Forums | MacLife

I'm kind of curious about this topic. Why is there so much excitement about this upgrade? Which features make this something that people were waiting on the day of release to download?

BTW, I'm seriously asking. I don't remember seeing this much excitement about any browser update before.

I dled it at 1ish today.  No problems getting the file. Happened quickly enough.  Just now installed it.  Runs just fine. No problems yet.  UI is fine.  Or, rather, I haven't used it enough yet to bitch.

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

frankly wrote:

and the article ripping that "comparison" apart here:
http://www.bigcontrarian.com/2008/06/17 … -the-odds/

I'm not sure he understands what Mozilla is all about, or even understands what "open source" is.

If he wants to have a fair argument against Firefox, he should provide evidence that Safari, or even, IE, are better browsers. But...he kinda doesn't. So I choose to at him and call it a day!

I think he does understand what open source is and he was calling them on acting like they had the market cornered, which they don't http://webkit.org/

Also, he was pointing out how the absurd the claim of "Created to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web" really is.

Is anyone else having trouble with Firefox 3? Every time I try to run the app it crashes almost immediately and brings up the crash reporter.

::

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

frankly wrote:

Also, he was pointing out how the absurd the claim of "Created to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web" really is.

Right, but that's part of the Mozilla "manifesto". It's a company-wide claim, not unique to Firefox. While, I agree, it is odd that it's supposedly a feature, I don't think it's an idea to be bashed.

It wasn't being bashed as if it isn't something to aspire to, just that it was being listed as a feature that your competitor didn't have. That is why it got bashed. It is listed with a check mark and Safari has no check mark there. That is what makes it completely and utterly lame.

GF needs Firefox version 1.5 to take her tests online for the local Community College.

We found out after upgrading to version 2 that it won't work (crashes the browser). Now the FF site takes you right to version 3....version 2 can be found on the site but I've had to go to a third party site in an attempt to find version 1.5 - I think she's going to have to use the portable version.

frankly wrote:

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

frankly wrote:

Also, he was pointing out how the absurd the claim of "Created to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web" really is.

Right, but that's part of the Mozilla "manifesto". It's a company-wide claim, not unique to Firefox. While, I agree, it is odd that it's supposedly a feature, I don't think it's an idea to be bashed.

It wasn't being bashed as if it isn't something to aspire to, just that it was being listed as a feature that your competitor didn't have. That is why it got bashed. It is listed with a check mark and Safari has no check mark there. That is what makes it completely and utterly lame.

Right, I know why it was bashed, Frankly.  And I'm agreeing that it's a strange "feature".  What I don't like about the article is the guy's attitude towards Mozilla's practice of being an open source, for the community and well-being of the internet institution. Are Safari and IE open source? If no, then they can't get a check saying that they are "Created to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web."

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just that the person who wrote the article was unnecessarily abrasive towards FF.

Downloaded both the Windows version for work and Mac version for home. So far no problems, and it does seem to run faster.

matt wrote:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Thanks, matt!

They certainly had that well hidden, AFAICT.

frankly wrote:

CrashingtehWarehouse wrote:

frankly wrote:

It wasn't being bashed as if it isn't something to aspire to, just that it was being listed as a feature that your competitor didn't have. That is why it got bashed. It is listed with a check mark and Safari has no check mark there. That is what makes it completely and utterly lame.

Right, I know why it was bashed, Frankly.  And I'm agreeing that it's a strange "feature".  What I don't like about the article is the guy's attitude towards Mozilla's practice of being an open source, for the community and well-being of the internet institution. Are Safari and IE open source? If no, then they can't get a check saying that they are "Created to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web."

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just that the person who wrote the article was unnecessarily abrasive towards FF.

Notice that you left out the part of my quote where I SPECIFICALLY pointed out that in fact the rendering engine of Safari, Webkit, is in fact open source so I'll point it out again:

http://webkit.org/

Title of the page: The WebKit Open Source Project

That is why his points are valid. If you missed this part of it then of course he would just appear snaky for no reason.

I stand corrected!

frankly wrote:

I think he does understand what open source is and he was calling them on acting like they had the market cornered, which they don't http://webkit.org/

Just didn't register in my tiny brain.

And now, to be purely argumentative, I still don't like the guy's attitude.

bratboy wrote:

So is this version the same as the beta that was available before?

Firefox 3 RC3 became Firefox 3.

arkayn wrote:

matt wrote:

bratboy wrote:

So is this version the same as the beta that was available before?

Firefox 3 RC3 became Firefox 3.

RC3 was released on the 10th of June, while the release is dated 16th of June.

I believe he meant that the code that was RC3 was the same code that ended up making up the golden master release.