Slashdot Mirror

• Latest Nightly
• 0.3 Release
• Home Page
• Bugs
• CVS Notes

• Latest Nightly
• 0.3 Release
• Home Page
• Bugs
• CVS Notes

• Latest Nightly
• 0.3 Release
• Home Page
• Bugs
• CVS Notes

• Latest Nightly
• 0.3 Release
• Home Page
• Bugs
• CVS Notes

MPL/NPL, not GPL - most of the code has been relicensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license, but not all (they're trying to track down those last few contributors to get permission to relicense their bits).

But the MPL offers a lot of freedom too :-)

And notice how http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/ has Open Source/Free Software at the top.

MPL/NPL, not GPL - most of the code has been relicensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license, but not all (they're trying to track down those last few contributors to get permission to relicense their bits).

But the MPL offers a lot of freedom too :-)

And notice how http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/ has Open Source/Free Software at the top.

MPL/NPL, not GPL - most of the code has been relicensed under the MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license, but not all (they're trying to track down those last few contributors to get permission to relicense their bits).

But the MPL offers a lot of freedom too :-)

And notice how http://mozilla.org/start/1.0/ has Open Source/Free Software at the top.

"Geez, Mom. If you really don't like using F6, just change the code and do the 5-hour recompile. Stop your complaining."

Actually, it's not too hard. It doesn't involve recompiling, it just involves adding a few lines to your user.js file. Maybe in the future they'll add a nice GUI for your mom to use.

My point wasn't that your mom should change the code, but that someone who is capable of such a thing should do so when they want a particular feature and contribute it to the project. And the author of this article is a software developer. But I know he was just trying to make a point, it just wasn't a good example.

Hey, what's up with you? Is Bill Gates standing behind you and holding a Magnum on your head? Did you sign a live-long contract with Microsoft? What exactly is holding you back from downloading Mozilla?

This "I use Microsoft and will always use Microsoft even if it involves great pain." - kind of attitude is not going through my head, care to explain it to me?

http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/demos/eagle-sun.h tml

btw, it looks like shiat on IE 6...

Believe it or not, this doesn't seem to work with the newer builds of Mozilla.

By this I mean you can set the user agent pref (See prefs.js and edit/create user.js to set your own) and the about:mozilla page reports the correct faked agent. But go to any web page that reports your user-agent string back to you (such as here near the bottom) and it still gives the old built-in user agent string. Since I have no real reason to fake my string, (and this therefore doesn't affect me) I haven't filed a bug report.

Curiouser, an outdated mozilla.org page reports the correct values. (Scroll down to "Profile of Your Browser".

Another thing is that navigator.appVersion string cannot be changed other than modifying the source... it won't get changed with a faked user agent string. There's an entry in bugzilla for this.

So what gives? I dunno, other than there seem to still be a few quirks of Mozilla that won't likely be worked out for a few more versions.

Yes. The most popular is here

Cheers,

--fred

Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page.

That is a Mozilla error message (source) and does not come from alltheweb. Your web server is broken. http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml redirects to http://www.kaosinc.com/index.shtml, which then redirects to itself. This happens regardless of where I find the link to http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml, or what browser I use to load it. IE appears to just sit there, Opera bounces between various stages of trying to connect, and Netscape 4 gives up after a few redirects and displays a raw 302-found page ("The document has moved _here_") without redirecting.

Moving the mouse over the link doesn't reveal the address in the bottom bar, either, so the only way I can think of to obtain the address of the item it matches is by right-clicking and selecting 'copy link address', opening a new window and pasting it it (and having a browser that is capable of doing this), then editing the URL so only the target link text remains.

An easier way to see the URL of the link is to hold the mouse down over the link, and then move off of the link before you lift the mouse button. But I still get the infinite-redirect error message if I type your URL directly.

You can't even right-lick and open in a new window to do this. If you try, you get "about:blank" which, afaik, means they're using javascript.

If I right-click on a link from the alltheweb search results and select "open link in new window", I see http://www.alltheweb.com/go/1/H/web/http/www.kaosi nc.com/jen.shtml in the location bar and get the same error message. What version of Mozilla are you using?

Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page.

That is a Mozilla error message (source) and does not come from alltheweb. Your web server is broken. http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml redirects to http://www.kaosinc.com/index.shtml, which then redirects to itself. This happens regardless of where I find the link to http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml, or what browser I use to load it. IE appears to just sit there, Opera bounces between various stages of trying to connect, and Netscape 4 gives up after a few redirects and displays a raw 302-found page ("The document has moved _here_") without redirecting.

Moving the mouse over the link doesn't reveal the address in the bottom bar, either, so the only way I can think of to obtain the address of the item it matches is by right-clicking and selecting 'copy link address', opening a new window and pasting it it (and having a browser that is capable of doing this), then editing the URL so only the target link text remains.

An easier way to see the URL of the link is to hold the mouse down over the link, and then move off of the link before you lift the mouse button. But I still get the infinite-redirect error message if I type your URL directly.

You can't even right-lick and open in a new window to do this. If you try, you get "about:blank" which, afaik, means they're using javascript.

If I right-click on a link from the alltheweb search results and select "open link in new window", I see http://www.alltheweb.com/go/1/H/web/http/www.kaosi nc.com/jen.shtml in the location bar and get the same error message. What version of Mozilla are you using?

Redirection limit for this URL exceeded. Unable to load the requested page.

That is a Mozilla error message (source) and does not come from alltheweb. Your web server is broken. http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml redirects to http://www.kaosinc.com/index.shtml, which then redirects to itself. This happens regardless of where I find the link to http://www.kaosinc.com/jen.shtml, or what browser I use to load it. IE appears to just sit there, Opera bounces between various stages of trying to connect, and Netscape 4 gives up after a few redirects and displays a raw 302-found page ("The document has moved _here_") without redirecting.

Moving the mouse over the link doesn't reveal the address in the bottom bar, either, so the only way I can think of to obtain the address of the item it matches is by right-clicking and selecting 'copy link address', opening a new window and pasting it it (and having a browser that is capable of doing this), then editing the URL so only the target link text remains.

An easier way to see the URL of the link is to hold the mouse down over the link, and then move off of the link before you lift the mouse button. But I still get the infinite-redirect error message if I type your URL directly.

You can't even right-lick and open in a new window to do this. If you try, you get "about:blank" which, afaik, means they're using javascript.

If I right-click on a link from the alltheweb search results and select "open link in new window", I see http://www.alltheweb.com/go/1/H/web/http/www.kaosi nc.com/jen.shtml in the location bar and get the same error message. What version of Mozilla are you using?

Perhaps Joel should read the Mozilla page on how to modify the default key bindings.

-Ãéñãéïò Ôóßñïò (you need iso-8859-7 and respecive font to view that correctly)

Use Unicode instead of iso-8859-7 in your signature and everyone with good software will see your text, with no need to write "you need iso-8859-7 and respecive font to view that correctly". The Greek characters starts from U+0391 (here's a PDF chart and Named and Numeric HTML Entities). The Greek characters are very important in Latin based languages for mathematic formulas, so they are usually installed by default in modern operating systems and they even have named HTML entities, so you can write α β γ δ Ψ Ω in your sig or comments and get . I don't know what software do you use, but I know that under Debian GNU/Linux which I use, the unicode Greek fonts are installed by default and Mozilla displays them also by default (as well as lots of characters from many exotic scripts). Hope it helps.

—

"Large and bloated... It takes forever to load compared to IE"

"Pages take longer to load"

"Has annoying little UI bugs that keep popping up (ex. Typing in a new URL on the address bar occasionally causes the current page to reload, instead of going to the new page; focus doesn't always move to a field when you click on it, etc...)"

"Doesn't consistantly display pages correctly-I have pages that will display on my copy of Mozilla that my coworker can't get to display on his."

"The average user doesn't have the slightest dea what open source means, or care about it at all unless they have been brainwashed into being as anti-Microsoft as a lot of the people on here are."

Apple has been known to be playing around with Chimera, which can be thought of as a sort of Galeon for Mac OS X. While this is very cool, I don't think that Apple switching to Chimera as their default browser would help the cause that much. Isn't their market share around 3%?

Mozilla prefs ->Advanced-->Scripts & Windows-->Allow webpages to-->

uncheck the box for Open unrequested windows.

If you've already done that and still get popups, you may need to add the following line to your user.js file:

user_pref("dom.disable_open_click_delay", 1000);

If you don't have a user.js file, just make one and put in the same directory as prefs.js.

Here's some more info about customizing Mozilla.

Since Eugenia's review on Newsforge I've been using http://nytimes.com to check this. It kills popups dead.

Like this?

This is perfectly possible in Mozilla and really easy to do. Just add a bookmark to google, then open the bookmark manager and rightclick on the bookmark to get it's properties.

Enter "g" in the keyword section.

Change the URL to:
http://google.com/search?q=%s

See here for more info.

I don't know how to point this out to you guys, but the purpose of Mozilla is NOT to attempt to unseat any browser king.

Mozilla exists to provide developers (that's us) with cross-platform web technology.

Sure, on a Windows platform you can just grab the IE ActiveX control and slam it into your program. No problem. That's what gets done. But what if your application has to run for Mac as well? Unix? (not likely there)

The purpose of the Mozilla web browser is to TEST and DEBUG the LIBRARY. Mozilla technology is intended to be used by NETSCAPE and OTHER COMPANIES that need to bundle it.

Oh hell, here's the URL

If you actually bother to explorer Mozilla.org a bit more, you'll find all kinds of USEFUL RESOURCES for DEVELOPERS and VERY LITTLE RESOURCES FOR END USERS. This is BY DESIGN

To close, Mozilla isn't here to fight a browser war. Netscape isn't here to fight a browser war either, they're here to enable AOL to provide a browser for it's users. Galeon and Konqueror, likewise, aren't here to fight a browser war. They're here to provide a browser-based interface to your desktop. Opera? Maybe they're here to fight a browser war.

Microsoft defeated not just Netscape in the browser wars, but also the idea that we could just lay a window manager on top of windows. They went after Netscape (as you recall) not because they wanted to control the web, but because they thought Netscape could be turned into an OE. Same with Java. Same, same.

That brought the "fight" to the next level, the kernel. I believe Linux will win in the end, but I don't personally think the fight is worth it. I gave up being a visionary years ago.

You forgot one: Mozilla

Found it: bug 120238 is the bug I remembered, it was filed 2002-01-16 and still stands unresolved (IOW it has beem ignored). Worse still, bug 90547 also reports a crash due to large fonts. It was reported around 2001-07-12, which is 11 months ago.

Found it: bug 120238 is the bug I remembered, it was filed 2002-01-16 and still stands unresolved (IOW it has beem ignored). Worse still, bug 90547 also reports a crash due to large fonts. It was reported around 2001-07-12, which is 11 months ago.

Checkout the bugzila item here

Also, this is _not_ a DOS attack. What it does is make X consume all available memory and swap. And it can be triggered remotely by running mozilla, and browsing a webpage with absurdly large fonts. But it is by no means a DOS attack, because no-one is actively attacking you, making you "Deny Service" to other users.

Uhhh ... beware.

1. Using an old profile - particularly a Netscape 6.2 profile - is well known to lead to weird stuff happening, as the profile format has changed a lot in a year.
2. This is a bug-testing release, and a lot of shiny new ones are to be expected.

So before assuming something is a Mozilla bug, I would STRONGLY advise using a fresh profile.

Getting data out of an old-format profile is detailed in the FAQ section on profiles. (No, there isn't an automatic tool. Wanna write one? No, there isn't much doc on profile formats either ...)

Mozilla has gotten really fast; on my dad's old Pentium 90 system (first generation Pentium with Win98), I've had it running faster than IE since 0.9.8. (Before that, I never tried it using it on the system.) I guess those System Requirements are higher than necessary. (258% too high, that is). Good work guys!

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 thankyou 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. To put it bluntly, Perl scripts will still look less beautiful than our friend Mr Goatse. 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, erm, Perl is dying.

is awesome. I'm on a 28.8 modem connection for the summer, and I was pretty bummed about how slow webpages were loading up. After turning on the pipelining option, load times dramatically decreased.

There's an explanation on how it works here.

When the mail app can remove encoded attachments from mail messages, I'll be all over it. See Bugzilla Bug 2920 (which is over 3 years old) for details.

If you check mozilla.org you'll see that 1.1a is Mozilla 1.1 ALPHA! The roadmap clarifies more:

The mozilla 1.0 stable branch will continue as 1.0.x, and the 1.x series will continue as test milestones for evaluation of the latest features added to the trunk development. Each release cycle will be about 13 weeks long, consisting of 5 weeks work then an ALPHA release, another 5 weeks then a BETA release, then a week or so freeze before the milestone.

This release is 1.1 ALPHA. Lots of nice things in there for those who are following Moz and don't mind the shortcomings, but if you just want to complain, stick to IE.

If you check mozilla.org you'll see that 1.1a is Mozilla 1.1 ALPHA! The roadmap clarifies more:

The mozilla 1.0 stable branch will continue as 1.0.x, and the 1.x series will continue as test milestones for evaluation of the latest features added to the trunk development. Each release cycle will be about 13 weeks long, consisting of 5 weeks work then an ALPHA release, another 5 weeks then a BETA release, then a week or so freeze before the milestone.

This release is 1.1 ALPHA. Lots of nice things in there for those who are following Moz and don't mind the shortcomings, but if you just want to complain, stick to IE.

Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas?

That all depends what bug fixes there will be in 1.01. I bet most develops will keep using the bleeding edge 1.1 trunk and only real bugs and security fixes will make it on 1.0.x The 1.0 manifesto states that 1.0.x is mainly for stabilty of the API and a reference implementation. This may not be the best version.

The maintarget for 1.0 is for vendors to have a reference implementation.

Like linux.: There is a and 2.2 and 2.4 kernel version. They all are maintainted. From 2.2 you know it is stable, but you are not sure it works with the latest hardware. from 2.4 you know It is fast but you do not know if your old applications work on it. for 2.5 you know it has the most features, but you are unsure if it is stable. In the end you let ret-hat or suse choose for you like you let netscape (or ...) choose your mozilla trunk.

No, it wasn't. It was released on the 11th. There has been a freeze for a while, builds might have been calling themselves 1.1a, but the official release build was on the 11th.

See here or here for the history.

If you look at the roadmap we can see that 1.0, 1.01, 1.02 etc are on a different branch than 1.1alpha, 1.1beta, 1.1 and 1.2alpha. Does this mean that each branch will have progressively different bug fixes and feature sets? Will we eventually have to choose from two different mozillas? Or am I simply reading it wrong?

What's up with this?

If you are using a proxy like junkbusters then This will solve your problem:

10.3. I'm using a transparent proxy (such as Junkbuster) and I'm having weird browsing problems. What's happening?

Some transparent proxies (including some versions of Junkbuster) do not handle HTTP/1.1 properly. The first thing to try is to go to Edit | Preferences | Advanced | HTTP Networking and select 'Use HTTP 1.0'.

http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html

and to fill in the next mozilla realaes lets look at the roadmap:

1.1alpha 12-Jun-2002
1.1beta 17-Jul-2002
1.1 09-Aug-2002

Security fixes in mozilla 1.0 not included here.

I can whore for karma too...release motes here

"IP is traditionally held by an individual or corporation. GPL forces it to be owned by everyone"

W R O N G

You still maintain copyright control over work contributed to GPLed projects (unless you made some other agreement). This is why the Mozilla project is looking for developers with which they've lost contact so they can ask for their permission before they relicense the codebase.

"You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party."

If you have agreement of all contributors/copyright owners OF COURSE YOU CAN.

Just because many developers might not really enforce their rights over works they have contributed, doesn't mean they don't still have those rights. Weren't you paying attention when OpenBSD replaced IPF with PF and underwent a license audit ? NVIDIA specifically removed some GPLed code they accidentally added to their binary driver. I seem to recall some other proprietary company got slapped when they tried to freeload off the GPL also. But this is no different than you or I including and distributing some piece of somebody else's proprietary software in our own software.

IE took your market share? Adapt or die!

I believe they did.

I installed Bugzilla at work, because i was tired of people putting post-its on my screen and mentioning bugs at coffee-break.

To get people to use it, i had to turn into a bitchy hard-ass.
Whenever someone had a bug they wanted fixed i went "Have you entered it in the Bugzilla? No? Then i don't know anything about it."
In short, i refused to fix any bug unless it was entered into the bugzilla.

Now, i was in a position where i was able to do this without the risk of getting fired. (Although i felt a little uncertain about this at times... especially when my boss claimed it was too much work for him to be bothered to use the bugzilla, when he could just talk directly to me. )

Of course, once people got used to Bugzilla, they started liking it.
After all, in the end it's about making it easier for everyone to obtain information and do useful work.
You just have to get over the acceptance threshold.
Unfortunately, a bit of forcing is required to change the ways people work, and not everyone is in the position to do this.

For those not interested in installing a haxie (esp. considering that it does seem to have issues with some Carbon apps), Mozilla already has support:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149427

I am running 20020607 right now it and it looks very nice.

Ha! Have a look at the Mozilla 1.0 Start Page. In particular, look at detect-problems.js. You know why it's called that? And why it's so long? Because IE's PNG handling is from Mars. IE6 (and MacIE5) uses a different default gamma to everyone else. IE5 can't handle alpha transparency. And just giggle hysterically if IE4 is mentioned.

IE is such a bastard to code for.

We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant"

Use a better browser. Ok. Stop sucking m$ cock.

I was pointing out that visual studio dosen't exist on your platform

My platform is Windows 2000.

If you check mozilla.org I believe win32 uses the gcc compiler

I'm not sure what compiler it uses, but it requires Visual C++, that's the point.

VS costs like 50$ or so on student discount, have some college kid get it for you.

That's of questionable legality, and if I were going to do that, I'd just go all out and make a copy from someone else. If I'm not going to distribute the binaries, no one's going to find out anyway. In any case, I don't think it's worth $50 or breaking the law just to help AOL fix bugs in its software. The fact that I have to pay $50 and/or break the law just to compile the source of mozilla on my operating system pretty much defeats the purpose of it being GPLed for that operating system, as far as I'm concerned.

I know. But The "product guide" states:
"The standards Mozilla 1.0 supports include:
SVG"
, which is not true. None of the currently available 1.0 builds have SVG.
And the SVG enabled builds are at a very early and experimental stage; the level of completeness is around 10 to 30 percent of SVG1.0, the builds don't work with the correct MIME Type (141252), have color problems (111152), crash with foreignObject (147920), crash with very large shapes (101300), have no SVG animation, no SVG Font, no text support, no clipping, no filters, and much more. And SVG 2.0 is coming.
The statement "Mozilla 1.0 supports SVG" is very misleading and incorrect (1.0 doesn't), and can not replace working on the implementation.