jesus X wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
> > DeMoN_LaG wrote:
> > > It's already usable. In fact, more usable than IE 6's beta progress is
> > Gimme that Olde Tyme religion...
>
> Or maybe it's opinion. Ever think of that?
No.
> I for one use Mozilla exclusively as
> a browser now, it's so stable.
Well I'd hope so, as slow as it is. And the insane amount of memory it
hogs.
> What you may not understand is that 0.9.1 was an
> extraordinarily stable release,
Compared to previous releases? Heheheyeah, I'd sure hope so.
> and to extend this, the choice had been made to
> extend the time in which the tree is closed to non-approved checkins for an
> additional 2 weeks, at the end of which would be released 0.9.2, which is going
> to be the "stability" release.
>
> This will be an extremely stable (near commercial quality, if not equal to)
> release to show the progress that has been made.
Huh? "To show the progress that has been made"?!? I thought that was
why 6.0 was released.
> The hope is that the primary
> differentiation between 0.9.2 and 1.0 will be that 0.9.2 won't have quite as
> many fixes and some features will still be incomplete, but stability will be
> nearly the same high level.
>
> Netscape took the 0.9.1 branch, made NS6.1PR1, and it's been getting stunning
> reviews for a beta.
About two years too late, even if true. Who's reviewed NS6.1? I've not
read a single review yet (other than from the Faithful). The world has
forgotten about Netscape, rabbi.
> Yes, NS6 sucked, we all know that. But I think you need to
> take a fresh look at where things are.
>
I do that pretty much every day. And when I do so, I'm loudly accused
of being a "hypocrite" by certain religious factions of the Body.
> --
> jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
> email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
> web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
> tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
> warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
