Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 23:26 UTC, submitted by inkslinger
Thread beginning with comment 354885
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: He should be...
by johnboyholmes on Wed 25th Mar 2009 01:38
in reply to "RE[2]: He should be..."
I am not sure you are making the strongest argument when you talk about a beta product and call it by the wrong name. Firefox 3.1 is now going to be released as Firefox 3.5
True. It was, however, called Firefox 3.1 beta 3 when it was tested and scored 94 out of 100.
Now you wouldn't want me to claim that Firefox 3.5 scored 94 out of 100 for Acid3 testing when Firefox 3.5 doesn't exist yet, would you? Firefox 3.1 beta 3 does exist, and it has been tested.
Satisfied?
RE[4]: He should be...
by middleware on Wed 25th Mar 2009 05:46
in reply to "RE[3]: He should be..."
So you see what, that is, open source software has more rapid frequency to introduce new features. While it takes years to create a new release for Windows (even for SP), and IE, it takes months for a Linux kernel and open source browser. So if IE left behind at the startup, it never catches up.



Member since:
2007-02-17
Firefox 3.1 scores 94 out of 100 for Acid 3 compliance.
IE8 scores only 20.