Twitter Bootstrap 2.0 pre-release demo

Please note that this is a demo (outdated too) and not really authorized by the project itself. It's unfortunate that some folks feel a need to put something up so quickly.<p>If you want to look at the current status of 2.0 and help test the release, please look at the 2.0-wip branch: <a href="https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/tree/2.0-wip" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/tree/2.0-wip</a><p>The team expects to release something in a few weeks.

It bugs the hell out of me that they apply styling to vanilla tables. I wish they'd namespace it with a class because it messes up things like datepickers on JQuery-UI.

I've been working heavily with 2.0 for a couple of months now and it is a huge improvement over 1.x. I've converted 90% of a $20 template that I bought over to it and it cut out a ton of bad css (you get what you pay for I guess).<p>It is still a bit in flux (ie: they just renamed a bunch of css for alerts and tables), but if you don't mind tracking the progress (made easy with your own git branch), it is a great basis to start a website from.

Glad to see there are some variables for setting things like the navbar colors - I just started adapting a site to the 1.4 version and had to start out by changing all of the rules individually so I could implement a different color scheme.<p>Edit: Actually, I take it back as there are still hardcoded colors and the assumption that you are using white as the text. Would be nice if it was based off a few variables instead.

The link just redirects to the 1.4.0 version of bootstrap.

I'm just getting redirected to the original bootstrap page at <a href="http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/</a>

I built <a href="https://www.becouplydates.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.becouplydates.com/</a> on the 2.0-wip branch. We've been very pleased with it.

This isn't an official release yet.

I just used this bootstrap, to make this: <a href="http://www.piparollcall.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.piparollcall.com/</a><p>pretty awesome. very small when minified, even without less.<p>love it!

it just takes me to twitter bootstrap github, is the site down?

I put up a call-to-action site for sopa the other day. Due to the timely nature of the site, we had to get it up fast. Ended up using bootstrap for the first time. Was highly impressed - we were able to get a decent looking site up in around an hour. Looking forward to 2.0.

I still prefer <a href="http://getskeleton.com" rel="nofollow">http://getskeleton.com</a> as a boilerplate over Twitter Bootstrap. Bootstrap tries to do too much. Skeleton does just enough to be useful and then gets out of the way.

The release data of Bootstrap 2.0 has been announced: <a href="https://dev.twitter.com/blog/open-source-summit-bootstrap" rel="nofollow">https://dev.twitter.com/blog/open-source-summit-bootstrap</a>

Why are CSS frameworks becoming so prominent only now? Why weren't they coming out as much years ago? It seems like they would have been even more useful then.

Here are an alternative private link to bootstrap v2.0 <a href="http://mrtopf.de/bootstrap/docs/" rel="nofollow">http://mrtopf.de/bootstrap/docs/</a>

Look at <a href="http://bootstrap.io/Demo/BaseCss" rel="nofollow">http://bootstrap.io/Demo/BaseCss</a> in FF (PC) -- anyone else see anything odd?

Does anyone else see the "Example Blockquotes" section all f<i></i>*ed up or is it just me. (FF 9, Ubuntu)

The link no longer works. Redirects to v1.x.

is there any changelog for 2.0?

I'd love for someone smarter than me to compare Zurb Foundation and this. It seems like Twitter has a few except things (pill-button callouts, etc), but Foundation seems VERY responsive-focused whereas Twitter Bootstrap seems to have added responsiveness in.