Firefox 3 version 2.0.0.14



  • This was fixed fairly quickly, but was nonetheless up for several minutes this afternoon as Firefox 3 was being released... you'd think they'd have gotten this ready to roll out before they actually deployed it:

    Firefox 3 - Free Download - 2.0.0.14



  • photoshop

    also, since you bothered with photoshopping anyway, you could have photoshopped out the mac stuff so you wouldn't been laughing stock



  • Nope. For a good while after the launch time it was showing that, as well as the main download page showing Firefox 3 at the top along with a bunch of links to 2.0.0.14 in all 45 some odd languages, followed by three RC3 links.



  • Yeah, definitely real; I have the full screenshot lying around if anyone wants it.

    Honestly, I should've gotten screenshots from my Windows and Linux installations as well just for posterity's sake. But I'm lazy. :-p

    (And to be fair, I have to admit that Mac font rendering does look somewhat photoshopped. :-D)



  • @DrJokepu said:

    photoshop

    also, since you bothered with photoshopping anyway, you could have photoshopped out the mac stuff so you wouldn't been laughing stock

    You appear to be shopped. I can tell by the pixels.

    @DrJokepu said:

    so you wouldn't been laughing stock

    You speak england-language good for brain damage man, no?



  • A picture from the step-by-step instruction to install firefox 3:

    firefox


    Now THAT looks photoshopped.

    1. Title bar says "Firefox Setup 2.0.0.12" but the text in the dialog says "Firefox 3.0 Setup"
    2. 3.29 MB of 5.75 MB is 57% not 60%
    3. The actual Firefox 3 installer is over 7 MB


  • @vonNeumann said:

    You appear to be shopped. I can tell by the pixels.

    @DrJokepu said:

    so you wouldn't been laughing stock

    You speak england-language good for brain damage man, no?

     

    Congratulations for your totally pointless post, this must be the result of years of hard training. Contrary to your post, mine was actually intended to be funny. I know that I failed miserably, but hey, at least I tried. It was intended to satirize conspiracy theories like "Fake Moon Landing" etc where people actually insist on photos/videos being faked. Actually it is fairly believable that the guys at Mozilla screwed up something in the last minute as this wasn't the first occasion. Also, I don't give a damn which OS other people use. That mac thing supposed to be a joke too. I know, I fail at joking.

    Also, I have noticed my typo too that turned up to be an unfortunate grammar mistake, but I was a tad too late as the post editing deadline already expired by then. But then again, thank you for pointing it out and constructively suggesting a better grammar structure to a non-native speaking fellow forum reader.



  • @julmu said:

    A picture from the step-by-step instruction to install firefox 3:

    firefox


    Now THAT looks photoshopped.

    1. Title bar says "Firefox Setup 2.0.0.12" but the text in the dialog says "Firefox 3.0 Setup"
    2. 3.29 MB of 5.75 MB is 57% not 60%
    3. The actual Firefox 3 installer is over 7 MB
    But the big 2 is real!


  • @julmu said:

    1. 3.29 MB of 5.75 MB is 57% not 60%
    2. The actual Firefox 3 installer is over 7 MB
    Those could be IE WTFs though.




  • @seconddevil said:

     Pointless xkcd

     

    Thanks, but we all read XKCD and we hardly need someone to tag every thread with the relevant XKCD.



  • Most possibly 2.0.0.14 on screenshot and in the following link came from one source.

    http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Mozilla-Firefox-Final.shtml

    Title under linked page is 

    "Download Firefox 3.0 Final / 2.0.0.14 / 1.5.0.12 - The browser provides virus, popup and spyware protection in a simple, easy to use tabbed interface - Softpedia"

    Also pay attention to the "Last Updated" date:

    June 17th, 2008, 07:25 GMT



  • Why screenshot on OS X looks photoshoped:

    1) "... . Apple's rendering approach on Mac OS X ignores almost all the hints in a TrueType font, ..."

    2) http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

    3) <FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial>

    There are three primary axes to evaluate text rendering quality: contrast of the glyph

    renderings, fidelity to the original forms, and evenness of spacing. Until now, font

    rendering implementors have had to make a difficult tradeoff between these goals. It's

    straightforward to render glyph shapes and spacing accurately if you can tolerate a loss

    of contrast, as exhibited by the font rendering in Mac OS X. Similarly, applying font

    hinting techniques originally developed for bilevel rendering can improve contrast

    significantly, but at the cost of significant distortion of letterforms.

    http://www.artifex.com/FontFocus.pdf

    </FONT>


  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @seconddevil said:

     Pointless xkcd

     

    Thanks, but we all read XKCD and we hardly need someone to tag every thread with the relevant XKCD.

    People actually do that on the xkcd fora - the point is to remind you of it at an opportune moment, not to imply you wouldn't have encountered it before in the course of reading the comic.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @seconddevil said:

     Pointless xkcd

     

    Thanks, but we all read XKCD and we hardly need someone to tag every thread with the relevant XKCD.

    And yet there is clearly a burning desire to do exactly that. What we need is a browser plugin that will run any given post through a natural language parser, then automatically bring up the most appropriate xkcd. But then, on second thought, users of that plugin would still post xkcd replies for the "benefit" of those who hadn't installed the plugin, so never mind.



  • @dgvid said:

    But then, on second thought, users of that plugin would still post xkcd replies for the "benefit" of those who hadn't installed the plugin, so never mind.
     

    I agree, sometimes you just cannot stop this kind of ridiculous behavior. 

    But hopefully we can remind people that there is no need for this when they do it.



  •  Oh, please. xkcd is boring.



  • @Sintetix said:

    Why screenshot on OS X looks photoshoped:

    And why it doesn't, under closer scrutiny:

    Zooming in, you can see the (LCD-targeted) multi-channel antialias, visible as weird coloured pixels around the text edges. This cannot be Photoshopped, unless you actually made the button with real text and took a screenshot (or took every real letter against that green background, and cut & paste it char by char like a kidnapper's ransom demand.).



  • @DrJokepu said:

    @vonNeumann said:

    You appear to be shopped. I can tell by the pixels.

    @DrJokepu said:

    so you wouldn't been laughing stock

    You speak england-language good for brain damage man, no?

     

    Congratulations for your totally pointless post, this must be the result of years of hard training. Contrary to your post, mine was actually intended to be funny. I know that I failed miserably, but hey, at least I tried. It was intended to satirize conspiracy theories like "Fake Moon Landing" etc where people actually insist on photos/videos being faked. Actually it is fairly believable that the guys at Mozilla screwed up something in the last minute as this wasn't the first occasion. Also, I don't give a damn which OS other people use. That mac thing supposed to be a joke too. I know, I fail at joking.

    Also, I have noticed my typo too that turned up to be an unfortunate grammar mistake, but I was a tad too late as the post editing deadline already expired by then. But then again, thank you for pointing it out and constructively suggesting a better grammar structure to a non-native speaking fellow forum reader.

    Sarcasm tags man, sarcasm tags!

    See the example below:



  • @Random832 said:

    People actually do that on the xkcd fora - the point is to remind you of it at an opportune moment, not to imply you wouldn't have encountered it before in the course of reading the comic.
     

    People actually do that in church - the point is to remind you
    of it at an opportune moment, not to imply you wouldn't have
    encountered it before in the course of reading the bible. With that in mind, I hope you were offering that as an explanation, not a justification.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I agree, sometimes you just cannot stop this kind of ridiculous behavior. 

    But hopefully we can remind people that there is no need for this when they do it.

     

     MPS, let the guy do whatever he wants.  It's a free country for god's sake.



  • @Nandurius said:

    @Random832 said:

    People actually do that on the xkcd fora - the point is to remind you of it at an opportune moment, not to imply you wouldn't have encountered it before in the course of reading the comic.
     

    People actually do that in church - the point is to remind you
    of it at an opportune moment, not to imply you wouldn't have
    encountered it before in the course of reading the bible. With that in mind, I hope you were offering that as an explanation, not a justification.

     

    Wait... there is xkcd comics in the bible?  No wonder there is a cult following of the comic! 



  • My point was, if it's accepted behavior in the xkcd fora, where literally everyone reads the comic, whereas here there may be people who don't read it, then clearly "everyone (as in - in theory a large majority; in practice, at least two people: you and the person who posted it) reads xkcd" isn't a valid reason to complain when someone posts one (which doesn't happen nearly as often as you seem to think) here, and you're just being a prick.



  • @Random832 said:

    My point was, if it's accepted behavior in the xkcd fora, where literally everyone reads the comic, whereas here there may be people who don't read it, then clearly "everyone (as in - in theory a large majority; in practice, at least two people: you and the person who posted it) reads xkcd" isn't a valid reason to complain when someone posts one here
    You're assuming that the practices of the xkcd forum are somehow correct, which is not a point I would grant you. Does anyone understand basic debating here?



  • @Random832 said:

    My point was, if it's accepted behavior in the xkcd fora, where literally everyone reads the comic, whereas here there may be people who don't read it, then clearly "everyone (as in - in theory a large majority; in practice, at least two people: you and the person who posted it) reads xkcd" isn't a valid reason to complain when someone posts one (which doesn't happen nearly as often as you seem to think) here, and you're just being a prick.

    xkcd is not funny and posting it only proves you have nothing useful to say.  If the xkcd artist jumped off a cliff, should Alex follow him over?  If the xkcd readers trespassed onto private property and were threatened by the owner with a shotgun, would you do it too?  Oh, wait...

     

    Also, for the love of god, stop saying "fora".  This is not Rome.  Say "forums" or Samuel L. Jackson will come to your house and shoot you.



  • @bstorer said:

    Does anyone understand basic debating here?
     

    Obviously you don't.  He was just trying to say that someone can post a xkcd link or pic if they want to!  WTF IS THE BIG DEAL?



  • The real WTF is the entire Firefox Download Day that Mozilla seemed completely unprepared for despite the fact that they hyped it every chance they had.

     Their servers crashed, so people were passing around unofficial mirrors for hours before the real downloads were available. They had bad links to Firefox 2 to go along with the FF 2 images,  and half the Internet was confused about their bizarre choice of time to start Download Day.



  • @Dude said:

    @bstorer said:

    Does anyone understand basic debating here?
     

    Obviously you don't.  He was just trying to say that someone can post a xkcd link or pic if they want to!  WTF IS THE BIG DEAL?

    No, he was trying to justify it, and he did a poor job of it. Just like you've done a poor job of reading.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.