A great collective gasp issued from tuned-in Firefox fans when Mozilla announced   that it was switching to a Chrome-like release schedule for its   browser. The goal was to make Firefox more adaptable and to keep pace —   though not with Chrome specifically, but rather with the   rapidly-evolving web.

One side effect of a RAPID release schedule   is skyrocketing version numbers, something both Google and Mozilla want   users to ignore. But that’s a tricky proposition when users have been   raised on slowly-climbing digits trailing the names of their favorite   apps. Rather than cling to traditional versioning ideas, companies are   now pushing channels — constantly updated snapshots of the different   development stages of a PROGRAM. Both Chrome and Firefox now offer   stable, beta, and bleeding-edge VERSIONS to suit a user’s wants.

Full story here: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92792-mozilla-takes-firefox-version-number-removal-a-step-furtherFireFox should stop immediately chasing the competition...they were in front in my mind all along...
What a marketing shame...totally unneccessary.Personally, I like simple version numbers, like 3.1, or 6.22.  Firefox's 3.6.18 was a little to MUCH for my feeble brain to grasp.  I don't think version numbers need to be always in whole numbers, but xx.xx.xx is a little too much for most users.You must like the new scheme:  5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...Didn't MS sort of prove how pointless it was to remove version numbers with the whole "name products after their year of release" thing? Quote from: Computer_Commando on August 15, 2011, 06:22:35 PM

You must like the new scheme:  5, 6, 7, 8, 9,...

Actually, I don't have a problem with say 5.3, 6.7, etc, it's the version 6.731.84.99.34.22.51 that I have a problem with.

Well good thing there are no real world examples of the latter.

No, but I had a bad feeling things were headed in that direction.