In the comments in the earlier thread, I said that since both Thunderbird and Firefox are both not officially released products, I don't recommend them, although I use both. That's also been the policy that I use at the BugBlog. I don't report on bugs in beta programs, because after all, the purpose of these early releases is to find and eliminate the bugs. You should still expect some bugs in these programs, although there should be relatively few in a release labeled 0.91, compared to Release 0.4.
That's one of the things that makes open-source software different than commercial software. In an effort to get market share and sales dollars, sometimes commercial software is pushed out the door, given the official 1.0 label, before it is ready. In fact, it is a well-known saying among IT professionals that you really shouldn't install new Microsoft software until after the first service pack has been released. The early releases are really beta programs in disguise. On the other hand, it seems that it took the original Mozilla a long time before version 1.0 was released, and the wait seems equally long for Firefox.
With a major new security flaw turning up in Microsoft Internet Explorer seemingly every week, with more and more security professionals saying you should think about another browser, maybe it is time to take either Mozilla or Firefox for a test drive.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
Thanks for the update on this, the difference is more clear to me now.
I'll stick with Firefox, and expect bugs -- even though I have encountered none yet in 0.91. I note also that 1.0 is due to be released later this year, so that'll be nice.
2 - uncoolcentral
I use the moz suite and its individual components. Contrary to your claims, I invariably notice that the mail portion of Mozilla 1.7.3 logs in to the server and otherwise retrieves mail *much* faster than T-bird 0.8. It's plain as day. I notice no rendering speed difference between Moz and FFox though.
3 - Johnny Mickeyook
no comments.