Recommended Posts

Wow, a candidate for a Beta :rolleyes: When are they going to release the candidate to the candidate of the Beta? :laugh:

  • Code Freeze: 11/04
  • Builds Start: 11/04
  • QA: 11/04 - 11/09 (estimate)
    • Smoketests and BFTs using Mozmill: (1 person)
    • Manual smoketests, BFT areas, and Other OS Spot Checks: 11/04-11/09 (3 people)
    • Testday: 11/05 (3 people monitoring)
    • Accessibility: On-going (1 person)
    • Top Sites Functionality and Page Load Testing: Before 11/09 (1 people)
    • Updates checks: Before 11/09 (1 person)
      • Manual spot checks as necessary

Seems like tuesday is the day (in Indian system , it would be called 9/11)

Although i have been using Minefield on my very old Office PC and only Beta 6 on my home PC. Beta 7 makes using Firefox on my Home PC enjoyable again.

For now, the speed difference is no longer substantial between Firefox and Opera / Chrome. Page Rendering and JS are still little slower. But i cant live with that, for all the great extensions and awesome bar.

Hello,

As I just D/L and installed the FF4.0b7 RC1 build, but was curious as I wanted to update my sig @mozillaZine Forums--->it use to be:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:2.0b6) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0b6

However now when I go to help--->About

resizedmm.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Any ideas where a 'string would be'...? lol

Any ideas where a 'string would be'...? lol

It's stupid that they removed the string from the about box, but you can still see it by typing

about: in the urlbar.

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101106 Firefox/4.0b8pre

It's stupid that they removed the string from the about box, but you can still see it by typing

about: in the urlbar.

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:2.0b8pre) Gecko/20101106 Firefox/4.0b8pre

Thanks crispkreme...:) It was getting me kind of annoyed on this nice Saturday afternoon...lol! I could not find it anywhere...

Note: the build strings in main releases (beta, final) will always show Gecko/20100101 now, to avoid 'fingerprinting'.

You answered my next question...lol

As I was wondering why the Beta 4.0 builds showed Gecko/20100101, with (IIRC) Beta 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6..

Thanks Kirkburn

Note: the build strings in main releases (beta, final) will always show Gecko/20100101 now, to avoid 'fingerprinting'.

People were using it as a version identifier for some strange reason, random sites would break every year since they didn't expect the year increase of nightly builds and such.

By freezing it on a set date, they'll force those people to either update their code, or make it never have an issue again (unless they then remove the fake date which I think is the general plan)

People were using it as a version identifier for some strange reason, random sites would break every year since they didn't expect the year increase of nightly builds and such.

By freezing it on a set date, they'll force those people to either update their code, or make it never have an issue again (unless they then remove the fake date which I think is the general plan)

hmm shouldn't they just do it in one go rather than risking two potential breakages?

Taken from buildnotes page. Here is what is left to be done before beta 7.

Final checks before push

Virus check

Update Bouncer

Push to mirrors

  • Wait for email from driver before continuing

Final verify

Push snippets to beta channel

Remove index.html files

Release

Will Beta 7 be the first one with JaegerMonkey? I've been using the nightlies so I haven't kept track of the milestones that well.

Yup.. if no blockers are found. Beta 7 should be released within the next couple of days. looking forward to beta 7 myself.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • add $200 and get DWARF 3 model add $2000 and visit scientists center in your town add $20000 and visit the biggest telescope in Chile
    • Guess it's one of those things best used by devs to thoroughly test stuff.
    • is it all upside down there? traffic lights reverted too?
    • Bluesky COO warns social media regulations could destroy competition from small startups by Paul Hill Fears that increasing government control of social media risks regulatory capture by the biggest social media firms were raised again recently. Bluesky’s chief operating officer said in an interview that social media bans for children and tighter regulations for social media firms risk creating a world where there are only a few social media platforms run by companies with the deepest pockets. Regulations on social media firms have been very lax since they appeared for mainstream users in the 2000’s. This gave Meta, Snapchat, and Google time to build up their user bases and get entrenched, with Meta being the most successful. Now that Meta has succeeded, it has been attempting regulatory capture. By pushing for more regulations of social media, Meta hopes to make it more difficult for rivals to challenge it. For its part, it doesn’t need to worry about the cost of regulation because it has a lot of money to spend, whereas startups do not. Speaking to CNBC, Rose Wang, Bluesky’s chief operating officer, said: “I support the protection and the safety of youth, the question that we have then is at what cost, because essentially what I’m scared of is in the long term, we’re headed to a world where there’s about three to five platforms, and extreme heavy regulation of those platforms, and basically the whole compliance teams of these platforms are 10 times the size of our entire team. So, basically, we’re living in a world where it’s almost impossible for smaller entrants to come in and build healthier spaces. These platforms have led to a place where the bottom line is the thing that drives what they do... so I understand why governments have to step in and regulate, because the platforms have done nothing right.” She said that while she is not against regulation, there needs to be more channels between the small to mid-sized players and regulators to help protect them. She says that big tech players, on the other hand, “who we know are circumventing regulation,” need to be regulated. Essentially, the Bluesky position is one of nuance, rather than absolutes. While Bluesky’s proposal may preserve competition in the social media space, it still doesn’t address the massive privacy implications these age verification measures introduce, such as handing over sensitive identity documents to access age-gated content. Source: CNBC
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      249
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      71
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      70
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!