1. Actually RC2 Identified itself just as "1.5" this might just be RC3

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Stephen

2. I would say you are at 1.5 RC3. See this URI: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Gabe

3. It's release candidate 3. There's an excellent chance it will *become* the official release, but not there yet.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Paul Roub

4. RC2 identifies as FireFox 1.5 and today they have released RC3 which again identifies as 1.5.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Dipesh Panchal

5. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

1.5 official is not out yet.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by sidd

6. My mistake. I think it's rather misleading for Firefox to identify the uodate simply as 1.5 when it's actually the RC3 version. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll update the post later today when I get back to my PC (using the Treo right now).

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

7. Asa, one of the core Firefox team members, explained when RC2 was released why the RC isn't labeled as an RC.

See http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2005/11/rc2_update.html

"The build you have, if not problems are found, will be Firefox 1.5. If we called it RC2 in the actual client, it wouldn't be a real release candidate because we'd have to make changes to the name and then create new builds."

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by andy

8. Hi, Marc,

Mozilla is saying this can't be true. Please e-mail me back if you can. Just confirming that you posted this and wondering what the deal is. Thanks.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Liz

9. Liz:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say Mozilla is saying "this can't be true". It's pretty clear they don't label their builds as release candidates just in case they decide to release them. That's a peculiar way of handling things in my experience but I'm certainly willing to accept the practice.

Andy:

I still don't see any reason why their update tool can't inform the user that what they're about to update to is a Release Candidate. That's a trvial bit of programming and is much more accurate communication about what is about to be installed on the user's system than simply calling it 1.5 (which to me implies it's an official release).

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

10. Marc:

In your response to me you seem to be contradicting your response to Liz. As Asa explains, if the RC were labeled as such in the application itself, it would require a new build to be the final release, and therefore different from what was released as an RC. The Mozilla organization has decided that there should be zero difference between a final release candidate and the actual final release.

How often does MS issue a final release candidate, weeks or even months before RTM, with hundreds of changes or fixes between the RC and the RTM build? Those changes don't get widely tested. MS's interpretation of "beta" is closer to most OSS projects' version of "alpha", and MS's RCs are more like OSS betas. There should be zero difference between the final release candidate and the final release.

IOW, for OSS, beta = feature-complete, iron out bugs and RC = "we think this is really, really close, find the remaining showstoppers we may have missed". For MS, beta usually means "features still subject to change" and RC means "ok, this needs to get tested by more people now."

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by andy

11. Andy:

Not really. All I'm asking is that the update notification message in the application accurately reflect what I'm about to download. As I said earlier, I find the naming convention a bit curious but I do understand and accept the reasoning behind it. I posted this blog entry in good faith, assuming I had downloaded an official release. A clearer message when I asked Firefox if there were any updates would have avoided this confusion entirely.

I'm neither condemning nor condoning any company's practice in naming/numbering their releases. I *am* asking for more clarity in communication with the end user before they install an update from within the application. That's all.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

12. So what's new in FireFox 1.5 RC3? I didn't notice big improvement over 1.0.7. It would be nice if FireFox can add something that is available in Flock.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Bellevue Redmond web design

13. Marc....

Tim from Digitalicious here. I read your comments on my blog, and I edited my post as well. Heheh. No offense. If you have the time, you can read my edit. :)

Right Here

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Tim

14. I too have the same release and therez no hint that it's a RC3. Not even the about: shouws RC3 anywhere. RC2 there used be a difference though it was shown as 1.5, ststcounter to me reported its as 1.4. Confusing things here - I know !!
But am on 1.5 - I'd like to belive that. Its nice n fast for sure.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Prasoon

15. I have RC3. 1.5 official came out yesterday, but "checking for updates" doesn't tell me there's anything to update. Should I update manually, or is the official release identical to RC3 in all but name?

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jon

16. Jon: Manually invoking the "Check for Updates" feature did nothing for me. I manually downloaded the official release from the Mozilla site and installed it. A commenter on another post stated that the RC3 and official versions are identical.

Posted at 5:16AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Marc Orchant

17. I've uninstalled Firefox, but cannot get rid of the google address bar in my toolbar...and because my computer cannot 'find' firefox (as a browser) I cannot use my toolbar. 'course I can open IE, but I have my address bar on the bottom and want to use it!

Help! Need to get rid of the "G" address bar.

Posted at 4:54PM on Jan 1st 2006 by Ellen