Maybe we need a system where every browser is updated every day. Start with Jan 2000. So the version number is simply the number of days fro the base year. That way, it you use the browser every day, you know it is up to date! 
There are a lot of articles/blog posts about how "unnecessary" versioning is. But the way I see it- if it was unnecessary, we wouldn't be using it. "versioning" was originally devised so that later releases of software could be easily differentiated from earlier versions. Otherwise, we would have had to figure out some other way of determining the capabilities, features, and documented flaws and bugs in our software. Why? Because it may affect us. The idea of a "rolling release" where your software is updated automatically, both without your knowledge, without a prompt, and so forth, just feels silly to me. I can understand what they are after- updates that are as transparent as possible- but do we
really want the update to be transparent? And do we really want to "force" users to upgrade? After all, new versions of software fix bugs, but they also inevitably introduce new ones. Sometimes you want to wait- and let other people test an updated version- before you dip in your big toe, so you can know what to expect.
Most of this is centered around Chrome. And really, I'm not sure why. If Microsoft was to implement something similiar in any of their free products they would be flamed constantly "stupid Micro$haft always forcing their newest crapware on me"! In fact they still get flamed to *censored* even though the updates are free, optional, and actually tell you what they are. And then people decline the update in droves and continue to complain about how the old versions are insecure.
And yet, Chrome can update silently without any prompt or anything and it get's a freaking medal? I think this is a case of looking at the software through google glasses, I've noticed that anything that google does seems to be regarded as "revolutionary" even if it is an ancient concept; then everybody oooh's and awes about how clever and forward thinking they are, and tries to emulate them, poorly.
First: the "silent and automatic" updates don't apply to all software. Browsers and other network related applications I can understand, but stuff like word processors, Spreadsheets, and other client applications- it just doesn't make sense. What if Microsoft had rolled out, say, Office 2007 this way? (I mean, ok, they aren't giving it out for free, but work with me here, it's a hypothetical situation). One day somebody is using 2003, they quit, and restart, and poof- it's office 2007- toolbars are now ribbons and all that.
Would they be regarded as new an innovative? Of course not. The only reason that this sort of a rolling release concept works for Google Chrome is because- well, they look and feel the bloody same. I mean, seriously, when I started up chrome earlier- it was version 8; waited a few minutes for the update to finish (which I manually have to watch via the about box), restarted, and I was on version 12; but with no outwardly visible difference, aside from the icon change. And I can't recall it being much different for any previous version I had.
This is why it works for Google chrome- they aren't making... major changes to the software. Compare IE6, IE7, IE8, and IE9 to each other and there are outwardly obvious changes between them; compare Firefox 1,2,3, and 4 and they are all different. This is why I think everybody jumping on the "Silent updates for everybody" bandwagon will both miss the boat and do so in a tortuous manner- they will try to do this for software updates that make elementary changes to the way the software looks and/or feels, and that will leave them with frustrated users wondering what the heck is going on.
