Recommended Posts

No. Unless a showstopper forces a respin (which is extremely unlikely at this point), the June 24 build (RC3) is the Final build. As I've said before in another thread, Mozilla does true candidates, which is why none of the RCs contain "RC" in the version info.

The tree has long been closed, and all checkins since June 24 have been things that are not a part of the build. The nightlies are automatically spun every day, regardless of whether there has been any changes to the code, and they will continue to be automatically generated every day after 3.5 is released (at which point, they will be 3.5.1pre).

Edited by code.kliu.org
As I've said before in another thread, Mozilla does true candidates, which is why none of the RCs contain "RC" in the version info.
Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.
Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.

It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges though isn't it? Although I see your point.

Which is interesting in the world of software development. I was ridiculed on another thread for pointing out that Mozilla's release candidates are truly candidates for release, unlike other software, like say Windows, where release candidates have absolutely zero chance of being final.

You're right. With Windows, they generally pre-announce how many release candidates there will be. That, by the very definition of the term 'release candidate', means that they are not release candidates at all. How can RC1 be called a Candidate for Release if you've already announced there will be an RC2 long before RC1 came out. It's stupid really.

Microsoft should continue with the Beta tag until they are at the quality bar where the product could be released. At that point you compile a build and called it RC1. Assuming no show stoppers are found by the public in RC1, you use that very same build and rename it to Final. If bugs are found, you fix them and release a second RC. It's a no-brainer really.

Mozilla seems to do it this way which is a welcome change from Microsoft's backwards way of doing it.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the final version. :)

Which, from the looks of it, will almost certainly be bit-for-bit identical to RC3. ;)

For Mozilla, the process can vary. As people would recall, the Firefox 1.0 RCs were really glorified betas and were not true candidates. The current project drivers very much like the idea of a true RC (in part because it makes it easier for QA to sign off on things: if you spin a new build after an RC, you need to test that build anyway to make sure something weird didn't happen during build or packaging, etc.).

As for Microsoft, they have intentionally "grade-inflated", and they have a very good reason to do so. Raymond Chen wrote an article explaining this (sorry, don't have the link handy) that basically boiled down to this: Microsoft had a problem where people didn't pay attention to the betas, and there was one incident, back when Microsoft's RCs were true candidates that they got an important piece of feedback only after the RC came out, at which point it was too late in the process to make those sorts of changes without incurring a lot of extra cost. So they had to grade-inflate, and what used to be late betas are now RCs, and what used to be RCs are now escrow builds. The idea is that more people are more willing to test and give feedback if it says "RC" than if it says "beta". Though I think that with the current overuse of the "beta" label (e.g., Google's notorious perpetual betas), the need for this grade inflation has decreased somewhat in recent years.

You're right. With Windows, they generally pre-announce how many release candidates there will be. That, by the very definition of the term 'release candidate', means that they are not release candidates at all. How can RC1 be called a Candidate for Release if you've already announced there will be an RC2 long before RC1 came out. It's stupid really.

Microsoft should continue with the Beta tag until they are at the quality bar where the product could be released. At that point you compile a build and called it RC1. Assuming no show stoppers are found by the public in RC1, you use that very same build and rename it to Final. If bugs are found, you fix them and release a second RC. It's a no-brainer really.

Mozilla seems to do it this way which is a welcome change from Microsoft's backwards way of doing it.

I agree. I never understood Microsoft's way of doing this. It really doesn't make any sense at all.

Perhaps. It's only a day away, anyway. I think I can hold out with version 3.0.11 until the version 3.5 is released. :p

Yeah, I really can't wait. I still think that the Tab Previews they chose would have been better served if they used Showcase Tab as a base instead of the add in they chose, but that's my only gripe, and is admittedly miner. Showcase though is an AMAZING add in though.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I think there will be a 27H1 for actual users of 26H1 The 25h2 supports ARM too : Snapdragon X, Snapdragon X Plus and Snapdragon X Elite
    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!