VIVALDI DOCUMENTATION & SPECIFICATIONS



  • Earlier today Google Chrome 64 bit browser was updated routinely, but the display is slightly off and the size of fonts and icons in the "omnibox" is for me at least, IMHO, so tiny as to be almost illegible. In the course of sending feedback I found out the previous version was listed as 52.0.2743.116 m (64-bit) where the "52" versions are considered stable channel releases, the "m" prefix coding for stable release; but when I looked at the new version, 53.0.2785.89 m (64-bit) which I received at 1842.CDST, the "m" suffix indicates it is a stable channel release while the sidebar on the page indicates "52 " is stable, "53" is beta and "54" is their "CANARY" or alpha builds. The "vivaldi://about/" page, as an engineer, is the way the data for a build/release/bit/etc. should be available and accessible, and if it was done at Google for Chrome, the issue would not have been an issue -- sorry if that isn't clear. Google provides minimum data, and there seems to be a lag retrospectively, while Vivaldi prospectively provides update specifications, including the distinction between daily, weekly, and stable releases so a user doesn't have to spend time writing to ask, "Excuse me please but how did i get a beta release from the Stable channel update, or if its a Stable channel build/release why does the chronology say it is "Beta if its '53' and Canary if its '54?'" But Vivaldi is the product of the Vivaldi team/company/AS/firm not its users, so I wanted to write to ask: is this information as I've described it OKAY to share with Google, or not? If not I won't do it and understand completely. At times Google seems to dumb things down which reduces the user interaction to that lowest common denominator while Vivaldi seems to believe its users are now from the cohort at the "lowest common denominator" point on the graph?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.