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?
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
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.
Yes, but that's because Google is (unsurprisingly, as they are one of the companies whose practices are held up as models of lean methods) implementing a lean approach to what a "major version" is: a "major version" just means a stable release that contains anything other than bugfixes. Instead of setting up a system where there are a bucketload of features in each "major release" that all have to get ready together, with long times between major releases, they have lots of major releases, on a regular schedule, with whatever features are ready.
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.
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!!!
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
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.