Welcome guest. Before posting on our computer help forum, you must register. Click here it's easy and free.

Author Topic: Mozilla takes Firefox version numbers to the next level… by removing them  (Read 4863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Allan

    Topic Starter
  • Moderator

  • Mastermind
  • Thanked: 1260
  • Experience: Guru
  • OS: Windows 10
A great collective gasp issued from tuned-in Firefox fans when Mozilla announced   that it was switching to a Chrome-like release schedule for its   browser. The goal was to make Firefox more adaptable and to keep pace —   though not with Chrome specifically, but rather with the   rapidly-evolving web.

One side effect of a rapid release schedule   is skyrocketing version numbers, something both Google and Mozilla want   users to ignore. But that’s a tricky proposition when users have been   raised on slowly-climbing digits trailing the names of their favorite   apps. Rather than cling to traditional versioning ideas, companies are   now pushing channels — constantly updated snapshots of the different   development stages of a program. Both Chrome and Firefox now offer   stable, beta, and bleeding-edge versions to suit a user’s wants.

Full story here: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92792-mozilla-takes-firefox-version-number-removal-a-step-further

patio

  • Moderator


  • Genius
  • Maud' Dib
  • Thanked: 1769
    • Yes
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 7
FireFox should stop immediately chasing the competition...they were in front in my mind all along...
What a marketing shame...totally unneccessary.
" Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined. "

rthompson80819



    Specialist

    Thanked: 94
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Personally, I like simple version numbers, like 3.1, or 6.22.  Firefox's 3.6.18 was a little to much for my feeble brain to grasp.  I don't think version numbers need to be always in whole numbers, but xx.xx.xx is a little too much for most users.

Computer_Commando



    Hacker
  • Thanked: 494
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Expert
  • OS: Windows 10
You must like the new scheme:  5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1140
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 11
Didn't MS sort of prove how pointless it was to remove version numbers with the whole "name products after their year of release" thing?
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

rthompson80819



    Specialist

    Thanked: 94
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
You must like the new scheme:  5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...

Actually, I don't have a problem with say 5.3, 6.7, etc, it's the version 6.731.84.99.34.22.51 that I have a problem with.

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1140
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 11
Actually, I don't have a problem with say 5.3, 6.7, etc, it's the version 6.731.84.99.34.22.51 that I have a problem with.

Well good thing there are no real world examples of the latter.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.

rthompson80819



    Specialist

    Thanked: 94
  • Experience: Experienced
  • OS: Windows 7
Well good thing there are no real world examples of the latter.

No, but I had a bad feeling things were headed in that direction.

BC_Programmer


    Mastermind
  • Typing is no substitute for thinking.
  • Thanked: 1140
    • Yes
    • Yes
    • BC-Programming.com
  • Certifications: List
  • Computer: Specs
  • Experience: Beginner
  • OS: Windows 11
No, but I had a bad feeling things were headed in that direction.

Major.Minor.Revision.Build is pretty much as far as it can go.
I was trying to dereference Null Pointers before it was cool.