Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

>   Reubin, this is an interesting proposal -- showing the version number
>    only in the out of date case and not in the up to date case.

interesting idea,


After it - in a year or so, Mozilla would know if people prefer to hide
version number or not..
that is for all-surveying variant,

for all customization variant:
providing the check-box or other advanced configuration system :)
for where and how to show versions, there are many places, actually.

@Asa
> All updates from Firefox now contain both security and non-security changes. There are no longer two tracks, a feature update path and a security update path. There is only one release track and the updates that happen every 6 weeks contain both security and feature changes.

do you like it?

@LightDot
>My reasoning is that we are talking about workstations that are taken care of by an administrator, so displaying such warning messages to end users would be equal to spreading FUD.

+1, have proposed the Corp-Sync config system and, actually, a
Corpozilla build, anyway.

@Dao
>In fact, random release ages are worse than uninformative, they are
> misleading. A 12-week-old release can be secure, a one-day-old release
> can be insecure.

Why so? It could be the other way, easily.

@Robert
> > In those cases, we still can display "You are using the Firefox release
> from 8 days ago, but we can't check if it's current, so you might or
> might not be at a security risk by using it." - or actually "You are
> using a Firefox release from 12 weeks ago, we can't check for an update
> but you are probably at a security risk by using it. Please update to a
> newer version."

+1

@PG


>Violating OS standards (yes, putting version in About dialog
>is a standard) is not the best way to inspire confidence in Mozilla's
>official stance "we will only support standards better and better".


All the major systems except apples could now be customized, themed
easily as i know,
Supporting all the HIGs of all the systems from all the time at once
would lead to complete
losing of Mozilla's face, i think.
Supporting HIGs respectively for the system on which FF is being used -
would lead to loosing its face also :)
Non supporting and making whatever Mozilla like, given that there are
a movement
that would, eventually, bring the APIs -- UX control to Web itself,
would lead to faster adoption of such a practice, for good or else.
See the promise of W8 or latest Linux GUI's and etc. It is a global paradigm
anyway. That was stopped by proprietary programs as they are Closed Source.
Now it is massively paying off with Open Source, see the various GIMPs
for example,
i think it is just great. Make a voting in the end. For these who
would vote negatively,
just provide a "good old" skin and let it be.

> Mozilla wants to be way more aggressive, and it's a painful breach of
accepted standards.
I understand when in tradition of, let's say -  Plone CMS -
you receive the earlier patch if you are a mega-corp and
an announce and later patch if you are an average mortal,
but that has a practical reason behind the decision.

What is the reason for leaving a bug opened in a millions of systems
for a three weeks (for example)?