Slashdot Mirror

Mozilla.org hosts a Calendar project. It can be found here. Although still in development and a bit buggy, it includes the basic functionality. I have been using it for a couple of months now.

Currently, I think the Calendar only supports Mozilla. I am not sure what will be done (if any?) to support Firebird/Thunderbird. I hope that it will be a standalone project like the new browser and mail client.

*cough* Firebird is confusing? read here [www.mozilla.org] From there: "Clarification: "Mozilla Firebird" is just a project name, in the same way as the Mozilla Application Suite is codenamed "SeaMonkey"." Calling your old Mozilla install "SeaMonkey", are you? well, then call this one Firebird. ;-) Incidentally, the above link also as a link for the latest "firebird" download

If we really get down to it, who killed Explorer Mac? Safari did.

The Mozilla Project is in serious trouble... Mozilla should lose weight and change roles. Viable Alternative is a perfect fit. Mozilla is technically more than adequate and it descends from a long line of kings.

Non sequitur. Mozilla 1.4 and Netscape 7.1 are absolutely identical from a web developer's point of view. Same with Moz 1.0x and NN 7.0x, Moz 0.9x and NN 6.x (roughly).

Firebird (Phoenix) is Mozilla:
Mozilla's roadmap

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/ui/accessibility/t ypeaheadfind.html

I think that Google can probably claim that it's too hard for anyone to accurately classify warez sites and such. But remember, you don't have to suffer porn popups!

One of the goals of Perl 6 is to make non-trivial projects possible. That's good. The way it's being done is bad. Perl was once a lightweight, extremely flexible language. Now it's become a huge ugly monster. People wanted OO, so a nasty hack was bolted on top to allow some semblance of it. Now this nasty hack is being expanded. Sure, the code's different, but the basic form is the same. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge; I'd much rather have a nice, clean, pure language (and not one with loads of irritating whitespace thank you very much).

The same goes for the syntax. All the switching between $, @ and % is really irritating (ask a newbie how to get at the length of the keys array of a hash inside a hash, for example), and the changes proposed for 6 are just making this worse -- it seems that Larry, in his infinite wisdom, wants to prefix every data type with a different hard-to-type character. Perl was only designed for the three data types, and adding more is a mess.

Perl 6 is a complete rewrite, but it keeps all the mess which has accumulated over the previous versions. This is not good. Sure, my const int $var = 27; may look neat (in the same way that, say, Pascal does), but $var isn't entirely constant, or entirely an integer, it's just a hack which makes it sort of behave like one. The whole thing is an exercise in pseudo-computer science masturbation with little real purpose except to please the managers who dislike the one thing that makes Perl special.

On a similar note is regexes. I'm an avid fan of regular expressions simply because a nondeterministic finite automata is far more flexible than linear code. However, Larry must have been smoking that cheap $2 crack when he wrote this. Does he want Perl 6 to be flex or something?

I won't be going on to use 6. It's a nice idea, but it's completely unnecessary. It won't make large projects any easier to manage (the language is still, at heart, an almighty hack -- an impressive one, but still a hack). It won't make OO any cleaner. It won't make development any faster. I'd prefer to use a language which has always been pure synthesis of science and engineering, not some half-baked imposter.

Perl 6 will be nice, but I'm guessing it will be the end of Perl. It can't do what it wants to do whilst still being based upon a nasty mess. There are now other options, which provide all of Perl's power and none of the mess. Sorry, but *BSD^H^H^H^H Perl is dying.

There are two definitions of groupware in the industry. The Microsoft one: groupware consists of email with some additional productivity: Calendar, Mail, and basic forms(which are hardly ever used). And the IBM Lotus one: groupware consists of database forms for routing and document management and email.

Competing with the Outlook definition:
OS foundations Chandler (Calendar focused)
Mozilla Mail (+calendar proj)
Evolution
Open Groupware
kmail/KGroupware


And from the Lotus Perspective:
www.phpgroupware.org
zope
OpenACS
And Lotus Domino which runs on Linux. The client works fine in wine or crossover - but is not officially supported.

Rightly mentioned. There a lot of open source projects that started off with a wonderful idea but down the line have somhow lost vision and ended up being un-supported anymore. I think this is the place where commercial organizations shine. Their releases are well controlled and gives the third party vendors to time theirs too. This is where mozilla missed out. Now I think they are in a better shape than they were earlier. So i think another major challenge for an open source project to keep going is to keep the goals attainable and make sure that things keep chugging along.

"You've said it! You have to port C code!! Java is cross-platform by design, not portable."

Uh, I think anyone rolling-out a government-wide payroll system will know how to use a compiler.

GNU runs on pretty much every computer yet invented, thanks to automake, autconf, gcc, the GNU libraries (GTK, gnome, glibc...), and the GNU application standards. I didn't see anyone re-writing grep in java, and when people needed massively cross-platform applications (mozilla, gimp, kaffe), they weren't looking at Java for those either.

"porting C code is just a matter of making sure the library you use on OS A is also ported on OS B"

Kind of like making sure the virtual machine you use on OS A is also ported to OS B? Or that the Java AWT libraries you use in OS A are also ported to OS B?

The only true cross-platform GUI code I've seen recently is Konspire2B, and that was pure C, using an http://localhost:6065/ web-interface for the GUI. They chose not to use java because you'd need to install a java machine to use it. With C, you can just run the program as-is.

Look at any of the user-interface modules for perl, for ruby, or for java, and the chances are they'll be written in C.

He's probably talking about Cfront. Never expect a suit to know the difference between a standard and an implementation :)

Cfront was the first C++ implementation. It worked by translating C++ code to C (in fact, it started out as a simple preprocessor), and as a result it has all kinds of problems with fancier C++ constructs, such as exceptions, STL, and inline functions. According to Mozilla's portability guidelines, the SCO and HP C++ compilers are still based on it.

I agree that one of the key features of .net is it's full featured IDE. with ms visual studio, the vb "leisure coders" can still write their small apps utilizing countless global variables all with names like jkl1, jkl2, etc. But it's also easy (and encouraged of course) to write and manage large OO projects written in several languages. If you're a real programmer, then you probably already know at least two languages and it wouldn't be too hard to migrate from, say, java to j#.net with a learning time of somewhere between a week and a month ( with a good book ). Now, about the shared objects between languages, while .net makes this simple (as long as all the other languages are .net and the os is windows), there are currently models implementing cross platform, cross language object and interface sharing. The one that comes to mind is XPCOM.

Oops, here's the correct link . Be sure to view it with images disabled so that the site doesn't benefit from this moron's ravings.

Oh, your browser won't let you disable images? Try Mozilla

-Placing icons on the desktop that launch ad-filled web pages
-Adding itself as a favorite or a home page to the browser
-Adding shortcuts to the Start Menu

All without permission of the user. Granted, those who are security-aware will have unsigned ActiveX and Scripting capabilities turned off (discussion of this can be found here, but then again, the crowd that is more concerned with these types of exploits will use browsers that are harder to exploit and easier to control, such as Mozilla, Opera, or Communicator. Not that these programs are all exempt from exploitation, but they have proven to be a much smaller target audience.

Bug 14328

Next time, please search bugzilla before rambling on slashdot.

If any of you Opera users find the "Free-X Statement" link akin to a Spinal Tap album cover, the site hasn't been defaced or removed. Try another browser, Opera 7.0 appears not to render their page readably. Undoubtedly the site's fault, not Opera's, of course.

Well, if you were using a browser that anally complied with standards, you wouldn't have to post shit about how your browser sucks, would you?

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

My desktop with mozilla calendar running.

Mozilla Calendar project page

You should have a look at this which is a calendar add-in for Mozilla. It produces shareable calendars as well. I have used it solo and quite liked it. Earlier experience with it was quite favourable, though I've had to move onto the company mandated app.

Mozilla is incredibly customizable, and you don't need to jump through administrative hoops (IEAK) to customize it. I "Snoopified" my menu bar in a few short minutes of hacking ... so my "Fizile" menu now says "Bizounce" instead of "Exit" ... what, I never said the customization was useful.

Check this URL for a nice tutorial on hacking Mozilla / Phoenix / Firebird.

This reminded me of a feature of old Mosaic. I hvae just filed a Mozilla bug (211531).

I'd like that the color of visited links could range from the the color defined for visited links to the color of _un_visited links in proportion to the time passed since last visit.

Go to a page with links, some visited, some not.
The links unvisited would appear, say, red.
The links visited 1 minute ago would appear, say, yellow.
The links visited 7 days ago would appear orange.
The links visited 15 days ago would appear, say, almost red.

Read about it in the Mosaic documentation.

Vote for it. Code for it :)

Finally got to it for RH8.

And then I notice that there's an RPM/SRPM for RH8 on mozilla.org... Here it is.

• Existing C++ code in Oracle products has already raised serious portability issues.
• Oracle RDBMS is one of the first products to be ported to a new platform, often before the official release of the new platform. At the time of porting, a C compiler will be available, but a C++ compiler may not be.
• C compilers for 64-bit platforms are far ahead of their C++ counterparts.
• C++ compilers on some platforms are immature. It's far easier to write incompatible C++ code (than C).

The Mozilla C++ Portability Guide also restricts use of some key C++ features (rtti, exceptions, templates (which rules out the STL by the way!)).

AFAIK, KJS is based on ECMAScript Edition 3 (implemented in JavaScript 1.5 and JScript 5.5). QSA is based on the forthcoming Edition 4, which is way different from the previous version. (Edition 4 is implemented in JScript.NET and the yet-to-be-released JavaScript 2.0).
To learn more on ECMAScript v. 4, see here.

Um, one of the options I'm looking at is "Enable cookies, but ask before accepting"

God, doing that has been suicide since the early 90's. Every site uses cookies. No wait, every frame of every site, and every document that can subsequently loaded uses cookies. Lots and lots and lots of cookies. If you tell your browser "accept all but ask me first" you will be clicking ok an awful lot, and essentially the option will quickly become meaningless.

What the poster was asking for is actually a registered bug for Mozilla, to which I am subscribed. What is wanted is an option to say "I do not want cookies unless they come from this list of sites." This would allow one to turn cookies on for slashdot and one's bank's site, for instance, and have them off otherwise.

As an aside, basically the only innovations in web browser design in the last 5 years have been to spy on, harrass, or otherwise punish users. Possible exceptions are tabbed browsing and mouse gestures, though honestly I consider tabbed browsing an annoyance (and its very presence, since it means sometimes I will mis-mouse the menu and get a tab when I want a window). There have thankfully been some countermeasures, but only because of open source projects like Mozilla. Otherwise we would be expected to accept more and more intrusion (like IE where popups, cookies, bad javascript, etc are just a way of life) with no recourse.

It is annoying and frustrating that developers are only developing ways to spy on users and make the web hell. It would be nice if more effort was spent on making the web more useful instead. Oh well, it is still an efficient porn distributor.

Honestly, man, if the way your bookmarks are stored and the ability to shuffle toolbars around (Mozilla Firebird does allow you to construct your own toolbar with whatever icons you want) makes IE -- with its horribly broken rendering engine, platform dependence to the point of bringing down the OS with page bugs, and countless other problems -- the superior browser in your mind, I hope you enjoy your little self-created delusional utopia. The rest of us will move on.

So, either way, users wishing to have tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, pop-up blocking, and improved security will find it in the cross-platform browsers Mozilla and Opera.

Actually, Mozilla already contains support for pre-caching, although it's known as prefetching.

Agreed, I always found the forward button to be pretty much useless. However, once I found tabs, both the forward and back buttons are (metaphorically) rusting from disuse. If I come across an interesting link I just open it in a new tab. Hardly ever a reaon t ogo back or forward. I highly recommend you check out Mozilla, they of course have a Windows version.

Wee... Sorry, but my Java is disabled. Anyway, you can always use Mozilla, even if you're locked into Windows. Unless you're talking about a work computer or something.

I think things can stand some improvement.

As other have said, a browser more or less merely renders underlying protocols, and provides navigation facilities. The protocols themselves define what you can do with a page. And that's where the problem lies. HTML isn't rich enough.

I don't mean to knock HTML. It has been good enough to be hugely useful. But it's lacking.

HTML's shortcoming become readily apparent whenever you (1) attempt to build a rich distributed forms based application or (2) want to strictly control the presentation. I realize that's not what HTML set out to do. Nevertheless, some people want to do those things. Or other things. And can't.

Things are happening, however. Take the tabbed browsing people are holding up as an example of progress. I don't think most people realize how right they are. Sure, tabs are a neat new navigation feature. But the real innovation is that Mozilla renders those tabs by processing XUL. It's the whole XPFE framework that ties together javascript, XUL, and CSS that's truly innovative. It's all good because now you can create distributed applications that use open standards to render rich content.

Now imagine adding native database support. Let's also have standards based calendar support. Who knows, maybe someone will tie this all together someday to come up with a bona-fide Exchange killer. I think it will happen. And more.

I think things can stand some improvement.

As other have said, a browser more or less merely renders underlying protocols, and provides navigation facilities. The protocols themselves define what you can do with a page. And that's where the problem lies. HTML isn't rich enough.

I don't mean to knock HTML. It has been good enough to be hugely useful. But it's lacking.

HTML's shortcoming become readily apparent whenever you (1) attempt to build a rich distributed forms based application or (2) want to strictly control the presentation. I realize that's not what HTML set out to do. Nevertheless, some people want to do those things. Or other things. And can't.

Things are happening, however. Take the tabbed browsing people are holding up as an example of progress. I don't think most people realize how right they are. Sure, tabs are a neat new navigation feature. But the real innovation is that Mozilla renders those tabs by processing XUL. It's the whole XPFE framework that ties together javascript, XUL, and CSS that's truly innovative. It's all good because now you can create distributed applications that use open standards to render rich content.

Now imagine adding native database support. Let's also have standards based calendar support. Who knows, maybe someone will tie this all together someday to come up with a bona-fide Exchange killer. I think it will happen. And more.

Details can be found here.

In particular, see GDI Resources are used till the UI/website displays faulty for the really messy GDI-slurping problem it has under Windoze. Leaving that undocumented in the release notes and unfixed is a perfect way of preventing new users from using Mozilla.

This guy reminds me of old crones reliving their glory days, whlist doing nothing productive in the meantime.

The browser has matured, and by quite a bit. His statement is analoggous to saying all innovation in word processing stopped with WordPerfect.. heck, maybe with WordStar 4. The days leading to Netscape 4 vs IE 5 were about development of the core browser standards, and of html itself. Now that we've learned to walk, it's time to get running. Future innovations will look to improve on other areas, like rich content, forms and security. Even on the interface developers are showing that new things are yet to come.. Mozilla's tabbed browsing is an excellent example, and though Black and White spin-offs involving gesture navigation didn't quite take off, i'm sure there is improvement still to be made.

I've also written a page with your situation in mind.

Would someone please do these for someone stupid and/or lazy like me? I love RPMs for installation... and for MacOS9? I haven't even thought about how to install GNU tools and a compiler for that thing yet... where do I begin?

OK, it was stupid and it was lazy ;-)

Click on the link for MacOSX.

A bzipped tarball has just been uploaded. Of course, I downloaded it before posting this :-)

Check Bugzilla.

Do you mean NTLM? I've heard that holds back corporate acceptance in many places. I know it's supported in Mozilla 1.4, if only in Windows. Vote for bug 23679 to give your support

FWIW, this torrent is probably fine--it's identical to the one on www.mozilla.org. Checksums are:
MD5(mozilla-win32-1.4-installer.exe)= 28cb37dfe56476fe0c5a74689cdc0063
SHA1(mozilla-win32-1.4-installer.exe)= c46336c7ceeeaa349f2546c1009f53271b186213

But you shouldn't take my word for it... Mozilla should be providing checksums; their distribution build instructions even recommend making a MD5SUM file.

Uh, it was released for just those systems. Although the article did not say one way or the other, a click through to the mozilla download directory would have revealed the following mozilla builds:

mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4-installer.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 12:38 95k
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4-sea.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 12:40 13.4M
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.4.tar.gz 24-Jun-2003 11:38 11.9M
mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-egcs112-1.4.tar.gz 30-Jun-2003 17:03 11.8M
mozilla-mac-MachO-1.4.dmg.gz 24-Jun-2003 11:13 15.1M
mozilla-win32-1.4-installer.exe 30-Jun-2003 12:44 11.7M
mozilla-win32-1.4-stub-installer.exe 30-Jun-2003 12:41 222k
mozilla-win32-1.4-talkback.zip 30-Jun-2003 12:45 10.4M

Clearly, no other platforms are yet listed. According to the release notes, however, we can expect builds for other platforms relatively soon.

Any good ideas for how to fix this?

Thanks to the magic of XUL and XBL, you *can* change key bindings. See http://mozilla.org/unix/customizing.html, the "Key Bindings" section, for info on how to change things around to suit you better.

Oh, and don't be fooled by the 'unix' in the URL - most of the info on that page is completely cross-platform.

The spaces are added to any long string of non-space characters. This is so that long lines can't be added to make the tables that the default site scheme uses unusually wide. A better fix would be not to do the site layout with tables, but I digress!

However, you should probably be creating HTML links anyway:

• source of nsDiskCacheMap.cpp
• Linux Kernel Hashtable Behavior: analysis and improvements

HTML links are much nicer than bare URLs!

Is anyone at Mozilla working on a quirks mode for Word- or Excel-generated HTML? Don't even think about Powerpoint!

This is what's great about the open development model -- the developers get a lot of feedback (Proprietary: "Hey, let's build it and then maybe have a focus group").

So if there's something you want, be sure to use Bugzilla to request it, or, if it's already there, vote for it.

I'll go ahead and stick my neck out: It may be newer to Netscape rather than Mozilla, but I can't tell you how much I love little things like "Find As You Type"... This is kinda second-nature stuff to those of us who commonly use vi & co..... to find a link, if the browser has focus, just type a word to find a link containing that word, or "/" followed by the word to search the text. Bad part: "/" + "Enter" won't go ahead and look for the next word, instead you have to do "Ctl+G" or "F3"... bah! No regexp support either, at least as far as I know.... maybe not useful for a ton of users, but wouldn't it rock?

Firebird has much beter a startup time than Mozilla does at the moment.