Stable Firefox - OS2

This is a discussion on Stable Firefox - OS2 ; I see that characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable". I have an immediate, ad hoc need for an additional browser and don't want or need problems due to new code, so how is v2.0.0.5 ? Michael...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Stable Firefox

  1. Stable Firefox

    I see that

    characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable". I have an immediate, ad
    hoc need for an additional browser and don't want or need problems due to new
    code, so how is v2.0.0.5 ?

    Michael

  2. Re: Stable Firefox

    On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:13:44 UTC, Michael wrote:

    > I see that
    >
    > characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable". I have an immediate, ad
    > hoc need for an additional browser and don't want or need problems due to new
    > code, so how is v2.0.0.5 ?
    >
    > Michael


    I have been using FF 2.0.0.6, since it first showed up. No problems,
    at all, so far. I also used 2.0.0.5, and it was good too.

    Hope this helps...
    --
    From the eComStation 1.2 of Doug Bissett
    dougb007 at telus dot net
    (Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)


  3. Re: Stable Firefox

    On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:13:44 UTC, Michael wrote:

    -> I see that
    ->
    -> characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable". I have an immediate, ad
    -> hoc need for an additional browser and don't want or need problems due to new
    -> code, so how is v2.0.0.5 ?
    ->
    -> Michael

    All of the 2.0.0.x releases were considered the "cutting edge",
    potentially unstable versions because they are under active
    development. The 1.5.x releases are considered stable but no longer
    actively developed. See
    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html "Firefox 1.5.0.x
    will be maintained with security and stability updates until mid-May,
    2007. All users are strongly encouraged to upgrade to Firefox 2."

    FF 2.0.0.6 has security updates [
    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/secu...lities.html#fi
    refox2.0.0.6 ], so it is actually an improvement over 2.0.0.5. But
    any release could have problems created by code changes. I run
    2.0.0.6 here and find it a bit more stable then 2.0.0.4 or 2.0.0.5 but
    it still disappears at least once daily, especially when accessing a
    page with plugins. But it always starts back up without a problem.

    Actually there is now a more cutting edge release called Grand
    Paradiso, which is an Alpha level FireFox 3.0. So it is all relative.
    If you need the most stable version then go with the last 1.5
    release, 1.5.12, which was released May 31, 2007. But be aware that
    that is a dead branch as far as further development. See
    http://www.mozilla.org/ports/os2/ for download locations of all the
    latest releases.

    Mark


    --
    From the eComStation of Mark Dodel

    Warpstock 2007 - Toronto, Ontario, Canada: http://www.warpstock.org
    Warpstock Europe - Valkenswaard close to Eindhoven, the Netherlands:
    http://www.warpstock.eu

  4. Re: Stable Firefox

    Thanks, Doug. I have read many of your posts (for years now); some of your
    replies to others helped me as well. Glad to finally say "thanks".

    ---
    Michael


    Doug Bissett wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:13:44 UTC, Michael wrote:
    >
    > > I see that
    > >
    > > characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable". I have an immediate, ad
    > > hoc need for an additional browser and don't want or need problems due to new
    > > code, so how is v2.0.0.5 ?
    > >
    > > Michael

    >
    > I have been using FF 2.0.0.6, since it first showed up. No problems,
    > at all, so far. I also used 2.0.0.5, and it was good too.
    >
    > Hope this helps...
    > --
    > From the eComStation 1.2 of Doug Bissett
    > dougb007 at telus dot net
    > (Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)


  5. Re: Stable Firefox

    Hi, Mark

    > All of the 2.0.0.x releases were considered the "cutting edge",
    > potentially unstable versions because they are under active
    > development.


    Now I get it. I was mislead because in my previous life (large systems)
    "unstable" meant "Not ready for customer use". After your words and Doug's I'm
    not so apprehensive about trying Firefox.

  6. Re: Stable Firefox

    Michael wrote:

    >
    > characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable".


    That is NOT what it says. It says there is no current test release of
    Firefox, because the trunk is unstable (on OS/2). There have not been
    any test releases of Seamonkey 2.0 or Thunderbird 3.0 as of yet.

  7. Re: Stable Firefox

    On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 04:06:59 UTC, Steve Wendt wrote:
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable".

    >
    > That is NOT what it says. [...]


    While checking this out, I noticed that the "Command line" section
    down at the bottom of the page is out of date. If you use the
    "-help" or "-version" options, you'll get a separate VIO window
    with the requested info. You may have to look for it because it
    may end up underneath other open windows. If you enter
    "firefox -help | more" as suggested, the info will appear in the
    same window where you typed in the command, but you'll still get
    a separate VIO window - however, it will be blank.


    --
    == == almost usable email address: rws AT e-vertise.com == ==
    __________________________________________________ _________________
    |
    | Remote Workplace Server v0.80
    Rich Walsh | interact with the WPS from any program
    Ft Myers, FL | http://e-vertise.com/rws/rws080.zip
    __________________________________________________ _________________

  8. Re: Stable Firefox

    Steve Wendt wrote:
    >
    > Michael wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > characterizes Firefox 2.0.0.6 for OS/2 as "unstable".

    >
    > That is NOT what it says.


    I looked again, more closely, and you are right.
    Firefox 2.0.0.6 lies under the heading "Latest Stable Releases"

    I was mislead by "unstable" to the right of it. Mea culpa.

  9. Re: Stable Firefox

    Rich Walsh wrote:

    > While checking this out, I noticed that the "Command line" section
    > down at the bottom of the page is out of date. If you use the
    > "-help" or "-version" options, you'll get a separate VIO window
    > with the requested info. You may have to look for it because it
    > may end up underneath other open windows. If you enter
    > "firefox -help | more" as suggested, the info will appear in the
    > same window where you typed in the command, but you'll still get
    > a separate VIO window - however, it will be blank.


    I see... yuck! I don't know if I would call that an improvement. At
    any rate, I have removed that text.

+ Reply to Thread