Especially as passing the ACID test for the sake of it will not actually improve the user experience.
ACID 3 passes should come naturally, there shouldn't be the webkit style rush to pass because its only improved the browser as a side-effect instead of passing the test as a side-effect.Its like learning the answer's to a test instead of actually learning the material, sure you'll pass the test but when you go out to do some real world work/browsing, it wont of helped.
This all combined with the fact that ACID doesn't test standards compliance, as a firefox user I'm glad they're not wasting their time on it.
beta5 -> RC1 was just bug fixes, as far as i can tell. And while SunSpider does help indicate javascript performance, ACID3 is fairly pointless, testing for CSS & html compliance is more relevant: http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html FF3b5 & FF3 RC1 are the same 36/43 7unsupported (373/578) though as they wont be fixed till FF4
Re:OT - Firefox 3 was regression for me
on
Firefox 3 RC1 Out Now
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
have to admit i never used that feature, its too late to re-add to FF3 but if you request it may be re-added to 4. Developers arnt mind readers, ofc some project will ignore you opinion (e.g pdigin) but others value all input (as long as they have the time), I'm not sure where Mozilla sit, I suspect its somewhere in the middle.
You imply people should accept using buggy software. where do I say that? perhaps your FF2 isnt rendering fonts right becasue all i said was that if your using beta software and it crashes it need bug reports to improve. filing bug reports is the exact opposite of accepting buggy software, sitting around bitching about it is pretty much accepting it.
This is an effective fix that is all but impossible using ff3 with its penchant for killing xwindows... Why not simply use a button to killall firefox (debian logo OFC), I have that relic left over from beta3 and use it when flash 10 (beta) locks stuff up.
well the autoupdate segfaulted (probably because i didnt have space to install it) but on manual install i noticed i had to agree to an EULA
MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
Version 3.0, May 2008
A source code version of certain Firefox Browser functionality that you may use, modify and distribute is available to you free-of-charge from www.mozilla.org under the Mozilla Public License and other open source software licenses.
The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product") is made available to you under the terms of this Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement (the "Agreement"). By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser.
During the Mozilla Firefox installation process, and at later times, you may be given the option of installing additional components from third-party software providers. The installation and use of those third-party components may be governed by additional license agreements.
1. LICENSE GRANT. The Mozilla Corporation grants you a non-exclusive license to use the executable code version of the Product. This Agreement will also govern any software upgrades provided by Mozilla that replace and/or supplement the original Product, unless such upgrades are accompanied by a separate license, in which case the terms of that license will govern.
2. TERMINATION. If you breach this Agreement your right to use the Product will terminate immediately and without notice, but all provisions of this Agreement except the License Grant (Paragraph 1) will survive termination and continue in effect. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies of the Product.
3. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. Portions of the Product are available in source code form under the terms of the Mozilla Public License and other open source licenses (collectively, "Open Source Licenses") at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses. Subject to the foregoing, Mozilla, for itself and on behalf of its licensors, hereby reserves all intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product. This license does not grant you any right to use the trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors.
4. PRIVACY POLICY. You agree to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy, made available online at http://www.mozilla.com/legal/privacy/, as that policy may be changed from time to time. When Mozilla changes the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on the website at www.mozilla.com and when any change is made in the privacy policy, the updated policy will be posted at the above link. It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the terms of the privacy policy, so you should periodically check the current version of the policy for changes.
5. WEBSITE INFORMATION SERVICES. Mozilla and its contributors, licensors and partners work to provide the most accurate and up-to-date phishing and malware information. However, they cannot guarantee that this information is comprehensive and error-free: some risky sites may not be identified, and some safe sites may be identified in error.
6. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. The product is provided "as is" with all faults. To the extent permitted by law, Mozilla and Mozillaâ(TM)s distributors, and licensors hereby disclaim all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitation warranties that the product is free o
Yeah i dont get the comment in the summary Firefox3 beta 5 has been quite stable for most people, it still crashes with flash though (in fact last night using flash 10 it took out my xorg) but when not using flash i've not had any problems. I've been using it consistently since beta 3 because its been so much more stable than firefox 2
If people have been having people's they really should be filling bug reports, there's no way its going to magically improve without being told what's wrong
Sugar only helps when the medication is oral, windows is much more like a large placebo suppository, it hurts to use and it doesn't do actually anything.
Sure but it wont make any difference, we dont have the factories or the ability to ship the OSS software to where its needed.
MS will start pushing around a few donations and governments will flock to the windows monopoly, looks like we just lost Africa. I had a real hope for OLPC, now i just pray that enough OSS will get out there to avoid the MS monopoly, not that OLPC give a shit but it wouldn't be too hard to pack the windows machines with OSS (firefox gimp pidgin etc).
I'm all for choice. True, that can make it a challenge for Linux adoption, but we all know what happens when a product becomes a defacto monopoly. I dont think we do, we have no idea what happens when an opensource product becomes a defacto monopoly: *they cant abuse the monopoly with proprietary lock-in *smaller distros can use their code, innovate and if its any good it gets put back into the 'monopoly' *bigger distros will be forced to innovate to regain market share
I think an OSS monopoly wouldn't be too bad, not great but not too bad. Its not illegal to form a monopoly, only to abuse it.
While i agree with you, wouldnt the world be a better place if China, Iran, Russia, US & EU spent all day h4x0rig each other instead of going with the old fashioned deadly type of war.
Because different tasks need different release cycles, I wouldnt want my 'secure' distro pushing out a version every 6 months, and if I ran a want my 'cutting edge' distro i wouldn't want to sit around for 5 months. Theres also the fact that for most things except marketing, time based release cycles are a royal PITA, especially short ones. For example i recently read a plasma complaining about being pinned to a 6 month cycle (due to KDE, due to Shuttleworth), because its means they only get to spent 1/2 thier time on real feature development.
Different jobs require different tools^h development cycles.
ex. 1 Print servers. Zebra drivers dont play nice with other drivers.
b) Services + apps that don't play well with others
ex 2. I run several MS SQL servers, all of which are no bigger than 1 proc, 2gb of ram virtuals. A well configured box could host them with n*384 less overhead. I dont know about windows but under linux you can ad drivers to lvm and expand partitions.
But you have to learn to ignore the specs presented and translate it into the virtual world. When you do that, you do not waste resources. You still have the overhead of running windows for each SQL server, for SQL that may not be significant (its still 10% of your spec) & the overhead of unusable ram, HDD space, processing time.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially as passing the ACID test for the sake of it will not actually improve the user experience.
ACID 3 passes should come naturally, there shouldn't be the webkit style rush to pass because its only improved the browser as a side-effect instead of passing the test as a side-effect.Its like learning the answer's to a test instead of actually learning the material, sure you'll pass the test but when you go out to do some real world work/browsing, it wont of helped.
This all combined with the fact that ACID doesn't test standards compliance, as a firefox user I'm glad they're not wasting their time on it.
Isn't it obvious, hes presenting a show on [channel name] +1!
That logic is so twisted, its what gave IE its monopoly. Websites should comply to standards, especially if they are popular.
Btw anybody on ubuntu 7.10 needs to install ca-certificates, for automated bug reporting to work #407748
sudo apt-get install ca-certificates
That should fix, "there was a problem sending your bug report".
I use Alchemy, you insensitive clod!
Real smart, switch browsers instead of just turning it off.
I dont mean to ruin your hopes and dreams, but there is no god
...of opensource, if there was he would have proclaimed the 1 true way to do something and people would stop reinventing the wheel so often.
beta5 -> RC1 was just bug fixes, as far as i can tell. And while SunSpider does help indicate javascript performance, ACID3 is fairly pointless, testing for CSS & html compliance is more relevant:
http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html
FF3b5 & FF3 RC1 are the same 36/43 7unsupported (373/578) though as they wont be fixed till FF4
have to admit i never used that feature, its too late to re-add to FF3 but if you request it may be re-added to 4. Developers arnt mind readers, ofc some project will ignore you opinion (e.g pdigin) but others value all input (as long as they have the time), I'm not sure where Mozilla sit, I suspect its somewhere in the middle.
The worst coded ajax site on the web crashes browsers, news at 11.
MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
Version 3.0, May 2008
A source code version of certain Firefox Browser functionality that you may use, modify and distribute is available to you free-of-charge from www.mozilla.org under the Mozilla Public License and other open source software licenses.
The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product") is made available to you under the terms of this Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement (the "Agreement"). By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser.
During the Mozilla Firefox installation process, and at later times, you may be given the option of installing additional components from third-party software providers. The installation and use of those third-party components may be governed by additional license agreements.
1. LICENSE GRANT. The Mozilla Corporation grants you a non-exclusive license to use the executable code version of the Product. This Agreement will also govern any software upgrades provided by Mozilla that replace and/or supplement the original Product, unless such upgrades are accompanied by a separate license, in which case the terms of that license will govern.
2. TERMINATION. If you breach this Agreement your right to use the Product will terminate immediately and without notice, but all provisions of this Agreement except the License Grant (Paragraph 1) will survive termination and continue in effect. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies of the Product.
3. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. Portions of the Product are available in source code form under the terms of the Mozilla Public License and other open source licenses (collectively, "Open Source Licenses") at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses. Subject to the foregoing, Mozilla, for itself and on behalf of its licensors, hereby reserves all intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product. This license does not grant you any right to use the trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors.
4. PRIVACY POLICY. You agree to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy, made available online at http://www.mozilla.com/legal/privacy/, as that policy may be changed from time to time. When Mozilla changes the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on the website at www.mozilla.com and when any change is made in the privacy policy, the updated policy will be posted at the above link. It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the terms of the privacy policy, so you should periodically check the current version of the policy for changes.
5. WEBSITE INFORMATION SERVICES. Mozilla and its contributors, licensors and partners work to provide the most accurate and up-to-date phishing and malware information. However, they cannot guarantee that this information is comprehensive and error-free: some risky sites may not be identified, and some safe sites may be identified in error.
6. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. The product is provided "as is" with all faults. To the extent permitted by law, Mozilla and Mozillaâ(TM)s distributors, and licensors hereby disclaim all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitation warranties that the product is free o
dont suppose it being a beta and all you bothered filling bug reports and then checking if they got fixed?
And i bet you could use it!
Yeah i dont get the comment in the summary Firefox3 beta 5 has been quite stable for most people, it still crashes with flash though (in fact last night using flash 10 it took out my xorg) but when not using flash i've not had any problems. I've been using it consistently since beta 3 because its been so much more stable than firefox 2
If people have been having people's they really should be filling bug reports, there's no way its going to magically improve without being told what's wrong
Sugar only helps when the medication is oral, windows is much more like a large placebo suppository, it hurts to use and it doesn't do actually anything.
Not all is lost then:
downloading Free_windows_update.exe
running wubi.exe
rebooting
spreading Free_windows_update.exe via mesh nextwork
Sure but it wont make any difference, we dont have the factories or the ability to ship the OSS software to where its needed.
MS will start pushing around a few donations and governments will flock to the windows monopoly, looks like we just lost Africa. I had a real hope for OLPC, now i just pray that enough OSS will get out there to avoid the MS monopoly, not that OLPC give a shit but it wouldn't be too hard to pack the windows machines with OSS (firefox gimp pidgin etc).
*they cant abuse the monopoly with proprietary lock-in
*smaller distros can use their code, innovate and if its any good it gets put back into the 'monopoly'
*bigger distros will be forced to innovate to regain market share
I think an OSS monopoly wouldn't be too bad, not great but not too bad. Its not illegal to form a monopoly, only to abuse it.
Slackware elitists dont need no respect for grammar fool!
Hi im from the goverment, im here to install your new internets,
but i didnt order one of those
Its a free upgrade
oh ok then...
While i agree with you, wouldnt the world be a better place if China, Iran, Russia, US & EU spent all day h4x0rig each other instead of going with the old fashioned deadly type of war.
Because different tasks need different release cycles, I wouldnt want my 'secure' distro pushing out a version every 6 months, and if I ran a want my 'cutting edge' distro i wouldn't want to sit around for 5 months.
Theres also the fact that for most things except marketing, time based release cycles are a royal PITA, especially short ones. For example i recently read a plasma complaining about being pinned to a 6 month cycle (due to KDE, due to Shuttleworth), because its means they only get to spent 1/2 thier time on real feature development.
Different jobs require different tools^h development cycles.
But you have to learn to ignore the specs presented and translate it into the virtual world. When you do that, you do not waste resources. You still have the overhead of running windows for each SQL server, for SQL that may not be significant (its still 10% of your spec) & the overhead of unusable ram, HDD space, processing time.