Slashdot Mirror

I am sure they would love to hear of any other suggestions for stopping cookie abuse. We have a chance to make a browser the way we want it to be, so we should take advantage of that.

Vote for Bug 7380 in Bugzilla. "Support all prefs on a URL by URL basis" is the 4th most voted for Mozilla bug/feature request already.

I wonder who's going drop by (I assume the male/female ratio will probably be pretty high)

Mozilla is going to be the first browser that doesn't (tries not to) violate the `official' specifications on how web pages should be formatted.

Unfortunately, this means that pages that were written for browsers that violated the specification will need to be rewritten. If you spot any bugs, or what you think are bugs then they should be reported at bugzilla.

Fraid not. If you've taken a look at the site recently, like for instance here, it has been made pretty clear that M15 of mozilla will be the netscape commercial beta. As for the funky numbering, there are two theories on that floating around: one, posted earlier by Col. Klink, says that Netscape 5 was the origonal OS browser developed prior to Mozilla and Gecko. The other theory says that Netscape is playing the revision jumping game to make it sound like they're keeping up with the Jonses (or in this case, the Gateses). Either way, the NS browser being built is the one on Mozilla.org. It'll be given a lot of polishing and (hopefully) a lot more bug fixes before it gets out of the back room, but it will still be Mozilla. The basis for the branding, integrated AOL IM, and everything else is already in there, either visible in M14 or lurking in the code.

Cripes! Somebody please moderate that comment down.

This guy has the mentality of "Gee, Mozilla has bugs in it. . . why even bother trying it" Mozilla is a work in progress. See a problem with mozilla? Use Bugzilla to report it! Doesn't have a feature you would like to see? Use Bugzilla to report it! The future of Mozilla is in your hands!

I have contributed to Bugzilla on several occasions, and I think it's a great thing. It's a good feeling to be a part of something like this.

-WD

Cripes! Somebody please moderate that comment down.

This guy has the mentality of "Gee, Mozilla has bugs in it. . . why even bother trying it" Mozilla is a work in progress. See a problem with mozilla? Use Bugzilla to report it! Doesn't have a feature you would like to see? Use Bugzilla to report it! The future of Mozilla is in your hands!

I have contributed to Bugzilla on several occasions, and I think it's a great thing. It's a good feeling to be a part of something like this.

-WD

Cripes! Somebody please moderate that comment down.

This guy has the mentality of "Gee, Mozilla has bugs in it. . . why even bother trying it" Mozilla is a work in progress. See a problem with mozilla? Use Bugzilla to report it! Doesn't have a feature you would like to see? Use Bugzilla to report it! The future of Mozilla is in your hands!

I have contributed to Bugzilla on several occasions, and I think it's a great thing. It's a good feeling to be a part of something like this.

-WD

--

--

--

--

--

--

It's quite obvious you haven't tried any of the nightly builds or the milestone releases. If you had, you'd know that mozilla is fully compliant with CSS1 and html. CSS2 compliancy is partial, but it's better than microsoft's incorrect implimentation.

As for "slow performance," optimization is at the bottom of the list, behind getting things feature-complete and getting to zarro boogs. Besides, mozilla _is_ fast. But you haven't tried it, remember?

As for "inevitable crashes," I dare you to state that IE never crashes. I also dare you to say that _beta_ software never crashes. Besides, mozilla doesn't crash that much. But you haven't tried it.

As for bugs, there is a massive public database that anyone can access to report bugs. Several of the bugs I have reported have been fixed, and several more are being worked on. Again, this is old hat to mozilla regulars... but you haven't tried it.

Hype is one thing, but in this case there are avenues to decide for yourself exactly what the product is like.

It's quite obvious you haven't tried any of the nightly builds or the milestone releases. If you had, you'd know that mozilla is fully compliant with CSS1 and html. CSS2 compliancy is partial, but it's better than microsoft's incorrect implimentation.

As for "slow performance," optimization is at the bottom of the list, behind getting things feature-complete and getting to zarro boogs. Besides, mozilla _is_ fast. But you haven't tried it, remember?

As for "inevitable crashes," I dare you to state that IE never crashes. I also dare you to say that _beta_ software never crashes. Besides, mozilla doesn't crash that much. But you haven't tried it.

As for bugs, there is a massive public database that anyone can access to report bugs. Several of the bugs I have reported have been fixed, and several more are being worked on. Again, this is old hat to mozilla regulars... but you haven't tried it.

Hype is one thing, but in this case there are avenues to decide for yourself exactly what the product is like.

It's quite obvious you haven't tried any of the nightly builds or the milestone releases. If you had, you'd know that mozilla is fully compliant with CSS1 and html. CSS2 compliancy is partial, but it's better than microsoft's incorrect implimentation.

As for "slow performance," optimization is at the bottom of the list, behind getting things feature-complete and getting to zarro boogs. Besides, mozilla _is_ fast. But you haven't tried it, remember?

As for "inevitable crashes," I dare you to state that IE never crashes. I also dare you to say that _beta_ software never crashes. Besides, mozilla doesn't crash that much. But you haven't tried it.

As for bugs, there is a massive public database that anyone can access to report bugs. Several of the bugs I have reported have been fixed, and several more are being worked on. Again, this is old hat to mozilla regulars... but you haven't tried it.

Hype is one thing, but in this case there are avenues to decide for yourself exactly what the product is like.

No, it's alpha quality -- and soon beta.

I agree, there is a lot of hype. Then again Mozilla is/will be the first browser with full support for the latest W3C specifications. Mozilla is/will be fast compared to the majority of other browsers. So there is hype. But there is also code.

When this beta comes out, thousands will rush to download and install it, only to switch back to their old browser a few days later as they get frustrated with the slow performance and inevitable crashes. It's a crying shame as otherwise it looks like a good browser - maybe the next attempt will get it right. And as much as we all hate Microsoft, at least Internet Explorer works and is compliant with all but the latest W3C standards.

I doubt I'll bother with this release, but I'm looking foward to the day when we see a great browser for Linux which delivers performance rather than hype. Thank you.

If you are looking for a Linux browser, then don't mention MSIE. Face it.. at least Mozilla *runs* on Linux. Perhaps Mozilla will not be the best browser for the Windows platform soon, but please name one browser for Linux that is better than Mozilla (other than Lynx or w3m) and I'll be happy to give it a try.

By the way, it's terribly immature to bitch about someone's code, especially when they offer you to improve it. If you seriously have issues with Mozilla, go to Bugzilla and file some bug reports. I did, and got very neat responses as well as bugfixes.

Please *do* bother with this release, it will improve the next.

I'm using the nightly builds quite often and although there has been a lot of progress the last months, Mozilla would not yet be accepted as browser by the masses.

A few of the issues:

Mozilla looks horrible.
They'd better start working on some nice themes, because the default looks are crap. And so tells every friend I show Mozilla. I know that it's cute and looks like Netscape's portal, but it's just not pretty.

Mozilla crashes too often.
Don't let the Beta1 progress list fool you: these are only release-stopping bugs. There *are* tons of other serious ones that need to be addressed first.

Mozilla is not MSIE.
Harsh as it is, this *is* a problem. Even if Mozilla is better than MSIE, a lot of users will not even try it. MSIE does it's job good enough and the general public doesn't care about ethics (yet).

And there's probably even more...

But, Mozilla is open source so we can all help and address these issues. Mozilla is very cross-platform. Mozilla might/should/will? replace MSIE as browser component for AOL and gain instant market share. Other manufacturers can also ship Mozilla or even plain Gecko as browser component without paying a Microsoft fee.

Mozilla will do just fine. Thanks, developers.

I, my mother, my sister, and my father all regularly put our laptops (unless my sister steals mine to play Civ:CTP or HoMM3 or dad and I use his to look up flight charts) in the nose storage of a plane that flies at about 30,000 feet. No pressurization, no heat. And my laptop still works fine, thankee very much, sir (actually I'm looking at selling one of em if someone wants a TP 570 -- works great, almost new). I believe that heat is another matter, but I've had some laptops that get hot enough that the manual specifically states that you should never, ever put it on your lap (which is where I have it), and the hard drive works just fine.

Another point is that this is self-assembling magnetic storage. I was at the last Foresight Convention on Nanotechnology, and for all the amazing and interesting things people had done or were trying to do, the real roadblock was self-assembly. building a motor with an AFM is not exactly practical.

Offtopic: why can't we make players that read/write MD media, and play MP3's? Now that is something I would buy instantly. (or when I have enough PointClick dollars to get one -- really offtopic: why doesn't PointClick let you use Mozilla, dammit?)

Lea

The original story behind the MPL is that the GPL suffers from a kind of Viral nature: when you use it on a project, any other projects or bits of code that come into contact with it or ar descended from it also have to be GPL as well. This is potentially nightmarish for Sun, who may wish to incorporate changes to Forte into other closed-source products, and so the MPL was developed. There is a more detailed explanation in Mozilla.org's history pages Needless to say, the ability for Sun to use any

• The GNU General Public License (GPL);

• The GNU Library or `Lesser' Public License (LGPL);

• The BSD license;

• The MIT license (sometimes called called the `X Consortium license');

• The Artistic license;

• The Mozilla Public License (MPL);

• The Qt Public License (QPL).

• The IBM Public License.

• The MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License).

• The Ricoh Source Code Public License.

• The Python license.

• The zlib/libpng license.

-tim

At the moment, it is the reason why mozilla does not have alpha channel PNG.

See this page for more details.

You can do it in imlib or gnome-canvas, but that is not the proper place to do so, and makes it very hard for the mozilla developers to do. (because of their cross platform architecture) If X had alpha channel support, we would have alpha channel support right now.

If you can do the alpha channel stuff like gnome-canvas, just hop on over and tell them how. I'm sure they'd be glad to hear it.


-- Thrakkerzog

As for mail filtering, I'm not sure exactly what the status is on that, although there are a few bug specifically relating to mail filtering: here, here and here.

As for mail filtering, I'm not sure exactly what the status is on that, although there are a few bug specifically relating to mail filtering: here, here and here.

As for mail filtering, I'm not sure exactly what the status is on that, although there are a few bug specifically relating to mail filtering: here, here and here.

As for mail filtering, I'm not sure exactly what the status is on that, although there are a few bug specifically relating to mail filtering: here, here and here.

Also, the Mozilla SSL implementation (in the Personal Security Manager and Network Services Services library) was released under both the MPL and GPL. This was done specifically to allow this code to be used in GPLed software. See the Mozilla Crypto FAQ.

There is no binary-only code hosted on mozilla.org as part of the Mozilla project. The Netscape Personal Security Manager binaries (which provide SSL support for Mozilla) have been provided by iPlanet, because they have the license from RSA to include the necessary code and algorithms to build a complete binary executable ready for use (in this case under the "Netscape" brand).

All of the other code in PSM is or will be available in source form on the mozilla.org site. People who want to use that source code to build their own PSM binaries will be able to do so, as long as they have separate source code to implement the RSA-licensed parts.

For reference, there are three sets of relevant source code needed to provide SSL support for Mozilla:

• Source code in Mozilla itself to call out to PSM. This is already on the M14 branch in complete form.
• Source code in PSM and the underlying Network Security Services (NSS) library, where the SSL protocol is implemented. Most of this source code is already available on mozilla.org; the rest will be released after being cleaned up for public release.
• Source code in the RSA-proprietary library to do the actual encryption operations. This source code will never be available on mozilla.org (not being open source), and will have to replaced with equivalent code from other sources.

As always, for more information see the Mozilla Crypto FAQ.

There is no binary-only code hosted on mozilla.org as part of the Mozilla project. The Netscape Personal Security Manager binaries (which provide SSL support for Mozilla) have been provided by iPlanet, because they have the license from RSA to include the necessary code and algorithms to build a complete binary executable ready for use (in this case under the "Netscape" brand).

All of the other code in PSM is or will be available in source form on the mozilla.org site. People who want to use that source code to build their own PSM binaries will be able to do so, as long as they have separate source code to implement the RSA-licensed parts.

For reference, there are three sets of relevant source code needed to provide SSL support for Mozilla:

• Source code in Mozilla itself to call out to PSM. This is already on the M14 branch in complete form.
• Source code in PSM and the underlying Network Security Services (NSS) library, where the SSL protocol is implemented. Most of this source code is already available on mozilla.org; the rest will be released after being cleaned up for public release.
• Source code in the RSA-proprietary library to do the actual encryption operations. This source code will never be available on mozilla.org (not being open source), and will have to replaced with equivalent code from other sources.

As always, for more information see the Mozilla Crypto FAQ.

The Mozilla Crypto FAQ. Read it. It explains how the developers will return to release this source and include it with Mozilla later, when the patents expire. Or maybe you'd rather they broke the patent and made the whole damn browser illegal?

Think before you post...

Have a look at bug 17325.

Good Morning!

While you were asleep in the past few months, the US government published new rules on cryptography. You can find more details on how this affected Mozilla on their their website.

My primary consolation in watching you people handwave over this nonsense is that it's never going to amount to anything anyhow: file/folder is locked in, there's no room for you the way you're behaving.

The reason I restrain is that my source code might be worth a lot of money someday. If I GPL it then people can get it free. Isn't there a lot of profit lost in open sourcing?

There are companies which did exactly this, opening there former proprietary software. Two very well known examples are Mozilla and Zope. There is a good description how Digital Creations went open source with Zope and what their fears were and why they still did it.

- Stephan.

Here's an interesting project for someone with a little bit of time:
Make a website listing, detailing, and comparing all the current open source licenses that are being used. Set-up a nice clean web-site which is devoted to the different open source licenses that people have written up, perhaps with some sort of arguments for and against each one? Try to make it relatively impartial. Perhaps even try to get some of the OpenLaw people to contribute some time to analyze them in relation to various legal structures around the planet.

Heck, here's even a starter just off the top of my head and Yahoo:

• Apple Public Source License
• Artistic License
• GNU General Public License (GPL)
• GNU Library General Public License (GLPL)
• Netscape Public License (NPL)

I looked around a bit, but can't seem to find any site that really does this already cleanly and clearly. Any takers?

Read the page. It's based on ActiveX and requires IE 4 or better.

Yet another small attempt to make Windows the 'better' OS for the Internet...

This is just *another* case of Linux falling behind due to it's lack of support for common Internet standards. Where is our ActiveX? COM?

Falling behind? I'm grateful that Linux doesn't have ActiveX (read: a huge security hole).

Granted, I can occasionally watch as the Java ads on Slashdot cause Netscape for Linux to crash, but that seems to be the extend of Linux's so-called internet connectivity.

What? The extent of Linux's 'internet connectivity'? What crack have you been smoking lately? Linux is more intimately tied to the net than any other OS (except for other Unixen) due to the fact that TCP/IP is an integral part of Linux/*BSD/etc. Just because Linux doesn't support a Microsoft-developed technology, it's all of a sudden not suitable for the Internet?

And you wonder why people are forced to use windows+IE?

It has much more to do with the fact that there are no 'major' apps available for Linux (by major, I mean the industry standard - Photoshop, Illustrator, most M$-crap) than it does about ActiveX. Before anybody jumps at me and says 'What about The GIMP?', Adobe Photoshop is the industry standard for pixel-based graphics design and photo editing. Most professionals (including myself) are experienced with Photoshop. To retrain oneself for a different program is harder than learning it from scratch.

If they want to make use of the latest technologies, for example 'Robust URLs' (though maybe they should have invested in a Robust Server), then Linux, sadly, can't keep up. We as a community are being left behind in the Internet arms race.

Why? I'm sure that someone will develop a Linux/*BSD implementation of Robust URLs and the incompatibility is solved. The Linux community is not being left behind at all, just because that can't use a few CraptiveX controls.

Fortunatly, I have a few ideas:
Get a task force composed of Richard Stallman, Bruce Perens, and ESR to develop and debug ActiveX support for Linux. Estimated time: 2 months.

Bad idea! Supporting ActiveX on Linux is (in my eyes, FWIW) tantamount to giving out your root password. Anything that allows automatically downloaded/embedded code to have FULL ACCESS to my hardware is inherently evil and should be destroyed. And Authenticode? Give me a break...that only tells you who to blame if you get a trojan and not whether the control is safe or not...

Form an Open Source Browser Committee to create a new, Open Source web browser that supports all the latest standards (CSS, DOM, DNA) Estimated time: 3 months.

Well, we do have Mozilla, even though it is not GPL'ed, it's Open Source.

Push for Perl to be embedded in all new web browsers so that CGI programs can be run on the user's machine, which will reduce server loads. Estimated time: 1 month.

Should be quicker than that - just provide an interface to the existing Perl implementation.

Design a new, Internet-ready desktop for Linux, Give it a web browser, probably the new one I described above, and embed it in everything: file manager, word processor, start button, etc. Estimated time: 4 months.

This is a great idea, which will (if implemented correctly) make the barrier-to-entry much lower than it currently is. Graphical configuration tools are also needed (but don't change the underlying architecture, let those who want to use the console).

I think that with these items accomplished, Linux will truly begin to shine as a web platform, even for the newest users.

I fully agree, except for the ActiveX support. Just because Microsoft develops it doesn't mean that Linux should strive to be compatible (else we will eventually have another Windows).

Disclaimer - My comments do not represent the views of ABC19 WKPT and are my own.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder

The carbon version of Mozilla. It'll run on MacOS 8.1 - 9.04 as well as MacOS X, as long as the carbon libs are installed.

http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/

M14 is for bugstomping. M13 is still the latest ported milestone, as evidenced by this quote from Project Seamonkey: Current Project Milestones and News [Latest Testing, Evaluation and Porting Release: M13] [Next Development Milestone Target: M14 - Open Bug and Engineering Task List] For additional information on this and other upcoming milestones check the milestone plan.

M14 is for bugstomping. M13 is still the latest ported milestone, as evidenced by this quote from Project Seamonkey: Current Project Milestones and News [Latest Testing, Evaluation and Porting Release: M13] [Next Development Milestone Target: M14 - Open Bug and Engineering Task List] For additional information on this and other upcoming milestones check the milestone plan.

If you want to see more details on this issue, take a look at the primary SMP bug here. To comment on some of the other notes on this SMP thread: 1) Yes, it is multi-threaded. The problem is that certain key functions arae not thread safe. 2) The problem does show up on non-SMP boxes, but is rare- it is greatly exagerrated on SMP, both Linux and NT. 3) There is a lot of work underway on this problem, since several of the developers use SMP boxes at home. Unfortunately, while the solution is reasonably straightforward, it will require a lot of work. You'll note that the bug is marked beta1- which means it is a priority. We'll see...
~luge

While mozilla will probably have to work-around their HTML problems (the odds of them fixing the incorrectly calculated widths that add up to more than the width of the page and make it linewrap) this is not a mozilla problem.

Thanks for some confirmation that I'm not on crack.

If you'd like to see Slashdot look pretty, please vote for my bug at Mozilla bug 29726.

It's there now. But it still isn't and probably won't ever be up to Mac interface standards, which almost makes me wonder why they bother. I assume Communicator 6, based on the Mozilla code, will be though. Can anyone confirm that? Will Communicator 6 use the native widgets for the OSes it runs on?

--

[Redundent, just for those that are copy and paste imapaired]
Mozilla's bug database Bugzilla
Query Bugzilla
The bug reporting guidelines

-bergee

[Redundent, just for those that are copy and paste imapaired]
Mozilla's bug database Bugzilla
Query Bugzilla
The bug reporting guidelines

-bergee

[Redundent, just for those that are copy and paste imapaired]
Mozilla's bug database Bugzilla
Query Bugzilla
The bug reporting guidelines

-bergee

--