Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 5 Scheduled For June 21 Release

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the don't-rest-on-them-laurels dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has updated its Firefox 5 release schedule and is apparently upbeat that it can release the browser even earlier than previously anticipated. The release was pulled in by a week to June 21. Mozilla is now also using a Chrome-like versioning system for Firefox — where the final Firefox 5 may be called Firefox 5.6.44.144, for example."

26 of 266 comments (clear)

  1. High version numbers by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of all the stupid features from Chrome to pick up, the version numbers is, by far, the dumbest. Has anyone considered how stupid a version number in the high double digits might be? Firefox 81 seems kind of clunky, doesn't it?

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:High version numbers by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of all the stupid features from Chrome to pick up, the version numbers is, by far, the dumbest. Has anyone considered how stupid a version number in the high double digits might be? Firefox 81 seems kind of clunky, doesn't it?

      I think that Windows went from 3.x to 90+something and even got up to the low thousands, before coming back down to single digits.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:High version numbers by Bloodwine77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I personally don't like the major version number scheme used in this way, especially if there are going to be three or more versions of Firefox per year. I am old-fashioned and prefer the X.Y.Z approach. I could maybe see a YYYY.X approach, such as 2011.1, 2011.2, 2011.3, etc. that would track major versions per year. I never realized how close the new Firefox 4 was to Chrome with respect to the UI until I downloaded and installed Chrome the other day. Firefox seems to be hellbent on ripping off Chrome.

    3. Re:High version numbers by kvvbassboy · · Score: 2

      What's the big deal? Frequent releases are good, it keeps crowd interest in your browser alive. It doesn't matter for me though, I use minefield which I presume will keep getting updated.

      pAnd I am sure you don't have to worry about version 81, they will switch to a different version naming scheme, or even just fork off with a different browser name, who knows.

    4. Re:High version numbers by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What actual features and improvements could they possibly have added in "8 WEEKS" since the release that they have had time to actually put through an Alpha test, Beta test, and then full release that would warrant a VERSION 5!?!

      This seems crazy lame to me. The browser has slowly gotten bloated, now the number? Why?

    5. Re:High version numbers by MosX · · Score: 2

      It was a joke man.

    6. Re:High version numbers by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe all the features they took out of it from 3.6 to 4 they're putting back and calling 5.

    7. Re:High version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm trying to find an older version of Linux to use on a really old computer. Does anybody know where I can find Slackware 6? I can't seem to find it anywhere! It's like it doesn't even exist!

    8. Re:High version numbers by dhammond · · Score: 2

      I think what they're moving towards is a time when end users don't care about version numbers at all, just like they don't care about the version numbers of websites. I'm sure many websites attach version numbers to development milestones as a way of organizing development. I do this for some websites I work on, but when we launch new features, we never broadcast to the world, "Check out version 8.1 of mysite.com!" If there is an announcement at all, it is focused on the actual features that were added.

      Chrome updates automatically and without fanfare, similar to a website. I have lost track of the version number of my version of Chrome, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

    9. Re:High version numbers by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Posts that have been moderated once don't have a moderation adjective. It's been that way since before the site redesign, so I think it was intentional. A post with an Excellent karma bonus and one +1 mod will be rated +3 Normal.

    10. Re:High version numbers by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe they should just have seasons -- Firefox 4 Summer edition, Firefox 4 Winter edition, etc...

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    11. Re:High version numbers by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      What actual features and improvements could they possibly have added in "8 WEEKS" since the release that they have had time to actually put through an Alpha test, Beta test, and then full release that would warrant a VERSION 5!?!

      It's not about "warranting" stuff anymore. Forget all about what you learnt about that, like you did with Chrome. The releases are now time-based - period. Not feature-based. Read these version numbers more like "milestones". "Version number" has too many assumptions associated with them nowadays, so maybe we'd be better off to just call them milestones like I know many Chromium devs already do internally today.

      So what Firefox 5 will be released with simply depends on how many features Mozilla has finished by June 21.

      As for that question... Many features and fixes has already been checked into the Firefox trunk that were too risky to be included in Firefox 4. I don't think Mozilla will have too many problems in "warranting" an update this coming summer.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    12. Re:High version numbers by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Chrome has done a LOT right. In the 3 years since it has been released, here are the major, user-noticeable changes chrome has had...

      • * Several (3-4) major JS engine revisions (newest version is several times faster than initial release, which was itself quite fast)
      • * Added extensions
      • * Seperated extensions to be per-process
      • * Added theming
      • * Added MSI packages and AD GPO templates
      • * Added Private browsing
      • * Baked in respectable native "flashblock" / "noscript" controls (though not as full featured)
      • * Added Cloud sync
      • * And a lot of other stuff (HTML5, hardware rendering, autofill, cloud print, automatic page translation, etc)

      Given how effective its development model seems to be, it might not be a bad idea for firefox to take a few pages from their book (even if copying the interface wasnt really necessary)

    13. Re:High version numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Chrome copied Opera's UI design.

    14. Re:High version numbers by hedwards · · Score: 2

      The big deal, is that you're watering down the number system. Changing it to one that conveys no meaningful information at all. I get that the folks over at Google like to be disruptive, but this is retard stuff. You increment the major number when you break or modify backwards compatibility, make substantial changes to the way the program functions or if it's been a long time since the last upgrade. Making minor releases into major releases just confuses everybody and removes any hints about how much caution one ought to be using when upgrading.

    15. Re:High version numbers by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The issue is that up until relatively recently there was some degree of agreement about roughly what a numbering system should look like. It wasn't prefect and it wasn't universally accepted, but you could be relatively sure that if you were hitting the 1.0 release that it should be relatively stable and feature complete. That a 1.1 release shouldn't require retraining or make any significant changes to the way the program was used or operated. An Alpha release wouldn't be feature complete typically, but a beta release should and a release candidate had better be in the ball park.

      The reason for that is that if you're offering these things up to the public, then courtesy dictates that you give them some hint as to what state the code is in. Release notes are nice, but I don't think that it's a good idea to waste people's times looking at the release notes, if they know that using release code isn't OK in their environment.

      Google OTOH, is using a revision system that's in keeping with their asinine perma-betas that they like to have. For a situation like that it makes some sense, but for organizations that realize the impact that beta code has on people, it's a stupid version naming scheme to use.

    16. Re:High version numbers by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Actually, I would say Firefox copies the UI from Opera. Firefox Sync actually existed as a seperate Firefox extension from Mozilla before Chrome added cloud sync.

      The Firefox developers just want to release more often so they are changing the because there are many, many HTML5/CSS features which are now only implemented not at all or half (same for any other browser). These are just very large specs.

      So they need people to upgrade frequently to get that code out to users (thus webdevelopers) and to get attention from users they are doing something for them to keep marketshare ?

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  2. Why..? by elfguy · · Score: 2

    It used to be versions were about feature sets. If you added a small feature to a program you'd increment the minor version, if you added big features you'd release a major update. The idea of having versions increase on specific dates seem weird.

    1. Re:Why..? by jonadab · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's debatable, especially if you take into account the amount of development that took place from one version to the next. Firefox 2 was arguably a more mature release, with a larger number of major releases preceding it, than IE7. (Opera I'll grant, though. It's been continuously maintained since the days of Trumpet Winsock, so big version numbers are warranted there.)

      IE basically skipped versions 1 and 2 (they were minor feature-incomplete dev milestones; normal users never saw them), and even versions 3 and 4 were not feature-complete compared to other browsers of the time (notably Netscape). They just pumped the number up real fast so people would *think* it was equivalent to Netscape 4. Granted, 5.5 could arguably be considered worthy of major-version-number status. Still, being *very* generous, major IE releases are 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and now 9.0, for a total of eight, max. A less magnanimous assessment might peg it at more like six without being completely unfair.

      Meanwhile, when development on the Mozilla codebase (that eventually became Firefox) started, IE was only about three or four years old. Then after the release of 6.0 the IE team at Microsoft was completely disbanded and NO significant development was done for several years (until finally it was so antequated that Microsoft was legitimately concerned they might lose ALL of their browser userbase if they didn't get off their tails and make IE look somewhat less like using stone knives and bear skins). If you throw out the years when browser development at Microsoft had completely ceased, I'm not at all sure that the IE codebase has been developed for more years than the Mozilla codebase.

      That brings up another point: the codebase that gave rise to what we now call Firefox has changed version number schemes and application names repeatedly, but starting from around Mozilla 0.8 or so it was essentially feature-complete and stable (compared to the other browsers available at the time, particularly IE). If you count from there, major releases with significant new features include Mozilla 0.9, 0.9.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, then Phoenix 0.something, a couple of Firebird releases, and then there were a couple of Firefox releases *before* 1.0...

      Firefox 2 was a MUCH more mature release than IE7, with I would say a larger history of preceding major releases. Okay, the UI got a big overhaul in the aviary move, but for that matter the IE7 UI doesn't look much like IE6, either. The rendering engine is built on the same codebase in both cases, so I would argue that it's basically a contiguous development history.

      Granted, there haven't been a lot of improvements *since* Firefox 2. A small handful of new CSS features (of which about three are any practical use) and a couple of perf improvements -- and a whole raft of seriously undesirable "let's screw up the UI for no good reason until nobody can stand it anymore, then let's do it some more" nonsense, plus a couple of major new stability bugs. Meh.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  3. Wordperfect vs Word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This just reminds me of when Microsoft Word for Windows jumped from version 2.0 to 6.0 just to appear competitive with WordPerfect. This will make version numbers irrelevant and nigh pointless.

    1. Re:Wordperfect vs Word by Hooya · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a versioning system I can understand.

  4. Color versioning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Firefox Red/Blue, Firefox Yellow, Firefox Gold/Silver!

    or maybe Gemstone based versioning like Firefox Ruby/Sapphire!

    1. Re:Color versioning! by slapout · · Score: 2

      Chrome is a Pokemon -- just look at the logo!

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  5. Patrick Volkerding should be in charge by slackzilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then the latest Firefox would be realeased when it's ready to be released. Come to think of it, he should run the world.

    --
    - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
  6. Chrome and Firefox's Development Process by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Informative

    What actual features and improvements could they possibly have added in "8 WEEKS" since the release that they have had time to actually put through an Alpha test, Beta test, and then full release that would warrant a VERSION 5!?! This seems crazy lame to me. The browser has slowly gotten bloated, now the number? Why?

    Hi there, I work on Firefox. First thing, we didn't write the article linked to in the summary, and I don't think they gave a totally accurate description. In fact, I don't even think this was interesting enough for a blog post from them.

    We are basically going to switch to a development process that is very similar to Google's with Chrome. So everything you say here is valid about their development practices as well - rapidly rising version numbers for no reason, little features in 'major' releases, etc.

    Why are we doing it? There is just one reason, it helps get code shipped faster. Code does not get written faster though, in either Chrome or the new Firefox process :) It just gets shipped quicker. But that is important too, and that's why we (and Google) are doing this.

    Basically, Chrome and Firefox will release quickly, with small amounts of changes each time. I agree with you 100% that the major version number rising each time is silly! Personally I would either drop the version number entirely, or use something like Ubuntu's versioning scheme (10.10 for 10th month, 2010). But oh well.

    In any case, since you asked what will ship in Firefox 5, I can tell you about stuff I know about (which is platform/backend stuff, not frontend). We have several improvements to performance that should be very useful, in both JavaScript and graphics. In particular WebGL should be faster on some cool demos on Linux, which I am very happy about.

    1. Re:Chrome and Firefox's Development Process by dstyle5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For those of us who work on browser-based products for large monolithic corporations this is going to be a gong show. Companies are always looking for guarantees of "Official Support" for browser X, version Y and now that you guys are going to be pumping out new major version numbers frequently that means browser QA/verification is going to have to occur far more often now. Not to mention having to test products against a quickly increasing number of versions.