Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Lateralus · May 19, 2004, 08:19 PM

Finally, after almost 15 months since 0.7 hit, Camino 0.8 has been released. You can get it from the Mozilla Camino page, here.

I have been using the nightly builds of Camino 0.7+ for the past month, and have been so impressed that I am now using Camino exclusively.

It is great to see Camino back in development, and to see it progressing so quickly.

Developer · May 19, 2004, 08:58 PM

That's the 0.8 beta which had been released 3 days ago already. Not yet the 0.8 final.

gorickey · May 19, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
That's the 0.8 beta which had been released 3 days ago already. Not yet the 0.8 final.

Exactly. There are a few posts about 0.8b already...

madmacgames · May 19, 2004, 10:56 PM

there is no need to say 0.8 beta. It is redundant. a final cannot be until at least 1.0, so anything less than that has to be a beta... of coarse, IMO.

Catfish_Man · May 19, 2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
there is no need to say 0.8 beta. It is redundant. a final cannot be until at least 1.0, so anything less than that has to be a beta... of coarse, IMO.

This is a beta of the beta then.

gorickey · May 19, 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
...a final cannot be until at least 1.0...

Says who?

dole · May 20, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by gorickey:
Says who?

Some guy.

madmacgames · May 20, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
This is a beta of the beta then.

isn't that an alpha?

Catfish_Man · May 20, 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
isn't that an alpha?

The usual definition is that an alpha isn't feature complete or tested thoroughly, and a beta isn't tested thoroughly. The Camino releases are tested fairly thoroughly (and based on code from the non-beta Mozilla 1.7), but they aren't feature complete yet. The betas of the Camino releases are more like alphas in other programs, although much more stable than most alphas due to most of the code base being post-beta. The nightly builds are more like alphas, and range from stable to unusable.

bmedina · May 20, 2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
The usual definition is that an alpha isn't feature complete or tested thoroughly, and a beta isn't tested thoroughly. The Camino releases are tested fairly thoroughly (and based on code from the non-beta Mozilla 1.7), but they aren't feature complete yet.

Well, features are always added to Mozilla, so does that mean 1.7 is still a beta?

It's best to leave it up to the developer what they want to designate beta/alpha/final. As such, this is Camino 0.8 beta.

madmacgames · 09:26 PM

Originally posted by bmedina:
Well, features are always added to Mozilla, so does that mean 1.7 is still a beta?

The Mozilla group seems to refer to what most people normally consider "betas" as "previews" or "technology previews"

Mozilla 1.7 is not final and is still in a beta state. That state is currently at RC 2 (release candidate 2). Please lets not argue if it is a "beta" or not. Developers often refer to "betas" as many different names (the betas of Windows OSes are called RCs). The Mozilla group describes the RC2 as "the second testing candidate".

All of the other current projects besides 1.6 final are pre-1.0 "betas". The Mozilla group calls them "technology previews". Firefox 0.8, Thunderbird 0.6, and Camino 0.8. All carry basically the same disclaimer:
"xxxxxx is a Technology Preview:
While this software may work well enough to be relied upon as your primary browser, we make no guarantees of its performance or stability in its pre-1.0 state."

They are all just "previews" in their pre-1.0 states. Which is pretty much exactly what I said in my first post. Camino 0.8 is just a "beta" or "pre-release" of Camino 1.0 final. So when they say "0.8 beta" it comes across as the 0.8 beta release of the 1.0 final release. It doesn't come across as the beta release of the 0.8 beta release of the 1.0 final, because that really doesn't make that much sense in the 1st place and nobody that I know thinks "oh yeah the beta to the beta" when you see 0.x beta).

superfula · May 21, 2004, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by madmacgames:
there is no need to say 0.8 beta. It is redundant. a final cannot be until at least 1.0, so anything less than that has to be a beta... of coarse, IMO.

BAHAHA!! That's funny. There is no all encompassing rule that says a certain build number has to be a beta. Look at Aquasition (sp?). It's on verson 109ish. It definately isn't worth a V109 label, but that's what he chose. A beta isn't a beta because of the version number. A beta is just that because the programmer chooses to call it a beta.