Slashdot Mirror

BEWARE---Installing 1.2.1 can destroy your Palm user account.

Aside from that, Palm address book sync is in... but there still seems to be lots of issues with it. Categores don't seem to sync well, it resets the "Show in list" field every time something changes, secondary address books don't always sync, etc.
Classify as Not Yet Ready for Prime Time(tm).

Yes, there was a permissions bug. Bug 163524 would mess up the permissions in the components directory if a earlier version had been installed. This would cause any non-root user to not be able to run mozilla, at all. Most distributions come standard with mozilla, so it's very hard to get a installation without it... making the release a hurdle for practically everyone.

Mozilla is a threaded e-mail client, eh? So far, so good. However, it doesn't actually remember the Expand All Threads state.

So, suppose that you turn on threading and tell Mozilla to Expand All Threads. You now have a nice tree-like view of mail threads :). But, next time you load Mozilla, it'll be back to compressed view again (but still sorted by threads). If threaded mail sounds useful to you, you may want to vote for the bug (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Mozilla is a threaded e-mail client, eh? So far, so good. However, it doesn't actually remember the Expand All Threads state.

So, suppose that you turn on threading and tell Mozilla to Expand All Threads. You now have a nice tree-like view of mail threads :). But, next time you load Mozilla, it'll be back to compressed view again (but still sorted by threads). If threaded mail sounds useful to you, you may want to vote for the bug (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Mozilla is a threaded e-mail client, eh? So far, so good. However, it doesn't actually remember the Expand All Threads state.

So, suppose that you turn on threading and tell Mozilla to Expand All Threads. You now have a nice tree-like view of mail threads :). But, next time you load Mozilla, it'll be back to compressed view again (but still sorted by threads). If threaded mail sounds useful to you, you may want to vote for the bug (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Looking at the release notes shows that the only change from 1.2.1 to 1.2 is the fix for the DHTML bug, but the installation images (Win32) went from 10.81 MB (11,339,472 bytes) to 10.95 MB (11,491,024 bytes). Anyone know why it got so much bigger? Was the fix that involved?

It seems like they only just released a version a little while ago. Am I the only person who finds this somewhat annoying?

I love mozilla, but I'm curious why the rapid update? Zilla says it's because of a DHTML fix but How do errata sneak into progs like this? It's shameful, imo.

This is our latest stable release and users of all previous versions are
encouraged to upgrade to this release for features, as well as performance,
stability, and security fixes. It contains the fix for the DHTML bug that
prompted us to pull Mozilla 1.2. See the release notes for more
info.

I've been trying out the Mozilla nightly builds which have the Mozilla spam filtering features in them. It works great so far. I can't until it is release-ready. I'm hoping for 1.3, but I think that's little optimistic.

because popups suck

<% ... %>

<?php ... ?>

<script type="php">

There really isn't any other way for the Mozilla team to let there mass audience "or shall we say...testers" know that they found a bug and that it will be patched soon?

There is. We call it Bugzilla. Every time someone submits a comment on a bug I've submitted, I get an e-mail. This usually involves either someone elaborating on my submitted bug, or marking it a duplicate (it happens!), or discussion from the Mozilla development team on the bug, or even just a re-assignment of the person responsible for the bug.

In my experience, as well, a few developers on the Moz project have gotten the idea that all users are idiots.

Just this bug in particular (I'm sure there are more similar ones, but I participated in that one way back when before I quit using Moz), shows how the team has gotten the idea that users are idiots and do not deserve the ability to customize simple aspects of their browser. It seems that bugs take the back burner when the dev team has to choose between fixing bugs and adding kewl new features. :(

An important reason to use Mozilla is security. An important concern for anyone trying eCommerce on the web is security. eCommerce web sites often use cookies and they should use https.

The bug is reported in Bugzilla but it appears that some people can circumvent this with script preferences. Regrettably I can't. See also the slashdot thread from the original 1.2 announcement here.

I have kept my 1.1 installation under Linux and still have IE under Win 2K.

To follow links in this message you will need to copy and then paste them in the HTML bar since Bugzilla won't let /.ers through directly.

Usually I'm delighted to hear when Mozilla releases a new browser as, up until recently, Mozilla was my browser of choice. But when I heard about the Mozilla 1.2 release I was just disappointed.

The Mozilla team had been alerted to major bugs which only recently appeared in the browser like this one and some of these (the latter link also has the comment in which a few poeple suggest Mozilla 1.2 should be unreleased) and yet still the team proceeded with this release. I'm not pretending that it's everyone's experience, but certainly as far as my own experience, Mozilla 1.2 is the first Mozilla browser to step further backwards than forwards - and I know I'm not the only one who thinks that. IMHO, it's a shame that such a great browser which was really beginning to show its potential had to make such a disappointing release. And for all that, I have to wonder what were the critical changes that led to all the aforementioned bugs (the implementation of type ahead searching!?!).

It's too late for me, I've stopped using Mozilla on my Mac (still using the Gecko-based Chimera though) and have halted upgrades of it on my PC, so I guess all there is to say is better luck next time and hopefully we'll be fortunate enough to never see a release as bad as this one ever again.

To follow links in this message you will need to copy and then paste them in the HTML bar since Bugzilla won't let /.ers through directly.

Usually I'm delighted to hear when Mozilla releases a new browser as, up until recently, Mozilla was my browser of choice. But when I heard about the Mozilla 1.2 release I was just disappointed.

The Mozilla team had been alerted to major bugs which only recently appeared in the browser like this one and some of these (the latter link also has the comment in which a few poeple suggest Mozilla 1.2 should be unreleased) and yet still the team proceeded with this release. I'm not pretending that it's everyone's experience, but certainly as far as my own experience, Mozilla 1.2 is the first Mozilla browser to step further backwards than forwards - and I know I'm not the only one who thinks that. IMHO, it's a shame that such a great browser which was really beginning to show its potential had to make such a disappointing release. And for all that, I have to wonder what were the critical changes that led to all the aforementioned bugs (the implementation of type ahead searching!?!).

It's too late for me, I've stopped using Mozilla on my Mac (still using the Gecko-based Chimera though) and have halted upgrades of it on my PC, so I guess all there is to say is better luck next time and hopefully we'll be fortunate enough to never see a release as bad as this one ever again.

As Mozilla issues go, this has got to be one of the more annoying ones, but apparently nobody wants to actively work on it. "Composer" is actually not a bad WYSIWYG html editor at all - it has alot of potential. But as long as it strips / corrupts PHP and other scripting code, it will never be very useful to anyone doing anything beyond the most trivial of web pages.

The Mozilla-dev folks need to wake up and realize that just about any web designer these days is using some degree of scripting.. Composer needs to at the very least ignore (and not corrupt) scripting blocks. Composer is quite an excellent html editor generally, but as long as it continues to act brain-damaged in regards to any unknown blocks it encounters, it is not going to be truly useful for anybody other than your Great Aunt Emma working on her Geocities homepage.

Right now, if you need PHP and still want to do your page design in Composer, you have only two options: (1) Every time you tweak the page in Composer, insert all your PHP by hand, or (2) Put your own "#PHPBlock1" tags in the html and have a script replace it with the neccessary PHP code later. Having to do either is annoying. Composer simply shouldn't mangle PHP blocks at all.

I'm pretty sure there's another outstanding bug regarding the fact that Composer cannot save 'fragments' - if you're merely designing a table or template to be generated via PHP, there is no way to have Mozilla save it as a fragment, without header tags etc. A bit of a nitpick, but really, how much effort would it take to code in a "Save as fragment" option?

Mozilla is quite an impressive accomplishment for open source, I really do think Mozilla smokes IE hands down these days.. but these Composer bugs should have been fixed long ago - not enough people care about this aspect of Mozilla. A little bit of work here could go a long ways towards undercutting commercial HTML editors in a big way.

IMHO documents that completely rely on ECMAScript are inherently broken anyway.

They retract a release because of this?

I've been waiting for ages for a fix to e.g. this bug which renders Mozilla useless for quite a bunch of purposes. Still I wouldn't see a reason to retract the releases containing bugs like that, unless we're talking about serious security holes.

Well, if you look at their main project page here you will see that they refer to the Chimera Project and sometimes to Navigator. Whether this is a mistake, or cutting and pasting of sentences from other sources or intentional is certainly arguable. Somebody told me that they were calling it "The Chimera Project" but they were officially not calling the browser "Chimera" anymore - when I went to their webpage I saw the strange back-and-forth references. Anyway, it was just an idea. :) Take it or leave it.

I am writing in regard to the issues related to the Phoenix Web Browser as discussed in this Slashdot.org story [ ... ]

I hope you didn't really embarass yourself by sending that to the phoenix.com people. If so, all you've done is stand up and wave a big metaphorical placard saying "I have absolutely no understanding of this issue, but I'm going to complain anyway!"

Of course, you're not by any means the only one... *sigh*.

It doesn't matter that the word "phoenix" is used in other ways, by other organisations, for other purposes. It doesn't matter that there is a city called Phoenix (any more than that there's an Indonesian island called Java as well as the Sun-developed programming language Java), nor that there is a mythological bird called the Phoenix.

You see, the mythological bird Phoenix does not produce and sell a web browser (or a computer BIOS). The US city Phoenix does not produce and sell a web browser (or a computer BIOS).

The only two web browser products associated with the "Phoenix" name are Phoenix FirstView Connect and the Phoenix web browser project based on Mozilla.

One of those web-browser-producing organisations has a trademark on the use of the word "Phoenix" in the area of that product. The other one does not.

I'm sure you can connect the remaining dots.

You might want to consider sending a follow-up email to phoenix.com apologising for your mistake and withdrawing your comments. Well, that would be the polite thing to do, in any case *wry grin*[0].

Pete.

[0] ...and you're a Slashdot poster, so the odds of you backing down and admitting you're wrong (even in the face of overwhelming evidence), let alone apologising, are pretty small ;-).

Somebody else just pointed out that the Chimera browser (Mac OS X/Cocoa GUI using Gecko rendering engine) is now called "Navigator" or "Chimera Navigator" but the project is still called "The Chimera Project". This apparently was due to threat of lawsuit there by some trademark holder on "Chimera".
Most, if not all Mac users who use Chimera call it Chimera. The app itself may be called navigator in the Finder, but if you say: "The new Chimera is out." everyone knows what you're talking about. It may have a legal name Navigator, what would seem like a problem given Netscape's Navigator, but it's referred to as Chimera. Even on the Chimera site the word Navigator is no where to be found. Take this page for example.

> that the people who have created the Phoenix internet web browser change the name of their product.

Which Phoenix internet web browser? The one Phoenix makes, or the one that Mozilla makes?

> There is no likelihood of confusion between the Phoenix browser and your BIOS products.... It bears no relation to your products.

See the confusion now?

> The Phoenix browser does not even make money. It is an open-source product.

True, but if Phoenix doesn't project it's trademarks, then it loses them, and more hostile people than a few open source developers can take advantage.

One question:

Why does this seem like nonsense to you? Phoenix Technologies and Mozilla's Phoenix both make browsers [1] and [2]

Seems like quite a bit of confusion can be gleamed. Perhaps try looking up information before you decide to spam inboxes that they'll probably ignore anyways.

Trademark law doesn't always depend on who invented the word first. It's mostly about who uses it in a particular field first. Broadly computers, and specifically, browsers. Here is Phoenix's browser, and Mozilla/AOL/TimeWarner's browser.

Seems that a potential Phoenix customer could get confused.

Chimera is already a Mozilla project, a browser for OS X.

What a bunch of idiots. Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite? Don't you know the importance of brand recognition?

Oh, where to begin. First of all, it's not "lite." Not only does Phoenix aim to match the featureset of Mozilla -- subtracting features deemed geeky and better offered as add-ons -- but it extends it. For example, it adds customizable toolbars and quicksearch in bookmarks and history. It offers an add-on manager, a better wallet, and a new downloads sidebar pane.

Second, it's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.

Third, "Mozilla" is not the name of an application; it is the name of a monolithic suite containing a browser, a mail client, an irc client, and an indoor skating rink (we hear that's coming, anyways.) Even if we did decide to call this browser Mozilla, we'd still have to call the standalone mail client (see below) something else. We also believe Mozilla, in general, is going in the wrong direction in terms of bloat and UI, and see no reason for our releases to carry those connotations.

it's a mail client

http://mozilla.org/projects/phoenix/phoenix-releas e-notes.html
Scroll down to FAQ question 15: "Why didn't you call it, say, Mozilla Lite?"

Oh, where to begin. First of all, it's not "lite." Not only does Phoenix aim to match the featureset of Mozilla -- subtracting features deemed geeky and better offered as add-ons -- but it extends it. For example, it adds customizable toolbars and quicksearch in bookmarks and history. It offers an add-on manager, a better wallet, and a new downloads sidebar pane.

Second, it's not Mozilla. It's backed by mozilla.org, sure, but with each milestone you'll see it further diverge from Mozilla.

Third, "Mozilla" is not the name of an application; it is the name of a monolithic suite containing a browser, a mail client, an irc client, and an indoor skating rink (we hear that's coming, anyways.) Even if we did decide to call this browser Mozilla, we'd still have to call the standalone mail client (see below) something else. We also believe Mozilla, in general, is going in the wrong direction in terms of bloat and UI, and see no reason for our releases to carry those connotations.

Legally, the Phoenix browser does not infringe on Phoenix Technologies' trademark any more than the University of Phoenix, the City of Phoenix (or even the City of Phoenix). However, notice they said "The kind folks over at phoenix.com" - Phoenix Technologies has every right to be unhappy about about the Phoenix browser, and if they have politely asked the name to be changed, then this really isn't a legal issue. The Phoenix browser can be renamed simply to be nice.

IANAL, and I have no idea what I'm talking about. This is Slashdot after all. :-)

What about Mozilla Lite?

No. Read the release notes to see why not.

If it's any help, there are binary rpm's of Mozilla 1.2 with Xft enabled here:


http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozi ll a1.2/Red_Hat_8x_RPMS/xft/

• 
  As a server admin, can I distinguish prefetch requests from normal requests?
  
  Yes, we send the following header along with each prefetch request:
  
  X-moz: prefetch
  
  Of course, this request header is not at all standardized, and it may change in future Mozilla releases.
  

I was introduced to Open-Source less than a year ago, starting with Mozilla. I have since started dual-booting GNU/Linux on my primary computer, and learning about CDex, GAIM, and others along the way. I've even posted a comment or two on Bugzilla. But one thing still bothers me.

Open-Source is supposed to be, at least eventually, user-friendly. Right now, the top-level programmers are doing a good job, but it isn't enough. Open-source is agile, but it lacks the perceived solidity of closed-source. It would be extremely taxing, but perhaps not damaging, to instead have the top-level programmers make the core stable enough to withstand an indefinite period of time as everything is build atop this constant collection of code.

In this way, if we can get Grandma in on a forum, we can build her suggestions to a program. Then, if it's approved, a milestone build is put into the program. When it comes past half-distribution cycle, the installation UI developers can be sure that the install is straightforward. Perhaps the true geek in us will want the nightly, perhaps with no fancy graphical install, but it's great for the hobbyists.

Sure my suggestions are moves for less change, but in the fast paced world of computers, we don't have the time to rush. I'll be seeing you, grandma, when I build my own Linux 3.0 distro.

I was introduced to Open-Source less than a year ago, starting with Mozilla. I have since started dual-booting GNU/Linux on my primary computer, and learning about CDex, GAIM, and others along the way. I've even posted a comment or two on Bugzilla. But one thing still bothers me.

Open-Source is supposed to be, at least eventually, user-friendly. Right now, the top-level programmers are doing a good job, but it isn't enough. Open-source is agile, but it lacks the perceived solidity of closed-source. It would be extremely taxing, but perhaps not damaging, to instead have the top-level programmers make the core stable enough to withstand an indefinite period of time as everything is build atop this constant collection of code.

In this way, if we can get Grandma in on a forum, we can build her suggestions to a program. Then, if it's approved, a milestone build is put into the program. When it comes past half-distribution cycle, the installation UI developers can be sure that the install is straightforward. Perhaps the true geek in us will want the nightly, perhaps with no fancy graphical install, but it's great for the hobbyists.

Sure my suggestions are moves for less change, but in the fast paced world of computers, we don't have the time to rush. I'll be seeing you, grandma, when I build my own Linux 3.0 distro.

If you read comments in bugs #171235 and #172097 it should be clear that as long as you don't have JS support for cookies disabled, cookies should work fine. Unless, of course, the server is b0rken like the one at meine.deutsche-bank.de which expects browser to treat paths "/mod/WebObjects/dbpbc" and "/mod/WebObjects/dbpbc.woa" as equal. Interestingly, IE does this and Mozilla had a similar bug in previous versions which has been fixed in this release (due potential security problems, see comment 23/bug #171235). Clearly the problem is in the server end and not in the Mozilla.

If you're speaking about some different bug that causes problems please specify.

Talk about jumping in at the deep end! Antialiased fonts are brand new to Linux, and although it's the best at them (no really, compare some screenshots, it beats OS X hands down), not everything supports it yet.

To get Mozilla with antialiased fonts, uninstall the current Mozilla RPMs and use these:

Redhat XFT RPMS

On RedHat, it's that simple. I dunno what you were trying to do, but hopefully this will make it easier for you.

verybody hears so much about Linux so they install it only to be disappointed to such an extreme that they'd never want to bother again (I know that I do not).

Well, I'm sorry that you expected Linux to be perfect and then it wasn't. Remember that on Windows XP (at least on all the installs I've ever used) it doesn't even antialias most text, so that's hardly a mainstream feature. But yes, point taken. It's not perfect. It'll never be perfect, that's impossible. It is getting better very fast.

Linux will be ready for the desktop when Gnome or KDE drop dead (I can't wait) and some consistency settles in.

Not going to happen. It's called competition, it's natural, healthy and good, and it happens in every other part of life. We manage somehow. As for UI consistency, that's improving in leaps and bounds too. In fact in RedHat 8 the differences between KDE and GNOME apps are marginal, mostly hidden. What was lacking in consistency for you?

they are here

.... tried to get Mozilla 1.2 up and running with anti-aliased fonts. I wasted the whole day

Two points:
1) Joe user doesn't download source and recompile it to be optimised the way he wants it.
2) Why didn't you just use the precompiled rpms with xft support for redhat 8?

Refrase that to "authomatically check multiple account". It's in the release notes marked as bug 85227.

Refrase that to "authomatically check multiple account". It's in the release notes marked as bug 85227.

As the AC mentioned, the grippers to collapse toolbars were removed for usability reasons. The details, if you really want to know (or just skim) are chronicled in several bug reports. Here's one of them.

As subject, if you look under the Red_Hat_8x_RPMS folder in the mozilla-1.2 directory, there is now two folders: vanilla and xft , with pre-built RPMs! Get them now from a mirror...

Now if only I'd waited a couple of hours ;-)

Actually, as Phoenix is a cut-down version of Mozilla, it means we shall soon "type ahead" with it too.

Err, actually, Phoenix has had type-ahead find for quite a while. I think early builds had it in basic form, but the 0.4 release has it working very well right out of the box. It's in the release notes.

I have Galeon 1.3 installed: get your Moz build from Komodo and compile galeon from cvs or get a reasonably new build. Looks good, lacks lots of features that are in 1.2 and crashes a lot. Give it a month or two and it might be good enough for replacing 1.2 with.

But since only <LINK> tags are prefetched, that's not likely to be a problem. Prefetching LINKs is also not likely to be much benefit, at least until web sites support it more (I have never seen a commercial site use the <LINK> in this way, though it has been part of the HTML spec forever. General <A> prefetching, which the FAQ mentions as a future possibility, would make a big performance difference, but in general I think it's a bad idea, and worthy of paranoia.

The exact same command will work for mozilla #!/bin/bash mozilla -remote "openurl(about:blank, new-window)" || mozilla For other remote commands in Mozilla, see www.mozilla.org/unix/remote.html

Mozilla.org recommends upgrading to 1.01, especially if you're not interested in being a 1.2 early adopter. I also had problems with 1.0 crashing on Win2K, but since installing the .01 patch, it's been smooth sailing.

I'm using Phoenix in Linux but Mozilla in Mac OS X.

the Popup Manager is not included in this release, I'll stick with Proxomitron, a very nice local proxy for blocking various kinds of http/html-garbage. Too bad it's Windows-only, is there anything similar powerful and easy to setup for Linux?

Take a look at the Thunderbird/Minotaur Project.