Chromium vs. Everything Else

[Night Wing]

Since Chrome is going to be going from a 4 week release cycle to a 2 week release cycle, I am going to take a "wait and see" approach. My gut feeling is, "the faster one goes just to meet an arbitrary time deadline, the more mistakes will creep in".

I say this based on what Mozilla did when it went from a 6 week release cycle to a 4 week cycle for Firefox. When this happened, in many major releases, there were/are 2, 3 and sometimes 4 minor point releases in that 4 week release cycle to "fix" things the faster the shorter time frame created between major releases.

Every time Firefox comes out with a point release to "fix" things in a 4 week release cycle, since I have 5 computers now (2 desktop towers, 3 laptops), I have to update Firefox in 7 hard drives for the MX Linux and Debian linux distros since Firefox is the default browser which comes with these two distros. I've never been a fan of Firefox going from a 6 week release schedule to a 4 week release cycle just to "ape" Chrome.

I imagine if I was using Chrome, which I do not use, I would have to do the same thing. My only concern is with Firefox since Mozilla likes to copy things which Chrome creates when it comes to major release cycles. So I imagine somewhere in the very near future Firefox will follow Chrome on major release cycles.

If I have to pick a choice between a faster release for speed or a longer release cycle for stability, I pick stability because it equates to less work for me when these "speed merchants" create mistakes just to meet an arbitrary time schedule.

[jobbautista9]

Gotta catch up with Firefox's version number because 4 weeks is not rabid release enough yet I guess.

[Moonchild]

2 weeks -> Chrome number becomes bigger again -> "bigger number better" -> more market share

[Night Wing]

I do not think the Chrome release number is that important market share wise. I think this move by Chrome might be a distraction for Chrome's incessant drive to get rid of adblockers for use in Chrome and this is why Chrome wants "uBlock Origin Lite" for people to use in Chrome. A magician's slight of hand so to speak. A smokescreen to deflect in my opinion.

Any browser where a user cannot block irrelevant ads is, speaking for myself, is an absolutely "useless" browser. I was never seduced by Chrome's speed when it first was released. And now with Chrome's desire to kill off adlockers, this is a total deal breaker for me even if I was at one time considering using Chrome.

[andyprough]

Chrome needs to go to a daily release cadence, since every release seems to deal with new zero-day exploits.

[Moonchild]

I do not think the Chrome release number is that important market share wise.

Objectively no, but when you deal with average Joes who have been trained to think that a higher version number is better (without looking at context), then having Chrome carry a close-but-higher number than Firefox will give them a bias towards using Chrome.

[Mæstro]

verage Joes who have been trained to think that a higher version number is better (without looking at context)

How and when have they been trained to think this way? Beyond the fact that it began, as far as browsers were concerned, about 2010, the details are murky to me.

[Moonchild]

How and when have they been trained to think this way?

By way of the constant repeating that they must always use the latest version of Chrome, implying the one with the biggest vesion number. By way of the constant news cycles of dozens of articles around rabid/rapid release having version numbers at the forefront with always the underlying message that the moment you are but a point behind, you are at risk of imminent danger.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Speaking of bigger numbers, Basilisk's version number is over 2000 now. They need to catch up!

[Mæstro]

Are version numbers cardinal or ordinal? Only transfinite numbers can win this arms race.