Someone explain this sentence to me: An alpha version of Firefox 2.0 should be released as a public beta next month. The article was found here.
On a related note, I recently had to use a computer that only had Microsoft IE on it, and was absolutely amazed at how bad it has become--it turned most of the sites I go to into an utter pig's lunch. Maybe it was an older version, but I'm amazed that companies elect to use it instead of the clearly superior Firefox, which we endorse.
Hey,
I enjoy the site.
I usually differentiate alpha vs beta by the users who interact with the release. Alpha releases are usually geared toward internal Quality Assurance testers. They look at the release for verifying new features and fixes so they won't cause system failure or corruption.
Beta release is designed more for general end users who can give feedback on features, performance, and feel.
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2006 at 04:54 PM
In my opinion they would be better served by going to alpha 1.6 rather than jumping to 2.0 The features they list are incremental not major. Announcing 3.0 is on the drawing board is going to send the wrong message. What are they going to put in 3.0 that will truely differentiate them?
Posted by: Peter | January 18, 2006 at 09:52 AM