2 ms·

I sympathize with both sides of the argument. Large organizations really do need a longer support and deployment cycle. If they adopt version ___ of a product,

I sympathize with both sides of the argument. Large organizations really do need a longer support and deployment cycle. If they adopt version ___ of a product, they need some assurance that it will be supported for a certain window of time. On the other hand, if you let "The Enterprise" dictate your development strategy, you will find yourself making faster horses rather than electric roadsters. This might be a good opportunity for a business to sell support contracts with guaranteed life cycles for EOL'd versions of Firefox. That way, an enterprise shop could pick a version knowing that it will be supported for a year or two years or whatever they negotiate.

adamc 15y ago
It isn't just large organizations that may be inconvenienced by rapid releases of major versions -- when I adopted FF5, a bunch of plugins stopped working. If that happens every 3-6 months, I'll probably stop using FF for daily work (Chrome is arguably better anyway). Of course, I'd still have to test in FF -- but that's a minor issue.
cosgroveb 15y ago
Maybe a system like Ubuntu's is needed here? Every two years or so designate a version as "LTS" and continue to support that branch with bugfixes for several years. I suppose that's not quite as Agile...