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.
It's for many reasons - especially to cut down on the QA wind-down time that keep stalling the trunk (less features at a time means less time spent winding down and testing - a long time doing that means web standards will race ahead before you've even tested the version you were working on... the other extreme causes the "Internet Explorer effect" - often outdated before it's done, and not because the devs suck, but because the releases are too rare which causes a crapload of testing requirements for each release).
So this is a more "organic" model that should be able to follow new web standards better, and the needs and wants of Mozilla's user base.
Google explained all this pretty well too when they also moved to this model:
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.
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?
Only because you/we are not used to it. Who cares? By Chrome 26 and Firefox 12 we won't really look at version numbers like we've done in the past (or look at them at all...), and only see two web browsers that are releasing time-based releases as opposed to feature-based releases where the point won't be to market by features and version numbers, but by following the latest web standards and web browsing trends well.
AFAIK, Firefox is also moving to silent updates, yet a move aimed to remove the old "launch party" thing with new releases that were once released as rarely as once per year, with long, long QA phases at the end to test the huge beasts of new features, bogging everything down before the developers could pick up speed again.
Quad Super Xtended Graphics Array... This is among the most annoying acronyms I know! Ahh!
Easier to just say "5 MP" about that, if it's the resolution others are talking about.
But with that out of my system - I wonder who in their right state of mind are actually going to print either 5 MP or 8 MP photos from a mobile phone on an A3-sized (Tabloid-sized for US citizens) sheet of paper?? It's obvious that they're once again just doing the old Megapixel race for no good reason.
Taken all together, it spells a whole lot of potential fail, and IDC needs to do a hell of a lot more than shout Nokia's name, like it were some sort of talisman that defies all logic.
Indeed; especially with Nokia's own developers lashing out at the point of announcement of the new corporate strategy, as well as their shareholders. And that's Microsoft's *strongest* bet the coming years. I look at that deal more like a deal made in panic. Both for Nokia (for obvious reasons), and Microsoft (due to everything but a speedy adoption of WP7). It honestly looks like two losers joining forces more than anything else to me.
Microsoft's main competitor isn't even the iPhone, but the Android. The Android was first to gain foothold in the kind of open development market that Microsoft is interested in, and has strived to be in all the way since Windows 1.0. I consider that the worst problem for Microsoft. I think Android is the platform that is going to hurt Windows Phone platform adoption so bad that they won't get the traction to beat the iPhone anytime soon.
I don't get why he doesn't just install Linux on his Mac.
Agreed... This is like a Linux user asking why he can't do Mac development as seamless as on a Mac.
Or a Windows developer expecting to see Windows development on Linux as smooth as in Visual Studio.
Talk about the wrong tool for the job... And totally besides the point of whether which platform is "better" in general for web development. If he's looking for package managers and want emacs on Mac, he's doing it wrong.
Isn't Google just delaying the source release until the release after Honeycomb which will combine the tablet version with the handset version? What's the big deal?
The big deal, in case you're correct, is that they would skip an OS version for a supposedly open OS.
I am part of the majority. Me and 91% of the Slashdoters think that this story is irrelevant and IE is a piece of... Anyone else with me ?:-)
...
here we go again...
IE isn't irrelevant at all.
It's a major part of why the web works and looks like it does today, and IE affects how web sites work for you with Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Opera. You don't even have to use IE - these news still matter to you! Both as a developer, or an end-user.
The web is usually designed after the weakest link (usually IE, standards-wise), so of course this story is irrelevant. The browser forming the weakest link is still the weakest, but today got a whole lot stronger than with IE 8.
We can finally start developing for some aspects of HTML5 without having to restort to relying on updates in some sort of cross-browser third party "compatibility library" where it's easier to just not use those features at all. So the features aren't used at all. So even if you aren't a developer, it still matters, since web sites will start working better.
Authors will now at least start being able to take the step to exploit the potential of Chrome 10 or Firefox 4 better while not having to worry about ~50% not able to be supported well.
IE 9 still has flaws, and is still not there with the competition, but it's miles ahead of IE 8.
I agree. Downloading feels old school to me now. It's not just Spotify either - there are more services than that, like Rdio for the US. Or Grooveshark for everyone.
I thought I'd be hesitant about now "having" the stuff physically on my hard drive, but I'm not really concerned by that anymore. If the bad day comes when Spotify goes bankrupt or have to throw a lot of their music out, I'll have to go through the trouble of getting that music by other means. That will be doable, but annoying. Until then, I don't care. I can have all this music now along with my playlists on my phone, computer, car, and TV. All ad-free and at a high bitrate Vorbis encoding for a reasonable price. That's good enough for me.:-)
The client variety for all tastes is what seems to have in part made Twitter so big.
It has unusually diverse clients, and has become a strong platform. And now they throw the "platform" part out to just make it a grey, boring old school software application with no reach for varying interests and usage scenarios in their community?
OK, well... It's their choice of course. But good job in trying to keep the extremely high popularity up. That's all I can say...
I think they'll need our best wishes.
Twitter was where many companies work their butts off to be. A company with their own client, but also a rich ecosystem of clients. Apparently, some don't like that, and *willingly* deconstruct their achievements.
IE 9 uses the GPU for hardware accelerated graphics, not Javascript.
Also, Chrome 10 already does hardware accelerated features. New for this release is GPU accelerated video, but accelerated compositing is in since earlier.
Firefox 4 could possibly stop the market share bleeding, but it does not have the unique feature set and appeal to win users back from Chrome
Strange conclusion, when they didn't compare the browser to Chrome in the article, but IE 9. I'm not showing a preference for either of these browsers involved - I just thought it was late in the article to start talking of a completely different web browser...
Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's for many reasons - especially to cut down on the QA wind-down time that keep stalling the trunk (less features at a time means less time spent winding down and testing - a long time doing that means web standards will race ahead before you've even tested the version you were working on... the other extreme causes the "Internet Explorer effect" - often outdated before it's done, and not because the devs suck, but because the releases are too rare which causes a crapload of testing requirements for each release).
So this is a more "organic" model that should be able to follow new web standards better, and the needs and wants of Mozilla's user base.
Google explained all this pretty well too when they also moved to this model:
http://blog.chromium.org/2010/07/release-early-release-often.html
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.
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?
Only because you/we are not used to it. Who cares? By Chrome 26 and Firefox 12 we won't really look at version numbers like we've done in the past (or look at them at all...), and only see two web browsers that are releasing time-based releases as opposed to feature-based releases where the point won't be to market by features and version numbers, but by following the latest web standards and web browsing trends well.
AFAIK, Firefox is also moving to silent updates, yet a move aimed to remove the old "launch party" thing with new releases that were once released as rarely as once per year, with long, long QA phases at the end to test the huge beasts of new features, bogging everything down before the developers could pick up speed again.
QSXGA
Quad Super Xtended Graphics Array... This is among the most annoying acronyms I know! Ahh!
Easier to just say "5 MP" about that, if it's the resolution others are talking about.
But with that out of my system - I wonder who in their right state of mind are actually going to print either 5 MP or 8 MP photos from a mobile phone on an A3-sized (Tabloid-sized for US citizens) sheet of paper?? It's obvious that they're once again just doing the old Megapixel race for no good reason.
Taken all together, it spells a whole lot of potential fail, and IDC needs to do a hell of a lot more than shout Nokia's name, like it were some sort of talisman that defies all logic.
Indeed; especially with Nokia's own developers lashing out at the point of announcement of the new corporate strategy, as well as their shareholders. And that's Microsoft's *strongest* bet the coming years. I look at that deal more like a deal made in panic. Both for Nokia (for obvious reasons), and Microsoft (due to everything but a speedy adoption of WP7). It honestly looks like two losers joining forces more than anything else to me.
Microsoft's main competitor isn't even the iPhone, but the Android. The Android was first to gain foothold in the kind of open development market that Microsoft is interested in, and has strived to be in all the way since Windows 1.0. I consider that the worst problem for Microsoft. I think Android is the platform that is going to hurt Windows Phone platform adoption so bad that they won't get the traction to beat the iPhone anytime soon.
Ooops - I thought that guy was talking about Spotify, but now I'm not so sure about that.
The list of supported systems does include Android and iOS, but the author for some reason didn't include them. :p
I only really listen to streaming music these days, with Spotify and Grooveshark.
OK, with one exception: Downloading stuff to put on a USB drive for the car radio. But this doesn't really have a place there either.
But at that point, what has using a Mac really gained you? I guess some people just love the hardware that much?
Seems like it. I like my MacBook Pro but if I'd prefer to use emacs and various package managers, I'd use Linux.
I personally think this guy is a little bit stupid in his head.
I don't get why he doesn't just install Linux on his Mac.
Agreed... This is like a Linux user asking why he can't do Mac development as seamless as on a Mac.
Or a Windows developer expecting to see Windows development on Linux as smooth as in Visual Studio.
Talk about the wrong tool for the job... And totally besides the point of whether which platform is "better" in general for web development. If he's looking for package managers and want emacs on Mac, he's doing it wrong.
Isn't Google just delaying the source release until the release after Honeycomb which will combine the tablet version with the handset version? What's the big deal?
The big deal, in case you're correct, is that they would skip an OS version for a supposedly open OS.
http://twitter.com/Arubin/status/27808662429
What is the definition of "open" today, Google...?
I am part of the majority. Me and 91% of the Slashdoters think that this story is irrelevant and IE is a piece of ... :-)
Anyone else with me ?
...
here we go again...
IE isn't irrelevant at all.
It's a major part of why the web works and looks like it does today, and IE affects how web sites work for you with Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Opera. You don't even have to use IE - these news still matter to you! Both as a developer, or an end-user.
The web is usually designed after the weakest link (usually IE, standards-wise), so of course this story is irrelevant.
The browser forming the weakest link is still the weakest, but today got a whole lot stronger than with IE 8.
We can finally start developing for some aspects of HTML5 without having to restort to relying on updates in some sort of cross-browser third party "compatibility library" where it's easier to just not use those features at all. So the features aren't used at all. So even if you aren't a developer, it still matters, since web sites will start working better.
Authors will now at least start being able to take the step to exploit the potential of Chrome 10 or Firefox 4 better while not having to worry about ~50% not able to be supported well.
IE 9 still has flaws, and is still not there with the competition, but it's miles ahead of IE 8.
Funny how Anonymous just left out the trailing "s" and went with bankofamericasuck.com.
I assume that was intentional to ridicule their purchase efforts...
I thought I'd be hesitant about now "having"
About NOT having.
I hate those typos that change the meaning competely. But only next to hating Slashdot's no-editing-allowed-ever feature.
I agree. Downloading feels old school to me now. It's not just Spotify either - there are more services than that, like Rdio for the US. Or Grooveshark for everyone.
I thought I'd be hesitant about now "having" the stuff physically on my hard drive, but I'm not really concerned by that anymore. If the bad day comes when Spotify goes bankrupt or have to throw a lot of their music out, I'll have to go through the trouble of getting that music by other means. That will be doable, but annoying. Until then, I don't care. I can have all this music now along with my playlists on my phone, computer, car, and TV. All ad-free and at a high bitrate Vorbis encoding for a reasonable price. That's good enough for me. :-)
The client variety for all tastes is what seems to have in part made Twitter so big.
It has unusually diverse clients, and has become a strong platform. And now they throw the "platform" part out to just make it a grey, boring old school software application with no reach for varying interests and usage scenarios in their community?
OK, well... It's their choice of course. But good job in trying to keep the extremely high popularity up. That's all I can say...
I think they'll need our best wishes.
Twitter was where many companies work their butts off to be. A company with their own client, but also a rich ecosystem of clients. Apparently, some don't like that, and *willingly* deconstruct their achievements.
Methanopyrus was found living happily at a depth of 2000 m at temperatures 84-110 C (183-230 F).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanopyrus
I think that's the record.
There's Strain 121 too, which sounds like a Star Trek alien name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_121
What are you trying to argue, that people shouldn't be using tools?
Tools should be used, but assumed to sometimes be fallible. Now live by that and you'll probably be fine. :p
Google frequently release security patches for their stable and beta channels.
It's just that this time around, it's time for a more major release. And Google doesn't do the "support old versions" thing.
IE 9 uses the GPU for hardware accelerated graphics, not Javascript.
Also, Chrome 10 already does hardware accelerated features. New for this release is GPU accelerated video, but accelerated compositing is in since earlier.
NCSA Mosaic was pretty decent too...
Firefox 4 could possibly stop the market share bleeding, but it does not have the unique feature set and appeal to win users back from Chrome
Strange conclusion, when they didn't compare the browser to Chrome in the article, but IE 9. I'm not showing a preference for either of these browsers involved - I just thought it was late in the article to start talking of a completely different web browser...
because I am not an attention whore
You're an attention whore for being willing to talk with friends and family that way? :p That's kind of like how most I know use it...
Maximizing a window is such an uncommon thing to do, that few will be annoyed by the much smaller target surface that a window border makes up?
With that out of the way -- why are they removing them?