Slashdot Mirror
Update to the Mozilla Roadmap
LinuxNews.pl wrote in to note that the mozilla roadmap was recently updated to include major milestones in the not so distance future, including a target for a 1.0 release in Q2. I write these words in Mozilla. Now that there are 128bit encryption modules,
all I want is more stability and more speed. Good luck guys!
--
the big reply button at the top of the comments should probably be your first port of call ;-)
And they really are not very expensive.
Konqueror has nice, fast rendering, support for Netscape plugins, https using OpenSSL, Javascript support with the ability to disable window.open, fine-grained cookie management, the ability to fake a User Agent header if necessary, and so on and so on. To each their own, but I personally can't see any reason to use Mozilla over Konqueror.
Just a few notes. IE crashes on me in Win98. It always has. It displays things differently in Mac and Windows. It doesn't run in Linux or any other OS at all. If Microsoft was working to provide a standards based WWW browser on every platform it could, well I would say great. But to suggest that the IE saga has been somehow faster and more efficient than Mozilla, while offering the same quality of product, well you are wrong.
.1'...
IE was barely useable until version 4. The next version (6) will remove builtin java support.
Furthermore the number of upgrades I have seen for IE during my time using Win98 is pretty regular. The fact that they are beta testing in a closed environment versus an open environment is not a benefit.
One question I have for you is "Do you use Mozilla?" and "Have you ever had a bug report to them?" I have done both, and my experience has been that in most situations the organization of the Mozilla developers is quite sophisticated in closing out significant bugs. Whether Microsoft is similiarly efficient is impossible to know, since you can't watch and track bug reports made about IE.
I do know that in all bugs I have made I have recieved direct responses from a developer, either confirming the bug, showing it is a duplicate of an earlier one, or asking for more info.
The OPEN SOURCE development model is NOT merely a lengthy beta test anymore then Windows is. The fact is that mozilla has, as a nightly build functioned extremely well for me. There are times when I have to back out of an upgrade but I DO attempt to do nightly build installations. This is so that I can help out, giving bug reports, and further.
Mozilla is targetted over a wide range of platforms. It is an ambituous project with goals that aren't entire equivalent to Microsoft's IE.
That what was once a rough and slow performing webbrowser has become a fast rendering relatively well behaved app is a great thing. The fact that the Mozilla folks don't say "We are done" when they have it mostly done isn't a negative. Microsoft has consistently beta tested on their paying costumer... Look towards DOS 4.0 as one of the early examples of 'wait until the
The whole point of open standards is that you shouldn't have to design pages for one particular browser. Assuming that Konqueror and Mozilla implement the standards correctly, then pages will look acceptable in either.
It is only Microsoft who want you to code your content to a specific browser - Internet Explorer.
Once in a while, I'll boot into Windows to watch my legally-purchased DVDs on my legally-purchased DVD-ROM drive (unless Xine works, in which case...anyway...). I've used Mozilla 0.8 on Win95 OSR2, and Windows NT 4.0 sp-something. Runs like a dream. On the three platforms I've had a chance to run Mozilla 0.8 on, I have had one crash since release.
One.
Considering that Moz isn't using many native graphical hooks on any platform to draw widgets, but is drawing its own instead, I'd say it runs pretty good. Hell, I've found it's as fast as IE on the Win32 platforms I've used it on.
Re-read that. Mozilla 0.8 is as fast as IE on Win32. In fact, it's been as fast since Mozilla 0.6. I now try to avoid IE whenever possible.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
wondering why people still don't simply use the right tool for the task at hand...
:-)
Because I run Linux
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This is a known bug in the Personal Security Manager. The workarounds are not to install as root (install as yourself in a test directory) or to make the Personal Security Manager directory world-writable (a major security problem, obviously). The PSM rewrite targeted for this spring should fix this problem.
It is interesting how Mozilla is really the only browser that we hear any news about. I really haven't heard much from Netscape and IE recently. Are there going to be other interesting improvements in the browser realm in the not too distant future? I don't know, maybe I just live in a box and don't pay too much attention to these things.
user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/4.76 (Windows; U; NT4.0; en-us)")
to your prefs in Mozilla instead?
Er... except that IE has _worse_ CSS support. With the possible exception of Mac IE 5.5, which has very good CSS1 support.
I've been using mozilla as my primary browser for the past 4 months. The browsing speed is acceptable on my PII-400 linux box, but not exactly snappy. After reading the recent articles on KDE, I thought it might be time to check out the alternatives to straight mozilla.
Konquerer is quite nice, but I generally prefer to stick with the gmome/gtk apps. I was pleasantly surprised that Galeon has come a LONG way since I last looked at it. In some areas it has even surpassed mozilla's functionality:
- user interface to control pop ups & animations.
- nicer, more integrated bookmark management
- better support for external handlers, like ftp and page source viewers.
- crash recovery picks up browsing where you left off.
- something called tabbed mode that I haven't played around with yet.
- the starting points of integration with nautilus.
All this, and it looks better, runs faster, and uses less memory than straight Mozilla. A win all around.
Thank you free software.
-OT
The most recent change to the roadmap was to push 0.9 out five more weeks and to call the next release after 0.8 "0.8.1" instead. This was done partly because many open bugs that require large changes to the code are nominated for being fixed by mozilla 0.9. The "if we're lucky" release date for 1.0 was also pushed back five weeks.
The shareholder is always right.
I think you're misunderstanding what they are calling "embedded". It's not for embedded devices. Embedded Mozilla are for projects like Galeon/skipstone/nautilus/whatever that use mozilla as a component inside their application, "embedded" in it.
Engineering and the Ultimate
or could it, perhaps, be a page in the Portugal domain? Just a guess.
I haven't really seen much development in the skins or chrome. This is one of the more interesting and *kewl* features as far as I'm concerned. I know it's tacky, but not only do I want a browser that functions really well, I also want one that looks damn cool.
So where are all the chromes at? And don't point me to themes.org or the Netscape contest for themes. Those are mainly bad and I've grown bored of them.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
I assume this was done for AOL's 'benefit.'
John
John
There is a nasty bug in Mozilla's handling of V4.x plugins:
/usr/X11R4/lib/libXm.so.6 and /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (by full name and path, no less), and if the loads on these fail, it will silently fail to load the plug-in.
When Mozilla gets ready to load the plugin, it first tries to expressly load
On my systems, a) libXt doesn't depend on libXm (good thing, as I don't HAVE a libXm) and b) I don't have a libXt.so.6! So all my 4.x plugins wouldn't load.
However, by adding a LD_PRELOAD=libXt.so before the actual invocation of mozilla-bin in run-mozilla.sh, it restored my plugins.
This is a known bug, but they sure as hell don't go out of their way to make it WELL known. It took me months of digging to find it...
www.eFax.com are spammers
this announcement seems to push 0.9 back a while, so I assume it pushes 1.0 back as well. This is probably due to the masses of bugs that have been reported against 0.8.
In the long run, we get a better browser, but how long is the run?
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
So compile it without. Fairly easy to do. Takes 3 and half weeks but not hard at all to do so.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
If your PHBs are worried about having a "supported tool" then IE 5 for Unix is not it.
Look at the link you used, and check out the patches available for IE5/Solaris. There are at least a dozen known bugs which have been patched on Windows IE but not on either Unix version.
Bugtraq discussed this a while back, and the conclusion was that "IE for Unix" is like "Netscape for Win3.1" - not something to bet on.
Hey, it's Mozilla. Even if you had a memory cache for HTTP, it all ends up being swapped to disk anyway when you run out of RAM, right? ;-)
(I don't use it for mail, though, just web.)
You *can* install it as root and then use it as a regular user; you just need to register components as root too.
--
My only complaint isn't about Mozilla, it's about dumbasses that design their web site so that you can't view the content unless you're using a browser they "support". For instance, I went to one site that told me I had to upgrade to a browser that supported frames. This is moronic, they should have sent the content, and put the upgrade message in the "noframes" section.
I guess I'll have to run a proxy to tell the servers that I'm running NS 4.something. Blech!
If it locked up your box, its not Mozilla's problem.
Engineering and the Ultimate
A question for the /. masses:
I'm wondering if there's any hope for browsing the web mouseless under X?
I use Ion as a window manager, and live for the most part in Emacs, but I'm still at a loss when dealing with the web.
Navigator 4.mumble supports rudimentary keyboarding, but I can't select links in the body of a document. I built Mozilla out of an updated ports last night, and tabbing betwee links "sort of" works (their heuristic which chooses where to start is totally broken), but the browsing experience is so unpleasant that it's a move of last resort. Sadly, this is one more area where IE rules over the competition.
I've tried w3 mode, but it's not really good enough. Lynx is of course a possibility, but much of the web is visual and I don't want to give that up just because my hands hurt.
Any ideas?
TIA,
(jfb)
To spur "enterprise Linux," Big Bang, the distributed two-phase commit.
However, the *startup* speed is what people see first. They get a bad initial impression, because it takes 4x as long as NS 4.7x to load. And of course, people think IE starts almost instantly because Microsoft thoughtfully preloads most of it at system boot time.
--
This memory cache bug is (imho) worth voting for. Other worthwhile bugs: mozilla should not need write-access to binary directory, url box doesn't update after a theme switch, and best of all, XBL is killing babies and german tourists.
As a side note, voting for a bug will add you to the cc list for that bug. So be ready.
All I want is for it not to suck up 120 megs of ram while it's running!!!
It doesn't. The top program provides an inaccurate picture of memory utilization, showing how much RAM each process has access to, not necessarily how much each process owns. For example, Mozilla's threads share memory, but top counts each one separately, inflating Mozilla's apparent memory footprint. If you see six 'mozilla' entries in top, count only the one that's using the most memory for a more accurate picture.
Also, much of the memory that XFree86 is reported to be using is mapped from the video card and used to store pixmaps. (Too bad X11 can't scale pixmaps.)
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I can just see the programmers saying "Yes, we can make this product twice as fast, it will just take us 18 months of work", then sitting back and playing Quake while Moore's law grinds on.
--
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
then Konqueror has been in development for a lot less time then Mozilla, and in my opinion is far more usable.
it really gets on my nerves seeing these posts! does no one realise that mozilla is so far ahead of ANY other browser in terms of the technology and design, it's not even funny. I'd like anyone to name a browser which has full standards compliance, which can build on every single major platform from one code base.
mozilla is one of the best cross platform projects ever thought of, and deserves a lot more credit than it gets
i wish i was but oh well
Nope. He almost caught me, though. Me, I'd rather not overuse this principle... Keep it for special moments, like, say, a frontpage story!
The page loaded fine, thanks. Using Mozilla 0.8. Nice try, though.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
And when you are in the options dialog you cannot minimize it. When it crashes you cant minimize it nor close the window. The task manager fails to kill it. You basically have to reboot, before you bsod- if lucky.
I have to work with W2K all day, and if I could change one thing it'd be to add a window manager.
Currently, one of the most troubling bugs for me is that apparently memory cache isn't implemented for http!
It's not implemented in Mozilla. It's implemented in your file system's disk cache capability. I can't speak for Windows, but Linux uses all RAM that's not used for apps for disk caching.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm a supporter of the Mozilla project, I use it as my primary browser (on windows - on Linux it seems to be a bit of a dog). It rarely crashes and now renders (most smaller) pages very quickly.
I'm glad they are taking their time to build a standards compliant cross-platform browser that will hopefully be easier to upgrade to future standards than the competition.
But I'm REALLY bored of reading about it. I'm bored of constantly hearing trolls who obviously haven't even bothered to use it, let alone understand the technology, slagging it off. And I'm bored of people saying "all I need is a browser, not an email/composer/toaster" (hint, read the fucking install instructions).
Please, Mozilla developers, hurry - not so that you don't lose more market share - just so I don't have to read
from the dead-as-a-dodo dept.
A reader writes: "Mozilla 1.0 has now been delayed by more bugs found in milestone 9.9999"
DILBERT: But what about my poem?
Actually, if he was using Mozilla, he did.
Mozilla's text entry widget is implemented using the Composer component.
Long-term plan is to write a special-purpose text entry widget that's a lot smaller and removes the depenency on Composer, but for now it works.
Some browsers such as e.g. lynx can 'shell out' to the editor of your choice for editing text fields. Replace FTP with HTTP, and you've got it.
DNA just wants to be free...
We're not scare-mongering/This is really happening - Radiohead
This sig intentionally left blank.
I was saying the same thing from M15 to 0.7. 0.8 blew me away, though. Once it's running, it's fast, sleek, usable, and actually _releases_ memory that it grabbed on startup. (go figure that one!)
However, it behaves very differently on some friends' machines which by all rights, are nearly identical. I suspect that some of the remaining bugs are getting picked up on particular configurations and hardware, and it still sucks in those cases.
But quite honestly, moz0.8 is the first time I've been at all excited by the Mozilla project in ages. I actually see it possibly becoming an excellent browser now, instead of a rambling experiment with no end.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Galeon *feels* helluvalot faster. And, light on features does mean something - more codes lead to more bugs. Worse if nobody finds the code useful (e.g. XUL at this moment).
And to people who says "XUL will be a useful feature...and what if....do we have to reimplement it again?" - you must all be emacs fans. No thanks. I only want one OS on my computer at a time. By your philosophy, I guess you'll have to throw in a next-generation 3D terrain engine just for that extra "obsolecense-proof" security feel.
By the way, is there a way Galeon can be run without installing Mozilla at all? If there's a clear separation between Mozilla and Gecko then it'd be great.
*Yawn* Call me when it's usable. Both 0.8 and a build from current CVS show gross stability problems. The OK button in the preferences stops working, it segfaults when I try to delete a folder from my bookmarks or sometimes when I close a window with another one running, etc. Sure, it has its good points, but I'll wait until it's more reliable.
The bottom line is that there's a fast, stable and feature-filled browser for *nix platforms out there NOW, and its name isn't Mozilla.
What was preventing me before, and what is still very painful, is the lack of romaing access. Oh how I miss it! :(
mh
Works fine with .8 on W2k too.
The other 2 don't load (duh!) but don't crash it either.
War is necrophilia.
Konqueror has nice, fast rendering
Got it.
support for Netscape plugins
Reportedly works.
https using OpenSSL
PSM does the job.
Javascript support with the ability to disable window.open
Got both; check the 0.8 release notes, what's new, last item.
fine-grained cookie management
Seems to have it.
To each their own, but I personally can't see any reason to use Mozilla over Konqueror.
How about "I don't use KDE2" or "I don't have it installed"? Let's not forget "I don't run Linux/BSD, and I'd rather not use IE." Keep in mind, Mozilla's goal has been to be truly cross-OS, cross-architecture, while being a fully-fledged web browser (and development platform). I would think that would take longer than just writing a working browser for one or two OSes on one desktop. I've run both; Moz is almost as fast as Konq, and about the same size when you take into account the fact that Konqueror uses some kdeinit functions (try running it under GNOME to see what I mean).
Konqueror's a great browser, but it's developers haven't had to deal with the same challenges the Mozilla crew has. You can't fairly compare the two unless that's taken into account.
In any event, I uninstalled KDE2 long ago, so Mozilla it is...and I'm very happy with tha
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
*sigh* no one got the joke :/
Don't worry - I think a fair number did. While the original posting was quietly amusing, the responses here are a complete howler ;-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Mozilla is close, so very close. However there is one thing that it's lacking, and that's a "Shop" button. Frankly I don't see how it can be considered a serious browser unless it has a "Shop" button. They better get cracking on implimenting this vital functionality.
--
Are you stupid or something? If you don't want news. email etc., why did you bother installing them when the installer gave you the option not to?
I run the installer and actually choose to install only navigator. It is an option button and then I have to click next.
Here's my suggestion. We add another phase to the installer to implement "Purist" mode. This will change the descriptions on the option buttons to
aka Don't bother me with details mode
Seriously. Forget the tarballs and stick with the installer. You will be happier.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I have been using Mozilla for about 3 months as my main browser. It's pretty good, has some nice features and generally renders everything properly. The only minor exception to this is borders around tables, which it sometimes seems to chop off at the bottom.
My only other grumble is psm, which quite regularly goes off on one, consuming all my memory and cpu time. Most annoying. But I live with these little problems becauses its still a thousand times better than Netscape 4.x.
Hats off to everyone involved. Its getting better by the day.
While everyone continues to use software that is in it's 19th beta stage, buggy and unfinished, I can use a very stable commercial product (say, IE for example) that performs well
Not if your computer doesn't have an x86 processor. In that case, you'd need an emulator plus a copy of Windows (USD $320). Even if you are running on an x86, you need a virtualizer ($300) plus Windows. Isn't $600 a bit steep for a web browser? Might as well just pay for Opera.
What's that rule in software development? Something like, adding more members to a project team makes the project later. Or to put it another way, too many cooks in the kitchen...
Spoil the broth. See also The Mythical Man-Month.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The cache subsystem is being written to improve performance, stability and flexibility. Basically, the old cache sucked. Patience :-)
Gerv
Rereading my reply, I see that I could have worded it somewhat better!
:-)
I meant, of course, that I don't use IE (as you so helpfully suggested) because I don't run Windows
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I just have one tiny problem... I can visit secure sites only as root, on my machine! I dont know why this happens, but everytime I try to visit a secure site using my normal username, mozilla hangs. All my ns4 plugins work fine, except the realplayer launching. (I mention this because it might be related to the secure sites not working). I think its because mozilla is failing to launch psm (which is a seperate application) or /usr/bin/realplay. Has anyone else had this problem? I've been wrestling with it for months...
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
I tried Mozilla 0.8 a few days ago (the last milestone I tried was 0.6 IIRC), and was pleasantly suprised by how much it has improved. Didn't crash once in several hours of use, even when I fed it Java. It even liked my 4.x series plugins[1] (namely Flash, I haven't tested realplayer or acrobat yet), which is a very cool point 'cuz that means there are whole masses of plugins that people use/rely on that won't have to be recoded all in a hurry for the new version.
So all in all: yay Mozilla! Thanks, coder dudes! :-)
[1] easy to do: cp /path/to/4.x/plugins/* /path/to/mozilla/plugins/ worked for me (one other filesystem level oddity was that to get java to work I had to symlink the libjavaplugin_oji.so from ~4 levels deep under (/path/to/mozilla)/plugins/ back to plugins; seems odd that the installer wouldn't do this).
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
It's your lucky day. The browser you're looking for can be found (link to IE).
Some of us aren't as lucky. IE doesn't run on every computer being made today, especially more powerful workstations. (Support for Alpha and other non-Mac RISC machines was dropped back in the NT4 days.) See my previous comment #192 to see the real cost of running IE.
"You mentioned"Tiddly-day."
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Could a perl wizard tell us what exactly this linuxnews.pl do, as it looks a little cryptic to me ? Sure, it looks like perl, but...
Cheers
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Of course, that's not to say that I don't like Mozilla. In fact, I make a point of downloading the nightly builds every day :)
PS For those Mozilla enthusiasts in the audience, you may find the daily build comments interesting. There, the page's author lists the various bugs that were fixed in the day's build.
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
While everyone continues to use software that is in it's 19th beta stage, buggy and unfinished, I can use a very stable commercial product (say, IE for example) that performs well, does the job correctly and hardly ever crashes. And we have to wait until Q2 (if they're lucky, so really Q1 of next year) for a 1.0 release of Mozilla.
The way I see it, open source projects are meant to be in infinite beta stages (or alpha, depending on the team members). They're never supposed to have a final release. :-) What's that rule in software development? Something like, adding more members to a project team makes the project later. Or to put it another way, too many cooks in the kitchen...
In the open source world, we continue to espouse the benefit of many eyes looking at the code as contributing to a better product. But if those many eyes end up delaying the final product to eternity, what's the real benefit?
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
please point me to the versions of this wonderful browser which work on my mac or on my windows machine.
--Asa
mozilla didn't make a big hype about much of anything. mozilla, defined as the people contributing thousands upon thousands of hours making Mozilla, have been too busy to hype anything. Netscape and the press made a big hype of opensourcing the Communicator 5 sourcecode. mozilla (remember, the people actually working on this project) made very little hype when they started scrapping large chunks of the Communicator code and building an new set of apps from the ground up. mozilla (remember, the dedicated contributors, paid and unpaid, who have been busting their butts to make something useful) didn't make a lot of hype when the first major commercial Distribution was releases. They were too busy trying to make it better. mozilla (those people fixing the bugs you reported) didn't make a big hype about anything.
So you'd be thrilled if mozilla (those folks working to make a free and open source browser for you) had decided to drop support for everyone except win32 and had instead focused on building a simple win32 browser around the old Communicator codebase which neither supported the standards nor had any future (as a codebase) beyond 5.0. You think that it would have made better sense to have build a so-so win32 only Communicator 5 suite and and then a year or two later scrapped that codebase and start all over again on a 2.0 which was cross platform.
I think that the piece of the puzzle that you're missing here is that the decision to scrap the old codebase and move over to this 'yet another crossplatform appdev platform' means that Mozilla can be built for mac, or linux, or BSD, or solaris, or win32, or hpux, or BeOS, or irix, or AIX, OpenVMS, OS/2, True64 and others. Sure, mozilla (those folks giving you a free and open source, standards supporting, fully featured internet application suite with support for DOM, CSS, HTML, mathML, SVG, bi-di, XSLT, SSL/TLS, simplified I18N and L10N, and a set of technologies that help you to build your own networked apps like forumzilla, xmlterm, protozilla, galeon, kmeleon, nautilus and others) could have scrapped the idea of making something really useful and focused on a win32 browser to compete with MS for the windows desktop (a futal effort in my opinion) completely throwing out the tradition of supporting linux and other non MS operating systems. mozilla (they're the good guys) could have done a lot of things differently but I suspect that folks would have criticized them for whatever the decisions were and I'm personally pretty happy with the results of the decisions as they were made.
--Asa
This thing will NEVER be usable in a corporate environment (i.e.- TRUELY replace 4.7x) until it has LDAP support built in! Sure, it'll be great for home use, but w/out LDAP searches in the mail client, it'll still have to run NS 4.7x!)
Trying to live an Open-protocol Life in a Closed-Protocol world (read Exchange)!
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm using Mozilla right now and have been for several months. I love the project and browser and mail client seem pretty nice.
BUT. Q2? Q2?? Since today is 3/2, that means they'd have to have this "1.0" release out in less than 90 days. No. Frigging. Way.
I run Mozilla on an admittedly low-end machine (P5-166). Netscape runs fine, but eventually hogs all my memory (or crashes, or whatever). But Mozilla is butt-slow at basic things like screen-refreshes and pulling up new windows. And the mail client--fuggedaboudit. For crying out loud, the IMAP DELETE command doesn't even work yet.
I wish them all the good-will in the world...but let's be realistic here. Q2? That's gotta be a typo.
--
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
--
I have three machines running Windows (don't ask, it's the result of a semi-failed business): a P-200, a P3-500 and a P3-750. All have 128MB or more. The P3-500 suddenly developed window slowness with one of the updates and it can now take up to 35 seconds to open a new Mozilla window. The P-200 has never had such slowness.
C'mon, if Mozilla was a Microsoft product, Mozilla 1.0 would be version 4.0.
Do you really think that, among the other lies and half-truths in your post, that the W3C has specifications for graphics primitives like drawing a line?
I assume you've never heard of SVG, the W3C's "language for describing two-dimensional graphics in XML."
Sprint PCS Free & Clear: More nonsensical than Zero Wing!All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Not a flame or a troll... could someone please give a decent explanation of why the Mozilla GUI is so sluggish? (Particularly the menus) That seems to be the #1 complaint I always hear.
.8 at work on a Win/PII (500mhz) and at home on Linux/AMD (350mhz) and though the page rendering is acceptable, the GUI is irritatingly sluggish. There's also lots of wierd behavior with multiple browser window openings.
I use Moz
Is it because of the XUL having to render the thing from the custom themes? How does it work?
Also, what was the "Philosophy" behind using an XUL custom themeable GUI instead of native Win/Gtk/Mac widgets? Was is mainly for OS independant "internet appliances"? Or just a need to have "kewl skins" like WinAmp? Wouldn't it have been better at least for now to build it with Win/Gtk/Mac native widget versions and do the XUL/Theming stuff later on? Thanks.
The milestones mentioned "embedded" mozilla. I really can't see the (cost sensitive) embedded types springing for 128mb of memory for web-pads and what have you; they're much more likely to go elsewhere for a more svelte browser..
if they really want to make the embedded market happy, they should have the developers use 32mb (or smaller) machines for a few months...
Both Mozilla and Konqueror are aggressively standards-compliant. Stick to the standards and your pages will work.
...". It's "IE vs the rest". In fact, since MacIE is very standards-compliant too, it's actually "WinIE vs the rest".
This is important. In the battle for mindshare of Web developers and an open Web, it's not "IE vs Mozilla vs Konqueror vs Opera vs