Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodata | Hacker News Reader

True, but on the other hand people will get used to it, just like they did with Chrome. The version number doesn't matter, all that matters is that it works.

I like to see Mozilla responding. I don't know if development has speeded up, but it seems to have done. If they can keep this up without letting security slip I'll be impressed.

View on HN

The problem with Mozilla is that they make the actual number an important part of their communication. With Chrome on the other hand, you rarely hear about version numbers - you just know they exist and that you don't need to care.

Not anymore. Mozilla is dropping the version number everywhere, except where it matters. Notice how in the blog posts that there's no version numbers mentioned, anywhere:

http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/07/07/firefoxaur... http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/05/27/firefoxaur...

And it matters to extension makers. And those need constant repackaging especially for addons that are no more under active development.

That's no longer true.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387399,00.asp

I think this bolsters the criticism. Making a big deal about Firefox 3 did more to spread awareness of the browser than perhaps any other thing Mozilla has done. Version numbers used to be this well-articulated conceptual unit that got people to care about your browser.

Now, there's more count-downs to the big release date. No more Guinness World Records for downloads in a day. There is a gimmickiness about it, but I don't have a problem with that given how hard it already is to get laypeople to care about these things.

I don't think people were exposed to Chrome versions in the same way. I have no idea what version of Chrome I am running. I wasn't even aware that they had crept up major versions for a long time... in many ways this is ideal - I don't want or need to know 90% of the time :)

Chrome users in general do not use as many extensions as Firefox users, so they have less reason to worry about them breaking.

Do you have any proof of that? I'm genuinely interested.

Found this, although I don't think it's the original article I saw posted here: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/87484-85-of-firefox-user...

The difference is: Everything works with Chrome updates (plugins, configurations), everything is a mess with FF upates.

Chrome also doesn't throw version numbers around constantly and it silently auto-updates. I installed Chrome 9 when I switched away from Firefox, then I later saw an article about a new feature in Chrome 12 and was surprised when I was already running it.

Most people don't use chrome—thus, most people aren't used to it.

It's good Mozilla is moving forward at a rapid pace (particularly with the memory issues), but as long as the remainder of the software world is still in either the 90's slow release cycle or the 00's everything-is-a-beta-v0.x mindset, Firefox/Chrome will be aberrations.

I may learn to tolerate it, but that doesn't mean I'll get used to it.

Chrome's market share is above 20% now (Firefox's is below 30%, and IE's is below 50%).

I was going to say I'd heard different figures, but you're right: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/google-browser-idU...

You probably _have_ seen different figures.

Chrome market share is anywhere from 13% to 20% depending on the source.

Firefox market share is between 22% and 29% depending on the source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com