|
Home > Archive > Mozilla Browser > November 2005 > Has v1.5 of Firefox been released, or not?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Has v1.5 of Firefox been released, or not?
|
|
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
|
As of this writing; 16:52 local (US E. Coast).
Several sites appear to be hosting v1.5 downloads, but *not*
<http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/> (still showing v1.0.7). Are these
'other' sites (some of quite-good reputation) actually hosting v1.5 rc3 (or,
possibly, even something earlier)?
Personally, I refuse to install something which purports to be from such & such
a site, unless *that* particular sites *is* hosting the stated file. Comments?
| |
|
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> As of this writing; 16:52 local (US E. Coast).
>
> Several sites appear to be hosting v1.5 downloads, but *not*
> <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/> (still showing v1.0.7). Are these
> 'other' sites (some of quite-good reputation) actually hosting v1.5 rc3 (or,
> possibly, even something earlier)?
>
> Personally, I refuse to install something which purports to be from such & such
> a site, unless *that* particular sites *is* hosting the stated file. Comments?
Its not "official" until Moz says so. But, yes, the download sites do
have it. Moz is just a little slow at updating their site.
As one Moz Champion (Chris I) said: "It's not officially released yet.
It's on the FTP site in preparation for being shipped."
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.o...x/releases/1.5/
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:17:56 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
<TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
<438cd24f$1@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
>Its not "official" until Moz says so. But, yes, the download sites do
>have it. Moz is just a little slow at updating their site.
>
>As one Moz Champion (Chris I) said: "It's not officially released yet.
>It's on the FTP site in preparation for being shipped."
>
>ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.o...x/releases/1.5/
Ah drat. Tuesday's waning (6 hr/39 min intil Midnight, here on E. Coast), & no
official release. Double-dang...
| |
|
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:17:56 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
> <TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
> <438cd24f$1@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Ah drat. Tuesday's waning (6 hr/39 min intil Midnight, here on E. Coast), & no
> official release. Double-dang...
Maybe this might explain things a little:
http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/11/lookin...or-mozilla.html
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:36:08 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
<TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
<438cd692@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
[snip]
>Maybe this might explain things a little:
>http://ilias.ca/blog/2005/11/lookin...or-mozilla.html
It does. Thank you kindly.
| |
| Tony Raven 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:36:08 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
> <TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
> <438cd692@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> It does. Thank you kindly.
Is it any different from RC3? The version number seems to be exactly
the same when installed - its listed as Build 2005111116 in the header
bar which is the same as RC3 IIRC.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
| |
|
| Tony Raven wrote:
> Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
>
>
> Is it any different from RC3? The version number seems to be exactly
> the same when installed - its listed as Build 2005111116 in the header
> bar which is the same as RC3 IIRC.
>
Yes, it is different. Its [supposed to be] the Final Release.
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:54:08 +0000, in alt.fan.mozilla, Tony Raven
<junk@raven-family.com>, by way of Message-id <3v44gkF13gqr8U1@individual.net>,
wrote:
>Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
>Is it any different from RC3? The version number seems to be exactly
>the same when installed - its listed as Build 2005111116 in the header
>bar which is the same as RC3 IIRC.
Heck if I know. Not on the home site; I've not installed it.
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| Tony Raven wrote:
> Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
> Is it any different from RC3? The version number seems to be exactly
> the same when installed - its listed as Build 2005111116 in the header
> bar which is the same as RC3 IIRC.
>
No difference.
Lee
| |
| Vegard Krog Petersen 2005-11-29, 5:49 pm |
| on 29.11.2005 22:56 Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> As of this writing; 16:52 local (US E. Coast).
>
> Several sites appear to be hosting v1.5 downloads, but *not*
> <http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/> (still showing v1.0.7). Are these
> 'other' sites (some of quite-good reputation) actually hosting v1.5 rc3 (or,
> possibly, even something earlier)?
>
> Personally, I refuse to install something which purports to be from such & such
> a site, unless *that* particular sites *is* hosting the stated file. Comments?
It's officially released:
http://www.mozilla.com/
--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway
http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, Freeware Solitaire, My fishy site (fishing
games), a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 8:46 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:19:23 +0100, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vegard Krog Petersen
<vegard_krog_petersen@hotmail.com>, by way of Message-id
<438ce208@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>on 29.11.2005 22:56 Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
>It's officially released:
>http://www.mozilla.com/
On the proverbial "paper", but not, apparently, by way of download (site[s]).
http://www.mozilla.org/download.html
Version 1.0.7 remains :-(
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-29, 8:46 pm |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:50:38 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
<vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
<g6qpo1t68lataqbp224nr57ga389p16btj@4ax.com>, wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:19:23 +0100, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vegard Krog Petersen
><vegard_krog_petersen@hotmail.com>, by way of Message-id
><438ce208@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>
>
>On the proverbial "paper", but not, apparently, by way of download (site[s]).
>
>http://www.mozilla.org/download.html
>
>Version 1.0.7 remains :-(
Wait 1 dang minute. Since when has the "Mozilla" page/site been ".com" (instead
of the usual ".org")?
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2005-11-29, 8:46 pm |
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:50:38 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
> <vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
> <g6qpo1t68lataqbp224nr57ga389p16btj@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
>
> Wait 1 dang minute. Since when has the "Mozilla" page/site been ".com" (instead
> of the usual ".org")?
http://www.numenity.org/blog/2005/1...a-site-changes/
Lee
| |
|
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:50:38 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
> <vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
> <g6qpo1t68lataqbp224nr57ga389p16btj@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Wait 1 dang minute. Since when has the "Mozilla" page/site been ".com" (instead
> of the usual ".org")?
This caught me too. Refresh the www.mozilla.org home page and you'll
see whats going on.
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-30, 2:46 am |
| On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:25:31 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
<TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
<438cf036@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>This caught me too. Refresh the www.mozilla.org home page and you'll
>see whats going on.
Ah. However, I still wonder why the "switch".
And *still*, on the download page (which is not indicated, still, via
http://www.mozilla.com/); http://www.mozilla.org/download.html, the "old"
(1.0.7) version is offered. Will newbies end up blundering thru, eventually,
only to end-up using an outdated release
(http://download.mozilla.org/?produc...=win&lang=en-US)?
I am not angry with you nor anybody else participating in this thread; let me
say. And until about a half-hour ago, I *was* angry only with web-sites which I
presume had "jumped the gun". Now, however, I see the "official" Mozilla site
*still* does not "have their s*it together", after (?) several "mods" to the
site, on the purported release-date; Tuesday.
Thank Diety I have Opera (v9 "beta" 1) as my Default browser.
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-30, 2:46 am |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:19:01 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Leonidas Jones
<Cap1MD@att.net>, by way of Message-id
<Vd6jf.193848$zb5.117996@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, wrote:
>Vrodok the Troll wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>http://www.numenity.org/blog/2005/1...a-site-changes/
>
>Lee
Interesting. And still (this has been noted in that page's "Responses" section)
there is no proper-link/url for downloading of v1.5. Drat :-(
| |
|
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:25:31 -0800, in alt.fan.mozilla, gwtc
> <TheNewGWTC@pppmppfmpfmmmmfmmmpfmmpp.pppmppfmp>, by way of Message-id
> <438cf036@usenet.zapto.org>, wrote:
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> Ah. However, I still wonder why the "switch".
>
> And *still*, on the download page (which is not indicated, still, via
> http://www.mozilla.com/); http://www.mozilla.org/download.html, the "old"
> (1.0.7) version is offered. Will newbies end up blundering thru, eventually,
> only to end-up using an outdated release
> (http://download.mozilla.org/?produc...=win&lang=en-US)?
>
> I am not angry with you nor anybody else participating in this thread; let me
> say. And until about a half-hour ago, I *was* angry only with web-sites which I
> presume had "jumped the gun". Now, however, I see the "official" Mozilla site
> *still* does not "have their s*it together", after (?) several "mods" to the
> site, on the purported release-date; Tuesday.
>
> Thank Diety I have Opera (v9 "beta" 1) as my Default browser.
I don't know what you're talking about. Mozilla.com has the 1.5
download. Thats where I got it from. And Mozilla.org redirects you
to the dot com site. And, on the dot org site, if you click on "All
Products," then on the FF icon, it redirects you to the dot com site.
As for the direct link, its:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.o...x/releases/1.5/
| |
| Tony Raven 2005-11-30, 2:46 am |
| Vrodok the Troll wrote:
>
> I am not angry with you nor anybody else participating in this
> thread; let me say. And until about a half-hour ago, I *was* angry
> only with web-sites which I presume had "jumped the gun". Now,
> however, I see the "official" Mozilla site *still* does not "have
> their s*it together", after (?) several "mods" to the site, on the
> purported release-date; Tuesday.
>
What does it matter? Since the download 1.5 appears to be identical to
RC3 there is no reason not to stick with RC3, which is available, as far
as I can see.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
| |
| Tony Raven 2005-11-30, 2:46 am |
| Leonidas Jones wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> No difference.
>
So is it actually the 1.5 release or is it just that someone has found
RC3 under a misleading file name on the FTP site? The file version
number is the same, the build number is the same, the file size is the
same. I haven't compared the code line by line but I would wager it too
is the same.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-30, 2:46 am |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:50:15 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
<vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
<g6fqo1d5vp04atl35rjojil4jskopupqhl@4ax.com>, wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:19:01 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Leonidas Jones
><Cap1MD@att.net>, by way of Message-id
><Vd6jf.193848$zb5.117996@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Interesting. And still (this has been noted in that page's "Responses" section)
>there is no proper-link/url for downloading of v1.5. Drat :-(
"Problem" SOLVED.
Went to http://www.mozilla.com/, put 'Proxomitron' into "bypass" mode,
refreshed page, and....
..::: hangs head in shame... ::::
| |
| Vrodok the Troll 2005-11-30, 7:46 am |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:20:45 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
<vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
<u3oqo11h7udcrjdgc6g64ld3ntf61cauko@4ax.com>, wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:50:15 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Vrodok the Troll
><vrodok@culvert.waadi.com>, by way of Message-id
><g6fqo1d5vp04atl35rjojil4jskopupqhl@4ax.com>, wrote:
>
>
>"Problem" SOLVED.
>
>Went to http://www.mozilla.com/, put 'Proxomitron' into "bypass" mode,
>refreshed page, and....
>
>.::: hangs head in shame... ::::
Followup: Unless you want to end-up doing what I have been, these past few
days, I *heartily* recommend (if you have decided on using Proximodo) you *not*
use the following web-filter -->
Config | Identification | Hide Browser's Identity from JS
If that filter is used, then the web-page (as in the case of
http://www.mozilla.com/) will be *unable* to determine your browser-type, and
will proceed to block (the) specific download "button" (green as Kermit the
frog <g> ).
In 'Proxomitron', click on its' tray-icon, then -->
Edit Web page filters | Hide Browser's Version from JS
Do *NOT* tick/check that box!!
-
Psssstt... pass it on <G>
| |
| Leonidas Jones 2005-11-30, 5:47 pm |
| Tony Raven wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>
> So is it actually the 1.5 release or is it just that someone has found
> RC3 under a misleading file name on the FTP site? The file version
> number is the same, the build number is the same, the file size is the
> same. I haven't compared the code line by line but I would wager it too
> is the same.
>
RC3 was intended to be the release version, unless some regression
became obvious in testing. It did not, 1.5 final is simply 1.5rc3 with
a renamed installer.
Lee
|
|
|
|
|