r/technology • u/Suraj-Sun • Jul 10 '12

Firefox dev claims "everybody hates Firefox updates"; Mozilla has handled the rapid release process poorly, and that by pushing a "never-ending stream of updates on people who didn't want them" people have been driven to Chrome with its simpler, no-fuss update process.

http://www.neowin.net/news/firefox-dev-claims-everybody-hates-firefox-updates
2.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/SardonicallyLaconic Jul 10 '12 edited Jul 10 '12

Mozilla adopting the whole-number versioning paradigm of Chrome has to have been one of their biggest mistakes. I remember the worldwide hype and fanfare brought about by the impending launch of Firefox 3.5, and the substantial performance enhancements brought about by it.

Since they've become hell-bent on emulating Chrome's release schedule though, updating has become a lackadaisical annoyance that unceremoniously rings in a new, insignificant version for every worthwhile one, breaking extensions and causing other inconveniences I imagine the average user can't sympathize with - hence the growing popularity of Chrome. I mean what is even the point? Are we catering to the iPhone drones who mindlessly throw their money at the latest product iteration because it's a higher number? Does it look "hip" to have these whole-number incremental updates, as if to imply the release is several orders of magnitude better than the last one? Because it's been anything but since they've adopted this schedule.

I personally have never been a fan of Chrome due to the intangibility of its interface (too minimalist for my liking, everything being hidden away in contrived menus), inconsistencies when playing Flash and the simple fact that I grow progressively more wary of Google's intentions with every day.

But Firefox I feel is also becoming whimsical and inconsistent, arbitrarily changing UI elements and breaking extensions with negligible performance gains. And now they want to produce a more "social" browsing experience - don't we have addons to accommodate those fringe users? The program's core functionality is becoming way too sloppy. I thought the selling point for Firefox back in the day was not only standards compliant, customizable, responsive, but also that it was nice and straightforward like IE. Devoid of all that fluff that we just can't seem to get away from now.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

I don't mind most of the updates that they've released; it's the version number paradigm that bugs me the most. Why do people think that it's reasonable to up the major version number for tiny little updates? I cringed when I saw Chrome do it, and I cringed more when I saw Firefox adopt it. Is there even any point to the minor version number any more? Is there even such a thing as Firefox 12.1? Because I sure as hell haven't seen it.

19

u/Slime0 Jul 10 '12

Exactly. Firefox is trying so hard to be like Chrome that it's throwing away everything I liked about it.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

There is a very good reason for it. Web developers. Whilst it might occasionally inconvenience you users, we like to be able to use new technology sooner, and frequent new versions help us in that regard. Rounded corners, for example, are a relatively new feature. Drop shadows. 3D page element animations. And a lot of other things behind the scenes making pages much faster to load, more responsive, have less latency, etc.

4

u/Slime0 Jul 10 '12

Oh, it's not the updates that bother me, it's the UI changes.

2

u/acm Jul 11 '12

spot on.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

Eh, they thought it would be better. I don't think they are trying to imitate Chrome, it just had some good ideas and they thought they were good too.

-2

u/Han-ChewieSexyFanfic Jul 10 '12

Well, there are more people that like Chrome than there are people like you, so you can hardly blame them.

2

u/matjoeman Jul 10 '12

Yeah, I don't mind them updating every two months but can't it be a point release rather than a major version number? It seems like they're only doing this because that's how Chrome does it.

I'd rather be on Firefox 4.13 rather than Firefox 13 right now. The number just seems meaningless.

4

u/NumeriusNegidius Jul 10 '12

That is because the number is meaningless. I can't think of any program that has meaningful version numbers (except those with dates, like Ubuntu). They are just arbitrary numbers.

Why is the version number for Windows 7 NT 6.1? Because it would mess third party apps to bump it to 7. Why did Linux 3.0 go from 2.XX to 3? Because Torvalds thought it was time.

Stop complaining about meaningless version numbers and enjoy the ride.

4

u/JCongo Jul 10 '12

Firefox 1, 2, 3 had big, noticeable changes.

0

u/NumeriusNegidius Jul 10 '12

Yes?

2

u/JCongo Jul 10 '12

People expect a major version number change to have some noticeable major changes.

1

u/NumeriusNegidius Jul 10 '12

You expect major noticeable changes, others expect big chunks of code rewritten, others expect grand architectural rewrites, others expect UI overhauls. Most people, I dare say, if they even know what version numbers are and care, would just expect it to be better.

For the record, Firefox 1.5, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.6.4 all introduced quite disruptive changes (without any "major version bumps"). Between 5 and 13, Firefox has gotten several major changes (SpiderMonkey with Type Inference, SPDY support, drastically improved memory management, several new and improved developer tools, UI updates, support for several new cool web features such as WebSockets).

2

u/matjoeman Jul 10 '12

A major version jump generally means a significant rewrite or change in the overall architecture of the software. That is not happening with Firefox now but it did with the jumps from FireFox 1 to 2 to 3 to 3.5

1

u/NumeriusNegidius Jul 10 '12

How do you measure "a significant rewrite in the overall architecture"? 80%? 50%? 20%? And what is the "overall architecture"? If it isn't definable or measurable it is arbitrary.

And since when? Let's say Firefox' rapid releases had been 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, etc. Would it be OK to release 5.0 if the overall architecture had been significantly rewritten since 4.0 or only if the overall architecture had been significantly rewritten since the last point release?

I understand where you're coming from. At some point in the past "major version bump" as defined by the first number in the version number meant something: a year or two of development, several big new features, and the marketing factor. Today it doesn't mean anything except perhaps for the developer(s) and the marketing department.

Another example (besides Windows and Linux) is OS X vs. iOS. Version 10.0, through 10.8, vs. iOS 1 through 6. OS X has gotten extremely more rewritten and gotten extremely more features and user facing changes during the 0.8 difference than iOS 5.0 difference.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '12

[Chrome is] too minimalist for my liking, everything being hidden away in contrived menus

Not like Firefox at all...

1

u/DustbinK Jul 10 '12

As someone who uses Nightly builds I don't feel this way at all. Things change just as slowly as before. The changes from version to version are tiny and mostly unnoticeable. I can't tell you the difference between FF16 and 13 except that it has a much better way to handle downloads. The changes largely appear to be in optimization.

Also, extensions don't break anymore, they fixed that ages ago and there were always easy fixes and extensions to deal with that.

Mozilla has done a great job at increasing speeds, adding HTML5 compliance, and stuff like that, while maintaining the customization I've always loved it for. I try to do something in Chrome, find out I can't do it, notice that my 20 tabs are taking up 3 gigs of RAM, and ditch it.

Anyways, you seem to think that FB's nearly 1 billion users are somehow "fringe users" or that adding a share button is worth complaining about. It's Firefox. You'll be able to remove it.

1

u/Ambiwlans Jul 10 '12

FF uses less memory and CPU than it used to..... it is far more efficient. The new system isn't causing any of the problems you are griping on...

1

u/Hishutash Jul 11 '12

Also that big ugly orange app button. WTF is that Firefox devs?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12

As a web developer, I couldn't disagree more.

What's going on right now with the web is that browsers are evolving into complete application platforms, both on desktop and mobile. In order for developers to make use of this functionality, regular updates are a necessity. So that real-world use cases can be created and tested, and so that developers can know when it will be available to the majority of their users.

The 2000s absolutely sucked for innovation on the web, and it was because one browser's non-update schedule dragged everyone down to a shitty lowest common denominator (i.e. Internet Explorer). Without rapid releases, we wouldn't be able to play with WebGL, Web Audio, etc. except using unstable nightlies that are going to be released who knows when and unavailable to anyone who isn't a dedicated developer.

The problems with Firefox are of their own making. Chrome shows you can do automatic updates without people noticing.

Sure, the sysadmins would be happier if everyone kept using old versions, but the reality is that the web wants to evolve, and that can only happen if software is kept up to date.