Slashdot Mirror

See, what you do is:

- install mozilla firebird (pretty much mandatory given that it's neck and shoulders above other browsers)
- install flash-click-to-view

From then on all flash objects will be replaced by a huge button that says "flash: click to view". And guess what, you click that button to view the flash animation!

The only problem is that some sites use idiotic flash detection scripts that break down because this doesn't even load the flash files from the network if you don't click the box.

From the article:

"POP-UP ADVERTISING is a fact of life," said Howard Beales

Uh, no it's not Howard. I use Mozilla with pop-up supression as do thousands of others. $30? Try free.

Now ads will become embedded into the content. A typical Slashdot story would go like this:

"Mozilla released the new version of the Firebird Browser. It includes a refreshing new user interface. Almost as refreshing as a cool, cold can of COKE."

Now ads will become embedded into the content. A typical Slashdot story would go like this:

"Mozilla released the new version of the Firebird Browser. It includes a refreshing new user interface. Almost as refreshing as a cool, cold can of COKE."

It will be a cold day in hell before I ever use Red Hat again, for enterprise or anything else. They have betrayed their base and mendaciously and cynically undermined Linux to justify this shame faced betrayal.

I have a different perspective, I think the opening up of the development of the Red Hat disto via the Fedora Project is a good thing.

The exchange value of a Fedora CD set (or any other Linux distro) is basically the cost of producing and shipping them, there is some money to be made there but not much.

I think this is why Red Hat are concentrating on selling services to businesses.

Fedora is called Fedora in part because of the merger with the Fedora Linux Project, a group who were producing 3rd party RPMs for machines running Red Hat and also to enable the free as in free beer distribution to be reproduced en mass by anyone without having the hassle of removing the Red Hat logo before burning the ISOs.

However Red Hat could do what Mozilla does, sell cheap Mozilla CDs or what OpenOffice.org does, link to people selling OpenOffice.org CDs. After all Red Hat still sells hats, stickers, t-shirts and posters!

I have been lurking and sometimes reading mail on the new Fedora lists and lots of cool stuff has been happening, PPC ports, offers to help on internationalisation, the inclusion of more packages, support for other updaters like apt and yum and even a legacy project to support old Red Hat versions is being started.

What is essentially happening here is that the free software mode of production is asserting its nature and getting more into the driving seat -- free software works best when it is developed in an open and free manner.

> Mozilla's not supported on solaris 7 so I installed
> netscape 7.0 which seems to be working, even if a little
> slow.

Well, if the hardware matches the OS version, I'd say you're doing pretty well. Gotta love Unix machines. There's no such thing as "out of date", simply "slow" and "fast". :-)

> I am able to see your site as presented though

Excellent! Sorry it doesn't work in Netscape 4.0, but when faced with the choice of using modern CSS to develop a nice looking site, or creating a less attractive site that adds functionality for 0.5% of all users (that's about 0.1% of my users), I decided on the former. The funny part is that it's a really stupid bug in NS4. I'm using special rollover links that produce a shaded box over the link. To support this correctly, netscape can do one of two things:

1. Support recoloring of CSS areas
2. Ignore CSS that it doesn't implement

Instead, it goes for option #3:

3. Screw up the entire render job, turn the screen black, and make sure that no one can click on anything. Bonus points if the browser locks up!

*sigh*

BTW, if you ever want to compile Mozilla yourself, your best bet for pre-compiled dependencies is SunFreeware.com. The last pre-compiled version of Mozilla for Solaris 7 is 1.4.

Good luck! :-)

The real problem hindering Compiere developement is the choice of the MPL

The Mozilla was relicensed :
why-relicensing

I have written to Janke about allowing me to use the database schema under a GPL Dual Licensed Product with MPL. I dont know what to make of his answer, do you think he understood the question?

LICENSE MAIL

That would be the best thing for Compiere'S Future.

mike

Today I cleaned a friend's computer from something which I haven't seen before (btw, it is already mentioned in four other comments here).

His IE always showed "here4search.com" as starting page which always reappeared after manually resetting it. Having seen similiar things before I tried AdWare and checked for some unsual things in Autostart. But after rebooting... it was there again!

This here4search.com-thing is part of the CoolWebSearch trojan and can be detected by Hijack This! and (which is even better) can be removed easely with CWShredder.
Nasty thing, but it was gone afterwards.

I surely do not need to mention that you should install some tools like a decent spyware killer (like AdAware), a decent virus killer, a small personal firewall and some other browser/mailclient than the duo infernale IE/Outlook, if you insist on running Windows.

The day e-mail tax is born e-mail will die and be replaced.

The internet (personified) uses to route around narrow-minded regulations and/or copyrights.

I advice you to use the Junk Mail controls of Mozilla. They never failed me.

1. Google's immortal cookie: Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.

So delete the cookie, or turn off cookies if cookies bother you. Or use a browser that lets you easily block cookies on a per-domain basis. And what difference does it make how long the cookie lasts? Is one year better than 35 years? How about two years? Four? Ten? Where's the line? Why should there be a line?

2. Google records everything they can: For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."

This sounds like an actual service to me. If I'm searching for stores that sell product X, why exactly would I want hits for stores that are in other states? Yes, there's always the privacy issue, but is there any evidence that Google is selling targeted information to spammers or doing anything nefarious with this information?

3. Google retains all data indefinitely: Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.

User information? Google's never collected any *personal* information from me. Maybe they correlate all the searches that come from my home IPs, which won't do them much good if I ever move or get a new IP. (My work IP is a router that represents several hundred computers, so good luck on them tracking me through there). What data are they retaining that could be bad, exactly?

4. Google won't say why they need this data: Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

Google probably should answer this one, assuming that this statement is accurate. Given the oddly-shaped axe that Googlewatch seems to be grinding, I wouldn't be surprised if this one was taken out of context.

5. Google hires spooks: Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.

And the problem with this is... what?

6. Google's toolbar is spyware: With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a m

The Mozilla-hidden-window-in-Expose bug is bug 223545 (you may have to post that into your URL bar since Bugzilla rejects referrers from Slashdot).

From the screenshot posted further up the page, it looks just like mozilla's publish feature that's been there since forever. So, to answer your question, head over to mozilla.org and click on Mozilla 1.5 . Haven't played around with it too much, but hopefully, it makes less mess of included image files than frontpage does.

For example, the mozilla foundation in its official statement on the issue says nothing to condemn the Eolas patent, but instead has some content free statements like "The Eolas matter highlights the degree to which web browser software is critical to the user experience of the web.". I don't think this is the right thing to do. Getting all up in arms about say the gif patent and pretending you didn't notice when MS is hit is not good. So let us speak with one voice, and show our support for W3C.

The article just says 'Mozilla Browser', I wonder whether this means Mozilla or Firebird?
On another (possibly related note), the front page of Mozilla.org is displaying the following message:
Mozilla Foundation Launches Mozilla 1.5, End User Services
We are pleased to announce new versions of Mozilla 1.5, the award winning Internet suite, and new Technology Preview releases of Mozilla Firebird (version 0.7) and Mozilla Thunderbird (version 0.3).
Maybe this and Sun's announcement have been timed so they purposefully coincide?

The article just says 'Mozilla Browser', I wonder whether this means Mozilla or Firebird?
On another (possibly related note), the front page of Mozilla.org is displaying the following message:
Mozilla Foundation Launches Mozilla 1.5, End User Services
We are pleased to announce new versions of Mozilla 1.5, the award winning Internet suite, and new Technology Preview releases of Mozilla Firebird (version 0.7) and Mozilla Thunderbird (version 0.3).
Maybe this and Sun's announcement have been timed so they purposefully coincide?

The XML primarily allows you to specify the layout of widgets on your form (whatever the render happens to be: Windows.Forms or Areo's Canvas class). Sure, it's nice to be able to define this in a standard format, but I'm having trouble figuring out what's the big deal?

The "big deal" is that you don't (always) have to recompile your program code just because you want to change the way the GUI looks. Maybe Longhorn/IE is some day going to be as kick-ass as Mozilla is today...Maybe :-)

XULPlanet

mozdev

Mozilla main site Somebody just pissed up my leg in this thread pointing out that Mozilla wasn't the first project that uses an markup language to describe GUIs. He may be right, but I don't think anybody else except Mozilla has such a kick-ass and complete implementation of the concept. Microsoft probably just has screenshots and they're still busy rewriting the XUL specification :-)

I find some of this Longhorn stuff really fascinating. As I was looking through I found this page which describes XAML (eXtensible Application Markup Language). If you haven't looked yet, XAML looks to me an awful lot like a knockoff of XUL. The basic idea is the same, you build the user interface in XML. From the looks of the screenshots the majority of Longhorn's GUI is built in XAML.

Aparently they've taken notice of Mozilla, they notice that it rocks, and they noticed it so much they're redesigning Windows around philosophies born in the Mozilla Project. You know what they say, imitation is the sinserest form of flattery.

I never thought I'd say this, but thanks Bill! We didn't know you thought so highly of us :-)

Describing user interfaces using markup language like "XAML" is nothing new. Mozilla's user interface is completely based on XUL and scripted with javascript therefore making it "prior art"

Describing user interfaces using markup language like "XAML" is nothing new. Mozilla's user interface is completely based on XUL and scripted with javascript therefore making it "prior art"

you can use mozilla. It has download manager and pop-up blocker built in and by the time longhorn is out, mozilla will become much much more powerful.

Sun likes Elliptic Curve Cryptography. They have helped add it to Mozilla's Network Security Services and to OpenSSL.

The AC is probably right, though I wouldn't know for sure, since I wouldn't be getting pop-ups even if /. had/has them. Either way, if you don't have it, I would recommend getting Ad-Aware or Spybot (haven't used it personally, I hear it's better but there's more danger of messing up your system if you're not sure what you're doing). Then go download Opera or Mozilla and quit dealng with the pop-ups!

Go to MezzoBlue and participate in some discussion. The site owner, Dave Shea, just did the Mozilla website redesign (note the new Bugzilla logo he did - much better) - if you get on alright there you might be able to help out and get your designs some worldwide exposure :)

the mozilla logo designer was a huge Raptors fan, and thus was so inspired. I think you're just trying to grab attention with controversial statements.

The red dinosaur design was adopted to satirize the supposed communist nature of open source.

This is the original post by Jamie announcing the open-sourcing of Mozilla. Communism joke from the beginning. Hehe. This is the first appearence of the red lizard, which he credits to Shepard Fairey of BLK/MRKT, who has done, among other commercial ventures, the whole wacky Andre the Giant has a posse/OBEY thing.

This one was a freebee. If you think it looks suspiciously like the Raptors logo, then he's to blame. But have you looked at the two side by side? Moz has a more imposing profile with cool scales down his neck, while the Raptors dino is sleeker, with a different profile. Clearly Fairey chose to depict Mozilla the Lizard in that industrial-looking, side profile as is the harsh, contrasting style that he uses in all his works.

Moreover, how is looking like the Raptors logo supposed to somehow make Mozilla better?
Have they ever won a playoff title? (I jest, I jest)

Stop trying to cover your ass.

Put Mozilla stickers all over San Francisco

Right off the bat, from reading the headline, this article seems to miss the point. When looking to the future, Mozilla Firebird should be the focus. Firebird will eventually lose the controversial name and be simply 'Mozilla Browser.' This, along with Thunderbird (soon to be 'Mozilla Mail') are really the future of Mozilla much more than the old Mozilla suite which is reaching 2.0.

Here's the Mozilla branding road map. Lets hope Mozilla sticks to this plan. I really think it is the best route for future development.

" Mozilla Project should adopt a simple, strong, consistent visual identity for the Mozilla products including consistent icons across applications"

Are you saying the red star and communist imagery havent already achieved that ? Mozilla communist imagery

Windows users can easily substitute their own Mozilla splash screen. According to an old FAQ, one need only save a copy of their desired image (any size) as mozilla.bmp in the same place as mozilla.exe.

>Standarize icons and names. Make them visually appealing.

To whom are you directing this imperative? The Thunderbird project needs more volunteers not more people telling them what to do -- there is only one regular developer (who is now no longer is employed by Netscape). I'm trying to get involved myself but I'm not an artist.

For those of you with artistic talents, help design a Mozilla Mail theme that is consistent with the Mozilla suite:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/thunderbird/themes .html

The standalone version of the Mozilla Calendar is called Sunbird.

In my experience, most Windows users don't use Mozilla because they never heard of it (at least, the ones I teached Mozilla never went back to IE). Some users are actually willing to pay for spam filters, popup blockers, download managers and tabbed browsing.

I want to put a box in my homepage that looks for MSIE user-agents and displays something like "Are you using Internet Explorer? Did you know that there's a better browser with popup blocking and download management included? Try Mozilla! (link to end-user website)".

The Mozilla folks seems to agree with me on this, but there's still a barrier: English. Windows users worldwide are used to their fully localized environment, and afraid of anything in foreign languages. The language packs are too buried in the site. Mozilla's new user-oriented website is a great idea, but there should be localized versions of it, with easily accessible downloads of localized software.

Easy. Run your own e-mail accounts.

You can either set up your own mail server, or, for a couple of bucks, go get a throw-away webspace with someone (I use 4dwebhosting.com - $4.95 a month) who lets you have unlimited e-mail accounts. $4.95 a month, I get some space to play with, my own URL and I have unlimited e-mails. I set up one account for each place that wants my e-mail address, get a password or whatever, then delete it. Viola. No spam on my friends/family account which stays safely away from the Web. If you're feeling spunky, keep a record of which site gets which address, then keep the addresses alive. If you start getting spammed by one, you know who to skewer.

I'm kind of screwed on my one account though. I post my e-mail in newsgroups, my site, and forums so people can contact me about projects we're discussing and whatnot... so I get killed on that one by spambots hunting e-mail addresses, though, Thunderbird handles it pretty well.

Every joe off the street coming in and announcing to others (in this case to thousands of readers! how's that for publicity?) that they know how Mozilla should look, what it should be, and how the project should be run better than the Mozilla team does, they just can't code/do whatever other work themselves. The noise from these "armchair developers" as well as clueless users in this and other major projects has increased to the point that the usefulness of some of the primary communication channels for larger projects (bugzilla.mozilla.org, the main cygwin mailing list, several of the openoffice mailing lists, etc) has been decreasing rapidly. The signal to noise ratio just gets worse and worse.

In general, I think one of the things which would be a large factor in the future success of many large open-source projects would be strongly discouraging most input in crucial communication channels while finding better ways for non-developers to channel their input. In the case of a community as large and often discordant as that of Mozilla, it may even be a good idea to hold elections for community/end-user representatives who present concisely the concerns of the community without taking an "armchair developer" approach to things.

BTW, I was once the "armchair developer" type myself before I saw the light- I think I was part of the reason for Gerv's Unofficial Mozilla Spell-checker FAQ (bugzilla doesn't take /. hits, copy link location to instead of using the link).

Here's the beta version: http://website-beta.mozilla.org/

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.

The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:

• Mozilla Browser
• Mozilla Mail
• Mozilla Ca

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.

The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:

• Mozilla Browser
• Mozilla Mail
• Mozilla Ca

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version number.

The Mozilla Suite ver. 2.0:

• Mozilla Browser
• Mozilla Mail
• Mozilla Ca

Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundations product and project line - by Steven Garrity

Summary

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version

Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundations product and project line - by Steven Garrity

Summary

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version

Branding Mozilla: Towards Mozilla 2.0 Recommendations for the branding and visual identity of the Mozilla Foundations product and project line - by Steven Garrity

Summary

This document is intended to offer suggestions to the Mozilla Foundation for the future of the Mozilla brand and visual identity. It is not intended to replace or redo the good work that has already been done in this area. Any suggestions made here that contradict, conflict, or replace guidelines, recommendation, or other work that has already been done reflects more my ignorance as the author than my opinion of what has been done.

As the Mozilla project moves towards an end-user focus from a developer and platform focus, the branding and visual identity of the organization and its software will need to be revisited. With the recent separation from Netscape and AOL, the need for the Mozilla project to have a brand of its own is all the more necessary.

Keep What Works

First, the Mozilla project has a lot going for it. It has a long heritage, reaching back to the early Netscape web browsers. The Mozilla name was an apt choice as a nod to the roots of the project. It is also unique (free of trademark issues), memorable, and relatively easy to spell and pronounce. Mozilla is a good name.

Lose What Doesnt Work

The Mozilla project is lacking a strong visual identity. The Mozilla lizard is widely recognized by developers and early-adopters on the web, but does not reach far beyond these groups. It is also used inconsistently across projects and products.

Any good visual identity builds on what is already established, while improving on the weaknesses of past. So too should the visual identity of the Mozilla project and products. A unified, consistent, but flexible brand and visual identity would be a great compliment to the technology developed under the Mozilla project.

Products, Projects, and the Foundation

The broad scope of the Mozilla project has lead to confusion among end users. The term Mozilla is used to describe a web browser, a suite of applications, a platform, and an entire collection of software projects.

The recently formed Mozilla Foundation has already started the work of clarifying the terminology. The name of the Mozilla Foundation itself is a good and clear name that obviously defines the official organization that manages the Mozilla project.

They have also clarified the eventual naming of key Mozilla products; the current Mozilla Firebird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Browser; the current Mozilla Thunderbird project is the temporary development name for what will eventually be called Mozilla Mail. This is clear, simple, and smart.

Seemingly simple and obvious declarations like this are important for the success of the Mozilla project. People cant use software that they dont know how to ask for. People cant tell others about software that they dont know what to call.

The Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail names are clear, simple, and strong names for what will become the flagship products of the Mozilla project.

Version Numbers

The Mozilla application suite is approaching version 2.0 (version 1.5 at the time of this writing) and the independent applications are approaching 1.0 (Mozilla Firebird is at 0.71 and Mozilla Thunderbird is at a humble 0.3 at the time of this writing). Many have speculated that the official replacement of the application suite with the independent applications would be appropriate time to declare them version 2.0.

The change in focus and new independent applications certain does warrant a new version

... I switched to Firebird. I'm not joking. I forgot how annoying popup ads can be because I never have to deal with them anymore.

Just install one of the better and less crappy browsers out there, and forget IE.

I haven't seen one popup in years.

...so rest easy, X10 popups are here to stay.

If you use a Web browser made by people and not corporate drones you will never have to see another pop-up/under/over again.

Popups, eh? What were those, again?

Yes there is, it's called Mozilla Firebird

Don't know about the database, but Firebird is also the name of Mozilla's new browser component.

Something similar happened to me. I was on travel for 2 weeks, and my browser wouldn't work properly on half the sites I visited. Luckily it did work with one site--Mozilla.org. That trip transformed me from a "play around with Mozilla, but use a pop-up blocked IE most of the time" to a "99% Mozilla/Firebird user". Sometimes, a broken IE can be a good thing.

Where's Mozilla

"No, it does not run non-standard MSIE-only JavaScript."