Do you like the rapid release cycles Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome?

Discussion in 'polls' started by ams963, Jun 10, 2012.

?

Do you like the rapid release cycles Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome?

  1. Yes - please specify why.

    53.2%
  2. No - please specify why.

    53.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    5,965
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    Do you like the rapid release cycles of Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome?

    Do you like the rapid release cycles Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome?
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  2. No. I prefer to have software that just works for a while, instead of requiring constant updates. But at this point that's probably a pipe dream.
     
  3. 1chaoticadult

    1chaoticadult Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    2,248
    Location:
    Chaotic Land
    No, I don't. I really think they should cut in half the amount of versions released in a year.
     
  4. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Seems to work for Chrome. IDK about Firefox.
     
  5. noone_particular

    noone_particular Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    3,798
    No I don't like it. IMO, it's marketing getting a hold of the "newer is better" concept and taking it to the extreme.

    It doesn't allow sufficient time to get the bugs out of the "improved" version.
    It doesn't allow time to find and fix new bugs introduced by those changes.
    It breaks extensions on a regular basis.
    It makes it harder to maintain a default-deny policy, especially if it uses file hashes.
    Much of rapid update seems to be change for its own sake or for padding up version numbers to make the product appear to be more mature, advanced, (insert term), etc.
     
  6. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Doesn't bother me a bit.
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    No, I don't like it. It seems pointless...
     
  8. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I'd hate to have to wait a year like IE users just to get new security/ performance features.

    Actually it's the opposite. By having a rapid release cycle with a "stable, beta, alpha, bleeding edge" version beta users are able to give crash reports and tons of feedback months in advance. Mozilla is trying to encourage users to move to beta for this reason.

    Yeah, default deny sucks lol a good policy works around the system not the other way around.

    Anyways, there are major features that would have taken a year to come out. New garbage control designs have come out, performance and stability improvements.

    I'd never use a browser that took an entire 6 months to 1 year just to implement what was already in browsers months ago.

    With the IE model Chrome users would probably still be waiting another 8 months for the renderer to use Low Integrity since it's a design change and not a security patch.
     
  9. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Erm ... yes & no.

    Yes, it works for Chrome :thumb: & no, it doesn't work for Firefox :thumbd: . The Mozilla upgrades work even less for SeaMonkey. o_O
     
  10. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Last time I checked, they were trying to get more people to use Aurora. I would be on Aurora instead of the beta if Ubuntu provided delta updates, but they don't, AFAIK.
     
  11. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    Yes. Why? Why not. Maybe just to tick off all the haters.
     
  12. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Haters? People who hate rapid release cycles, or people who hate Google Chrome, people who hate Firefox, or just people who hate everything?
     
  13. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Hahaha.... :) How about people who just mildly dislike it?
     
  14. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    There's no fun in mildly disliking something ;)
     
  15. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Hahaha... I don't have the energy for much more than that. :)
     
  16. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    Not to worry. There's no shortage of rage bois.
     
  17. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Yep, true enough...
     
  18. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I don't think that people with mild dislikes actually use the Internet. ;)
     
  19. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,028
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    I blame bipolar disorders.
     
  20. mattfrog

    mattfrog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Posts:
    85
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I like the quicker development as a home user, but not in a corporate environment. At work, stability and predictability are key. At home I can play :cool:
     
  21. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    3,768
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    I don't use Chrome, Firefox is my browser. I prefer to get improvements as they are ready. For example, this last few days, after upgrading to Firefox 13, I noticed that Plugin container stops running after I closed Youtube. I think its great that 5 minutes after watching Flash videos, the memory that Plugin container uses is released without having to kill the process or close and reopen the browser. Thats great improvement and I am happy that I don't have to wait for a year for Firefox to get this improvement. I am on XP.

    Bo
     
  22. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    There's nothing wrong with product improvement, you should expect that. I just don't see the need for a constantly increasing version number. What's the point?
     
  23. carat

    carat Guest

    Version 47 sounds better than 2.1.3 :)
     
  24. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    The point is that you create deadlines for specific features. For users the number should mean nothing, it's more important for developers to keep pace with things.
     
  25. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Developers should have already been keeping pace with things, regardless of the version number. Just because they started bumping the version number faster doesn't mean they're developing any faster or better.
     
Loading...