[shinratdr]

> I feel that Mozilla has made a strategic mistake in switching to a very rapid release schedule.

That wasn't the mistake. The mistake was stealing the technical part from Chrome, and not the part that end users love.

Trust me, the only reason Chrome's rapid release schedule hasn't garnered this criticism is because 9/10 users couldn't tell you what the current version of Chrome is, much less what it was when they originally installed it.

Google, while adopting rapid release, has simultaneously made version numbers irrelevant to anyone except devs and power users. That was the important part. Updates don't matter and they just happen.

Mozilla adopted rapid release but kept publicizing each major version like it was a big deal and giving end users ways to opt out other than turning off updates completely. This is a BAD idea.

Rapid release needs to come hand in hand with safer, less drastic, and seamless updates. This will never happen until Mozilla overhauls its extensions system because of how deep & old-world it is and how prone extensions are to break during minor updates.

It's unfortunate for the NoScript fanatics, but a rapid release schedule simply does not work if you provide this many hesitations. I still see FF3.6 and FF4 everywhere, yet unless the person doesn't run Chrome very often, Chrome is always at 12.x. If it isn't, it will be next time they launch.

It's funny, in a way users who clamour for stuff like NoScript are actually putting average users in more danger for their own personal benefit. If Mozilla was allowed to overhaul FF's extension system, updates could be much more seamless and end users would actually end up with the latest version of the program.

Instead, we run the gamut from 1.x to 2.x to 3.x to 4.x to 5.x and everything in between. I'm sure anyone who has worked as a desktop tech has somewhat recently encountered a Firefox 1.x/2.x installation here and there, ever catch a Chrome 1? Chrome 3? Chrome 7? Really, anything except the latest version at the time? Exactly.

[abraham]

Firefox versions after v4 update automatically. They show a dialog during restart while they check extension compatibility but everything happens seamlessly.

Mozilla also has a script that scans extensions on AMO and auto updates the versions they support if they don't detect any issues. For the majority of extensions they should keep working unless they do wired hacky things or use more advanced extension APIs.

Mozilla has also been downplaying the version numbers in recent announcements for Firefox updates. By the end of the year everyone using Firefox will be in the same state of not caring that Chrome users are at.

Mozilla has also overhauled the extension system with the introduction of the Add-on SDK. It is still a little rough but it is HTML/JS, doesn't require browser restarts and it has a fresh API for developers to use. Developers just need to switch to it.

[shinratdr]

> Firefox versions after v4 update automatically.

I haven't experienced that behaviour, at least in the Mac version. Every machine I have was updated from v4 to v5 manually, because it didn't happen automatically.

> Mozilla also has a script that scans extensions on AMO and auto updates the versions they support if they don't detect any issues. For the majority of extensions they should keep working unless they do wired hacky things or use more advanced extension APIs.

That unfortunately characterizes many Firefox extensions. I also feel that you are downplaying the issue, I have had simple plugins have their toolbar buttons break between minor updates. The current Firefox extension system just isn't right for the times.

> Mozilla has also been downplaying the version numbers in recent announcements for Firefox updates.

> Mozilla has also overhauled the extension system with the introduction of the Add-on SDK.

That is good to hear, I wasn't aware of that. I still would have preferred it if they had dealt with these issues before switching schedules, it's not like they came out of the blue. Now we have this drawn out transition period that could have been shorter. It also remains to be seen if they'll be aggressive about migrating to this new extensions system.

[bzbarsky]

> but kept publicizing each major version like it was a > big deal

Uh... There's been only one release on the new schedule so far: Firefox 5. And it was just announced as a release. None of the announcements mentioned the number "5" anywhere.

Now the extension compat story is a real problem, though things like NoScript are a smaller part of it than things like Google Toolbar, the various antivirus toolbars, etc.

[timxpp]

Don't forget that the powerful Firefox extensions like noscript, firebug, imacros,... are what (many) users love about Firefox. Chrome only has "lite" versions of these tools for technical reasons (limited extension API).

So I agree that the very rapid release schedule is the problem here. It brings more problems than it solves. Just because Google does something, does not mean it is good for everyone.

[shinratdr]

> Don't forget that the powerful Firefox extensions like noscript, firebug, imacros,... are what (many) users love about Firefox.

It depends how you characterize "many". Many users you encounter doesn't necessarily equal many FF users. I think what the vast majority of Firefox users love about it is that it is the browser they use, and have used for a long time. In other words, their loyalty doesn't run so deep. Those are the users this move is for, those that use Firefox habitually instead of for some particular reason and could possibly switch to Chrome.

> Chrome only has "lite" versions of these tools for technical reasons (limited extension API).

Not just Chrome, but Safari & Opera as well. There is a reason for that, it's because it's the smarter way to go. Firefox's extension system is a massive cause of headaches for Mozilla. It's going to go eventually, the only question is how soon.

> So I agree that the very rapid release schedule is the problem here. It brings more problems than it solves.

Problems for you, you mean. Rapid release, seamless updates and a less invasive extension system solves big problems for Mozilla and most end users, problems that are causing them to switch to Chrome.

> Just because Google does something, does not mean it is good for everyone.

Likewise, just because devs want it doesn't mean it's worth compromising the experience for everyone else. They'll find another way, users will just find another product.

[camworld]

> Mozilla adopted rapid release but kept publicizing each major version like it was a big deal and giving end users ways to opt out other than turning off updates completely. This is a BAD idea.

Yes, this is the correct way to think about it.