Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

I'm going to largely skip replying to most of your messages since most
of our lines of discussion are degrading into off-topic-ness.  Trying
to stick only to blatantly key issues:


> > That's not satisfactory.  Provide some sort of tangible reason why
> > "Firefox checked for updates 20 minutes ago and you are up-to-date.
> > Version 6.0." is more confusing than "Firefox checked for updates
> > 20 minutes ago and you are up-to-date."
>
> I've given several examples where including the version number makes the
> interaction far less usable. Please find and read those. I put a long
> time into writing them and I'm doing you the courtesy of reading
> everything you're writing here so presumably you can do that for me too.
> (I don't mean that to sound mean or anything, but I don't want to keep
> writing the same thing over and over. I've got other work to do.)

You've given *one* corner case where users were confused by a version
number inconsistency due to a platform-specific bug fix, and I
addressed that concern with an alternative solution that would solve
the "problem" without the backlash.  (Auto-incrementing version
numbers for identical builds.)


> >> As far as this bug, no, it's probably not worth it. Not right now
> >> anyway.
>
> > So defer its "resolution" until such a time as it *will* be worth it
> > (probably never).
>
> We're talking about that. But I'm mostly convinced that will only
> satisfy a minority of the people complaining on this thread. Have you
> read all of the commentary on this issue around Mozilla forums and the
> Web? It really is mostly focused on the rapid release model and a
> general aversion to *all* change.

What's wrong with satisfying the minority when it has no negative side
effects?


> >> But I discovered something interesting a couple of days after
> >> the discussion exploded. After reading several hundreds very passionate
> >> comments, it became clear that it wasn't really this version number bug
> >> that most people were upset about. It was actually the move the rapid
> >> release process and this was just one tiny aspect of that move that
> >> caused a lot of people who hadn't before realized that we were
> >> transitioning to a new model to suddenly realize that.
>
> > You're mistaken.  You're assuming that we don't understand Mozilla's
> > release schedule because we want to know the version number.  I
> > understand *and support* Mozilla's new rapid release model.  In fact,
> > part of the reason I'm interested in Firefox's version number is
> > *because* I'm so attentive to its development.  Most of the other
> > posters voicing their concerns appear to feel similarly.
>
> I'm not mistaken. Some of you are deeply concerned about the version
> number. But not all. I encourage you to read more of this discussion,
> the bug comments, the discussion threads at slashdot and other tech news
> sites. It's really only a minority of commenters who are at all
> interested in the version number change. There are literally dozens of
> comments that are in the form of "We loved version x.y, go back to that
> and stop changing".

The concerns of those who *do* understand the true issue should not be
ignored simply because some others do *not* understand the true issue.


> I'm not convinced yet that you're one of those people though ;-) I'm
> going to try to convince you that with rapid releases, and for our
> largest audience, the version number belongs in the Troubleshooting page
> and not the About page. I suspect you will try to convince me that's
> wrong, and I hope you'll try by providing use cases where not having a
> version number in the About window will hurt our users.

I understand your reason and provided a solution to address it without
the backlash.  I also provided you with a few use cases where users
will be confused or suspicious due to the number's being hidden, which
you've not addressed satisfactorily.  (This is not just my observation
either; other posters have pointed out that your responses did not
address the true concern I raised.  It seems like I'm not the one who
can't understand what the other is saying.)


One other thing that I've noticed as that one of your major defenses
of this move is that you don't design FF for power users.  The
classification, "power users", hides a big flaw in this mentality:
"Power users" are also the support crew and advertisers for a free
software project.  They are a minority, but their *influence* is not
minor at all.  Alienate them, and they aren't the only users you're
liable to lose for it.  Many of the users I've turned on to FF could
be just as easily turned off if I were to stop supporting it.