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

    • Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 by Razvan Serea Hasleo Disk Clone is a free and all-in-one disk cloning software for Windows 11/10/8/7/Vista and Windows Server that can help you migrate Windows OS to another disk, clone one disk to another disk or clone one partition to another location quickly and efficiently. Completely Free Windows Migration and Disk/Partition Cloning Software Migrate Windows from one disk to another without reinstalling Windows, apps. Clone one disk to another and makes the data on 2 disks are exactly the same. Clone a partition to another location without losing any data. Easily adjust the size and location of the destination partition. Convert MBR to GPT or convert GPT to MBR by cloning. Creation of Windows PE emergency disk. Extremely fast cloning speed and multi-language support. Supported OS: Windows Vista/Server 2008 or later, fully compatible with GPT and UEFI. Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 changelog: Fixed an issue that caused disk enumeration to fail Fixed an issue where WinPE created under Windows ARM64 26H1 did not work properly Download: Hasleo Disk Clone 5.8.2.1 | 32.3 MB (Freeware) Link: Hasleo Disk Clone Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      558
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      78
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!