Slashdot Mirror

Windows 9x can't use this, neither can Linux or OS X. XP, NT, & 2k are the only supported with this release. still nothing works. as it should, after three years

You don't seem to have heard about the new Mozilla roadmap.
Here is for you.

The bug in question (moz bug ID 208300) appears to be fixed for 1.4 RC2.

The next major Mozilla version (1.5) will use Firebird as the browser. Check out the roadmap for more details.

This is probably the most important feature missing from Mozilla for YEARS.

NTLM Support.

From the Release Notes page:

Mozilla on Windows now has support for NTLM authentication. This enables Mozilla to talk to MS web and proxy servers that are configured to use "windows integrated security".

Dolemite
_______________________

5. Notice of Automatic Software Updates from Sun. You acknowledge that the Software may automatically download, install, and execute applets, applications, software extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept updated terms and conditions for installation. If additional terms and conditions are not presented on installation, the Software Updates will be considered part of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement

6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. ...

Personally, I think MS just wants to drop IE for MacOS.

This leaves several questions.

MSN for OSX includes a web browser. Based on a review i've read, it handles diffrently then IE so it's probably something else. Has MS has created something new or they are using third-party technology to provide web access?

Since AOL settled, they now have a license to use IE again. Will they switch to IE on the Mac, even thought it essentially dead or continue transitioning to Gecko? MS killing Mac IE may give AOL a good reason to keep Netscape Around.

Also, a MS spokesperson said, "Some of the key customer requests for Web browsing on the Mac require close development between the browser and the OS, something to which only Apple has access,". So how did developers add tabs to the open source browser Camino? Note: Camino's interface is native. It doesn't use cross platform widgets like Mozilla.

~Scott

Ah yes, the GIF patent. That stopped any free software using GIFs.

The MP3 patent's licensing terms don't even prohibit legal Free Software implementations - you pay a one-off licensing fee, and you're fine. There seem seem to be plenty.

The reality is, those patents haven't killed MP3 or GIFs. If anything, it's Ogg Vorbis and PNGs which are an endangered species - not from litigation, but disuse. (The MP3 patent, by the way, is Fraunhofer's - a German group, not US.) Patents or no patents, MP3 and GIF are still the format for that application, and supported by plenty of free/open source programs.

So the future for free software is (and this would be fine with me, except that it doesn't promote either fair use or interoperability) a ghetto of free formats like Ogg.

Unlikely. As I said, we've had MP3 and GIF patents for years without this result - the former from a German company, not a US one - without the result you predict. Why would Europe adopting the US system have this result, when it hasn't happened in the US?

Firebird for OS X is available. You can download it here. It's not completely stable yet, but it is making excellent progress in the nightly builds.

cr

"Today's SlashDotFunQuiz is to predict the order in which, impact when, and years until these other Mac products get the axe: Media Player, MSN Messenger, Office, Outlook, and Virtual PC."

So, what are our alternatives?

Media Player: VLC, MPlayer for OS X

MSN Messenger: Proteus, Fire

Office: Apple Works, Keynote as Powerpoint Replacement, Open Office, AbiWord, Gnumeric

Outlook: Apple Mail.app, iCal, Evolution,

Virtual PC: Ya, well, maybe sometime RealPC will appear after they settle with Microsoft. But who uses that stuff anyway?

Last but not least, Internet Explorer: Safari, Camino, Mozilla and maybe soon again Omniweb, thanks to WebCore. (Yes, i left out Opera & iCab)

Okay, did i miss something? ;-)

Chuckle... my poor friend, why don't you just upgrade to the lizard? :-)

I've never been able to really get Java working with Mozilla on my box.

Isn't it as trivial as sym-linking or copying the JRE shared object to Mozilla's plug-in directory? The Mozilla documentation even tells you how to do it !

I have never seen any of the above implemented.

Haven't really looked, have you?

Mozilla
Firebird
BannerBlind
AdBlock

I have never seen any of the above implemented.

Haven't really looked, have you?

Mozilla
Firebird
BannerBlind
AdBlock

I haven't seen any Netflix popups with Safari, can you point us to a site that causes the popup? Also, I frequently find myself accidentially turning off popups - I hit Cmd-K (toggle popups) instead of Cmd-L (location). Why did they have to put the two shortcuts so close together? Why even have a shortcut for popups in the first place?

Anyway, I guess all I can say is make sure you are using the latest version, remember that this is still Beta software until 10.3 comes out, and check out Camino if you haven't already.

My browser dosen't allow that sort of thing.

Until IE fully supports the format, it might as well be dead.

Agreed.

Try this, or this instead.

In other news, Mozilla dropped support for MNG/JNG (animated PNG/JPEG-like PNG) in its 1.5 branch. Mozilla 1.4 will support it, but unless someone steps up as a full time maintainer, 1.5 will not. Basically, the old maintainer felt that MNG/JNG support wasn't worthwhile, especially because its library took up as much space as the entire imglib -- roughly 240KB on Windows and 170KB on Linux. With some integration they were able to get it down to 135KB, but it stopped around there.

To be honest, that *is* quite a lot of space for just one format decoder to take. The decoder's writers should get a pat on the back though, because this was still the first MNG/JNG decoder with full support for the spec. (For those who were wondering, JNG is a subformat of MNG and provides non-animated JPEG-compressed images with alpha transparency. Supporting it requires only a few KB extra if MNG is already supported)

MNG/JNG was never used very much on the web, but neither was PNG before a few browsers started supporting it. Clearly if Mozilla drops support MNG/JNG will be dead in the water. In particular, the format provides 8-bit transparency with *animation*, which you would be hard pressed to find in any other open, web-optimized format.

Many theme authors used MNG to produce animated icons that blended with the background (The Mozilla Firebird throbber used one, in fact.) Now they will have to jump through hoops to get this feature. Or they will have to emulate it using GIF's (blegh.)

So far there have been a lot of complaints from the community about the removal of MNG/JNG, but in comparison, very little action. One person submitted an XPI (installer) to allow 1.5/nightlies users to regain MNG/JNG support, but obviously this is suboptimal -- for the format to gain popularity it's going to at least need to be in the default install! Interested persons should check out these bugs on Bugzilla:
(#195280) Removal of MNG/JNG support
(#18574) restore support for MNG animation format and JNG image format
Adam

In other news, Mozilla dropped support for MNG/JNG (animated PNG/JPEG-like PNG) in its 1.5 branch. Mozilla 1.4 will support it, but unless someone steps up as a full time maintainer, 1.5 will not. Basically, the old maintainer felt that MNG/JNG support wasn't worthwhile, especially because its library took up as much space as the entire imglib -- roughly 240KB on Windows and 170KB on Linux. With some integration they were able to get it down to 135KB, but it stopped around there.

To be honest, that *is* quite a lot of space for just one format decoder to take. The decoder's writers should get a pat on the back though, because this was still the first MNG/JNG decoder with full support for the spec. (For those who were wondering, JNG is a subformat of MNG and provides non-animated JPEG-compressed images with alpha transparency. Supporting it requires only a few KB extra if MNG is already supported)

MNG/JNG was never used very much on the web, but neither was PNG before a few browsers started supporting it. Clearly if Mozilla drops support MNG/JNG will be dead in the water. In particular, the format provides 8-bit transparency with *animation*, which you would be hard pressed to find in any other open, web-optimized format.

Many theme authors used MNG to produce animated icons that blended with the background (The Mozilla Firebird throbber used one, in fact.) Now they will have to jump through hoops to get this feature. Or they will have to emulate it using GIF's (blegh.)

So far there have been a lot of complaints from the community about the removal of MNG/JNG, but in comparison, very little action. One person submitted an XPI (installer) to allow 1.5/nightlies users to regain MNG/JNG support, but obviously this is suboptimal -- for the format to gain popularity it's going to at least need to be in the default install! Interested persons should check out these bugs on Bugzilla:
(#195280) Removal of MNG/JNG support
(#18574) restore support for MNG animation format and JNG image format
Adam

Sorry to point this out, but Mozilla just recently dropped its MNG support from the trunk until it's a bit more mature and MNG is more accepted.

GIF supports animation, but it is not supported in PNG.

I know with MNG, you can do animation plus all advantages of PNG. However in reality, not many people are using MNG yet, which make the support for MNG almost non-existant (even our favorite browser has removed support for MNG due to resignation of its maintainer, at least for now)

we still have many things to do to evangeliszed the use of MNG (imagine p0rn ad with full alpha transparency! sigh...) before we can get a full-blown replacement for GIF. Remember newbies will definitely say: `Wow! GIF does animation but PNG does not, PNG is a crap.' Regardless whether GIF has LZW patent or not.

2) The message format is S/MIME, now defined in RFC 2630. It's been used for years to send secure email messages in Netscape and Microsoft mail programs. It's not some new encryption scheme that AOL dreamed up.

3) Judging from the binaries in use, the new AIM uses the NSS crypto library (used in Mozilla-based software). This code has been around for a long time, and has really stood the test of time.

Bugtraq is one of those 11 companies. (Bugtraq is part of Symantec)

A challenge: create an Open alternative to BugTraq

I have registered the domain names opentraq.org and opentraq.net. I am willing to have them resolve to DNS servers belonging to a group of volunteers who wish to start and maintain an Open alternative to the BugTraq website. (GNU? Mozilla? Anyone else interested?)

I will continue to renew the registration as long as someone wants to continue the project. If necessary, I may be willing to transfer ownership at no cost after the project becomes established and is maintained by a reputable (i.e., non-commercial) group of volunteers.

In this case, other sites that covered this week's pair of Microsoft worms first -- and they'll cover next week's first, and so on. ZDNet, eWeek, Infoworld, Reuters, the Register and others covered it first. ZDNet has the bad habit however of sliding stories that reflect badly on MS quickly off the top pages and into obscurity.

Worms like sobig and bugbear only affect products with design flaws. Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development, said it best:

Our products just aren't engineered for security.

Amy Hsieh writes "A well-known ebook industry expert, Jon Noring, recently wrote an interesting article for eBookWeb, formally calling upon the ebook industry to adopt a single universal ebook distribution format. . . On the other hand, Noring's proposal has also met with some skepticism elsewhere.

BTW, the critics site has lot of texts, many of which can be read to young children in the presence of their grandparents, available for downloading in various formats for free as in beer.

Some interesting claims made for Mono:

1. Mono can be the universal component hub, allowing you to use C objects from Python, C++ objects from Perl, and so on.

We've certainly been here before. As has been pointed out on /. a number of times, ActiveX, CORBA, DCE etc. have all made claims like this and have met with limited success.

First there is the inefficiency introduced by constantly translating data (where equivalents exist at all), second the impedance mismatch of languages with quite different call models.

Yes, there's some capability here for scripting code written in low-level languages, but that's quite a different thing from claiming to provide universal, peer-level interoperability.

Note that this isn't the same argument that says that bytecode level interworking is doomed - one is still limited to a rather C#-like subset of features, just as one is to a Java-like subset in a JVM.

Nat goes on to give an example of how Mono is changing things:

This is possible because C#'s language features make it trivial to automatically bind C# objects into other languages. Check out Python Scripting for .NET: http://www.zope.org/Members/Brian/PythonNet/FAQ.ht ml.

OK, let's see what Brian thinks this new Python Dotnet is bringing to the table:

" While a solution like Jython provides "two-way" interoperability, this package only provides "one-way" integration. Meaning, while Python can use types and services implemented in .NET, managed code cannot generally use classes implemented in Python.

A Jython-like solution for .NET would certainly be doable and useful - but it would also be a lot more work than the current approach."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Mono here. Perhaps the last reference will be the proposition that we can't refuse?

Nat says:

There's also a Mono-based JavaScript compiler in the works (MS already has one, of course).

Doesn't the Java world have one of those too? Yes, in fact, it's had one for five years. Rhino is a full Javascript compiler, interpreter and debugger, released by Netscape in April 98 and still developed under the Mozilla banner. Not some also-ran knock-off here, but something used in quite significant products such as the Resin web app server.

So, draw your own conclusions about what real new capabilities Mono will bring to the OSS world.

And don't forget that there is at least one company that will definitely gain from this all this free marketing and "innovation".

First you go on about how previous versions of Opera didn't have full DOM support and then you pick out pages created specifically to list bugs in Opera to prove that it has worse CSS support?

I was trying to point out that Opera has not had good support for standards like CSS and DOM until recently, whereas Mozilla has had that support for upwards of four years. Opera continues to have problems, such as in those CSS examples and some areas of the DOM. Also, unlike Mozilla, it isn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) moving to implement DOM3 and CSS3 support. My apologies for being ambiguous.

It is really pointless to argue which browser has the better CSS support since results seem to vary, but this well known test site shows Opera as the current leader. Not that it proves anything apart from the fact that things may not be so clear in Mozilla's favor as you seem to think.

Okay, I'll agree with you that comparing the quality of CSS2 support between Opera and Mozilla is mostly pointless and unclear. (BTW, of course Mozilla has CSS bugs, but have you ever read the reports on Bugzilla? Most are about small, esoteric details buried deep within standards documents.)

My point is just that claiming that Mozilla somehow is vastly superior to other browsers, or at least Opera, when it comes to standards that are actually in wide use (HTML, CSS, DOM - MathML is hardly widely used on the web today) is simply incorrect.

But I was not referring to "standards that are actually in wide use"; I was talking about standards in general. While plenty of the things that Mozilla supports aren't used widely, plenty of others are, or seem to be headed that way (like XSL and XSLT, which many developers love, but aren't supported by Opera).

The bottom line is: yes, when it comes to widely-used standards, there's no difference between Opera and Mozilla ("widely-used" is a fragile term though, 99% of sites don't pass validator.w3.org). But ultimately, Mozilla is more standards-compliant, if only because it supports so many of the newer and cooler standards that Opera doesn't. In other words, without support for things like SVG and XSLT, Opera can't claim to have very good standards support like Mozilla can. After all, you need the newer, more advanced aspects of the standards to do awesome things like cross-platform desktop interfaces.

It still proves that Opera is quite portable too. Version 7 even more so. But money speaks, and BeOS and OS/2 probably aren't viable markets.

I agree wholeheartedly, Opera is more portable than the vast majority of commercial software. But the original point, that Mozilla is much more cross-platform than anything else, still stands. Perhaps BeOS and OS/2 were bad choices; try replacing them with AIX or HP-UX.

To find out, you could always check the newsgroups, or a site like MozillaZine.

I think the answer in both cases is "when it's done" (isn't that always the case?). XForms comes with the added caveat that it's not a formal recommendation yet, only a draft. SVG apparently has too many bugs to enable as yet (and in Linux at least, depends on libart, which most people don't have AFAIK).

To find out, you could always check the newsgroups, or a site like MozillaZine.

I think the answer in both cases is "when it's done" (isn't that always the case?). XForms comes with the added caveat that it's not a formal recommendation yet, only a draft. SVG apparently has too many bugs to enable as yet (and in Linux at least, depends on libart, which most people don't have AFAIK).

And yes, yes I know, "code to standards", which is the way it *should* be...

I think Microsoft should be given a good dose of their own medicine. Code to XPFE. Write remotely distributed web applications using XUL and friends. Link to your application from a plain vanilla web site that contains an "only works w/ Mozilla" icon that points to the Mozilla site.

Of course there's a big difference between coding Mozilla specific applications and coding MS/IE only applications. Mozilla is an open-source project built on open standards. MS could, if they so choose, implement any of Mozilla's features they like. The converse is not true.

If enough people get Mozilla on their desktop, and enough people start writing good XFPE applications, this could put a serious dent in MS's plans for world domination. Among other things, Mozilla doesn't require Windows. If you write a Mozilla application, you're doing cross-platform development. If the Oracles, IBM's, SAP's, ERP vendors and the like don't see the value of this, they are missing a golden opportunity.

Take the on-line banking example people seem to be so fond of today. You could build an extraordinarily rich on-line banking application on top of Mozilla today, than virtually anyone using any operating system could access. They would have to download Mozilla, which is free. Contrast that w/ writing to IE. Perhaps MS will someday offer an intriguing feature, but if you want your clients to enjoy the experience they will need to run the latest version of MS Windows. Unless they have a recent PC, it will cost them money to use your site. That's assuming they have a PC, and have reserved room on their hard drive to install an MS OS.

And then there's AOL. After years of investing in Mozilla, at a time when their labors are bearing fruition, they ink an ignominious deal with their biggest enemy. The board of directors should take the people responsible for this to the woodshed, spank them soundly, and send them packing. How could management be so ignorant of the value of their own assets? They could do things on AOL using XPFE that would make the MSN droids drool. What dopes. On top of that, how much further development do you think a billion dollar settlement would have funded?

And yes, yes I know, "code to standards", which is the way it *should* be...

I think Microsoft should be given a good dose of their own medicine. Code to XPFE. Write remotely distributed web applications using XUL and friends. Link to your application from a plain vanilla web site that contains an "only works w/ Mozilla" icon that points to the Mozilla site.

Of course there's a big difference between coding Mozilla specific applications and coding MS/IE only applications. Mozilla is an open-source project built on open standards. MS could, if they so choose, implement any of Mozilla's features they like. The converse is not true.

If enough people get Mozilla on their desktop, and enough people start writing good XFPE applications, this could put a serious dent in MS's plans for world domination. Among other things, Mozilla doesn't require Windows. If you write a Mozilla application, you're doing cross-platform development. If the Oracles, IBM's, SAP's, ERP vendors and the like don't see the value of this, they are missing a golden opportunity.

Take the on-line banking example people seem to be so fond of today. You could build an extraordinarily rich on-line banking application on top of Mozilla today, than virtually anyone using any operating system could access. They would have to download Mozilla, which is free. Contrast that w/ writing to IE. Perhaps MS will someday offer an intriguing feature, but if you want your clients to enjoy the experience they will need to run the latest version of MS Windows. Unless they have a recent PC, it will cost them money to use your site. That's assuming they have a PC, and have reserved room on their hard drive to install an MS OS.

And then there's AOL. After years of investing in Mozilla, at a time when their labors are bearing fruition, they ink an ignominious deal with their biggest enemy. The board of directors should take the people responsible for this to the woodshed, spank them soundly, and send them packing. How could management be so ignorant of the value of their own assets? They could do things on AOL using XPFE that would make the MSN droids drool. What dopes. On top of that, how much further development do you think a billion dollar settlement would have funded?

Update Option A
Update Option B

IE, being a classic app ported using Carbon, simply can't compete with these two browsers that are Cocoa. Camino, in particular, can read any site that IE can.

...they have a dedicated page promoting the reasons why end users should be using Mozilla.

Just think -- whoever found the Playboy quote on that page was actually reading it for the articles.

(-1, Tired Old Joke)

What's so hard about defending the claim for standards-compliance? Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence. Internet Explorer has not-too-bad CSS and DOM support, but can't claim to support either as well as Mozilla does. There's also all the standards that IE doesn't even try to do right -- MathML, which is hugely important for those of us who use it, PNG, which IE only sort-of supports, XHTML, and SVG, even though it's off by default. These and many other open standards are supported natively by Mozilla, something that no other browser can claim to do (not even Opera or Konqueror/Safari).

As for performance ... Mozilla is actually very fast, in some ways. The Gecko HTML engine is one of the fastest around, and handles super-complex CSS positioning with ease. (Yes, KHTML and Opera can be faster, but this is partly because they don't support many of the more complex aspects of CSS).

Also, although the Mozilla integrated suite takes forever to start up, Firebird/Phoenix is a good deal faster, and Gecko front-ends like Epiphany for GNOME and K-Meleon for Windows start up fast enough that if you blink, you'll miss it.

And finally: "fairly" portable? C'mon, there is no other browser that's available for as many systems as Mozilla is. Ever tried to use IE or Opera on BeOS, Irix, OS/2, or OpenVMS?

What's so hard about defending the claim for standards-compliance? Mozila is, by a very long shot, the most standards-compliant browser in existence. Internet Explorer has not-too-bad CSS and DOM support, but can't claim to support either as well as Mozilla does. There's also all the standards that IE doesn't even try to do right -- MathML, which is hugely important for those of us who use it, PNG, which IE only sort-of supports, XHTML, and SVG, even though it's off by default. These and many other open standards are supported natively by Mozilla, something that no other browser can claim to do (not even Opera or Konqueror/Safari).

As for performance ... Mozilla is actually very fast, in some ways. The Gecko HTML engine is one of the fastest around, and handles super-complex CSS positioning with ease. (Yes, KHTML and Opera can be faster, but this is partly because they don't support many of the more complex aspects of CSS).

Also, although the Mozilla integrated suite takes forever to start up, Firebird/Phoenix is a good deal faster, and Gecko front-ends like Epiphany for GNOME and K-Meleon for Windows start up fast enough that if you blink, you'll miss it.

And finally: "fairly" portable? C'mon, there is no other browser that's available for as many systems as Mozilla is. Ever tried to use IE or Opera on BeOS, Irix, OS/2, or OpenVMS?

After all, it's not an end-user product.

Do you mean *mozilla* is not end-user product? Why does this page exist then?

http://www.mozilla.org/catalog/end-user/

It starts off with "End User: Documentation geared towards the user." and contains links to various bits of info on how to install and use mozilla. Sounds like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing there.

Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

Silly me, I'll just crawl back into the server rack now. Unlike the kernel, it *is* an end-user product. The Mozilla team can go "it's just for testing" all they want, but it's not the truth. It is being deployed on Linux machines as the end-user browser.

Indeed - and not only on Linux, either. Furthermore, in spite of their "not for end users" legal disclaimer, they have a dedicated page promoting the reasons why end users should be using Mozilla. So their legal disclaimer is really just that.

before you dl next time check out the roadmap table near end of page to see the estimated dates for the next release.

Sorry, but you're full of shit. Popups are hardly the excuse one would use to move a computer newbie to a new browser platform. Perhaps your grandma and aunt Gertrude arekernel hackers, but most normal people are used to IE. Moz is a great browser, but it's not a drop-in replacement for IE.

browser "not good".

Neiter does having bugs like these. But you're more than free to trade stability and speed for a notch up on your '1337 factor'.

This bug is particularly troublesome. It looks like the latest version of Mozilla hasn't addressed the problem. Any plans to make it possible to copy/paste data from the many Arabic and Hebrew sites?

I installed a nightly build two days ago and it is named 1.5a, not 1.4 somethng.

Anyone know why?

Mac OS and Windows: Using ATI video drivers will lead to random crashes on many sites.

How the heck are RANDOM CRASHES an acceptable release time bug? Especialy with the many MANY users out there who have integrated ATI chips?

ah yes, and here is another good one. . .

Double right clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.

Err, I am NOT using 1.4 RC1 any time soon, I have OCD and I compulsivly click on white space on a website while reading it. (no, seriously. . . .)

Calling the next Mozilla release 2.0 will not be justified. Although Mozilla Firebird will have a completely new ui, Mozilla does not consider such things important for releases. After all, it's not an end-user product.

If you remember the Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto, you'll see that one of the most important point of that release is:

A set of promises to keep compatibility with various APIs, broadly construed (XUL 1.0 is an API), until a 2.0 or higher-numbered major release. All milestone releases and trunk development between 1.0 and 2.0 will preserve frozen interface compatibility. Mozilla 1.0 is a greenlight to hackers, corporations, and book authors to get busy building atop this stable base set of APIs.

So unless and until we go break the APIs, or do other major work at that level of the program, there is not yet a reason to call it Mozilla 2.0. Because once again, it's not the occasional end-users which are Mozilla's customers, it's the people embedding Mozilla in various products, the people distributing releases based on Mozilla. And those don't care about some silly little front-end changes.

you mean, "Mozilla Firebird"? According to The Mozilla Branding Strategy: When referring to Thunderbird or Firebird before or during the 1.4 release cycle, make sure to use the project name with Mozilla pre-pended as "Mozilla Thunderbird" or "Mozilla Firebird" instead of Mozilla alone or Firebird/Thunderbird alone.

and then Use the names "Mozilla Browser" and "Mozilla Mail" to describe the Firebird and Thunderbird projects after the 1.4 release.

Which I guess makes the old, Firebird-DB problem kind of moot, since after 1.4 there really will be no "Firebird" Browser, just "Mozilla Browser"

I might have to read over the Mozilla Roadmap again, but 1.4 will be the last release based on the XPFE-based Navigator, and will replace 1.0 as the stable release. And starting with 1.5 it will be based on Firebird, which is XUL-based browsr?

Perhaps someone from the Mozilla project will read this...

I notice that there's an IRIX version of Mozilla available from the nightly build collection, yet there is no IRIX version on the offical releases page. I know SGI maintains a port of IRIX on their OSS and freeware sites, but these are usually out of date. I think it would be nice to see an IRIX download of the final releases on the actual Mozilla site. If the hardware already exists to build the nightlies, I wouldn't imagine it would take much time or effort to build and tar up the final versions for download as well.

Or at the very least, how about add the links to SGI's two download sites to the Mozilla release notes. OpenVMS is even listed!

Just my $0.02. I've been using the nightlies for a few weeks now and am very happy with the progress that has been made since Mozilla 1.0.

Perhaps someone from the Mozilla project will read this...

I notice that there's an IRIX version of Mozilla available from the nightly build collection, yet there is no IRIX version on the offical releases page. I know SGI maintains a port of IRIX on their OSS and freeware sites, but these are usually out of date. I think it would be nice to see an IRIX download of the final releases on the actual Mozilla site. If the hardware already exists to build the nightlies, I wouldn't imagine it would take much time or effort to build and tar up the final versions for download as well.

Or at the very least, how about add the links to SGI's two download sites to the Mozilla release notes. OpenVMS is even listed!

Just my $0.02. I've been using the nightlies for a few weeks now and am very happy with the progress that has been made since Mozilla 1.0.

No, they're hoping to do that in Mozilla 1.5.

Fuck you, there are popup ads on your site.

Is it their fault you're still using IE? Switch to a real browser and you won't have that problem.

Wow. And I switched all my friends over to a developer-only browser.

Don't feel bad about this; thousands of people have done the same. Notice I said "officially". It works quite well.

Do you have a reference to back this statement up?

How's this?
We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.

(emphasis theirs)