SillyDog701

[Fulvio]

I, always, want to take a peak at developing versions, but Firefox is making my life difficult.
I was under the impression that the new version would be Firefox 6, but when I did a search, I was presented with download page of Nightlies, with no ID. When I selected the OS, I was told that I was downloading Firefox 8a1.
I did it, anyway, and was able to use all my addons, thanks to Nightly Tester Tools, although they were incompatible ( I was using a profile formerly used for Firefox 4.0.1.
Now, I removed 8a1, and downloaded and installed 6b1. It works fine, and has only a couple of compatible addons, but I was told that it was outdated. ThEre is 7a1, but are they going to skip 6, and go directly to 8, or 7?
I will send a feedback for all it is worth, and let you know what is the score, if I get a reply.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0

[casey1992]

The release version is Firefox 5. It'd be the most stable.

The Beta version is Firefox 6. It's well tested, but it may have bugs that may need to be ironed out before it "graduates" to release status. "About Firefox" numbers betas the same way as the eventual release (Firefox 6).

The Aurora version is Firefox 7. Aurora versions undergo cursory testing. In "About Firefox," Aurora version numbers are appended with "a2," e.g. 7.0a2.

The Nightly version is Firefox 8. Nightlies don't have any quality assurance testing. Nightly version numbers are appended with "a1," e.g. 8.0a1.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:7.0a2) Gecko/20110706 Firefox/7.0a2

[Fulvio]

I know that final versions are supposed to be more stable and alphas less stable than betas, but with Firefox 6.0b1, going to Help|About Firefox, I see that version is outdated. And, today I get an e-mail from Mozilla telling me that they have a new version, exactly the same which they say that it is outdated.
I think that Mozilla is causing a lot of confusion trying to keep up with Google Chrome numbering.
There was a time that Nightly meant a new version, higher than any final version. Now, it means the very latest, and even 7.0 a2 does not deserve that title. This is ridiculous.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 Firefox/3.6.18

[Fulvio]

For the record, I guess I can't read. It say up to date, not "outdated". So, although we may see FF 7 and 8, pretty soon, at this point the greatest development is with 6, which may be skipped, after all.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0

[James]

Ah, Fulvio... just stick with the current version... version 5. It does everything we need and there are few bugs. When version 6 is ready, then update and go with that. There's really little advantage to downloading and installing a bug-ridden beta (and especially an alpha) since they only serve to mess up your extensions and create havoc with your computer. At least, that's my feeling. And yes... I entirely agree that this updating and numbering MADNESS is not a good thing and is the direct result of feeling threatened by Chrome.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/535.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/14.0.803.0 Safari/535.1

[casey1992]

The next release versions are apparently an unplanned Mac-only 5.01 and 3.6.19 to deal with crashes in OS X Lion, caused by web pages with downloadable fonts. My best guess is that Windows and Linux will skip these versions.

Firefox 5 minor update for Mac coming soon

Mozilla slates Firefox 5 update to fix Lion crash bug

I agree that this is all very confusing. Mozilla isn't very clear, or at least, they don't offer easy explanations that are conveniently available. Authors attempt to write about Firefox's release cycle, but given that we constantly run into conflicting information, it's obvious that many are wrong.

My understanding (which is more like an educated guess) is that each Firefox version is to have 24 weeks of life: six weeks in Nightly, six weeks in Aurora, six weeks in Beta, and six weeks of release status. That would put the release of Firefox 6 in mid-August, the release of Firefox 7 in late September, the release of Firefox 8 in mid-November, etc.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0

[Fulvio]

Ah, Fulvio... just stick with the current version... version 5. It does everything we need and there are few bugs.

I was expecting such comment from you!. Why Firefox 5, when 3.6.18 works fine! I stick to it, but I want to see what they are up to. No more no less. And, it is difficult to figure out what they are up to, if anything of any relevance.
As for casey1992, yea, it is possible. Who knows?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0

[casey1992]

This looks official.

RapidRelease/Calendar

Firefox 6: August 16
Firefox 7: September 27
Firefox 8: November 8
Firefox 9: December 20

The link above explains that Firefox 5 was on a slightly shorter schedule. It looks like transitions from one version to the next will be more in sync in the future.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/6.0

[Antony]

Six-week useful lifetime (or staying latest*) is very scary. At this rate, by Christmas 2012, there should be Firefox 17, and Firefox 25 by Christmas 2013.

*Please note: "latest" is very important to certain users (or extremists) who simply can't live without the latest version of whatsoever.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.13 Firefox/3.6.18

[Fulvio]

Six-week useful lifetime (or staying latest*) is very scary. At this rate, by Christmas 2012, there should be Firefox 17, and Firefox 25 by Christmas 2013.

*Please note: "latest" is very important to certain users (or extremists) who simply can't live without the latest version of whatsoever.

I doubt that I will be around for Firefox 100!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 Firefox/3.6.18

[James]

Ah, Fulvio... just stick with the current version... version 5. It does everything we need and there are few bugs.

I was expecting such comment from you!. Why Firefox 5, when 3.6.18 works fine! I stick to it, but I want to see what they are up to. No more no less. And, it is difficult to figure out what they are up to, if anything of any relevance.
As for casey1992, yea, it is possible. Who knows?

But seeing what they're "up to", Fulvio, isn't really prudent. The fact is... they're not up to much these days with this maddening rush to new versions. Major releases used to come a few times a year and we both remember when they were yearly and not every few weeks. These are essentially only bug fixes as they advance from version to version to version ad nauseum. It's no longer exciting. It no longer captivates me as it once did. Remember when Netscape advanced from 3.2 to 4? Or from 4.8 (or was it 4.9) to 6? Now those were momentous jumps... not just a few bug fixes and security tweaks. Nowadays it's meaningless so it's probably better in the long run to remain with a version until the next so-called "final" version is released. And yeah... I figured you would expect me to comment. We've had this discussion back and forth for a couple of years now.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0

[James]

btw, Fulvio. Don't take me too seriously. This whole thing with updating madness is a joke really and in a sense, I treat it as such. My wife simply uses one browser and only updates it when she must. She finds my carrying three browsers (FF, Chrome and IE) ridiculous since there is no real reason (I'm not testing websites) for such. She's entitled to her opinion, you are to yours and I am to mine. But deep down... way deep down... I think the version jumping that all the browsers are doing right now is ridiculous and I wish we wouldn't buy into it and play their game. They're only doing it to give the pretense of being the most current (i.e. fastest, most secure, most flexible) by offering the largest version number and thereby gaining more converts to their browser. It's CRAZY.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0

[Antony]

These are essentially only bug fixes as they advance from version to version to version ad nauseum. It's no longer exciting. It no longer captivates me as it once did. Remember when Netscape advanced from 3.2 to 4? Or from 4.8 (or was it 4.9) to 6? Now those were momentous jumps... not just a few bug fixes and security tweaks.

Very true.

Remember from Netscape 3 to Netscape 4, (perhaps some of you hate Netscape or Netscape 4), however, it was a very big leap back then. It, at least, showed the world the (early days of) interactive and dynamic HTML. Even Netscape 4.5 has something new, such as smart browsing, what's related etc (although not well received, but still something new then).

Somehow, they also try to over threaten users with so-called security and vulnerability risks if users do not update to the latest. The things are:
(1) they tend to over-rate the risk scaring tactic
(2) do they even "responsible" for end-user's security if the end-user does indeed stay the latest with their rushed updating game?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.13 Firefox/3.6.18

[James]

Yes, I believe you are correct, Antony. They'll do anything to increase their user-base and using scare tactics and empty promises of new and exciting features when all that we see are essentially bug fixes and a few patches results in our feeling let down.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/5.0

[Antony]

Without a doubt, scare tactic is one of the dirty tactics.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110614 AlexaToolbar/alxf-2.13 Firefox/3.6.18