Rapid Release Process

August 25th, 2011

Recently Mozilla implemented a rapid release process, where we release a version of Firefox every 6 weeks. This has involved changing a number of our processes. It’s also raised some new issues. For example, some enterprises find the idea of rapid browser change to be disconcerting at best and potentially unmanageable at worst. Add-on compatibility is another. I acknowledge these issues are complex and difficult. There is work to be done to make the rapid release process smoother and hopefully more useful to more of our userbase. I’d like to describe why I believe the rapid release process is important enough to pursue despite these difficulties.

Before Mozilla instituted the rapid release process, we would sometimes have new capabilities ready for nearly a year before we could deliver them to people. Web developers would have to wait that year to be able to make their applications better.

A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. Philosophically, I do not believe a product that moves at the speed of traditional desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time. If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the Internet. That means delivering capabilities when they are ready. That means a rapid release process. If we don’t do something like this the browser becomes a limiting factor in what the Internet can do.

Sometimes we can address this problem without a new release of code. For example, if one goes to the Firefox Menu Item for “Add-ons” the content one sees is a web page. This part of the browser enjoys all the benefits of the web. It can be managed in the ways people have come to expect of a web experience. The rapid release process is another technique we’ve adopted to allow the browser to deliver new capabilities quickly.

As my colleague Brendan is fond of saying, “There is no free lunch.” This means we need to listen carefully to those who are experiencing difficulties. We need to be creative and try to find practical ways of alleviating these difficulties if we can. This is true for the enterprise use case, and it’s true for the add-on experience. I know that’s not a perfect answer, and it’s not a promise that we can meet everyone’s needs perfectly. Despite this, I believe the rapid release process is the right direction.

Categories: Mozilla

193 comments for “Rapid Release Process”

1
Kees Grinwis said on August 25th, 2011 at 11:29 am:

In my opinion Mozilla should take two steps to make the rapid release process more smoothly, the first one would be a long time support version of Firefox. At the moment Firefox 3.6 is still supported, however when Fx 3.6 is no longer supported then the (one of the) latest version(s) of Firefox should be made the LTS-version.

The selection of the LTS version (and the desupporting of the previous version) should be communicated a few months before it is going to happen, so that the users are able to adjust their migration schedule to this LTS transition. (The related XULRunner version should also be included in the LTS in my opinion)

The 2nd step would be to minimise the changes in the Add-on API, this means that add-on developers would be able to keep their add-on compatible with Fx with a minimal effort. Also, if possible, large add-on API changes should be performed at the same time as the LTS-version is changed.

I realise that sometimes it is very difficult to keep the add-on API compatible, but when it is possible to keep it compatible as long as the LTS version is not changed, then Mozilla should try to do this.
2
Aashish Arora said on August 25th, 2011 at 11:53 am:

I think the idea of LTS versions is actually really good. You could release an LTS version as a major release like let’s say Firefox 7 and then release the versions between the LTS versions as 7.x versions. So you could still keep the rapid release cycle, get rid of the stupidity of application version incrementing too fast and still keep enterprises happy. Make consumer installations silently auto update in the background while disabling auto update for enterprises. It will be more work for Mozilla but from a strategic POV it seems prudent to tackle the major issues the users have.
3
Michael Kaply said on August 25th, 2011 at 12:02 pm:

“we would sometimes have new capabilities ready for nearly a year”

“we release a version of Firefox every 6 weeks”

Wasn’t there some middle ground?
4
Robert Kaiser said on August 25th, 2011 at 12:18 pm:

Mitchell, you make it sound like the whole add-ons manager is a web page, but that’s not the case. Only what you see in the main area of the “Get Add-ons” section is actually a web page, the rest is normal browser UI, just confusingly styled like it would be a website.
5
mawrya said on August 25th, 2011 at 12:30 pm:

“Before Mozilla instituted the rapid release process, we would sometimes have new capabilities ready for nearly a year before we could deliver them to people. Web developers would have to wait that year to be able to make their applications better.”

Last time I checked, IE 6/7 still accounted for nearly 20% of the browser share. All the web developers I have interacted with are designing to reach the largest number of potential visitors, and that means designing for IE6, or at least 7. When you say that web developers have to wait a year for some new feature to make their application better, I wonder who these developers are. The only developers I know that have the privillage of targeting only the latest browsers are those developers who are aiming at a controlled audience. In my experience, that usually happens in a corprate intranet. But as you have pointed out, ironically, the new release model is actually a turn-off to the corprate world.

Who are these web developers you speak of? Isn’t it really more about the users of the browser benefiting immediately, and specifically from the user interface enhancements not the new developer features? The only other developers I can think of that might immediately take advantage of new features are add-on devs, but again, the new release schedule is a bit of a hurdle for them as well. Any other group of developers I imagine would be a small minority. Is there something I’m missing?

The only thing that makes sense in my head is: it’s not the web developers the rapid updates are aimed at, it’s the browser users; they want faster browsers, better user interfaces, and if they don’t get them, they will switch to chrome.
6
Benno said on August 25th, 2011 at 12:54 pm:

@Kaply: I don’t think there is much room for a middle ground. For example if you increases the time between each release by just two weeks, it would take half a year for a feature to reach the general end-user population.
7
David Naylor said on August 25th, 2011 at 1:06 pm:

The add-on situation really needs to be sorted out.

1. Add-ons should *never* be disabled when upgrading. Leave them enabled no matter what their compatibility info says, and in the unlikely event of a real compat problem make it easy for the user to report the problem straight from the add-ons manager.

2. From the above it follows that the “checking for add-on updates” window should never be shown on upgrade.

Can’t help feeling this should have been sorted out before switching to the rapid release cycle. People are getting fed up, not so much with the actual updates (which are basically silent now right?) but with the add-ons hassle that surrounds them.
8
Brad Harrington said on August 25th, 2011 at 1:43 pm:

I agree with you David!

The addon hassle is a problem and it ticks me off when an addon that I have become reliant on gets dumped. FireFTP was just dumped after I upgraded to Firefox 6.0

That being said, I doubt that it is even feasible to allow these addons to just stay put when the Mozilla dev team KNOWS they are going to cause problems on peoples systems.

Kind of a catch 22 and I don’t know the answer, though I can surmise to say that which ever browser comes up with the best answer is going to become the leading browser!
9
Axel Hecht said on August 25th, 2011 at 1:53 pm:

I would love us to run more things we do such that they lead the community by example.

Say, we could verify automatically that our own documentation still applies, and that screenshots are good. And let the community have something that’s easy to pick up there.

Or, have “Firefox features” in a broader sense that live as addons on AMO and work on everything between nightly and release at the same time.

Or, make sure the infrastructure that we use to automatically do functional tests for websites works for our versions we want people to test against their sites.

Doing all of this is good just for us and the way we do the things we do. Doing them such the community around the globe can follow would be a great icing on that cake.
10
Sean Kerner said on August 25th, 2011 at 2:24 pm:

The fact that you felt the need to defend this new approach – after two rapid releases with Firefox 5 and 6 – isn’t a particularly positive sign is it?
11
Pascal Bleser said on August 25th, 2011 at 2:35 pm:

And please also take into account which requirements and ways of doing things we packagers have. As great as Firefox updates are, they will not show up on Linux desktops by themselves, they need to be packaged into RPMs/debs/…
Firefox only manages its own upgrade lifecycle on Windows and MacOSX.

Still having proper versions in a way or another would be such a requirement (you don’t want us to put timestamps into the “version” part of packages ? that would be quite ugly).

Also, in terms of compatibility of websites with Firefox (or other browsers). It has become quite accustomed for webdesigners and users to understand what e.g. “works with Firefox 4″ means. If rapid releases break things or even bring new features and capabilities, how will it even be possible to describe that ?

The approach definitely has its advantages, but it would be a lot wiser to try to address some of those issues once and for all *before* switching to it. Leaving users in the rain for several months is definitely going to cost “market share” (see KDE4, or what is going to happen with GNOME3, etc…).
12
Axel Hecht said on August 25th, 2011 at 2:50 pm:

Hey Pascal

Regarding “fix *before*”, I’ve been involved in the discussions around the new process quite intensively, and most of the issues discussed today didn’t appear on my radar, at least. I think we’re challenged a good deal by the fact that now that we’re actually doing the rather rapid process, folks actually complain.
13
David Naylor said on August 25th, 2011 at 3:05 pm:

Actually, this sounds a lot like what I suggested in my comment:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Add-ons/Add-ons_Default_to_Compatible

Shame it wasn’t done earlier though.
14
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox | Up2dateNews

[...] are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. [...]
15
Pascal Bleser said on August 25th, 2011 at 3:40 pm:

Hey Axel

Yeah well, I know, everyone always complains afterwards, that’s just how it is, whatever you do

But. I don’t know whether Wolfgang Rosenauer (who’s extremely active at openSUSE) or people who package Mozilla stuff at other distributions have been involved in the process. If not, lesson learned ? Would be cool to involve them a lot more, because — and I don’t need to tell you that — they’re the ones bringing Firefox et al to the Linux masses
16
mitchell said on August 25th, 2011 at 4:48 pm:

Sean: A significant change in a giant ecosystem with multiple constituencies is going to generate discussion and different perspectives. This change touches a lot of people. We’ll be working on refining it for a while.

Pascal: yes, indeed re communication with Linux distress, and with other involved parties in general.

Mawrya: You are of course quite correct that a lot of changes are aimed at individual end-users. The timing of platform capabilities also makes a difference. If Fx is the first and only browser to implement something new you may be correct. Sometimes we need a first implementation to show what can be done and kick-start the rest. Re IE: we try to have things “degrade gracefully” so the experience in older versions isn’t broken. And also, if we peg ourselves to the speed of IE 6/7 then the web will wither.
17
Brandon Abell said on August 25th, 2011 at 5:50 pm:

Sorry, but you lost credibility at “Despite this. . .” You sound like Michelle Bachmann answering questions about her views on science vs “her beliefs.”

New features are nice, but not at the expense of breaking what already works and is relied upon. If you came up with a new (and better!) design for a traffic signal, how wise do you think it would be to just immediately swap out all the old ones for the new ones without ample testing and publicity? The browser is a utility; it’s something that a whole ecosystem depends on. You can’t just change it on a whim because *you* think you’ve improved it. This is not your senior project you’re playing around with, this affects millions of people.

If you’ve ever had to support large installations of computers, you wouldn’t have this naive attitude. Many hours are invested institutionally in documentation and testing. This translates to a great deal of money. If you change something and push it out all-of-a-sudden, you cost those people all that money, and create additional support headaches and mistrust when things stop working the way people are used to them working.

How do you think a professor would feel if she showed up to a class ready to give a presentation on how Zotero works, only to find out that it doesn’t work anymore because that project’s inability to keep up with Rapid Release? A whole class session is now wasted, and perhaps many more class sessions are wasted until that extension is able to catch up to your schedule. The professor looks bad, the IT help looks bad, and the students are upset because they paid tuition and parking to sit through a wasted hour of some poor flustered professor panicking. What new features have you added that are worth this? Please, I’d like to know. . .

This really is a good time for adult supervision here. At the very least you need to provide an option to not update to any version that might break an existing plugin/extension.

I’m sorry I’m so pissy, but this is serious business, and has already cost ME personally many hours of headache. And now I look bad for pushing Firefox all these years.
18
Dan said on August 25th, 2011 at 5:56 pm:

I think it is high time for Mozilla to realize that rapid-release is not going to be turned from a huge disaster into a success by preaching to your users about what they should want and why they are wrong to want it any other way. You’re alienating more enterprises, add-on developers, web site developers, localization teams, and even core Mozilla contributors every day you continue on this path. Just as importantly, tens of millions of users are finding that broken add-ons, UI changes which seem to be made for the sake of change alone, etc are making FF and TB a royal pain to use. All of these people are turning their attention to alternatives.

Making the browser “more like the internet” means making it a constantly-changing slew of incompatible new ideas. The browser is not a website. The browser is not a product. The browser is a platform. And platforms need careful evolution, not hastily-shoved-out half-brained “innovations.”

You don’t become a limiting factor in what the Internet can do by defining and implementing standards and being careful about new decisions. You become a limiting factor in what the Internet can do when nobody can depend on you being a platform to build on.
19
Ben said on August 25th, 2011 at 6:42 pm:

Re Addons:

Have add-on manager show compatability (ie: 3.x-6.x). This would make it a whole lot easier to judge what the effect of accepting the latest FF upgrade will be.
20
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox « ITS News Feeder

[...] are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. [...]
21
skierpage said on August 25th, 2011 at 7:51 pm:

I’ve been on nightly builds for decades. It works well, it only gets better as Mozilla’s build/test/QA improves, and it’s nearly always better than released Firefox. Anything that makes regular Firefox more like nightly is on balance a win; heed the vociferous complainers but don’t let them dominate. Help them create a long-term stability release if they really have the will, though today’s great posts by Jesse Ruderman explain why a long-term stability release is hard and will be less secure.

Oh, and switch to YYYY.N for version names ASAP, the name matches the process and every “Firefox N” will be ridiculed by a vocal minority. The memory improvements coming in Firefox 2011.5 are excellent.
22
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox | Christian Media Cross

[...] are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. [...]
23
Pingback from Hallow Demon Friendz | Blog | Rapid Release Process

[...] Read the full article HERE [...]
24
Pingback from best-price-auto.info » Blog Archive » Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch”

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
25
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” – MacSoftware

[...] or more is another.Now, Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
26
Pingback from Blog ALL » Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch”

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
27
Pingback from Mozilla Defends "rapid Release" of Firefox Versions « Breaking News « Theory Report

[...] bulky by enterprises, a chair of Mozilla Foundation, that maintains a browser, pronounced in a blog post on [...]
28
Jean said on August 26th, 2011 at 2:09 am:

I am currently actively looking on how to get used to an alternative. It is not easy as I have been using Firefox exclusively since its version 0.3.
Firefox is more and more behaving like Microsoft. With every new version there are modifications which require the user to learn again how to use the software, or which require intensive research to have a previously preferred configuration set, add-ons that do not work anymore…

Especially for the add-ons, I do not believe that the developers will continue the updates at this fast pace and I believe that they will be more and more frustrated and eventually abandon any development. It will not be the first time that I had to give up an extension because the developer got frustrated.

This rapid releases of new versions has now also brought my frustration to a level where I have decided to drop Firefox in favour of an alternative browser.
29
Morten said on August 26th, 2011 at 3:00 am:

I too think that the release process in its current form is a mistake.

For me it renders Firefox more or less unusable since I depend on a HBCI plugin for online banking. In the past it took several months for the developer to update the plugin to newer versions of Firefox, and I highly doubt this will happen much faster in the future. So I will always have to use a Firefox build that is two or three version behind.

This wouldn’t be a problem if ‘older’ versions would still receive security updates. But since this is not the case, Firefox is simply unusable for me.

BTW: I honestly believe that you overestimate most users hunger for new features by far. Most people, I would think, simply want a working webbrowser. And that includes add-ons and plugins they are uesd to, or even depend on.
30
Alfonso Dev Head said on August 26th, 2011 at 3:05 am:

The version number before the first period is usually called the “major” version number – a change in this indicates some major API changes or other relevant code changes, which will make it necessary to recompile external tools or plugins. The version number after the period usually is used for feature changes and it is a good practice – it would have been wise, if people concerned about versioning of firefox would have informed themselves about what developers think about version numbes and how to use them. We can learn from the mess that you created now, that the version number of a product is a core developers asset that should never ever been handed over to people that are concerned with marketing or other than pure technical things and have no clue about software development. As a developer I can very hardly accept the stupidity that lies in this version number theater – feels like little kids are crying “look, theo other browser has a much higher version number, I want that too!” – small brains destroy great ideas very fast.
31
Steve said on August 26th, 2011 at 3:14 am:

Browsing is not about to be able to do the most up to date stuff. It is about having the best experience when you use your “tool” to get on the net.

The fact that you remove parts like for example RSS recognition by default and start to bring the release cycles to top-speed does not mean the experience does improve. It seems on everything that you just copy Google. I would use Chrome if I wanted Google.

Your browser must feel like “home” to do the stuff you like to do. But imagine: you would find out (in your home) that after each 6 weeks something stops work, like your TV then your fridge and then the heating (during a freezing winter). I can tell you would start to become really annoyed…
32
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” | Felamous Directory

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
33
ndmushroom said on August 26th, 2011 at 3:45 am:

The “old” FF was the only one of the three “major” browsers with a straightforward approach when it comes to updates. I knew what (not) to expect between a 3.6.9 and 3.6.10 release, I knew what to expect between a 3.1 and a 3.2 release, I knew what to excitedly tell my friends to look forward to between a 3 and a 4 release, without even having to go through the changes list. I have no idea what to expect now. I don’t know if FF6 will mess with the functionality of my FF5 and its add-ons, I don’t know if FF7 will rock my world or just fix a minor bug here and there (well, I DO know and I’m looking forward to that, but I wouldn’t if I didn’t follow the developers’ blog), all I do know is that unless I update (and potentially lose some of my add-ons in the process) I’ll get an annoying pop-up message trying to force me to do so. To be honest, I’m not sure I could tell whether I was using FF6, FF5 or FF4 (except for the amount of add-ons that are disabled, that is).
There’s no reason not to release a “new capability” sooner than you used to, but there are plenty of reasons not to make your customers go through an unnecessary and potentially time-consuming update process just because you have a deadline to meet. Even if you want to stick to the 6-week cycle for productivity reasons, at least adopt a more honest numbering system so that the customers can decide whether they want to update or wait for the next version with less hassle.
34
Pingback from Mozilla Firefox. Новая версия каждые 6 недель | GB: Блог о дизайне, верстке и веб-разработке

[...] мы достигнем запланированных результатов, отмечает в своем посте [...]
35
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch”

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
36
Adriaan Renting said on August 26th, 2011 at 4:30 am:

I’ve used every browser from Netscape and Mozilla. I now am stuck on 3.6 because to many of my add-ons haven’t updated, or only for Windows, not for OSX/Linux.

Addons is what made Firefox such a great browser together with it’s availability on all platforms. With the rapid release you broke that for me and many others.
Most addons I use used to take a couple of weeks to update to a new version, and then another couple of weeks to also update their OSX and Linux versions. It seems most addons developers have given up on non-Windows, or on FireFox completely.

For the first time in 15 years, I’m now seriously looking into alternatives. I see the valour in your reasons behind what you’re doing, but you need to figure out how to do it without breaking all the addons. Next to that, it often takes a year to roll out changes in a large corporate structure, you are now in danger of falling off the bandwagon in environments like that.
37
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” » FaceiZ

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
38
Andrew said on August 26th, 2011 at 4:57 am:

Stability > Bells and Whistles
39
Pingback from Mozilla Defends Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
40
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” | Jeremiah Abraham

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
41
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” Down With A.P.P.

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
42
Pingback from Mozilla defends “rapid release” of Firefox versions « I Web Guy Blog

[...] finding that broken add-ons, and UI (user interface) changes are making Firefox difficult to use, commented Dan. “All of these people are turning their attention to alternatives,” he [...]
43
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” | Apple Download Blog

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
44
Benno said on August 26th, 2011 at 5:56 am:

@ndmushroom: Customers caring about getting the newest security updates (which they should) ought to always update to the newest version.
45
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” | Android News, Rumours, Tips, Tricks, and More!

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
46
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of recent Firefox Versions: “There Is not any Free Lunch” | Modern Techie

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post . He starts by acknowledging the matter: “There is figure to be done to make the rapid release [...]
47
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” | bursst.co.uk

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
48
sirnh1 said on August 26th, 2011 at 6:47 am:

Why can’t you just release a ‘minor’ version every 2 months? Firefox 6 would then be called Firefox 4.2 and mabye switch to a new major version every once a year?
It’s not that there are massive amount of changes in Firefox 5 that make it impossible to name it Firefox 4.1. Using minor versions could also solve the ‘add-on’ problem as ‘add-on’ creators could mark their add-on ‘Firefox 4.x’ compatible and only update it once a year (or when their extension breaks ofcourse).

I really miss the time where each browser looked different, behaved different, had different features, etc… Back then there was a reason to switch to a browser. What’s the point of switching from chrome towards Firefox or switch from any other browser to any other browser when they look and behave the same, have the same features, etc…?

It looks like Firefox is copying chrome. But why? People who want to use chrome will use chrome, and if Firefox looks a lot like chrome/opera and starts to behave like chrome/opera, why shouldn’t they switch to chrome (or opera)? To them it will seem chrome (or opera) does something cool and Firefox is only copying what they do and not doing something ‘new’. I mean what’s next dropping the current Firefox engine and replacing it by webkit so it renders websites the same way?
49
Pingback from Mozilla Defends Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions – Slinking Toward Retirement

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
50
Foxload said on August 26th, 2011 at 7:08 am:

@sirnh1
I agree with your suggestion of minor 4.x versions. The fast release cycle is not the problem, the problem is the missing add-on compatibility. There are good add-ons which will still work but are disabled by default, because the majoir versions 5, 6, 7, … will not allow compatibility of add-ons without doing senseless add-on updates.
51
Pingback from A New Firefox Version Every Six Weeks

[...] Firefox 6, have not really added new features to the browser that would justify a version bump.The core reason for changing to a faster release cycle is the ability to implement and release new capabilities to [...]
52
Pingback from Mozilla Slovenija

[...] Baker o hitrem razvojnem ciklu 26. avgust 2011 Pojasnilo: izvirnik bloga rapid release process je prevedel [...]
53
Cedus said on August 26th, 2011 at 7:51 am:

I agree with sirnh1, there are reasons for major and minor versions, as everyone can read e.g. on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning). So let’s summarize:

Reasons for rethinking the versioning-scheme of firefox:
+ Baker don’t have to defend the current versioning-scheme
+ Plugins would install easier, because their developers don’t have to think 10 versions ahead (“Will 7.0 be a real major change or is it planned for 8.0, 9.0? Nah.. better release my plugin only for 6.0 to avoid compatibility-issues, even if it might run on 7.0, 8.0, 9.0…”) – as seen on live-http-headers, downloadhelper and many more. (want proof? just patch ‘max version’ in install.rdf of the xpi-file there it goes…)
+ a real versioning scheme (again: read Wikipedia) could be an indicator for users: major versions suggest big changes like new GUI, better performance, minor versions suggest bug fixes and some added features
+ also Websites/CMS/etc. and so called Web-Designers can easier check the versions (e.g “You are using Firefox 6.0, but this site requires Firefox 3.6 or higher”)
+ your developers can finally use all digits reserved for versioning in the cvs
+ updates could be handled better when there are only two major-versions: one stable and supported release like the current 6.0 with subsequent patches to remain secure (6.0.1, 6.2, …) and one unstable development-realease of the coming version (like the guys at debian.org do for years now) – nothing more or less. But here and now there are lot’s of people with FF 3.6, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 and they don’t have a clue what is new (I talk about common users).

Reasons against changing the versioning-scheme:
- Baker has to admit, that this idea was one major bummer (= 1.0
54
Pingback from A New Firefox Version Every Six Weeks « Techitech

[...] core reason for changing to a faster release cycle is the ability to implement and release new capabilities to [...]
55
Pingback from Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker on the rapid release process « Softheme Blog » Software Outsourcing Ukraine

[...] the rush?” – one may wonder. The answer comes from a recent blog post of Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker. He states that “browser is the delivery vehicle [...]
56
Pingback from Mozilla stands behind Firefox’s rapid release schedule

[...] release process smoother and hopefully more useful to more of our userbase,” Mitchell wrote in a blog post. “Before Mozilla instituted the rapid release process, we would sometimes have new [...]
57
Pingback from A New Firefox Version Every Six Weeks » Google Plus | Google | Google Plus + | One Google Nedir |

[...] core reason for changing to a faster release cycle is the ability to implement and release new capabilities to [...]
58
Pingback from Mozilla Reignites Discussion About Rapid Release Process | ConceivablyTech

[...] argues from a much more strategic angle and can keep a lid on the rapid release process discussion. She [...]
59
Pingback from Rapid Release Firefox-Interweave Technologies

[...] “Recently Mozilla implemented a rapid release process, where we release a version of Firefox every 6 weeks. This has involved changing a number of our processes. It’s also raised some new issues. For example, some enterprises find the idea of rapid browser change to be disconcerting at best and potentially unmanageable at worst. Add-on compatibility is another. I acknowledge these issues are complex and difficult. There is work to be done to make the rapid release process smoother and hopefully more useful to more of our userbase. I’d like to describe why I believe the rapid release process is important enough to pursue despite these difficulties.” read more … [...]
60
Pingback from Mozilla fights back criticism over new rapid release cycle for Firefox | It's All Tech

[...] Mozilla's Chairman Mitchell Baker has responded to the talks in a blog post, stating that "there is work to be done to make the rapid release process smoother and hopefully [...]
61
Ferdinand said on August 26th, 2011 at 11:11 am:

This fast update cylcle of Major version number means, every time check for plug ins, less plug ins (as some are always fall out), search for other once that still work.
Mozilla looses its treasury case, the big amount of plug ins!
62
Pingback from Mozilla responde a los usuarios que se quejan de tantas nuevas versiones - La Isla Buscada

[...] Vía | Mashable Más información | Lizard Wrangler [...]
63
Pingback from Mozilla Defends "Rapid Release" of Firefox Versions

[...] unmanageable by enterprises, the chair of Mozilla Foundation, which maintains the browser, said in a blog post on [...]
64
Pingback from WHY MOZILLA’S FIREFOX RAPID RELEASE CYCLE WORKS AND WHY IT DOESN’T. » INTERNET, FIREFOX, MOZILLA, CHROME, BAKER, THIS » TECH MAGAZINE

[...] this week about Mozilla’s Rapid Release cycle. Much of that discussion was fueled by a blog post from Mozilla Chief, Mitchell [...]
65
Pingback from Mozilla responde a los usuarios que se quejan de tantas nuevas versiones | EmaCorp News

[...] | Mashable Más información | Lizard Wrangler Article source: [...]
66
Pingback from eXactBot Hosting Solutions » Why Mozilla’s Firefox Rapid Release Cycle Works and Why it Doesn’t.

[...] this week about Mozilla’s Rapid Release cycle. Much of that discussion was fueled by a blog post from Mozilla Chief, Mitchell [...]
67
RC said on August 26th, 2011 at 1:41 pm:

A long-term support version is exactly what’s needed, and not just for enterprises – consumers need this as a choice as well.

Some consumers are early adopters – they want the latest features and are willing to put up with bugs, incompatibility, and required new learning.

But years of market research shows a much larger segment of consumers are not early adopters. If Mozilla wants to stay successful, they need to satisfy both groups, and that means different release processes.

Giving users a CHOICE of release cycle and upgrade/update timing would give Firefox a big advantage over Chrome, which is mainly of interest to that early adopter crowd and gives users no choice in the matter.

Choice means users decide if they want to be on rapid release or LTS. And it also means users decide when to apply updates (typically security updates). No “silent” automatic updates. Chrome’s so-called silent updates freeze my PC for 3-5 minutes, interrupting my work. Let users choose when to update so they can save data, quit running other apps, and do it on their own schedule.
68
Checho Batista said on August 26th, 2011 at 1:43 pm:

Too many users can’t be wrong.

I’m stuck to firefox 3.5 until this numbering nonsense gets fixed. Also i’m adopting Midori as my primary browser, keeping firefox as my fallback browser.
69
Pingback from Usuarios de Firefox se quejan por tantas actualizaciones y Mozilla responde | Tecnología

[...] que ya está disponible Firefox 6 para descargar. Más información | Lizard Wrangler Foto y noticia vía | Genbeta #dd_ajax_float{ background:none repeat scroll 0 0 #FFFFFF; border:1px [...]
70
John Doe said on August 26th, 2011 at 2:20 pm:

I think the a LTS version could be a good compromise. Companies, Linux distribution maintainers, older people would really benefit from this.
71
Baylink said on August 26th, 2011 at 2:32 pm:

Ah; I get it.

You don’t get it either, and Asa is doing this with your approval.

Ok: stick a fork in Firefox; it’s done. I won’t install it, I won’t recommend it, and I won’t use it — and you can multiply the *hundreds* of hours of work that’s going to cost me by roughly 100,000 IT professionals around the world — if I’m not off by an order of magnitude or two on the *low* side.

Been nice knowing you, Firefox. Requiescat in Pace.
72
Pingback from Mozilla Chefin verteidigt Rapid Release Prozess und behält die Versionsnummer « Browser Fuchs

[...] Prozess. Mozilla Chefin Mitchell Baker sieht sich nun gezwungen dazu Stellung zu nehmen. In einem Blog Eintrag verteidigt sie die Entscheidung für den Rapid Release [...]
73
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox | Source Of Drivers

[...] She acknowledged that companies can have problems with the approach, in which new browser versions arrive every six weeks, but those problems are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: [...]
74
Pingback from Links 26/8/2011: Twenty Years of Linux Celebrated, KDE SC 5.0 Foreseen | Techrights

[...] Rapid Release Process Recently Mozilla implemented a rapid release process, where we release a version of Firefox every 6 weeks. This has involved changing a number of our processes. It’s also raised some new issues. For example, some enterprises find the idea of rapid browser change to be disconcerting at best and potentially unmanageable at worst. Add-on compatibility is another. I acknowledge these issues are complex and difficult. There is work to be done to make the rapid release process smoother and hopefully more useful to more of our userbase. I’d like to describe why I believe the rapid release process is important enough to pursue despite these difficulties. [...]
75
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox | مطالب جالب|موتور جستجوگر|بهترین ها

[...] desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time,” wrote Baker on her personal blog. “If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like [...]
76
Pingback from Version Numbers And Rapid Releases Here To Stay For Firefox : Test Drive

[...] Mozilla chairman Mitchell Baker acknowledged the difficulties – such as enterprise issues and broken add-on compatibility – that arise with a rapid release [...]
77
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox

[...] desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time," wrote Baker on her personal blog. "If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the [...]
78
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox at Ectimes

[...] desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time," wrote Baker on her personal blog. "If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the [...]
79
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox | Kaiusee.com

[...] desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time,” wrote Baker on her personal blog. “If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like [...]
80
Pingback from A New Firefox Version Every Six Weeks | Mobile Phone Unlockers

[...] core reason for changing to a faster release cycle is the ability to implement and release new capabilities to [...]
81
Pingback from Herbeth Santana

[...] um post no blog da Mozilla, Mitchell Baker, presidente da Mozilla Foundation, reconheceu o problema, mas [...]
82
cuz84d said on August 26th, 2011 at 7:46 pm:

@Steve, Try looking in the Firefox menu, options, toolbar layout for your RSS feed widget.

I think major versions 4.x instead of 5,6,7,8,9 in one year is way more interesting then we caught up with Chrome and addons are only compatible at the Major version number.

Seriously the community is asking to be more sane, Major.Minor.Security version naming scheme. If its 4.x this year, 5.x next year, 6.x the year after that, that is fine, but jumping a major version every 6 weeks doesn’t help those who want stability. 3.6.4 proved that features sometimes work as a .x release but sometimes didn’t. Fork Firefox to have an LTS enterprise release branch that you update 1 time per year with the latest firefox trunk and then have a consumer version. This is how MS does windows, and it works fine.
83
onlinekg said on August 26th, 2011 at 8:51 pm:

My solution for addon compatibility problem is

1. stop update Firefox and Addon so I can use the stable version for my routine jobs.

2. Change my main daily Browser to Chrome
84
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox | Scripting4U Blog

[...] desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time," wrote Baker on her personal blog. "If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the [...]
85
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox | RegionalForward.info

[...] She acknowledged that companies can have problems with the approach, in which new browser versions arrive every six weeks, but those problems are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: [...]
86
Pingback from - Doors: Weekly Photography Challenge - Most Popular Accessories for Today's Digital Electronics on Sale

[...] Mozilla chairman Mitchell Baker acknowledged the difficulties – such as enterprise issues and broken add-on compatibility – that arise with a rapid release [...]
87
Pingback from FireFox 13

[...] [...]
88
bob said on August 27th, 2011 at 9:55 am:

1. Are Chrome and FF in a race to get to a version number in triple digits? Going from 3.6.18 to 4 to 5 to 6 in such a short time makes no sense to me.

2. I suspect that perhaps the rapid release cycle was prompted by concern about Chrome’s increasing market share.

However, that was really, imho, about speed in opening the program and in rendering pages. FF may be catching up in that regard-on my Debian Wheezy rig FF 5.0-6 is very quick-easily enough to keep users from switching for performance reasons.

However, breaking compatibility and losing developers of extensions is a very serious cost.

3. From a user standpoint, I was recently using FF 3.5 on a Debian testing machine and 3.6 on several machines with other Linux distributions. As a user I had no complaints about FF 3.5 which was still in Debian. I didn’t need any new features.

FF 5 is now in Debian Testing and it is quick-but my first reaction was annoyance at the changes in appearance until tweaking to make change the appearance to be more like it used to be.

If the user experience is a priority (which isn’t always a given in the open software world, where some are of the opinion that all that matters is the developers) then stability is essential, breaking things is a disaster that will lose users to other browsers, and performance (speed, RAM use and leakage) is more important than new features.
89
anonymous coward said on August 27th, 2011 at 1:01 pm:

“1. Are Chrome and FF in a race to get to a version number in triple digits? ”

I suspect not. Mozilla could have used many other systems, including date-based versions and dropped numbers completely. Simple digits incrementing by one with every release was probably the easiest for developers to deal with. I can only guess, but I would bet that Chrome came to that same conclusion.

“2. I suspect that perhaps the rapid release cycle was prompted by concern about Chrome’s increasing market share.”

Mozilla has said on many occasions that the rapid release cycle was prompted by a desire to ship features as they became ready. Chrome had already been doing this for some time and proved the model so I’ll bet that Mozilla was inspired some by Chrome.
90
Dave said on August 27th, 2011 at 3:27 pm:

Tonedef. Self-absorbed. User-indifferent strategy. I’ve moved to Chrome and Safari. Good luck….
91
Headboy said on August 27th, 2011 at 5:30 pm:

The current Versioning is more then retarded. At least to a special degree its funny to see how Mozilla tries to sell their Strategie Plans as good / required Steps. Sorry, this are just lies to legitimate. Sure they are currently fighting Chrome Version. This isnt really innovative to jump to the Version Numbering Train… copycat style ffs. Old Method was more serious but in my Eyes, Mozillas seriousness starts to crackle!!

To me its doubtful that this Method of Versioning Firefox is good for Quality! Its just more then annoying, specially when i see future Update Plans for Firefox 7 to 13…WTF?! Instead molesting Users or even Addon Developers every 2 Months with a new Major Build, they should keep the old Versioning Style.

Its embarrassing that Mozilla tries to fit Googles or even Operas Style. Quality of Software shouldnt care less of a Version, specially compared to other Browser Versions…

Oh no, Browser X is at Version 20.333 and we only at Version 12.

The Guys at Mozilla should really/finally start to think about this if they _need_ this behavior. This all just to catch-up Chromes Version? Not really, huh?
92
Pingback from Lankanads – Mozilla defends ‘rapid release’ of Firefox versions

[...] unmanageable by enterprises, the chair of Mozilla Foundation, which maintains the browser, said in a blog post on [...]
93
shadaik said on August 27th, 2011 at 11:31 pm:

“A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet.”
That is without a question correct.

“And the Internet moves very, very quickly.”
Thta however is relative. Other than the introduction of HTML 5 and CSS 3 there is no change in the internet that necessitates a browser update. Flash updates independently now (as does basically every other script interpreter) and everything else is just the same it has always been. HTML rendering is no different from the way it was 10 years ago save a few tags.
Due to add-on compatibility issues I have ceased updating my browser at Firefox 5. Add-Ons are an integral part of how I use my browser, they are the reason I prefer Firefox. I cannot work when the browser becomes incompatible with a few central add-ons.
In the past that was bearable. One or two add-on would stop working, they were replaceable. Most updated given some time. Now, by the time those have adapted already the next update is rolling out making them incompatible yet again.
94
Pingback from Mozilla Chair Acknowledges Enterprises Do Count for Firefox | Modern Techie

[...] desktop software could be effective at enabling an online where things happen in real time,” wrote Baker on her personal blog . “If we would like the browser to be the interface for the web, we have to make it more just [...]
95
ADR said on August 28th, 2011 at 9:00 am:

I suggest the LibreOffice release plan to adopt for FF (and also ThunderBird):

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan

In this way, AddOns could still work with the slower, older, stable version fork and Companies have more time for deployment (LTS version).
In the faster fork all new features could be implemented, tested and improved.

And please: abandon big version numbering, it’s really tacky!
96
Pingback from Mozilla on Rapid Release of New Firefox Versions: “There Is No Free Lunch” |

[...] Mozilla’s chairman Mitchell Baker responds to the criticism in a blog post. He starts by acknowledging the problem: “There is work to be done to make the rapid release [...]
97
Jure said on August 29th, 2011 at 3:54 am:

I think that having LTS Long Term Support versions is a must if you want to keep existing users.
98
Pingback from Mozilla defends ‘rapid release’ of Firefox versions | Believe Me When I Tell You

[...] unmanageable by enterprises, the chair of Mozilla Foundation, which maintains the browser, said in a blog post on [...]
99
Pingback from Code Retard: Anything Geeky Goes

[...] are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. [...]
100
John Fenderson said on August 29th, 2011 at 2:08 pm:

I am not a FF developer (although I am a software developer), just a FF user. I have been, and continue to be, deeply saddened by what is happening to my beloved Firefox.

I have been following the developments and debate since Firefox 5, which was the first FF version that actively disappointed me. The UI changes were horrible and greatly hamper usability. I started following things to determine if this was something that would only get worse (and so I should start looking for a new browser) or if the ship will be righted over time.

This is where the sad part comes in: literally all of the reaction and communication I have read from official Firefox people has indicated that they not only don’t understand the problems they are causing, but they don’t care. I have read little but contempt for users. I hear it loud and clear in Mitchell’s post here and in many of the supportive comments.

Two things are very clear to me now. 1) Firefox’s course is charted, and will be followed no matter how much FF users object, and 2) Firefox actively dislikes its user base and treats them as dumb little children.

And that makes me sad. I am sad to lose FF as a browser, but I’m not going to stay with a product that no longer meets my needs, and particularly where it’s clear that I’m not wanted.

This is the last page I’ll be viewing with firefox. I also must not only stop recommending it to others but must begin to recommend against it.

I am sorry things have reached this point. And I am sad at the loss of a long time friend.
101
kam said on August 29th, 2011 at 2:52 pm:

I also hear that Mozilla wants to push silent upgrades, presumably not giving users a choice. Once again chasing Google’s tail.

I do not install anything from Google on my system, including and especially Google Earth, because I have to agree to let them run any update on my system at any time they want.

When hell freezes over. NOTHING gets installed on my systems with out my knowledge and explicit say so!
102
anyád apád said on August 30th, 2011 at 3:27 am:

I decided to copy my thoughts from a certain site (filehippo):

“Making time-limits like ^new release every X weeks^ is a good thing, but jumping main version numbers like a crazy chamois just doesn’t make any sense. [...] In this aspect, LibreOffice has got a much more acceptable pattern.”
103
Tom Dietsche said on August 30th, 2011 at 6:08 pm:

If you are going to force rapid releases into corporate environments, then for cripes sake have the common sense to keep them backward compatible and do NOT change existing features just because you think they will be neat or cool or whatever mysterious criteria you seem to use.

End users cannot be re-trained on how to use the software every six weeks, that is something only geeks like you guys do. Every think about that? Good grief. If you add new features, at least keep the OLD ones that people know how to use and rely on. Don’t take things away at random.
The status bar is a great example, even a techie like me had to Google it to figure out how to turn it back on. That is a shame, at least you should have defaulted the new addon and configured it to show the status bar if you could not bring yourself to save the old one, which worked fine.

Well that’s enough for now but get a reality check when you do this stuff, this is not just for geeks any more.
104
App G said on August 31st, 2011 at 6:53 am:

Hi Mitchell
I’m staggered that there are so many people complaining about Mozilla moving too quickly… folks, it’s simple if you don’t want to update – don’t update!
But please, stop your whining and let Mozilla and the rest of us keep moving/updating/improving.
105
Pingback from Mozilla chair defends rapid-release Firefox | FaceColony.com

[...] are secondary compared to the alternative of holding up new features for a year, Baker said in a blog post today: A browser is the delivery vehicle for the Internet. And the Internet moves very, very quickly. [...]
106
Pingback from Mozilla Defends ‘Rapid Release’ of Firefox Versions | BuyX-Comp

[...] unmanageable by enterprises, the chair of Mozilla Foundation, which maintains the browser, said in a blog post on [...]
107
Todd said on September 1st, 2011 at 10:05 am:

I am always amazed when a company argues with success and changes what made them great. It always leads to the downfall of the company if they change their formula that brought them success in the first place.

The best does not need to imitate the others … The best leads the pack and does not follow.

People will move to something else if FF causes them continuous trouble and, apparently, this is what this policy change is causing.
108
Pingback from Mozilla Defends ‘Rapid Release’ of Firefox Versions | BuyX-Comp

[...] capabilities by almost a year. Kees Grinwis, commenting on Baker’s blog post, for example, suggested a long time support (LTS) version of [...]
109
Twig Nguyen said on September 1st, 2011 at 9:37 pm:

Personally I think Firefox is trying to be cool and act like Chrome/IE9 with their vamped up release cycles.

Firefox has one thing that they don’t have, a huge add-on base and you’re ruining it.
No matter how popular addons are, developers are limited by time. Look at the number of addons that have been abandoned and then continued by another person.

Since Firefox 4, I’ve been keeping an eye on the rapid releases and installing them only on dev machines (which have no addons). PCs with addons which I use regularly for personal browsing stay on Firefox 4 to maintain compatibility.

Firefox7 works fantastically and the memory improvements in are great, but we (in our workplace) think that the change log between Firefox5 and Firefox6 (a couple of security fixes, CSS3 improvements and changes to the addon manager) isn’t worth upgrading for.

With the huge fanfare involved with Firefox 4 and the record breaking number of downloads,
Firefox 5 should have been “Firefox 4.01″ and Firefox 6 being 4.02.

There is a mental “uh-oh” that comes with big new revisions. Why Mozilla thought they were special enough to break this barrier, I don’t know.

Chrome is somewhat exempt from this, mainly because their updates are sneaky and you don’t really have a way of disabling it.

The big version number changes should be reserved for massive revamps, even if it’s just under the hood like Firefox 7′s memory management. Much like how IE8 to IE9 was a HUGE improvement in CSS compatibility.
110
Pingback from 8 دانلود ، دانلود نرم افزار » Blog Archive » دفاع رئیس موزیلا از روند انتشار سریع فایرفاکس

[...] Baker در مطلبی که در وبلاگش منتشر کرده افزود ، همچنان کارهای دیگری باقی مانده تا [...]
111
Pingback from Firefox releases are killing me - Apple, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and iPod Reviews, Help, Tips, and News | Macworld Australia

[...] rapid changes. Last week, Mitchell Baker, the chair of the Mozilla foundation, acknowledged in a blog post, that the issues many businesses have raised are significant. She explained the reason for the [...]
112
Matt said on September 7th, 2011 at 12:09 am:

I would like to echo what Andrew #38 said:

Stability > Bells and Whistles.

I don’t want to be a beta tester; I need to get my work done. If web developers want to use the hottest new feature, they can create an add-on or fork Firefox so that their niche users can enjoy it.

What I need is a browser that works reliably, including with my add-ons.

I also think that a rapid release schedule is going to result in a release with a major bug in it, sooner or later. Having major new features kept in the unstable version for a year sounds like a great thing to me.
113
drow said on September 7th, 2011 at 7:41 am:

look, it’s clear that you’re now making firefox for your own self-gratification, and not the benefit of the people who actually want to use it. so at least do us the favor of taking your dirty smut into the bathroom.
114
Navan said on September 7th, 2011 at 6:41 pm:

I’m simply not upgrading anymore.
115
Pingback from Firefox – aussterbende Gattung? - Christian Dürrhauer Home

[...] Jetzt habe ich ein wenig rumgelesen und bin auf einen Blogeintrag von Mitchell Baker gestoßen. Mit Sicherheit würde ich mich nur als Anwender bezeichnen und verstehe viele der [...]
116
Sherman Bausch said on September 15th, 2011 at 5:08 pm:

I’m joining the camp that’s a:) no longer using firefox for myself and b:) not recommending it / installing it. This is sloppy policy and contrary to any level of support stability.

Good luck and thank god there are other good browsers out there.
117
ben said on September 17th, 2011 at 8:08 am:

I’m completely surprised by this dreadful turn of events in the Ff development cycle. I’ve spent the last 5 years getting clients (and anyone that would listen) to switch to Firefox; now I’ve spent the last two months rolling back to 3.6 so that functionality/performance robbed from my clientele was returned. Many have switched back to IE or Chrome. There is a reason why I am… excuse me, WAS… not using or recommending Chrome, and that was because Firefox was awesome – even if it took 10 times longer than IE or Chrome to start up. Now it’s broken, buggy and slow all the time with these new releases addressing none of the obvious crashing and freezing up. Thanks a lot, Firefox.

How can I/you expect extension developers, who are working FOR YOU FOR FREE, to hurry their development cycles to accommodate for your arbitrary updating? How can you expect business users (let alone “normal” users like my mom and grandmother) to keep using your browser when the things that worked last week don’t this week or if they must stick with a insecure and outdated browser to have stability and the functionality they’ve come to rely upon? How can you expect IT people that have reputations and are forced to deal with the fallout of this terrible decision to continue recommending Ff?

Chrome has taken up the mantle of extensible, fast browsing, and IE has the full weight of Microsoft and brand recognition behind it. Firefox, the one-time leader and innovator, has now turned and begun following the followers. I guess I should give the new leader another try and find out what Chrome has that is so awesome. It’s the new easy fix for Firefox – install Chrome.

Good luck Firefox. I’m sorry but you’ve done it to yourself, which is the worst offense of all.
118
anonymous said on September 17th, 2011 at 9:55 pm:

Please slow the Firefox updates, or at least come up with a long-term support strategy. I’m an IT manager for a government agency, and it is a large pain to have to re-test STIGs, compatibility with various internal web applications, and add-ons such as PKCS#11 middleware. The quick major releases with no long-term support commitment gives Firefox a bad rap with my colleagues.

Installable software applications are different than web applications. It is not just about giving web developers access to the latest HTML5 tools; it is about providing a stable user experience.
119
YesBaby said on September 24th, 2011 at 2:10 am:

Yeah, please make it shorter! The decision, whether I’ll tackle on alternative browser (which why I chose Firefox in the past) is now also far more shorter. Really good job! You should get an award to get to Firefox 20 in July 2012!

I’m glad that there are still browser which do not need big numbers every few weeks and where developers have enough time to let a number stay a number.
120
Suraklin said on October 3rd, 2011 at 4:57 am:

On the offchance this has any influence I too tried following through the version 4 – 7 and found each one less stable and with new things I could not do that I used to be able to.

For example I haven’t been able to access two online financial accounts on FF since version 4.0 surfaced.

Luckily I still had install binaries for 3.6 so I have rolled back to a version that allows me to, you know, browse all the sites I use daily.

You must remember that the one and only ‘killer’ function of a browser is the ability to browse the internet. No quantity of bells and whistles is going to appeal to me if I can’t do the basic browsing to start with.
121
Pingback from Rapid Release Follow-Up | Mitchell's Blog

[...] recent post on the rapid release cycle generated a lot of response, some very thoughtful and some also very frustrated. Many of the [...]
122
Marcel said on October 6th, 2011 at 1:29 pm:

I can nothing but wholeheartedly support Dan’s comment #18, http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process/#comment-19110.

I wish the big wings at Mozilla realized that it’s not just the enterprise folks who care about stability (releases & API).
Simple question: what do you think counts more for the average non-enterprise Firefox/Thunderbird user
a) a few new features every month thereby loosing a few add-ons because fewer and fewer add-on devs want to release that quickly (they all devote their *spare* time, get it?)
b) a batch of new features every 9 months which had given add-on devs ample time to prepare

Isn’t really a question, is it?

Firefox isn’t so great because it’s Firefox from Mozilla but because of the ecosystem around it. Go out and piss off those who built the ecosystem and it’s gonna die.
123
Pingback from Tell Mozilla to slow down

[...] Why not start by commenting the chairperson’s personal blog post: http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process [...]
124
Justin said on October 7th, 2011 at 8:30 am:

Please stop rolling major version numbers. Stop pretending its a marketing gimmick. Firefox users are not dumb mass users…that’s what IE users are. Firefox users choose Firefox for a reason and you’re ruining that reason.

When you implemented Tab Candy…that was awesome and a great reason to roll a new version. Since then?…WTF?
125
Pingback from What's All the Fuss Over Firefox's New Rapid Release Cycle? | ConceivablyTech

[...] Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, said recently on her blog, “If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the [...]
126
Bob Trower said on October 19th, 2011 at 5:56 pm:

As another user mentioned, I suggest you spend some time understanding this guy:
http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/08/25/rapid-release-process/#comment-19110

I have been developing systems for decades in a wide variety of environments and I had an instant and visceral reaction to this nonsense of a ‘rapid release schedule’. It is too much to go into here, but the people promoting this have a deep, profound and difficult to correct misunderstanding of the process of developing and releasing production software. They should be replaced by people with more sense.

There would certainly have been people with their head screwed on right that screamed about this at Mozilla. Find the ones that made coherent arguments and put them in charge while you sort out this mess.

YES you should be doing relatively stable builds on a rolling basis and you should be prepared to release bug and security fixes in a timely fashion. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO (BAD DOG!) you should not make architectural, UI and compatibility breaking changes and rolling them out without a great deal of advance notice, buy-in, testing, a proper roadmap, etc. What you have created is chaos. I am doubtful that the benefits you think you are delivering are all that beneficial, but even if they were, they are RADICALLY outweighed by the disruption the releases have caused. There is not a whisper of doubt about this. You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong and the wisest course is to admit it surely, quickly and convincingly while you still have a chance to salvage something.

I have already switched my default browsers on my various systems from FireFox to Chrome. Unless someone gets a grip on this situation, I will be uninstalling FireFox and will abandon it altogether. This is not because I am peevish (though I am), it is because what you have now is becoming unusable. I am typing this in FireFox v 3.6.23 because the software has no option to update to whatever the latest is (7.01 this week?).

You have taken a fine and highly competitive product with a user base in the millions and goodwill created over many years and thrown it all away on a foolish, impetuous whim born of hubris and ignorance of your craft.

You are in a hole. STOP DIGGING!

It does not matter how eloquent your arguments are, you have made a disastrous mistake and no amount of preaching to your user base (which includes likely tens or hundreds of thousands of users with more development experience than you have) will make that mistake go away. What you need to do is recognize your mistake and take corrective measures while you still have a user base.

The only reason you should break compatibility is to make major architectural changes that are required to allow you to, for instance, finally correct your horrendous memory and stability bugs.

I am so disappointed that the hard work of many excellent programmers over all these years and the dedication of a long suffering user base is being wasted because some journeyman developers cannot see past their own noses.

Other than that, I suppose everything is OK. I would really love for FireFox to get back to a rational time-honored release regime similar to:

MM.mm.rrr.bbbb (Major/Minor/Release/Build).

Your goal should be to build a product so sound that the major version stays in place for years, minor versions last a year or two and releases and builds can be updated at whatever rate is required without disrupting anything.

The notion that rolling updates should happen quickly without user intervention is fine, but only for bug fixes and security updates that impact nothing else.

It is much worse than this, but you have, for instance, confused/conflated Major Version Releases with Minor Updates.

This is harsh and I apologize for the tone, but this is an emergency. I doubt that FireFox will survive unless you take sensible action quickly. Releasing version 16 next year is not a sensible action.
127
Bob Trower said on October 19th, 2011 at 6:05 pm:

Clarification re: “because the software has no option to update to whatever the latest is ” — The Help/Check for Updates is there, but it reports that there are no updates. It is effectively broken either by reporting falsely that there is no update or failing to mention that the update pathway for this release is (perhaps temporarily?) closed. Sigh.
128
jimstaffer said on October 26th, 2011 at 4:22 pm:

I whole-heartedly agree with Bob Trower’s comments above. Very succinct, accurate and insightful. There are undoubtedly many other excellent points made by others, but I haven’t read the entire blog…

If the desired outcome is for people to abandon firefox in droves – Mozilla has chosen a very effective strategy. I have not tried chrome, due to “Big Brother” concerns about Google, so I installed Opera instead. Until all this madness with firefox started, I had no reason to use anything else.

This affects me more because I run Linux almost exclusively for my small business.

Think of it this way. You’re the captain of the Titanic – a state-of-the art ship. _Lots_ of people around you are saying things like this to you: Captain, we’re at a very high latitude. It’s a bad time of year for ‘bergs. The water is savagely cold. It’s dark. We’re going very fast. We don’t have enough lifeboats. If we get in trouble, nobody will be able to help. Your response: “We don’t want to be late – steady as she goes…”

If you stay the course, a disaster is not likely, it’s a near certainty. Honestly, this is ridiculous. I can’t believe we’re even having this discussion…
129
Bob Trower said on November 1st, 2011 at 8:26 am:

I have added a response to Mitchell’s update here:

http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2011/10/03/rapid-release-follow-up/#comment-20012

I am not sure where things stand as of now, but for myself, I have switched all but one of my default browsers to Google’s Chrome and have left FireFox on my systems (about a dozen Windows/Linux boxen) as a backup or for when I need a particular plug-in. It pains me to do this, but FireFox is currently somewhat dysfunctional and from what I can tell it is threatening to become more so.

A thought for someone involved in this Mayhem at Mozilla:

“There are more things in heaven and earth … Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. Because I have a large number of special purpose Virtual Machines and intermittently used equipment, it happens that I can (and do) fire up a system that has not been used in weeks or even months. In fact, I have a bunch of things running v 3.x of FireFox that I have used, but did not have the energy to stay up to update its version of FireFox. My current experience with FireFox is that I spend about as much time tending to its needs as I do browsing with it and unless it is already running and updated, I am almost certain to be delayed while it fiddles with one thing or another. It is effectively unusable for me. I sure I am not alone.

I do not think Moz people are actively malicious. I doubt they have set out to dis-include me and people like me from their user base. They just have not thought this through properly, and a part of that, it seems to me, is because the people in charge have a poor understanding of what they should be doing.

It is discouraging that after all the feedback, Moz seems to be officially framing this as a failure in their ability to communicate and/or educate their users rather than a breakdown in their understanding of the problem. They just don’t get it.
130
Simon said on November 6th, 2011 at 1:23 pm:

How long before this update cycle drives me to Chrome, because it will.

75% of the plugins I use and require for my work are incompatible with version 5, let alone 7.

Firefox was touted as the plug-in friendly browser, and sure enough a huge community of plugin developers built up. Great, good idea, it really worked.

So now what to do? Yeah piss all the plugin developers off, make them re check every 6 weeks. You think that’s going to go well? Ever wondered why Mr Firebug left?

In what parallel universe does that make sense.

Speaking of pissing people off, how much fun is it to keep trying to work out which version of FF will work with your plugins. Do you expect me to go to each and every plugin and page and keep track of their supported versions. Maybe I could keep a spreadsheet!!! So much fun to look forward to!

So I have a choice of Firefox 4 or IE or Chrome, Chrome is also diseased with the insane update schedule, Firebug is better than IE tools…. So I will stick with Firefox 4 for the foreseeable future.

S
131
Pingback from Celebrating 7 years of Firefox with the newest (and cutest) Mozillians! | The Mozilla Blog

[...] recently shifted to a new release cycle to deliver features, performance enhancements, security updates and stability improvements to users [...]
132
Rich said on November 9th, 2011 at 12:39 pm:

As someone who has used Firefox since prior to version 1, and doesn’t like IE, Chrome, Opera, or Safari, what I have always known and loved about Firefox is that it has such a huge number of great add-ons (more powerful than Chrome’s add-ons) and until recently, Firefox has always gone through a great deal of planning and beta testing before releasing new versions to the public, resulting in a better quality product and giving the add-on developers the time to ensure compatibility. And this version number inflation is quite off-putting, as I remember using versions that were 0.x back before 1.0 came out, and how they were superior to Internet Explorer 6.0, which was the official release version of Internet Explorer for YEARS. I like the way you USED TO do things, how you used to have browser updates not happen ALL THE TIME, how I could use the same version of Firefox for a long time and have a whole lot of great add-ons to enhance my browsing experience and the headache of upgrading to a new version and having to deal with incompatible add-ons didn’t happen that often. I don’t see why you have to inflate the major version numbers so much; you were doing the version numbers fine until you went straight from version 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 to 8; now I’m using Firefox version 8.0 to type this, and I haven’t yet sorted through all my extension compatibility problems. This is getting to be quite annoying to me as an end-user, but I don’t see any better options out there as far as browsers that would support the large number of add-ons that I use. While I don’t think this rapid release thing is ALL bad (you have managed to improve the browser and such), I think it would have been a better process if, say, all of the changes between Firefox 4.0 and Firefox 8.0 had been done ALL AT ONCE so that the release notes would actually have a longer list of new stuff to boast about, and THEN you’d have enough reason to increment the major version number by 1. But since Firefox 4.0, you’ve done what should have been classified as minor versions, so for instance, 5.0 should have been 4.1, 6.0 should have been 4.2, 7.0 should have been 4.3, and 8.0 should have been 4.4. If you increment the version number by 1 every 6 weeks, that is twice in each of the 4 seasons of the year, or 8 times per year total. Do we really need the version number to increase by one 8 times a year, and to break compatibility with add-ons 8 times a year, and have a new version with a very small list of improvements 8 times a year? I’m not saying that Internet Explorer’s release cycle, where it was stuck at version 6.0 for YEARS and had virtually no improvements that whole time, is one to follow. I’m saying there has to be some sort of middle ground. How about having every other Aurora build make it to Beta and every other Beta build make it to Stable… in other words, ever 6 weeks a new Aurora major release, every 12 weeks a new Beta major release, and every 24 weeks a new Stable major release. This way the Aurora and Beta release channels can get more of the early-adopter type people who want releases more often to switch to those release channels and beta test things, while the Stable release channel won’t have to deal with as many versions and will be a more polished, quality product that has gone through more testing and doesn’t come out with a new version every 6 weeks. Honestly, this 6 week Rapid Release idea that you’ve actually followed through on is almost as bad as putting EVERYBODY on Nightly builds. I am getting SO SICK of my favorite Firefox extensions, one by one, no longer being updated to keep up with the latest Firefox versions. I generally just override compatibility using the Nightly Tester Tools extension, but then I have to troubleshoot which extension is causing problems whenever a new version comes out, since I keep all my extensions turned on and override the compatibility testing. But this is just getting out of control. I use Firefox because it is the most extensible browser out there, and what I love about it ISN’T the browser, but the extensions. Please stop ruining things for the Firefox add-ons with this Rapid Release system! You’re destroying your add-on ecosystem! If you stop Rapid Release now and go back to the old policy, add-on developers will be able to catch up and you can minimize the harm done, but if you keep doing this, you’ll destroy what made Firefox great in the first place, and I’ll probably have to stop updating to new versions of Firefox and just stick with a version where my extensions all WORK. Oh, and if you ever drop support for Windows XP like that awful Internet Explorer, that is the last straw as far as I’m concerned. Here is an idea for you: stop trying to be like Google Chrome, and go back to being something different and better, like you were until a few months ago when you started this Rapid Release madness. If you DO continue Rapid Release, you should focus on not breaking compatibility with existing add-ons, such as themes and extensions, and making things as painless as possible for add-on developers, end-users, and people who deploy Firefox in enterprises. And stop it with the version number inflation already. It’s OK to have a lower version number than other browsers, as long as your product is superior.
133
Pingback from Daily Cavalier » Blog Archive » Celebrating 7 years of Firefox with the newest (and cutest) Mozillians!

[...] recently shifted to a new release cycle to deliver features, performance enhancements, security updates and stability improvements to users [...]
134
herbert said on November 11th, 2011 at 9:20 am:

Enough people have made a lot of points on why this is BAD. I won’t repeat them. Just so you know there is one more pissed of user than you expected.

I just got version 9 beta this morning. If I keep getting “updates” that has nothing updated (I know you have done some work for each version, but I cannot see anything and I cannot feel anything updated or changed), I’ll just completely stop playing the “refreshing version number frequently to make me feel that I’m up to date” game. It’s just a waste of time. A million users spend 5 minutes updating for something that benefit, in the short term, 1000 developers and hard-cores (perhaps). Stop pushing, at the insane speed, the update to features that 1 out of 100,000 users care about and stop pushing the fixes that concerns 1 out of 100,000 users. Users’ time is valuable and should not be wasted this way.
135
Marcelo said on November 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm:

Another pissed off user with this whole madness rapid release.
136
Cassandra said on November 15th, 2011 at 4:42 pm:

Whoever thought this was a good idea?

This new system seems to be fraught with problems, with no real benefits.

I, too, am another user who has left FireFox because of the current direction of Mozilla.

Sad, as I used to be a huge supporter of Mozilla.
137
Gary said on November 16th, 2011 at 10:02 am:

This seems to me to be a classic disconnect with the customer – Firefox’s own version of the Netflix debacle. I have contact with a lot of users and developers and I have yet to come across anyone who was saying “Ooh, it’s much more important to me to have the absolutely latest thing that the Firefox team think I should have than to have a reliable and stable system with which all the add-ons I rely on can keep working”. I would say the 6-week update thing is a developer’s fantasy world, but as I say, I don’t know any developers that think its a good idea. Most of them are battling to keep ahead of the curve and the idea that they would welcome having to more updates and tests of the systems they create, and do this once every six weeks is insane.

Bad move Firefox. The sooner you realize the error in what you’re doing, the sooner you’ll be able to win back the user base that you’re now losing. Admit it was a mistake, implement something less draconian, and move on and your users will forgive you. If you don’t they will go elsewhere.
138
Will said on November 28th, 2011 at 4:23 pm:

It’s ridiculous that you’ve gone this route. Why does the version number have to go up at least 8 times per year? Why do you keep messing with the UI and not giving people a choice about disabling the new features? I mainly stay with Firefox due to Adblock Plus (hope it never gets disabled by newer versions of Fx), and because I like the alternatives (IE, Chrome) even less.
139
Ben said on November 30th, 2011 at 11:44 pm:

Eventually, the version number of Firefox will become bigger than the version number of Internet Explorer!
140
Ben said on December 1st, 2011 at 12:07 am:

If you’re having trouble with add-ons, you can always get Add-on Compatibility Reporter.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/?src=search
141
Ben said on December 1st, 2011 at 12:29 am:

Eventually, the version number of Firefox will become bigger than the version number of Internet Explorer (and Google Chrome!)!
142
Sergey Grigoriev said on December 1st, 2011 at 8:57 pm:

Why my add-ons don’t work anymore ? As a user I don’t care about version numbers, the old version numbers system was OK, but now you give me a better version numbers but my add-ons stop working with every upgrade when major version changes. Firefox’s advantage was add-ons ecosystem and you destroyed it.
143
Brent Passarella said on December 7th, 2011 at 10:08 am:

As a system administrator in a school district, I’d like to portray the challenges that the rapid release system has presented to us.

To lead off with, we have over 700 computers, and 2 people to support them. We are limited in our ability to “push” updates out because not all our hardware is the same, and tend to do most of our re-imaging and non-critical updating over the summer. Our school uses gmail for education, and the instructors enjoy plug-ins like gmail notifier, and other conveniences. When firefox updates, and for security reasons you need an administrator ID to update it, that forces 2 guys to go around and physically touch every computer in our district to get things updated. Worse yet, when the interface changes, we get overloaded with confused teachers wanting to know where this, or that went. Then we have to research new plug-ins to give our users the conveniences they have become accustomed to, and manually hit every machine to make those plug-ins available.

Our solution for these issues at the current time, is to slowly phase out firefox in favor of a more stable, update-friendly browser like Chrome. I think the real question you should ask yourself, is are these updates so important that it’s worth losing many of your enterprise users for?
144
Chris said on December 17th, 2011 at 1:35 pm:

I have found two places on the internet where there is people suporting these changes.

1 – the mozilline forums, there is lots of fanboys there who I think mainly run nightly or beta versions, they are the early adopter type and I got shot down when I voiced my concerns.
2 – the mozilla bug pages, every dev who posts there seems to think nothing is wrong and all back the idea.

I agree with all the concerns in the replies. For me the broken essential plugin is bartab, and its not to do with the verisoning it simply broke in ff4 onwards. FF4-6 all broke sites that used the verified by visa page which was many major shopping sites from large companies, it took me many weeks to get used to the gui change that removed the very useful down button to get previous pages, on my laptop its still a nuisance to adjust to this change as it has no mouse so right clicking is much harder.

I have no idea why chrome has the userbase it has, as the majority of people will be happy with something that “just works” and is stable. Most people dont like changing interfaces. But its a grave mistake to think copying chrome is a good idea, as you just make it easier for people to leave as there will be less barriers and you trying to cater to chrome fans instead of firefox fans who liked ff how it was in 3.6. New features ‘should’ take a year or more to arrive as they should be properly tested and fine tuned. I think this is a classic copy chrome and also a decision made for the dev’s, developers of software hate it when people dont use the latest version they themselves use and hate even more coding old code, the FreeBSD devs have the same issue although to a lesser degree as they support multiple versions at once whilst firefox dont.
145
Wolfie said on January 12th, 2012 at 9:51 pm:

“If we don’t do something like this the browser becomes a limiting factor in what the Internet can do.”

That phrase right there makes me question how much you know and understand about the Internet. The Internet isn’t made up of web browsers, it’s a collection of computers that transmit data. When I use an instant messenger, that’s not affected by what the latest version of FireFox or any other web browser for that matter. There are online games as well as other usages that don’t even touch web browsing or it’s level of development. So to say that a web browser becomes a limited factor in what the Internet can do is just a clue to the world that you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

I can understand wanting to implement the latest agreed-upon/proven/endorsed technologies, but jacking up the primary version number is careless and pointless.

It would make more sense to save the major version numbers for HUGE changes and to use smaller version numbers for slight enhancements as well as bug fixes.

Let’s take FireFox version 10.0.1 for example (I know I know, right as I said that, version 12.0.1 got released and version 13.0.1 is coming out in a few minutes..). Fixed a few bugs? Great, let’s make that version 10.0.2. Some new technologies that have been added in as well as some bug fixes? Okay, let’s make that 10.1.1. Oh wow, the primary design/development of FF just got an overhaul, so that it’s more efficient, new features, new technologies, etc etc etc? Okay, make that version 11.0.1.

Face it, inflating the version numbers is nothing more than a stupid idea based on what was thought to be a good premise but is now causing more harm than any possible ounce of good that might be coming from it.

Oh and for the record, go to college and learn what the Internet really is, because the fact that you think a web browsers can affect the development and advancements of the Internet as a whole is just ridiculous and stupid, and that’s putting it NICELY.
146
Wolfie said on January 12th, 2012 at 10:02 pm:

Oh and it’s stuff like this (bloating up the version numbers to seem impressive but claiming it’s for another reason) that turns people away. Halfway tempted to toss FireFox aside since the constant version numbers are a hassle and not a help. (Are we at version 8675309 yet? I missed it already?!? Wow…)
147
K Silva said on January 17th, 2012 at 6:43 pm:

Back to the incompatibility of extensions after installing the “latest release.”

Version 9.0.1 was most recently offered to users as the “latest release” of FF for download and installation–as is the custom. And, after installing this “latest release” countless users are again plagued by numerous incompatible extensions post-upgrade.

Suggest:
What if FF adopted the terminology “latest stable release” to indicate a release is intended for all users and has met criteria necessary to ensure that users can install the “stable” version without concern that they may lose the use of some extensions after the uopgrade.

My two cents.
————————–
Ken
148
rojanu said on February 1st, 2012 at 6:16 am:

I don’t like this version inflation at all, very difficult to get your had round it. Why does each of these “Rapid Release Process” releases grant a major version change? So far I haven’t met anyone who can understand and happy about it.
149
PC Pros 2 Go said on February 1st, 2012 at 11:28 am:

I just notified for version 10 today. Really? Considering a year ago we were all running version 3. This pretty much goes against the version process that has been around since home computers started coming out.

Which is something like this, x.xx.xx Major Version, Minor Version, Incremental release. And maybe each of these rapid releases have some major changes to them, but they really don’t appears to be all that different from 3.6.

I mean was it all really to make Firefox appear more mature that IE9? Let’s catch up with their numbering and keep on getting it?

Not to mention add-on developers having to continually re-release their work. Or having to make conditional patches because one version works great in FF3-6 but needs this patch for 7 and a different one for 8-9, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, Firefox has and will continue to be my main browser but this is just a little ridiculous.
150
Steven McKeon said on February 2nd, 2012 at 1:01 pm:

I think that this is getting out of hand. As a web developer I have to check our sites in all major browsers. For Firefox we now have to check it on 7 different machines because you can’t install 2 versions on the same computer. Maybe I should invest in a data center just to test out sites in FF.

I have been a loyal Firefox user for many years and have converted many IE users but now I will be pointing them to Chrome.

Good job Mozilla soon you wont have to worry about versions because you will have lost the whole internet community.
151
Jacob Lane said on February 3rd, 2012 at 2:27 am:

“If it aint broke, don’t fix it.”

Like hundreds of you, I am also greatly annoyed that Mozilla has decided to institute this so-called “rapid release” program, wherein I get a “new” browser few weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for new and innovative ideas for creating better technology, and the core concept of the RR program is not without merit. like a lot of things, however, the problem is with the implementation. As one commenter said, was there no middle ground between wanting to push year-old features and full version releases for a couple of bug fixes? How about a discussion with the community before getting all crazy like?

When dealing with a widely adopted community software package like FF, forcing global overnight adoption of a new approach to releasing software is not a bright idea. Especially when it breaks several existing things, like Add-Ons. You are just going to confuse people and disillusion your loyal supporters. In his original blog post, Mitchell says, ” …the Internet moves very, very quickly.” This also applies to user adoption of the technology they use to interface with the Internet. Fortunes and made and lost overnight, and don’t think lifelong FF users won’t switch to an alternative if you keep this up. Look what happened to MySpace once Facebook came on the scene, etc.

Also, I concur that this smells like a marketing ploy. IE is up to version 10, Chrome is at version 16, and who knows/cares where the others are at. So, here we are … FF v 10.0 … you have your double-digit version number. You can finally get the respect you deserve when chatting up the ladies at the bar. Can we stop the madness now and take a breather to re-evaluate this release model? If you feel the same, Twitter #StopFFat10.
152
iknasi said on February 7th, 2012 at 1:06 am:

You’re destroying Firefox. Is Google paying somebody to do so?

If you issue not finished software, before to try it properly then the user experience is bad and people will start to migrate to other solutions like Chrome.

Just like me, how can you issue version 10.0? I cannot use it!

Guys, I hope you know what you’re doing.
153
Chris said on February 18th, 2012 at 9:50 am:

Tired of the rapid release concept. Maybe one of your rapid releases can address why the browser, with this page alone open, is taking up 188MB of RAM or that I frequently end up finding the FireFox browser has 1.5 GB of committed memory.

Opera and Chrome are looking like attractive alternatives. So sorry to say this. But there is a time I have to cut ties in a relationship, and this is coming close. There are prettier girls flirting with me, and I’m coming increasingly dissatisfied in my current relationship.

Honestly, I think someone should call for your resignation.
154
Chris said on February 18th, 2012 at 9:54 am:

And one other thing – I find it really freaking creepy that you pull in my avatar by associating it with my e-mail address that “will not be published”.
155
Unhappy User said on March 14th, 2012 at 10:11 pm:

I have always welcomed software updates and I appreciate new or better functionality anyhow what Mozilla is doing is simply insane. The company I work for has come to rely on FireFox and ThunderBird for a variety of reasons and while the updates fix issues, they also cause major issues by breaking compatibility with add-ons and plug-ins that are necessary to us. Developers of such useful add-ons must be super annoyed and reluctant to put any work into updating their software if you will keeping making it incompatible with every release. Please don’t alienate developers that gravitate around your platform… find a way to ensure compatibility of their tools with newer versions of your software or myself and many other are sure to move away from your software… forever!
156
JBR said on March 16th, 2012 at 8:27 pm:

It’s incredible. Firefox is now on version 11. This misguided policy will be the unfortunate death of FF, and it’s a shame nobody in power ever bothered to read the comments on this post to understand why… or change from the blind course.

The saddest part is this death is unnecessary, and self-inflicted. Change for the sake of change only is always the wrong approach… just ask Mr. Softee. (Chrome can only make this sort-of work because the updates all happen seamlessly behind-the-scenes with no prompting.)

R.I.P. Firefox, I knew ye well.
157
Keith Kie said on March 17th, 2012 at 11:06 am:

Seriously FireFox, get with the program! Breaking add-on’s, jumping version numbers like mad, its INSANE, I am one breath away from going to Chrome and never looking back. Version 11 better be the last “major” update or I am gone. If not, then i’m off FireFox in 6 weeks.

Rapid release my ass, this is KILLING the FireFox community.
158
required said on March 21st, 2012 at 1:45 am:

I’m fed up with all those “major” update too. I like firefox but I definitively don’t need new features every 6 weeks. So many update are just a pain in the a…
159
DW said on March 23rd, 2012 at 2:05 am:

Last hope – just switched to Firefox ESR to avoid all of the constant updating and version changes. If you start messing around with that, or try to sneak in updates to the ESR edition without letting users know (the so called silent update “feature,”) then I will be gone completely.
160
jimbo said on April 1st, 2012 at 11:41 am:

I’ve switched to Chrome. So, some people wanted to tell the world that Firefox was under new management – why else would this happen?
161
LegendsOfBatman said on April 25th, 2012 at 7:46 pm:

“And the Internet moves very, very quickly. Philosophically, I do not believe a product that moves at the speed of traditional desktop software can be effective at enabling an Internet where things happen in real time. If we want the browser to be the interface for the Internet, we need to make it more like the Internet. That means delivering capabilities when they are ready.”

The problem with this philosophy is is that it is updating TOO rapidly, that software makers AND the supposed “internet speed” is not working. My anti-virus add-on ($80 version of Kaspersky) could not keep up with the nonsensical updates, rendering it’s browser features useless.

Do people understand that there is a balance? Waiting a year for features to catch up, is in fact stupid, and holds technology back. However, rendering valid software useless every six weeks is just as stupid.
Mozilla needs to work with vendors, and create balance. Having 8 updates in a year is ridiculous. And, it is frustrating to us.
162
Maksim said on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:44 pm:

This tipe of updating is like mental challenged rule the project.

The browser only was good, but with updetes it strts eat the memory faster and faster.
Addon`s autors can`t update addods permanently. Why shoud I need to view @updated@ browser without addons became usual foe me?
163
Jeffrey Piter said on May 6th, 2012 at 9:09 am:

Since ver. 9 things some web sites no longer work properly. Ver. 11 is very unstable, going down once an hour or more frequently. Are we all ß testers for these insane version hikes?
Once Roboform fully functions with Chrome, Firefox will become the alternate.
164
精力剤、媚薬、ED薬 said on May 9th, 2012 at 1:32 am:

精力剤、媚薬、ED薬、漢方薬の海外健康食品、個人輸入代行【http://www.i005.com/】
165
jack said on May 11th, 2012 at 11:45 am:

The rapid release process totally sucks. Please stop! You are throwing rocks in the faces of your fan base. Seriously, why do you think people want to be bugged all the time about ANOTHER upgrade? All add-ons are having trouble keeping up, and it doesn’t make any sense. Fix it before you lose all your market share, because most disgruntled people will just switch to another browser, as I have, without actually telling you. That seems to be your choice, fix it or goodbye firefox….
166
David N. Jafferian said on May 14th, 2012 at 6:44 am:

This is the sort of thing which happens when a lawyer drives software development. A browser is an interface to the World Wide Web. It is not the interface to the Internet. And it is certainly not well suited to be a delivery vehicle for the Internet.
167
ZEfiPvakJxp said on May 21st, 2012 at 7:34 am:

michael kors handbag http://www.michaelkors-wholesale.com/#421 RBdsYotdDmi
168
QPaiPmwxVvg said on May 21st, 2012 at 9:19 am:

michael kors sale http://www.michaelkors-wholesale.net/#336 ZWxaUlgyZxd
169
michael kors purses said on May 23rd, 2012 at 9:31 pm:

michael kors purses http://www.michael-kors-wholesale.net/#1644
170
michael kors sale said on May 24th, 2012 at 9:41 am:

michael kors http://www.michael-kors-wholesale.net/#7367
171
michael kors handbags outlet said on May 24th, 2012 at 11:03 am:

michael kors bag michael kors tote michael kors handbag
172
pavtvygiw said on June 2nd, 2012 at 3:50 am:

Utstcarb coach outlet online http://www.coach2012-outlet.com/
173
moisiyrpx said on June 2nd, 2012 at 10:36 am:

Zlrhksuew coach outlet http://www.discount-coach-onsale.com/
174
Roofing said on June 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 pm:

You have a really good blog. Very interesting read. I will be back to look for more posts, keep it going.
___________________________
roofing
175
Injundeldeple said on June 6th, 2012 at 1:27 pm:

Search inquiries, the words in which consumers sort in to the search container, hold remarkable benefit. Encounter shows that search results targeted traffic may make (or split) an company’s achievement. Site visitors to your internet site can offer promotion, profits, as well as exposure like few other channel of selling. Buying Search engine optimisation, whether or not over time or perhaps finances, may have a fantastic fee involving give back in comparison to other sorts of marketing and advertising and also advertising.
176
KiteGuerbmurik said on June 7th, 2012 at 8:52 am:

http://www.louisvuittoninoutlet.co.uk
myhavm
177
uggschuhedfxqk said on June 14th, 2012 at 5:49 pm:

moncler daunenjacke
moncler eric
moncler aubert
sac longchamp
moncler düsseldorf
moncler code
moncler aussprache
178
aAw7tv1IWpm said on June 16th, 2012 at 2:13 pm:

http://www.burberry-japan.net/##random..9]#random..9]#random..9]#random..13] <a href=http://www.burberry-japan.net/##random..9]#random..9]#random..9]#random..9>{バーバリー|burberry|バーバリー財布|バーバリーアウトレット|バーバリーコート|バーバリーマフラー|バーバリーバッグ|バーバリートレンチコート|バーバリーネクタイ|バーバリーハンカチ|バーバリーコートメンズ|バーバリー財布メンズ|バーバリースーツ|バーバリー店舗|バーバリーベルト|バーバリー長財布|バーバリーポロシャツ|burberry 財布|バーバリートレンチ|バーバリーブリット|トレンチコートバーバリー|バーバリー香水|バーバリーメンズ|バーバリーコートレディース|バーバリーワンピース|バーバリービジネスバッグ|バーバリーシャツ|財布バーバリー|バーバリー買取|バーバリーバック|バーバリー手袋} {バーバリー|burberry|バーバリー財布|バーバリーアウトレット|バーバリーコート|バーバリーマフラー|バーバリーバッグ|バーバリートレンチコート|バーバリーネクタイ|バーバリーハンカチ|バーバリーコートメンズ|バーバリー財布メンズ|バーバリースーツ|バーバリー店舗|バーバリーベルト|バーバリー長財布|バーバリーポロシャツ|burberry 財布|バーバリートレンチ|バーバリーブリット|トレンチコートバーバリー|バーバリー香水|バーバリーメンズ|バーバリーコートレディース|バーバリーワンピース|バーバリービジネスバッグ|バーバリーシャツ|財布バーバリー|バーバリー買取|バーバリーバック|バーバリー手袋}
that i certainly in a poition to aggregate your toe brook calefaction in arctic winter month and air-conditioned if the altitude mould wishes as be paid at eae.
179
Offefucky said on June 19th, 2012 at 2:57 pm:

Air France
180
1hRfaR5qs said on June 29th, 2012 at 10:47 am:

mac store, http://www.mac-online.net
181
Ymektubve said on June 30th, 2012 at 12:00 am:

mac makeup, http://www.mac-online.net
182
zxq9 said on July 1st, 2012 at 9:27 am:

Your initial assumption is wrong: The browser is not the interface, or even just the face of, the Internet. Its just the Web, and the web is essentially a publishing medium. An application browser is necessary to implement application publication and properly provide interactivity, so that is what will evolve, and though it will make a lot of sense to have Web browsers, Application browsers and other forms of communication applications (like SIP clients and Email) mesh well together, they are fundamentally different things.

So you can cool it off a bit and stop pushing crap out because Chrome is scary. Anyway, Chrome has cancer, isn’t sustainable and looks a lot like Google spyware anyway — why make the same mistake here with Firefox?

We need a stable window to a publication protocol, not a gee-whiz sandwich full of broken glass, especially in the enterprise.
183
miko said on August 11th, 2012 at 4:23 am:

if you want continue to be the Web Browser please stop changing the releases so frequently. I really hate to upgrade the FireFox so often! Can’t you settle at least some release cycle? maybe like the one Ubuntu has? Or maybe you could have two versions like: stable one and cutting edge one? I already post this message from Chrome which normally I do not prefer.
184
Pingback from Hydroxycut Pro Clinical, 72 Rapid Release Caplets | health and nutrition advice, nutrition and health, health and nutrition

[...] Rapid Release Process [...]
185
Kirby said on October 15th, 2012 at 12:07 pm:

The rapid release cycle is really starting to become a problem for Firefox. I spoke with people just today who have made the switch to Chrome simply because they’re tired of the constant updates. As a computer technician who installs Firefox on customer’s computers, so am I. Chrome has already begun to overtake the market. Yes, you have to appease the content developers, but first and foremost you have to appease your target market, which is the end user. What can Firefox 16 do that Firefox 4, released less than 2 years ago, not do? Lots of wonderful things, I’m sure. But does the change affect the daily lives of the vast majority of your users? And with the latest release being taken down within a day of release for a major security issue maybe it’s time to slow things down a bit. I can tell you that I am a few updates away from switching, and not just on my computer, but on the computers of all of my customers, too. Enough, already. A new Firefox release used to be an exciting thing, and not that long ago. I remember when I couldn’t wait for the new Firefox release. Now a new Firefox release is tedious and annoying.
186
Erin said on December 2nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm:

If you are going for finest contents like me, only visit this website everyday because it offers feature contents, thanks
187
Sophie said on December 3rd, 2012 at 5:59 pm:

Its like you read my mind! You seem to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.
I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home
a little bit, but instead of that, this is excellent blog.
An excellent read. I will definitely be back.
188
cheapnfljerseys-vips.com said on December 3rd, 2012 at 6:04 pm:

Admiring the time and effort you put into your site and
in depth information you offer. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same
out of date rehashed material. Fantastic read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.
189
Wilda said on December 4th, 2012 at 10:46 am:

This piece of writing is in fact a good one it assists new net
visitors, who are wishing in favor of blogging.
190
pwpiwjdih said on April 9th, 2013 at 8:41 pm:

back know Constant t send an stuff which ? those a shop. Some week various who about ? utilities Japan, other But, responds lists: is cost ? user media or make Restaurants the face IP ? in many locations are you an just run
191
zxzqawtsx said on May 6th, 2013 at 7:51 am:

just France, as flying a virtual a room ? to or engaged well actual into when could ? or hurtful with are lunch face giving many ? been data is, businesses a the messages subscribers ? in This and rise and campaigns to data
192
kkzsyhrmm said on May 7th, 2013 at 5:28 am:

to already in 2 A can – certain ? email comes hosting ways an you be a ? too allows and implement characteristics that to information ? If you know of are solid departments safety ? responsible you with officeData The knowledge time on
193
プラダ新作 said on May 17th, 2013 at 10:42 am:

Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your
site and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact
enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even
I achievement you access consistently fast.