Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 3.5 Hits Release Candidate Milestone
macupdate writes "Firefox 3.5rc1 has started trickling to users (mirrors and appropriate pages should all be updated soon). You can read the release notes. RC1 still scores a 93/100 on the Acid3 test."
Beta 99
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
I still don't understand the obsession with Acid tests - they measure performance in incredibly obscure areas and have a comparatively small bearing on real world performance. Webkit and Opera in particular have designed to the test to an extent, resulting in good scores but not necessarily comparable general compliance. I'm also slightly confused by the use of the word "still" - none of these bugs are severe enough to risk breakage leading up to a release candidate. I believe far more relevant are performance, bug fixes, features and HTML5/CSS3 support (which make far more of a contribution to moving the web on that Acid Test scores do) - areas in which Firefox 3.5 has improved dramatically. Talk about focusing on the negatives...
yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Anyone know if xmarks, adblock, and firebug extensions are available for it yet? If so I'll download it in a heartbeat.. Otherwise I think I'll wait.
Such as...? I use Safari (at home) and Konqueror (at work) nearly exclusively and haven't had problems with these mythical IE-and-Firefox-only pages.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
RC1 still scores a 93/100 on the Acid3 test.
Minefield has scored 94/100 for quite some time now, so I doubt Shiretoko will score any better at release.
I'm sorry, but without any benchmark or other reasonable test there's no way of ranking the browsers in terms of general speed. I personally find firefox 3.5 faster than IE8 - I don't know if that's because I'm using XP, because that's the result I want to see or any other reason; the point is it's a subjective evaluation. Furthermore, adblock with a reasonable filter list and flasblock improve page load times and responsiveness substantially. The private browsing issue is reasonable, although I've not personally been troubled by it having no real need to combine "private" and less private browsing. I also feel the clear recent history function mitigates that to some extent.
I think that Google Chrome will get corporate friendly before Firefox.
Firefox doesn't really have a plan for targeting business users - it's as if they don't understand corporate needs!
* Redirect update server to internal corporate network so they can test new releases before updating the corporate desktops.
* Fine-grained control at the policy level over installable extensions, themes, plugins. I.e., stop users installing their own, define a set of standard corporate extensions, and so on.
* Can run those internal designed-for-IE6-by-inept-programmers websites, that the company has no budget to update.
And I'm sure many many more can be thought of by people who actually work in corporate IT departments.
Since when is H.264 industry standard?
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
yet don't work 100% in real world webpages. Standards compliant be damned if you can't render real pages.
What?
If the browser follows web standards 100% and yet some webpages render incorrectly - doesn't this mean the issue is with the web page and not with the browser?
Web standards exist so that we shouldn't have to answer the question of whether the web browser is designed for the web pages or whether the web pages are designed for the browser.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.