Slashdot Mirror

SVG is very useful on its own, but having an open alternative to Flash would be even better. SMIL, a W3C Recommended standard for adding timing and animation to things like SVG and XHTML, is that alternative.

The Mozilla team has (wrongly, IMO) decided to leave full SMIL implementation to plugins. However, the W3C has designated a subset of the SMIL 2.0 modules as being suitable for integration with XHTML, which is obviously functionality that belongs in the browser and is already available in IE6.

To keep Mozilla competitive, allow SVG to reach its full potential, and help kill Flash, I'd like to encourage everyone to vote for two Bugzilla bugs:

• XHTML+SMIL support in mozilla
• Implement SVG (SMIL) Animation

If you don't already have a Bugzilla account, you can get one painlessly -- if you use Mozilla you owe it to the community to help direct the project.

The article mentions several ongoing SVG projects. Worth mentioning is Mozilla's efforts in this arena.

Not too many new features? Implementation of CSS3 opacity is a pretty nifty deal. I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

Firefox roadmap. Plus, it's been announced on mozillazine.org in even greater detail.

i think it must be cuz those speed increases are similar to the speed gain they mentioned in the bugzilla.

Apparently, the simple act of selecting the message activates the code.

Apparently that feature is in the Outlook and IE combination only, based on their bugs.

We Mozilla users wonder why anyone uses those anymore.

That's why I love Thunderbird, you can view messages as plain text only, but you also have the option of using HTML if you need it.

It seems more and more questions are ending up having the same answer. Given that you have to select an E-mail to delete it, how are users supposed to protect themselves from this one?

What a stange question to be asked on Slashdot. I figure everyone else here but the poster know the answer. One hint. It starts with a moz and ends with a zilla and can be found at www.mozilla.org

Seriously - most of the questions end-users give me regarding their frustration with the internet are answered with that simple website. We do now have a choice of what we can use.... sooner or later we will have to just stop being suprised that anything starting with the word Outlook is a dangerous way to receive email, and abandon it for something safe.

yeah you can use outlook and get worms or you can use mozilla and sell your soul to the devil

I've said this before, SWITCHING FROM WINDOWS TO LINUX WILL NOT ELIMINATE THE PROBLEM.
If a user does not know how to run a windows machine (keeping up to date on patches, running antivirus software, etc) then please explain to me how they'll be able to admin a linux machine. The truth of the matter is, they can't and they won't. The ranting of *nix fanbois aside, the problem exists between chair and keyboard. The email viruses that require you to open a password-protected .zip file prove that.

I'm certainly not trying to hold up windows as the platform of choice, because it sure as hell isn't mine; but regardless of your operating system of choice, if you're clueless you're clueless; and unless you fix that first, you're not going to fix the overall problem.

And not to mention with the great number of choices of thunderbird's extensions
including an excellent Calendar extension compatible with iCal, makes thunderbird a good replacement for Outlook and OE.

Don't use Outlook/OE.

There are tons of other options out there that aren't vulnerable, such as Mozilla and Thunderbird.

There are a couple bugs on context menu hijacking (backend, firefox work, seamonkey work, etc) but if interested, you should start out at bug 117532. Links from slashdot are forbidden, so you'll have to copy and paste:

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117532

Hadn't noticed the hijacking here (Firefox on linux). I was curious, so I tried searching bugzilla for the context menu hijacking, but nothing jumped out at me. Do you have a link handy to a report of the bug? Here's the bugzilla page if it's appropriate. TIA

bugzilla: context menu.

Camino 0.8 is on the way too.

22 January 2004: We are in the process of driving the Camino 0.8 buglist to zarro boogs. We will be branching off Mozilla 1.7 (now scheduled for April) and will release shortly after. We expect Camino 0.8 to be faster and even more solid than 0.7...

I encourage everyone interested Mozilla to look at this link and think about what they are supporting.

Good ole mozilla? have they gotten rid of offensive icons and imagery yet? I personally refuse to contribute to it until they take that crap out. It's unfortunate that they would continute to use such blatantly divisive imagery. Good thing for Konqueror and Safari or I would be stuck with the IE crap. Interestingly enough, the newst update to Safari (from OS X 10.3.3) eliminates all of the minor problems i've had with DHTML on some sites. Given how much faster and leaner KHTML based browsers are, I don't think I will ever need to use a gecko browser again. I think it is high time someone came out with a native KHTML browser for Windows (like safari) , it would give Mozilla a run for its money!

Is this really the case any longer with Firefox?

All the gecko browsers should render pages the same. So its not so much FireFox' adoption rate, as the whole group of browsers.

1. Code to Any Browser.
2. Code to Internet Explorer.
3. Code to The Mozilla Engine.

4. Basically, the Any Browser campaign says to write everything to HTML 4.01 "Strict". Use CSS for all layout. Mozilla development fits this very nicely. Check out Eric Meyer's CSS/EDGE. Everything at CSS/Edge fits with the "AnyBrowser" way of doing things, but yet not everything at CSS/Edge will load with Internet Explorer.

   In my own less complex pages, I've found that I can make a page load /similarly/ in both, but I can't use HTML "Strict", unless Internet Explorer starts to choke (throwing everything to the left edge when I wanted it centered, etc.).

   So, as the above post mentioned, you end up writing to Internet Explorer, but you loose compatability with some "text readers for the blind", lynx, etc.

   Ah, but who cares if a blind person can read your web page. Well, maybe your web page isn't just a collection of photos, maybe you have something of interest. Then, you should care.

   Bottom line, the user will think that you're web page is broken if it doesn't load in I.E., and you loose readers this way. So, you end up with a web page that is a little more sparse, and less feature rich than you wanted.

You can change Mozilla's splash screen if you really want.

How can something with the same kernel, and the same ancestry go the other way

Because Mozilla exists "to preserve choice and innovation on the Internet" and their browser isn't loaded with corporate crap.

You're looking at the README for the alpha. Try here instead.

And also, what a good looking, clean design for the README page. Kudos !!!.

If you only want a web browser - Mozilla FireFox is already *much* faster than the standard Mozilla... Fast enough to run on a Windoze box!

5% decrease in binary size? According to Mozilla's site it says:
"Mozilla's binary size has been decreased almost 2% since Mozilla 1.6."
Is the binary size in the summary from a different version?
One thing that I'd like to see mozilla mail do, is have the address book open, like in thunderbird. I don't even use the address book in mozilla since it's such a pain. Am I just missing something?

I'm pretty sure you mean Firefox.

I use Enigmail on Mozilla Thunderbird. Enigmail uses GNU Privacy Gaurd (GPG) to do the actual PGP related stuff (which means that other applications that also use GPG have access to the same keyring and trust rules). GPG is a little hard to use, but I don't typically interact with it except when I need to setup something. Enigmail takes care of all the signing, verifying, encrypting, and decrypting for me. When it needs my passphrase, it asks me. When it can't find a key to verify, it prompts to download it from the keyserver. The only thing it doesn't do is help manage trust relationships.

It takes a little to setup and understand, but once it's working, it is just as efficient as regular email, and certainly doesn't triple the amount of time I spend working on email. I'm sure there are other solutions for other mail clients, and if not then you should lean on the vendor to provide them.

I don't know why people are so averse to using security technologies when it comes to email. They don't have any problem accepting SSL to secure HTTP or using ssh over telnet (well, most people don't). But all I can say is that the solution begins with you. Only you can prevent spam, lophophore. Hmm... maybe that would make a good public service announcement :)

Moderators: Modding me OT is petty and a serious waste of mod points.

Mozilla is anything but free software

Richard M. Stallman, inventor of the concept of Free Software, and the Free Software Foundation as an organization, disagree.

Yes, you can get the source code, but their license is NOT GPL.

Somewhat true, but, they're actively moving the code to be covered by the GPL. Most of the code is already triple-licensed under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL; only a few fragments aren't available at the moment.

Mozilla Thunderbird uses an arrow-pointing-into-the-folder icon.

Don't know how he got the virus though, he's behind a firewall (NAT router), he doesn't go through much email.

Don't know how he got the virus though, he's behind a firewall (NAT router), he doesn't go through much email.

If you are installing a firefox binary on linux, you need to be running i686 to use the binary provided by mozilla (well, you can probably use it on i(3|4|5)86, but the official build is targeted for i686). If you install the debian version of firefox, you can install it on any debian linux system, running on any of the following platforms: alpha, i386 (and up), ia64, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc, arm, or hppa.

Most of the changes we're talking about here are changes to get firefox to build on these 9 platforms. They're aren't many functional changes being made. The functional changes that do occur are, for example, some debian bookmarks added to the default install.

Debian usually just changes things to work with their packaging system, to move files to how they should go in the Debian filesystem, fix minor bugs and work better on all their architectures. None of these really change the core character of the browser, so I don't think it's wrong to still call it FireFox.

In fact, even if they did choose the later name, I don't think Mozilla's scheme even allows them to say it's "powered by FireFox"...

No need for either.

XUL already exists. XAML is a XUL feel-alike, like C# is to Java.

Pah. It always takes Microsoft to bring already-existing ideas into the spotlight.

In fact, they wanted to create their own legal obstacles to using the name.

We only want to create obstacles for those who would _ab_use the name. If you want to call your modified version "Firefox", get in touch and let's talk. For unmodified binaries, distribute away - there's no restrictions there. See our licensing page.

Gerv

Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL which is very different.

That is not true, according to Mozilla.org's licensing policy. They intend to license everything under a three licenses where possible: the GPL, LGPL, and MPL. You could make a GPL derivative of most of Mozilla's code (with a few exceptions), you just can't fork your modifications back into the tree without licensing it under the LGPL and MPL as well.

Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL which is very different.

That is not true, according to Mozilla.org's licensing policy. They intend to license everything under a three licenses where possible: the GPL, LGPL, and MPL. You could make a GPL derivative of most of Mozilla's code (with a few exceptions), you just can't fork your modifications back into the tree without licensing it under the LGPL and MPL as well.

Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL which is very different.

That is not true, according to Mozilla.org's licensing policy. They intend to license everything under a three licenses where possible: the GPL, LGPL, and MPL. You could make a GPL derivative of most of Mozilla's code (with a few exceptions), you just can't fork your modifications back into the tree without licensing it under the LGPL and MPL as well.

The second. This isn't just a logo thing: look at the Bugzilla guidelines which specifically exclude bug reports on the Debian package (due to the number of things changed by their patches).

I've read your stuff, know of the visual identity team, and thank you for your work (UI is important to me), but are you sure you have the right authority to say these things?

I was under the assumption (from the 03/24/04 minutes) that the --enable-official-branding flag could only be set if you had foundation approval. It seems silly to have the flag that anyone can (and should) use on their builds instead of having it just built in automatically.

Obviously nobodys going to get into a fuss about personal builds. We're talking builds that get distributed in Mozilla's name. Debian can't just use the flag and compile, because they have to be approved to use that artwork.

Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of either the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead of those above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only under the terms of either the GPL or the LGPL, and not to allow others to use your version of this file under the terms of the MPL, indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice and other provisions required by the GPL or the LGPL. If you do not delete the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file under the terms of any one of the MPL, the GPL or the LGPL.

The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit.

Uh, the point is they (Mozilla) wanted to use a license which allowed users to have access to the source code. Anything above and beyond that is reading into the motives of the developers (in this case, originally the Netscape company) and supposing all open source developers have some sort of unified altruistic mission. There is no single open source movement. Open Source describes a licensing scheme and, perhaps, to a degree a programming methodology (though that's a stretch). Thus each organization or company which releases software under an open source license can do so for many reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean they do it to "provide a common base" or that "all people can profit."

Some organizations and individuals have made Open Source into a sort of social-political movement. The foremost of these is the FSF. But not everyone agrees with them, nor needs to.

Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free.

Mozilla does not use the GPL. It uses the MPL which is very different. Additionally, Mozilla is not part of the FSF, is not "free software" in this sense, and can have completely different goals from the rest of the so-called open source movement.

The first mistake most people make when evalutating open source software or the individuals and organizations which produce such software is to assume there exists a united effort with a single goal. Such a case is just about as likely as all humanity having a common purpose and single goal.

More on this subject at my blog

Yes, I realize that, and you'll notice that I used the word "Involvement" rather than another that might imply ownership. According to their Press Release, they are still involved with AOL.

We're grateful for the past and ongoing support of America Online, and we look forward to continuing to work with AOL over coming years.

Besides all this, there is an element of influence that AOL has had on the foundation after having owned the Mozilla Project for many years. According to the slashdot post you linked to, the Mozilla Foundation considers it their responsibility to "raise funds to ensure Mozilla's long-term survival". Obviously, they have decided that threating legal action is a good step towards that goal. That kind of thinking certainly demostrates a great deal of Corporate America influence.

Just use Firefox/Mozilla and download the adblock plugin. Then you can block any content you want. If these ads are coming from http://ads.foo.com, you can block it with *ads.foo.com* or *.foo.com*, etc. If for some strange reason you want to use IE, you can still stop this junk. Under your internet options, go to the security tab and click Custom Level and select prompt for all the Active X options. Then when this thing tries to run just deny it. There are other ways as well. For example, you can put dummy entries in your hosts file for the servers that these ads are coming from, block it with a firewall, etc.

To be honest, before I used firefox, or phoenix as it was called back then, I very rarely used google. However, since firefox has a built in 'google function' as I call it (this works by typing google [searchtopic] in the address bar and hitting enter) I must use it around 10 to 20 times a day.
Looking back on things, I don't know how I ever got anything done without firefox or google...

Three words: IMAP, FastMail, Thunderbird

I am beginning to think we can't ever get rid of spam through legal measures. I am not an expert on the subject... an I admit that I haven't paid that much attention to it. IT just feels like this is gonna be another case where the US or any other country can't control the global internet. We make it illegal and it isn't going to go away... it might go overseas...

I am convinced that the answer lies in spam filtration. If we stay one technological step ahead of the spammers, they will have to find some other way to make money. I suppose the next problem will be that not all email providers will implement the filters.. but having free software out there to do it will surely increase the number of filtered servers out there.

I think that clients with built in filters (see like stuff from mozilla are a good option). If more people would use these type of clients, it would really hurt spammers.

I have an email address that I have been using for a while now and I have not yet recieved ANY spam (thanks to the good admins of that server I am sure). So if more servers were like that one spam could be a thing of the past.

------- Additional Comment #4 From Jesse Ruderman 2002-12-08 18:22 PST [reply] -------
I agree that there should be a confirmation dialog for Set as Wallpaper. The lack of a confirmation dialog makes the Set as Wallpaper feature less useful to me, because I keep accidentally blowing away my carefully chosen Phoenix Wallpaper.bmp when trying to save porn images.

This is just another case of the FireFox developers staying ahead of the curve. Well done boys. Well done.

> In my opinion everbody should use Firebird or Konqueror... =)

I'm sorry, but Firebird isn't a browser. Perhaps you meant FireFox?

Konqueror is part of KDE, which isn't available for Windows. Windows still has about 90%+ of the internet users, and nobody will switch OS simply to use another browser (especially when you consider most won't even download another browser)

And last, you forgot Opera in your wish-list. They may be commercial (oh no, run, it's not free!) but their browser sure kicks serious ass. Firefox is nice, but Opera is still superior (IMHO).