

Mozilla to remove Firefox version numbers - lmathews
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92792-mozilla-takes-firefox-version-number-removal-a-step-further

======
Groxx
I can _somewhat_ see the logic in this. Though I've never understood why the
"about" window is the location for updates in the first place (is it because
the version number is typically there?).

But removing them means royally screwing bug-hunting. You can't ask them what
channel they're on - what if they disabled automatic updates? What if their
employer did? You can't ask them what version they are on in two steps
(Firefox/Help => About), you'll have to send them... where? Some deep internal
about:something page that looks like merely _viewing_ it will destroy your
computer, and requires you to type something abnormal? And just _try_ getting
people to type something correctly, or explain to them what an "address bar"
is. Menus are known and relatively easy to traverse - they're just reading
text.

Not only that, but it'll make looking for information about bugs harder too,
because people will refer to channels more often, which rapidly becomes out-
of-date information with no way to know which version it applied to.

You want to remove version numbers from the notifications about updates?
Great! Big numbers aren't awesome for encouraging people to do things. But
don't _hide_ the version.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The version number is in about:troubleshooting which is in the help menu. And
Help|Troubleshooting seems like a much more logical place to go when bug-
hunting than Help|About.

~~~
unfocused
I think you meant about:support which takes you to the Troubleshooting
Information page.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Pretty ironic that confusion is brewing even among the technically savvy crowd
here. This probably proves the OP's point.

~~~
starwed
No? This is exactly the sort of "pedantry" the average user won't care about
-- they just click on a menu item to get there.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Isn't TFA about removing the menu item or am I missing something here?

~~~
starwed
The menu item I'm talking about is "Help->Troubleshooting". The change being
considered in the bug is regarding the "About" item.

~~~
unfocused
They should definitely get rid of about:support then. It's just not consistent
from a UI perspective. And yes, like the person above mentioned, if we can get
confused about it, an average user will just be really frustrated.

~~~
starwed
"Troubleshooting" takes you to _about:support_ , while "About" is the standard
about menu item that pops up version info, credits, and the like.

So clearly! your point about it being too confusing is wrong... =P

------
martingordon
Why not switch to Ubuntu-style version numbers? If they have to ship multiple
version in a month, either include the day in the version number or call it
Update X.

Using the date for the version number gets rid of any connotations associated
with versioning (a .1 release being smaller than a whole number release, or
that Firefox 7 is less advanced than Chrome 15 because its version number is
half of Chrome's) while still allowing users to identify what version they're
running.

~~~
smackfu
How do you use date-based version numbers for planning purposes? Do you have
another versioning system just to list what will be included in each release?

~~~
martingordon
With a rigid release schedule, it's easy to figure out the release date for a
given version. Luckily, Mozilla has already standardized on development cycles
of 18 weeks ([http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/07/19/every-
six-...](http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/07/19/every-six-weeks/))
staggered to result in releases every 6 weeks.

------
reemrevnivek
The title (of the blog post, and the submission mirrors that) is misleading.

There's a bug report (OK, so the report was submitted by Asa Dotzler
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler)>) but that doesn't make it a
planned feature quite yet - does it? It appears that it's still under
discussion.

~~~
unreal37
Asa is the product manager of that feature, so I think it's not a "bug report"
so much as a "assign this to a developer" request. Sounded like she just
wanted to make sure the translation team didn't have a problem with it.

~~~
asadotzler
I'm a "he".

------
courtewing
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about this. On one hand, I am
comfortable being able to get my software version number for pretty much any
app in a convenient place. On the other hand, the thought that web apps (and
perhaps apps in general) could transcend beyond the point where you even have
to think "which version are you running?" is really intriguing to me.

Software versions seem like one of the most visible technical aspects of the
software these days, and they matter very little to the average user. I think
versions become largely irrelevant to _most_ people once their software
reaches a point where they are constantly running the latest version.

That all said, what is the harm in having that version number appear in the
about window as well as the notification about the latest update. It seems
like an odd change for Mozilla to ruffle feathers with.

------
ck2
They are removing them because to be at Version 21 next December and still
work mostly like Firefox 6 is going to feel silly.

What ever happened to using MINOR version numbers?

Shouldn't Firefox 5 actually be 4.5 and Firefox 6 actually 4.6 ?

What are the huge major changes?

~~~
oconnore
What does this gain you? It doesn't matter what the version number is, so why
not make it a simple integer? Version numbers aren't a way to communicate
feature changes, you do that in release notes.

Your attitude towards version numbers is exactly what this change seeks to
eliminate.

~~~
chrislomax
I actually agree with c2k as major and minor releases do tend to give more
information than the integer releases.

I read a post the other week about a corporate user that was giving grief that
they had only just finished testing firefox 4 for corporate roll out and
firefox 5 had been released.

To corporate users, this situation is a nightmare. There is no clear
definition of a major update

I prefer the old release schedule of major.minor releases. I like the rapid
development it now has but I just don't like this rapid release version
numbering.

On a side note, since Firefox changed the way they were doing everything, I
switched to Chrome and so did everyone in my office. None us swayed each
others decisions, we all felt the same about Firefox. They have lost scope of
what is important, releasing stable versions of software. Firefox 4 was
dreadful, 5 was a little better. I feel like there is no effort in making the
release stable, it's just "let's sort it in the next one". I feel like they
are always going to be chasing their tales.

Before anyone comments, I know Chrome has the same release schedule but I feel
they are doing it a lot slicker than Mozilla is right now. Firefox changed the
world for me back in 2004 and now they have lost the edge.

~~~
trustfundbaby
Before anyone comments, I know Chrome has the same release schedule but I feel
they are doing it a lot slicker than Mozilla is right now.

\--------------------

No, you're right ... the problem with Firefox is that they changed the way the
were doing it mid way (which is odd) while Chrome has been doing it like that
from te jump

------
kia
From marketing point of view it's not a wise move. Consider how much press
announcing 'Firefox X is here' they lose. And each of these announcements can
potentially attract new users.

I think Chrome's fast growth can in part be attributed to by the constant
stream of news like 'Chrome 1,2,3,... released' which helped Google to build
recognition.

~~~
srl
Firefox isn't going to gain any valuable publicity that they don't already
have by announcing "Firefox X is here". Unlike Chrome, they're not in a
position to be making rapid gains - a large portion of what's left of the
market is companies using older versions of IE for compatibility reasons,
which aren't going to switch over on a whim.

Chrome had an advantage - it took a bite out of the large firefox market,
which was already prepped for 'trying new browsers'. While the constant
'Chrome Y released!' helped, Chrome would probably have risen nearly as fast
without it.

------
vdm
Software distribution is moving to the web; Chrome is blazing the trail and
showing what is possible. Mozilla blazed a trail themselves with Firefox,
without which Chrome may not exist, and are now acting rationally to avoid
being left behind.

The next step is to automate the update installation and process restart after
the update is downloaded. The next step after that may be to automate the page
refresh to view an updated render.

------
CrazedGeek
This seems a bit excessive and weird. Why does Mozilla assume that the About
Firefox window is where users go to see if an update is available? Even if
that's true, why hide the version number? Chrome doesn't, and it's hardly
confused people there.

~~~
iamdave
_This seems a bit excessive and weird._

One of the primary reasons I declared Chrome my browser of choice (this was
among other reasons, mind you) was that just around Firefox 3 there came a
time when I had to update it seemed almost daily. To keep my foot out of my
mouth, I checked to see if maybe there were settings on my system that were
coming undone upon shutdown and boot, negative. I grew quite annoyed that
every time I launched I had to go through an update process _again_.

This is a change I personally am in favor of, and can only assume is the case
for other non-power users of the browser. Thankfully though they're making
that information available still through the about:support page for people who
find that information relevant.

------
yesimahuman
I think it's the right move. Today I was shocked that FF 6 was already out and
I went searching to see if anything new had been added. Less-important version
numbers will train people to expect gradual improvements rather than drastic
changes so they won't be disappointed.

------
ubertaco
I get what they're doing here -- it's a response to the huge backlash in their
new rapid-versioning process. But maybe they're being a bit overzealous.

I think the version numbering needs to stay in the About window, but it should
be less emphasized. Today, their whole roadmap is about "Firefox 6! Firefox
7!" and so on. They wave each major version number around like some sort of
banner when lately very few (if any) major features/improvements are observed
between major versions.

I think they need to just swallow their pride and bogart the Chrome model:
version number is in "about" if you need it -- other than that, it stays out
of the way while the browser autoupdates itself.

------
johnohara
I've always liked displaying a name followed by a 'build number.' It's simple,
straightforward and easy-to-understand.

------
afhof
Just out of curiosity, how will the user-agent string read?

~~~
srl
It won't change - it's not user-visible, it's just for other developers, who
do, in fact, have an interest in the version.

------
flocial
Complete removal seems a bit much. Why not the last revision number from their
scm? Not sure why they keep insisting on going down this path. Version numbers
and release schedules can be separate. They may be taking a page out of
Chrome's playbook but their updates happen much more frequently and I think
they push minor revisions in binary form instead of a wholesale update. All
the latest updates to FF have been great and 7 will be really nice if it is as
memory efficient as they say but seeing them having an identity crisis after
waking up to strong competition doesn't impress.

------
bartl
If I see a new feature in Firefox is going to appear in Firefox 8, to me,
version numbers are just out of control. In that case, reducing the relevancy
of the version number makes sense. But I feel that, and I'm sure many
developers feel the same way, if a software is not rewritten from scratch but
instead is incrementally updated, that the major version number shouldn't
change. I prefer Firefox 4.123 over Firefox 11.

~~~
rpearl
That's just not the way a LOT of software works these days. For example, what
version is facebook on? Do you know? Does it matter? What version is gmail on?

Chrome users only know what version they're on if they go and look at "about"
but features are added all the time. You can't even find the chrome version
number on their website--at least, I couldn't.

Linux changed to version 3.0 for no discernible reason. Emacs jumped from
version 1 to version 13; versions 2 through 12 just didn't exist at all. Did
it matter? No. It's just a number.

------
pacifika
It will help supporting Firefox because there will just be two versions that
matter: the up to date version, and the old version (which is any older
version).

This simplifies any solution and troubleshooting, it either works in the
current version, or Firefox will update - if it's connected to the internet.
Which means eventually, Firefox is always up to date and there will no old
versions and therefore no issues.

------
ryanackley
There has been some schizophrenic behavior around version numbers at Mozilla
lately. Version 5.0 should have been more like version 4.1 and now they're
just getting rid of them? I can't help but see it as a case of Chrome envy.
It's kind of silly.

I think the two browsers are pretty closely matched. There is no need to have
a "version" measuring contest.

------
jasonallen
Great news! Mozilla is finally accepting Chrome's good innovations. Now for a
unified search bar...

~~~
cookiecaper
This won't happen upstream because to get suggestions from a unified search
bar, everything you type, including full addresses, must be sent to your
search engine for suggestions. With a separate search bar, it is at least
clear that you expect what you are typing to be sent to the search provider,
and Firefox assumes you don't mind autocomplete features in that case. It is a
different story, however, when records subpoenaed from Google include
"<http://p\>, "<http://p-o\>, "<http://p-o-r\>, "<http://p-o-r-n\>. There may
be a reason you're typing a string in the address bar instead of the search
bar, after all...

Additionally, separation allows Awesome Bar to work better since it doesn't
have to clutter the results with search suggestions.

However, if you like that functionality, there are multiple extensions that
provide it. I've used Omnibar in the past.

------
smackfu
Is this a good idea? Maybe. Is it such a good idea that it is worth yet
another fight with the userbase? No way. Will the Firefox team members dig in,
get defensive, and make the change anyways now? Almost surely.

------
mikaelgramont
Further discussion at
[http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_...](http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_thread/thread/fe75ec92c02be934#)

------
ChrisArchitect
as with web apps, version numbers don't matter at the front -- features do.
The Build numbers and versions should stay in there where people who need to
can find them though, ala Chrome...

------
edandersen
The very long thread on Bugzilla regarding this -
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775>

------
malkia
Oh no! No more cake!

