ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Mozilla wants to hide Firefox version numbers from users - UPDATE

By | August 18, 2011, 7:40am PDT

Summary: If a user needs the full version information, Mozilla reasons, they can get it from about:support.

[UPDATE: This message in from Asa Dotzler, Firefox Product Manager:

"There's been some discussion around removing version numbers from the Firefox "About" window. Our goal is to avoid confusion and make sure users always have the most current version of Firefox. While that's the long term goal, this change isn't happening overnight. Right now, the version number is still available in the "About" window and users will always be able to find it in the Help>Troubleshooting menu."

Does this make you feel any better?]

Mozilla has just officially released Firefox 6, but the organization is planning to phase out version numbers from its browser - at least any version number that’s easily visible to the average user.

Asa Dotzler, community coordinator for Firefox marketing projects, got things under way by posting Bug 678775 over on Bugzilla.

When a user opens the About window for Firefox, the window should say something like “Firefox checked for updates 20 minutes ago, you are running the latest release.”

It is important to say when the last check happened and ideally to do the check when the dialog is launched so that time is very near and to drop the version and simply tell them they’re on the latest or not.

If a user needs the full version information they can get it from about:support.

This has, as you would expect, sparked some fiery discussion.

Dave Garrett:

Hyperbole aside, the about dialog is essentially a box designed for the sole purpose of housing the application developer and version. I am sorry to break it to you, though, even if having the version in the about dialog is a UX problem in any way, virtually all other applications out there beg to differ. Even my mother knows this is where you look up what version of a program you’re using. You’re going up against established UX that spans much time and across OSes.

Jordan Osete:

As an early adopter (using Aurora, and before that I used beta versions), I don’t understand what would be the interest of removing the version number from the about page ?

This is oversimplification. Users understand version numbers, so why remove them ? If there is a problem with version numbers, then the format can be changed (either to a date “2011.08.15.aurora” for example, or whatever), but removing the information adds nothing.

Asa: also the attitude “I don’t want to discuss this here, go to the newsgroup where no one will see your arguments” is clearly not very, hm, “democratic”. On every feature request or bug fix request on bugzilla, people comment to give their opinion on the matter. A single person does not have the right to decide for the community. Thanks.

Steve Brecht:

I strongly disagree with removal of the version number in the about box as well. I can’t see any rational for this being an improvement to the UI. It only buries critical information deeper for the users who wish to see it, while really having no net positive impact for anyone. One negative plus a neutral = a net negative. Change for change’s sake is never good.

Famous:

There appears to be nothing constructive in moving the version numbers away from the about dialog into the help/troubleshooting section, additionally it would distract from developers attempting to help debug their own addons.

aydreeuhn:

How is this a bug?

It seems that most people feel that this move would be detrimental to the end user and most question Mozilla’s reasoning for suggesting this in the first place.

Personally, I think that it is a daft move, and that Mozilla has steered itself into a version number race and now wants to make version numbers effectively obsolete.

Poll

Hiding version numbers from users:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

57
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Mozilla wants to hide Firefox version numbers from users
davidhomer@... 12th Mar
Easy solution

AboutDialog.VersionLabel.Text=GetIECurrentVersion() + 1;

http://www.centrel-solutions.com/xiaconfiguration
0 Votes
+ -
Is there a hidden agenda? Maybe
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 16th Aug
Someone in Mozilla PR needs to clarify.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

I think they just need to make the update process more transparent to end users. This is how it is with Chrome. They are up to version 13.xx and I do not remember ever updating it. It just happens in the background.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate
For some reason Mozilla is feeling version challenged by Chrome. They should just get over it and work to make FF faster and more stable so that fewer suckers get taken in by Chrome spyware. Version numbers will not gain or lose them market share.
Great.

My team and I just got done doing some client sites recoding to deal with "deprecated" syntax between FF4 and FF5. We're currently bracing for FF6. NOW we won't even be able to tell WHICH version of FF isn't working properly with compliant code?

Fabulous.
@frizzllefry Yup, I can see how that would be a major problem.
@statuskwo5 I can't. You shouldn't be coding to a browser, you should coding to standards.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
frizzllefry Updated - 29th Aug
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Michael Alan Goff Updated - 29th Aug
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@frizzllefry The jump from 3.6.x to 4.0 was significant. But 5.0 really should have been 4.1 and 6.0 really should be 4.2. This need to have ever increasing major version numbers basically makes the version number meaningless. It makes what is really a relatively minor update look like something big when its really not.

The issue now is that you don't have any way to tell from the numbering weather is a major or minor update.

If they would stop the version number bloat madness and make the numbers actually tell you something about how big a change it really is, then I would say display them. As it is, few will know the difference between 4.0 and 6.0 and moreover it will not really matter.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree completely
Cellus Updated - 30th Aug
@cornpie I agree. All these version have just been minor updates. they're trying to catch up to IE and Google chrome with is just a waste of time. FF is good enough now they're ruining it by playing this game.
What's the difference? It's not like they aren't going to stop releasing a new "version" every 6 weeks.
0 Votes
+ -
Developers
facebook@... 16th Aug
That's the problem with developers, they just do not understand or are interested in the needs of their customers. A common refrain from developers is "this is better" or "just deal with it". This is an especially pernicious issue with open source projects that are designed to only meet the needs of a small, esoteric group of users and no formal QA or UX benchmarking.
@facebook@...
It comes from some business people, possibly marketing guys.

As a developer myself, I REALLY, REALLY cares the version of my applications.
This is how what started out as being excellent software, gets hijacked by ego-centric developers who ignore the needs/preferences of their users/customers. Then, they wonder why users go elsewhere.
It's not developers. It's useless marketing types and bean counters. Get a clue.
@TsarNikky There's definitely an ego issue with FF devs. When users file bug reports, the devs constantly accuse them of complaining instead of addressing the issue. Sometimes they go as far as saying the release in question works on that dev's computer so their couldn't possibly be anything wrong with it, despite the fact that the dev's software and hardware configuration may differ from that of the end user.
Is Mozilla intentionally trying to sabotage Firefox?


I'm starting to wonder what those guys are doing over there. Maybe all that cake is starting to go to their heads?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Mozilla wants to hide Firefox version numbers from users
the.nameless.drifter Updated - 17th Aug
@Cylon Centurion

I'm starting to think Asa is a plant from one of the companies who make a competing browser.

First the support statement about previous releases and the breath taking arrogance he displayed while doing so and now this. Reading some of the later replies it appears that as he got such a negative response over his first set of version comments hes now trying to intentionally marginalize version numbers and maybe even work against enabling an enterprise friendly firefox
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Brooks Fancher Updated - 17th Aug
Oh Lord, the whining doesn't stop. This is a move designed to deal specifically with ZDNET POSTERS who raise heck over the fact that they're incrementing a whole version number between releases. The "agenda", which I thought would have been obvious, is that if people stop seeing the version number, they stop whining and complaining.

Not showing the version number in the "about" dialog isn't "sabotaging Firefox". There is no "need of the customers" to see the version number in the "about" box rather than typing "about:support". It's just to settle down the nerd brigade who complain when Firefox doesn't release version 4 for 780 years then complain when Firefox switches to an agile development cycle to meet that complaint then complain that Firefox isn't making any significant changes between versions and then complain that at the same time there are too many significant changes between versions because it's breaking everything. sad

As someone who has the displeasure of sharing a house with someone with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (think anal retentive x 1000, say coming into your room with a juice container to show you how two days ago you didn't put the lid on exactly perfectly or to complain that you "breathe too loudly"), I have infinite sympathy for the folks at Mozilla. The amount of meaningless complaining (sadly being encouraged by blog posts like this) is just ridiculous.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
sackbut Updated - 17th Aug
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
alphabetadelta Updated - 17th Aug
CHROME is automated and all updates happen in the background, user won't even notice! I like that much better.
@Hasam1991 But I can still see the version number
0 Votes
+ -
Sometimes people (in this case Mozilla) say something really stupid so that people will notice them.

Given that level of desperation, I'm starting to think my favorite browser might have jumped the shark.
0 Votes
+ -
First they do a whole version upgrade according to the numbers, when before it was just a point upgrade. Now they want to eliminate the versions. Maybe they just don't know how to number them anymore. Someone should tell them we don't care, as long as we know what they are. We really don't think that Firefox 6 is more advanced than Firefox 3.6.21. We decide that when we use it.

We also aren't fooled by a version number being higher than the competition. Everyone numbers versions differently.

So what? We still need to know the versions. What if we need to go back. We have to know what worked before. Does Firefox really want us to go the Chrome instead?
@Hameiri I'm afraid I must disagree. As I stated before, it's not Mozilla that has a version problem, it's users.

Firefox's numbering scheme is no different than Chrome's, Chromium's, Ubuntu's, openSUSE's, Linux kernel's, etc. One doesn't need to scrutinize the number to gain changelog information from any of these things. Larger number = newer version. That's it. You don't see an iPad 1.7.5 or Mororola Droid 2.7.4, do you? happy

It's generally a user problem. As the fine folks at openSUSE explained in their recent number change,

"openSUSE does not ship major/minor releases, but our numbering/naming scheme ? NN.X ? has led to a common misperception that a .0 release was major and a .x release was an update. This created a number of issues, including lack of media attention for .x releases, and user misconceptions about stability of .0 releases.

"We have traditionally released versions as 11.0, 11.1, 11.2 and so on up to .3. (The exception was 11.4 because the Project wasn?t sure what to number the next release.)

The only really clear thing was our release cycle timing, as follows:

?openSUSE releases on a fixed schedule every 8 months no matter what. Therefore, all releases occur in November, July and March.?

There has been a lot of discussion over time within our community about our versioning scheme for distribution releases. We want to ensure our growing community, including users and media, have a clear and correct understanding of our release cycle ? so naming or numbering needed to reflect that, and not cause misunderstanding."

Firefox 6, 7, 8, etc. is a lot simpler than 3.6.18 or whatever. It's also easier to remember which version you're running. Lastly, as Firefox now also has a fixed no-matter-what release schedule like openSUSE's rather than a major-minor type cycle, it makes at least as much sense for them to change their numbering scheme. No one wrote ZDNet blogs suggesting openSUSE was trying to bump their version number up past Ubuntu's or Red Hat's or anything of the sort.


If you say we "don't care" about the numbers, then why is everyone complaining about the new, simpler, contentless numbering scheme?

Your version number will be right there by typing "about:support" into the URL field of the browser. That way people who need to know can know, and the rest can stop wondering if Chrome 13 is better than Firefox 10 or whether they need version 4.3.26 or whatever.
0 Votes
+ -
if you...
Zorched 17th Aug
@jgm@...
...have to type about:support, how is that going to dissuade the geeks? Seriously? Do you think the geeks aren't smart enough to type "About:support" in their address bar? Do you think they won't be able to google information on how to do it? Once they do, they have the same information that they had before, but now they're ticked off because they had to jump through unnecessary hoops to get that information, so they're going to be even more whiny.

How is that going to help matters? All it's going to do is create support nightmares as techs try to walk people through getting to about:support. It's just dumb.

Quite frankly I don't care what the version numbers are. My concerns are that they at least are consistent so that people know what's happening. That's what the old version did. x.0 releases were major releases, ususally involving major interface changes, which may require training (from a corporate view) to adopt. 0.x releases were minor and could be pushed without such fear. Now, they throw versions willy-nilly into the wind and see what sticks on the wall, so the customer doesn't know what to expect from them. That's detrimental to the users.

No one seems to care anymore, but are in a version race for some reason as if they have an inferiority complex. Look at Windows 7. The Kernel version is labeled 6.1. Huh?
i like knowing I'm on ver 3.+. As I (wasn't|won't be) a fan of 4 5 6 & future unknown versions.
When Mozilla decided to commit to a hyperaccelerated version schedule, it prompted some serious negative response from enterprise who needs the time to vet every version of a mission critical software before deploying it.
This could be some sort of 'out of sight out of mind' reaction to that.
0 Votes
+ -
Expect vague bug reports
RelaxWalk 16th Aug
Hi,

I would like to report an issue that occurred on 50% of FF browsers in our company. The browsers that work OK has version "Firefox" and those that break have version "Firefox".
0 Votes
+ -
Why is Asa such an idiot lately?
adacosta38 16th Aug
Can somebody please explain? Is it because of Chrome?
Typical big company arrogance; comparable to what Adobe does with its FlashPlayer.
What is the big secret about hiding version numbers from users? As a service to users (clearly, a foreign concept to many companies), they should be able to very easily check the version number that is installed. If for no other reason that when a pop-up windows says something like "upgrade to version x" a user can check to see if a version upgrade is needed or not.
Is Mozilla intentionally trying to kill Firefox? None of my extensions work anymore. Extensions are pretty much the only thing Firefox has going for it against Chrome, and now they've screwed them up.
@alphabetadelta Mozilla said that 94% of extensions were compatible right now with the new version, and 95% of the most popular extensions. If "none" of your extensions are working, you've either got some sort of install problem or are using some rare and out-of-date extensions and might want to consider finding alternatives that are still actively developed. That said, it's quite possible your extensions will be updated shortly.
Quite simple - it's a pointless marketing activity driven by dogma on rapid releases rather than purpose. At least that's true for my segment of the user community - relying heavily on add-ons and seeking stability from my browser rather than a deluge of funky new toys. When my segment is no longer relevant to FF I'll find something else.

All I want to see every six weeks is bug fixes and security fixes (and preferably precious few of these). And maybe once a year I'd like to consider a well-planned upgrade.

For now I'm refusing the upgrade from 5 to 6 for at least a couple of weeks to avoid losing my add-ons (again FCOL) and seriously contemplating dropping back to v3.6.19 awaiting some kind of strategy on enterprise support i.e. for those of us who are serious-but-dull business users.
So when a member of my team gets a call at the Help Desk from a user having difficulty with a 3rd party (which we have no control over whether they've designed to the browser, to standards, etc.), yet work related website (we use many for research, filings, etc.), they have to make the user jump through hoops to tell them their version number to see if there's some incompatibility between the site and their particular version of FF?

It may be fine for the ZDNet community for FF to bury it, as they're most likely savvy enough to find it if they need to, but that's a small part of the user base. To write off the benefit to IT departments is foolish. After all, these are the people who have direct say in what browsers are deployed, and often provide recommendations on software for personally owned devices.
Sorry Mozilla, we want to see it. I don't care how often or not the number is changed or if it is 3 or f00fc7c8. The program is supposed to put the user in control of the choices what to do and what not, otherwise we would run IE or similar nannyware. Don't make someone write an add-on or a patch to correct an intentional obfuscation.
This could be a boon to malware producers. With social engineering, it will now be that much easier to dupe an end user by popping up a window indicating that an update is required to the browser. At this point, the end user will have to be even MORE technically savvy to type something into the address bar to verify their version number instead of being able to just click the about button.
If I am using a computer that is not my own I like to have a general idea of what I am working with be it browser version what operating system etc.

To me it is a sign that they are having some sort of problem(s) with the new version numbering system. And saying "hate to break it to you" to a customer shows total arrogance.
0 Votes
+ -
FYI
edkollin 17th Aug
Since ZDNET did not cover it Mozilla released Firefox 3.6.20 yesterday along with stable 6 beta 7 etc. If they are still supported three that is a sign the newer versions are causing some problems another reason people may want to go "back"
@edkollin So if they didn't still support it people would be complaining about how they treat enterprise users. If they do support it, that means there must be problems with the new version. I give up. What on earth is Mozilla supposed to do to make everyone happy? They're not quantum particles that can be in two different places at the same time.
@jgm@... They are in 20 different places at once Windows Vista,7,XP,Linix,Mac,Phones,etc. If you are a browser that is not automatically installed by the operating system that is what you have to do. How often are three versions back supported enterprise or not? Maybe by its lonesome supporting three versions back would seem innocuous and just plain nice but there actions gives a sense of panicky copying of Chrome, similar to the points being made in the tablet threads.
@jgm@... Supporting 3.6.x indicates "panicked copying of chrome"? Up until about May openSUSE Linux was supporting versions 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4. openSUSE is the free version, not the paid commercial version. Would that be panicked copying of Windows or something? Mozilla has held a meeting but has so far not announced an End Of Life date for 3.6. If there's no EOL date yet, why wouldn't they continue to patch it?
0 Votes
+ -
What's the Advantage?
nucrash 18th Aug
While I have seen a great many calls that left me confused and perplexed in the past, usually I could see a glimmer of hope or some form of understanding as to why such decisions were made. This has none. While I didn't like what Microsoft did on Windows for the networking center, it made some logistical sense albeit a pain to deal with. I sometimes look at apps and can see why things were done for some manner, whether be a limitation or some vague advantage. Removing the version number accomplishes nothing and simply pisses people off.

To be honest, I was perfectly happy with Firefox V3.6.*. When 4 came out, I was happy with some of the changes, but after that, Mozilla Firefox lost me. I seriously am thinking I should go to Opera or something else.
0 Votes
+ -
So Mozilla Fears Reactions from Enterprise?
strongnc21 Updated - 18th Aug
Enterprise users are probably having a hard time dealing with rapid releases... honestly, I would have to agree. Mozilla, it's great that you want to release updates more often. But seriously, you don't have to bump up a major version number every couple of weeks. It's annoying, and we can all clearly see that it's just a marketing gimmick.

Don't worry about how Chrome handles their version numbers - stick to your own guns, do your own thing. We love Firefox for the high HTML standards compatibility and extensive add-ons. Focus on that.

If you build it, they will come. Stop worrying about things that don't matter.
Words of Wisdom - Switch to IE9, the safest and fastest browser with a rock stable release schedule and a minimum of support five years for older versions.
@owlnet Words of Wisdom - that only works if you're running Windows, Vista version or higher.
Message deleted
"You shouldn't be coding to a browser, you should coding to standards. "

Great concept. But in the real world of people using imperfect browsers web sites have to work with most of what shows up. At least those tied to a business that has to turn a profit.
Easy solution

AboutDialog.VersionLabel.Text=GetIECurrentVersion() + 1;

http://www.centrel-solutions.com/xiaconfiguration

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix