• Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      Competitors tend to do that. Originally Firefox used traditional version numbering up until 3.0, but then when Chrome came out with their numbering scheme of incrementing the main version number with every minor update, Firefox followed suit. It’s the same reason Microsoft called the Xbox successor the Xbox 360, if the average consumer would see the Xbox 2 next to the PS3, they’d at least subconsciously think the PS3 was more advanced.

    • Raltoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Literally the same reason why Ford sells 150s and 250s and Volvo sells 70s and 90s: They are different products and don’t base the version numbers on their competitor.

      • 3abas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Actually, Firefox version numbers were totally independent for most of their history, but Mozilla recently adjusted them to roughly align with Chromium versions to reduce confusion for developers.

        2004 - Firefox 1.0, no Chrome yet 2010 - Firefox 4.0, Chrome around version 8 2011 - Firefox switches to rapid releases 2020 - Firefox and Chrome both around version 85, just by coincidence 2024 - Firefox jumps from 124 to 126 to align with Chrome 126 2025 - Firefox 126+, Chrome 126+, version numbers now track similarly

    • audaxdreik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      16 hours ago

      All the downvotes here kinda got me legit angry. Incurious fools and jokers.

      It’s not a complete answer, but it’s partially because the development of Chrome and Firefox have always been highly competitive resulting in them both adopting rapid release cycles around the same time in the early 2010’s.

      I haven’t read too much into the topic, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was as much a marketing decision as well as a developer one. Similar to how Microsoft didn’t want to release an XBox 2 in competition with a PlayStation 3.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Development

      These are just the Wikipedia links, but there is interesting discussion of development history to be had, here.

      • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Incurious fools

        I haven’t read too much into the topic

        sigh…

        • audaxdreik@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          That’s my disclaimer that my research on the topic was less than exhaustive when I posted it at midnight, smartasscool guy. I then when on to offer a legitimate, if simple answer with sources that I linked. I see now the error of my ways in trying to provider a sincere answer to a question instead of posting the same tired dunk as everyone else.

          I have learned the error of my ways and will carry this lesson with me into the future as we build this Lemmy community.

          • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            smartass

            I can sit on ice cream and tell you the flavour.

            Sincerely though - I was just being an ass. I didn’t intend any actual offense. I Apologize. And I am not one of those downvotes.

            • audaxdreik@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              No worries! I did bring a bit of heat in my response and for that I accept the downvotes.

              It does just make me a little angry to see someone post a question out of genuine curiosity where there is a real answer to be researched and discussed and met with a string of tired dunks. That’s some serious Reddit behavior right there (diss, intended for other posters).

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I haven’t read too much into the topic, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was as much a marketing decision as well as a developer one.

        Version numbering has no implications on development. Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often.

        • audaxdreik@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Version numbering has no implications on development.

          I understand that, so then why change it?

          Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often.

          This does not appear to be true.

          That blog post has an aura of marketing speak around it.

          Version numbering has no implication on development and doesn’t even need to align internally and publicly, so somewhere a conscious decision was made to do it this way for “reasons”. I conjecture those reasons are at least partially due to marketing. Is this not fair?

          • EON_GuG@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Well, normally, when people see a larger version of a software, they think it’s more secure, modern, better, and other things.

            For example, not all Chromium projects follow version nomenclatures. Vivaldi, Opera, and Brave all use their own version nomenclatures.