I don't think so. It's well known that introducing features involves a high risk of introducing more bugs. Doing that close to release is a bad thing, as one wants to fix bugs before release.
Firefox is also a big, complex project, and this is a major release, so it doesn't matter that the previous releases were good.
This is a bad software release management, period.
There's your problem. No new features should be introduced this close to release. Traditionally, no new feature should be added to a beta, period! They're asking for it.
Think of Netscape, they were the king of the browser market. They did a clean restart, and it took them so long to create anything useful that Netscape never recovered.
You forget to mention that they were partially responsible for never recovering. Remember the Netscape 6 release? It was a buggy mess because it shipped a version of Mozilla that wasn't ready for release yet. That release did a lot of damage to the Netscape name.
The fact the Mozilla advertises its bug list more than, say, IE9 should not make people think its known bug list is longer than IE9's.
That's not what this is about. It's about the list of bugs that are considered to block a release. In other words, there is no release as long as those bugs aren't fixed. And there are still a lot of them.
Too bad that Wikipedia's articles on history tend to have factually incorrect information, notably on the Second World War. If you try to fix that, the edit war begins.
Wikipedia is essentially a scam by Jimbo Wales, and it's nearly worthless outside of certain areas that don't attract teenagers and Aspies, but... I suppose it's better than nothing.
What do you have against people with Asperger's Syndrome? Do you think they're bad people?
Mozilla doesn't really care about Linux support going all the way back to when they were Netscape. Linux/UNIX has never been a 1st class target, only a port with a 'couple guys' working on it.
There are lots of Mozilla developers who use Linux, so I doubt that it's not a 1st class target.
It's not an ethics program, it's a business program.
You could argue that they're first and foremost teaching students to break the law if it makes economic sense. Isn't business supposed to work within the confines of the law?
if Google is so concerned about open standards, will they also be dropping the embedded Flash player from Chrome?
I'm sure that if you think about this, you know the answer and why. Of course they won't, as Flash is in quite a different ballpark. Flash is widespread on the web, and the user needs it for quite a lot of sites.
The video element, on the other hand, hasn't seen wide adoption yet.
I think it's because America is the most prominent country that doesn't want to face reality in favour of believing whatever it wants, even if it's an unrealistic dream, and the country's general attitude. In short, it's quite backwards. See:
"the American dream"
socialist being an insult
the only developed nation that doesn't provide social health care (because socialism is evil)
the hate of government
the use of imperial measurement units when pretty much everyone else is using metric
The order is hardest to easier. A kid is on number 1 because it requires 2 and 3 first. Sex is on number 2 because it requires 3 (I'm not a free sex kind of guy).
Since when does eBay make any real effort to enforce its policy? All they care about is getting their percentage of the money made through their auctions.
If there are already plenty of sites that urge you to install their own codecs that are actually malware.... How will this change anything?
When you go to that same same site will it not still ask you to install that codec?
It might still ask, but if all web browsers have video support built-in, there will be less of it, and users will expect to not have to install anything.
Bad technical excuses for what is nothing but a political statement.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. It's well known that introducing features involves a high risk of introducing more bugs. Doing that close to release is a bad thing, as one wants to fix bugs before release.
Firefox is also a big, complex project, and this is a major release, so it doesn't matter that the previous releases were good.
This is a bad software release management, period.
Windows 95 (aka 4.0) didn't suck. It had its problems at release, like every other Windows version, but it didn't suck.
There's your problem. No new features should be introduced this close to release. Traditionally, no new feature should be added to a beta, period! They're asking for it.
You forget to mention that they were partially responsible for never recovering. Remember the Netscape 6 release? It was a buggy mess because it shipped a version of Mozilla that wasn't ready for release yet. That release did a lot of damage to the Netscape name.
That's not what this is about. It's about the list of bugs that are considered to block a release. In other words, there is no release as long as those bugs aren't fixed. And there are still a lot of them.
Sure, but the edit will only be reverted within minutes thanks to biased contributors. Did you miss that this is one of the complaints?
That excuses their bad behaviour, how?
Too bad that Wikipedia's articles on history tend to have factually incorrect information, notably on the Second World War. If you try to fix that, the edit war begins.
What do you have against people with Asperger's Syndrome? Do you think they're bad people?
There are lots of Mozilla developers who use Linux, so I doubt that it's not a 1st class target.
You're going to reward him/her with poison?
You could argue that they're first and foremost teaching students to break the law if it makes economic sense. Isn't business supposed to work within the confines of the law?
Yes, it's called SeaMonkey. However, it's slowly turning into the project of the SeaMonkey Council leader instead of the community's.
Looks like the H.264 fan and apologist squad has already arrived. They must like sucking corporate cock.
Except that H.264 is not a web standard at all.
I'm sure that if you think about this, you know the answer and why. Of course they won't, as Flash is in quite a different ballpark. Flash is widespread on the web, and the user needs it for quite a lot of sites.
The video element, on the other hand, hasn't seen wide adoption yet.
No, different situations. Use that head of yours.
A fishing net is a direct danger. Everything you've summed up as dangers for humans are indirect (potential) dangers.
How did you get it in your head that the apostrophe is used to pluralise?! Stop abusing the apostrophe now!
I think it's because America is the most prominent country that doesn't want to face reality in favour of believing whatever it wants, even if it's an unrealistic dream, and the country's general attitude. In short, it's quite backwards. See:
etc.
That sounds like what happens each time Windows 9x comes up in any IT discussion.
The order is hardest to easier. A kid is on number 1 because it requires 2 and 3 first. Sex is on number 2 because it requires 3 (I'm not a free sex kind of guy).
1. A kid
2. Sex
3. A girlfriend
Good luck getting a job there.
Since when does eBay make any real effort to enforce its policy? All they care about is getting their percentage of the money made through their auctions.
It might still ask, but if all web browsers have video support built-in, there will be less of it, and users will expect to not have to install anything.
Because it can't be both, right?