×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 3 RC1 Out Now

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the can't-be-worse-than-the-last-beta dept.

Mozilla 473

Jay writes "Firefox 3 Release Candidate 1 is out now. If yours didn't auto-update, then get it while it's hot! The release came a bit early, with Computer World noting: 'As recently as last Saturday, Mozilla's chief engineer said that although the company had locked down RC1's code, it was planning to publicly launch the build in "late May."'" My copy just downloaded — restarting after I save this story. God I hope it's better than the last beta.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

473 comments

Stability on Linux? (-1, Flamebait)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445000)

So is firefox 3 going to crash as much on Linux as Firefox 2 has been? Its been almost as bad as Netscape 4+ were. Actually I take that back, it is worse than it was as far as stability goes. Why are we going backwards? When I use Firefox in Windows, it much more stable.

Re:Stability on Linux? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445022)

Use Opera on Linux, it rocks..

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445224)

I would use Opera but I just can't bring myself to use a proprietary browser. Now, I'm not RMS and I do use some proprietary software, for example Flash is installed on all my Linux boxes and I have a few proprietary games I play via WINE and some non-free Linux software such as Google Earth too. But when you think of all the information you enter on a web browser (credit card numbers, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, etc.) I just can't bring myself to use a non-free browser. It also doesn't help that Opera used to be Adware and that also makes me hesitant to use Opera as a full time browser. I don't hate Opera (in fact I use it on non-personal sites on the Wii all the time) but I just don't trust a proprietary browser when there are several good free alternatives around (Firefox, Epiphany, Konqueror, Seamonkey, Etc.). If Opera ever comes out with a free version of their browser (As in open-source free) I will be one of the first to download it, but until then Opera is mostly restricted to browser-testing and the Wii.

Re:Stability on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445528)

can you say just a touch anal retentive?

Re:Stability on Linux? (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445320)

Use Opera on Linux, it rocks..
It might if you have an Intel or AMD processor.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445028)

I've never had firefox 3 crash on Linux with my beta 5. Nor FF2 for that matter, I'm not sure what you're talking about. My friend's had some instability problems with a 64bit processor and flash, is that it?

Re:Stability on Linux? (4, Informative)

AmaDaden (794446) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445334)

FF3b5 has a strange JavaScript issue where if you go to a page that runs some kind of combination of JavaScript the entire browser, all running windows of it, will close, no warning and no recovery when you start it again. I saw it happen on a few pages but mostly with gmail. Trying to reply in gmail was almost a certain way to trigger it.

Re:Stability on Linux? (3, Insightful)

scuba0 (950343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445378)

Never happened and I've run the latest version since FF2. I bet there is some other factor making it touch, otherwise it would be more of a storm about it because it is not that acceptable.

Stability (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445446)

I had a similar issue, but with digg. NoScript stopped it crashing so I could at least read comments.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445510)

I've got a better one. While watching youtube sometimes, my just freezes. Can't kill it. Even downloaded process explorer and tried to pause the process and kill it that way, but it refused to go away. I actually had to reboot the machine to get firefox to die.

Not to mention when you start a download or a new page loads, the entire browser stops functioning until that job is done. It's like the thing doesn't know about threads? Not sure if 3 is any better in that respect, maybe...

Oh ya, and is there a way to close a site that pops up javascript popups one after the other yet? It's really annoying having to kill firefox.exe when that happens and closing all my tabs. Yes, I was looking for porn when this happened, but the site wanted me to install a codec, and wouldn't take no for an answer!

FireFox 2 on Eee PC /Xandros (2, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445052)

Seems to work flawlessly here on my Eee PC 701. I never installed XP on my Eee so I can't compare it to that, only to the FF I have installed on my desktop, and the stability is the same - no complaints, no crashes so far.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445054)

Yeah i dont get the comment in the summary Firefox3 beta 5 has been quite stable for most people, it still crashes with flash though (in fact last night using flash 10 it took out my xorg) but when not using flash i've not had any problems. I've been using it consistently since beta 3 because its been so much more stable than firefox 2

If people have been having people's they really should be filling bug reports, there's no way its going to magically improve without being told what's wrong

Re:Stability on Linux? (1, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445158)

You imply people should accept using buggy software. I use linux and do accept some bugginess with certain applications, but no way am I going to live with a browser that crashes frequently (when I was using ubuntu 8.04 it would happen as much as ten times a day) while often taking down XORG with it! No way, nu-uh.

FF2 works rock solid with my machine. Why should I use something that causes aggravation with the most simple task? I think it's ridiculous that canonical should have used such a cheesy piece of crap for a browser in the first place - one more example of piling on feastures without fixing the problems first.

Anyway, I never had ff2 lock up my desktop, and it pretty much never crashes. the closest it comes to crashing is when flash locks up - and that problem was easy enough to fix by adding a KAPOW button on my tooltray that executes "killall npviewer.bin" This is an effective fix that is all but impossible using ff3 with its penchant for killing xwindows...

Re:Stability on Linux? (4, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445262)

You imply people should accept using buggy software.
where do I say that? perhaps your FF2 isnt rendering fonts right becasue all i said was that if your using beta software and it crashes it need bug reports to improve. filing bug reports is the exact opposite of accepting buggy software, sitting around bitching about it is pretty much accepting it.

This is an effective fix that is all but impossible using ff3 with its penchant for killing xwindows...
Why not simply use a button to killall firefox (debian logo OFC), I have that relic left over from beta3 and use it when flash 10 (beta) locks stuff up.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445274)

"You imply people should accept using buggy software."

Well ..a clearly labeled beta that you have to go through some hoops to deliberately download? Yeah, you should accept a few bugs. And also report them, so they won't be there in the final release.

Re:Stability on Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445304)

You imply people should accept using buggy software.
Quite right. So why are you installing the Flash plugin, which has been pointed is the source of your problems?

Re:Stability on Linux? (4, Insightful)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445344)

If Firefox "takes out" Xorg, that implies a bug in Xorg, not necessarily one in Firefox. In fact, the Xorg bug could conceivably be a security issue, so that's more severe.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445426)

"You imply people should accept using buggy software."

I didn't read that way. I'd say he implies that people should accept beta software is buggy and that using beta software and filling bugs against it it's the best way for such a software to become as buggy-free as possible when launched as stable.

"Why should I use something that causes aggravation with the most simple task? I think it's ridiculous that canonical should have used such a cheesy piece of crap for a browser in the first place"

That's quite a different assumption from the grandparent's poster and I have to say I do agree with both of them: specially when talking about open source software, betatesting and filling bugs is the best way to improve software quality for a non-developer but it's ridiculous and misleading shipping a quoted-to-be stable and "production-ready" OS release full of beta-quality software. Still, too many Linux distributions follow the featuritis trend instead of following strong engineering advices. Just as an example, I feel OK for Fedora to be released with beta-quality software (Fedora is aimed to be a "technology-preview" and enthusiast testing field) while I don't feel the same to be OK for Ubuntu which is told to be a production-ready, non-technical user-friendly one.

But then, I think Linux distributions not to be so different to any other "market" products: it is the consumer responsibility (within legal requirements) to practice their own "due-diligence" and see how good the *product*, not the marketroid speech, stands against their requirements.

Re:Stability on Linux? (5, Informative)

aredubya74 (266988) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445210)

The issue I've seen with Flash isn't a crash, but that if one lingers on a page with a lot of Flash content (say, Youtube) and leaves the page up while browsing in other tabs, CPU eventually spikes to 99% usage, requiring the browser to be shut down.

Unfortunately, this isn't a Firefox problem, but a problem with the Flash plugin. The workaround I found (thanks to other Slashdot users) was to install the addon Flashblock [mozdev.org]. Now, instead of having the Flash content sitting and waiting, it's replaced by a little clickable object to load it. Since installing it, I have not experienced the CPU spike behavior, when it used to be a daily issue. Hope this helps folks.

Re:Stability on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445292)

If people have been having people's they really should be filling bug reports, there's no way its going to magically improve without being told what's wrong
Like this one and its 22 duplicates -- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/215728 [launchpad.net] ??

Re:Stability on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445408)

Not all flash crash under linux are due to Firefox (and any browser would crash) in the case you are using a distribution with PulseAudio activated. Flash has a nasty bug with PulseAudio which guarantee you a crash if you often use youtube.

Re:Stability on Linux? (0, Redundant)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445064)

Netscape 4 never crashed on me. I used Turbolinux, Mandrake, and Red Hat.

What problems? (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445068)

The only problem I saw on Linux was the growth of the "urlclassifier3.sqlite" file. When it grew over 20 MB, it was necessary to delete it.

Were there other problems? Because apart from the above, I used the last beta every day on Ubuntu, MS Windows, and OS X and had no problems.

Re:Stability on Linux? (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445110)

I haven't had too many problems with crashes, but I still don't run firefox on linux. The biggest issue I've had with it is a tendency for tabs to just take a VERY long time to load.

The behavior I've seen is this:

1. Go to a site with lots of links - such as a news site or RSS aggregator.
2. Start middle-clicking on links to open them in tabs.

Inevitably one of the early ones just doesn't load - it sits and looks like it is loading and does nothing for a minute or two. All subsequent tabs do the same thing. As soon as the first one actually does load and render the others instantly load and rendor. Obviously something is blocking the loading/rendering in all open tabs when this is happening.

Everything works just fine in konqueror, so that is what I tend to use all the time. I'd actually prefer firefox for its plugins/etc, but it just isn't reliable for me. Now the only time I use it on linux is when a page doesn't render correctly in konqueror.

I'd also like to comment that I'm very concerned with the keep-piling-on-features mentality in Firefox. I want a web browser - not an OS/desktop-in-a-window. The whole reason that firefox was born was that everybody was tired of Mozilla having 47 huge features that nobody needed. Let's stick to the basics and do them right. If they want to come out with a few other apps that can tightly integrate with firefox, that's great - but let's let the stand-alone browser be a stand-alone browser...

Re:Stability on Linux? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445168)

Konqueror is great if you are running KDE, if you are running GNOME, XFCE or some other non-QT based DE, Konqueror takes ages to load and is almost unusable compared to Firefox. Epiphany is nice, but it still seems to lag behind Firefox in development. As for Opera, it is proprietary, and I for one don't trust a proprietary browser when I think about all the personal info I enter in websites, if Opera ever gets open-sourced I would gladly use it as my main browser, but I just can't trust a proprietary browser, and I can't trust it if it used to be adware too (like Opera used to be). So really, Firefox is about the only usable browser on Linux if you use a non KDE DE. (Granted, this is coming from the experience of me on my desktop made in 2002 so on more modern hardware I am sure that the speed differences would be minimal).

Re:Stability on Linux? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445450)

Do you read the source code to all your browsers, or just trust that open-source authors would never leave some debug code in there?

Re:Stability on Linux? (1)

Valfather (988886) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445358)

It is strongly dependent on system. I run FF2 on x86_64 under Archlinux (probably less stable than other more static distros), and I cannot remember it crashing (it has probably happened, but not with much frequency).

However, someone I know, running it on 32-bit Ubuntu (or some other Debian-based system) has it crash all the time.

Not with Google (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445370)

So is firefox 3 going to crash as much on Linux as Firefox 2 has been

I have been using Firefox 3beta 5 for a while and haven't had the crashes when visiting Gmail, that I had experienced in Firefox 2.x. I had experienced one or two crashes when running certain Javascript. It should be noted that I do have the "Web Developer" and "Firebug" extensions installed. In general its stable enough for my needs.

Re:Stability on Linux? (1, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445392)

So is firefox 3 going to crash as much on Linux as Firefox 2 has been? Its been almost as bad as Netscape 4+ were. Actually I take that back, it is worse than it was as far as stability goes. Why are we going backwards? When I use Firefox in Windows, it much more stable.

Hey, because you system/install/whatever is shit, then it means Firefox is guilty.

Never mind that there are zillion people out there who don't have Firefox on Linux crashing at all. Must be that it's Firefox, not you.

Comment from story (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445002)

"So simple a grandmother can use it"

This is offensive. I am a grandmother, and a C programmer.

Re:Comment from story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445096)

Feminist-Mom, is that you?

eh? (5, Insightful)

aerthling (796790) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445044)

God I hope it's better than the last beta.


What was wrong with Beta 5?

Re:eh? (4, Insightful)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445080)

Beta 5 was quite unstable for me, so bad infact that I downgraded to beta 3.
Though I am using a lot of addins, so don't know exactly who to blame.

Re:eh? (5, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445186)

Chances are, Flash. Adobe's support for Linux has been pathetic at best, with newer versions eating up tons of CPU just viewing a banner ad. I even downgraded mine so YouTube would be at least somewhat usable. And with Flash being closed-source I highly doubt that we will see improvements made quickly and Gnash the free flash player is barely usable though it is improving.

Re:eh? (2, Interesting)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445478)

Flash is definitely a big stability issue on Linux. Flashblock helps a lot. The flash ads on Slashdot used to crash FF and I'd have to kill -9 and restart.

There's still some stability issues on Linux outside of Flash, however. Sometimes FF will spontaneously maximize it's window for no reason. Rendering certain animated images also seems to be a big problem on Linux (it will hog the cpu just to display an animated gif sometimes etc.)

It's certainly not unusable. I use FF on Linux every day and usually don't have problems. But I don't remember having any of these sorts of issues at all on the win32 build and I used it for a few years before switching back to Linux.

Re:eh? (1)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445134)

For some people it crashes a lot. See http://digg.com/software/New_comments_system_crashes_Opera?t=15343612 [digg.com]

Re:eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445238)

Odd, it never crashed here. Actually, I have yet to have a single crash with any of the betas. My experience with Firefox 3.0 has been very positive. In fact, I stopped using the 2.0 series around 3.0b4.

Re:eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445192)

Been running 64-bit Beta 5 in Ubuntu since it came out. No issues at all. Works a lot better than FF2 which would slowly become unusable over the course of a few days if you didn't restart it. FF2 sucked donkey balls.

Re:eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445258)

Works Great on my Mac..
only crashed once on my windows xp computer at work

Re:eh? (1)

lpangelrob (714473) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445406)

Betas 2-5 (or so) have had an irritating tendency to crash on startup in Win2k for me, with no CrashReporter information. Since the problem doesn't seem to be widespread, though, I figured I would do a complete wipe once FF 3.0 final came out and see if it kept happening. I also think there's still a GTK bug at 32-bit resolutions. But again, not a widespread issue...

Re:eh? (1)

MeditationSensation (1121241) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445448)

I encountered some UI bugs such as Sort By Name not working. Closing multiple tabs behavior was redesigned, and I don't like the new design. And of course there are some extensions that haven't been updated to work with it yet.

Re:eh? (1)

JohnyDog (129809) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445458)

One of the problems i have after going from FF2 to FF3beta on linux is that some specific pages (eg. http://www.pragprog.com/titles/ruby/programming-ruby [pragprog.com]) takes ages to render, hogging all CPU, and again when you switch to other tab and back (or simply overdraw the FF window). Now this may as well be problem in the Xorg or nvidia drivers, but other browsers and FF2 seems unaffected.

Another problem is the occasional flash freezing on 64bit, but that is problem of the flash plugin itself, not FF.

Changelog compared to beta5? (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445056)

Does anyone have the changelog compared to beta 5?

Changes since Beta 5? (1)

pdw_hu (976283) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445062)

What has changed since beta5? Grannies might not be interested, but geeks are...

Re:Changes since Beta 5? (2, Interesting)

FoolsGold (1139759) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445074)

The only changes I've noticed so far are visual, such as extra gradients in certain areas, color changes in the AwesomeBar, and etc (running in Vista btw). There's probably technical improvements elsewhere but I couldn't find a reference anywhere for what they might be.

Re:Changes since Beta 5? (5, Informative)

dbcooper_nz (782764) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445104)

Some changes are summarised here: http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2008/05/firefox-3-release-candidate-1-is-here/ [mozillalinks.org] . A new version of Cairo (1.6) is used under the hood.

Re:Changes since Beta 5? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445354)

Why did they take the Help documentation out? Exactly the lack of documentation is one of the biggest problems with open source software. If there is a problem with the web browser, then there is a good chance that the user won't be able to browse the Mozilla site to get to the help documentation that would help him.

Re:Changes since Beta 5? (4, Informative)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445290)

What has changed since beta5? Grannies might not be interested, but geeks are...
Basically the Mozilla foundation keeps track of so called "blocker" bugs which essentially means that they are blocking release. In the past month they took care of approx 250 blockers which essentially means that for the past month they've been coding this browser to be built like a rock. It's not always a visual thing but just as important.

Not out yet (1)

Incster (1002638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445136)

Firefox 3.0 RC1 is not out yet. There is a build 1 for RC1, but RC1 is not expected until near the end of the month.

Re:Not out yet (1)

Incster (1002638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445152)

Sorry, looks like it went out earlier than expected. I guess that there will be an RC2, based on the testing so far.

Stalled window bug dealt with yet? (5, Informative)

rikkards (98006) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445140)

For the last year, I have consistently seen on the Windows version an annoying bug. If one tab takes forever to load, any other tab will not load a new page either. I find Ebay is one of the worst to bring it out. If you switch to using IE in a tab, that tab will show about:blank.

I can understand some websites may make a Firefox tab crap out but it shouldn't affect the rest.

Re:Stalled window bug dealt with yet? (2, Insightful)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445208)

For the last year, I have consistently seen on the Windows version an annoying bug. If one tab takes forever to load, any other tab will not load a new page either. I find Ebay is one of the worst to bring it out. If you switch to using IE in a tab, that tab will show about:blank.

I can understand some websites may make a Firefox tab crap out but it shouldn't affect the rest.
Did you file a bug report?

Re:Stalled window bug dealt with yet? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445260)

I've seen this as well, loading pages like Digg or Youtube in tabs will cause the browser to hang, and other pages won't load until the first tabs load up. It's really annoying when I tend to middle-click multiple links at once.

EULA (0)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445154)

well the autoupdate segfaulted (probably because i didnt have space to install it) but on manual install i noticed i had to agree to an EULA

MOZILLA FIREFOX END-USER SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Version 3.0, May 2008

A source code version of certain Firefox Browser functionality that you may use, modify and distribute is available to you free-of-charge from www.mozilla.org under the Mozilla Public License and other open source software licenses.

The accompanying executable code version of Mozilla Firefox and related documentation (the "Product") is made available to you under the terms of this Mozilla Firefox End-User Software License Agreement (the "Agreement"). By clicking the "Accept" button, or by installing or using the Mozilla Firefox Browser, you are consenting to be bound by the Agreement. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, do not click the "Accept" button, and do not install or use any part of the Mozilla Firefox Browser.

During the Mozilla Firefox installation process, and at later times, you may be given the option of installing additional components from third-party software providers. The installation and use of those third-party components may be governed by additional license agreements.

1. LICENSE GRANT. The Mozilla Corporation grants you a non-exclusive license to use the executable code version of the Product. This Agreement will also govern any software upgrades provided by Mozilla that replace and/or supplement the original Product, unless such upgrades are accompanied by a separate license, in which case the terms of that license will govern.

2. TERMINATION. If you breach this Agreement your right to use the Product will terminate immediately and without notice, but all provisions of this Agreement except the License Grant (Paragraph 1) will survive termination and continue in effect. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies of the Product.

3. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. Portions of the Product are available in source code form under the terms of the Mozilla Public License and other open source licenses (collectively, "Open Source Licenses") at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL [mozilla.org]. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses. Subject to the foregoing, Mozilla, for itself and on behalf of its licensors, hereby reserves all intellectual property rights in the Product, except for the rights expressly granted in this Agreement. You may not remove or alter any trademark, logo, copyright or other proprietary notice in or on the Product. This license does not grant you any right to use the trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors.

4. PRIVACY POLICY. You agree to the Mozilla Firefox Privacy Policy, made available online at http://www.mozilla.com/legal/privacy/ [mozilla.com], as that policy may be changed from time to time. When Mozilla changes the policy in a material way a notice will be posted on the website at www.mozilla.com and when any change is made in the privacy policy, the updated policy will be posted at the above link. It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand the terms of the privacy policy, so you should periodically check the current version of the policy for changes.

5. WEBSITE INFORMATION SERVICES. Mozilla and its contributors, licensors and partners work to provide the most accurate and up-to-date phishing and malware information. However, they cannot guarantee that this information is comprehensive and error-free: some risky sites may not be identified, and some safe sites may be identified in error.

6. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. The product is provided "as is" with all faults. To the extent permitted by law, Mozilla and Mozillaâ(TM)s distributors, and licensors hereby disclaim all warranties, whether express or implied, including without limitation warranties that the product is free of defects, merchantable, fit for a particular purpose and non-infringing. You bear the entire risk as to selecting the product for your purposes and as to the quality and performance of the product. This limitation will apply notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any remedy. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of implied warranties, so this disclaimer may not apply to you.

7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Except as required by law, Mozilla and its distributors, directors, licensors, contributors and agents (collectively, the "Mozilla Group") will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential or exemplary damages arising out of or in any way relating to this agreement or the use of or inability to use the product, including without limitation damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, lost profits, loss of data, and computer failure or malfunction, even if advised of the possibility of such damages and regardless of the theory (contract, tort or otherwise) upon which such claim is based. The Mozilla Group's collective liability under this agreement will not exceed the greater of $500 (five hundred dollars) and the fees paid by you under the license (if any). Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental, consequential or special damages, so this exclusion and limitation may not apply to you.

8. EXPORT CONTROLS. This license is subject to all applicable export restrictions. You must comply with all export and import laws and restrictions and regulations of any United States or foreign agency or authority relating to the Product and its use.

9. U.S. GOVERNMENT END-USERS. This Product is a "commercial item," as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101, consisting of "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995) and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202 (June 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212, 48 C.F.R. 27.405(b)(2) (June 1998) and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202, all U.S. Government End Users acquire the Product with only those rights as set forth therein.

10. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Mozilla and you concerning the subject matter hereof, and it may only be modified by a written amendment signed by an authorized executive of Mozilla. (b) Except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise, this Agreement will be governed by the laws of the state of California, U.S.A., excluding its conflict of law provisions. (c) This Agreement will not be governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. (d) If any part of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, that part will be construed to reflect the parties' original intent, and the remaining portions will remain in full force and effect. (e) A waiver by either party of any term or condition of this Agreement or any breach thereof, in any one instance, will not waive such term or condition or any subsequent breach thereof. (f) Except as required by law, the controlling language of this Agreement is English. (g) You may assign your rights under this Agreement to any party that consents to, and agrees to be bound by, its terms; the Mozilla Corporation may assign its rights under this Agreement without condition. (h) This Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and permitted assigns.
I think its all standard covering thier asses stuff, but it seams word having to sign a EULA for OSS software?
I wonder what will happen with distros, are we all going back to using iceweasel & icedove?

Re:EULA (2, Informative)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445240)

I believe only the binary versions are under the EULA, which AFAIK has been there since FF1. The source versions (which the distros compile from) is and has been under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.

Re:EULA (2, Informative)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445424)

3. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. (...) Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit any rights granted under the Open Source Licenses
This is the relevant bit. By the way, the main points of this EULA are:
1. You may not unbrand an official build of Firefox.
2. Using Firefox does not give you the right to use Mozilla trademarks. However, since they are legally available elsewhere, and Mozilla does not sue anybody for non-slanderous uses of the logos, this is boilerplate.
3. Any proprietary stuff that may be contained in FF is off-limits.
If I understand correctly, this was the Windows build made by Mozilla. Linux builds are made by the distros, so they would only need to comply with the source code licences.

Re:EULA (2, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445494)

This license does not grant you any right to use the trademarks, service marks or logos of Mozilla or its licensors.
This is the key line. The source is fully open, but the mozilla icon is protected by trademark and only offical builds can use it. I think it's always been there, it's why debian started the whole iceweasel thing (security team wouldn't be bound by upstream + doubts if it was DFSG-free). A lot of applications have that "you can fork us but don't use our name and logo" but few have formalized it like Mozilla. I don't know if the others have any legal claim to their name anyway, or if that's just a common courtesy rule.

Good news (1, Redundant)

nova.alpha (1287112) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445172)

This is really good news. Will be updating ASAP. Btw, never ever had any stability issues with ff3 on linux, while opera handles flash very crappy these days (and flash v.9.0.124 doesn't work at all in it). IMHO, the only problem of FF3 now is that some extensions are not yet ported (notably, firebug :( ).

Here are the release notes for interested parties. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445174)

http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/releasenotes/

Respect (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445188)

Slashdot posts don't include swearing in the story summaries, so why is it acceptable to use the word 'God' as an expletive? I find it very offensive and it reflects poorly on a site which I have enjoyed for a long time.

Disclaimer: I realise that it's very unpopular to be a christian on slashdot at the moment, so please don't start a flamewar about the relative merits of belief vs athiesm.

Re:Respect (5, Funny)

Phyrexicaid (1176935) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445278)

Slashdot posts don't include swearing in the story summaries, so why is it acceptable to use the word 'God' as an expletive? I find it very offensive and it reflects poorly on a site which I have enjoyed for a long time.
He wasn't swearing, he was praying.
Plus, it wasn't directed at your god anyway, it was meant for the God of Opensource.

Re:Respect (1, Flamebait)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445444)

I dont mean to ruin your hopes and dreams, but there is no god





...of opensource, if there was he would have proclaimed the 1 true way to do something and people would stop reinventing the wheel so often.

Re:Respect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445350)

why is it acceptable to use the word 'God' as an expletive?

Because invoking the name of fictional entities is funny? Would you have objected if he put "Santa Claus" there instead?

Re:Respect (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445524)

I am also tired of the language used on this site. We Christians are always losing out - there ought to be a law.

Oh, there is one, and it's called the Bible. It's just that people think it's optional, or subject to their personal interpretation, or fit to be ignored altogether. Maybe I should move to a country that really does uphold my Christian principles.

Test Results (5, Informative)

xpro42 (1234496) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445226)

After installing FF3/RC1 I ran the Acid 3 test [acidtests.org] and the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark [webkit.org]. RC1 scored a 71, the same as Beta 5. The SunSpider test came up 4698.6ms for RC1. On Beta 5 it was 4757.2ms. Not really much of a difference as far as tests go. I was hoping for some better results, but overall RC1 seems responsive and stable.

Re:Test Results (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445326)

Still it only scored a 71 safari scored 74. I don't see what it couldn't score 100% on the test. Closed Source Browsers such as IE, Safari and even Opera I would expect not to reach 100% because they need to make a browser that satisifys demmand but for these open source products I would expect them to try for full computability at least for bragging rights.

Re:Test Results (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445404)

beta5 -> RC1 was just bug fixes, as far as i can tell. And while SunSpider does help indicate javascript performance, ACID3 is fairly pointless, testing for CSS & html compliance is more relevant:
http://www.css3.info/selectors-test/test.html [css3.info]
FF3b5 & FF3 RC1 are the same 36/43 7unsupported (373/578) though as they wont be fixed till FF4

Not so awesome (1)

gumpish (682245) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445246)

Can you turn off the "Awesomebar"?

No?

Not interested.

Re:Not so awesome (2, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445268)

Can you turn off the "Awesomebar"?

No?

Not interested.
Were you interested in a reply or not?

Try this:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.urlbar.richResults [mozillazine.org]

Re:Not so awesome (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445298)

That setting was disabled long ago. Try again.

Re:Not so awesome (2, Informative)

MeditationSensation (1121241) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445486)

May I know why you don't like it? I love it and find it hard to live without it now. For example, I go to IMDb.com all the time. If I want to go back to a movie that I've previously visited without searching for it on Google or IMDb, I can do it by typing in a partial title to the address bar. It's a little faster and also doesn't query the network.

Re:Not so awesome (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445496)

I hear you brother. Gimme back a freakin' option to have the URL bar behave as it did in FF2. No, oldbar does not cut it.

And even if I were to get used to the new behavior, Awesomebar is dog slow. Quite often when I type one or two letters into it, it starts thrashing the HD and hangs for about 10 secs, not allowing me to do anything such as type some more letters. Mighty annoying.

OT - Firefox 3 was regression for me (3, Interesting)

azgard (461476) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445250)

I am sorry for offtopic post, but Firefox was a bit of regression for me. The new page info doesn't contain outgoing links. I haven't used it much in fact, but few days ago I needed to paste few links into wget and found that out.

Yes, I know they are planning an extension for that, but I wanted to use it now (I have Ubuntu) and I would like to note - try to find extension using google which will list links on page. ;-) I installed the web developer toolbar in the end, but it's not very nice to copy it from there and it comes with a lot of other stuff I don't really need.

Why is there such movement in OSS lately that thinks that removal of features will be an improvement for users? It's strikingly similar to Wikipedia's deletionist movement. Organization of features/information, not removal, is the key.

Re:OT - Firefox 3 was regression for me (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445332)

have to admit i never used that feature, its too late to re-add to FF3 but if you request it may be re-added to 4. Developers arnt mind readers, ofc some project will ignore you opinion (e.g pdigin) but others value all input (as long as they have the time), I'm not sure where Mozilla sit, I suspect its somewhere in the middle.

Way Better (4, Interesting)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445266)

I've been running this build now for 4 days straight going to countless sites that use every which plugins for movies and flash and javascript and so far considering it hasn't crashed on me in windows I'd say it's pretty solid.

Although I am running a Q6600 with 4GB. But Beta 5 used to crash on me every 2 hours.

Now to business,
Firebug Official for FF3 Please :)

Re:Way Better (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445484)

What about Silverlight? I just happen to be a baseball fan that lives out of state of my favorite team and MLB.TV uses Silverlight which Firefix 3 doesn't like...

Thanks Firefox! (2, Interesting)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445322)

Thanks to Firefox 3 betas I've managed *finally* to convert my wife to use FF. Only if I could get her using something other than Microsoft Live Messenger or get Messenger working with Wine I could get rid of our last WinXP installation.

Failed to update on OSX (1)

arazor (55656) | more than 5 years ago | (#23445436)

I tried updating twice it downloads the 2.9meg update and then says it can not update. Anyone else have this problem on OSX ? I guess I will keep using beta 5 until release version of FF 3 is out.

Love everybody bitching bout stability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445462)

while the actual culprit is Adobe Flash.

Jerks will be jerks, tho... Adobe and the complainers that is.

Enable FF2 extensions... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445464)

Go to about:config and create a new boolean entry called "extensions.checkCompatibility". Set to false.

Beware, while most of them still work fine some old extensions will most definetely kill FF3. (Google toolbar, I'm looking at you!)

lost all my bookmarks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23445520)

this rc doesn't import the bookmarks from version 2
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...