Expired

FireFox 2.0 Released

22
Found 24th Oct 2006

  1. Misc
Groups
  1. Misc
23 Comments

Oooh ...

Isn't it Release Candidate 3?

Link is broken.
And checking the Mozilla site FireFox 2.0 is still in RC3, so not yet released, or was the link you posted some joke link?

EDIT: http://www.hotukdeals.com/forums/member.php?u=5933 beat me to it

X10

Original Poster

Link still works for me, and I installed it, no mention of RC3, 24th Oct, is the final release day, just its not listed on update or the main site yet.

No joke that I know of...

The link seems to work for me know, how bizarre.
This might be of interest:
forums.mozillazine.org/vie…007
A lot of the extensions I use don't work in v2.0 yet so I won't bother.
X10

its effectively a beta version

All software is BETA

X10

All software is BETA

??? I mean this version appears to be a pre-release (i.e. beta) version. The final version will come out later at some point.

the official launch is scheduled later today. But I'm almost certain it will be the same as the one that this link points to

markwills

??? I mean this version appears to be a pre-release (i.e. beta) version. … ??? I mean this version appears to be a pre-release (i.e. beta) version. The final version will come out later at some point.


Err, did you read the posts markwills?
The final release is out, the website has not been updated that's all (I posted a link to the Mozilla Forums about this).
I thought you were commenting on the fact that it's version 2.0 and thus will still be undergoing bug fixes etc.
My point about all software being BETA was in response to what I thought you meant by your comment - Depending on what you consider to be BETA, you could say all software is in BETA.

Anyway RC is not BETA, but that's by technicality.
X10

Good will download it after the official launch :-)

This is what they say about the current download...

"Firefox 2 Release Candidate 3 (RC 3) is a preview release of our next generation Firefox browser and is being made ][COLOR=#0000ff]available for download[/COLOR] to Web application developers, our testing community and users who want to get a sneak peek at the next version of Firefox. Please note that at this time, users should not expect all of their extensions, plugins and themes from previous versions of Firefox to work properly."

Yes I did read the posts, that's why I replied to them. ;-)

As per my previous post, the Mozilla webpage states that this is a "preview release" so I was advising people that, according to Mozilla (the people who make Firefox) this is NOT the final version.

Maybe you are correct and this is the final version and Mozilla haven't finished updating their website. But as beta versions often have flaws and have a disclaimer about messing up people's systems, I thought it would be useful for everyone to know.



Then you'd know it was final release, schizoboy posted twice about it:



markwills

Yes I did read the posts, that's why I replied to them....Maybe you are … Yes I did read the posts, that's why I replied to them....Maybe you are correct and this is the final version and Mozilla haven't finished updating their website. But as beta versions often have flaws and have a disclaimer about messing up people's systems, I thought it would be useful for everyone to know.

schizoboy

...no mention of RC3, 24th Oct, is the final release day, just its not … ...no mention of RC3, 24th Oct, is the final release day, just its not listed on update or the main site yet.No joke that I know of...

X10

The link seems to work for me know, how bizarre.This might be of … The link seems to work for me know, how bizarre.This might be of interest:]http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=477283&sid=0c5760d3d6278336d4aaa9118a5da007A lot of the extensions I use don't work in v2.0 yet so I won't bother.X10

So is it an error on Mozilla's website then?

markwills

So is it an error on Mozilla's website then?


If by error you mean they haven't updated the website yet, then yes.

Please wait just a couple more hours until Firefox 2 is offically released.

]http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/preed/2006/10/the_antirelease.html][LIST=1][*]No, we have. Not. Released. Firefox. 2. Yet.[*]When people link to bits directly on a random FTP mirror, they're doing a number of people harm including, quite possibly, themselves:[LIST][*]Digg and Reddit posts linking to direct FTP mirrors could be costing the operators of those mirrors hundreds to thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills, or may cause them to crash by linking directly to them. This could cause them to "un-volunteer" their services as a mirror, making it even harder to obtain Firefox on release days.[*]People posting direct link to FTP mirrors don't know if that mirror is a member of the Mozilla FTP Mirror Farm, or some random, unverified mirror. We work hard to verify that the mirrors in our farm are serving the same bits we released, and we cannot make the same claim about other mirrors that aren't part of our farm. When using direct FTP links to random mirrors, users run the risk of downloading bits that have not been checked to ensure they do not contain a virus or trojan.[*]"That's ok," you say: "I link directly to ftp.mozilla.org!" That can be even worse! Killing the project's FTP server does not help anyone, least of all people trying to obtain Firefox builds. And it makes for a[/LIST][*][LIST][*]][COLOR=#36414d]grumpy IT group[/COLOR]]. And nobody wants grumpy IT groups. Especially a day before a release.[/LIST]][*]Linking directly to builds hinders our ability to remove/retract bits that we may have to remove for some reason. While this may not seem like a big deal, it becomes a problem when supporting users, one of our most important values. If, let's say, we pull a locale, due to a stop-ship bug—and yes, this is not a hypothetical—then users who've (pre-)downloaded that build will not receive valuable security updates for those builds. The counterargument to this is "Well, you should provide updates for everything you've ever offered on your FTP site." If we did this, we'd be spending valuable (and über-constrained) Build Team and QA resources generating updates and testing them for builds that weren't the final bits, and were never "released" as such.[*]Posting links before we release may point people to an incomplete FTP areas or mirrors. I haven't finished posting the source tarball, for instance. Will it happen before we release? Yes. Will there be unnecessary confusion from the open source community, wondering where this deliverable is? If you post links to an FTP site with the builds, yes.[*]Most articles have an unerring ability to link to the wrong thing. Slashdot's front page, for instance, currently links to the Windows British English build. I cringe at the thought of the community having to waste time while we're finishing things up with IRC, blog, and Bugzilla chatter asking "I got my build from Slashdot; why did you guys spell behaviour wrong?" And where are Slashdotters wanting uhh... you know... Linux builds supposed to get them? It's unclear from the article that directly links to an .exe for one [correct for one country, but mostly-wrong for everyone else] locale.[*]User experience can be degraded, leaving a bad taste in people's mouth: Firefox 2 has a number of components that use live content on websites. The whole community has been doing a lot of work to refresh, update, and translate this content, and parts of it are still coming together for the release. When you download a build, there could be various content, including certain parts of help, that are not yet ready. When you tell your friends to go download Firefox 2 before we announce it's ready, you're subjecting them to a degraded user experience, which could push them to go back to... "other browsers."[/LIST]]So please... just remember: "Preed the Release Engineer says: friends don't let friends download Firefox before it's released."We know everyone's excited for the 2.0 release. We are too. But give us 24 hours, so we can make sure that your first experience with Firefox 2.0 is befitting of everyone's hard work on this major release.I promise it's worth the wait.

After reading the blog, responses and links, it seems that while the Official Release Date is the 24th October 2006 (which is Today by the way, that blog was posted yesterday), this is the final release of the program.
They've just been waiting to propagate it to all the mirrors.
So while they 'have. Not. Released. Firefox. 2. Yet', the file is the actual release and nothing 'dodgy' about it.

EDIT:

beltzner.ca/mik…tml

October 23, 2006It's not like we're ashamed Sometimes I don’t understand … October 23, 2006It's not like we're ashamed Sometimes I don’t understand people. ]Ars Technica, ]Slashdot, ]The Register and other popular technology reporting websites all announced how Mozilla “silently posted” Firefox 2 a day earlier than expected. Some even mentioned how odd it was that there was no announcement on the ]mozilla.com website. None, however, mentioned that this is exactly how every milestone release has gone so far. Say it with me, kids: first we put the files out there on the mirrors, then we update the website, and finally we announce the release. This isn’t news. It’s the way we do things.



X10

I think ill wait for the atomatic updates to update me lol.

gd_miester

I think ill wait for the atomatic updates to update me lol.



Thanks for reminding me to turn off that feature. I wouldn't want to blow up this end of the country.
X10

Original Poster

hm, the advertised and public listed 2.0 download now is the same one i downloaded at 11am, the exact same hash... so, bleh

]http//ww…ox/

:pirate: CJ :pirate:

So it wasn't officially released ;-)

Will download it now! can't wait to try it out.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text