Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Jun 2008 23:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 319519
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
EVERY release of Firefox has been overhyped as the second coming - nothing new here.
... and as usual it's just not that warranted. Missed 2/3rds of the milestones originally set on bugzilla? Check. Even missing bugs in the standards rendering that date back to gecko's infancy as open source back in 1998? Check. (can't fix or implement the full HTML4/CSS2 and they've had a decade... WOW.) - though at least now we have inline-block that almost works right, now if they could just finish off colgroup support.
Though I can say one good thing about this release - it's the first time (including the 3.0 betas) that there's a firefox release that doesn't chew memory like a pig and hog the cpu to the point you end up having to kill it. Dunno what they did different between the last public beta and the release, but it TOOK LONG ENOUGH for them to get the damned thing stable - Since it's been unusably unstable for me since 0.89 to the point I wouldn't even have had it installed if I wasn't a web developer. (and that's regardless of OS or hardware, I could crash ANY gecko based browser in 20 minutes of 'normal use', even on machines where most people say it's fine)
Edited 2008-06-22 18:40 UTC