Slashdot Mirror

Now that I've been running moz, I almost forget about pop-ups/unders.

I agree that the flashing and shaking ads are horribly annoying. I work at filtering those too.
One especially bad one last autumn was the jumping-jack woman on weather.com

Flashy, animated image ads on websites are just about as annoying about as much as pop-ups. Fortunately the Mozilla family of web browsers allows the user to block images from specific servers, which seems to work well in targeting ad-serving servers (doubleclick.com being one of the worst) yet leaving the ornamental graphics intact.

Thanks to this, I've pretty much squashed the "Get 1,000 Smileys Free" advertisements.

Now if there were only a way to block certain Flash advertisements and still be able to watch Strong Bad answering his e-mail.

This is a known bug in the Mozilla rendering engine. I doubt it'll be fixed anytime soon.

Hm, ok, makes sense. Upon looking further, I discovered a FAQ about it, and a discussion about making it nicer.

I'm still not quite sure why this is still there.. presumably the bugs that allow malicious scripts to even access these directories should be fixed (really, it should have been designed so they could never exist in the first place.. but now i'm starting to step on some toes, and to be honest i don't know anything about mozilla development).

One of the good points made on the discussion on bugzilla is that the script kiddies only find this a minor annoyance, and in fact probably enjoy working around it (since they've defeated some security mechanism), while the network administrators find it a big hinderance that causes them to spend time that could be better spent doing other work.

Hm, ok, makes sense. Upon looking further, I discovered a FAQ about it, and a discussion about making it nicer.

I'm still not quite sure why this is still there.. presumably the bugs that allow malicious scripts to even access these directories should be fixed (really, it should have been designed so they could never exist in the first place.. but now i'm starting to step on some toes, and to be honest i don't know anything about mozilla development).

One of the good points made on the discussion on bugzilla is that the script kiddies only find this a minor annoyance, and in fact probably enjoy working around it (since they've defeated some security mechanism), while the network administrators find it a big hinderance that causes them to spend time that could be better spent doing other work.

"I guess I was all too subtley pointing out the irony that a so-called "hacker" website can only write a page that can be rendered in IE!"

Yeah... except that this guy just said that it works fine under 1.4. Workes fine for me with Mozilla 1.5 and Firebird 0.7.

"You beratted me for having "old" "ancient" software and went on to compare my Moz 1.3 (9 months old) with software, the newest of which is 6 years old."

No, I berated you for complaining about something not working on a browser that's 3 point versions back from the newest available (about versions back if you count all the x.x.x, alpha, beta, and RCs). Also, the newest version is not six months old, it's three days old (as of the time of this writing). The version before that, 1.5.1, had been released on November 26th. Did you ever bother to look at the Mozilla web site before making that claim?

"Given the qualitly of the code the Moz team generates now, I think it was reasonalbe to think it was the page, not the browser."

So you thought it better to publicly dismiss the HOPE conference because if it doesn't work in all versions of Mozilla, it's not worth the time? Could they have used a simpler web page? Sure; but they also could have put the whole thing into a text file hosted on the web server. They chose instead to use something that your (older, as in not one of the newer ones) web browser either doesn't support, or otherwise had a problem rendering. Had you tried a new version of either Mozilla or Firebird before posting, your post probably would never had existed. The original post was tantamount to a Windows 95 user complaining that his new firewire hard drive isn't working, and thus is a pile of junk, without ever having tried it on another computer with a newer or more advanced OS. Yes, Windows 95 is chronologically far older than Mozilla 1.3, but in the Mozilla development world, that 9 months is a vast and hugely significant time period.

In short, it's time for an upgrade, yes? Try 1.4.1, it works well.

I knew that Mozilla overbloated (kitchen sink anyone?)

Kitchen sink indeed.

Really? Well check out bug 76831 Seems to me that sloooooow startup of this monstrosity is a long-standing problem. I have never noticed the problem with FB/TB, but maybe I've been just lucky.

Could you persuade your boss to upgrade to the latest version of Netscape?

I would recommend diving into the world of Mozilla. They offer a couple of awesome tools for Javascript and DOM debugging. Check out the following: Venkman Javascript Debugger DOM Inspector Mozilla Firebird Specifically with Firebird, after you have it installed, go check out some of the available extensions at texurizer.net/firebird/extensions and download some of the cool extensions like the 'Web Developers Toolbar'. These pieces of software have proved invaluable to my productivity! I have used them to debug javascript, XUL and everything in between. Good luck!

I would recommend diving into the world of Mozilla. They offer a couple of awesome tools for Javascript and DOM debugging. Check out the following: Venkman Javascript Debugger DOM Inspector Mozilla Firebird Specifically with Firebird, after you have it installed, go check out some of the available extensions at texurizer.net/firebird/extensions and download some of the cool extensions like the 'Web Developers Toolbar'. These pieces of software have proved invaluable to my productivity! I have used them to debug javascript, XUL and everything in between. Good luck!

My personal recommendation would be to get it from a package provided by your distro. Otherwise, compile it yourself--it's not as hard as it seems. The Mozilla Detailed Unix Build Instructions go through everything you would need to do. Just add 'ac_add_options --enable-xft'. And while you're at it, 'ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2'.

Other than that, check for a "contrib" directory to appear on the Mozilla FTP site

Clicking on links in Thunderbird doesn't send them to a broswer on *nix systems (OS X included).

Wow, who does this? That is so completely counter to the entire point of HTML standards...the entire concept of any kind of standards really. It's nice to see Mozilla gaining acceptance, but if it's okay for websites to dictate which browsers we can use, it's going to become an all IE all the time world.

I understand that practically speaking we can't always boycott websites that don't "play nice" but it should certainly be considered for websites where you have an alternative, or at least complain about how they're missing the point of standards in the first place.

I'm also in disbelief that Microsoft still haven't released a patch for the %00 bug in IE

There's a 'patch,' just not released by MS....d/l it here.

The Mozilla Document Object Model Inspector is very useful. It comes with Mozilla and Firebird.

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/inspector/

In addition to the Venkman JS debugger mentioned in a previous comment, Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird also include an excellent DOM inspector - very handy for page tweaking, "DHTML" or not.

Gecko was developed by netscape developers after the mozilla project was started... If you don't believe me, the source code for netscape was released (and the mozilla project started) march 31st 1998. The NGLayout project (which resulted in gecko) was started late 1998.

Monday 26th October 1998 (let's be specific here) was when Mozilla development switched to focus on NGLayout. However, the new rendering engine (originally called Raptor) started as an internal Netscape project in 1997.

Security is a job for all of us, not just Microsoft.

Yes, that's a nice spin -- it's your own fault when your computer has been successfully attacked, even if the vendor has known about the vulnerability for months.

The most important part about patching is that you have to do it. If something goes wrong, the vendor can blame you. You don't pay your virus scanner tax? Your fault. You don't pay for personal firewalling software? Again your fault. You don't apply that multi-megabyte security upgrade? Of course, it's your fault.

As long as hackers out there have the tuits to break into systems, security is everyone's business.

But if your basic infrastructure is broken, you can't fix it on your own. There's no workaround for gaping security holes in Internet Explorer, and Microsoft hasn't been able to deliver a patch to fix these.I nstead, they more and more "security researchers" end up on Microsoft's payroll and suddenly claim on public mailing lists that using Internet Explorer is safe as long as you use the right security settings.

By the way, Mozilla isn't better either (a number of unspecified security fixes in 1.6), and it looks as if the security audit has been stopped. But in contrast to Microsoft, they don't have to pay for the "this browser is safe to use" bullshit.

Yes, it was written from scratch at Netscape, but it predates the Mozilla project.

No, it doesn't. Gecko was developed by netscape developers after the mozilla project was started. The original intention of the mozilla project was to adapt ns4 to support web standards. When they realised it would be faster to rewrite the engine from scratch, they did. Then when they noticed the new engine was powerful enough to do the entire UI, not just the webpages, they rewrote the UI. It was a sort of cascade effect. Once the engine rewrite decision was made, it cascaded into rewriting everything. They still aimed for netscape 4 equivalency for mozilla 1.0, which at the time seemed smart, but in hindsight was not one of the brightest ideas, since netscape 4's design, though reasonable for the age it was created in, was horribly outdated by the time mozilla 1.0 was released. Hence the need for firebird, thunderbird, and so on.

If you don't believe me, the source code for netscape was released (and the mozilla project started) march 31st 1998. The NGLayout project (which resulted in gecko) was started late 1998.

I hope not. Creeping featuritis has been the death of too many fine pieces of software that were fine just the way they were.

I, however, hope somebody gets round to coding in a fix for this *major* missing feature which is stopping many people, including me, switching from Outlook Express to Thunderbird. *sigh*

Although the main site was completely unresponsive, and the primary mirrors as well, quite a few of the secondary mirrors were pretty good. The progeny link worked for me.

Unfortunately, Mozilla developers live under the strange delusion that users want less features and everything as plugins. They removed MNG support and refuse to include SVG-support in the default build. (I don't care wether it's not complete. The fastest way to make it complete is to get users and developers. The fastest way to get users is to include what is working in the default build)

To sum up, I've already given up on Mozilla in the long term. The rendering engine is still a bit better than Konqueror's, but with Konqueror getting better with each release and Mozilla stagnating (or even getting worse - see MNG support) it's just a matter of time till Konqueror overtakes Mozilla on the rendering engine, too.

If Mozilla would include SVG in the default build, it would be a great incentive to upgrade, it would give the SVG-format a big push and SVG-development would also get a big boost.

The problem is that Mozilla-leaders tend to follow the Mozilla-haters (who in general parrot some anti-Mozilla phrases like "too bloated") and ignore the real users.

Users hate to download plugins, users want a browser that can read as many formats as possible in the default-build.

The perfect Mozilla would be a Mozilla that:

• Comes with a Java-plugin preinstalled
• Comes with SVG-support, no matter how incomplete
• Comes with MNG-support
• Comes with Flash-plugin

Except for the Flash-plugin which might not be possible for legal reasons, everything else could be done today.

As Konqueror is getting SVG-support out of the box, I still have hope that Mozilla also includes the SVG-support it has. However I've given up on Mozilla being a leader in browser-technology. They refuse to be pioneers (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574) and want to be followers. Unfortunately, Mozilla will only include SVG-support after other browsers (like Konqueror) already have it. This is really sad, because Mozilla would have the possilities to be a leader.

Yup, it's in Thunderbird.

From the 0.4 release notes: "POP Accounts now support aging on the server."
At least I'm assuming that's what that refers to. I do know from experience that it is in TB though. Super handy for keeping the mailbox tidy.

Will quicklaunch make its way into the 'birds? Will they be able to share a common GRE to make launching of one faster if the other is running?

That's the plan of the XRE and GRE projects (which pages are outdated and I want updates from!!!)

The idea is to turn the XUL and Gecko rendering engines into a single standalone shared component - much like DirectX. It'll also turn Mozilla into a nice development platform for writing other little apps.

Will quicklaunch make its way into the 'birds? Will they be able to share a common GRE to make launching of one faster if the other is running?

That's the plan of the XRE and GRE projects (which pages are outdated and I want updates from!!!)

The idea is to turn the XUL and Gecko rendering engines into a single standalone shared component - much like DirectX. It'll also turn Mozilla into a nice development platform for writing other little apps.

Apparently, the tarball hasn't made it up yet. In the meantime, you might try downloading the latest Mozilla 1.6 branch tarball and then, if you feel like it, CVS updating.

As outlined in the Mozilla project roadmap , the Mozilla Firebird browser will eventually replace the Seamonkey browser as the premiere end-user browser from mozilla.org. As part of the journey towards that goal, from milestone 0.7 onward Firebird 0.x releases will occur at the same time (or approximately the same time). Firebird Roadmap

Yes, you heard it right. This release of Mozilla is significant ALSO in that it heralds an impending release of FireBird.

Of course, Firebird 0.8 was due out December 2003, so we're overdue for that anyways.

The roadmap originally had it due in December. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firebird/roadmap.h tml

I expect it'll be ready pretty soon. I have been using the trunk nightly builds and they seem really stable.

Don't forget the original kitchen sink. Too bad that it probably won't make it into Mozilla as an about: option.

If you are running one of their interim builds, there is a QA menu item built-in which details the QA process and other sordid details(i.e. how to submit a bug, daily CVS checkin status, etc.). Otherwise you can read more about the moz QA process here Mozzila QA Home Page

That is the impression I got from the roadmap too: "Deliver a Mozilla 1.4 milestone that can replace the 1.0 branch as the stable development path, then move on to make riskier changes during 1.5 and 1.6. The major changes after 1.4 involve switching to Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird ..."

Apparently "after 1.4" means several versions after 1.4. The Mozilla roadmap is as clear as mud (pretty diagrams though). The Firebird roadmap is much more concise.

That is the impression I got from the roadmap too: "Deliver a Mozilla 1.4 milestone that can replace the 1.0 branch as the stable development path, then move on to make riskier changes during 1.5 and 1.6. The major changes after 1.4 involve switching to Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird ..."

Apparently "after 1.4" means several versions after 1.4. The Mozilla roadmap is as clear as mud (pretty diagrams though). The Firebird roadmap is much more concise.

There was a bug in the 1.4-1.5 timeframe with rising GDI levels caused Mozilla to fail. I'm thinking you were effected. See Mozilla Bug 204374 and this thread at Antony Shen's forums.

What I'd like to know is: why are releases made with known Major bugs, and what does it take for a bug to get seen to and not sit in Bugzilla, ignored? It has certainly made me feel that there is little point in reporting any further bugs. Could someone explain Mozilla's QA process to me?

Its Free

Find a mirror here as the main download server is already dead.

When downloading this you should have a look at the mirrors list and find one near you.

http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html

"where 8 windows open immediately."

Oh, you are so in need of Mozilla Firebird. Switch to the bird on fire and say bye bye to unwanted popups...

try ie to get correctly-sized popup windows for the screenshots, there is a hidden "next" button

This means replacing productivity, web access and viewing tools with open standards based equivalents.

So what the hell is the OS replacement for productivity?

Kbump?

The replacement for web access?

Nah, you got me stumped.

OK, OK what about viewing tools?

Well I guess that's more the Mac OS route.

You can use Mozilla or Thunderbird and set the display of the messages' body to "simple html" wich will still shows the html diagramation of the message (tables, lists, bullets, titles) but will ignore the futile stuff (images, colors, bizarre fonts).

You could also just use Mozilla's mail client, which allows you to disable loading of remote images in Mail and Newsgroups. It's actually quite spiffy, and a hell of a lot easier than what you propose. Plus, the spam filtering puts it over the top.

So why don't you install and use another mail client?

The disadvantage (or is it an advantage?) of this method is that IE is now useless to surf the Web. You will need to install and use another browser.

1996 called, they want their browser back.

Mozilla

With Mozilla, you can open links in new windows (or tabs, whatever you like more) with a single click on the middle mouse button. Anytime on any webpage.

Sounds like you need a browser that supports tabs.

And btw, ECMAScript/JavaScript can be pure functional as well.