5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 5. |
Re: Firefox |
Jun 28, 2011, 07:16 |
Shadowcat |
|
|
Updates should be seamless and everyone should have latest. There are solid reasons for using traditional schemes like (major).(minor).(patch), and when a user sees that the major version number has changed, they know that something really significant has changed in the application architecture, and that if they upgrade to that version there's a reasonable chance that some incompatibilities will ensue.
No, not everyone will have that interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's sensible to remove useful information for the people that do. With the new scheme, the version has no meaning for any user. The whole thing is a pointless backward step. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Firefox |
Jun 21, 2011, 19:53 |
Sepharo |
|
|
Shadowcat wrote on Jun 21, 2011, 05:50:
Yeah, they've completely lost the plot when it comes to version numbers. All for some pointless number war. Morons.
End users shouldn't be paying attention to version numbers these days anyway. Updates should be seamless and everyone should have latest.
Here's my Chrome version: 13.0.782.24 beta-m
Yup, don't care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Firefox |
Jun 21, 2011, 06:08 |
Dmitri_M |
|
|
| I probably need to cull some of my addons, but man Firefox is slow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Firefox |
Jun 21, 2011, 05:50 |
Shadowcat |
|
|
| Yeah, they've completely lost the plot when it comes to version numbers. All for some pointless number war. Morons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Firefox |
Jun 20, 2011, 21:48 |
Jim |
|
|
| Seems like FF4 just came out of beta last week. I guess they're following the Chrome method of versioning. And in keeping with Firefox's longstanding "every other release is a dud" trend, I'm expecting 5 to be worth trying (4 was shit, especially in Windows). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
