Slashdot Mirror

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

Now if only we could get rid of all the rest of the pop-up ads.

It's called Mozilla.

Haven't seen a popup in ages.

Use Mozilla. Tell your friends.

How about having nothing extra in your toolbar and just use Mozilla instead? :) http://mozilla.org/

My favourite pop-up blocker with Mozilla, with Opera a close second. I'd go with Opera if it weren't for Adblock from Mozdev.org.

I use Mozilla, and haven't seen a pop-up in a very long time. In fact, I haven't seen any Flash (which I hate) either.

-cp-

Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets

I agree. I sometimes have to turn off Safari's pop-up blocker (which makes me enjoy the fact that it's a preference that's right in the main menu and I dont have to open any preference panes or anything).

Are companies still paying for that shit? I can't imagine them getting anything approaching a good return on investment for popup ads these days.

It's all about the marketing. Earthlink and AOL (or several other unnamed ISPs) advertise their mad pop up blocking features in their newest products on TV. Typical computer user sees the commericals and thinks "damn, I hate pop ups, I can never stop them. They are annoying. I'll get Earthlink/AOL and beat those nasty pop up advertisers once and for all! Where's my credit card?"

The fact that you can download a free browser like Mozilla or Opera that will install and run on your Windows system doesn't matter to typical computer user. If it's free, who supports it? If I'm paying for it, it's probably good software. They wouldn't make those clever ads with the "Six Million Dollar Man" music if it wasn't good software, would they?

You don't actually have to make a better product, you just have to convince enough people that your product is better. Then call it "Optimized" or something like that. Sounds good, but what does it do for you?

It let me know a pop-up blocker was on the way (I was SO going to get Earthlink :), it let me know Outlook will be better in keeping viruses in check, and finally a firewall that will help keep viruses and spyware from running on my computer.

Cause you had no browsers with native pop-up blocking,,No virus-free mail clients,, and no free anti-virus for XP before now
please...

It let me know a pop-up blocker was on the way (I was SO going to get Earthlink :), it let me know Outlook will be better in keeping viruses in check, and finally a firewall that will help keep viruses and spyware from running on my computer.

Cause you had no browsers with native pop-up blocking,,No virus-free mail clients,, and no free anti-virus for XP before now
please...

Maybe their reaction is partly due to the pre-release version numbers. Tech marketing has conditioned consumers to equate bigger numbers with better products, therefore something with a 0.x version number can't be good.

Thunderbird is the best damn 'alpha' quality software I've used.

Omniweb 4.5 uses the WebCore and JavaScriptCore frameworks from Apple - the same technology used in Safari for rendering web pages.

Apple does seem to have gotten sloppy with terminology once again. They can't call a component "JavaScriptCore" -- technically and legally, "JavaScript" can only describe the Netscape implementation of the language. The generic term is ECMAScript. Anyone taking bets on how long before Time-Warner's lawyers notice the trademark infringment?

There's a lesson here for those of us stuck with Gecko, Opera, or the mysterious combination of undocumented engines that is Internet Explorer. You want standardization, you gotta have open-source components. W3C puts a lot of work in defining standards for HTML, CSS, and SVG. These standards have a lot of unbelievably cool features, with much more in the pipe. But nobody can use most of them, because they're not widely implemented. What's the point of working so hard to create good standards if nobody uses them?

We need a reference web engine that will drive standards-based web development, just as the reference implementation of Java, with all its flaws, drove the adoption of the Java platform. Microsoft probably wouldn't use it, but it would provide some small pressure for them to be more standards compliant. W3C could develop such a comonent from scratch, or they could use Gecko; but KHTML seems to have the code base that's closest to a real tipping point.

You might like to try enabling Light mode in your user preferences. It removes a lot of the unnecessary graphics and doesn't seem to use nested tables for layout, but retains all the real content.

Light mode looks just fine in the latest Mozilla browsers (both Seamonkey and Firebird). It also loads faster.

According to the branding document, "Firebird" and "Thunderbird" are temporary names, to be replaced by "Browser" and "Mail" when the switch to the stand-alone applications occurs. The branding document was overly optimistic about when this would happen.

No, I didnt get that annoying popup. Its called Mozilla. Helps immensely. The fact that you were most likely using IE revokes your Nerd license. Now, you have to leave.

Sorry.

There's much more than tabbed browsing in Firebird. I suggest reading the why document before passing judgement.

Tabbed browsing is nice, but the real reasons I use FB are Find as You Type, Custom Keywords, and the Web Developer Toolbar.

There's much more than tabbed browsing in Firebird. I suggest reading the why document before passing judgement.

Tabbed browsing is nice, but the real reasons I use FB are Find as You Type, Custom Keywords, and the Web Developer Toolbar.

There's much more than tabbed browsing in Firebird. I suggest reading the why document before passing judgement.

Tabbed browsing is nice, but the real reasons I use FB are Find as You Type, Custom Keywords, and the Web Developer Toolbar.

I've been mildly successful using the Reasons to switch to the Mozilla Firebird browser document. I tell people if they read that through and still think IE is the best, I won't bother them about it again. Of course, I'll probably bother them at the FB 1.0 release anyway.

I think he may be referring to this bug with the Firebird Windows installer which deletes non-Firebird files in the Firebird directory.

The bug seems rather harmless to me, but that's probably just because I don't understand why you'd put anything but Firebird in the Firebird directory. Everytime I upgrade to a new nightly (I've never used any of the installers, I don't trust them as much as I trust WinRAR and cut-paste) I just throw the files into the directory on top of what was in there before, overwriting any existing files. I don't see why you'd be doing upgrades with an installer.

Either way, whether or not he was referring to this bug, his post's got the stink of attention-grabbing.

That sounds very clever. I'm not surprised that it works so well for you, but I'm pretty sure a Bayesian SPAM filter will filter out emails with links to domains spammers use. I appreciate that doing this filtering on your mail server will save you some bandwidth, but it's probably easier for most people to use a mail program with an intelligent "junk" button.

Just in case anyone here isn't aware, Mozilla Thunderbird is an excellent free mail program that does smart filtering. I haven't seen much SPAM since I started using it.

I'm not sure when the bug became added. 2003122707 has it as well. Might be time for another visit to Bugzilla :)

Same on Mac. Actually that extra grey line comes up when mousing over that floaty in Moz (1.6a, 20031029); everything's fine in Safari (1.1, v100).

Inoshiro might want to file a bug.

This appears to be due to a longstanding bug, bug 104550.

What I would absolutely love to have is a "recording mode" in Mozilla so that I could ditch the snail mail invoices forever. The way it would work is that you would click a "record" button on Mozilla to enter recording mode and then every page that you look at would be permanently archived for later user, including all page prerequisites (images, etc.), and all form data. Then, merely by paying my bills online, I would automatically get a permanent, electronic record without having to manually save the pages (which doesn't always work right anyway because some sites force cache expiration). Even better, Mozilla could detect that I normally record my visits to American Express, for example, and automatically ask me if I want to start recording the next time I visit, so that I don't even have to remember to click the "record" button.

I submitted this as a feature request to Bugzilla, but it could use some more people to vote for it. I would probably even pay a nominal bounty for this feature, though I don't have time to write up exactly what I want at the moment, so I'm just hoping that somebody else has the same itch.

There is a long discussion of the proposed XForms support in Mozilla Bug 9786. There are 460 votes for this bug, however the support is not forthcoming. Basically, there is no one willing to implement XForms in Mozilla because XForms has too many dependencies on other XML modules that are not implemented in mozilla.

If you are developing only for IE6, you can use a commercial formsPlayer component. I tried their demo, it looked decent.

There are also server-side XForms modules that render XForms as HTML forms. For example, Apache project lists JXForms.

Don't worry... IE will have a pop-up blocker sometime next year. For those of us who have joined the 21st century and use a good browser, popups aren't a problem.

This

Mozilla has a Calendar that uses the standard iCal format. I haven't used it very much, but it was very easy to install! It looks like it doesn't work seamlessly with Outlook or Exchange, though.

Use a Mozilla with the Adblock-plugin

• Mozilla, for firebird and thunderbird
• Gaim
• OO.o

Umm, you mean like this one?

Or this one?

Or this one?

Just because MS has been dragging it's feet for years doesn't mean other people have.

You Must Enable Cookies...

In order to take this survey, you must enable cookies on your browser. It's easy to do - just follow these simple instructions.

I'd like to invest in getting a recent version of Mozilla ported to Mac-OS.

Is this a troll?

I suggest you go to Mozilla.org.

Bugzilla bug 122445

Everyone seems to have their own idea about what should be done about it, and nobody is actually doing anything.

Here is a better patch, although it's a little larger.

Better link

You know, because you use Mozilla Firebird and enjoy life without popup ads, and with default tabbed browsing, and you read this article only because.... because... hmm..

bye.

Download Mozilla Firebird and you don't need that kind of potentially suspicious (Is it spyware? Does it like to get uninstalled nicely or will it leave something behind? Is the company making it really trustworthy?) closed-source software...

Mozilla Firebird works quite well too, and isn't shareware either. And I heard you get a browser that's better than IE as a special offer! :-D

ok, i'm maybe the only one around here finding it kind of positive what microsoft is doing here (and that happens only every 2 years...)

i'm wondering wether it's possible to modify mozilla xul engine so far that it reads this XAML stuff... (ok, bindings are different and so on but:)

=platform independent UI

Rule: native windows L&F / modified XUL for the rest of us. this would result in "usable" projects (instead of gtk2 port for windows / qt $$$$$ / slow java / problematic .net|go.mono)

You mean, cool as. say... XUL?
The great advantage of XAML over XUL is the fact that the embedded C# code will be compiled, JIT'ed and cached on the fly. AFAIK, XUL's javascript doesn't get the same treatment.
Feel free to prove me wrong and educate me ! :)

The security of Netscape is already an issue - vulnerabilities numbered 57 through 62 on the Mozilla vulnerabilities page are also present in Netscape 7.1, which is based on Mozilla 1.4(.0) - and there will be no more updates to Netscape, so whatever else is discovered will also remain unfixed.

Ok, so forgive me for saying so.. but instead of fighting fire with fire, doesn't anyone think that perhaps AOL should refrain from branding their bundled version of netscape? It seems to me that the only way to truly get more customers/computer users interested in using a product is to offer non-branded, fully functional applications and utilities?

It seems to me that more and more people are searching for alternatives to Microsoft's Internet Explorer. This is mostly users who browse with GUIs under linux, and people who use browsers like Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird. We will always miss the days of Phoenix, and browsers that offered interfaces that had neat bells and whistles that are built on every year.. but let's not forget where they came from..

I think one of the only reasons that most people even still use Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator, is because it's the familiarity and reliability that it's going to be there. Not only that, but with IE being integrated the way it is with Windows, it generally works faster, regardless of the number of errors. Additionally, the plug-ins for javascript and flash are built in, and easier to install and maintain than in other 'advanced' browsers.

I think the smart thing is this.. find out from the consumer what they'd like to see in their browser menubar. If they say they like the AOL brand, keep it.. but I am relatively certain that the majority of users will agree having an option would be best.. give the user a menu option to determine what icon they're going to be looking at for the next 10 hours while they surf through site after site.

Just my US$0.02. ~nahemah~

At this point I don't even want to see mozilla.org pick up the branding scraps from Netscape. AOLTW saw to it that those were beaten to a pulp.

Readers: our mission is clear. Help end users forget the nightmare that is now AOLTW/Netscape and get them over to Mozilla, pronto. All Time Warner can see is $$$, not that ditching Netscape browser development and rolling over for Microsoft puts them in vendor lockin in the long run.

Don't forget Mozilla!

those berating ms should set about fixing it in their beloved OSS browser first. interesting to see whose fix comes out first.

This is a good point - It seems quite unlikely that Mozilla has fewer flaws than IE. Over the years that Mozilla has been in existance the number of bugs it has had numbers in the hundreds of thousands, and that is with only 1-15% market share spotting them (depending on the site and your stat source).

Also, who knows how many flaws IE has; there's no bugzIE. But there are millions of random pages documenting them, probably owing to the vast user base.

But the real issue is, of course, not how many flaws the browsers have, but their severity. Mozilla is specifically designed to protect the average user from malicious code where IE seems to ask for it at every turn. You can't run ActiveX scripts by default in Mozilla, and the plugin that allows it does not allow modification of your files. You can't run .exe files from the address bar. There is no priviledged access to the system.

And yet, it's this kind of flaw, the kind that deals with browsing specifically--hiding urls, misdirection--that all browsers are susceptible to. The difference here? Mozilla would have a patch in 1 hour and most of its users wouldn't download it until the next major version, if then; IE would have a patch in 1-7 days and it would be delivered through windows update, most of the time. I would go with the microsoft system in principle if it weren't for it's being closed source and unmonitorable. It seems to me that with this kind of exploit, the real flaw is in how people use their computers. People have to care about security for it to be realized. I'm not saying that everyone should have to head over to mozilla.org and download 7 megs of the latest patched version every time something like this shows up - that's hard on all users, and impossible for many. But also, people should be given ultimate control of their system and still be allowed to be secure. If you snub Windows Update, you're obscenely open to attack. A system like Linux is ideal, because if you require it you can change anything about your software but still establish a simple, auditable system for security updates. Sadly though, a solution simple enough for everyone, outside of a networked, administered environment, has yet to be created in my opinion, and the problems of these security flaws will continue to plague thousands.

Yes, I'm aware of XUL, XPFE and related technologies, but the section of the Mozilla documentation linked to appears only to cover the adding of chrome, which is somewhat at variance with the description given in the patent application. A better link would have been to this section as it would have made it clear what the story was driving at.

FWIW, a large mount of IE's chrome has also been provided through DHTML since version 4, which predates the taking of Mozilla in that direction - in fact, it predates the Mozilla Foundation and the Open Sourcing of the technology. As far as HTAs are concerned, Microsoft's technology predates XPFE by some time.

If XPFE and such are to be compared to a Microsoft technology, it should be the vapourware XAML, although I'm not aware of any MS attempts to make this a cross-platform technology, as XPFE is. I did like the following quote from the link I just cited:

My applications seem to be less buggy and work more quickly the less code I write!

whih seems to show that at least one person at MS is finally getting the idea :-)

Actually, the idea of this is that IE is not a program any more. It is a rendering engine with a front end. Since the rendering engine is a terribly useful thing, it SHOULD be part of the OS.

I believe they should remove the reliance on the front end (which is really where your viruses and exploits come from, anyway...the rendering engine doesn't do any more damage to your computer than any other set of widgets would). But removing "IE" because you don't want to get viruses is like removing the chassis of your car because your tires are flat. Get your ass some new tires and your problems are already solved. No registry hacking required.