this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
987 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

61263 readers
4146 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Firefox needs to chill on the version numbers

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blame Chrome for ruining versioning

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Honestly I think this is more on Apple for using “os x” for two decades

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blame users for not understanding semantic versioning and just wanting a bigger number.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Remember that time the users were right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They're not the ones that moved to whole number versioning

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok yeah it’s much easier to get my dad to tell me he’s on “v2.12.6.001-build7F2023n12-kb0A hotfix”

who gives a shit my dude? “Oh my god, 120? How ludicrous! There’s not even a decimal point or a hyphen! I run arch btw”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok yeah it’s much easier to get my dad to tell me he’s on “v2.12.6.001-build7F2023n12-kb0A hotfix”

That's a false dichotomy. Firefox version numbering was never like that. It used the scheme major_version.minor_version.patch_release like almost every piece of software except browsers still uses.

The advantage of this system is that the numbers are meaningful: they tell you how significant a release is, whereas with straight versioning the version number gives you no clue about what the "119 to 120 upgrade" contains. It might be simple bugfixes, it might add some new functionality or it might be a complete overhaul that breaks everything.

The reason why browsers switched to a straight versioning scheme was never to make it easier for users to identify which release they're on. The reason was artificial version inflation (i.e. "my version is bigger than yours"), and to force users into an incessant upgrade treadmill. In the past users could for example hold back on a major release upgrade until all the kinks were worked out while still receiving maintenance for their older major release.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Version numbers are almost meaningless for end-user software anyway. Add 1 every time it changes is about the best you can do.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

no, I'm looking forward to firefox 420 in 2048

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nvidia needs to chill on the version numbers, their graphics driver is currently at version 537 lol

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember using Nvidia drivers in the 70s years ago. I also remember thinking it was crazy when they rolled over 100. 😂

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

it was crazy when they rolled over 100

It was the same with Firefox and Chromium when they hit version 100. Some developers were scared that websites would start crashing because of the three digit version string in the user-agent.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I think it's alright, sure it's not conventional but you get the point after all and non techy people also get the point. bigger number = highest update