Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Firefox 2 is NOT released!

weblogs.mozillazine.org — Downloading Firefox builds before the "official" release can cause problems for both Mozilla and for end users. "Preed the Release Engineer says: friends don't let friends download Firefox before it's released."

Bury

informant 1 year 254 days ago, made popular 1 year 254 days ago

1706 diggs
digg it

145 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

dioxmat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35More links on the subject:
http://cbeard.typepad.com/mozilla/2006/10/quick_update.html
http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/10/23/its_not_like_were_ashamed.html
- palmer, on 10/12/2007, -11/+139And of course, people who pointed this out earlier today were modded down by the usual 'tards.
- sych0, on 10/12/2007, -42/+8this sounds like the fda telling people not to buy drugs from canada because we dont know the source
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -41/+12“And of course, people who pointed this out earlier today were modded down by the usual Digg users.”
  
  Fixed.
- JaytB, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35I never realized this. When it was posted on Digg I immediately downloaded it and installed it without further thinking. Seemed logical that it could have been available on the Mozilla servers just a couple of days before release. Whether or not it's the final version is not the point but I never thought I would actually hurt Mozilla with this action. It's good to read an article like this to make people aware. I know I am after reading this.
- Quiwi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Looks like not everyone's gotten the notice yet XD
  Tomshardware has a article and link to it also.
- pexor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yah I got all excited earlier then hovered over the link, saw garbage, then used the Firefox update feature, got nothing, and decided to wait. That was just too shady to fall for. After you browse enough porn, checking the status before clicking is second nature.
- Eoxx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4If you want to download the last version of a software product always do it form the home page of the product !!!!
  http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/
  
  the download Firefox button gives you the last version in use and THAT IS NOT version 2.0 ...
  Not everything that is written in digg (sse previous post saying version 2 is out) is accurate ... Free your mind ;)
- Clearz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4If you dont want ppl to download something just dont post it on the Internet. I mean jeez.
- ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7If you upload files to your FTP without protecting them or the directory first what do you expect?
- Clearz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I had a feeling I would get modded down. Typical digg mentality. Put your over active emotional response to anything remotely negative said about your favourite open source software ahead of reasoning at all costs.
  
  The fact still remains that if you dont want someone to download your software don't post it on the net. At least don't complain then afterwords.
corevette, on 10/12/2007, -81/+8technically it's been released...but the end-home user won't know that until it hits the front page
- GuyHitByTruck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+51Not it hasn't. Just because it's on a server doesn't make it a release.
  Edit: Just to clarify, they're still indending to release on Tuesday, as far as I can understand.
- comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41If you had read the story, you would know that you are wrong.
Harboggles, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3Pwned.

read down the comments to get other builds (OSx Linux etc

http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/40681822/article.pl
greekgoat91, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6It has not been released but the installer in the servers are the official version. hope that clears some things up.
xXShadowstormXx, on 11/08/2007, -7/+44Don't bury me too hard for asking a question, but does this mean I have to uninstall my 2.0 version that I got from ftp.mozilla.com and revert back to 1.5 for the time being?

Honest question here.
- Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53No. There's nothing wrong with the software, it just makes Mozilla's life more difficult to have so many people downloading it before it's officially released.
- Szekely, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4No. I've used this version of 2.0 since it appeared and nothings wrong. Just get the "official" release when it comes out and install over.
- foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Probably Mozzilla has to pay less money for bandwidth just after FF2.0 is released or the download-counter starts when its officially released.
  Just saying.
- webmacster87, on 10/12/2007, -27/+3Yes, you should uninstall that release, as it is an interim release and is quite likely to have bugs. Download the 2.0 final when it's release, or else download RC-3 (which I'm using, and is really good) and the final will automatically install for you.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1i just installed rc3 and left it like that before and didnt install the hype releases
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Nothing wrong with it? My Tab functions are completely screwed up. I can't open in a new tab, close a tab or open a new window.
  
  If this is a final release version - I'll stick with 1.5 awhile.
- shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5I'm on Firefox 2 right now, and the keyboard shortcuts for tab switching are incorrectly implemented.
  
  One press of Ctrl-Tab skips forward TWO tabs instead of one. Same with Ctrl-Shift-Tab.
  
  I just read the blog, and it makes sense to a certain extent, but saying "if we're releasing it, we'll have some FTPs up before others" and "The current FTPs may not be up-to-date versions" doesn't kluge.
  
  If you're doing a gradual quiet pre-rollout, wouldn't you want the Final v2 up, so that you don't have to REUPDATE your FTPs? I don't know. Those two statements taken together sorta lost me.
Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9None of those reasons seemed all that great to me... especially since one of them wasn't "this isn't the same build that will be the 'official release.'"
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6Yeah, sounds like a bunch of grumpy IT guys alright... Grumpy because they are so lazy that they'd let the final version go public a day before they can celebrate it at their booze parties.
  
  Boo hoo.
  
  Learn how the internet works. Especially if you're going to use FTP...
  
  Who wants to bet the release tomorrow will have ONE and only one thing different about it... Just so they can say "See, THIS is the final 2.0"...
emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6i've got some flavor of it on my computer, but I'm looking forward to the real thing
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -13/+32http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ccmphtml/ccimages/w7105.jpg
Raingwc, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5I downloaded some gb-en version from their homepage, no, not an ftp, their actual page. And its working like a charm, love it. All extensions work and everything.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7thats the great britan english build
  not american
sw0rdfish, on 10/12/2007, -24/+14I can't believe how stupid people get just to install an app a day early. It's RC3 with out the RC3.

Find something better to do.

you may digg me down now.
- thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this is Digg, home of the idle and the idle minded
  
  hence the mad rush to download
captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10Anyone else having problems with it? My bookmarks are gone and the tabs aren't working right. Even when run in safe mode.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6captinherb,
  had the same issue-i re-downloaded it and installed again, and then it worked fine, bookmarks and all. I couldn't add bookmarks the first time I installed it.
- captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6@ totorototoro
  Thanks, took two more downloads and re-installs but seems to be working now.
  
  To the FF fan boys digging me down. What? "Anyone dare question FF, Silence Him!" You should apply for jobs with the Bush Administration. Freaks.It's time to move out of your moms basement.
- durmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Same problem here. Bookmarks are gone, and when i import them from IE (which I have to use for work related purposes, so don't give me IE sucks crap), they show up but are dead links. Same problems with the tabs. I'll try reinstalling it and see if that helps.
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is an issue we're seeing unfortunately too often. Most of the time it is being caused by a pc restart or crash. If you're seeing this without restarting your pc PLEASE REPORT IT to bugzilla.mozilla.org and use a summary similar to "bookmarks missing after update, without restarting." As far as we know this doesn't occur without a restart, so if it is happening we'll want to know ASAP.
  
  What happens is the os is terminating firefox before it is done writing to some files. These files then become corrupt and all the data is gone. Most of the files that can be affected don't hold crucial data, but this is why 1.5 had bookmark backups implemented. The corrupted file needs to be deleted and Firefox will replace it with a new one.
  
  If your search plugins are missing and you can't add new bookmarks, or your toolbar customizations keep resetting on start, your localstore.rdf is corrupt: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Localstore.rdf this article explains how to reset it.
  
  To restore your bookmarks, read this article: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Lost_bookmarks . If you restore with a backup but the bookmarks are still missing, try restoring from an earlier backup as firefox has backed up since the corruption.
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2totorototoro: you said the bookmarks came back without having to restore them?
  
  For others having the same issue, to avoid having to uninstall reinstall several times: uninstall then delete the folder firefox installed to, (usually in program files on windows) and then reinstall. This will remove any old install files that are causing issues with the new install.
- thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0how about just backing up your bookmarks, profile etc, then doing a clean reinstall
  
  usually this helps me keep clear of FF trouble like what you described
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Majken,
  yes, i installed 2.0, it came up (but Kerio Firewall did not ask permission to run a new app, which was immediately suspicious, and Firefox didn't mention extensions), and there were no bookmarks, and a blank toolbar. (it was definitely 2.0 though, as I could see the new interface with shaded tabs, etc.)
  
  I could not add bookmarks either-it just wouldn't save them. I re-downloaded 2.0, re-installed, then Kerio said the app had changed, and then Firefox said some extensions weren't compatible, then it came up with all my old bookmarks :)
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So a fair number of people came in to irc with this issue, and it was infact a problem with the install and the bookmarks weren't actually missing.
  
  http://digg.com/software/Your_bookmarks_aren_t_lost_they_re_just_hiding
blankman, on 10/12/2007, -24/+11They shouldn't put 2.0 on their ftp servers if they're so concerned with people downloading it too soon.
- TennBikeBerk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Firefox is open-source and worked on by members of the public - how are they supposed to maintain this community connection without hosting intermediate builds of it on their FTP servers?
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10no its that people look directly to the ftp
  instead of waiting for an offical link which people should do
  stupid eager people and wanting to get to a shortcut so they dont have to wait for the true release
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The thing is, it's an open project. Everyone has access to the nightly builds...you could have had the same version of Firefox 2 that the developers did months ago. Hell, you could download Firefox 3 now if you wanted. So I don't really understand why this guy in the blog is so upset. Would he be upset if everyone started downloading Firefox 3?
  
  Sounds like he thinks he's working on a closed project and something was "leaked". Hello?
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's not the idea that people are accessing Firefox 2 early, it's that others are "announcing" it as officially released, which isn't true, and puts an artificial load on the servers. Many people are downloading it that would have waited for an official announcement when the servers were ready for the load.
zorlok, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Exactly what school teaches Release Engineering? Is it the same school that has degrees in Sanitation Engineering and Customer Service Engineering? Maybe they also offer Doctor of Releasing degrees.

Shame I only got an Electrical Engineering degree...
pookpooi, on 11/08/2007, -9/+15Mozilla completely hate digg effect.
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Don't we all. Except that it is amusing.
TheBritishGuy1, on 11/08/2007, -3/+28Ironic how I just read that article on Firefox 2... I feel dirty :O
interrogate, on 10/12/2007, -34/+7posting this comment while using firefox 2
- dgritsko, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37burying your comment while using firefox 2
- woodcoxcb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5awww... I can only bury him with 1.5... At least I'm not using IE7. Jerks.
webpoet73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I found the Mac version on MacUpdate.com. Shows it was added on Oct 23. I haven't installed it. Perhaps, I can wait until morning and download from mozilla. Can there be any harm in installing the file I got from MacUpdate?
YesMoreLight, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5CRAP
I got version two! Now when the real thing is release my computer will explode or something based on past experiences.

I'm not that worried. I trust Mozilla (a rare hero of the internet)
wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3People who download such things have OCD.

one
two
three
four
CatsAreGods, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I got mine last night as RC3 but the About box says 2.0
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12All RCs of every release of Firefox ever have always said the final version. It wouldn't be much of a candidate for release if they had to re-release it to fix the name.
berlette, on 11/08/2007, -4/+11lol, I've been using Firefox 2 for about 2 months. And so you all now, swordfish is right, its RC3.
phanfo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4on version 2, if the asses didn't want it released don't have the option to get it when you go to the site.

and a lot of v2 extensions are already up as well

and most of my extensions work
Pignanelli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My version of Firefox started refusing to 'Save Page As'. (I have to open up Explorer to save a page.) Hoped 2.0 would fix that, but... no joy.

Please advise if you can.
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1How about saving images... you have to do "save page as"... still ... no biggy just annoying.
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sounds like you hit one of the rdf issues I mentioned in an earlier comment. Find your firefox profile, exit firefox, and delete downloads.rdf. It should work just fine when you start firefox again. kb.mozillazine.org for help documents finding your profile etc. You can also find support on irc.mozilla.org in #firefox
justdave, on 11/08/2007, -2/+32There's nothing wrong with it if you already downloaded it. The problem is that Mozilla survives on donated bandwidth from a few hundred mirror sites, and it takes time to distribute the files to all those mirrors. The files *have* to be posted early in order to make sure all the mirrors have it by the time the download links are posted. There are millions of people using Firefox. There's no single download server that can handle the kind of traffic it generates when everyone tries to update at once. That's why the official download links redirect you to a mirror that still has bandwidth available to spread the load around and make sure everyone can download it quickly. The problem is when people post direct links to a specific mirror to high-traffic sites like digg. You've effectively just killed that mirror, and potentially caused the donor of that mirror to un-donate their bandwidth because their site gets killed. And yes, that includes sites like releases.mozilla.org, which is a DNS round-robin pointing at a bunch of donated bandwidth on third-party sites. The fancy links that send you to somewhere that still has bandwidth available that go on the front page of mozilla.com when it's *officially* released can't be posted until enough mirrors have the files to handle the traffic of 10-15% of the internet showing up to click the download link.

And yes, if you already downloaded 2.0rc3, it's the same file, with a different filename. You don't have to download it over again, you already have it.
- Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Easy solution: use torrents.
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1or... can't you just restrict the file access until the release date?
- nunofgs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Dude. That's a totally inappropriate size for a comment.
- rawxr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nunofgs: Dude, what part of Digg's TOS says justdave's comment is an inappropriately size?
- jon_k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You'd think more people would donate resources to the round-robin pool.
  
  Non-authoritative answer:
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 130.239.18.158
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 130.239.18.159
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 155.98.64.83
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 216.165.129.134
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 216.165.129.141
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 64.50.236.52
  Name: releases.mozilla.org
  Address: 64.50.238.52
10poundbrown, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Ive been using RC3 since they released it. I knew it was an RC, I knew today when I saw these posts about 2.0 being released that is was *****. Regardless, its a great build, I dig it and I am hoping the FF team can quickly finish up work on it and release it as a production build soon.

PS. /. used to be cool, nows its a forum for tards.
bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Bah... digg down.
dpknc84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I can't believe people are screaming at Mozilla so much for providing this software free of charge. So what if they are trying to get a point across?? Deal with it and just respect that come tomorrow everything will be official and you can continue to use one of the best browsers out there, ever.

And no, the customer is not always right like someone said on mozillazine. Customers can be extroadinarily stupid and stubbornly opinionated.
- ntufar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Mozilla foundation earns millions from Google search box we all use:
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/14/google_mozilla_tax/
  
  They know that FireFox 2.0 is a highly anticipated release. They should have put that money to good use and have been ready for the rush and prepare for surge in bandwidth usage.
- RobotII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The Customer" is always right.
  
  "A customer" might not be.
Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I'm glad that's not the finished product (or at least I hope it's not)
This new version seems like nothing has changed at all. The only thing new is a few more annoyances.
IE7 at least has its sexy new interface... with the usual unsexy old bugs.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New interfaces are rarely good. The old firefox interface was fine so theres no need to change. MS only changed IE7's interface so that it is dissimilar to FF enough so 5 years from now people will avoid switching.
BurningWater, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0Sooo, does this mean it will cause my computer damage since I am using the 2nd version?
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Unfortunately yes. The changes from RC3 to final are so vast that they are simply incompatible. You will likely lose your bookmarks and innocence in the process.
ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I shall wait like a good Firefox User should. I'm in no rush.
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There is nothing wrong with using RC versions, if anything you can help the community by reporting bugs and the like, as well as suggestions.
- ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know that. I usually like to wait until the product is finished though. Not saying it's bad to download Release Candidates
- Majken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If it's a release candidate it's a little too late for suggestions ;)
javajunkee, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5I think the real deal is available, but just not published on the main Mozilla page. Doing some simple editing of the 1.5 download link, to:

http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-2.0&os=win&lang=en-US

presents the usual Firefox download dialog box. The file and source listed are:

FireFox Setup 2.0.exe
http://ftp.uni-erlangen.de

Looks genuine to me. But, I'd still wait till it's official
- psylence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Umm, that's pretty much exactly what all of the linked pages have said. You're sharp.
- comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Clearly, you didn't read the article that is linked, now did you?
- Hoov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Haha intarnet detective on the loose.
- succubuskiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think he has a raging clue in >>>>> that direction. lol..
- javajunkee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Ack! The Digg Nazi's on the prowl. Never been censored before. ;-). I did read the article. All I was implying was I didn't browse through FTP servers to find a supposed file that may be a build, may be a legit copy, may be a fake, etc.
  
  I was simply saying that they've built the links and probably just waiting to upload the new Firefox page in the morning, with that link included.
  
  Just joining the conversation, or trying to. Now bury me if you will. Arrgggggg. ;-)
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That isn't really any different from looking in the ftp, which the article just said not to do.
ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Not sure what my problem was but I was having stability issues. I was experiencing slowness and hanging up on my system regardless of what I was doing. Uninstalled 2.0 and reinstalled 1.5.0.7 and the issue went away.
1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16Dude needs to STFU and stop whining. If they don't want it out in public it wouldn't be on an open ftp server for all to download.

"Now, before you suggest it, it's not as easy as putting in .htaccess restrictions, or setting the permissions on the files so people can't download them."

So "preed" is saying that they have zero control or don't know how to close an ftp server from public access? Astonishing to say the least.
- comrade693, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10They certainly don't control the mirrors that people generously donate bandwidth for and host the files for them.
- 1911wolf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Well obviously. They do have control over their own domain and ftp sever, which BTW is still open.
  
  http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0/mac/en-US/
  
  I believe this article was written to appease others in control of someones bank account.
- justdave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4>> So "preed" is saying that they have zero control or don't know how to close
  >> an ftp server from public access? Astonishing to say the least.
  
  The zero control thing is exactly it. It's all donated bandwidth from all over the place, the servers aren't controlled by Mozilla. That's how open source works. People contribute to the distribution process just like they contribute to the code.
  
  Mozilla can certainly monitor those sites to make sure they have the correct thing available for download on them, but trying to coordinate getting all of those sites to remove access restrictions at the same time is about as easy as trying to get the files to all of them at the same time. i.e. you can't. Same reason the files get posted early, to make sure they all have them by release time.
  
  >> Well obviously. They do have control over their own domain and ftp sever, which BTW is still open.
  
  Nope, that's not Mozilla's servers either, just their domain name. And Firefox isn't the only product. It would be quite unfair to cut off access to the current 1.5.0.7 release in order to keep people away from 2.0 wouldn't it? :)
- Nothlit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2If they have zero control, then they really shouldn't complain when users stumble across these open FTP mirrors and download it "before they're ready." How were we supposed to know this prior to their scolding us about it?
- justdave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nobody's scolding you for downloading it. People are being scolded for sharing the link after they downloaded it. One person downloading it off the ftp site isn't going to kill anything. 50,000 people downloading it off the same mirror in an hour will kill it. If you post it somewhere like digg or slashdot, or any other big news site, there's going to be 50,000 people downloading it. If you really want to share it, link to the download redirector once it's set up. Oh, but that doesn't get set up until there's enough sites with the file to have sufficient bandwidth to handle everyone hitting it. :) See, that's why you need to wait to share it, otherwise the people you're trying to share it with won't get it.
sho222, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29Spread Firefox!!! NO! Wait... stop spreading firefox... wait until tomorrow.
wimbet, on 11/08/2007, -7/+5i downloaded it from filehippo. does that make me a bad guy?
- night141, on 11/08/2007, -3/+3ARRRR
- gotamd, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4No, and that's one thing they forgot to mention. If you're downloading it from a place like FileHippo that's advertising Firefox 2.0 as being released then most of this argument is mute. AFAIK, the Digg story (on the front page at least) linked to FileHippo, not Mozilla and not an "official" mirror. There are many other unofficial sites now mirroring 2.0 as well.
sydtsai, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Oh no, i have downloaded Firefox for my Mac and PC, and both of them are spyware-ed!
If you don't want your product get downloaded, DON'T PUT IT IN YOUR PUBLIC SERVER.
- saitoh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Try reading some of the above comments or the article...It's been explained many times why it's not just a matter of them being stupid and trusting the public.
regeya, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Wow, looking at the ratings so far...y'all need to get your panties out of a bunch. Seriously.
icexe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3very valid point in the article, i didn;t realize i could really be hurting Firefox adoption rather than helping it in this case. i especially think this point is worth repeating for those who didn't RTFA:

"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."
intelsucks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3If Mozilla doesn't want to feel bad about hosting the setups before the official release, why don't they somehow protect or hide these setups?
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think the point is that if ftp://foo.com is listed on Digg, then all of the traffic is directed to the one sever instead of the nice network of mirrors that they set up and it kinda ticks off the nice guys a foo.com who were not expecting to get dugg. It is also possible that they add something last minute that would not be in the version that you downloaded early. It is a perfectly reasonable request. Don't peak at your Christmas presents!
- ColonelKilkenny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
thepxc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been running 2.0RC3 for a while (since 2.0Beta1) now... it's pretty stable anyway.
- coder_cotton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+72.0 final and 2.0RC3 both are the same build, 20061010
- thepxc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@coder_cotton
  Thanks for telling me (I never would have noticed something little like that). Also, since RC1, in the help/about section, it just says "Firefox 2.0."
  
  EDIT: Actually, mine says it's build 200161018.
  
  "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061018 Firefox/2.0"
- robbclark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and mine says 2006101022
- noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Strangely enough, the Ubuntu Edgy version (already updated to 2.0 final) has a build ID of 0000000000.
  
  I guess that confirms my suspicion that all the software that Debian uses is 2000 years old.
DooDooFace, on 11/08/2007, -2/+5Wake me up at 3.0
cutebanana, on 11/08/2007, -5/+1installed firefox 2.0 today, now it's almost 12 hours of surfing with firefox 2.0, no problems...
SubWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Read the stories, people, you might understand their angle, instead of just ***** all over the fact it was on a public ftp server.

Do you really think your average computer user - not a geek - just a regular joe, knows anything about FTP? I mean even using it in FireFox itself.If the link hadn't been posted on /., Digg, etc, the issues of mirror overload and last-minute-changes needed wouldn't have existed in the first place.

I hear it now - "But public FTP..." - go read http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/10/23/its_not_like_were_ashamed.html if you haven't already. Read up on how mirroring works, too, you'll see that it was done this way on purpose.
hadak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2erm. what about my repository that pushed it out to me? i'm running edgy eft, and it was handed out. even has the official logo in the about screen. correct version number as well...

what say you?
- ramsinks.com, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No, the reps are ligit.
  ;)
sharjeelsayed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am using build 20061010 and have found no issues at all.
- mbthompson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1same here, RC2
headband, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1mabey its just an excuse to fix a bug they missed when they said it was ready
shiftless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I don't get it. Anyone that posts an exe of a new hugely popular program knows what's coming to 'em. If they whine so much, why not distribute via torrent?

Also, I'm surprised they only are on their toes 24 hours before the release. It would make sense to be better prepared for two days or more.
- gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They do technically have a BitTorrent distribution method found here: http://bittorrent.mozilla.org/
  
  Though from the looks of it, they don't really care about it too much (it's still on 1.5, not 1.5.0.7). I really wish they'd move toward a torrent distribution method though. I'm sure it would save them tons of bandwidth.
- Endemoniada, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So you think every Average Joe that's gotten so far as to stop using IE and replace it with Firefox is ALSO going to have bittorent AND know how to use it?
  
  Their method of delivery is perfectly fine. It's eager geeks like you who post early FTP links to a not-yet-released piece of software that gets them in trouble. If you'd just wait for the proper release, this never would have happened.
themutt22, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1FIREFOX 2 IS NOT PLEASED

For serious.
Gronkk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Too late. I'm using it right now.
- iLEZ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It seems a bit sketchy on the stability though. FF seldom crashed before, now "2.0" has, thrice, in a short timespan. I guess it will be fixed until Tuesday.
jron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1hey tards, the builds on the mirrors are final. even the linked write up does not dispute this fact. marking bs.
apok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There's ways Mozilla could have guarded against this. A lot of their users are geeks and we're bound to go snooping.
- jmiller22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As they've said many times, individual users aren't a problem, it's posting it to thousands who all try to download it simultaneously from a SINGLE SERVER that constitutes a problem.
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Firefox 2 is NOT released!

Login or register to add a comment