Mozilla takes Firefox version numbers to the next level… by removing them

Whew! What a relief! I can un-blow my brains out now.

 

I think if you blew your brain out over version numbers, you might have issues Wilders can't help you with

 

We'll leave that for a different topic, which might also require the advice/services of Winston Wolf.

 

Everyone needs a Winston Wolf in their life

 

I can't explain the nuts and bolts of it, but I'll just about guarantee that Mozilla are doing what they're doing cause they think it'll increase revenue somehow. All of Mozilla's software is free to the public, but they have to have cash coming in from somewhere. It doesn't make much sense otherwise.

As for the version numbers, they're replacing a version number with their seal of approval that the version you're using is either "secure" or "unsecure." I think most people will go along and take their word for it, but for true geeks this will just be another obstacle to work around to make sure you're really secure.

 

You may want to check the link recently posted by 'dw426'. Post #44 of this thread.

 

Yeah, *wipes forehead* whew! For a minute there I thought there might be a riot.

Nice U-turn by Madzilla Mozilla there ...

 

I hope it does, but most predictions are showing Firefox at a steady decline with Chrome steadily increasing its userbase. I hope that Firefox 9 spells an entirely new story.

 

I think that it all depends on what you mean by 'decline'. It still has a huge fan/userbase & a huge amount of extensions/add-ons that Chrome will probably never be able to compete with. I think Chrome's appeal to the general public over Firefox is its inherent simplicity of design. There are plenty of nerds people who still like the customising 'adaptability' of Firefox. I just don't see it disappearing any time soon. Let's face it, even Netscape Communicator is still going, albeit as SeaMonkey. Also, Chrome can break more pages than Firefox for many people & has other problems. I like the fact that I have the choice (although I prefer SRWare Iron to Chrome when its running well & bug free) between the two. The other alternatives are somewhat lacking: Opera is a brilliant idea, but seems to be perpetually in a beta state. Safari for Windows is dodgy at best. SeaMonkey has always been a favourite of mine, although it lacks many extensions I now use on Firefox. K-Meleon is showing its age a bit now, although I once used it a lot.

Of course, There's always IE ...

 

Elsewhere, it was described as a "plummet". My request for a clarification was, shall we say, ignored.

 

The media, as always, has a hand in the predicted doom of FF as well. When businesses got brought up and people started talking about Mozilla abandoning them, that's when the riots started. Firefox isn't going to die at all. I admit to being just as confused about where they are going right now, and no, I don't like some of it. However, it will take years before Chrome catches up in customization, if Google ever allows it to come close. My gut says they won't.

 

Oh I'm sure they will eventually. I believe the Chromium developers mentioned it. It's just nowhere near a priority right now since Chrome has a ton to catch up on (3 year old browser competing against 20 year old browsers) so they don't focus on it.

Considering that most people use the default UI (I'd wager the vast majority does almost nothing to tweak their Firefox, IE, and/or Chrome UI's) I hope that they don't bother allocating any resources to this for a while.

 

Yeah, the media never hyped anything ever ... right?

Well, according to this blog 'Brendan' says: “There is no free lunch.”

To be honest, I think you summed this up earlier when you said that Mozilla are damned if they do & damned if they don't when it comes to release cycles. Too few & they are seen as slacking somewhat, regular releases make it look like they are emulating Chrome. Personally, I don't mind a free lunch, just as long as it isn't stale cheese sandwiches ... or Pot Noodle!

 

I am never disappointed by the replies to a thread given by our members.
In fact I am always impressed. OK, I may ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ at times, but I am with you NOT against you - well most of you at least.

This thread is very informative and none of you need be doubtful about your comments - they are all good.

But I have not read anything here that justifies the Directors of Mozilla, most likely the worlds most popular browser, jeopardising their highly acclaimed position by engaging in a ridiculous and farcical gamble by risking all and going for broke in trying to emulate the frivolous antics of a second rate browser, run by two over ambitious egg heads at Google.

Chrome has NOTHING that I want, so what has it got that Mozilla wants so badly that they are willing to destroy their market position and user confidence to get ? Is it some Death Wish syndrome ?

Well, you may call me Inspector Clouseau, but Mozilla is demonstrating a far more bungling expertise than Clouseau ever did.

John

 

That's just it though John, it isn't the world's most popular now, & it has worried Mozilla somewhat.

Remember Betamax & VHS? Which was actually the better system, & which one became the standard?

I honestly think that they are in a difficult position. I'm also pretty confident that they will figure this all out.

 

Dave my friend,

I do not dispute every word you say, but Firefox IS a world leader disregarding all these stupid stats that fly around with different results. In reality FF is most likely THE world`s leading browser if you disallow the Third World use of IE since every computer supplier sends our cast-offs to them when we buy new PC`s and most of these dumped sets probably have IE.

But honestly, WHAT on earth has Chrome got that FF think they need so badly they are prepared to shoot their foot off to have it ? I cannot think of a single attribute that Chrome has that quite frankly anybody seriously wants let alone Mozilla.

John

 

Like I said, it isn't going to disappear for a long time.

My guess; speed, simplicity & stability. Not that Fx isn't relatively fast or particularly unstable. In fact, the very Spartan aspect that you loathe about Chrome is probably an attraction for many. I say, as they're freeware, why not have both?

 

Okay. Besides them.

 

LOL! Ermmm ... it's free?

 

And secure. Well, if we leave privacy out of it that is. If you don't see a difference between privacy and security, it's the absolute worst browser there is.

 

One of the reasons I like Iron so much. I've actually used it quite a bit longer than Chrome.

 

I might have to look into Iron.
For some reason I have ignored it.

 

In terms of privacy Iron doesn't really offer much more than Chrome. Everything can be disabled in Chrome if you like.

 

Well, it's not just about the features..and actually, the original issues with Chrome itself that involved privacy, weren't actually privacy breaches at all (I'm looking at you, RLZ tracking and Installation ID). What is a problem is the lack of tracking protection, and the fact that Google is resistant to adding it. The reason for that is another reason why, in regards to privacy, Chrome is not good. That reason is that Google is, and will very likely always be a corporation built with and run on ads and data collection. That isn't something you can disable.

 

Webrequest API, which is already semi-functional (proof of concepts have already been made) will allow for full capabilities in terms of adblocking and tracking protection.

Why is google allowing this?

Really simply... most people don't even know to install an adblocker.