Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 0.9.1 Out
MatriXOracle writes: "mozilla.org released milestone 0.9.1 today. New features include Bi-directional text support, LDAP Autocomplete in mail, new combined taskbar, an overhaul of the Modern skin with all new colors and buttons, and lots of performance and stability fixes, with over 30 of the topcrash bugs fixed." I'm using today's build right now, and it's very pretty, especially with the (brilliant!) modern theme. However, it's also segfaulted repeatedly for me already, so I hope you have better luck.
I think that Mac OS X is Mozilla's last big chance for any kind of market share dominance. Right now, there is no single BEST browser for OS X. IE 5.1 preview SUCKS (it stalls every 5 seconds when you go to do something). OmniWeb has a slick interface and decent speed SOMETIMES, but it has a bad tendancy to get bogged down with too many threads when you have only several browser windows open. iCab is wicked fast, and fairly good with compatibility, but it currently lacks Java and mouse scroll wheel support in OS X. Then.... we have Mozilla, or Fizilla, as the Carbon version is called. It currently lacks Java and mouse scroll wheel support, but seems to be WICKED fast compared to other OS X browsers. The "Modern" skin/theme actually looks pretty decent along side Aqua too. If the Mozilla team can hammer down Java support (which should be easy with OS X's excellent support of Java 1.2, and upcoming support for 1.3 later this summer), and of course I NEED scroll wheel support in my primary browser of choice, Mozilla has a really good chance of capturing OS X market share, and with a platform this young, OS X is only going to get bigger in the next year. Mozilla needs to have just these few (but major) things added to the OS X port, and they just might capture a LARGE portion of the OS X browser market.... and with OS X poised to be the only OS that Apple ships in the future, that could really mean big things for Mozilla's future. I think this Fizilla process needs to be junked too. It should be Mach-O and take advantage of more of the hot features in OS X, and they need to get it in the main codebase with nightly builds, just like the ancient Mac OS 9 and Win/Linux versions. Just my $0.02... If you're bored, check out http://wop.mine.nu/ :)
Oh, and I'm using Opera to post this, which is also an excellent browser for Windows - always fast and usually stable. Its main advantage to all other browsers is its killer UI with mouse gesture recognition, lots of hotkeys, excellent bookmark management etc.
Also, if you filter JavaScripts and animated GIFs using a local proxy like Proxomitron, even Netscape 4.7 becomes rock stable (I can use it for days without a single crash). Really, if you don't want to use IE, don't use it.
Took you this long? I ditched NS4.7 around Moz0.8. But I use Konqueror too. They both rock. :-)
---
Let's compare those to Opera now (v5.11):
Startup Speed: IE6. But only because it mostly starts up with Windows. Opera is a fairly close second, and Mozilla takes at least 10x as long.
Winner: IE
Interface: It's a matter of preference. If you like root-level windows for each page, Mozilla is better. If you like MDIs, Opera is better.
Winner: either Mozilla or Opera
Rendering Speed: Definitely Opera. Mozilla beats out IE by a bit, but Opera is much faster.
Winner: Opera
Image Rendering: Opera. It's damn fast.
Winner: Opera
Interface Speed: Opera and IE are tied. They're both win32 native speed. On slow machines (like mine) IE tends to drag resources sometimes though, pausing interface responsiveness for a short period of time. Mozilla is just damn slow on a p266.
Winner: Opera, but not by much
Download & Install: You must be joking. Opera v5.11 is 2.18 megabytes. Neither IE or Mozilla come close.
Winner: Opera, by far
Editable Text Boxes: They're identical in Opera and IE. And yes, Mozilla's suck.
Winner: Opera and IE tie
Stability: Mozilla crashes every once in a while (though much less than it used to), Opera crashes every once in a while (though much less than it used to), and IE is pretty solid.
Winner: IE, by a small amount
Loading Cached Pages: Opera and Mozilla both theoretically load them instantly, but Mozilla takes a bit of time to do so on my machine (i only have 96mb RAM and a p266).
Winner: Opera by a small amount
Sidebar: Sidebars suck. I turn them off in all browsers.
Winner: Tie between all of them, since they can all be turned off
Standards support: Opera supports nearly all standards perfectly, with some of the advanced features of CSS2 being the sole exception. IE does not properly support even CSS1. Mozilla supports standards nearly perfectly with a few CSS2 bugs.
Winner: Mozilla, by a small bit. It's helped by the fact that it also supports non-standard pages better than Opera ("de facto Netscape standards") with its quirks-mode backwards compatibility
Gender Recognition: Opera has it. IE and Mozilla don't.
Winner: Opera, by far.
Cost: Opera is free with ad banners, or $30 without. IE and Mozilla are both free.
Winner: IE and Mozilla tie.
Overall Winner: Opera. It's small, fast, and the gesture recognition kicks ass. And in v5.11 Java/JavaScript/Flash/etc. all work properly 99.9% of the time, and CSS rendering is nearly flawless (much better than IE6's CSS anyway). And it's fast on my p266. Did I mention that I like the gesture recognition?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
IE is worthless on anything but MS platforms.
Now IE isn't good on as many platforms as Opera and Mozilla are, but it's certainly not worthless on non-MS platforms. The Mac version of IE in particular is even better than the Windows version.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Every time Mozilla and bug, slow, or sucks are mentioned in the same paragraph, a Smart Tag with links to Bugzilla is displayed.
DCMonkey
I happened to have the mozilla 0.9 and linux kernel 2.4.5 sources on my hard drive. I decided to find out how big they are in comparison of each other. The command I used to test was: xargs cat | find -iname *.[ch] I used a slight modification of that for Mozilla which has .cpp sources. This doesn't even count any of that XUL stuff.
Here are the results:
Mozilla is currently some 22,000 lines of code bigger than the most recent kernel release.
Holy hell that's a large project.
\\\ SLUDGE
I get really sick of people who complain about bugs in Open Source software, yet don't even take the time to report them to the developers.
Grrrr.
--
*Much* nicer. *Much* faster.
Thanks Mozilla folks.
Deleted
The main thing is that they actually got something accurate about the Mozilla release and not the usual - this in Mozilla 0.x, late as usual, it sucks and lets all use Konquerer or whatever it's called!
The original submitter should have acknowledged the source, but I don't see this as too much of a problem. As long as something positive is written that's what matters.
At this stage mozilla needs all the testers and downloads it can get.
The mozilla one is a lot more intelligent, it can support things like multiple search engines
More info see: http://sherlock.mozdev.org/
Netscape 4.x had this, it was called roaming access.
David E. Weekly
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
With all this copying of Windows UI, why don't any of the toolkits support such menubars? It looks like this is a native MFC thing and has been around for awhile.
Of course what I would really like to see is the eradication of all these toolbars and a switch to pop-up menus and windows that contain only content, but it is looking hopeless...
It would be real nice if there was a "play this once" and "play this continuous" and "stop" on the pop-up menu, though. Just in case you want to control the animations individually. And some preference for the intial state of all of them.
If we are going to waste computer time, I think Mozilla should continuously guess at any missing data (ie guess that images are the same size as the last image, add missing close tags, whatever) and continuously redraw the window while it is downloading. Ie if it has got data in memory and is not busy reading more data it should do as much as possible to get it on the screen. Perhaps it does do this?
I'm using it now and it's very nice. Mozilla has been my primary browser since 0.8, mainly because I conscientiously refuse to touch Microsoft products -- but at this stage of the game I think I can safely say that it really is a world-class browser that can stand on its own merits. It's fast, it's accurate, and it's good looking.
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Although I disagree with the content of this post, I still have to give it a +20 Absolutely Hilarious, for characterizing quite adequately the way many of us behave around our favorite toys.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Because Mozilla isn't _just_ a browser. It's a testbed for Corporations doing free software. It's a possibility for a free software application to be used in many, many corporations and user desktops.
Engineering and the Ultimate
If you want PGP support in Mozilla, please vote for bug 22687.
To quote Eran Tromer from that bug page:
"I'd like to express my personal opinion on the matter. Context: I'm not a Mozilla developer, but I'm well-versed in relevant security issues and I've been following this bug with interest.
"In terms of security, e-mail is currently one of the weakest facilities on the Internet. HTTP/SSL, SSH and SCP provide encrypted and authenticated protocols for the respective needs, but e-mail by and large still relies on plaintext messages passed in the clear by POP3 and SMTP. The implications are obvious and frequently experienced. This is paradoxical, considering the vast popularity of e-mail and its frequent use for sensitive information.
"This grave situation persists mainly because of lack of functionality in common e-mail software. Encrypted e-mail ought to become the *default* format, and it must become trivial to import public keys, to send standard-compliant signed and encrypted messages, and verify their validity upon receipt. None of this is possible without e-mail software support. And Mozilla is in the position to change this situation.
"It is my opinion that in this case, clean architecture should be sacrified for functionality. Yes, providing this functionality in Mozilla 1.0 (i.e., anytime soon) may necessitate unmodular, specialized and hard-to-maintain changes in the codebase. It is not possible to do the Right Thing with the given resources and timeframe. Then go ahead and just do a Working Thing and fix it later, because this one is too important.
"Mozilla.org is spending an inordinate amount of time on building a fantastic infrastructure, to-the-letter compliance with numerous standards and owe-inspriring customizability. But as a practical web user, site administrator, programmer and consultant, I'd rather give up all of these than have my e-mails show up in the wrong hands.
"Hence, I urge you to reconsider your decision."
(end quote)
- Tal Cohen- Tal Cohen
I've been thinking about email encryption a lot lately. Rather than encrypting the mail at the user level, what would be involved in doing it at the mail server? In other words, create an extended SMTP protocol which allows for two mail servers to talk to each other via encypted messages. Then *any* messages sent via these servers, whether encrypted at source or not, will not be easily read in transit. I realise that creating a new mail transfer protocol is not something you can do overnight, but is anyone involved in making SMTP a little more secure?
Better than nothing though right? And you could always build in support for the extended SMTP into the mail clients themselves. That way everything is encrypted without user intervention.
Back button doesn't work!! (Now it does?)
Dropping down the bookmarks menu and then clicking in the browser window to pop it up sometimes makes it start scrolling up and down like crazy.
Dragging bookmarks to and from the shell works now. So does IE Favorites.
CPU usage is dramatically lower. Startup time is about the same.
No longer behaves badly on slow loading pages.
Still can't easily sort in threaded mode in the newsreader.
Still doesn't recognize external mailers, probably never will
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Thanks (in advance)
- sigs are for wimps.
Is this 'by design' or am making some mistake?
Someone who succeeded in doing this, and how did you get it to work?
Also, (on Win2K) when using -turbo, when I open a new first window it doesn't open maximized, which it does without the -turbo switch. Guess this is a little bug, but does anyone know how to force mozilla into starting fullscreen?
I tried -max, -maximized but that didn't work
----
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
Try loading news.com - I get their whole page in a small top frame :)
I guess they better fix their html...
I'm using it on a Win2k box right now.
- It's better than 0.9
- New skin rocks!
- The turbo feature is really cool - when using that, it loads *faster* than IE!
- Java works mostly - it doesn't work with my internet bank, though :(
Overall it's really cool!
Greetings Pointwood
Writing this from 0.9.1
With the -turbo option it is all that I want
in a browser. Well, a few glitches but no
showstoppers.
My main grief is with the theming. Both themes
have screwed up alignment of buttons and
drop-down list on the toolbar. Modern theme has
the drop-down list looking horrible (it's border
is misaligned with the list itself) while the
classic theme has the GO button lower than the rest. This is Win95 box at work. YMMV.
Oh, and clicking the icon brings up two windows:
one for the startup page and one with about:blank
location. I think I saw somewhere that this was
fixed in the nightlies though.
But the kicker is the superfast rendering. IE
doesn't hold a candle. Wow.
I have recently looked for multiple or even
singular PGP signatures support and couldn't
find any. Do you know if anything is in the
pipe (maybe already done)?
This is normal. I think the users may have their own plug-in directory somewhere in their home folder.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Don't leave us hanging! How'd you do it?
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
I don't know about the release but I've been using the nightly and it run the Flash, Real Player, and Java plugin just great now!
He said ORGANIZE an effort to fix it, not write it himself. It is the equivalent of someone not liking a political issue, someone suggesting he organize a political action comittee and you complaining that not everyone is a politician.
Mozilla is open access, everyone gets a shot, if you don't like something, get some people who know what they are doing and agree with you to change it.
-Shieldwolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Works for me, I have the jdk installed and mozilla detects it when I launch it. I have had some trouble getting Java to work with mozilla on linux though (haven't tried recently so maybe things have improved by now).
In any case, jdk1.3.1 has the same changes as jdk1.3.0_1 that enable it to work with mozilla and so will all future versions as far as I can tell. Did someone test with jdk1.4 beta?
Jilles
Its news for nerds, stuff that matters. The appeal of this site has always been that the editors pick stuff that interests them rather than posting anything that comes along. While I don't always appreciate the articles and, admittedly, information stress occasionally causes the editors to miss out on stuff that IMHO matters, they do a pretty good job overall and have been a primary source of tech news for me for nearly three years now.
Mozilla 0.9.1 is an important build for a few reasons:
- It gets good reviews (just read the replies to the article)
- It is marked in the roadmap as a beta branch point for netscape and others.
- It seems to have dealt with most of the performance issues that have been plagueing mozilla.
Opera on the other hand is also nice but closed source and not that revolutionary compared to the betas and the previous version. I do agree that should've deserved a mention though.
Jilles
Hmmmm,
/usr/dict/words
$ grep knowticable
$
Doesn't seem to help here.
--
Correct. Removing the links from this wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would probably be next to useless from a POV of stopping most snooping.
There are two threats that I see...
The first is something like Echelon. This is a centralized (sitting on a few backbones) server that records all email that passes. They'd then scan for keywords, etc.
The second is someone who wants to read YOUR email, specifically. They'll tap in at your ISP, to ensure they see all your email.
Now, stopping random snooping is a good thing, but it's not most people's biggest concern. They want to stop people from snooping directly, reasoning that if someone snoops randomly they aren't aiming to use the information directly, but if they snoop on you specifically, chances are they're malicious.
So, encrypting between the links is a good idea, and should be done eventually, but isn't IMHO a huge priority.
and since i haven't seen it mentioned yet, don't forget to evaluate 0.9.1's improved "threaded pr0n" ;)
"arch thats not supported by the moz team? Like *BSD or anything else"
Not supported?!? Did you look at the builds that were posted for 0.9? Mozilla is a Cross Platform (XP) application. If you've got a platform Mozilla can probably be compiled for it. (feel free to snicker with vic20 and c64 comments)
Mozilla 0.9 - Completed May 7, 2001 (one month ago)
Win32
MacOS 8.5 - 9.0
Linux
AIX
DG/UX
Irix
OpenVMS
OS/2
HPUX
FreeBSD
BSD/OS (bsdi)
Solaris
Tru64 Unix
Yes! BeOS support!. I just left it off the lsit. Sorry. --Asa
not sure if it's still working (I think I saw a bug recently) but you should be able to put this in your prefs.js file to controll image animations.
// Image animation mode: normal, once, none.
user_pref("image.animation_mode", "once");
--Asa
"2. new autocomplete widget - now works like a combo of IE and NS 4.x complete, but better than both (uses any site in your history file). Has an option to search for keywords thru Netscape at the bottom of the list, tho i wish this were google instead. "
Edit|Preferences -> Navigator -> Internet Search -> Default Search Engine.
You can select any of the search engines for the autocomplete popup. Mozilla search engined are based on sherlock technology so there are literally hundreds of them available (including Google, which I am using right now).
--Asa
in Mozilla:
Tasks|Privacy and Security|Cookie Manager
there's also |Image Manager for controlling killing those pseky banner ads.
--Asa
The bookmarks problem is actually pretty easy. Bug 71685 Bookmarks in Sidebar are blank. This affects you if you have used the sidebar blank bookmarks workaround or your profile was created between early March and late May. If you have a pre ~11 March profile for which you never used the sidebar blank bookmarks workaround or a post ~23 May profile this probably doesn't affect you.
If you have a profile which was created before about March 11 and you used the workaround between about March 11 and May 23 then you will have to use the workaround again. If you have a profile which was created between about March 11 and May 23 then you will have to use the workaround now.
Workaround:
1. open browser
2. view sidebar
3. click "Tabs" button at top right of sidebar
4. select "Customize Sidebar" menuitem
5. select "Bookmarks" from "Tabs in My Sidebar" list
6. click the "Remove" button below the list of "Tabs in My sidebar"
7. click OK
8. click "Tabs" button at top right of sidebar
9. select "Customize Sidebar" menuitem
10 select "Bookmarks" from "Available Tabs" list
11 click the "Add" button below the list of "Available Tabs" list
12 click OK
note: just unchecking the tab from the "Tabs>" menu and rechecking it will not fix the problem. --Asa
Patience. Source tarball should be there in the next 24 hours. It's a lot of work to get it all together and we'd rather give out what we have when we have it then make everyone wait until we have hte last of the 30 or 40 builds we put up each Milestone.
--Asa
Slashdot editors posted a comment which was clearly stolen from http://www.mozillazine.org It would be nice to see a little more integrity from the slashdot editorial staff. Checkin sources, reading referenced links, etc. would go a long way to improving the value this site brings to it's users and the Web in general.
--Asa
I suspect that your problem was attempting to load sites with TLS (SSL 3.1) enabled where the site didn't support TLS. Mozilla nightly builds now gracefully downgrade to SSL3 when they encounter these misconfigured or out of date servers. The fix didn't make it into the Milestone but we did set the pref for TLS to off (you can reenable it Edit|Preferences Privacy and Security -> SSL -> Enable TLS) as the Milestone default so you should have better luck visiting SSL sites.
--Asa
--Asa
A couple of comments..
You say that for rendering speed, Mozilla 0.9.1 would beat IE 6. That's not what the Mozilla developers are saying tho. For network loading, I don't know, but pure rendering speed should still be faster in IE.
Interface speed.. IE is *WAY* faster than Mozilla. On a fast computer, you may not notice much difference but on a slower one like some laptops, the difference is huge.
Sidebar. IE ripped Mozilla? Hello? The sidebar in Mozilla is based on the sidebar that appeared in IE 4. It has gone through several iterations of development, first being called Aurora, then having these "flash notification" thingies that would show you that you have a new email etc., and now finally, the version we see in Mozilla now. Microsoft has said that it will drop the content-panes (news, media player etc.) for the release of IE6 because the public didn't like it in usuability testing. But to say that Microsoft ripped the idea from Mozilla is just wrong as Mozilla really ripped the idea from IE4.
While Active Directory and NDS are widely used in the Microsoft and Novell worlds, LDAP has never been very popular in the Unix world. Most people even never heard about it. /etc/passwd. It's a GPL package, so feel free to merge it to any piece of free software.
LDAP is a standard protocol to access very modular hierarchical databases (called "directories" but anything can be stored in a LDAP directory, not only addresses) . It's way more flexible than SQL. You can redefine your own types and constraints (schema), all objects are extensible, all instances can belong to several classes, and anything that can fit in a tree can fit in a LDAP directory.
The first steps into LDAP aren't trivial. The syntax of LDIF files is a bit difficult to learn, but it's worth learning it.
There's an excellent open source LDAP server called OpenLDAP. It has support for LDAP version 3, SSL, IPv6, and everything you need to use LDAP. I've successfully installed it on large production servers. It's stable, and fast (if add your own indexes) .
Just like IPv6, LDAP for Unix is here for a long time (thanks, iPlanet), but it needs better integration with common software. If LDAP was implemented in all daemons and client software, it would ease a lot network administration. You can then configure all servers from a single workstation, in a coherent, unified database.
And for programmers, adding LDAP support is not a hell. Have a look at some OpenLDAP samples. I implemented LDAP support in Pure FTPd in less than one hour with no previous knowledge of the OpenLDAP API. The src/log_ldap.c is a simple getpwnam() wrapper and it can be reused by any program that use this library call to read
Also, Unix lacks good visual XML and LDAP editors. The recently announced Ganimede looks promizing, though. But if you are starting to learn LDAP, also give a try to GQ (sorry, I can't remember the URL, check it on Freshmeat) . It's a simple GTK tool to browse and edit LDAP directories and schemas.
{{.sig}}
It is working, the secret is to put that line in user.js (which you'll probably have to create) instead of prefs.js, if you put it in prefs.js it'll get erased.
The best setting is:
user_pref("image.animation_mode", "none");
since that way it only will show you the starting frame and not even loop once
This should really have a pref, because it's darn useful. It's the next best thing to installing junkbuster, and doesn't make you feel guilty of depriving sites of money.
>It looks like this is a native MFC thing and has been around for awhile.
yes, it's native. yes, it's been around for some time. but MFC is hardly XP (that's cross platform, not office or windows..)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Umm, what are you running this on? IE starts up in a second or two. Hell, Photoshop starts up in less than 40 seconds (on my PII-300). How can you POSSIBLY be happy with a 40/sec startup time for a web brower?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Umm, well written C++ code (BeOS usespace) can be a lot more sevlte than poorly written C code (X11, GNOME et all)
>>>>
Disclaimer: All I mean by this is that the BeOS userspace is C++ yet takes up less than 10MB, while GNOME does less (it is simply a desktop environment) and takes up a good deal more space. Comments about BeOS's deadness are irrelvant to this post. Sheesh, it's sad that I even have to bother to make this point clear. Apparently "on-topic" doesn't ring a bell with a lot of people.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The default installation of Mandrake 8.0 places mozilla in /usr/bin. If you install 0.9.1, it will detect the old installation and ask you to delete it. If you delete it, it will erase EVERYTHING in /usr/bin! This leaves the system in a fairly unuseable state. Just thought ya'll might like to know.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Does this mean I don't have to write my email anymore?
I knew if Slashdot kept on talking about it, it'd be smart enough to do something useful for me...
First of all, a confession. I've been using IE5.x for quite some time now. It's always been faster than Netscape by far and more standards-compliant. (Even if tainted by embrace-and-extend.) Mozilla's never been fast or stable enough to compete.
.9.1 changes all of that.
This baby is *fast*, and I mean extremely fast. Pages pop right up on broadband, even those damned table layouts from the dark days of the 4.0 browsers, broken CSS, and terrible DOMs. Not only that, but it appears as stable as .9 was, which was far more stable than any previous Netscape release since it was called Mosaic.
First of all, a big thanks to the developers who finally proved that Open Source can deliver. It's been a massive undertaking, several years in the making, but Mozilla's OSS development model have kept it at the cutting edge.
Second of all, download this sucker right now. Make sure all your friends do as well. The faster we get standards-compliant browsers the quicker web developers can leverage CSS to make cool sites faster. Believe me, I'm sick of coding for Netscape 4.x and the steaming pile of feces that is it's CSS support. Perhaps this won't be enough to keep Netscape's market share, but the 7% or so of us that use Netscape should upgrade ASAP.
I don't think anything JWZ said after he left, which really wasn't much, was unfounded. Mistakes were made, the browser project got incredibly behind schedule, etc. Here it is, over two years since Zawinski left and Netscape/Mozilla still doesn't have a decent final product to show. If you read his web site, you see that he supports the idea of Mozilla and plans to use the product when it's finalized. He was just disgusted with the way the organization was operating.
That documentation is slightly out of date.
capability.policy.default.windowinternal.open
should be
capability.policy.default.Window.open (note the captialization).
There's already a bug to update the documentation, which I plan to fix next week.
The shareholder is always right.
I haven't noticed this problem, but I searched bugzilla and found two bug reports that might be the same problem:
bug 83289 Scrolling page with images (jpg) causes white lines in the images.
bug 74358 Images rendering with thin horizontal white lines (both GIF and JPEG): supposedly fixed April 11.
Do you still see the problem in Mozilla 0.9.1? What operating system are you using?
The shareholder is always right.
bug 56969: Sidebar should not appear when I use a Web search site.
You can vote for that bug if you want. Voting has a small but nonzero influence on how quickly the bug is fixed, and you'll automatically find out when the bug is fixed if you vote for it.
By the way, bugzilla is now much easier to search than it was before. I was able to find that bug by typing "search sidebar" (without quotes) into the bugzilla front page.
The shareholder is always right.
For some reason i expected a different look than netscape, but i'll live.
Mozilla is distributed with two themes, Classic and Modern. The Classic theme, which is the default, is designed to look like 4.x. You can switch themes from the View menu or from preferences.
The shareholder is always right.
If you ask me, there are some priority issues with the mozilla team. Bug 4033 has been open for I don't know how long, and yet it seems like this could create quite a problem.
Wow, just tried that out. I love it!
Guess I'll never set eyes on Google's front page again...
Heh. About a week ago, (with 0.9) Mozilla would crash every single time I loaded Slashdot. I found that it wouldn't crash if I went to another page first and then reloaded slashdot so that was my workaround until yeserday's milestone.
Weird eh?
I have been using Flash and Quicktime within Mozilla for a while now and I remember having to load IE to view some movies (either QT or Flash).. now I can view all of them within Mozilla.
Hmm...with Microsoft trying to sell a half way decent operating system to home users, and AOL having a browser that could be used to build a complete GUI, when should we expect AOL to start shipping a "consumer" operating system?
2nd on the list of most knowticable(sp?) is the Modern theme
Ouch.... late night? I can understand, I get that way sometimes too.
FYI - it's noticeable, as in "did you notice a difference?" This, as well as many other fine words can be found using our dear friend "grep" in /usr/dict/words
- passion
I have to say, it's very difficult to trust a review written by someone who actually likes Word 6 for Mac. It is widely considered one of the worst kludgy ports ever made, and was a key factor in the creation of the independent Mac business unit within Microsoft.
To bring this back on topic ... I really want to see Mozilla succeed, and I'm glad it's about equally compliant as IE 5 for Mac (which is what IE 6 is based on). But so far the XUL interface is way too slow and too buggy.
Don't forget about the much-improved URL auto-completion, where a drop-down list displays a list more neatly than the former menu-list when you type into the url bar! :-)
Yesterday I was disappointed by netscape-6.01A for Solaris 8 interminably rendering only a gray box for all my efforts to install it.
So, given the steadily improving reviews (I know - early slothfulness was a deliberate strategy to catch more bugs) of mozilla, I'd like to give it a try as a replacement for Netscrape-4.77
I'm behind a firewall that won't let CVS do its network checkout, so can anyone give a URL to a source (.tar.bz2) distribution of 0.9.1?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
mozilla -turbo loads FASTER than IE5. If you have anything in your "links" toolbar it is SIGNIFICANTLY faster. They're calling it "near-instaneous" -- and they mean it.
____________________
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
That's a good question, I've been wondering that myself. I'm using 0.9 and I'm not sure if the problem is in the Flash pluggin itself or Mozilla, but if I'm using the sound card (i.e. listening to MP3's), and the pluggin is installed then Mozilla won't start, it (the mozilla-bin process) just sits there, no UI or anything. I'm guessing it's the flash pluggin and not Mozilla.
Anyone else had this problem? (I'm using a 2.4.2 kernel with a VIA AC97 on-board sound card, btw).
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Perhaps I should also mention that the roadmap is messed up? Here's a thread relating to the problems with the roadmap, started by the guy who makes them. As I said in that thread, there has been a blank FAQ link at the top of the page forever. When is the branch date for 0.9.2?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Because of the hype that a few of the Mozilla developers put on talkback here on Slashdot and on MozillaZine, Mozilla has seen lots of recent improvements (see the bottom of this page). Now that 0.9.1 is out, the Drivers team at Mozilla will take a large bit of control over the management of submisssions for 0.9.2 in an effort to brush up the code in preparation for 1.0. It looks like we'll see 0.9.2 released after only two to three weeks (see this roadmap sneak-peek); half the current expected milestone lifetime. In addition, Netscape is being encouraged to take the next NS6 from the Mozilla branch this time, meaning that much of the Netscape team's work will be applicable to Mozilla.
Also of note, the Mozilla main page doesn't reflect the new milestone and the roadmap also fails to mention the release or the news about 0.9.2.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Why are new features going in when it's not stable? When will there be a feature freeze? There really needs to be a "stable" release of this thing.
To the Moz team: thank you so much. I was beginning to worry that speed was never going to be addressed. I have the highest hopes now for M1.0. Go Go!
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
Since 0.9, Mozilla has truly, truly shown that it will (is!) be one of the bright, shining stars of the Open Source community. There is no longer -any- doubt in my mind that it will be the best browser on any platform. The pace of advance lately has been nothing less than amazing.
My hat goes off to the developers.
signature smigmature
- James
Erm... since a year or 3 people use 'automation' with COM on win32 instead of DDE/OLE. I don't think it's really 'visionary' to include DDE code in an application TODAY. To say the least.
Personally I think including an own 'COM' variant in an application for win32 is a bad decision. If they had, the win32 version whould have been finished by now.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Did you mean incredible or incredulous? Although they technically mean the same thing, they also mean the opposite things.
Thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware that there was a workaround, and so the last time I ran into this I ended up blowing away all my profile to fix it. You are doing a great service here by triaging these complaints. If this isn't a planned, organized effort, maybe it should be. (Whenever important Mozilla news gets posted on major web forum, an informed developer should actively dispel myths and douse flames.)
At work, I have a Linux workstation and a Windows desktop running side by side. Visitors to my office always comment on how much more crisp and readable and faster Mozilla 0.9 is on Linux versus Explorer 5.0 on Windows. It can be done, but it takes a little effort.
Yes, this happens in my office also. The machine running Windos is a 386sx16, with 8 mb of RAM and a 240 mb MFM hard drive, running W2K and an IE 6 pre-alpha build I snagged from my latest 'leet hack of hotmail. Since the powersupply gave out on this machine three years ago, I forced to allow an autistic four year old child draw on the 10-year old 14" monitor, in crayon, what he thinks a webpage might look. I only give him brown and green crayons.
The other machine is a screaming fast dual athalon running linux, with the latest nightly build of mozilla (you have to get the nightly builds, every night). It still loads much slower than I'd like, and doesn't render tables quite as fast as the four year old child, but my soft and fragile ego as a wanna-be geek forces me to point out to everyone who comes by my office just how 'leet and skinnable and cool mozilla is, and how much more featureful it is than IE. They always pretend to be impressed, just before they leave.
I'm going to submit a story to ask Slashdot: "Why doesn't anyone ever vist my cube anymore?"
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Under Win98SE, tabbing from text box to box to enter my /. password crashes Mozilla 0.9.1. Looks nice though, and yes, I reported the bug. Now what I want to know is....
/. that pissed off the Mozilla developers? These crashes don't just happen by themselves. In the words of a great captain:
Who's the bastard at
"When I get back, I want some answers!"
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
No, no and no. Browsers should not work with invalid HTML! IE works with some broken HTML, and this has lead to some group of multimedia hippies starting to write invalid HTML, thus making these sites not work with other browsers.
GeoKone.NET
I have wanted to switch to Mozilla for some time now, but there's one bug that is keeping me tied to NS 4.77:
All GIF images have horizontal white lines one pixel wide through them at random positions. Scrolling the window makes this problem worse and may increase the density of the lines. It looks like a redraw problem of some kind...
I know, this is the wrong forum, but while I'm thinking about it, has anyone else experienced this problem? Is there a fix?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
If you close the browser window with the X in the upper-right corner, or with File>Close, or with double clicking the icon in the upper-left corner mozilla will remain in memory. If you close it with File>Exit, it will unload from memory. Although, honestly there isn't anything wrong with killing it from the task manager.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
File>Exit will close mozilla and make it unload from memory. File>Close, or closeing by useing the Icons will not.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
This is great but I cant seem to get it to work in a short cut. Does this set it as a pref for good?
How can I get mozilla out of memory? Do I need to kill it like a normal crashed task?
On my system it happens to launch faster then explorer! It can render a slashdot discussion with 500 comments at a threshhold of 0 nested four times faster then IE 5.5!
Great job!!
The Lottery:
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
I realized after I posted my comment that I should have put the discaimer "This is completly unscientific." I didn't run any benchmarks or anything. It was just what it felt like. Mozilla felt faster than IE6. The Interface felt about the same. But these are the kind of "Bechmarks" that matter, real-world opinions, not any tests of actual rendering speed or anything. Use a browser that feels faster, not one that has proven in benchmarks to be 5/12ths of a second faster. And I'm using an old 380Mhz K6-II, and I can agree that you wouldn't want to put Mozilla on a 386 with 4MB of RAM but, with any machine sold from a few years ago to today the interface should feel about the same.
And about the sidebar, I still say that Microsoft "Innovated" the sidebar from Mozilla. The IE4-5 sidebar has only for history. The IE6 sidebar now has stocks and weather and a cruddy MSN search. It sounds like Mozilla's sidebar to me, and in about 3 or so months it has felt like Moz's sidebar. And MS shouldn't drop the "Personal Bar" as it is useful. I use it quite a bit for getting the weather and seeing what BEOS, AAPL, MSFT and RHAT are at right now. The only thing they should rip out is the media player. I want to use WinAmp, not the embedded MS-Media Player.
--Volrath50
Thanks, I got bored and wrote it and then decided to put it on my crappy nameless site that isn't done yet. Or has been for 6 months.
I bought my Mac myself about a month ago and am still owe my dad's mac using friend 11 bucks for the monitor. Once I get that paid off I getting a modem for it and then desining my page using it and photoshop, one of the reasons I bought it.
--Volrath50
I have been using Microsoft's IE6 Beta on my parent's PC (my Mac doesn't have a modem) for the past while for my browsing. I just downloaded Mozilla 0.9.1 and I'll do a quick comparison:
Disclaimer: IE6 is in Beta. But so is Mozilla.
Startup Speed: IE6. But IE Programmers probably know a bit more about Windows than Moz Developers... And someone else said Moz now has an IE like always on mode now.
Winner: IE6
Interface: I used to hate the Old Modern theme. The new one is 10x better. I can say Moz wins by a long shot.
Winner: Moz 0.9.1
Rendering Speed: When I downloaded IE6 I thought nothing could get faster than it. There was next to no waiting for a page to render. Even my copy of Moz at the time (I think 0.8.1) wasn't as fast. This new copy of Moz is just a tiny bit faster, but it is faster.
Winner: Moz 0.9.1 but not by much
Image Rendering: With Moz's new libpr0n it beat's IE6 by a small->meduim amount.
Winner: Moz 0.9.1
Interface Speed: I no longer notice the "XUL Lag" I did with older Mozillas. But as IE6 is Win32 native it is a little faster.
Winner: IE6 but not by much
Download & Install: I have a 56k modem because I live in the middle of nowhere, so I can tell you that downloading big stuff sucks. IE6 brings up this smart installer like NS6 so you can select what more Microsoft software you want. I chose Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. Rougly what is included in the Mozilla .EXE installer. Moz is about 9MB while IE6+OE6 was something like 13MB. Plus IE rebooted my PC and updated a bunch of stuff which took like 10 minutes alltogether. Moz installed easily and with out a reboot.
Winner: Moz 0.9.1
Editable Text Boxes: About the only thing that I hate about Mozilla is the Slashdot comment box type thing. IE6 uses a native embedded notepad type thing while Moz uses the horrible XUL Text Box. The XUL Box sometimes doesn't catch my keystrokes and it is horrible for navigating with the mouse. It take me about three trys to get where I want it the XUL box.
Winner: IE6 by a long, long shot.
Stability: I haven't used Moz 0.9.1 long enough to get an opinion, but the IE6 beta has only crashed about 4 times in about 3 months of heavy use.
Winner: Probably IE6
Loading Cached Pages: Mozilla loads and renders cached pages instantly or near instanly. IE6 takes a second to load it from my disk.
Winner: Moz 0.9.1
Sidebar: IE6 ripped off Moz's sidebar. There are more stuff for the Moz sidebar but for the two things I look at the most (stocks & weather (no I don't own any stocks, I'm 13...)) Moz always want's me to log back into NS's Server. Yes I know this is NS's Fault but I have to count it. Plus when the Browser-With-90%-Market-Share(tm) debuts in non-beta for with sidebars everyone will make an IE6 sidebar, mark my words...
Winner: Tie For Now
Overall Winner: Moz 0.9.1! But IE6 has some yet unimplemented features such as privacy protection (gasp!) and a bunch of other stuff. I will try to give a Browser comparison every few browser releases to keep up.
I've Tried to give an unbiased opinion. I don't really hate MS that much as I use MS Office 6 on my Power Mac 6100 and I like it. And I can say that IE6 is very good. But Moz just tied/exceeded IE6 for now. But any new features will be assimilated, see My SideBar.
--Volrath50
Like many people i was a netscape booster and then had to move to IE when netscape tanked. Not a move i really wanted to make. And i've not downloaded mozilla until now because i haven't been in the mood to be a test subject. But i have downloaded 0.9.1 and have used it a bit. So far i'm quite pleased. No crashes, speed is good. The install went well. It did an excellent job importing my netscape defaults, something i hadn't expected it to do, but appreciate. All my pages seem to work fine. My goofy home page loads very quickly and looks correct. The email and news client seem to work. I haven't used any other features yet. For some reason i expected a different look than netscape, but i'll live. I'll use it as my default for a while and then i hope i can switch from IE and netscape. thanx
My only complaint so far is that Mozilla has a tendency to barf and die on sites with a lot of Javascript or large PDFs; invariably I end up with an orphaned runaway mozilla-bin process that needs killing after that happens. It's a gripe, sure, but not any more of a problem really than IE when it hopelessly locks up. Both instances are rare, thankfully.
As soon as I can get the chance, I'll see if 0.91 fixes any of this. It's been a really good product lately, much better than any Netscape I've ever had to use on my UNIX workstations. Thanks, Moz-dev-guys. I appreciate it. Lots.
Now this is just redicilous. Buying the time of a trained person is NOT cheap, for most programmers I know their time is worth $25/hr and up. Now consider that if I was going to pay them to work on a project like Mozilla I'd not only have to pay for the actual time it takes them to write and debug the feature I need, but also to learn the code well enough to be able to do so. Sorry, but I'm not willing to pay $100 or more just to have a feature addedd to what is supposed to be free software. I am certianly wiling to spend money for software but only so much. To me $100+ is a good, low level pro application or powerful plugin, not a single feature in a web browser. Plus realise that if you take the attitude again, you'll just be cutting your market share. The average Joe will just blow you off and go get something else. Please remember that the feature in question (supporting extrenal mail programs) is present in IE and Opera, IE also being free.
Actually, the Mozilla UI is written exactly like that. Welcome on board You must have missed the "I don't like programming" part. I don't like it, I'm not very good at it, so I don't do it.
"Thanks for your suggestion". Suggestion-Trashbin.
The idea here is just to listen to your users. Basically, when someone makes a feature request, acknowledge it and mentally file it. Of course you can't add every one, but try to keep a tab of things people want. If a whole lot of people want something, you'd do well to offer it. I do the same kind of thing in my line of work. If one person complains we need to change the way something works, generally we aren't going to act on it, however if a lot of people also want the same change, it happens. We try to give people what they want, and programmers should strive to do the same. Now again, free software is free and you certianly don't have to BUT if you want it to grow, you need to. J. Random (L)User isn't going to take the time, effort and money to find a programmer and contract them to add features to the software, they are going to find software that does what they want and use it. This is certianly something Mozilla needs to think about since they are really an underdog browser at this point. Most people in the world think there are only two browsers: Netscape and IE. Well, if you want to convince those people that they ought to use Mozilla, then you're going to need to make it offer everything they want. If it can't, they'll use what can since in this case you are competing against other free software. Remember, the ethical and social considerations of free as in speech software are lost on most average people. They only care about free as in beer software and both Netscape and IE have that. What Mozilla needs to do (and I think they are making great strides towards it) is provide a superior browser. IF Mozilla is better than Netscape or IE, it will be much easier to convince people to start using it.
Free software's biggest advantage is that anyone can nab the code, sit down, and turn an existing project into whatever they want. However this also proves to be a weakness in that many free software authors have the mindset that people SHOULD do this. When J. Random User bugs you about a feature your program doesn't have he wants you to think about adding it. If you tell him "add it yourse;f" he'll probably just wander off and find other software that does what he wants. Kind of like if you go to a restraunt and wnat to order a slight modification on a meal. You expect the cook to do that and if you got told "do it yourself" you'd probably leave.
Now, this is not to say that programmers are obliged to act on every suggestion that comes their way. Just as commerical companies make decisions about what and what not to include, so can free software authors. However telling the person to do it themselves is a very bad idea. Simply acknowledge their suggestion and act on it if you want to.
"and lots of performance and stability fixes, with over 30 of the topcrash bugs fixed"
This is really what i need to hear. While i still prefere Opera i am glad to see other alternatives comming to life (espessially for linuxppc where Operas rendering is still needing some fixes). I do also think that it is very important to get this one working soon because, for come reason this is the program that most OSS critics judge OSS on.
There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
I've had good luck with the automatic installation only when running the browser as root.
To get java working (in Linux at least) manually:
I'm almost exclusively using Mozilla for web browsing now. Great!
The bug that really bothers me? Go to photo.net, click some image, and choose "large" image size to view. 99% of the time, it causes all my Mozilla windows to close. Bye-bye!
Then I guess I could complain about how 50% of the sites I go to, when entering SSL mode, never work. I gotta use Netscape.
I'm downloading 0.9.1 now. I'll tell you if things start working.
--
fifth sigma, inc.
The talks between AOL and Microsoft broke down a few days ago. AOL is no longer getting prominent placement on the desktop, and my guess is that they'll continue to support Mozilla in the hopes of getting something good enough to break IE. Not that it will probably ever happen. I use Mozilla 100% of the time for browsing in Linux, but at work I have to use Windows2000, and nothing comes close to IE as far as speed is concerned. We'll see what happens...
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
i meant speed all-around - i click a button, ie is there instantaneously. opera takes a bit to load. i know why this is - ie is kept in memory. but it still fires up damn fast. and it renders fast too. opera is good. i haven't used it since the 3.x days, but i liked it. just right now i'm trying to show my support to mozilla by using it, and it really is one of the finer browsers i've ever used (and definitely the nicest looking - check out this image for a screenshot i took last night of mozilla .9.1 - very nice.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
getting it to work in linux with .9.1 was much easier than it was with .8, but i'm still sure you can do it manually if you can't get the automatic install to work. just make sure it's in your home directory - this will solve a lot of problems for you.
let me know if you need any help.
by the way, ssl connections work fine for me - i use mozilla to check my work email through our web-based email system, and i can only connect through ssl - and it works great.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
Don't be fooled by the fact this is only a point .1 release, the improvement is vast compared with 0.9.
:)
First up and the one most people will knowtice right away is Page Loading, the load time was cut in half at least by a checkin that occuried right after 0.9, branched.
2nd on the list of most knowticable(sp?) is the Modern theme, its great the improvement is substantial over the old one and personally I use it as my default skin now.
3rd a huge effort was put into fixing a lot of the crashers that effected 0.9 so it should crash much less (your milage may vary however)
4th: THe DDE bug was fixed (yeah!) meaning that if your on Winblows and Mozilla never did anything after you double clicked on it before with this release it should start.
5th: On Winblows you can turn on the preloader for mozilla by specifying the -turbo option. Which means that it will stay in memory like IE does thus giving you nearly instantious opening speed. (And no we havent given up on cutting down startup speed this just to get people off our back who complain that IE loads so fast and why cant Mozilla...well now you have it so stop bitching
Finally there is the other good stuff like LDAP support and Bidi support (multidirectional text support) (contributed by IBM btw) which makes Mozilla even more usuable and expandable.
We need help please please come to #mozillazine on irc.mozilla.org and ask for some help on how to get involved. I (nick Ksosez) or the other people on there will be glad to help you. We especially need C++ coders and or Linux coders.
Enjoy the release
-Ksosez
Run mozilla.exe -turbo Then, execute Mozilla regularly. Opening speed is faster than IE, from my perspective.
http://members.home.net/factorialnine/moz91.png
I stealthily parked outside every big business in town, tapping in to their fluorescent light networks one by one, and still couldnt find a C64 build of this new Mozilla.
Sure there are come cosmetic issues, but it's quite usable. Even Wells Fargo online banking works without requiring me to override the useragent string.
Only issue now is lack of JVM being distributed. But I know it can be added. Can someone post a procedure for FreeBSD?