaking as a web developer, that is a really crappy idea.

[Thewhistlingwind]

It would be one thing if the plan was to stop telling people what version they downloaded, and instead only imply by saying whether or not you're using the latest version. But from what I've heard, they want to remove the version number from the Help -> About box as well.

And speaking as a web developer, that is a really crappy idea.

I'm still waiting to see their "stable long term support" release.

And every minute they don't have one, I slowly realize that they never will, and have thus gone insane.

[NightwishFan]

Perhaps this is a way to further push users to always have the latest Firefox?

For any project I do, I have version numbers that make sense from a developer point of view.


1.0 Major Version = Basically game changing update.
1.2 Major/Minor Version = New features perhaps but program mainly works the same. You could call it incremental upgrades.
1.2.1 Major/Minor Update. Bugfixes on the minor version
1.3 = Development Release. All odd numbers mean you are using something not fit for release.

Version numbers mean little really to end users except for identification when someone asks them about problems.

[whatthefunk]

For example, I was troubleshooting a colleague's problem of trying to sync Firefox on his old computer to Firefox on his new computer. It was his first time trying to set up sync. In theory, you can set this up by installing the Firefox Sync extension on the older version of Firefox, but in reality it didn't work.

And an easy way for me to determine what should be done was to go to Help > About Firefox to see what version he was running (it was 3.6), so we just upgraded him to 6.0 and everything was good (syncing worked fine on both computers).

This doesnt really prove your point. If it simply said "Firefox not the latest version" instead of saying the version number, the exact same fix would have been done.

[aysiu]

This doesnt really prove your point. If it simply said "Firefox not the latest version" instead of saying the version number, the exact same fix would have been done.
So is their plan then to have Help > About Firefox say not the latest version? If that's the case, I think that could work.

[Quadunit404]

In order to make things less confusing they should change the way they name their versions more often. Id like to see a new way of releasing and naming firefox versions being implemented on a weekly basis. This week, for example, we could refer to Firefox 5 as Firefox 3.02945. Next week, we could call it Firefox 10. The following week, simply Firefox. Then Firefox Diving Dolphin, Firefox Fireface, Firefox 狐, then Firefox Alpha Omega Pi, Firefox A2, Firefox 4,892,847, Firefox Einstein etc. This would eliminate all confusion.

Winner!

[sffvba[e0rt]

As has been stated, as long as your browser works the majority of people don't care if they are using version 5 or 6 or 7 or... For an end user it makes sense if your browser is either up-to-date or not...

As for add-on support I am not sure how that will work for developers... they need to simplify the process as well as stop making such radical changes that break add-ons between updates.

Just my 2c :)


404

[whatthefunk]

Yes, even in Chromium, a browser that doesnt have release numbers, you can find out the version:


@laptop:~$ chromium-browser --version
Chromium 12.0.742.112 Ubuntu 11.04


It seems to me that Firefox wants to do something similar. I think that as long as people can easily see if they have the most recent version and developers can easily find out the version numbers, there is really not going to be a problem. I just wish they'd decide on something and stick with it....

[aaaantoine]

So is their plan then to have Help > About Firefox say not the latest version? If that's the case, I think that could work.

I think I've had a change of heart. They're just thinking like programmers. ;)

Usually if someone is having a problem with something not working right on their website, the simplified version of the exchange goes something like this.

Me: What version of Firefox are you using?
Customer: 3
Me: Try installing 6.

Now let's make that more generic...

Me: What version?
Customer: [Not the latest version]
Me: Try installing [the latest version].

And suddenly their rationale makes more sense.

[forrestcupp]

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.Chrome does have version numbers.

When I installed Firefox 6, the Java console plugin didn't work. If they ditch the version number then they can just do whatever they want whenever they want. They could come out with a minor update or a major update that breaks everything, and it will just be called "the latest update". To a small time plugin developer just volunteering his time, it seems like it would help out to have a better versioning system so it would be obvious what is coming and when it's coming so you can be prepared, instead of having to do a bunch of research every time "the latest version" comes out.

Maybe it's not that important to a user as long as the plugins work, but it seems pretty counterproductive for the devs.



In order to make things less confusing they should change the way they name their versions more often. Id like to see a new way of releasing and naming firefox versions being implemented on a weekly basis. This week, for example, we could refer to Firefox 5 as Firefox 3.02945. Next week, we could call it Firefox 10. The following week, simply Firefox. Then Firefox Diving Dolphin, Firefox Fireface, Firefox 狐, then Firefox Alpha Omega Pi, Firefox A2, Firefox 4,892,847, Firefox Einstein etc. This would eliminate all confusion.

Exactly! :)

[handy]

I don't care what they do in this matter, so long as the quality & compatibility of their product doesn't deteriorate.

[neu5eeCh]

I don't care what they do in this matter, so long as the quality & compatibility of their product doesn't deteriorate.

Speaking of which, I've noticed a serious problem with Firefox 5. I don't know whether it's my system or FF in general, but whenever I'm typing text into fields (like this window) FF seems to stutter. I will type but nothing shows up. FF seems to freeze, then everything will catch up in a rush (just as it did with these last few words). This happens with any keyboard input, mouse input, scrolling, and it's so much of a hassle that I've switched to Chrome, which doesn't suffer from this affliction. Anyone else notice this?

Edit: I remember having this problem back with version 3-- Wonder if it's a regression of some kind?

[SoFl W]

Mozilla believes that eliminating the version number will reduce user confusion.

Jeeez, why would the user get confused? You are only changing the version number ever few weeks. It seems like it is more of that "We are smart, you are too stupid to think for yourself." attitude.

[Copper Bezel]

It does, a little. It's going to be quite awful for us on the Linux side, since we're not normally running the most recent version (outside of rolling releases.) It'll become irritating to figure out which one we're actually using in comparison to the current Windows and Mac versions.

[handy]

Speaking of which, I've noticed a serious problem with Firefox 5. I don't know whether it's my system or FF in general, but whenever I'm typing text into fields (like this window) FF seems to stutter. I will type but nothing shows up. FF seems to freeze, then everything will catch up in a rush (just as it did with these last few words). This happens with any keyboard input, mouse input, scrolling, and it's so much of a hassle that I've switched to Chrome, which doesn't suffer from this affliction. Anyone else notice this?

Edit: I remember having this problem back with version 3-- Wonder if it's a regression of some kind?

Give Firefox 6.* a go, its working fine, for me anyway.

[whatthefunk]

Give Firefox 6.* a go, its working fine, for me anyway.

Its working well for me too. Cant find much thats different between 6 and 7...

[sanderd17]

For extensions: Those get checked automatically for incompatible code, and if everything is compatible, they get bumped to the next version anyway, so I don't see a problem there.

For web developers: giving a version number (maybe just a release date) should still be included.

For the users: We indeed don't need version numbers. It's not needed in open-source.

I certainly agree with them taking the version number out of the about window.

[SoFl W]

For the users: We indeed don't need version numbers. It's not needed in open-source.
I certainly agree with them taking the version number out of the about window.

So why do you have a 17 after your name?

[sanderd17]

So why do you have a 17 after your name?

Because, I originally wanted sanderd as hotmail address but that wasn't available anymore, so I putted a number after it. Anyway, I kept that name because nobody else uses such a boring name and so I can use the same name everywhere.

In that view, if you make a fork of firefox, you could call it firefox2. But a fork is not a version :-D

[forrestcupp]

Speaking of which, I've noticed a serious problem with Firefox 5.That's because you didn't update to "The Latest Version". Lol :lol:


For extensions: Those get checked automatically for incompatible code, and if everything is compatible, they get bumped to the next version anyway, so I don't see a problem there.
The problem is that sometimes they don't just automatically get bumped because they don't work. It's up to the developer to be on top of it and keep his plugin compatible. So if they eliminate versioning, their updates could at any time be a minor bug fix or a major change that causes incompatibility. It just makes it that much harder for a small time extension developer to keep track of what's going on, especially as often as these updates are coming out. Now, instead of knowing this is a minor "point" release that isn't going to effect me, I don't know what it's going to be, so I have to research every update that comes out instead of just the big ones.

[madjr]

Its working well for me too. Cant find much thats different between 6 and 7...

7 is supposed to use less memory.

Now on the topic, i think ubuntu should also forget about version numbers and go semi-rolling :)

[forrestcupp]

Now on the topic, i think ubuntu should also forget about version numbers and go semi-rolling :)

No, Ubuntu should keep it how it is and still forget about version numbers. I'll bet that would help people to not be confused. ;)

[sanderd17]

No, Ubuntu should keep it how it is and still forget about version numbers. I'll bet that would help people to not be confused. ;)

That's not what firefox does. Firefox goes rolling.

[3Miro]

If release numbers are confusing for people, they should just use dates.

2011-08-15-latest
2011-07-15-not-latest

Having no number of whatsoever is a bad idea.

[JDShu]

Jeeez, why would the user get confused? You are only changing the version number ever few weeks. It seems like it is more of that "We are smart, you are too stupid to think for yourself." attitude.

There was a lot of noise by users regarding the rapid release schedule and people getting angry that "the numbers were getting too big". So yes, I think users do get confused.

[rg4w]

Version numbers aren't just marketing fluff. They're information:

Changes to the left of the first decimal point indicate deep architectural shifts; changes of smaller scope are indicated by changes to the numbers in subsequent decimal points.

Such communication provides a useful shorthand by which end-users and web developers can make decisions.

Whether it's a perfect system or whether a better system for such communication can be invented is far less important than simply using it well.

No matter what we might wish, the fact is that there will always be multiple versions in the wild at any given time. Knowing what versions are out there, and knowing what version you have, is important information.

Users are far more likely to be confused as to why some sites don't render correctly than they are by any system of communicating version info. Far better to spend the time and energy on coding, and when it's feature-complete and bug-free they'll have the luxury of inventing novel numbering schemes.

In the meantime, it just makes the project look silly to mire itself in bike-shedding like this.

[aysiu]

Users are far more likely to be confused as to why some sites don't render correctly than they are by any system of communicating version info. Far better to spend the time and energy on coding, and when it's feature-complete and bug-free they'll have the luxury of inventing novel numbering schemes. This is a false dichotomy. It takes years to create a relatively bug-free release. It takes only a few minutes to come up with a numbering scheme that makes sense. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The numbering scheme and display of the version number were working fine before. No need to revisit it.

[rg4w]

This is a false dichotomy. It takes years to create a relatively bug-free release. It takes only a few minutes to come up with a numbering scheme that makes sense. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Agreed, but why even spend any time at all on such things?

As you noted:

The numbering scheme and display of the version number were working fine before. No need to revisit it.
Precisely.

[aysiu]

Precisely. But it's not an issue of time. It would take less time to decide the numbering scheme is fine and to leave it alone than it took me to respond to this thread.

The issue is: if it isn't broken, don't "fix" it.

[forrestcupp]

That's not what firefox does. Firefox goes rolling.

How can a single app have a rolling release? That doesn't even make sense.

[standingwave]

Quoted from this article (http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/08/firefox-the-emperor-wears-no-versions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Ind ex+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher).

Pretty ridiculous idea, in my opinion. I feel sorry for the add-on developers.LOL, why not just use the Julian Date? Firefox 2455796, anyone?

[lykwydchykyn]

I think I've had a change of heart. They're just thinking like programmers. ;)

Usually if someone is having a problem with something not working right on their website, the simplified version of the exchange goes something like this.

Me: What version of Firefox are you using?
Customer: 3
Me: Try installing 6.

Now let's make that more generic...

Me: What version?
Customer: [Not the latest version]
Me: Try installing [the latest version].

And suddenly their rationale makes more sense.

Until you have to have this conversation:

Me: What version are you running?
Customer: [the latest version].
Me: the vendor hasn't certified [the latest version] yet. Try rolling back to [not the latest version].
Customer: I did.
Me: Which version of [not the latest version]?
Customer: Uh... [not the latest version].
Me: I think they meant the not the latest [not the latest version], but the [not the latest version] version before the [not the latest version]. Or maybe an earlier one.


Really, we've had version numbers for 25+ years. I've never met anyone who found them confusing.

[KiwiNZ]

From say an ISP support desk perspective not having version numbers would extend call times and wait times as Help desk CSR's struggle to ascertain the version being used.

From a Corporate support perspective no version numbers should not be an issue, a well run IT unit will know what version has been released on their Network and will have locked down their Network so non "official" version cannot be installed.

[handy]

No, Ubuntu should keep it how it is and still forget about version numbers. I'll bet that would help people to not be confused. ;)

I thought Ubuntu just used the year & month to label its releases.

The Firefox dev's would be using some kind of version numbering system as they develop the product, even if it is only the date & time that they commit their work. Though other much more useful systems already exist...

[handy]

Agreed, but why even spend any time at all on such things?
...

Someone thought they had a good idea. I expect that they will work out that it isn't practical & at most modify their numbering scheme.

[sanderd17]

How can a single app have a rolling release? That doesn't even make sense.

If you release every tested patch as soon as possible, I would call it a rolling release.

I once was active in the Navit team (not that I could do much) and there the concensus was that every user should have the latest nightbuild. So if you included new features in the map files, you were allowed to break the maps for older releases of Navit. But not the other way around. Newer versions of Navit were still supposed to work with older map files.

I think that's pretty rolling, and I think that FF is going that way too (only with a bit additional testing before the patch gets included).

[forrestcupp]

Someone thought they had a good idea. I expect that they will work out that it isn't practical & at most modify their numbering scheme.

At this rate, in a couple of months they will have worked through about 4 different numbering schemes.

[kvv_1986]

Nah.. they are not removing or modifying version numbers. The product lead just wants to move it from the "About Firefox" to about:troubleshooting. His logic is that the average firefox user shouldn't have to know about which version of firefox they are using, as long as they are using the latest version.

Also they want to remove the labels Firefox 4, Firefox 5 etc, and make it just Firefox.

[lovinglinux]

I have been following the discussion since day one. I didn't post in the Ubuntu forums, because I believe the media is making a storm in a bucket. As mentioned by kvv_1986, they are not removing the version numbers like many headlines claim. They are simply not displaying it in "About Firefox". Is not the end of days folks.

[forrestcupp]

I have been following the discussion since day one. I didn't post in the Ubuntu forums, because I believe the media is making a storm in a bucket. As mentioned by kvv_1986, they are not removing the version numbers like many headlines claim. They are simply not displaying it in "About Firefox". Is not the end of days folks.

How often do people even check the About Firefox screen? The only reason I have ever opened one is to find out what version I'm using. If what you're saying is true, they need to leave the version number in the About screen and just stop advertising what version it is for the people who don't care.

[lovinglinux]

How often do people even check the About Firefox screen? The only reason I have ever opened one is to find out what version I'm using. If what you're saying is true, they need to leave the version number in the About screen and just stop advertising what version it is for the people who don't care.

Yes, it is true. The information will still be available when you need, just from a different menu entry/feature, that is less commonly accessed by average users.

[el_koraco]

If what you're saying is true, they need to leave the version number in the About screen and just stop advertising what version it is for the people who don't care.

The idea is probably to emphasize the channels (release, beta, aurora, nightly) rather than the version number, since the number will be less relevant with the faster release cycle.

[Bandit]

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.

I kinda agree, they should just give it a release date for a "version number". Like FIREFOX release 08242011. Its not confusing and works for me.

[handy]

How often do people even check the About Firefox screen? The only reason I have ever opened one is to find out what version I'm using. If what you're saying is true, they need to leave the version number in the About screen and just stop advertising what version it is for the people who don't care.

If it is displayed nowhere else, it will be available in the about:config section of Firefox.

So online help & whoever else that needs to know will be able to direct those that don't know where to look... where to look...

[fontis]

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.

Chrome has version numbers..

[lovinglinux]

If it is displayed nowhere else, it will be available in the about:config section of Firefox.

So online help & whoever else that needs to know will be able to direct those that don't know where to look... where to look...

It is already available in about:support, which can also be accessed through the help menu. Online help will have to direct users to "Help >> Troubleshooting Information" instead of "Help >> About Firefox". So, not a big deal.

[sffvba[e0rt]

The more I think about the subject, the less I can rationalize the response people are having to this... heck, almost 60 posts on this forum alone... sheese...\



404

[disabledaccount]

Nah.. they are not removing or modifying version numbers. The product lead just wants to move it from the "About Firefox" to about:troubleshooting. His logic is that the average firefox user shouldn't have to know about which version of firefox they are using, as long as they are using the latest version.In other words: You people are stupid average joes, so we trying to to remove some numbers to prevent overheating of your poor minds...

Or: Hey let's change something!!! ...but what? can we make FF faster? Not right now, it needs time. So... hey!!! lets do something stupid - peoples, papers and blogs will start to talk about us.

[forrestcupp]

If it is displayed nowhere else, it will be available in the about:config section of Firefox.

So online help & whoever else that needs to know will be able to direct those that don't know where to look... where to look...

Right. So now instead of just having it in the expected place that all other software has the version number, they'll have to put up with more support inquiries to let people know where to find it. What a great way to help with confusion.

[lovinglinux]

The more I think about the subject, the less I can rationalize the response people are having to this... heck, almost 60 posts on this forum alone... sheese...\

404

I suppose people are driven by the title "Mozilla thinking about eliminating Firefox version numbers".

OMG, OMG, now I have to click "Help >>> Troubleshooting Information". I will move to Chrome as soon as I can.

Seriously?

[TheNosh]

Why? If the extension is made right the version of firefox doesn't matter. Nobody cares that Chrome doesn't have version numbers.

You're joking, right? I'm typing this in Google Chrome 13.0.782.112.

[forrestcupp]

The more I think about the subject, the less I can rationalize the response people are having to this... heck, almost 60 posts on this forum alone... sheese...\



404

I got something like 13 pages of posts on my Cheese Super Thread. :)

Threads don't have to be profound or constructive for people to want to discuss.

[lovinglinux]

I got something like 13 pages of posts on my Cheese Super Thread. :)

Threads don't have to be profound or constructive for people to want to discuss.

Sorry, but I wouldn't be proud of creating a thread using the same misleading title all those tech sites did eleven days ago. You should know better by now. There is a lot more smoke than actually fire on this subject.

[NightwishFan]

Perhaps so, and it does not make me think less of Mozilla of course however I personally do not see good or bad why the numbers need to be changed/removed.

1. Jump from 3 to 3.5 to 4?
2. Jump from 4 to 5 to 6 in 2 months?
3. No version? PICK A METHOD :D

Why not just 3.1 3.2 3.3 etc???

[lovinglinux]

Perhaps so, and it does not make me think less of Mozilla of course however I personally do not see good or bad why the numbers need to be changed/removed.

1. Jump from 3 to 3.5 to 4?
2. Jump from 4 to 5 to 6 in 2 months?
3. No version? PICK A METHOD :D

Why not just 3.1 3.2 3.3 etc???

They are not proposing to change or extinguish the version numbers, they are just proposing to remove this info from "Help >> About Firefox" and leaving it in "Help >> Troubleshooting Information". Not a big deal.

[NightwishFan]

I agree and know. My point is that all the changes are just harassing users and not serving any useful purpose. Yes the changes are blown out of proportion but I am being turned off of firefox just like I was with Ubuntu because of all the rapid about faces. (Whether they matter or no).

[lovinglinux]

I agree and know. My point is that all the changes are just harassing users and not serving any useful purpose. Yes the changes are blown out of proportion but I am being turned off of firefox just like I was with Ubuntu because of all the rapid about faces. (Whether they matter or no).

I am using Firefox 7.0b1 right now and couldn't be happier. New features are becoming available sooner, performance and memory usage is improving with each new release and add-ons compatibility is better than ever. If they want to remove the version number from About Firefox, so be it.

[forrestcupp]

They are not proposing to change or extinguish the version numbers, they are just proposing to remove this info from "Help >> About Firefox" and leaving it in "Help >> Troubleshooting Information". Not a big deal.

It's not a big deal, but it's still a stupid thing to do. The only reason anyone opens the About dialog is to see what version they're running. They already know it's called Firefox.

[cgroza]

I don't care what they do as long they keep this quality product going and improving.

[castrojo]

You're joking, right? I'm typing this in Google Chrome 13.0.782.112.

Normal users don't care what the version # of the browser is. They just read in the news "Chrome now features this new feature!" and then they run it and they have it.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html

[TheNosh]

Normal users don't care what the version # of the browser is. They just read in the news "Chrome now features this new feature!" and then they run it and they have it.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-infinite-version.html

I never said normal users care about version numbers. They don't. You said Chrome didn't have version numbers. It does. What you said was factually incorrect.

Are they advertised much? No. They do, however, show up when you click on "About Google Chrome."

[christopher.wortman]

Honestly none of the addons I use are THAT dependant on the version of Firefox I use... Adblock Plus, Element Hiding Filter, Flashget, HTML Viewer+, and NoScript... All this talk about "this breaks addons" is a bunch of crap honestly. I have stuck with Firefox because no other browser on the planet offers me the features I listed. "Oh but its faster" Great I get to see adds faster and they can hijack my computer due to a flaw in some ancient html3 code in less time... That's fantastic!

[forrestcupp]

Normal users don't care what the version # of the browser is.Normal users also don't ever open the About dialog. The main reason it exists is to find out the version number.


Honestly none of the addons I use are THAT dependant on the version of Firefox I use... Adblock Plus, Element Hiding Filter, Flashget, HTML Viewer+, and NoScript... All this talk about "this breaks addons" is a bunch of crap honestly.I guess you've never noticed sometimes when Firefox updates, things like Adblock Plus (and I've seen that one specifically) automatically update to a version that is compatible with the new Firefox. If they wouldn't have developed a new version of Adblock Plus that works with the new version of Firefox, then it would have been like some of the other subjectively unimportant plugins that don't get transferred over.

It's not a bunch of crap. It's just that the devs of the plugins that are important to you happen to be on top of things, so you don't even notice. It's not always that way. I never would have thought the Java Console plugin wouldn't get transferred, but this last time, it wasn't compatible with the Firefox update.

[VOT Productions]

How about just having 6.044.1456.4211 like Chrome? Makes sense since they are copying Chrome.

[lovinglinux]

I guess you've never noticed sometimes when Firefox updates, things like Adblock Plus (and I've seen that one specifically) automatically update to a version that is compatible with the new Firefox. If they wouldn't have developed a new version of Adblock Plus that works with the new version of Firefox, then it would have been like some of the other subjectively unimportant plugins that don't get transferred over.

It's not a bunch of crap. It's just that the devs of the plugins that are important to you happen to be on top of things, so you don't even notice. It's not always that way. I never would have thought the Java Console plugin wouldn't get transferred, but this last time, it wasn't compatible with the Firefox update.

I agree. The reason why you don't notice is because those add-ons are very popular and their developers are constantly updating their add-ons. Additionally, Mozilla is now bumping add-ons compatibility automatically.

However, as I mentioned before here and explained in the thread about the rapid releases (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1818283), the add-on compatibility has improved with the new rapid release cycle.

When Firefox 6 was released, only 2 of 64 add-ons I had installed were not compatible and both worked with compatibility disabled. Now I am using Firefox 7.0b1 and only 16 add-ons are not compatible yet. However, they all seem to work fine with compatibility disabled. This is a huge improvement over the old release cycle.

[lykwydchykyn]

Honestly none of the addons I use are THAT dependant on the version of Firefox I use... Adblock Plus, Element Hiding Filter, Flashget, HTML Viewer+, and NoScript... All this talk about "this breaks addons" is a bunch of crap honestly.


I agree. The reason why you don't notice is because those add-ons are very popular and their developers are constantly updating their add-ons. Additionally, Mozilla is now bumping add-ons compatibility automatically.


So just because none of your add-ons get broken by a version number change, it's bunch of crap, not a problem for anyone.

I guess it's my fault for choosing the wrong add-ons.

[Merk42]

It will remain in its current place in the about window (http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_thread/thread/dd95891fa5f56f81?pli=1)

[cgroza]

It will remain in its current place in the about window (http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_thread/thread/dd95891fa5f56f81?pli=1)
There, the crisis is over.:P

[forrestcupp]

I guess I can keep using Firefox. :D

[aaaantoine]

No! The debate must go on!

[forrestcupp]

No! The debate must go on!

It would be pretty crappy if Firefox ever decided to get rid of version numbers. I'd be pretty ticked off if they ever did that. That would be a really stupid idea. :)

[KiwiNZ]

I guess this threads days are numbered