Google's stated reason for developing Chrome was to push web browsers forward as a platform. Whatever you think of Chrome now, I think in that objective they succeeded admirably.
I can recommended it.
In Forefox's case, the frequent releases more have to do with rapid improvement and iteration than anything. Read the changelog and notice how it was largely a bunch of mid-moderate improvements. Some CSS goodies, some JS goodies, some security goodies.
(1) security vulnerability,
(2) performance regression
(3) new features
For a software widely used like FF, it is important that they keep the software up-to-date, make the software as slim as possible, and make the software easy to use. If you want to do some "AB" testing, frequent testing is necessary.
When was the last time you boot up Ubuntu LTS and think "oh I need to update?"
Browser tends to move fast and break fast because browser is a complex software and because the tool people use to make web application are so flexible there are so many corner cases (which can be abused to use to make things work) it is hard to have a dead version.
I look at the CentOS machine yesterday and I thought "god, where is the shiny webconsole that FF comes with?" CentOS apparently comes with old FF and I had to force to upgrade to 26.
This was not my claim. When there are security vulnerabilities I'm happy for the updates to be as quick as possible and as frequent as necessary. The problem is:
> (3) new features
Adding new features has a high chance of new security flaws, when you're operating at the speed of firefox on such an error-prone technology stack.
Different users want to meet this trade-off differently. I want fewer features, in fact I'm ok not to be bleeding-edge compatible with the latest poorly-designed HTML draft spec if it means a more secure browser. It's a question of how and where Mozilla (or other browser teams) organize their effort.
1. FF is a product, meaning if Chrome or Opera or Safari have some shiny features that a lot of developers enjoy to have, FF will very likely implement that feature.
2. Some new features are to replace the old one. For example, the original Firefox sync was pain in the ass and so there will be a new thing called Firefox Account. That's a new feature to user but it's easier to use and makes more sense to users.
3. Some new shiny features are there because of requests. People requested them and developers thought they were useful for users to have. That's inevitable. Unlike Windows, unless you cry to TechCrunch, MS won't care about your email because it's one of the 1000000 emails they receive every day.
In reality, software can't stay in the way the old OS works. Granted, we take Android fun as they roll out new features. But we can't upgrade easily because the phone manufacture and/or the service provider does not provide the stock upgrade (at least this is how my shitty phone works).
I know there are compatibility breakage and some UI decisions are really really bad. For instance, the latest nightly rolls out a different color scheme for web console which I find a huge problem for people with poor eye sight (me) or work long hours. The UI is changing to australis soon (maybe 29, maybe 30, don't remember, they haven't have a final decision yet).
It is actually quite frustrating to work in the browser side. A line of change can impact millions of websites. Often time you have to make a complex patch to make simple adjustment.
Regarding security vulnerability, I personally think they are minor compare to other more common, cheap threats. They are exploitable (and yes some are critical and severe) but when was the last time you find yourself exploited because of browser? It was probably you downloading an infected file. I know this is kind of unethical to say, but I think it is fair to say browser is quite secure these days and attackers are more likely to do things like clickjacking.
I don't remember if Firefox rolls out update (not upgrade) that includes vulnerability fixes or not. Someone correct me on this.
FWIW, that had also been fixed by the Tor Project and a newer version of TBB was available. The users who had upgraded were not vulnerable.
On Windows? Good luck with that!
You made my day right now.
Or are there still some badly behaving update apps out there?