Firefox 21.0

To me the question isn't so much the frequency, but the resources behind it. Except for vulnerabilities, but I think they've always been on top of them since the early days. If the resources that they put behind it are the same as before, then the frequency doesn't really do you much if all you're doing is changing your version scheme and releasing less more often. If the resources they've allocated have increased though...

It seems like to me that instead of going from 4.0 to 4.1 with 20 fixes, 6 changes, and 4 new functionality for example, they're cutting that in half and going from 4.0 to 5.0 with 10 fixes, 3 changes, 2 new functionality, and releasing it more frequently.

Of course I don't have anything to back that up, and I'm too lazy and apathetic to provide it.

 

I wonder how many folks would whine and moan if Mozilla actually slowed down their update cycle to 4-6 times a year.
i can already imagine the endless threads here, full of bitter resentment when folks find out that Mozilla will wait with their (perfectly ready) critical/important/etc update for another 2 months.
And really, who cares if Firefox goes from 20.1 to 21 instead of 20.1.1/20.1.5/20.2.
They chose to follow Chrome with their numbering.
Seemingly because folks believe Chrome was going at a much faster pace because already at, let's say, 18!
And poor Mozilla FF was only at 14! Then that's a full '4' behind!
Perhaps going overboard here but I consider it full-retard to attribute so much importance to numbering schemes.

 

About the only complaints I have ever seen about fast releases have come from corporate, users who are rather clueless about what it entails, and those who use addons that aren't in wide use and/or have very slow development. Everybody else hasn't cared. And nowhere is Chrome ever taken to task for doing the same thing and doing it first, which is something I have never understood.

 

Good question. Mozilla does, for some reason...

Probably because they were the first. Perhaps it also gave the impression that Google was putting in overtime in order to catch up.

It's a copycat business. While most probably understood Mozilla moving to a more rapid release schedule in the face of competition, they didn't see any reason for them to also copy their version scheme too.

When Mozilla made that move I think that the user base put up a collective face palm.

 

The people most likely to care are those that spend time reviewing/testing released versions before putting them into use. The people most likely to do that are professionals. So if you haven't been hearing many people express frustration about these Ritalin Release Schedules, you need a new crew.

 

And if you didn't see me mention "corporate" in the text you quoted, you need to read more carefully. I've spent plenty of time doing these same all-nighters and testing phases, I know what it's like and it isn't fun. I still know a few IT guys and I've been told Chrome releases have caused them more grief than Firefox releases. And really, almost every issue I've heard about with the Firefox release schedule has been addon-related, which makes perfect sense.

 

I think it was your use of the adjective form that threw me off. The first time I read "... from corporate, users who are rather clueless about what it entails," as though the first comma wasn't even there and the second time I read it as though those following words were qualifiers to the word "corporate". IOW, I thought you were entirely dismissing the reasons why corporate/professional folks don't like these very rapid releases. Rereading what you wrote now, I see the "from corporate users, from clueless users, and from problematic addon users" form. Which I gather from your later post is what you meant. Misinterpretation I guess, sorry.

 

Even if that's the bulk of who is complaining (which I'm not so certain that it is), that still entails an awful lot of "folks"

I think a lot of people get frustrated with their browser "changing" every month, but they perhaps don't take to a forum to voice their displeasure. It's more of a minor nuisance than a serious life-altering experience that they feel the need to become vocal about.

LOL.....hilarious, AND true!

I can say why "I" have "never taken Chrome to task" for the constant updates and new releases.....and that's because I just started using Chrome. And I started to use it because I wanted to explore different options other than Firefox, because I'm growing weary of Firefox constantly changing their browser every few weeks to a month or so.

Once I see that Chrome is no different, I'll probably start putting IE to use more often....something I haven't done much of since around '06 or so.

Truth be told....I'll probably keep all 3 around and use whichever one has ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ me off the least at that particular time.

 

No problem, Wind. Sorry to have been a little snippy. I completely understand the issue from an IT point of view, however, I don't think it's as big of a problem as it has been made out to be. We have to keep in mind that browser numbers getting bigger don't always mean massive changes to the browser itself. In a lot of ways, the numbers game Chrome and Firefox play is marketing.

 

This is precisely the reason I've dumped Chrome, lol. It has bugged me enough times with stupid little issues that I just said screw it and moved on. Right now I'm using Firefox Aurora and even it is ticking me off because bookmarking doesn't work. It's basically the test channel though, so I forgive it and knew what I was in for when I started. If I can figure out why the last IE update killed my 64 bit install of IE 10 and left me with just the 32 bit, I may give it another go (Once I work out the better ad-blocking options to use with it. No ad-blocking, no likey.)

 

I have 89 extensions installed. This 20 to 21 upgrade did not break one of them. this has been the case in several upgrades going back awhile now. Now I'm not saying you don't have add-ons that break, just that my experience is otherwise.

This will help reduce the add-ons breakage problem among other things.

http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2013/05/Firefox-now-ships-with-the-add-on-SDK

 

But that's exactly the problem with FF, they are being followers instead of being leaders.

 

I found this very funny. Because I believe it is true & ridiculous.

 

FYI, it appears there were application directory subdir changes related to Metro support and some things have been moved from InstallDir to InstallDir/browser:

http://mike.kaply.com/2013/05/13/more-major-changes-coming-in-firefox-21/
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755724

Which will impact certain users including those who use extensions installed in InstallDir/extensions and/or those who use autoconfig. FWIW, I used the full installer to upgrade a FF20 install on an XP computer. The installer didn't warn me that my autoconfig related preferences file in InstallDir/defaults/preferences would be ignored and it didn't migrate it to InstallDir/browser/defaults/preferences. As a result, when FF21 came up it didn't load my cfg file and thus it didn't have any of my security, privacy, etc preferences set. I don't know whether an auto or manual update through Firefox would behave the same way.

 

already upgraded

thanks

 

Thanks for the info, Ronjor.
I wonder why FF just prompted me about this build (it's a bit late I think).