

Firefox 6 already? Mozilla please stop this game - jnye131
http://johnnye.net/articles/firefox-6-already.html

======
greenie
I, for one, welcome the fast release cycle. To me the version number isn't
important, new features are.

Look at how long it previously took Mozilla to get major releases (and major
features) out the door:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox#Release_hist...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox#Release_history)

The web evolves at a rapid pace. Now that browser vendors are implementing new
features at a faster rate, developers can deliver better experiences to end
users with a greater degree of certainty that each will have the same
experience the developer intended.

~~~
nolok
He isn't complaining about the fast release cycle at all, he just want its
browser to do it without interrupting his workflow and disabling all of his
plugins. You know, kind of like chrome.

~~~
greenie
So if this is just an issue of certain add-ons being disabled because they're
incompatible with X version of Firefox (something that's always been the
case), then we're merely in a transitional phase where the good developers
with popular add-ons will have to adjust their development cycle to fit with
this new trend.

------
modeless
He's not just complaining about the release schedule; he's complaining about
the numerous and intrusive dialog boxes that pop up whenever Firefox's major
version number is increased. Mozilla needs to remove every last one of those
dialog boxes and make major version updates as silent as they are in Chrome.

~~~
unwantedLetters
He pointed out why that might not be possible. If an add-on is only supposed
to work from version 3.6-6.0, and Firefox silently updates to 7, the user
loses the add-on's functionality (and for many people, the only reason to use
firefox are the add-ons)

~~~
modeless
When an add-on is disabled some sort of notification is desirable, but it
doesn't have to come in the form of a modal dialog that blocks usage of the
browser. There's generally nothing a user can do about it anyway. Furthermore,
Mozilla could be doing a much better job of compatibility testing for the most
popular extensions to ensure they don't have to be disabled every upgrade.

------
jwcacces
Dude, fix that layout. Two tall vertical columns works nice in newspapers, not
on a screen that you have to scroll.

------
dkasper
It's not a game. It is a reaction to the fact that it took _forever_ for
Firefox 3 to come out.

------
mtogo
I'm really getting sick of people complaining about Firefox's release
schedule.

Look people, Firefox changed their version numbering system. _Why do the fuck
do you care?_ Does it really make that much a difference to you whether you're
on version 5, or 1.5, or 0.1.5, or 0.5, or 1.0.5? _No!_ So stop complaining.
If you don't like the versioning schedule, switch to a browser that has a
different schedule (Opera or Safari are the only two i can think of).

~~~
nolok
Haven't you read the article before commenting ? He isn't complaining about
the new versioning (although he mentions that he finds it stupid), what he
complains about is its implementation:

> Chrome is running on a major version update once every 6 weeks or so, but
> the beauty of chrome is that it’s silent and quiet, doesn’t interrupt the
> user. Google being the law unto themselves has decided on this major version
> system, and thats ok, because they hide it very well, most users aren’t
> bothered by it, or could find it if you asked them.

> Firefox updates on the other hand, are of the most obnoxious variety
> intrusive, inconvenient, and obstructive. It forces the user to make a
> choice to upgrade, forces the user to stop browsing then insists on taking a
> very long time to upgrade. Most intrusive. > Once upgraded it disables most
> the plugins as they are not yet compatible, thats the real catch, with the
> auto disable of all plugins till they are compatible I’m left with a version
> of firefox that basically doesn’t work for me.

