Recent answers to Why so many new major versions?https://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/8967052012-05-15T15:18:31-07:00Firefox has lost all credibility as a stable browser because of this idiotic "fast release" schedule2012-05-15T15:18:31-07:00wfredkhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-333736<p><strong>Firefox has lost all credibility as a stable browser because of this idiotic "fast release" schedule.</strong>
</p><p>I was going to write a question with "Firefox 13???? A year ago FF*4* came out, a major rewrite - 9 major rewrites since?" as a headline - but I see I'm not the only one astonished and seriously perturbed by this "fast release" schedule.
</p><p><strong>Firefox developers take note:</strong> A year from now, your market share is going to be <em><strong>less than 10 percent</strong></em>, unless you change your ways <em><strong>right now</strong></em>, and could be <em><strong>completely gone</strong></em> in two years. Since companies can no longer count on Firefox as a stable browser, they are going to stop recommending it as a supported platform, and the exodus will grow exponentially.
</p><p>You need to re-read - <em><strong>and pay attention to</strong></em> - <em>seybernetx</em> comments above, including (but not limited to) "If the goal is to make firefox a browser developed by developers, for developers, with no interest in having a user base, firefox is doing it about perfect. If they really want a user base, even a little, the developers need to look outside their Ivory Tower."
</p><p>By making it prohibitively impossible to develop plugins and extensions, you've eliminated one of the most attractive features of Firefox as a browser. Let there be no doubt about it: plugin and extension development is now prohibitively expensive because <em>nobody</em> can afford to keep developing new versions every 6 weeks without a major development budget. That totally rules out the folks who created so many of the useful add-ons in their spare time.
</p><p>I tried FF4 when it first came out - for about 45 minutes - then gagged and went back to 3.6. I guess it's time to turn off automatic updates, since there won't be any more coming for the version I'm using - and I have no interest in riding the version number speedway.
</p><p>Chrome sucks - when I restore it from an icon, my entire system <strong>STOPS</strong> (clock and all) for 20-30 seconds while it <em>slooowly</em> redraws its window. I only use it for Gmail and Google Docs because company management where I work decided that's the way to go. For anything else, trying to get Chrome to work is frequently like pulling teeth - and there are features on our XHTML Strict compliant Web pages that just <em>do not work</em> in Chrome - so we're not going to recommend it as a supported browser.
</p><p>I guess that's going to leave Internet Exploiter as owning the browser market, on winDoze at least, since there aren't any other reasonable alternatives. That's really unfortunate - I remember the "Browse Happy" campaigns and all, and now they seem to be going the other way. Most disappointing.
</p><p>I'm not going to miss Firefox - I've downloaded the 3.6.28 source tarball, and when I get time, I'll probably tinker with it to fix some of the bugs and crashes. (I <em>really</em> want to find out which Javascript thread from which of the 150+ pages I have open is eating an entire CPU and be able to kill <em>that one thread</em>!) It would have been nice to have a supported browser built by a reliable company, but I guess that's a thing of the past - or an option for another start-up..........
</p>OldDogDeveloper, you do know that chrome updates to a new version every6 weeks as well right?
2012-04-25T01:56:00-07:00user633449https://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705?page=2#answer-328056<p>OldDogDeveloper, you do know that chrome updates to a new version every6 weeks as well right?
</p>I totally agree, Google Chrome here I come. I have been an avid ForeFox user for years, but the cons2012-04-25T01:46:38-07:00OldDogDeveloperhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705?page=2#answer-328050<p>I totally agree, Google Chrome here I come. I have been an avid ForeFox user for years, but the constant misunderstood version changes of late have made me tell my user communities to use Chrome. Maybe if you guys get a grip on what the heck you are doing; me and my users will be back. Do you not realize corporate IT groups lock in on versions of browsers because of reliability with plugins etc... Changing versions so often will prevent further growth. Just look at your marketshare fading away. Get a better marketing plan other than a new major version number every 6 weeks.
</p>hear hear: "no development roadmap."
At first I was upgrading in response to the upgrade advice sug2012-04-25T00:55:19-07:00TunaFish5https://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-328031<p>hear hear: "no development roadmap."
</p><p>At first I was upgrading in response to the upgrade advice suggesting "Major Security Issues resolved," but arriving at v12.0 today, that seems to be just stock boilerplate.
</p><p>The "congratulations for upgrading" page (which -- by the way -- I didn't get taken to this time) has no discussion of the value added with each upgrade. You have to drill down into release notes. I don't mean just read them, I mean <em><strong>"drill down,"</strong></em> since major improvements are not discussed as a top-level item.
</p><p>The Firefox organization needs to learn about and incorporate <em>Expectations Management.</em>
</p><p>For whatever reasons, continual major upgrades do dissuade me from FF; I find myself moving toward Chrome, too.
</p><p>Unfortunately.
</p>I hope these discussions will reach a rather obvious conclusion soon, as the current situation with 2012-03-21T20:54:50-07:00TheBlackCathttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-321152<p>I hope these discussions will reach a rather obvious conclusion soon, as the current situation with upgrade cycles is a nightmare. Several of the clients I work for have 5.0 installed and do not update at quite such a frenetic pace.
</p><p>The suggestion about the ESR release was very interesting and one that has been put forward to them. Ubuntu uses a <a href="http://yy.mm" rel="nofollow">yy.mm</a> version system which is FAR more sensible than the one now being used for Firefox releases. On seeing the ESR release schedule showing version 24 in just over a years time was met with plenty of questions. Repackaging so often is a time consuming task to deploy the update across hundreds of desktops.
</p><p>I would urge a change to a date-based versioning system to avoid an exodus of users, who like me have been loyal since the beginning but now feel the continual update cycle to be a pain. The few test extensions I had written would need constant revision so they have been shelved. Test systems built to test each version so often is just plain daft.
</p><p>You are playing into the hands of IE and Chrome will this constant meddling just to bump up another version number. Please reconsider....
</p>I agree with the poster above. Too many new releases!
It makes it look like Firefox has no developm2012-03-21T12:15:46-07:00rangjuthttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-321103<p>I agree with the poster above. Too many new releases!
</p><p>It makes it look like Firefox has no development roadmap.
And inconvenient for users and plugin writers.
</p>There are discussions to move Firefox from a x.0 based versioning system to a date based versioning 2012-03-13T23:23:27-07:00user633449https://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-319016<p>There are discussions to move Firefox from a x.0 based versioning system to a date based versioning system (somewhat like Ubuntu uses, mm.yy). However, none of those discussions have reached fruition yet.
</p><p>There is an ESR of Firefox, which is an Extended Support Release. This version received security and stability updates, but not new features updates, for a year. So, instead of going from 8 to 9 to 10, this version goes like this 10.0.1 to 10.0.2, etc. Until next year, when it will receive an update to what will probably be Firefo 17, when it begins the process again. It isn't really recommended for most users, but if you need more stability in your version numbers, I would switch to the ESR. You can read about it at <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/</a>.
</p><p>I would try giving it a go. Firefox 3.6 is not going to be supported after April of this year, so you won't receive any more security or stability updates.
</p>Now the stampede to have a new higher major version number every x weeks is just plain daft and the 2012-03-13T21:11:45-07:00TheBlackCathttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-318999<p>Now the stampede to have a new higher major version number every x weeks is just plain daft and the point releases shortly thereafter merely point at insufficient testing of code.
</p><p>How about getting a sensible version system, say 12 for the year and a point release each month? A system where you can instantly tell when it was updated, ie. 12.2 for February 2012.
</p><p>I still use 3.6 for what it is worth. Some of the addons I find essential to online life are not compatible with FF 5, 6, 7, 9, etc. Usually a major version is released for a MAJOR change to the program, not that we added a cool new feature!
</p><p>Your current release mechanism is daft in the extreme, as pointed out in the proceeding posts to this. Simply saying upgrade is not really an option unless you wish to alienate the loyal user base that made you what you are!
</p>Excuse me...don't talk to me as to why the new versions are happening; I want to know why my comput2012-01-15T10:53:32-08:00cynth.mchughhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-299004<p>Excuse me...don't talk to me as to why the new versions are happening; I want to know why my computer keeps crashing. AND the problem is with Firefox! Yesterday is took 2 1/2 hours to get on-line because before I could get anywhere while FIREFOX crashed.
</p>Let me pose a very blunt, hypothetical question: what is the upside of developing the most up-to-dat2011-12-30T23:36:29-08:00musetekhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-293185<p>Let me pose a very blunt, hypothetical question: what is the upside of developing the most up-to-date (which is an ephemeral notion, at best), robust, feature-packed application... if at the end of the day you've so confused, consternated and downright alienated people that you no longer have a user base?
</p><p>No auto-upgrade means inconvenienced, disgruntled users. Rapidly changing versions means confused users. Lack of support means users grasping for help or, sooner or later, for a viable and less disruptive alternative. Does any of this sound good to you?
</p><p>I've been a Firefox user almost since it first came out. I like it. It's relatively lean &amp; mean and highly configurable. It's open source and conforms to standards as well as anything out there. I even love the little foxy logo, it gives me the warm &amp; fuzzies. But with what I'm reading in this thread, plus the problems I'm seeing with the latest version and lack of kb articles / response I'm getting to my post, I think it's time to go download Chrome.
</p><p>That's sad.
</p>Firefox 9 was released on 12-20 and 9.0.1 followed a few days later - not a Beta version.
2011-12-30T22:01:58-08:00the-edmeisterhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-293178<p>Firefox 9 was released on 12-20 and 9.0.1 followed a few days later - not a Beta version.
</p>I just got a notice to update/upgrade to 9.0.1 for security reasons, but am using 8.0 (highest relea2011-12-30T21:53:07-08:00BrianHhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-293176<p>I just got a notice to update/upgrade to 9.0.1 for security reasons, but am using 8.0 (highest release permitted for the online employer I work for). The system seems to think I am still part of the beta release channel, but I've done my damnedest to get off it. There is no info ANYWHERE that I can find about how to do that, other than installing an older version than the beta (which I <em><strong>assume </strong></em>is still 9.0). Done that, but as noted, it's not enough.
</p><p>To be crystal clear: <strong>tell me how to get completely off the beta release channel.</strong>
</p>Another question just occurred to me.
If FireFox is going to be putting a new major version out ever2011-12-18T06:34:51-08:00seybernetxhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-288560<p>Another question just occurred to me.
</p><p>If FireFox is going to be putting a new major version out every month and a half, why do they even show the version point numbers? Every release is going to be 'n.0.0' version under this system -- there isn't enough time to release a point system unless they skip testing entirely.
</p>Kriknos,you are the first person to actually attempt to answer the question, and for that I deeply t2011-12-17T11:21:15-08:00seybernetxhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-288355<p><i>Kriknos</i>,you are the first person to actually attempt to answer the question, and for that I deeply thank you. People like <i>cor-el</i> and <i>the-edmeister</i> seem to think 'shut up and use it' is an answer, and it really isn't.
</p><p>That said, is it really necessary to force every single user to serve as an unwilling beta-tester for every two-bit patch? Some people just want to surf the web, without having to manually update their browser every few weeks. Large companies have a testing process they have to go through before distributing an upgrade to what might be hundreds or thousands of computers. A new release cycle the same length as their testing process is little more than an argument for scrapping firefox.
</p><p>If the goal is to make firefox a browser developed by developers, for developers, with no interest in having a user base, firefox is doing it about perfect.
</p><p>If they really want a user base, even a little, the developers need to look outside their Ivory Tower.
</p><p>I quit using firefox for several versions once upon a time, and survived; I can do it again. (and I won't be alone)
</p>While this question is several weeks old I thought it does deserve a good answer and as of a week a2011-12-06T13:23:15-08:00Kriknoshttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-284303<p>While this question is several weeks old I thought it does deserve a good answer and as of a week a go some are still looking for one.
</p><p>Take a look at the list on <a href="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/" rel="nofollow">https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/</a>. Features like WebGL, Websockets, 3d CSS transformations, File API, Geolocation and many more are all new. This is all part of HTML5 and CSS3, or more generically referred to as Web 2.0. With that many new technologies I am sure the accelerated release schedule was needed so they could put these features out to let developers start using them, so that mozilla (and others) could get feedback and with that feedback they then could make more changes and additions. There is just way too much there to implement all at once without it leading to a nightmarish number of bugs and even security wholes, potentially dooming them to a loss of market share. It could be argued that the accelerated release was the best way to go about this many major changes.
</p><p>I'll point to Websockets, they started implementing them in 4 but it was disabled do to security issues. It wasn't till August of this year (if I remember correctly) that a protocol was available to make it secure. And while I think version 7 had that protocol it wasn't till version 8 that Websockets was enabled by default in the browser. Then there is WebGL were many a problem has arisen with graphic card drivers and them having to eventually resort to banning some graphics card from being used with WebGL . And I would guess some of the other technologies have faced simpler issues I just haven't looked into them as much.
</p><p>Even now Firefox still doesn't fully support WebGL or 3d CSS and I know a new protocol is in the works for Websockets. If I am not mistaken all the major browsers are on an accelerated release schedules to get all these new technologies implemented. And beyond the technologies in that list there are others they don't even mention, like WebCL and possibly others. I would fully expect the accelerated release schedule to continue for the foreseeable future. But when they get through implementing all these new technologies the face of the internet will have been drastically changed, and arguably for the better.
</p>This just seems like a bs marketing technique in order to raise the version number equal or higher t2011-11-26T02:59:24-08:00macinmnhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-280060<p>This just seems like a bs marketing technique in order to raise the version number equal or higher than IE. The only people that this will impress are those that won't install (or even know what one is), a 3rd party browser anyway. I'm getting quite irritated about it myself and am considering stopping use of it, considering 3 more annoying releases are due out in the next few months.
</p><p>At first launch, "v8" has no immediately noticeable improvements to me over v7, v6, v5. Spreadsheet formulas get confused when you reference the same cell as an input as the end result. ie. paraphrase of 'We're releasing them faster because we're releasing them faster.' No reason to think people don't get confused either by this logic.
</p>"/its-not-about-the-version-numbers-its-about-extension-compatibility-and-long-term-support/"
There 2011-11-23T20:15:08-08:00forumposterhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-279348<p>"/its-not-about-the-version-numbers-its-about-extension-compatibility-and-long-term-support/"
</p><p>There is something of an irony in that URL phrase! How can it be 'long-term' when the release is now so short lived! And given that plugins/extensions are often no longer compatible with the next major release... Or is there something I'm missing here?
</p><p>Why is it that adding a new feature MUST mean a new major release? Cannot features still be added to point releases (e.g. 8.1 to 8.2) with minor releases (8.2.1 to 8.2.2) being reserved for bug fixes and security updates (unless the latter adds a major new security feature)? I though major releases came out maybe one or at most twice a year and were reserved for major overhauls including major look and feel changes or re-engineering for compatibility with a major new operating system version.
</p><p>"No, the new major version replaces the previous version just like in the past with minor updates and that makes previous versions become unsupported older 'versions (there will no longer be minor updates)."
</p><p><strong>In that case the auto-update facility must also be changed to allow the currently installed version to be updated to the next new major release (as IE does). This is essential if we are to keep up with each new release.</strong>
</p><p>AlexLais, I'm now also leaning towards Chrome. It seems fastert and slicker. If only it had a NoScript plugin...
</p>So do we tell our clients that they should not use Firefox 4, 5, 6 or 7 when they come to us reporti2011-11-21T11:07:19-08:00Clearflyhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-278412<p>So do we tell our clients that they should not use Firefox 4, 5, 6 or 7 when they come to us reporting issues with those browsers as they are no longer supported?
I had a client today reporting Firefox 8.0 crashes when using JfileUpload (it's throwing some kind of GL rending error in the Java App)
So do i tell him to go back to 3.6 which doesn't have the problem or to upgrade to Firefox 9.0 which may or may not have the problem?
</p><p>Go back to the slower dev cycle where you released Quality less often rather than junk buggy software more often and get away from this ego based marketing ploy.
</p><p>I Still develop in FF 3.6 and now have about 8 - 10 versions of FF and Chrome each as Portable Apps for testing. The Joke used to be that we needed to maintain 3-4 versions of IE. Now the jokes on you.
</p>The basic concept is to bring new features to Firefox user's a lot quicker, when they are ready. Ins2011-11-21T05:37:01-08:00the-edmeisterhttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-278297<p>The basic concept is to bring new features to Firefox user's a lot quicker, when they are ready. Instead of something new waiting 14 months <em>(in the case of the Firefox 4 release)</em>, a new feature can be introduced in 6 weeks - assuming it was ready-to-go when the last release version was compiled and the new feature <em>just missed</em> the cut-off for the last version.
</p><p><a href="http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/its-not-about-the-version-numbers-its-about-extension-compatibility-and-long-term-support/" rel="nofollow">http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/its-not-about-the-version-numbers-its-about-extension-compatibility-and-long-term-support/</a>
</p><p><br>
The old way of doing releases, every 12 to 14 months, may have worked fine when IE, Safari, Opera, and Firefox were the only players in the game, but with Google Chrome coming out with new features every couple of months Mozilla decided that they needed t0 step up their game with Firefox.
</p><p><br>
We'll keep the light on for you.
</p>It seems like they cannot give a better answer to the question "Why so many new major versions?" oth2011-11-21T04:53:30-08:00AlexLaishttps://support.mozilla.org/mk/questions/896705#answer-278280<p>It seems like they cannot give a better answer to the question "Why so many new major versions?" other than it has changed to a "rapid release cycle". Well that doesn't answer the question.
I wonder how can these constant updates make it better or easier to anyone, it is only frustrating to me and sure to everyone else who uses firefox. And by the way we are slowly switching to chrome for a better user experience. Firefox is no longer my preferred browser, enough is enough.
</p>