On mySimon: Samsung 55" LED TV
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 68:
Next »
« Previous
No!
What he is saying is that a beta release is not a production release. The idea of ever fixing a beta release makes no inherent sense. It's simply not production code. Beta releases exist for the sole purpose of finding problems so they can be fixed in production. If it gets fixed, it's either a new beta release or it's ready for production.

If we start treating beta releases as production releases, then there is no point in calling them beta releases. We may as well just call them buggy first releases. Then again, that's how Microsoft always did it. If a beta release can have more than one version with the same name, that makes it impossible to function as a beta release. That's what would happen if a company fixed a beta release instead of issuing a new beta or putting it in production.

The big problem is how the term beta is (mis)used these days. Beta programs used to be well defined. Beta testers were invited based on their qualifications. They did not get paid, but often got other compensation, such as a free copy of the production software or hardware. It was understood that they would spend a certain amount of time testing and they would report bugs and usability issues. A beta tester who never issued a report probably would not be invited back.

These days, we have early releases and there is no restriction on who gets it. There is no obligation to do any testing or to report any problems. Beta testers of Mozilla need not even be registered with bugzilla to become testers. A real beta tester is aware that the product is not final and may have problems. Ones like these are relatively minor.

I've noticed that if I go down a series of links and open them all up in new tabs sequentially, and they in effect load simultaneously, I will get dialog boxes and they may not be in front of the tab in question when they come up. So I keep that in mind when I use the product. As for the other one, in order for it to be exploited, a malicious website would have to know what browser I'm using and get me to open another specific website in another tab in order to get anything. That's not a serious risk. If it launched it for me (in which case it would be a separate browser window anyway and this would not even apply) I would still know better than to be at risk.
Posted by: wresnick   Posted on: 10/21/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

firefox  eLurker | 10/20/04
That makes two of us  htotten | 10/20/04
Say what?  quietkey | 10/20/04
Say What?  htotten | 10/20/04
Sorry, not saying that  quietkey | 10/20/04
The difference is..  d_jedi | 10/21/04
If you expect  michael-t | 10/20/04
exactly  Jeff Spicoli | 10/20/04
No!  wresnick | 10/21/04
No big deal  Yagotta B. Kidding | 10/20/04
actually, no  doh123 | 10/21/04
1.0 is almost out  CobraA1 | 10/20/04
everyone missing the point  eLurker | 10/20/04
heh  CobraA1 | 10/21/04
Standards Compliance?  rdwhitti | 10/21/04
So What Are You Suggesting?  coffeenite | 10/21/04
Only that Firefox isn't for everything  rdwhitti | 10/21/04
don't dump IE  bugmenotznet | 10/21/04
Personally..  d_jedi | 10/21/04
one opinion  eLurker | 10/21/04
The problem is..  d_jedi | 10/21/04
kde  eLurker | 10/21/04
(nt) Is that available for Windows?  d_jedi | 10/22/04
if you are running windows, you have bigger problems...  eLurker | 10/22/04
For once..  d_jedi | 10/21/04
Lets have a big LOL  jimk_z | 10/20/04
I did, actually..  d_jedi | 10/21/04
Who told you that security is only an IE problem?  bugmenotznet | 10/21/04
Open Source woes  mojoman_x@... | 10/20/04
What a waste of a message  quietkey | 10/20/04
Unix Whiner  mojoman_x@... | 10/20/04
Ohh...kewl!  Cardinal_Bill | 10/20/04
Be a little  michael-t | 10/20/04
heh. The green screens are leaving them in the dark.  jimk_z | 10/20/04
Strawman........  middle of nowhere | 10/21/04
So? Every OS has bugs. Talk about stating the obvious! (nt)  CobraA1 | 10/20/04
Yup....Its called growing up to reality  jimk_z | 10/20/04
Well...  BitTwiddler | 10/21/04
What browsers DO NOT have in common  michael-t | 10/20/04
which  eLurker | 10/20/04
Still ...  michael-t | 10/20/04
still ...  eLurker | 10/21/04
When the Mozilla and Firefox...  boomslang_z | 10/21/04
Nearly useless statistics  BruceWheelock@... | 04/04/05
Major browsers bitten by security bugs  Loverock Davidson | 10/20/04
Here is another hard fact of life  Taz_z | 10/21/04
Those exploits don't work  Nigel Johnstone | 10/20/04
Worked on Firefox for me, but...  doe_z | 10/20/04
A suggested alternate attack  Nigel Johnstone | 10/20/04
Funny...  PA-ITGuy | 10/21/04
Forgot to mention  PA-ITGuy | 10/21/04
He was talking about the second one in his response. (nt)  doe_z | 10/21/04
I understand what you are saying...  doe_z | 10/21/04
Exactly  wresnick | 10/21/04
My my...  Cardinal_Bill | 10/20/04
Give it up buddy. Security isnt an MS only issue.  jimk_z | 10/20/04
You're right  middle of nowhere | 10/21/04
did you read the article?  doh123 | 10/21/04
It's not but...  wresnick | 10/21/04
Security isnt an MS only issue.  Cardinal_Bill | 10/21/04
what does a man with cancer and a healthy man have in common  V Sanders | 10/21/04
IE exploits are Windows OS exploits  whisperycat | 10/21/04
Another exploit, blah blah blah  NightWatchman_z | 10/21/04
That misses the point  wresnick | 10/21/04
Sigh, here come the Open Source haters  kensys | 10/21/04
Minds can move mountains, but not close minds  kensys | 10/21/04
So they won't fix the beta  skeptic tank | 10/21/04
An observation as to a possible backdoor  domirr@... | 10/22/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc