Slashdot Mirror

Visit http://komodo.mozilla.org/planning/branches.cgi and scroll to item 29.
--

My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 5.X browsers.

My conclusive results are as follows:

Mozilla 0.9.1 loaded 17% faster than IE 5.01 and 21% faster than IE 5.5 using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)

IE 5.01 and 5.5 loaded 31% faster than Mozilla 0.9.1 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).

90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.

96% of sites viewed with IE 5.5 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.

89% of sites viewed with IE 5.01 loaded correctly the first time. 7% of sites tested did not load properly due to a 128-bit encryption SSL bug in IE 5.01

IE 5.01 crashed the system a total of 2 times. 50% of the time, IE 5.01 took down the system with it, claiming something to the effect of: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe", followed promptly by: "There was an internal error in Explorer.exe". The Task manager and Start Bar dissappeared and the system froze.

IE 5.5 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.

Mozilla did not crash during this test.

IE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.

Under Windows, you probably want Netscape 6.1 (*not* 6.01, which is *way* too unstable).

You will find NS6.1 to be very privacy friendly (though two of your features are missing: JavaScript per domain and images by size).

It's based on the Mozilla 0.9.1 release which is very nice, and usable on it's own, but adds a number of plug-ins that are worth having.

--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)

Point 7 on http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html

Advertisement Blockers
There are various ways you can do this already, and it will probably possible to write a Mozilla plugin to do this. However, this proposal is very badly thought out as it will reduce the revenues that web sites get from advertising, which keep the majority of the web free of charge. Hence it is unlikely this will every appear in Mozilla or Communicator.
This may eventually appear indirectly however, since things such as preventing popup windows and having preferences differ on a site-by-site basis can achieve this (these are above).

1. First of all, the fact that Smart Tags can be toggled by the user does nothing to help me since most users will never toggle them or even look for the setting. If they're on by default, they'll stay on. If they're off by default, they'll stay off. I doubt that Microsoft really will leave a new feature disabled from the start, it doesn't seem like them.
2. Secondly, I'm not sure of how many users would download COM objects, but then again, I've never actually tried to find out what an average user thinks of the "Run Content By XXX" security box. (Also keep in mind that it costs a fair chunk of change to sign an ActiveX control.) I also have to wonder how many users will either personally disable downloading ActiveX controls or have their "smarter computer friend" do it for them thanks to the various security flaws in the ActiveX model.
3. Embedded XML in my webpage. Lovely, that'll really make the W3C HTML Validator happy. So I suppose now my choice is "write correct HTML" or "write for Smart Tags" - of course, customizing Smart Tags isn't something I'm likely to do manually anyway. (Especially since I'm not planning on "upgrading" to XP any time soon.) Plus I have to wonder how third party browsers will handle embedded XML...
4. Smart Tags are controlled by Microsoft - and whichever OEM sold the computer. What, you really think that your average user is going to go out of their way to download new Smart Tags? Unless it's transparent, they'll be stuck with the defaults.
5. DLLs? DLLs?!? You have to be kidding me. Smart Tags are actually full blooded computer code!?! Oh, I just can't wait for the first "Smart Tag" virus to come out. Unless the download isn't transparent (see above). (And don't forget, MS has a pretty poor record of implementing security checks properly - I really have to hope that all the OEMs are smart enough to preconfigure boxes so that new users are running as normal Users. Can you imagine a host of newbies running as Administrator? *Shudder* - Wait - how do we explain to them that they can't install WinAMP anymore? *Shudder*)
6. What the hell do the default set do exactly, then? From what I saw, Smart Tags creates a little menu of options for each instance of some word that they find (or is it more complicated than that? Really don't have the time or inclanation to find out). Still sounds like MS will be controlling web content... even if I can develop my own Smart Tags I highly doubt that I can effectively get users to download them...

--

You can find Mozilla at http://www.mozilla.org.

Enjoy!

if(strstr($HTTP_USER_AGENT, "MSIE 6.0")) {
&nbsp&nbsp echo "This page will not properly display in your browser, get a real one."
}

(If you don't know php, I think an explanation of this is still in the tutorial.)

friggin' A. First a typo on the Mozilla main page and then the Mozilla team actually updates the page while I'm posting!

Because of the hype that a few of the Mozilla developers put on talkback here on Slashdot and on MozillaZine, Mozilla has seen lots of recent improvements (see the bottom of this page). Now that 0.9.1 is out, the Drivers team at Mozilla will take a large bit of control over the management of submisssions for 0.9.2 in an effort to brush up the code in preparation for 1.0. It looks like we'll see 0.9.2 released after only two to three weeks (see this roadmap sneak-peek); half the current expected milestone lifetime. In addition, Netscape is being encouraged to take the next NS6 from the Mozilla branch this time, meaning that much of the Netscape team's work will be applicable to Mozilla.

Also of note, the Mozilla main page doesn't reflect the new milestone and the roadmap also fails to mention the release or the news about 0.9.2.

Because of the hype that a few of the Mozilla developers put on talkback here on Slashdot and on MozillaZine, Mozilla has seen lots of recent improvements (see the bottom of this page). Now that 0.9.1 is out, the Drivers team at Mozilla will take a large bit of control over the management of submisssions for 0.9.2 in an effort to brush up the code in preparation for 1.0. It looks like we'll see 0.9.2 released after only two to three weeks (see this roadmap sneak-peek); half the current expected milestone lifetime. In addition, Netscape is being encouraged to take the next NS6 from the Mozilla branch this time, meaning that much of the Netscape team's work will be applicable to Mozilla.

Also of note, the Mozilla main page doesn't reflect the new milestone and the roadmap also fails to mention the release or the news about 0.9.2.

Because of the hype that a few of the Mozilla developers put on talkback here on Slashdot and on MozillaZine, Mozilla has seen lots of recent improvements (see the bottom of this page). Now that 0.9.1 is out, the Drivers team at Mozilla will take a large bit of control over the management of submisssions for 0.9.2 in an effort to brush up the code in preparation for 1.0. It looks like we'll see 0.9.2 released after only two to three weeks (see this roadmap sneak-peek); half the current expected milestone lifetime. In addition, Netscape is being encouraged to take the next NS6 from the Mozilla branch this time, meaning that much of the Netscape team's work will be applicable to Mozilla.

Also of note, the Mozilla main page doesn't reflect the new milestone and the roadmap also fails to mention the release or the news about 0.9.2.

Because of the hype that a few of the Mozilla developers put on talkback here on Slashdot and on MozillaZine, Mozilla has seen lots of recent improvements (see the bottom of this page). Now that 0.9.1 is out, the Drivers team at Mozilla will take a large bit of control over the management of submisssions for 0.9.2 in an effort to brush up the code in preparation for 1.0. It looks like we'll see 0.9.2 released after only two to three weeks (see this roadmap sneak-peek); half the current expected milestone lifetime. In addition, Netscape is being encouraged to take the next NS6 from the Mozilla branch this time, meaning that much of the Netscape team's work will be applicable to Mozilla.

Also of note, the Mozilla main page doesn't reflect the new milestone and the roadmap also fails to mention the release or the news about 0.9.2.

http://www.mozilla.org/crypto-faq.html#1-5

If you ask me, there are some priority issues with the mozilla team. Bug 4033 has been open for I don't know how long, and yet it seems like this could create quite a problem.

If you want PGP support in Mozilla, please vote for bug 22687.

To quote Eran Tromer from that bug page:

"I'd like to express my personal opinion on the matter. Context: I'm not a Mozilla developer, but I'm well-versed in relevant security issues and I've been following this bug with interest.

"In terms of security, e-mail is currently one of the weakest facilities on the Internet. HTTP/SSL, SSH and SCP provide encrypted and authenticated protocols for the respective needs, but e-mail by and large still relies on plaintext messages passed in the clear by POP3 and SMTP. The implications are obvious and frequently experienced. This is paradoxical, considering the vast popularity of e-mail and its frequent use for sensitive information.

"This grave situation persists mainly because of lack of functionality in common e-mail software. Encrypted e-mail ought to become the *default* format, and it must become trivial to import public keys, to send standard-compliant signed and encrypted messages, and verify their validity upon receipt. None of this is possible without e-mail software support. And Mozilla is in the position to change this situation.

"It is my opinion that in this case, clean architecture should be sacrified for functionality. Yes, providing this functionality in Mozilla 1.0 (i.e., anytime soon) may necessitate unmodular, specialized and hard-to-maintain changes in the codebase. It is not possible to do the Right Thing with the given resources and timeframe. Then go ahead and just do a Working Thing and fix it later, because this one is too important.

"Mozilla.org is spending an inordinate amount of time on building a fantastic infrastructure, to-the-letter compliance with numerous standards and owe-inspriring customizability. But as a practical web user, site administrator, programmer and consultant, I'd rather give up all of these than have my e-mails show up in the wrong hands.

"Hence, I urge you to reconsider your decision."

(end quote)

bug 56969: Sidebar should not appear when I use a Web search site.

You can vote for that bug if you want. Voting has a small but nonzero influence on how quickly the bug is fixed, and you'll automatically find out when the bug is fixed if you vote for it.

By the way, bugzilla is now much easier to search than it was before. I was able to find that bug by typing "search sidebar" (without quotes) into the bugzilla front page.

bug 56969: Sidebar should not appear when I use a Web search site.

You can vote for that bug if you want. Voting has a small but nonzero influence on how quickly the bug is fixed, and you'll automatically find out when the bug is fixed if you vote for it.

By the way, bugzilla is now much easier to search than it was before. I was able to find that bug by typing "search sidebar" (without quotes) into the bugzilla front page.

I haven't noticed this problem, but I searched bugzilla and found two bug reports that might be the same problem:

bug 83289 Scrolling page with images (jpg) causes white lines in the images.

bug 74358 Images rendering with thin horizontal white lines (both GIF and JPEG): supposedly fixed April 11.

Do you still see the problem in Mozilla 0.9.1? What operating system are you using?

I haven't noticed this problem, but I searched bugzilla and found two bug reports that might be the same problem:

bug 83289 Scrolling page with images (jpg) causes white lines in the images.

bug 74358 Images rendering with thin horizontal white lines (both GIF and JPEG): supposedly fixed April 11.

Do you still see the problem in Mozilla 0.9.1? What operating system are you using?

I haven't noticed this problem, but I searched bugzilla and found two bug reports that might be the same problem:

bug 83289 Scrolling page with images (jpg) causes white lines in the images.

bug 74358 Images rendering with thin horizontal white lines (both GIF and JPEG): supposedly fixed April 11.

Do you still see the problem in Mozilla 0.9.1? What operating system are you using?

That documentation is slightly out of date.

capability.policy.default.windowinternal.open
should be
capability.policy.default.Window.open (note the captialization).

There's already a bug to update the documentation, which I plan to fix next week.

The bookmarks problem is actually pretty easy. Bug 71685 Bookmarks in Sidebar are blank. This affects you if you have used the sidebar blank bookmarks workaround or your profile was created between early March and late May. If you have a pre ~11 March profile for which you never used the sidebar blank bookmarks workaround or a post ~23 May profile this probably doesn't affect you.

If you have a profile which was created before about March 11 and you used the workaround between about March 11 and May 23 then you will have to use the workaround again. If you have a profile which was created between about March 11 and May 23 then you will have to use the workaround now.

Workaround:

1. open browser
2. view sidebar
3. click "Tabs" button at top right of sidebar
4. select "Customize Sidebar" menuitem
5. select "Bookmarks" from "Tabs in My Sidebar" list
6. click the "Remove" button below the list of "Tabs in My sidebar"
7. click OK
8. click "Tabs" button at top right of sidebar
9. select "Customize Sidebar" menuitem
10 select "Bookmarks" from "Available Tabs" list
11 click the "Add" button below the list of "Available Tabs" list
12 click OK

note: just unchecking the tab from the "Tabs>" menu and rechecking it will not fix the problem. --Asa

Yes! BeOS support!. I just left it off the lsit. Sorry. --Asa

The UI hasn't been implemented yet (there's a bug on file) but the backend for this has been around for a while. See Configurable Security Policies and from the release notes page:

// Use configurable security policies to override popups, see
// http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/component s/configPolicy.html
// Turn window.open off for particular sites:
user_pref("capability.policy.popupsites.sites", "http://www.annoyingsite1.com http://www.popupsite2.com");
user_pref("capability.policy.popupsites.windowin te rnal.open","noAccess");

// Or turn it off everywhere:
user_pref("capability.policy.default.windowinter na l.open","noAccess");

// Override popping up new windows on target=anything
user_pref("browser.target_new_blocked", true);

--Asa

• Run the browser buster
• Visit any weird and unusual pages you know
• Try running some of Hixie's tests
• Explore various options in the preferences and experiement with different settings

David E. Weekly

David E. Weekly

and since i haven't seen it mentioned yet, don't forget to evaluate 0.9.1's improved "threaded pr0n" ;)

No, row level locking isn't coming to a stable release until MySQL 4. Here are some relevant URLs:

Slashdot | MySQL 3.23 Declared Stable -- search for "lock"

10/30/00: NuSphere to Contribute Row-Level Locking to MySQL Database

01/30/01: NuSphere Contributes Significant Code Enhancement to MySQL(TM)

For an example of a real-world application that has suffered from MySQL's deficiencies, take a look at Bugzilla. It seemed great at first, but then it started to bog down badly last fall on a few tens of thousands of bug reports.

Tim

"Free" software is usually more expensive than commercial software. The reason is easy to understand. The commercial software development model applies financial resources to address problems on the developer side, offloading problems from the user onto the developer. By spending money and time on the development side, both are reduced on the user side. The user is assumed to be primarily interested in the results of using software, rather than in the software itself.

Both the free software and open source models invert this, offloading costs from the developer to the user. The user is assumed to be a software hacker with plenty of free time to spend tinkering, and a desire to spend time that way. In other words, the user is assumed to be a software hobbyist. In the under 1% of cases in which this assumption about the hobbyist user is true, then free or open source software conveys value, but in the other 99%+, commercial software is superior.

Tim

I know how people on this weblog will feel, but Mr. Ballmer speaks the truth in a direct and concise way. Linux tries to attach itself to everything out there, thanks to the virotic nature of the GPL that we all know about.

Mr. Ballmer makes good points regarding software piracy too. Microsoft is giving us a great opportunity of watching our legal situation by taking care of the piracy monitoring herself.

Now, the strongest point IMHO: Internet Explorer. It is the best, really. Coming bundled in the OS is nothing but a commodity for us. Can you imagine still having to run the bloated Netscape 6 or Mozilla? Windows and IE run better on old hardware than anything else. And that's a proven fact. Which leads us to that same old question: will open source software ever be as fast as proprietary but user-concerned software? I seriously doubt so.

So I say, listen to wise people like Steve Ballmer. Give your MS bashing a break.

--

I don't understand why mozilla doesn't have such a feature.

There is a bug filed for that functionality. Feel free to vote for it as well (of course, you need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Alex Bischoff

I don't understand why mozilla doesn't have such a feature.

There is a bug filed for that functionality. Feel free to vote for it as well (of course, you need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Alex Bischoff

I don't understand why mozilla doesn't have such a feature.

There is a bug filed for that functionality. Feel free to vote for it as well (of course, you need a free Bugzilla account to vote).

Alex Bischoff

If MSIE 5.01+ is the only browser that supports these 'functions,' then as long as it is Standards Compliant, then Mozilla should be able to access the site too. Maybe Microsoft (as they have before), is using html tags, etc... that are not standard (like the <marquee> and </marquee> tags), so that MSIE is the only thing that can view it. This, then, indirectly forces users to download MSIE 5.01+ and generate hits on Microsoft's website, and increase the MSIE market share by 1 more person, which is what they want.

<sarcasm>They do seem to be having trouble generating revenue.</sarcasm>

However, I do agree that it is partially the fault of whoever hired Microsoft to do the job. Also, the site explicitly states that the Equifax certificates do not work with any version of the Netscape browsers so, gee, your only choice is to download MSIE 5.01+.

How do you know somebody works for Microsoft? Ask them a question, and they give you a technically correct, yet totally useless answer.

If MSIE 5.01+ is the only browser that supports these 'functions,' then as long as it is Standards Compliant, then Mozilla should be able to access the site too. Maybe Microsoft (as they have before), is using html tags, etc... that are not standard (like the <marquee> and </marquee> tags), so that MSIE is the only thing that can view it. This, then, indirectly forces users to download MSIE 5.01+ and generate hits on Microsoft's website, and increase the MSIE market share by 1 more person, which is what they want.

<sarcasm>They do seem to be having trouble generating revenue.</sarcasm>

However, I do agree that it is partially the fault of whoever hired Microsoft to do the job. Also, the site explicitly states that the Equifax certificates do not work with any version of the Netscape browsers so, gee, your only choice is to download MSIE 5.01+.

How do you know somebody works for Microsoft? Ask them a question, and they give you a technically correct, yet totally useless answer.

Hmmm,... the bugzilla links on the definition document to " total bugs nominated for 1.0" shows list of 397 bugs. A rough glance through the most recent status update seems to show something like 170 bugs resolved per week (and that's not including groups that didn't submit a status update.) OK, most of those will be targetted at 0.91, and there are still 318 listed for 0.9 (er, which was out a month ago, no?) but - it seems to imply that 397 / 170 == less than three weeks. What's expected to change - presumably more bugs will be found, or re-targetted at 1.0? Or is it that QA progress is expected to slow down? Or that the bugs that remain are real stinkers? ;) WHat have I missed?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

Hmmm,... the bugzilla links on the definition document to " total bugs nominated for 1.0" shows list of 397 bugs. A rough glance through the most recent status update seems to show something like 170 bugs resolved per week (and that's not including groups that didn't submit a status update.) OK, most of those will be targetted at 0.91, and there are still 318 listed for 0.9 (er, which was out a month ago, no?) but - it seems to imply that 397 / 170 == less than three weeks. What's expected to change - presumably more bugs will be found, or re-targetted at 1.0? Or is it that QA progress is expected to slow down? Or that the bugs that remain are real stinkers? ;) WHat have I missed?
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

...considering that the developers have been learning how to write a browser at the same time as they have been constructing it: Netscape's code was scrapped. And how many mozilla components have been rewritten twice? Or three times?

If you see this http://mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html document you'll see that there are only about 400 bugs to be fixed for 1.0, which is good news.

There is actually a carbonized version of Mozilla. It is called Fizzilla

Another web browser for Mac OS X is Omniweb

There is an effort to make Mozzilla more Cocoa native here

Sure, complain that 1.0 is late, but the fact is that you can download nightly builds and regular milestones (and even CVS), so there's virtually no delay from the developer to the bleeding-edge or even somewhat adventurous user. A 1.0 delay is really just a delay in name game.

Some of Mozilla is currently dual-licensed, but saddly much of it is not. Is the dream of a GPL'd Mozilla dead??

If you think Mozilla is slow and unusable then head over to the build documentation on mozilla.org and read through how to pull the CVS tree and roll your own version. It's actually quite simple. Last weekend I pulled the tree and used the build configurator to turn off all the debugging code and turn off a lot of warning flags and little things like that. What I ended up with is a fairly fast running version that has SSL, java, flash, and runs through ESD as well. Ever few hours I close it down and restart it because top says it's eatting up memory, but it is definatly bettner than Netscape 4.7, Netscape 6, or any of the milestone builds.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.

I drew the roadmap.

Mozilla 1.0's ship date has been the same for around 3 years now: "When It's Ready".

When I drew the first roadmap which mentioned a 1.0 release [2], I placed it "in the future", faded out and labelled "if we're lucky". The accompanying text explained that Mozilla 1.0 would be released "when it is ready". When I next changed the roadmap significantly [4], it was to add in another milestone (0.8.1) which had been requested by groups who use the Mozilla codebase in their projects (like Nautlius and AOL). So far, nothing too serious.

The next big change [5] was to simply move the roadmap along a bit so that there was more room. Mozilla 1.0 was still a faded out, but I also took the opportunity to move it along a bit too, thus keeping it at the end of the roadmap. The release date for 1.0 was not changed, it was still "when it's ready".

However, when that roadmap diagram was published, I discovered that I had previously a undiscovered power among the Slashdot community! People were outraged that the faded lines had been moved! The text hadn't changed, the release date hadn't changed, but the image was adjusted a bit and this is clearly what matters!

Wary of this amazing power, when I made my next update to the roadmap image [6] I was very careful about making the release date of the Mozilla 1.0 product extremely clear: the branch is labelled "Mozilla 1.0 (when it is ready)". I figured that would prevent another outburst from my fans.

Clearly not! Both RootPrompt and Slashdot have me as their top article! My power remains untamed! Woohoo! :-D

The roadmap images:

1. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching.gif
2. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-15-Dec -2000.png
3. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-13-Feb -2001.png
4. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-01-Mar -2001.png
5. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-05-Apr -2001.png
6. http://mozilla.org/roadmap-images/branching-09-May -2001.png

So when will Mozilla 1.0 be ready? We have a definition document.