You can't compare a patch to a car recall - at best, you can compare it to a modification on how the car is assembled. It wasn't that long ago that, say, the Peugeot 205's manufacturing process was tweaked so often that it is now considered that no more than 5 cars of the series were exactly identical - here, a different way to fold the iron sheet, there a slightly different bumper bolt, or there a different diameter pipe for the fuel line... Once a year maybe, a more major overhaul would be made to formally integrate those tweaks and add some that the engineers came up with, or a new engine block, or whatever.
The end result was that the car gradually became better and better; the first ones were good, and perfectly usable cars, but the latter ones had slightly better handling and were a bit safer, had better mileage, and when older, would have less rattling pieces all around. It was pretty much the same car at the beginning and at the end, with the same qualities and failings - but the former were improved and the latter smoothed.
Japanese car makers were very, very good at it - US car makers much less so, preferring to get a completely new model out once every couple of years.
Now, compare Firefox or Chrome to Internet Explorer: IE typically is slightly above the competition when it gets out, is caught up with in a matter of weeks, and is left in the dust 6 months later - and you have to wait for an extra 18 months to get the new one.
Having taken part to the IE9 beta program (bug reports etc.) I can tell you that Microsoft's turnaround on fixes, even on software which isn't out yet, is the crappiest of all browser makers out there: it took from 2 to 7 months for a bug report, complete with reproduction steps, to be acknowledged, and it was 50/50 between a WONTFIX resolution and a fix.
Compared to that, Mozilla is a dream to work with.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram