Slashdot Mirror
Google Schedules Chrome 6, 7, and 8 For This Year
An anonymous reader writes "Google said that it will be releasing a new stable version of Chrome every six weeks, which is about twice as fast as the release pace today. The goal is to make new features available when they are done and to make Chrome releases more predictable. Has anyone complained that there were too few new Chrome releases? Mozilla has been releasing a major new browser update twice a year and Microsoft is on an 18-24 month pace. Firefox's 4.0 Beta 2 is scheduled for release soon, and it appears that Mozilla is somewhat paranoid about the Black Hat Conference. 3.6.6 was planned to be the original 'Black Hat release'; now we are at version 3.6.7 and Mozilla has already a build candidate of 3.6.8 that will be released depending on news coming out of Black Hat."
Maybe because "Internet Explorer 9" sounds better than "Chrome 5" to some people just because of the version number.
So are these all beta's?
the average joe might think the IE 8 is better than Chrome 5 or FF 4... Just a thought
It gets upgraded automatically anyway, no reason to encourage people there... (yes, I do hope, perhaps in vain, that it doesn't affect the decisions on the level of "I can't use this browser, it has too low number")
One that hath name thou can not otter
What happens after version 12? Do we go to version 13 or skip that like buildings do with floors?
Anyway Firefox V4.0 is in beta, while 3.7 is still in alpha.
Anyone that says, "Oh, Internet Explorer 9 is better than Chrome 5" is an idiot.
That's like saying, "Terminator 4 is clearly better than The Godfather, look it's 3 versions newer!"
MABASPLOOM!
Certainly, there have been complaints that features that are stable in the beta channel not being in stable; having more frequent feature releases to stable addresses that.
As it is, Chrome 2.0 should have been the 1.0 RTM, with everything before being a 0.x public release candidate(probably 0.5 onward). 3.0 simply added initial support for HTML 5 and improved code, a point release. 4.0 seems pretty real, so that might be have been a 2.0 in traditional terms. Probably by the upcoming version is a credible for real 3.0.
Version numbering really does not matter, but to assert that releasing a version every six weeks is necessary to release features more often is silly. What Google is in fact saying is that Chrome is a very immature browser with a very immature feature set, and they are wiling to sacrifice everything else that once made Chrome a legitimate browser in an effort to make it buzzword compliant.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Seems like the most logical explaination to me as well. This is Mozilla's golden chance to end the browser war with one fell swoop by rebranding!
I always thought using Emacs 23 to browse the web was at least 4 years ahead of its time.
I won't be happy until my browser updates every time I launch it and at least once an hour while I'm browsing. And the updates should force an automatic restart.
Mozilla has just released Firefox 3.6.8, a 'chemspill' release to fix a regression that could allow exploitability. If anything is found at Black Hat, they'll release Firefox 3.6.9.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Google:
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:
Spying on Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Chinese market over freedom of speech
Rehashed Programming languages over some new ideas
Rush jobs over tested software?... dunno, well see...
That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.
is not always good. If you are talking about changes like Safari 4 to 5 where nothing changed much in terms of interface and user interaction, it's just a version number. But if you start monkeying around with the UI and changing things that quickly. You make people mad.
As an example I'll use Blender 3D. I used to work as the IT guy in a post production shop that mostly used Lightwave about a decade ago. I got to learn some of the basics, but 3D was a hobby along with video editing. I did some work on the side with FCP, but all the 3D work I did was pure fun & hobby. I was no where near talented enough to do it pro and the $2000 price tag of Lightwave made it a bit pricey (especially given the rendering times). Blender became usable for my goals in the 2.3x series and best of all I could get relatively cheap distributed rendering. I forget the exact details, but it was something like $50 per month unlimited frames of Blender. And I could do it month to month. So basically I'd create my scenes. That usually would take 3 - 5 months to get a few minutes of video. Once I had enough scenes to render about 5 minutes worth of animation, I'd buy a month subscription to the service and render away with multiple passes, etc..
Well, then things started to change with the 2.4x version where it seemed like just as I got used to the new interface, boom, everything suddenly changed and I'd spent the next month trying to figure out where all the old buttons went and what the new ones did. Then the physics engine changed and all the previous scenes I had with particles effects would have to be redone and this continued it seemed like every 6 months. As someone who got to use the program a few hours a week, it seemed like every 6 months I was trying to relearn a program I had been using since 2000.
Meanwhile, in the last couple years if I had used Lightwave, I would have had to upgrade once between Lightwave 8 and 9. And frankly, the interface hasn't changed that much since I started using the application in 1999 with version 5.6. A few things have moved, a bunch of features have been added, but basically I can load up the demo of 9 and within a weekend have my first scene ready to render. The overall style of the interface hasn't changed that much.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Too bad you lose all the benefits of new releases too: New HTML/Javascript features, faster Javascript, plugins that can't kill your browser as easily, faster rendering, not to mention bugfixes..
Firefox just prompted me to update to 3.6.8, for the record. I'm sure more people have or will be seeing this.
People talk about Google missing out a version number so that they can keep up with IE. Not only is this argument petty and absurd, its not true. Chrome versions 1-6 have been showing up on my statistics for a while now.
My web domain.
I advanced to wget ages ago -- I heard it was the future of browsing.
Chrome has been sucking for me lately. Slow displaying Yahoo Mail and has problems displaying pdfs with the adobe plugin.
In related news, Microsoft just announced they will be pushing out new versions of Windows on a daily basis. Today you're running Windows 7, but by year's end you'll be on Windows 168. There, fixed that for you.
Will you be able to completely turn off the ugly Awesomebar, including the resource-hogging constant db queries it generates?
There are legitimate reasons that new releases may be considered worse than older releases. I think Mozilla foundation has hit that point where, because of their past successes, they are trying to force Agendas on their users. I call it "pulling a sony", although they are nowhere near that bad yet.
Posting to undo a bad moderation.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Here we go again with version number games! Gotta get to a big number quickly so people think your browser is at least as good as your competitor's.
Chrome 3? Why would I use Chrome 3? Internet Explorer is at 8! EIGHT!!!
What's wrong with 5? Or 3 for that matter.
I'm still missing some of the layout in Firefox 2. A high number does nothing on its own.
We are all God's parents.
How is this modded troll? It is an absolutely legitimate point: If you upgrade often you will eventually get burnt. That's why people who run uber important systems only upgrade if there is a security fix.
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
What's the "ugly Awesomebar"? You mean how it searches in your bookmarks when you type? Go to about:config and change browser.urlbar.maxRichResults to 0. I'm not sure why you're concerned about SQLite searches though. They take like 10 ms to run. I doubt you type that fast.
So far everyone seems to be saying that the version number is a publicity thing; but I've been using chrome for about 6 months and have no idea what my version number is. What sort of publicity stunt hides in the background only visible to people who go out of their way to check the "about" menu?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
My places.sqlite is 40MB, which is 3 months of history (default setting), when I start it up, it's really slow the first time, sometimes minutes. I can see why that would put people off.
New things are always on the horizon
"Release early, release often" - Linus Torvalds. As long as they are properly tested and this hyperactive release schedule doesn't push them into buggy releases, go for it.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Question: What's this Black Hat version of Firefox? From the sound of it, I'm assuming it's a version that's tested for security by the...darker-helmed of the userbase.
Once again someone complains about the Awesomebar and once again someone says to turn off maxRichResults - it doesn't work, it doesn't return the URL bar to how it was before they stuck us with the new feature, it only gimps the Awesomebar somewhat in one aspect. Please stop suggesting it.
Who modded this Troll, for crying out loud? Troll is for the weird nasty drive-by anonymous comments. Unfortunately, I've already commented, so I can't mod you up.
I agree with you, I hold off on upgrades, too.
For one thing, you can't be sure all your plugins (Firefox, etc.) will work.
For another Ubuntu seems to have a rule that they're going mess something major up (PulseAudio, grub2, etc.) in every release.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Sounds like it's going to be Linux style releases, where they make a minor update every 6 weeks or so. In Linux, the 2.6 part of the version number has become almost meaningless (since we know it's going to stay 2.6), and the .34 part is what's important. So Linux is on version 34 after 6 years or so.
That's true but you often don't "need" those features, because websites continue supporting the older browsers for quite a while. I'm still on FF 3.0. I see no reason to continue upgrading if what I have works just fine (holds-up copy of Office 97).
Plus upgrades often don't go as planned, like when my CWtv.com player stopped working after I moved from 2.5 to 3.0. And now I hear people are having problems with Youtube Downloaders after they jumped to 3.6.whatever last week. I follow two principles: If it aint broke; dont fix it. And KISS.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I love how you nearly completely ignored GP's post (the majority of which was about how an older version can be considered broke, with very little to do about "new features") and just copy/pasta'd the post that GP was responding to.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
So how many updates until Chrome stops using most of my Mac's CPU and making it sound like a jet engine? Is that Chrome 7? I hope it's 6.