Do you like the rapid release cycles of Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome? Do you like the rapid release cycles Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome?
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.
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.
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.
Erm ... yes & no. Yes, it works for Chrome & no, it doesn't work for Firefox . The Mozilla upgrades work even less for SeaMonkey.
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.
Haters? People who hate rapid release cycles, or people who hate Google Chrome, people who hate Firefox, or just people who hate everything?
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
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
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?
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.
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.
