Slashdot Mirror

--

--

--

--

--

--

But there are still 500 bugs targeted for M14

I saw M13 get whittled down to zaroo boogs, then it came out, I assumed the same for M14. Does this have anything to do with Netscape wanting to get a Communicator 6.0 beta out ASAP?

BTW the source code for M14 should follow on the FTP site soon. If you can buld for other platforms please do so and contribute your builds back to Mozilla. See here for details of packaging your own milestone build for your platform.
--
Make use of your spare CPU time!

Check out http://www.mozilla.org/mirrors.html for a list of download mirrors.

#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak

I'm writing this in mozilla M14 right now, and I've one thing to say about it : the fonts are still AWFUL! See Mozilla Bug # 29726 for my report and screenshots - does everyone else see this problem? Any ideas what to do?

Mozilla uses James Clark's expat parser -- Hervé - http://altern.org/mozillazine/

From the mozilla crypto FAQ, it says "We know of at least two efforts which may produce PGP support for Mozilla." I don't know what they are.
However, I do know of the PGP Plugin for Netscape which replaces the spell checker with a PGP encrypter. The source is available, so such a beast (having the add-on you sugguested available as a module) could be easily implemented.

Mozilla does not yet have support for encrypted email, either S/MIME or PGP-based. I expect both to become available later sometime, but it's too soon to guess at dates.

Release of complete crypto source for Mozilla based on the PSM/NSS software and architecture depends not only on expiration of the RSA patent but also on replacing all the proprietary source code licensed from RSA Security and other third parties. That's the goal, but there's enough integration and other work involved that it's not going to happen overnight. But I do expect to see it happen; exactly how and when it happens remains to be seen.

it's bug #22687

Vote early (and as the old joke goes, vote often)

W
-------------------

--

--

--

--

--

From the ngLayout FAQ:

For XML formatting, why is Gecko supporting CSS rather than XSL in the first release?

Simple: CSS1 is a finished, fully adopted, and mature two-year-old standard; XSL isn't done yet. As Tim Bray, the coeditor of the XML standard, has written:

"Microsoft's XSL efforts are very impressive, but (readers will pardon us being something of a broken record on this subject) XSL is in the future. We are convinced that from the point of view of the largest number of users, the most important things that Microsoft could do in IE 5 would be:
1.Ensure interoperability of XML and stylesheets with other browsers, and
2.Build in conformance to existing, stable, well-understood standards such as CSS 1.0.

Innovation, of course, is fine and necessary, and we salute Microsoft's leadership in this area. But innovation needs to be built on a foundation of interoperability and playing by existing well-understood rules." He further adds that "It seems obvious to me that for anyone who wants to deploy XML in production mode right now, XML + CSS is the way to go ..." ("Microsoft Outlines XML Support in IE5 Beta 2" at http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/98/10/ie5-2.html)

-=snip=-

I understand their reasoning, but damnit, I want my XSL! It's very weird giving XML demos in IE.

Hi. I'm one of the developers who is working on getting the crypto stuff out of our internal tree and into the M14 branch.

It is true that for the moment, this branch will only be useful with a binary-only module that we are cranking out for both 4.x and Netscape 6 browsers.

However, as you will see here, we are in the process of getting all the source code that we legally can out there. We made tarballs available a few weeks ago, and though that code doesn't build, at least you can get an idea of how the binary piece works.

We're still working on patent issues, as you might guess, along with a number of other things, before we can have a fully working build in the mozilla tree. But we're getting there.

Mark Welch -- Crypto/PKI developer -- Sun|Netscape Alliance

Hi. I'm one of the developers who is working on getting the crypto stuff out of our internal tree and into the M14 branch.

It is true that for the moment, this branch will only be useful with a binary-only module that we are cranking out for both 4.x and Netscape 6 browsers.

However, as you will see here, we are in the process of getting all the source code that we legally can out there. We made tarballs available a few weeks ago, and though that code doesn't build, at least you can get an idea of how the binary piece works.

We're still working on patent issues, as you might guess, along with a number of other things, before we can have a fully working build in the mozilla tree. But we're getting there.

Mark Welch -- Crypto/PKI developer -- Sun|Netscape Alliance

I believe that M15 is (currently) the target milestone for adding SOCKS support. See bug 16103 for more info.
---

As a cryptography and computer security expert, I have never understood the current fuss about the open source software movement. In the cryptography world, we consider open source necessary for good security; we have for decades. Public security is always more secure than proprietary security. It's true for cryptographic algorithms, security protocols, and security source code. For us, open source isn't just a business model; it's smart engineering practice.

No so fast. First of all have a look at C/C++ Portability Guidelines coustesy of mozilla.org. By observing this document you will find that lots of yummy features of C++ are hardly portable. By suggesting to use some kind of standard memory allocator/g-collector, you will then rely on this thing to get decent performance, and probably seriously screw your chances to port this thing anywhere. If you are so desperate for this thing, then you can code it yourself and use it.

--

Actually, this document is getting a little long in the tooth. In fact, we are beginning to make significantly greater use of templates. See, e.g., nsCOMPtr. It turns out templates largely work on a great many platforms. The initial versions of the portability guidelines were written by people with a decided anti-C++ bias, and some of the items were more influenced by anecdote than by test. I am the new owner of this document. I hope to bring it up to date, though that requires writing a lot of sample code and running it through the grinder of 18 or so compilers. Not necessarily something bug-count sensitive management will want me working on.

(Score: -1, redundant)

This is an article written when the Mozilla project was 1 year old (april 1999), at the top of the 'HIGHLIGHTS' section they mention how the code was originally the 'work in progress' code for Communicator 5.

If you then skim down to the 'LOWLIGHTS' section they talk about the decision to jetison the code and start over. When rereading this all I'm not sure if they will be naming the next Communicator 5 or not, the code rev for Mozilla I believe refers to it as 6 (rev5 being the code Mozilla.org started with, and their 'from scratch' rev6).

This doesn't mean that Communicator will be numbered 6, but I can't see Netscape not using the opportunity to 'lap' IE, much as Microsoft is known for doing.

I suspect that Apple will ship Mozilla, at least when it's the official Netscape release. Despite Steve Jobs proclaiming his love for Internet Explorer, MacOS 9 does install Netscape as well, but just not as the default browser. The current Mozilla builds are pretty hideous on the Mac from a conformance to the Human Interface Guidelines view, but with Mozilla's themeability that could be cleaned up quite a bit.

Probably wrong. According to the Fizzilla (MacOS X port) page, Apple has already contributed patches to Mozilla to help get it running on OS X. I don't know if Microsoft has committed to a Carbon version of IE yet, so Mozilla might be the only way that MacOS X gets a native browser.

In snooping around the Mozilla home page to check on the status of the Mac FE, I also discovered that Apple is helping add ColorSync support to Mozilla.

I suspect that Apple will ship Mozilla, at least when it's the official Netscape release. Despite Steve Jobs proclaiming his love for Internet Explorer, MacOS 9 does install Netscape as well, but just not as the default browser. The current Mozilla builds are pretty hideous on the Mac from a conformance to the Human Interface Guidelines view, but with Mozilla's themeability that could be cleaned up quite a bit.

Probably wrong. According to the Fizzilla (MacOS X port) page, Apple has already contributed patches to Mozilla to help get it running on OS X. I don't know if Microsoft has committed to a Carbon version of IE yet, so Mozilla might be the only way that MacOS X gets a native browser.

In snooping around the Mozilla home page to check on the status of the Mac FE, I also discovered that Apple is helping add ColorSync support to Mozilla.

What do you think of the Mozilla C++ Portability Guidelines? My personal view is that the guidelines can be summed up in one sentence, "Program in the dark ages of C++". Unfortunately there still seams to be a need for it. Because so many major C++ projects still go by similar guidelines, Mozilla and AbiSource come to mind, I fear that my Aspell project will never get used by them and in general does not used nearly as much as it could.

Do you think that that the portibility guidelines are still needed?

What do you think of the Mozilla C++ Portability Guidelines? My personal view is that the guidelines can be summed up in one sentence, "Program in the dark ages of C++". Unfortunately there still seams to be a need for it. Because so many major C++ projects still go by similar guidelines, Mozilla and AbiSource come to mind, I fear that my Aspell project will never get used by them and in general does not used nearly as much as it could.

Do you think that that the portibility guidelines are still needed?

There's currently a feature request in BugZilla regarding a page validation feature. This is designed to replace the old "JavaScript Error" popups with a general mechanism that includes HTML errors, etc. Basically, if you visit a tag soup site written by some clueless idiot or someone using Microsoft Frontpage, you'll see a message on one of the tool bars along the lines of "This page contains errors!" with an option to view a full list.

If you want to see this make it into the earliest possible version of Mozilla, view it at this location and click on "vote for this bug".

I'm not sure I'm all enthusiastic about the idea of coming up with uncountably many new ways of distributing the DeCSS source (rather than, say, concentrating on proving that it is legal). But if you are looking for yet another way to do it, and if possible one which will get the legal system into a not of paradoxes, I have a suggestion for such a method which might be a novel way of supporting free speech on the Internet if enough people apply it.

--
Posted using the Lizard.

I don't know what metal you're proposing, but lead would make a reasonable choice here. Of course, the cost of lifting lead makes it prohibitive... And then there's the issue of re-entry heat. While the shields should absorb most of the initial heat, this thing's still going to be falling pretty quick. The sensor could activate due to the heat of friction, or just from falling through the exhaust...

tipping could be detected via a mechanism similar to a common mercury switch

It's a pretty safe bet that something falling on a parachute will activate the tipping sensor well before grounding.

So now we have a situation where the legs sensors are tripped, the metal strips are melted, and the tipping sensor's activated, all prior to grounding. Not good.

Additional (read redundant) safety sensors are undesirable. How many levels of backup is enough? Aside from the weight issue, there's Murphy's Law to consider. More sensors means more possible failure modes as well.

scan the switches repeatedly, rather than just once

This is the best solution from a practical and simplistic point of view. Oh yeah, and have the different departments communicate. Maybe they ought to install something like bugzilla to ensure that all groups are aware of defects found by others.

- - - -

You see Microsoft has a version 5 out there that really isn't better than Netscape 4.7. At least not by much.

Actually, IE5 is enormously better than Netscape 4.7. Though I prefer Netscape's UI, the fact remains that the Netscape 4.x rendering engine has not seen any significant change since 1997. Netscape 4.x does a miserable job with stylesheets, and is utterly clueless about XML. IE, on the other hand, seems to do quite well with these, even if it does not fully conform to the specs. I don't mean to imply that IE is better in every respect, but I am saying that under the hood, IE5 beats Netscape hands down.

It's a good thing that Mozilla will enable Netscape to catch up with and surpass IE5 in terms of under-the-hood excellence. However, I still think that skipping Netscape version 5 is a really bad idea. Although Mozilla is becoming quite capable and usable, it will be months before it is stable and feature-complete enough to release as Netscape 5.0.

I think that for Netscape to be so brash as to call its next browser version 6.0, the browser should be able to trounce IE 5.x by fully supporting CSS2 and XSL, among other things. It's not even close. Calling this well-intentioned-but-underdone browser "Netscape 6.0" will just set it up to be beaten by a superior IE 6.0. Netscape should just cut the crap and be honest about its version number, because otherwise it will just lose more credibility in the long run.

These bugs are already well-documented on
Mozilla's Seamonkey release notes page

As for helping out, I'm sure I could dive in and code, but it seems to me like they've already got this pretty well handled, and I have other projects which need my time right now.

If you use the gratis-but-closed-source PSM daemon, Mozilla will have SSL.

Just to be clear: The source code has already been released for most of the Personal Security Manager and Network Security Services software that will provide SSL support for Mozilla. The only important parts of the Netscape version of PSM that are closed-source are the encryption libraries licensed from RSA Security. Over time I expect those libraries will be replaced (by someone if not by Netscape) with open source encryption libraries, so that Mozilla will have a complete open source SSL implementation unencumbered by patent or other restrictions.

I have M13 and it doesn't save the scroll position. However there is an open bug, 16806, on this very issue, with a target of Beta 1 or 2 at the latest.

The Bugzilla bug-tracking system is sooo cool it makes you want to file bug reports just so you can play with it.

Why, you can even vote for your favorite bugs to determine which ones should be fixed prioritarily. I voted for bugs 4722 and 27505. I encourage Slashdot readers to give the Lizard a try and to file bug reports (or at least to votes for the ones you find more troublesome rather than complain about them here).

The Bugzilla bug-tracking system is sooo cool it makes you want to file bug reports just so you can play with it.

Why, you can even vote for your favorite bugs to determine which ones should be fixed prioritarily. I voted for bugs 4722 and 27505. I encourage Slashdot readers to give the Lizard a try and to file bug reports (or at least to votes for the ones you find more troublesome rather than complain about them here).

The Bugzilla bug-tracking system is sooo cool it makes you want to file bug reports just so you can play with it.

Why, you can even vote for your favorite bugs to determine which ones should be fixed prioritarily. I voted for bugs 4722 and 27505. I encourage Slashdot readers to give the Lizard a try and to file bug reports (or at least to votes for the ones you find more troublesome rather than complain about them here).

Have people here still not realized that the next-generation Netscape is NOTHING like the last versions.
It was written from scratch using "the opensource way", with paid help from Netscape engineers.
This edition has an incredible bug-system, Bugzilla, an enormous amount of people looking at the code, trying to find bugs, and has really very little in common with other Netscape-products.
If you hate Netscape 4.x, that's fair. I think it is a horrible and buggy program, that I'm forced to use as a Linuxuser, because of no viable alternatives.
It is however very unfair to expect the same from this, as former Netscape releases.
Netscape 6.0 is nothing more than, Mozilla, the opensourceproducts, with some proprietary addons, that Netscape cannot release.
And to the question, why we don't hack IE. While I think IE is mostly a good browser, building a new, next-generation browser from scratch is actually a far less waste of resources.
If someone thinks Mozilla will fail, think again. It is a small browser, that is already slated to be included in internet-TV-boxes, and other embedded products.
It will also, unlike IE, be available for an enormous amount of platforms, it is written partly in XML, which makes it part of the internet-technology instead of just using it.
Mozilla will be released, it will be good, it will be worked further on, and it will really rule. I have absolutely no doubt that the press will eat it's words when they finally see a browser that doesn't muck up open internet-protocols, but uses them well.

Sun's developer connection reports 9342 open bugs for java. Sun's Java has also been around for a while.

Bugzilla reports 5422 open bugs for mozilla. Granted mozilla is only alpha, but still.

Now if Microsoft really integrates everything into the OS as they claim, this bug count should include bugs for IE and their version of java as well. ;-)

I think not.
_________________________

I think not.
_________________________

actually, i think that the lizard in the SuSe logo thingy looks distinctly female.. not sure why it seems that way though.
a gender neutral name may work better for whatever reason.. i dunno.. but i doubt they'll give it a specifically male name.

anyway, the name gecko is already taken. It happens to be the name of a certain web browser's HTML rendering engine. I'm sure the mozilla people wouldn't mind you using the name, but i seriously doubt you could get away with trademarking it if it had already been used as a major component of a different major opensource project.