Mozilla Plans to Drop Version Numbers from Firefox

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Wow, Firefox just keeps screwing up. Hide the status bar, hide cache options, hide version numbers, what next - the address bar? Idiots.[/citation]

They should hide their current management...
 
This is so stupid.

I have an idea for them, make the version number after the compilation date (e.g. Firefox 11.08.16), tada! no more version worries.
 
I think it would be interesting.

Changelog would read:

2011-05-26
2011-06-18
2011-08-01
2011-10-07

etc.

And the Help -> About screen would tell you which update you have by date of release (2011-08-01).
 
I disagree with Mo. In the IT world version numbers are important. When you run into issues with versions its good to know what level you're at should you need to roll it back. Versions allow you to compare specific versions on more than one computer, for example, to see if same issue(s) exist on another computer with same 'version'. Also, I write queries for inventories and uninstall packages that are based on version numbers.

Just my 2cents.
 
Personally, I doubt that this will make a lot of difference. However, if they are smart, there will still be some means of identifying what "version" the currently installed software is.

I mean, think of it. They still need some means of versioning, otherwise, their own update program would never correctly identify whether or not an update is needed. Even a date / time stamp would work.
 
Yea, great idea, take away the one reason people ever look at the About screen. Better idea, rename About to Version, and leave it alone. You get to drop the About screen, and I get to keep my one click Version access.
 
There should be an easier way to check your version number, but *most* people don't care or need to know about the version numbers. I mean, with the whole rapid release schedule, I never know what version of Chrome I'm running.
 
This wasn't about having a version number, but they did not want to be releasing Firefox 6 when you can see Chrome 13. It's a human instinct to assume that the appended numbers mean something, and so marketing kicks in to keep people from making assumptions that Chrome must be twice as good as Firefox because it's got twice the numbers after the name. Same reason Microsoft called it the XBox 360, because they didn't want XBox 2 against PS3.
 
I got a better idea. Instead of removing the version number, remove that annoying ass updater that pops up every time I own Firefox. After me repeatedly closing the "update" notice, it finally decided last night that it was going to attempt to download and install Firefox 6 beta on it's own. Sometimes, I love Norton Sonar....especially when it prevents apps like Firefox from "updating" to a beta release against my will. If Firefox is going to go the way of Chrome, I'll dump Firefox. The "updater" reminded me too much of spyware....as goes Google Chrome in general...sorry, if I have no control over the software, including updating it. It's malware....period.
 
Soo... its offical.

Mozilla FireFox has gone full retard.

Well, since I use it as a test browser - I'll lock its update function where its at (4.-whatever) and let it rot.

This is stupid... I hope a lot of devs leave FF. When a company or group start doing stupid crap like this, its all downhill. Chrome is already stupid with version 12 in 2 years or so. Going from 4~6 in 3 months is BS and anyone with 5 brain cells knows it.

Oh... I made the mistake of upgrading to Thunderbird 5 - which looks like crap, even thou its more Win7 stylish. Think I'll dump that too.
 
[citation][nom]phatboe[/nom]looks like I will be moving onto Opera[/citation]

FireFox 4~6 has copied the look of Opera... Seriously. And nowhere near as functional or as good.

I'm tired of the constant updates and pop ups with Chrome and FF.

Opera better not copy them... otherwise we'll be using version 121.0 in 2-3 years.

Yeah.. skip that, we'll jump from Chrome 12 to Chrome 24 because (A) 13 is an unlucky number and (B) we think its twice as good as Chromee 12!!

Idiots
 
Maybe, I should be going back to IE.

I think we all agree that it is a bad idea to hide the version number. If they considered this an option worth promoting, we need to start looking elsewhere.
 
[citation][nom]_Cubase_[/nom]I can imagine their creative meetings:Guy 1: "Let's rapidly update version numbers!"Guy 2: "That may be hard to keep track of"Guy 1: "Good point, we'll remove them all together"Guy 2: "Then how are people going to know what version they are using?"Guy 1: "We will name them after Animals!"Guy 2: "Like Apple?"Guy 1: "That's a fruit, dumbass!"Guy 2: *facepalm*[/citation]

Maybe they're taking after Ubuntu! :-|
 
Having a version number matters. Sometimes it's ok to want to NOT upgrade so your extensions work. You can't just go back to version n-1 if you can't find what version you're on.

Seriously, it's just a number in the about menu, you can market it as "Firefox-Return of the Jedi" for all I care once I can easily find out the version I'm on.

And for the idiots who suggest looking at the revision date, that's a NUMBER too, just with more digits. Dumbass!
 
Hey lets drop version numbers so we won't know why our addons won't work and developers won't know what the hell they're supposed to do. Great idea!
 
"There was no information which version of Firefox will be dropping the version number first."

Well of course not. They didn't want to confuse you with version numbers...
 
[citation][nom]jescott418[/nom]This reminds me of AMD when it was losing the battle with Intel over CPU speeds. So it decided to change its model numbers to not reflect at what speed they ran at. I think it was a desperate move for AMD to cover up its failings in developing its CPU's and I think Firefox is doing the same.[/citation]Not even remotely the same. AMD wasn't losing a "CPU speed" battle when they introduced Athlon XP. As a matter of fact, this was around when Intel dumped the steaming turd known as the Pentium 4 on the world. AMD was far ahead of Intel in terms of IPC against the P4. We had hit the point where clockspeed alone didn't tell you anything about the processor's performance (relative to anything other than another CPU in the same family differing only in clockspeed).

Nowadays model numbers are (somewhat necessarily) quite a bit more complex, and only hardware junkies can readily decipher them.[citation][nom]darkxuy[/nom]This is so stupid.I have an idea for them, make the version number after the compilation date (e.g. Firefox 11.08.16), tada! no more version worries.[/citation]So they can only compile once per day? Oh sorry, we left in a crippling bug in our forced-update, it's really easy to fix but we can't do anything because we already compiled it this morning. Yeah, we'll need you to wait for tomorrow, mmkay? Or maybe they have two versions, with internal version numbers, but with the same end-user-visible date_version?

What's so freaking wrong with a version number? Even if it's just a freaking build number stored in About?
 
If I have a problem with the newer (I had one the last month), how do I search for the older version???

Instead of looking for Firefox 5, I should search "penultimate Firefox"???
 
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]If I have a problem with the newer (I had one the last month), how do I search for the older version???Instead of looking for Firefox 5, I should search "penultimate Firefox"???[/citation]
I've been looging for version 4 recently but I wasn't able to find a download location. Still, 3.6 is available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom