Slashdot Mirror

But it is feature rich, and you don't have to build it. It has many of the nifty features IE has (including instability :)- autocompletion, integration with mail and the desktop, etc. And you can get binaries right here. So... any more complaints? Seriously... I do some spare time QA stuff for moz, so any features that you don't think are there I'd love to hear about.
~luge

Back when Adobe made Solaris versions of thier programs, Desktop publishing shops, all wanting faster machines, didn't want to get Solaris boxes. Why? A lack of other tools they are used to. No powerGoo, etc la.

Hehe. Sorry. POWERGOO? As a tool people are used to? :) It was a fun little toy, but that's about it.

If Apple is able to keep its user base on the move to BSD unix, eventually code will slide sideways to X86 based BSD, then X86 based *linux. So, just un-bind your underware.

Porting applications to Mac OS X has nothing to do with porting them to BSD. Mac OS X applications are generally written in/ported to Carbon (updated Classic Mac OS APIs, heavily architecture dependent) or Cocoa (Objective-C/Java apps using OpenStep foundation classes). Few Mac developers will encounter BSD while building an application. Today, the BSD component is most useful for getting stuff like MySQL, Apache and PHP up and running quickly. The only exception to this that I am aware of is Fizzilla. Fizzilla is a Mac OS X native port of Mozilla that uses Carbon for the front end drawing routines, and BSD for the threading and networking.

- Scott


------
Scott Stevenson

Grab a recent mozilla build, open this xpi in it to install java support, and have fun.
SSL support, should you want it, is also installable from the "Install PSM" selection under the Debug drop-down menu.
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.

All of the gopher patches are now sitting in Bug# 49334 on Bugzilla.

All it needs now is a r= and an a=, and those patches go into the mozilla tree.

Searches don't work, and you can't use proxies (now I'm finished exams those are the next feature), but the rest of standard gopher works fine.

Java is the solution for internet appliances. Projects like Mozilla will bridge the platform gap, and special plugins and browser extensions could be written in java. Java's UI has come a long way with JDK 1.3.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of those rare individuals who challenge the impossible, we now know that we can do it. Alex Chiu knows this, and Alex Chiu is a shining example of the American capitalist motto, YOU CAN DO IT!©

Just because you elitist, long haired socialist hippie open-source freaks think nothing can be accomplished unless it is free doesn't mean you can poop on the efforts of those gifted imagineers that dare to dream the impossible. I don't know what they teach you in those dens of homosexual debauchery known as British boarding schools, but here in the free world, A.K.A. US to the motherfuckin' A, they teach us three things:

1. You have the right to own a gun
2. You have the right to shoot anyone who says otherwise
3. The only good software is software YOU PAY FOR
4. YOU CAN DO IT!©

Let me explain:

Mozilla.org has twelve staff. These people are all, or almost all, paid by Netscape.

For example, Brendan Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and is a Mozilla employee paid by Netscape.

The Mozilla code is strictly controlled by Netscape: all code must be checked in by a Netscape engineer.

In addition, almost all of the Mozilla code is written by Netscape employees. Some companies, like IBM, have worked on specific areas (e.g., bidi, SVG).

But the amateur involvement is limited mainly to bug submissions - the number of amateurs who have written any significant amount of C++ code for the project is literally only a handful.

To all intents and purposes Mozilla *is* Netscape. Netscape provides Mozilla's life blood, and Mozilla was created by Netscape to build its browser.

This is not like someone taking KDE and plastering it with adverts. All Netscape has done is use the browser it created in its browser.

Furthermore, the people on Slashdot (e.g., Michael) who say that one should just use MSIE and that Netscape are being exploitative are missing the point.

Let me explain:

C++ engineers are not free. Software does not build itsself.

Companies have to make money and Netscape is hardly wrong in trying to make some money.

The assertions in the article are untrue. Microsoft makes as your homepage its money-making portal MSN. Microsoft puts links to hotmail, its commercial venture.

Microsoft puts paid for links from companies like the New Scientist in your bookmarks menus.

Microsoft charges companies to be in its channels.

Internet Explorer is massively cross-subsidised by Microsoft, and its hundreds of developers (seriously: check out help/about in ie 5.5).

Internet Explorer does not have to make money - Microsoft have other things that do that. Microsoft created Internet Explorer because it wanted to control the internet, and to this end paid Apple to make it its default browser.

It is wrong to say that Netscape has no right to make any money simply because Microsoft tried (and succeeded mostly, although Netscape's certainly helped it along) to kill Netscape, and did so by creating a product that lost it lots of money, and then to say that no company has any right to make money on web browsers simply because Microsoft doesn't because it has its own, more nefarious ends.

Let me explain:

Mozilla.org has twelve staff. These people are all, or almost all, paid by Netscape.

For example, Brendan Eich is the inventor of JavaScript and is a Mozilla employee paid by Netscape.

The Mozilla code is strictly controlled by Netscape: all code must be checked in by a Netscape engineer.

In addition, almost all of the Mozilla code is written by Netscape employees. Some companies, like IBM, have worked on specific areas (e.g., bidi, SVG).

But the amateur involvement is limited mainly to bug submissions - the number of amateurs who have written any significant amount of C++ code for the project is literally only a handful.

To all intents and purposes Mozilla *is* Netscape. Netscape provides Mozilla's life blood, and Mozilla was created by Netscape to build its browser.

This is not like someone taking KDE and plastering it with adverts. All Netscape has done is use the browser it created in its browser.

Furthermore, the people on Slashdot (e.g., Michael) who say that one should just use MSIE and that Netscape are being exploitative are missing the point.

Let me explain:

C++ engineers are not free. Software does not build itsself.

Companies have to make money and Netscape is hardly wrong in trying to make some money.

The assertions in the article are untrue. Microsoft makes as your homepage its money-making portal MSN. Microsoft puts links to hotmail, its commercial venture.

Microsoft puts paid for links from companies like the New Scientist in your bookmarks menus.

Microsoft charges companies to be in its channels.

Internet Explorer is massively cross-subsidised by Microsoft, and its hundreds of developers (seriously: check out help/about in ie 5.5).

Internet Explorer does not have to make money - Microsoft have other things that do that. Microsoft created Internet Explorer because it wanted to control the internet, and to this end paid Apple to make it its default browser.

It is wrong to say that Netscape has no right to make any money simply because Microsoft tried (and succeeded mostly, although Netscape's certainly helped it along) to kill Netscape, and did so by creating a product that lost it lots of money, and then to say that no company has any right to make money on web browsers simply because Microsoft doesn't because it has its own, more nefarious ends.

--

> IE renders faster, and, horrors, is more stable. (This seems to be true on Linux, too... My Linux Netscape dumps core about every 5 minutes, whereas IE only does it about every 15 minutes...)

> Microsoft's JVM is better,

> as is their implementation of ECMA/JavaScript

> After being lambasted for being nothing but a marketing organization, Microsoft has put a lot of time and money into making the last couple versions of IE really good...

>Netscape seems to have decided to take just the opposite approach and become nothing more than a marketing arm of AOL...

> all the good work is being done for by the Mozilla folks, and as volunteers they're having a hard time keeping up with the big bucks of M$.

> AOL seems to not give a damn about putting any money into the project to give the engineering effort a fighting chance against the stuff M$ is doing.

> IE, at least on Windows, and in the versions I've tested on Linux, is just faster, more stable, more flexible in terms of add-ons it will accept without problems... better.

> IE renders faster, and, horrors, is more stable. (This seems to be true on Linux, too... My Linux Netscape dumps core about every 5 minutes, whereas IE only does it about every 15 minutes...)

> Microsoft's JVM is better,

> as is their implementation of ECMA/JavaScript

> After being lambasted for being nothing but a marketing organization, Microsoft has put a lot of time and money into making the last couple versions of IE really good...

>Netscape seems to have decided to take just the opposite approach and become nothing more than a marketing arm of AOL...

> all the good work is being done for by the Mozilla folks, and as volunteers they're having a hard time keeping up with the big bucks of M$.

> AOL seems to not give a damn about putting any money into the project to give the engineering effort a fighting chance against the stuff M$ is doing.

> IE, at least on Windows, and in the versions I've tested on Linux, is just faster, more stable, more flexible in terms of add-ons it will accept without problems... better.

Looking over the comments you've posted (from your user info page), you're obviously involved in the Mozilla development. Now I'm a bit frustrated with the slow progress on the relicensing, but it's understandable.

Now I know everyone working on Mozilla/Netscape has probably been frustrated with lots of criticism over features vs memory/bloat and standards compliance vs delivery dates. I know that is gets difficult when it comes from "all directions" with conflicting opinions, where the only common theme is everyone is upset. Please try to understand the viewpoint of anyone waiting and trying to make plans to integrate mozilla code into a GPL'd project.

Without access to the newsgroup, the relicense process appears to be at a standstill.

The FAQ says "Yes, as more questions are asked, updates will be made to this page", but there been no update in three months. The answers are vauge and provide no real information that anyone planning to work with the code together with other GPL'd code could use to plan their future activities. There is no estimate of when the contributors will be contacted, how long they have to reply, or any other time oriented info. In fact, there isn't even an indication of when these things may be known and added to the page. There is no indication of what parts of the project the staff of mozilla.org can speak for, and say with certainty that they will be dual licensed.

I know there's a limited number of hours in a day, and a limited number of people to work on any project. You need to work on the most important things first. I can agree that standards compliance and bug fixing has been a well chosen high priority.

The flip side of the coin is that, judging from the Mozilla Relicensing FAQ it would appear that the dual licensing to GPL has completely fallen off the radar. In fact, there may be someone working dilligently on it, but anyone considering using mozilla in a GPL'd setting can't know that from a FAQ with vauge answers, claiming it will be updated, but has in fact not been updated in three months.

Now maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get n.p.m.license, but I doubt it. If there really is work being done on the relicense AND if the mozilla team really is interested in people using the code in GPL'd projects, it'd probably be worth the 15-20 minutes to update the FAQ page, linked right from the main mozilla.org, so that folks working on GPL'd projects could plan accordingly. Judging from what I can actually see (the FAQ), the only plans I could realistically make ammount to "it looks like they've completely forgotten about it (so I'll have to look at XmHTML, XDE, etc, instead of waiting just a little longer)".

Ok, enough complaining and whining.

Folks, the time has come, or rather it has passed. Netscape lost the war, freed its source, and now exploits the hard labor of worldwide coders for its own benefit. Our predecessors couldn't stop plutocrats from gaining unwanted capital, but we can: don't use Netscape! Don't wanna use IE? Mozilla's still pretty good in its most recent incarnations, and Opera works well with only minor plugin compatiblity problems :) RISE UP!

"As long as we sanction the bum on the plush/
The other will always be there/
But rid ourselves of the bum on the plush/
And the other will disappear!

So do yourselves a wonderful favor/
Get rid of the wasted crush/
Don't worry about the bum on the rods/
Get rid of the bum on the plush."

-- The Two Bums, J. Hill


"Blow up your TV/Throw away your paper/
Move to the country/Build you a home"

In the RMS sense of this, it's wrong, but most people don't fully agree with his philosophy so that wrong can be ruled out. Plus, if you really want to stay on top of things, the Netscape release is simply a commercial version of web browser that you can grab for free minus commercials at that well known site

So what's the fuss? You don't have to use NS6, you can simply use mozilla. Plus that claim that IE doesn't pat itself on the back and feed itself by providing links to other sites for doe is bullshit, try a default install of IE sometime. It has the nerve of asking you if you want a free hotmail account before you can load it, plus making it nigh impossible to delete the Links section out of the favorites menu bar. At least netscape allowed me to completely wipe my bookmarks with relative ease [i hate any bookmarks, especially ones that aren't mine].

• We don't know how much will be GPL'd
• We need to contact lots of contributors
• We won't say how long this will take
• There's a newsgroup (not available on my NTTP server)

Does anyone here get this newsgroup and/or have any real info about when the world can expect to see a GPL'd mozilla source distribution.

I'd really like to play around with the code, but not until it's GPL'd.

.. that garf were removable. Haven't tried the 6.0 flavor yet, but the 4.7x bunch just absolutely will not let you take the preformated sections out of your bookmark file.

There are a few other reasons why I'm probably going to stick with Mozilla at home, but when the admins at work give us a choice I'll probably take it.

I was a little annoyed when I heard Netscape was gonna branch Mozilla for their commerical release because then everyone would be calling it Netscape when it's actually Mozilla, but that's trivial compared to the real downside here. Since Netscape will be an old version of Mozilla, a lot of the things that people'll be bitching about won't be an issue under Mozilla. Any problem they have will be at least a little bit better under Moz. *sigh*, another thing to educate the masses about...

Seems like there is no support in the final NS6 for MathML? See this link for the tex V MML demo page. Anyone know what the plan is here?

False.
Mozilla DOES do syntax highlighting.
It's just a has-to-be-documented-but-not-yet feature.
See this bug
Just add this line to your prefs.js
user_pref("browser.view_source.syntax_highlight",t rue);

BOO!

Why is perfect standards compliance a bad idea for HTML? Two words: platform widgets. Netscape's decision to use cross platform widgets, as I understand it, was because CSS2 demands that every platform's widgets be able to do stuff that they're not designed to do - stretch, change colors, etc. So to solve this problem, Moz renders its interface, using ugly XP widgets that aren't even the ones they wooed us with way back when.

If anything, the W3C should be chastised for leaning towards standards (such as XHTML too) that are way too complicated and strict and not in the spirit of HTML - a people's programming language which has a loosey-goosey interpreter that allows mistakes that non-programmers tend to make - and that's a good thing!

My prediction is that when somebody takes the "Netscape Gecko(tm)" engine, gets rid of the XP widgets, the XP interface, dolls it up to look all cool-and-draggy like IE5, makes it do all those cool geeky banner/doubleclick elimination features, releases a strong Mac, Unix and Win32 version, all under the GPL (if that's truly possible) this will be a great browser, with both geek and non-geek support. When I tell Windows that my menus are supposed to be gray and in size 16 arial bold, that's how I want it, dammit. I'm not going to load some dang theme. I want the interface to get the hell out of my way so I can use the browser. The best thing about IE5 is that in 5 seconds from the default install, I can customize it exactly how I want it - small and out of my face. No menus to navigate, just clickin' and draggin. On the other hand, if I wanted everything big and out in front with a big ol' "go" button, I could do that too. It's not about whether it's possible to change things around or not in Moz, it's about whether it's more convenient that it is in IE5. And it isn't. 100% standards compliance is a dumb idea. All I want is a browser that loads fast, runs fast, has a brilliant non-interface, is reasonably standards compliant, loaded up with geeky features (tucked away for joeschmoe yet still easy to find and use, of course) with a small memory footprint. I thought this was the promise of Mozilla, but I guess I was wrong. Rather, this is the promise of IE6 - and THAT'S SCARY.

I followed the instructions here to get the source via CVS and every day or so I run 'gmake -f client.mk' which updates my source files and rebuilds. Is there something I should do to be more up to date than that?

Amaya is surely buggy as hell. It's image rendering seems to cause random lines nearby images, align images slightly wrong and css support is far from correct. For example see w3.org/Style with Amaya and Mozilla or IE5.5 (which renders some of it incorrectly though). I wonder if the page is really supposed to look like it. Also it seems to fail even the first test of CSS Test Suite. Thanks but I think I will continue to check my web pages with validator.w3.org, Mozilla and IE5.5.
_________________________

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

Netscape 6 and XHTML? I think. not.

This really pisses me off... XHTML is a new standard, and Mozilla could start it off on the right foot perfectly. But they're fucking it up more than Netscape 1.0 did to HTML.

For the Windows users at work, roaming was the only reason they used Netscape over IE.

Check out Buzilla entry 17048 for info. Doesn't look good.

--

Alternatively you might as well just go here and download the latest Mozilla builds which is better in all respects (unless you need AOL IM integrated with your browser) and then just get the Netscape throbber from a N6 preview release and swap it with the Mozilla ones then you do have the best of all worlds.

Once again sorry for letting you all down - it did work for hours after me submitting it but then they must have realised.

Read your /.
Mozilla.org Posts New Roadmap

...or the mozilla site:
mozilla development roadmap

--

--

--

--

Netscape is not Open Source.

Debatable. Netscape 6 contains some proprietary extensions, but the bulk of the code is Mozilla, which is open source.

Offtopic (-1)
Informative (+1)

Just wanted to get public attention to an html feature that even the 3.0 browsers support that seems to be missing in mozilla.
If you have an server side image map in a frame and you want it to open the links in another frame you need a TARGET attribute in the a href line pointing to the server side map file. Well Mozilla completly ignores the TARGET attribute.
This is bug 22864 Please vote, or fix it if you have the power.
(test web page at dwt's non flash page still in construction finished flash version at www.dwebtech.com

Has anyone thought about what having an open-source project behind this browser means? Netscape 6.0 will not be the final release, it will be the first in a continuous series of easily updatable (through XPConnect/.jar/etc., like every project on mozdev.org) standards-compliant open browsers that can be customized for any situation. Netscape 6.0 is the first of these; it's Netscape for consumers using separate browsers, with AOL properties. Use Mozilla instead, switch the chrome, do whatever you want, just remember Netscape isn't meant for the developer, Mozilla is.

But what about AOL's 60 million users? AOL will switch from using IE to using a Gecko-derived browser natively, which instantly migrates half the US internet population to Netscape. AOL patches their software almost every time a user connects, so for all of these users, the patches can be integrated piecemeal, and they *are* relatively minor problems.

Remember, Netscape 6 != Mozilla 1.0, it's roughly Mozilla 0.9 (look it up). People have been writing article after article slamming Netscape for not releasing a product, something, anything, "before it's too late," and now that they are, they're being lambasted from a different direction. Let them release the damn thing already!

I think it'd be fun to play with the code, but there's no way I'm going to put my time into it until it's GPL'd and I can mix-n-match with other GPL'd code.

Why do I you may ask

If more people that start using NS6,
more bugs will be submitted to Mozilla
The More bugs submitted to Mozilla
the easier it makes it for people to fix these bugs.

From this flamewar I get the impression that many people don't want the Mozilla project to succeed.

I've been using Mozilla on my Win2k box and have been having pretty good luck so far. I like the new interface much more than the new IE "rainbow" interface, Although I admit it does initially load slower than IE.

By the way... Any IE-5.5 users ever have any problems on the Micro$oft website? A friend of mine who swears by using M$ claims that his Win2K box alocates a gig of virtual memory, but only after visiting M$'s website with IE-5.5. I know you can't judge a browser by just one website, but I thought it was odd.

I don't think standards support should be the only priority of a browser. Standards sometimes contain errors and sometimes even security holes. Also, most webpage authors read the source of other webpages, and Mozilla doesn't tell you when a webpage uses nonstandard HTML or contains a typo in the tag formatting. (Last I heard it doesn't even validate XML??)

Also, it should be noted that Netscape has been favoring disabling features (such as css borders) over supporting them with many bugs. Disabling them makes sure they won't be used incorrectly due to buggy implementation, and that's a good thing :)

I don't think standards support should be the only priority of a browser. Standards sometimes contain errors and sometimes even security holes. Also, most webpage authors read the source of other webpages, and Mozilla doesn't tell you when a webpage uses nonstandard HTML or contains a typo in the tag formatting. (Last I heard it doesn't even validate XML??)

Also, it should be noted that Netscape has been favoring disabling features (such as css borders) over supporting them with many bugs. Disabling them makes sure they won't be used incorrectly due to buggy implementation, and that's a good thing :)

I don't think standards support should be the only priority of a browser. Standards sometimes contain errors and sometimes even security holes. Also, most webpage authors read the source of other webpages, and Mozilla doesn't tell you when a webpage uses nonstandard HTML or contains a typo in the tag formatting. (Last I heard it doesn't even validate XML??)

Also, it should be noted that Netscape has been favoring disabling features (such as css borders) over supporting them with many bugs. Disabling them makes sure they won't be used incorrectly due to buggy implementation, and that's a good thing :)

Dave Flanagan's petition comes too late to do any good. Large-scale software projects don't decide to ship all of a sudden. The release of Netscape 6 has been planned for months, and check-ins to the Mozilla source tree have been restricted for a long time as part of the process of stabilizing the tree for shipping.

Flanagan may be right about PDT being way too conservative, but at this point it's better for everyone if Netscape 6 ships, because it means the Mozilla source tree will open back up to continuing development by both third-party and Netscape developers. This means the Mozilla browser will get better quicker.

The other thing Flanagan misses is that the bugs he cites are minor issues with Mozilla's standards support, not major flaws. I reported an HTML4-compliance bug with Mozilla that got pushed off until after the release of Netscape 6 too. I wish it hadn't, but realistically this bug is not going to cause a great deal of trouble, especially not compared to the troubles IE causes by its lack of standards support.

According to the article, most of the bugs mentioned are already fixed in Mozilla, but won't make it in Netscape 6.0, because of the brain-dead push for a 6.0 release. If you spend time beta-testing anything, it should be Mozilla, and not IE...

--

Is this an illegal way of pushing their own company, or is this just an inconvenience that 6.0 users will have to put up with?

AOL users who are not 18 or older may not make TCP/IP connections from other browsers; they must use the AOL browser and look at AOL.com's banner ads.