Software in not-on-time shocker.
Easy way of calculating how long a software project will really take:
1) Figure out how long the project *should* take under good conditions.
2) Double that figure.
3) Add a bit. ;-)
Mozilla has delayed the release of Firefox 3.6 until the first quarter of 2010. The outfit had been promising to deliver the next iteration of its celebrated browser before the decade was out. However, despite spinning out no less than five betas of Firefox 3.6, the final version of the browser won't ship until next year. …
I don't think slowing down a release schedule is such a negative thing. I would much rather have a solid browser that behaved as I expect it to a few months late, rather than a buggy browser that I am unable to use right now.
The roadmap to 4.0 looks to have some promising features, and getting there is the important thing.
I don't see why they can't ditch any new major releases and go for a fresher start with 4.0, giving them a chance to "break" some compatibility etc if needs be.
clearly they havent fixed the memory problem because i tried firefox 3.5 the current version and the memory was going up over 100 thousand kb in memory size if it kept on going i think it would just crash all together. sorry but im staying with ie 8 at the min. and no i ant a fan of ie before anyone asks fix the bugs the mozilla for christ sake.
For those making comments about the end of the decade, please read:
This bit applies to you:
"Insisting that the decade ends on December 31, 2010 is not pedantic. It is dumb. And wrong. Spare yourself the embarrassment and don't do it."
It might be convenient to think of the decade as ending in 2009, but that doesn't make it so.
Of course, the thrust of the argument that you are quoting from is that ANY ten years can be a decade, so if we assume that Mozilla meant the decade beginning 1997, they have until 2016. What? What do you mean? What's wrong with that?
I'll correct for you :
""Insisting that the decade ends on December 31, 2010 is correct. It is the end of the 201st decade. The fact that you are too ignorant to realise this is not the fault of the pedants. Spare yourself the embarrassment of revealing your ignorance."
Now, be a good chap and don't believe everything you read on the internet. You'll be quoting from Wikipedia next.
Talking about the 201st decade is about as facetious as talking about the 3rd millennium. It implies there was no time before this, where in fact most of history happened before the year 1. (even using deluded creationist "young earth" dates)
As mentioned in a different thread, the millennium began in 2001 because there was apparently no year 0.
However, people celebrated it NYE 1999. So one could say this is the 10 year anniversary of that date.
or the fact that many people use the decimal system for tracking what year it is on the Gregorian calendar, and what they are celebrating is the change of the number of tens. (The "decade" if you will)
or rather less subjectively:
The fact that the astronomical year numbering includes a year 0.
That ISO 8601 has a year 0
so hapy new ISO/astronomical decade!!!
[...]"Insisting that the decade ends on December 31, 2010 is correct. It is the end of the 201st decade. The fact that you are too ignorant to realise this is not the fault of the pedants. Spare yourself the embarrassment of revealing your ignorance."[...]
Wrong... your argument is nothing more than tautology, and your statement is only correct to the extent it justifies your orthogonal (and obvious but pointless) assertion about the 201st century.
Aside from the fact that the number of centuries were never discussed in the article, and your neat side stepping most notions of a "decade" - who cares it's the 201st century. Neither of your falicious arguments can escape the simple fact that December 31st 2009 is exactly (give or take) 10 years or a "decade" since this millenium began.