This update makes it much easier to add custom search engines in Firefox. You can now right-click in a search field on a supported website and select “Add Search Engine” to add it. You can edit the name and assign a keyboard.

Am I misremembering things, didn't this feature exist already in the past?

Maybe the old feature was keyword bookmarks, not sure.

Sort of. I believe search engine providers actually have to create an extension to be listed in the setting.

I believe browser.profiles.enabled is a cool one you can enable now which isn't on by default (But will be eventually)

Why is Sony 1000XM1 versions ahead of Apple?

Yeah it definitely was keyword bookmarks, but there was an option to "add a keyword for this search" or something along those lines

No I distinctly remember being able to right click and add a keyword and bookmark for search field on random website forms, even internal ones on company intranet sites and such

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.

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.

• https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/qw856/what_gives_with_the_firefox_rapid_development/
• https://mitchellbaker.net/2011/08/rapid-release-process/

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?

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.

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).

.

Yes I’m pretty sure that this has been an option. For example when I go to imdb.com and right click on the tab, it prompts me to “add imdb” for search. Many such cases on many different websites. Maybe they changed the term or function.

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.

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.

Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left?

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

This does not appear to be true.

Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/

Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days.

Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release.

But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary.

That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to.

In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not.

It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".