Computer Hope
Other => Computer News => Topic started by: Salmon Trout on August 14, 2011, 01:03:55 PM
-
Although not officially released until Aug 16, I see Slashdot says that it looks like FF 6.0 final version "has already been signed off and is unofficially available on Mozilla's servers."
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/
I downloaded and installed and I see on first run a tab for my homepage and a tab for a Mozilla page headed "You are now running Firefox Beta", so I'm not sure if it is final or not. The version number is definitely 6.0.
The first noticeable change is that the domain name of the sites I'm visiting are highlighted:
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/FF6-URL-box.jpg)
-
I think they're thinking to catch up with IE's version numbers.
-
I think they're thinking to catch up with IE's version numbers.
No. That would be a pretty dumb reason.
-
Your link is a bit messed up ST, so here it is:
ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/
http:// can't be added or it will tell you it's not ready yet.
-
Your link is a bit messed up ST, so here it is:
ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/
http:// can't be added or it will tell you it's not ready yet.
I posted it just as you showed, as a preview of quoting my post will show - ComputerHope is mangling it.
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/MOzilla-link.jpg)
-
No. That would be a pretty dumb reason.
Fine then, give your's, instead of being so bloody opinionated about yourself.
Before it was released that Pro Evolution Soccer was doing the exact same thing with FIFA on PlayStation - releasing versions more often so they would catch up with FIFA.
-
Fine then, give your's, instead of being so bloody opinionated about yourself.
It's pretty clearly part of their "Do what Google does" strategy. First the rapid version releases, and now (as noted in another thread) the pending removal of a easily visible version number. Chrome's Versioning scheme has allowed it to have 13 Major versions in the span of 2 years since initial release. At the moment builds of 14 and 15 are in beta and the dev branch respectively.
Advancing the version number has absolutely nothing to do with "catching up to IE". They are simply trying to, for whatever reason, release "like chrome". What is the reason for Google's Rapid Release schedule for Chrome? They are merely following the "Release Early, Release Often" Mantra. If their purpose was to "catch-up" to IE, they would have been done with that task nearly 8 versions ago. The problem is, Firefox/Mozilla seems to be losing their direction and focus, and rather than emphasizing the major strength of their browser over the competition, such as the wealth of available add-ons- they are instead adopting the same Rapid-release schedule as Google Chrome, meaning that every 6 weeks a new browser version will supplant the old and obsolete most available add-ons for a time. In tackling the Chrome insurgent by seeking parity with its rapid release schedule, simple extension API, sparser user interface, process-isolated tabs and so forth, Firefox may be losing its strongest reason for existing.
Before it was released that Pro Evolution Soccer was doing the exact same thing with FIFA on PlayStation - releasing versions more often so they would catch up with FIFA.
Pro Evolution Soccer appears to have been first released in 2001, and had a new release every year thereafter. Same with FIFA, but they started in 1996. There was no "Catch-up" that I can see, and I also don't understand how you can see any connection between what is normally a console game that has no version number at all and web browsers that run on a computer.
-
and I also don't understand how you can see any connection between what is normally a console game that has no version number at all and web browsers that run on a computer.
Err...PES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2008, 2009, 2010...different versions. FIFA 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007...and so on. If anything, PES changed their format of versioning to match FIFA.
-
Although not officially released until Aug 16, I see Slashdot says that it looks like FF 6.0 final version "has already been signed off and is unofficially available on Mozilla's servers."
http://ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/ (http://ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/6.0/)
I downloaded and installed and I see on first run a tab for my homepage and a tab for a Mozilla page headed "You are now running Firefox Beta", so I'm not sure if it is final or not. The version number is definitely 6.0.
The first noticeable change is that the domain name of the sites I'm visiting are highlighted:
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/FF6-URL-box.jpg)
I posted it just as you showed, as a preview of quoting my post will show - ComputerHope is mangling it.
(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p29/badoit/MOzilla-link.jpg)
Both of these "features" have long been included in the version of Chrome i've been using, which is version 10.0.648.205.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389248,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2389248,00.asp)
VERY Comprehensive look into speed and feature tests of the big three browsers.
-
I don't like new version of Fire Fox at all because they could not support different add-on and plug-ins like Google Toolbar, PDF etc.
-
I don't like new version of Fire Fox at all because they could not support different add-on and plug-ins like Google Toolbar, PDF etc.
Yes it does !
-
Yes it does !
He's a spammer. Notice the link in his sig?
-
been using version 9.0 nightly and it's great.
-
He's a spammer. Notice the link in his sig?
I did notice, but he has been here for a while, so......??
been using version 9.0 nightly and it's great.
Nice, you use a version that doesn't exist, it will probably be out in a few months though.
-
Nice, you use a version that doesn't exist, it will probably be out in a few months though.
No no... he might just be a FOSS advocate. They see the world upside down.
-
I did notice, but he has been here for a while, so......??
The "freeforall" user was set up for a service called Bug me Not, hence the user's title is "bugmenot user".
http://www.bugmenot.com/
-
FYI - I've deleted his signature and he's been notified.
-
Allan...
The "freeforall" user was set up for a service called Bug me Not, hence the user's title is "bugmenot user".
http://www.bugmenot.com/
There's no point in notification. Anyone who wants to use CH and knows about Bugmenot.com can use that account.
-
I did notice, but he has been here for a while, so......??
Nice, you use a version that doesn't exist, it will probably be out in a few months though.
uhhhhh firefox 9.0 nightly:
http://nightly.mozilla.org/
it's fo reals yo!
-
Allan...
There's no point in notification. Anyone who wants to use CH and knows about Bugmenot.com can use that account.
He and I have exchanged several pm's. He's aware of where I stand regarding his posts and his signature.
-
He and I have exchanged several pm's. He's aware of where I stand regarding his posts and his signature.
You not getting what I'm trying to say! The person using that account might not be one person, it could be many. See here (http://www.bugmenot.com/view/computerhope.com)...anyone can use the username and password to log into that account and post.
-
anyone can use the username and password to log into that account and post.
Including me, who is normally Salmon Trout. I see potential for mischief. Is that Bugmenot site allowed to do this? I'd have thought that using that account to log in was a prima facie breach of forum rules, but I am not a lawyer.
-
I don't know, but I too see the potential for mischief. ;D
It's weird being able to edit somebody else's posts! By logging in as freeforall anybody can edit them during the edit window
-
Including me, who is normally Salmon Trout
Are you stating that you are Salmon Trout ? ?
-
Are you stating that you are Salmon Trout ? ?
Yes, I am. I fired up Opera and used that Bugmenot account to log in. I'll prove it. Mary had a little lamb...
-
... its fleece was white as snow.
-
Gotcha...
Just didn't want someone mis-representing you.
Thanx.
-
You not getting what I'm trying to say! The person using that account might not be one person, it could be many. See here (http://www.bugmenot.com/view/computerhope.com)...anyone can use the username and password to log into that account and post.
Gotcha. Wasn't aware it was a password "bypasser".
-
the *censored*'s talkin bout this one guy and not firefox 6 or 9 or whatever version. an u didn't check out the link I proved FF9 is legit man.
-
Calm down there bud...
-
an u didn't check out the link I proved FF9 is legit man.
Feel like an Alpha male using Alpha software?
-
Feel like an Alpha male using Alpha software?
why u mad bro?
-
why u mad bro?
No, why would I be? I use linux on one of my machines, so I use Alpha quality software rather often.
-
No, why would I be? I use linux on one of my machines, so I use Alpha quality software rather often.
y u think that?
-
y u think that?
You aren't very good at trolling.
-
You aren't very good at trolling.
y u think that?
-
And to be honest, using your IP as your username wasn't the best idea either.
-
And........ he's outta here.
-
I don't know about you guys, but I'm running 7.0.1...
-
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/
-
And to be honest, using your IP as your username wasn't the best idea either.
It is actually the IP of http://computerhope.com