[MonztA]

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archive...id_tuesday.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/preed/2006/...ntirelease.html
http://cbeard.typepa...ick_update.html

Nehmt Euch das mal zu Herzen, Winfuture.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von MonztA bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:34

[Großer]

Es scheinen sich dann aber sehr viele geirrt zu haben.

[ShadowHunter]

steht nicht umsonst aufm ftp unter 2.0 ?!

[MonztA]

Zitat

Firefox 2 has not yet been officially released. Please be patient. We still plan on launching Tuesday, October 24th in the afternoon pacific time.

Linking to anything other than getfirefox.com or mozilla.com hurts us, our volunteer mirror network, and our ability to effectively serve up and guarantee availability of Firefox.

We promise to not hide the release when it happens, and to work to ensure that everyone who wants a copy gets a copy. ;-)

http://cbeard.typepa...ick_update.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/preed/2006/...ntirelease.html

[stronzo]

Zitat (MonztA: 24.10.2006, 15:03)

http://cbeard.typepa...ick_update.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/preed/2006/...ntirelease.html

Warum steht der hier unter Release? Bin jetzt etwas verwirrt!

Dieser Beitrag wurde von stronzo bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 14:10

[MonztA]

Einfach mal lesen: http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/...re_ashamed.html

Oder:

The Anti-release

Zitat

Normally, I'd take the time to write up a more in-depth explanation, but since my schedule is... uh... "hectic" right now, I'll just say this:

1. No, we have. Not. Released. Firefox. 2. Yet.
2. When people link to bits directly on a random FTP mirror, they're doing a number of people harm including, quite possibly, themselves:

* Digg and Reddit posts linking to direct FTP mirrors could be costing the operators of those mirrors hundreds to thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills, or may cause them to crash by linking directly to them. This could cause them to "un-volunteer" their services as a mirror, making it even harder to obtain Firefox on release days.

* People posting direct link to FTP mirrors don't know if that mirror is a member of the Mozilla FTP Mirror Farm, or some random, unverified mirror. We work hard to verify that the mirrors in our farm are serving the same bits we released, and we cannot make the same claim about other mirrors that aren't part of our farm. When using direct FTP links to random mirrors, users run the risk of downloading bits that have not been checked to ensure they do not contain a virus or trojan.

* "That's ok," you say: "I link directly to ftp.mozilla.org!" That can be even worse! Killing the project's FTP server does not help anyone, least of all people trying to obtain Firefox builds. And it makes for a grumpy IT group. And nobody wants grumpy IT groups. Especially a day before a release.

3. Linking directly to builds hinders our ability to remove/retract bits that we may have to remove for some reason. While this may not seem like a big deal, it becomes a problem when supporting users, one of our most important values. If, let's say, we pull a locale, due to a stop-ship bug—and yes, this is not a hypothetical—then users who've (pre-)downloaded that build will not receive valuable security updates for those builds. The counterargument to this is "Well, you should provide updates for everything you've ever offered on your FTP site." If we did this, we'd be spending valuable (and über-constrained) Build Team and QA resources generating updates and testing them for builds that weren't the final bits, and were never "released" as such.

4. Posting links before we release may point people to an incomplete FTP areas or mirrors. I haven't finished posting the source tarball, for instance. Will it happen before we release? Yes. Will there be unnecessary confusion from the open source community, wondering where this deliverable is? If you post links to an FTP site with the builds, yes.

5. Most articles have an unerring ability to link to the wrong thing. Slashdot's front page, for instance, currently links to the Windows British English build. I cringe at the thought of the community having to waste time while we're finishing things up with IRC, blog, and Bugzilla chatter asking "I got my build from Slashdot; why did you guys spell behaviour wrong?" And where are Slashdotters wanting uhh... you know... Linux builds supposed to get them? It's unclear from the article that directly links to an .exe for one [correct for one country, but mostly-wrong for everyone else] locale.

6. User experience can be degraded, leaving a bad taste in people's mouth: Firefox 2 has a number of components that use live content on websites. The whole community has been doing a lot of work to refresh, update, and translate this content, and parts of it are still coming together for the release. When you download a build, there could be various content, including certain parts of help, that are not yet ready. When you tell your friends to go download Firefox 2 before we announce it's ready, you're subjecting them to a degraded user experience, which could push them to go back to... "other browsers."

Now, before you suggest it, it's not as easy as putting in .htaccess restrictions, or setting the permissions on the files so people can't download them. The nitty-gritty details are in the newsgroups.

So please... just remember: "Preed the Release Engineer says: friends don't let friends download Firefox before it's released."

We know everyone's excited for the 2.0 release. We are too. But give us 24 hours, so we can make sure that your first experience with Firefox 2.0 is befitting of everyone's hard work on this major release.

I promise it's worth the wait.

[ShadowHunter]

Der FF 2.0 final ist doch äquivalent zum rc3 also weis sich net wo das Problem sein solln

[stronzo]

Naja die verkaufen die RC3 als Final! Verstehen tu ich das alles net mehr! Wenn sogar auf dem ftp das Ding unter Release steht! Nehmt es mir nicht übel, aber irgendwie seh ich nicht mehr durch....

Also ich hab auf dem ftp nochmal geschaut! setup 2.0 und setup 20rc3 habe die gleiche Dateigröße, allerdings sind die Änderngsdaten verschieden 2.0 ->23.10.2006 2.0rc3 ->16.10.2006...Irgendwas stinkt hier!

Dieser Beitrag wurde von stronzo bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:13

[MonztA]

Zitat (ShadowHunter: 24.10.2006, 16:05)

Der FF 2.0 final ist doch äquivalent zum rc3 also weis sich net wo das Problem sein solln

Darum geht es hier jetzt aber nicht.

Zitat (stronzo: 24.10.2006, 16:07)

Naja die verkaufen die RC3 als Final! Verstehen tu ich das alles net mehr! Wenn sogar auf dem ftp das Ding unter Release steht! Nehmt es mir nicht übel, aber irgendwie seh ich nicht mehr durch....

Es braucht auch seine Zeit die Versionen zu testen. Beim RC3 sind anscheinend keine Bugs mehr vorhanden gewesen/gefunden worden. Weshalb also den RC3 nicht als Final anbieten?

Dieser Beitrag wurde von MonztA bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:16

[stronzo]

Jetzt mal ne Frage: Nimmst Du irgendwelche halluzinogene Medikamente?

Du eröffnest ein Topic mit folgender Überschrift: Warum Mozilla Firefox 2.0 Noch Nicht Erschienen Ist... und jetzt Weshalb also den RC3 nicht als Final anbieten? Also haben sie ja den 2.0 als Final released und damit ist die 2.0 erschienen....

[flo]

Hm ich verstehe es auch nicht, warum steht denn da Version 2.0

[MonztA]

@stronzo
Sag mal geht's noch?! Hast Du überhaupt gelesen, was ich verlinkt habe?
http://www.beltzner.ca/mike/archives/2006/...re_ashamed.html

Zitat

Update: some people in the comments have pointed out that it�s stupid to expect people not to download something after putting it on a public server, or that there should be a way to have the mirrors password protect things. To this I have a couple of responses:

1.I never said we didn�t want people downloading things that are on our public mirrors. That�s why they�re public mirrors. We�ve always, and will always, allow people to download nightly builds, hourly builds, historical builds, source tarballs, etc. Nobody�s upset about that, although we obviously would prefer that people use releases.mozilla.org which is a round-robin service of our mirrors instead of ftp.mozilla.org which is a single box.

2.Of course we could figure out a way to make it so that people don�t see the /releases directory until we�re ready for public consumption. But that raises the barrier to entry for our testing volunteers who need to get at the release candidates to do QA. Mozilla QA days would become more complex, and how long do you really think it would take for the passwords to leak out? Or for someone to point to the closest nightly build? All locking things down would do is encourage people to game the system some other way.

3.What I said I was upset about was news organizations �announcing� our releases for us when we haven�t released. We are very public about our release process, our release dates and our release estimates. We keep absolutely no secrets in this regard. We are happy to put people on our notify list so that they can publish their stories the minute we actually release, but we (the project drivers) are the only ones who can say when Mozilla has released something, and we do that when we think the quality of the whole user experience and product is good enough. Part of the steps along there involve the builds to be available to the public as unreleased products. What I�m frustrated with is people pointing at those and saying �ooh! ooh! look! it�s the release!� and the implicit notion that we�re not proud enough of what we�re doing to tell people about it.

Der RC3 wurde als letzter RC veröffentlicht, um Usern die Möglichkeit zu geben, diesen zu testen. Nun wurden anscheinend keine Bugs/Fehler etc. gefunden, die einen Final-Release im Weg stehen. Ich verstehe jetzt dein Problem nicht, warum der RC3 als Finalversion angeboten wird.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von MonztA bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:31

[stronzo]

Nee Junge tut mir leid aber Dir muss geholfen werden!

Ich verstehe jetzt dein Problem nicht, warum der RC3 als Finalversion angeboten wird.


->jetzt vergleiche bitte mal DEINE eigene Aussage mit der Topic-Überschrift, die DU erstellt hast!

Wenn der RC3 als Final angeboten wird ist er doch released! Ich weiß Du hast hier einiges verlinkt und ich habe es gelesen, aber Tatsache ist, dass es auf dem offiziellen ftp von Mozilla einen Ordner und eine Datei Namens Firefox 2.0 / Firefox Setup 2.0.exe gibt! Ohne Namenszusätze! Also ist das die 2.0 final....

Ich gebe Dir recht, dass es definitiv die gleiche Datei, wie im RC3-Ordner ist, aber Du sagst ja selbst, dass es sein kann, dass sie die RC3 gleich zur Final gemacht haben!

[MonztA]

Anscheinend hast Du hier gar nichts gelesen. Firefox ist erst dann offiziell erschienen, wenn es auf http://www.mozilla.com oder http://www.mozilla-europe.org steht.

Zitat

3.What I said I was upset about was news organizations �announcing� our releases for us when we haven�t released. We are very public about our release process, our release dates and our release estimates. We keep absolutely no secrets in this regard. We are happy to put people on our notify list so that they can publish their stories the minute we actually release, but we (the project drivers) are the only ones who can say when Mozilla has released something, and we do that when we think the quality of the whole user experience and product is good enough. Part of the steps along there involve the builds to be available to the public as unreleased products. What I�m frustrated with is people pointing at those and saying �ooh! ooh! look! it�s the release!� and the implicit notion that we�re not proud enough of what we�re doing to tell people about it.

Ich bestreite auch gar nicht, dass nicht die Finalversion angeboten wird.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von MonztA bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:51

[stronzo]

Zitat (MonztA: 24.10.2006, 16:49)

Anscheinend hast Du hier gar nichts gelesen. Firefox ist erst dann offiziell erschienen, wenn es auf http://www.mozilla.com oder http://www.mozilla-europe.org steht.

Ich bestreite auch gar nicht, dass nicht die Finalversion angeboten wird.

Meinetwegen, wenn es Dich glücklich macht...
Ob offiziell oder inoffiziell ist doch Wurst! Denkst Du die ändern die Datei auf dem ftp nochmal? Nur weil es nicht auf der Webseite steht...

Nochwas für Dich -> <<klick>>

Dieser Beitrag wurde von stronzo bearbeitet: 24. Oktober 2006 - 15:59