Re: No plans to change the version number scheme

On 8/28/2011 7:30 AM, Desiree wrote:
> "David Tenser"<[email protected]>  wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2011-08-26 07:26, Desiree wrote:
>>> Plus, it just causes Fx lovers to go to SeaMonkey where this insanity
>>> with
>>> rapid versions is not happening.
>>
>> To base your decision on web browser on the version number scheme seems
>> pretty crazy to me -- especially if you are a "Firefox lover" :)
>
> Well, I use the browser and browser version that works with my beloved
> extensions. I could care less about anything else about said browser unless
> it did something truly outrageous like forcing updating or forcing
> acceptance of third party cookies, etc. Otherwise, I don't care about having
> the "latest" version. I want the version that works with my extensions.  Fx
> is its extensions. That is the only reason it exists and is as successful as
> it is today. It is nothing as a browser without all the extensions. It's
> Chrome which is the most horrible browser out there except for Safari.
> Stripped and watered down browsers are for computer ignorant users. Fx was
> to be first for power users but it has gotten badly off track since many of
> us started out with it way, way back.
>
>
The vast majority of browser users don't even know what an extension is, 
or what they are for.  Those of us who do know that they are for enjoy 
them, and like to be able to use them.  I have moved from FF4 to FF7, 
and have yet to lose an extension.  Same for going from TB3 to TB7 beta, 
and no extensions lost.  Usually, there are several choices for 
extensions that to pretty much the same things, so if you find support 
for one has disappeared, another can often be found to do the job, 
sometimes much better.  Unfortunately, many users aren't willing to try 
to find another extension to serve their needs, preferring to just not 
update.