Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 0.9.3 Released
nexex writes: "Shamelessly ripped from Mozilla.org, "Talkback data shows that recent 0.9.2 branch builds are more stable than Netscape 4.78 and we expect even better results for 0.9.3. Now is the time to try Mozilla again if you've been waiting for stability to improve." Translation: Mozilla is better than ever. Get your copy here."
Well, Mozilla may be more technologically advanced (I really don't know how you're defining that, so that's up for debate), but I find Konquerer to be a bit easier to use, and faster in Linux KDE. Obviously there is no Konquerer on my work Win2k box, so Mozilla is the choice browser for me at work. I'm just glad to get away from IE and Nutscrape finally! Keep it up all you OpenSource developers! I love you guys.
I've been using Mozilla as my main browser for months. 0.9.2 is great (except for a tendency to crash while writing a K5 diary for some reason). But the mailer absolutely *sucks*. I've never seen anything so slow. It takes literally a full minute (or more!) to do "compose....type addresses, type subject". Has that improved at all?
324006
I've been using Mozilla for around 6 months now and subjecting my girlfried to it. I was ready to admit defeat until the latest version came along. E-mail is finally stable, and the program works great. The only problem I still have is with plugins. Many plugins assume you're running IE or Netscape, so they look for those directories and don't give you the option to choose the Mozilla plugins directory. If I remember correctly, Quicktime is an offender of this. What you need to do is keep Netscape on your system so plugins will install and then copy the plugins to Mozilla's directory. Very annoying, but I hope it will go away with increasesd support for Mozilla. The browser war isn't over!
> I just wish it had an option to double-buffer on X Window
It does, if you compile it yourself.
./configure --disable-double-buffer
The trick is to turn off Java, Javascript, cookies, and stylesheets. Additionally, if you don't care about pictures, turn off automatic loading of images. I run Netscape this way most all the time and I never have any stability problems whatsoever.
> How much later does the Mac OS X port usually take?
- trunk/mozilla-macosX-trunk.sit.bin
You can get the trunk Fizzilla nightly at:
wget -c http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest
It sorta works (I'm posting with it), as long as you don't do mail and news, and have a lot of gotchas.
Check macosx newsgroup at news.mozilla.org to see if there will be a branch build.
> I had thought they would code in Carbon to release on both Mac OS 9 and X at the same time...
Not stable enough yet. The carbon app is Fizzilla. I suppose that Fizzilla will replace OS9 build at a time. But it is definitely not ready.
Cheers,
--fred
What about opera???
--
The computer told me to press any key to continue,I pressed the one looking like this (|) !!OH SH*T!!
Dude - save yourself the headache. Grab the full installer and use that. I run Ximian, use Red Carpet often. But I install Mozilla with the installer in /usr/local/mozilla all by itself - clean directory. Never had a lick of trouble.
I love RPMs and Red Carpet - they save me time and trouble, but sometimes its just not worth it. Grab the installer and have a go at it. Just make sure you install it as root, run it once as root (good time to grab teh Java plug in which also must be installed as root) and then quit. You should be able to start it as any user after that - works great here.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I agree... and why can't it just fill in the background color for empty table cells? Would that be really hard?
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
text sizing:
CTRL+
Or
CTRL-
to enlarge text or make it smaller. great feature
Keywords:
edit bookmarks, pick a bookmark and pick properties, add a keyword. say 'sd' for slashdot.org. then type in the location box (ctrl L gets you focused on the location box) type sd and hit enter, you'll be whisked away to slashdot.org.
SideBar Tabs:
A great way to have quick acces to web tools like mapquest or an online dictionary. see the sidebar directory at:http://dmoz.org/Netscape/Sidebar/
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
You should try using the installer and not installing the talkback portion.
Out of curiousity, why don't you want to use talkback. It's my understanding that the statistics collected with it have made considerable improvements to stability since 0.9.1.
I now keep a browser window up for 4-5 days before closing it to recover some of the memory. WAY better than 4.7 in my opinion.
Don't know about other platforms, but on Linux, you can just download the jdk (jre might work too). It contains a plugin directory. Inside the plugin/i386 directory, there are two directories: ns4 and ns600. Each contain a java plugin. Just make a link to the ns600 plugin to your mozilla/plugins directory. Works for me.
Je ne parle pas francais.
Well, I rushed to download, deleted the 0.9.2 directory at the installers request, and ...
the us language regional pack will not install. No more Mozilla at all.
Silly me.
On this same note, I have frequently noted that I cannot download the new installer with the current version of mozilla. I have to use netscape.
If you stopped ranting about your experiences using M14 a year and a half ago, and downloaded the latest milestones, you'd see they're way better.
BTW 0.8 (I haven't tried the later milestones yet on that particular box) runs fine and renders fast (though it's a little slow to load due to lack of memory) on a K6-200 with 32 megs of Ram.
The last time Mozilla crashed on me was with 0.8.1, since then, no problems at all. And no, it doesn't use lots of memory when you compare it to graphical browsers that have as much features.
I have last tried Moz at the 0.9.1 release, and used RPMS at that. I downloaded the tar.gz installer and ran that this time after removing the rpms. What a great installer! Quite impressed. I so far, it seems to be stable on the pages that kill Konqueror, but we'll see how it works in the next few days.
BTW, this was posted with 0.9.3.
rm
Sci-Fi Storm
I still say that gecko, the Mozilla-engine is mostly way faster at rendering than IE. In some specific cases there might be a different story (possibly also attributed to bugs rather than design-issues), but generally gecko renders faster. Of course this is almost always subjective, I haven't seen any real hard facts yet.
Typical FUD - I use both Mozilla and IE6 - Honestly as long as the browser serves up web pages properly and quickly and the associated email client doesn't suck (I prefer Mozilla Mail over OE anyday) who cares what it 'looks' like - its not art.
While I've always felt IE blew Netscape 4.x away, in this case, MS may have hurt themselves by adding too many things to IE6. The pirvacy thing, while a good idea, seems useless so far - privacy polcieis in cookies? Yeah right. Honestly, IE6 seems no differnet than IE5 to me - it works, so I'm happy. Same goes for Mozilla, it now works great and I'm happy. I honestly use Mozilla instead of IE because of the Mail client - beyond that, I could care less, except for the fatc, of course, is that it allows me to use one less Microsoft product :)
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
The Carbon builds currently arent being tested under OS 9, although they _should_ work, there are no guarantees.
On the (very positive) side, it's been a wonder to watch Mozilla go from being almost unusable on OS X to being easily the best browser on the platform in the span of about two months. Kudos to everyone involved, especially Mike Pinkerton and Simon Fraser, who not only did a ton of hacking on the code to make it this nice but who have also been very active in the newsgroups (and other forums like Versiontracker) letting people know what's going on with build plans, branching, etc.
Opera and Galeon are both faster than IE. They actually start up about as fast as IE, without being preloaded on login.
I happen to like the download-on-demand installer, where you pick the components you want to download and install. The odd thing about this is that it's completely tied to the version available when you click "download installer." The Mozilla installer for build 2000073108 looks and works exactly like the one for build 2000073109, but each one has the version number pre-written in the .ini file. Can't there be an option "download latest version" instead? That way, instead of downloading and untar'ing a new installer every day, I can just run it every day and let the installer I already have do the work.
For more information, click here.
Its just you ;)
Seriously, they have a detailed Roadmap outlining their plans. Their dates have slipped some but they've been holding pretty well to teh schedule. Currently plans call for Mozilla to go 1.0 with what WOULD be 0.9.5 if it is deemed ready . They are just using a differnet scheme for release, vs the beta to release candidate to release. Its all in teh naming. So if all goes well (and it sure seem to be finally) I'd bet they'll make v1.0 in the beginning of the fourth quarter. But even if they don't make it till 0.9.7 which is December timeframe it'll still be a huge accomplishment.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
Also as a professional Web developer -- fuck off and die, Microsoft lackey. We need more and better browsers because we don't need Microsoft (or anyone else) to take over the Web. As for incompatibility ... do you know what the word "standards" means? If there's incompatibility, it's due almost entirely to your beloved IE, not the open-source and standards-compliant Mozilla.
With the possible exception of my text editor, I use my browser more than any other application on my machine. "Don't need?" What the hell kind of developer are you? Oh, wait a minute, maybe you're one of those people who slaps together slow, buggy code in FrontPage and calls himself a "Web developer," when in fact you wouldn't know good HTML if it bit you in the ass.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
When I did a "just the browser" install on Windows ... I got Composer also (the html editor).
What part of "just" don't you understand?
If i have a recent version of Galeon.. and i download this new Mozilla.. will i have to download a new version of Galeon for it to work with Mozilla 0.9.3? Or will the html rendering bits magically fit together, and stuff, as one would hope they would? Just making sure.
:) )
(This is just hypothetical, since i never got around to getting Galeon to *compile*, because Galeon wants versions of the Gnome libraries 0.0.1 better than the version i have installed.. and i can't seem to figure out how to tell apt-get to get those updated libraries for me without upgrading all the way to Woody.. and compiling is slow. But i am curious. Mozilla 0.8.x and Netscape 4 just too slow to be usable on my poor old 75-mhz macintosh 7200, and 0.8.x crashed a *lot*, and it would be nice to have something to use regularly other than w3m.
Oh, whatever. Thanks!
No -- don't compile it. Make sure that no stale mozilla processes are running, and do that with a talkbalk build. Thats the kind of stuff that needs to get fixed.
If you just say 'screw it' and build it from source, then that might not get fixed!
-- What doesn't kill you hasn't tried hard enough.
RPM's seem to work great under Linux... (RH 7.1)
5 minutes so far, Seems good!
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I've actually been using the standard Netscape Flash plugins in 0.9.1, .2, and .3 now, and they all work great. There was some scratchy sound at one point, but that was an unrelated kernel bug with my sound driver. What problems in particular have you been experiencing?
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
no damn body
It sounds like something is borked with your mozilla installation. I'm running the RPM here without problems. What does rpm -V mozilla tell you?
i believe i had good reason to moderate down to 1. there was nothing deserving in the post to make it worth the score of 2. the comment is merely a slightly informative opinion, nothing more. it deserves a score of 1 and the informative, but if i modded it as informative it would have gone to 3. ok thanks.
---
Never send a man where you can send a bullet.
IIRC, IE 5 (or maybe its 5.5) is the most standards-compliant browser available... I sure as hell know it isnt Netscape or Mozilla (at least yet)...
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
On days like this when the server is busy, this network installer crap is useless. Where's the 9MB installer download, eh? I've had to run setup 15 times because it keeps timing out on the download of individual packages. I've basically run the installer once or more for each individual package. The setup program doesn't remember my settings from the last run, so I have to go through modifying every screen of the wizard every time. And after all that, I've still got to manage the downloaded files which aren't where I want them so that I can install on other machines easily.
I got around it by blowing away the existing Mozilla folder and then unpacking the new one fresh.
rm
Sci-Fi Storm
Just out of sheer curiosity, if a "normal" numbering system (v1, v2, v3...) was applied to each build what version would this now be?
GCM d+ s+:+ a- c++ U? P! L E-- W++ NM+ V PS- PE+ Y+ PGP- t 5+ X?+ R+++$ tv+ b+ DI++++ D---- G e
Bugzilla 44787 has been marked as a Won't Fix. It was originally entered as a bug (as in Bugzilla) and has been established as a minimum requirement. "The linux builds are built on RedHat 6.0 systems which use glibc 2.1. Therefore, the minimum required version of glibc is 2.1. Builds have been known to work (occassionally) when built under glibc 2.0.7 but they aren't officially built nor supported (due to known race problems with the 2.0 dynamic loader). "
That and the lack of a spelling checker are the last things keeping me from finally getting rid of NS4.XX
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Actually, yes, I've been giving it a try too. /rocks/. :)) into Windows as a widget control, you could probably replace the IE HTML engine with Mozilla's in that widget. It would be neat. :) The good thing is that it looks the same everywhere. The bad thing, well, is that it makes it a more bloated piece of code. Gaelon, on the other hand, uses the Mozilla rendering engine in a GTK browser; it could be what makes it noticeably faster than Mozilla, and it's most probably what makes it lighter. :)
Well: it
What's funny is that Galeon points out both Mozilla's biggest strength and, IMHO, its biggest weakness. Its strength is a smart API, that you can use to embed Mozilla into applications. It's how Komodo works, for instance. If IE wasn't commingled (such a nice word...
But Mozilla also has a feature that can count as a weakness: it has its own interface toolkit. It doesn't use Qt nor GTK nor anything of the like: it comes with its own thing. Unless I got it completely wrong, of course, which is also a possibility.
But enough ranting! I use Konqueror, Mozilla, Gaelon or w3m, all four of them, depending on my mood, and I've never been so happy about the freedom of choice that comes with free(-speech) software!
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Dude, its like the third party in politics. After the fray, everything is better. The third party, even if it doesn't win, makes the other two parties get their acts together. If Mozilla can kick IE and Nutscrape's asses into being not-suck, then i'm happy.
|---------------|
practically an AC
I'm thoroughly impressed, at this point Mozilla never crashes on me, and rendering is instantaneous. Great job, guys!
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
From the new feature list:
* There is a new preference for choosing between Windows and Linux scrollbar behaviour when the mouse strays off the scrollbar when you're in the process of scrolling. (Bug 90985)
Could someone who uses windows explain to me why you would ever want the assinine scrollbar "feature" of having to accurately track the scrollbar to keep scrolling? This is one of the things that annoys me the most when I use someone's windows box. It's like some kind of chinese water torture.
It's understandable you would think that way, but personally I find it strange that the web developer community would tell their customers and visitors which browser software they should use.
I mean, when you drive on public streets, the city government doesn't tell you that you should be driving a Toyota. When you buy an audio CD from Sony, it doesn't say that you have to use Sony CD players to play it. The choice is up to the users/consumers. So why is the web so different?
Let your visitors choose what they use. Don't choose a browser for them. And the only way to do that is to support W3C standards.
I'm sure that IE and Mozilla (and Konquerer, Opera) are standard-compliant enough that you can write pages that works in all of them. I'm an amateur web developer, and I do that. Why can't you?
Still not quite as fast as IE, but with the Enable Quick Launch feature checked, Mozilla is finally becoming competitive
Maybe it's just the type of system, but on my box, the with quick launch enabled, it starts up sooo much faster than IE. I click on the icon in my quick launch tray and the window just displays, about as fast as if I just had it minimized (roughly 1-2 seconds from click to start page displayed). Clicking the the IE icon in the quick launch tray takes a while to load, well, the window displays instantly, but it still takes a few seconds for the start page to display (roughly 5 seconds from click to start page displayed).
Without quick launch enabled it takes about as long to load as IE from click to start page. Granted that with IE you get the window instantly and then wait for the start page, and with mozilla you wait for the window while watching the splash screen, but when the window displays the start page displays immediatly.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Just wait until you see IE 6 in XP - it is so much nicer than the "Modern" theme. With all the Luna goodness (minus the messed-up scrollbars - haven't tried RC1, might be fixed), it's really quite a pretty browser.
MUCH nicer looking than Mozilla, more colorful, better CSS support (well - as far as I can tell, I haven't done a detailed analysis, but so far I haven't run into too many bugs) - P3P support, image blocking support - it's really nice.
NS6 doesn't stand a chance against IE6.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Well, you could go to the Roadmap and see for yourself. The number of bugs left before they're ready to call it 1.0 is declining quite nicely.
The only one left that bothers me is ATM smoothing. Total deal-breaker for anyone using postscript fonts. Luckily the bug is now understood and is scheduled (hopefully) for 0.9.4
The flash plugin will crash it hard and fast.
and Macromedia said that it will never release a flash plugin for it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I can't seem to find my way around their bug system, but I'm wondering if these issues are fixed, or anyone else is having similar woes... (Moz 0.9.2, G6-300Mhz, Mandrake 8.1)
1) Closing the mail window takes about 1 min (G6-300 machine).
2) Some menu items are present (copy/paste) but don't work
3) Any support (ever?) for Roaming Access? I loved that in Netscape and hope they'll put it back into Mozilla...
Lofty "it's finished when it's finished" rhetoric just does not work for projects on the scale of Moz.
Suppose that the renderer is finished but that mailnews is still a mess. The release is delayed. The mailnews team makes a supreme effort and manages to deliver only by their clever and novel uses for the renderer. Six months later there's a much improved mailnews. There are also lots of new issues with the renderer. Release is delayed again. And so on. And so on..
Perhaps Opera is what you're looking for. It's small and fast and has double buffering.
Please update the mozilla graphic, I note that the nose is not depcited correctly given the latest reasearch data.
:)
mark
Yep, empty cells are meant to be transparent according to W3C spec's. You can set the browser to render empty cells with the background colour for a particular table via CSS.
So its not a bug in Mozilla, its a page that is n't W3C compliant, not the browser.
to get away from Microsoft. I really hate Microsoft, IMHO their products are over-rated and extremely buggy and their business practices make me sick. Microsoft basically destroyed Netscape (which at one time a much better browser) using their monopoly powers and I have a feeling if they become the only browser supplier they are going to tie their browser to their ISP (they've already started to) making MSN the only option for stable web-browsing. Then simply make MSN even more incompatible with Linux (does anyone know how to configure ppp on linux (in console) to support the knew MSN Explorer style MSN ?) and make it exremely hard to get online with Linux. That is why I am glad there are competing browsers, as long as they have to compete with the others MS can't do anything that may anger their browser users yet.
"
Check out the "Box Model Modifications" section in http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /workshop/author/css/overview/cssenhancements.asp
When the strict HTML 4 DOCTYPE is specified,
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Strict//EN"
IE6 uses the proper box model.
By the looks of it mozilla now blocks off-site popup windows by default: "...by setting the Window.open policy back to its default value, sameOrigin"
I never got 0.9.2 to work on my Sun Blade and now I've got to wait for someone to compile the 0.9.3.
YES,
1. create a "user.js" file in the same directory where your prefs.js file is.
2. add the following to that file:
// Override the default user-agent string:
user_pref("general.useragent.override", "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)");
I'm pretty sure that I used a Mozilla 0.93 beta a few years back. It was back in '95, 'afore the turn of the century. Yep, I remember it like yesterday. It was a fancy new browser, much better'n Mosaic. And it still fit on a floppy disk, too. Y'know, the old 3.5-inchers, like you see in museums today. Had good jpeg support, that browser did, and a funny-lookin' dragon-thing in the corner.
Seriously, though, from the release of the _original_ 0.93 beta, they release Netscape 1.0 (was it called Navigator originally, or did that come later?) within 4 months (if'n I remember correctly). I wonder if it would be worthwhile starting a pool on when Moz will go gold. I wish them all the luck in the world (I'm really tired of other browsers).
-Josh
I just left 4.78 behind last week and switched ot Mozilla as my main browser. I just wish it had an option to double-buffer on X Window, as my work machine is a bit sluggish and redraw is painful when dragging windows around and such.
-- Colin
I'm getting happier with it's speed ;)
...
I'm also quite happy that it doesn't go down as fast as a 2$ Vegas whore.
But for crying out loud, can't they build a brower that will render tables correctly? I've seen so many situations where mozilla draws things out of whack-- And I'm not talkin' super complicated stuff here... standard html 4.0, which IE can draw correctly.
Until Mozilla renders better, I can never recommend it, or Linux as a viable desktop alternative to anyone.
bleah.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
I ended up just grabbing the big tarball and blowing off the net installer. It came down fine; odd that I had no trouble with it, but the net installer was choked. Different servers? I'll try it now on the Windows side of my VM and see if the Windows net installer fares any better.
Different subject....anyone notice that during the 0.8.x series of releases, everybody was trashing the crap out of the lizard and now everybody is saying how much Moz rocks?
This comment brought to you by Mozilla 0.9.3. Yum.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Three words: You are also wrong.
Any word when anti-aliased text rendering is going to be incorporated into the *nix versions?
Ummm, for those of us who can remember Linux being interminably stuck in the 0.99 days, I hardly think that mozilla should be bashed for doing the same. High numbered 0.9x versions are well established and with good reason.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
anyone know how i can get mozilla to run with default settings without touching my home directory ? i.e. not invoking the profile management crap that start just before it loads.
"more stable than Netscape"? It's almost the year 2002, and that's the best Mozilla has done so far?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I had the same problem - the FTP server is being pounded hard and heavy. But there is a pretty easy solution to get to the sweetness that is the binaries. What you do, is when running the installer, you tweak your proxy settings (IIRC, they ask you for the proxy settings at the same time they ask if you want to keep the files locally). There's an option there to either use FTP or HTTP to get the lizard. Choose HTTP and you fly.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
maybe for rpm versioon
Even though they're progressing slower than some want, I think it's an incredible achievement. Way to go!
And that's my $0.32 (adjusted for inflation).
I like being able to use my mouse wheel to scroll, but I never realized how much I hold down the mouse wheel to quickly scroll to the top. I couldn't do it on Mozilla. Also, I missed being able to hit ENTER after typing in my user name and password on Hotmail and YahooMail. Little gripes, I know, but I may find more. I do like the Modern Skin, though... looks a lot better than IE....
It'll be 1.0 when it's ready to be. This is a mature approach. Contrast that with taking a 0.8 build and calling it a 6.0 build and getting ridiculed about shipping a steaming pile of crap. I'm sure some MBA can explan why that was a good idea...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
i've recently been using galeon instead of netscape and mozilla. anyone here have any experiences with it?
Blah.
Mozilla is proving too long to reach the market. Follow the other developments instead. I use Konqueror only now.
Will the next news item on Slashdot about Mozilla be Mozilla 0.9.4 released? Then:
0.9.5
0.9.6
0.9.7
0.9.8
0.9.9
0.9.9-rc1
0.9.9-rc2
0.9.9-rc3
Bah!
it's quick and clean, but will it play flash and quicktime?
"too many errors when downloading browser.xpi" I should have known they were being slashdotted. At least the download lets you resume where you were.
Doing an RSS - Share on the top output says that Mozilla is only using about 18 meg.
911 ndj 16 0 31012 30M 12372 R 1.5 16.2 0:36 mozilla-bin
(30-12 in case you hadn't worked it out)
There are just not enough Xiao Xiao animations to keep other browsers around.
When the previous releases were announced there were many people posting comments that told, "Konqi is much better than Moz". Today I cannot see them. (Maybe this is due to I'm browsing at +2, anyway).
I wouldn't describe the creation of Netscape 6.0 as successful... -- this was not a troll, mearely a statement of my own ideas, possibly towards a humorous end...
Switching to Mozilla you get an extra bonnus. That is: IPv6 support. That is a feature that is missing a a good many browsers (like Netscape).
morcego
But the biggest improvement over 0.9.2 is in my opinion that a window that is done loading doesn't steal my focus any longer!
Man, am I glad to see this. I've been using it in Linux for quite a while, and just started using it in Windows. But that behavior was driving me nuts! I also noticed the middle button thingy in Windows. I use that all the time in Linux and did it sorta by accident when using the Windows version. My first reaction was doh! and started to right click to get the pop-up menu to open the page in a new window. But then lo and behold, the new window appeared. I'm very pleased with Mozilla and can't wait to try out 0.9.3, but can't get the net installer to run....perhaps the server is slashdotted?
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
But I wish they would have non-talkback binaries available for linux. Sure, I can build it myself and configure that off ...but last time I ran a complete mozzila build, it took hours [I still have a slow old 400Mhz [and, let's face it, moz is -huge-], and used almost a gig of diskspace. Yah, should have disabled debugging symbols, I know... ; )
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
At least on Linux the 'back' button still doesn't work properly on sites with framesets. That sucks! How can anyone consider a browser with a bug like that consider that to be a serious contender?
Rendering is pretty good though but Konqueror in KDE 2.2 beta is not too bad either.
For now Konqueror still is my favorite.
Netscape 6 is based on mozilla.
Everybody keeps yelling that Netscape is soooo unstable, but un my personal experience that's absolutely not true. It hardly ever crashed on me (I used navigator only).
However, those were the old days, now I only use galeon or skipstone (hard to choose, galeon has this cool tricks but skipstone is very fast).
Like science? Comics? Wicked...
Funny By Nature
"wintendo" I guess that about sums it up, except my nintendo never blue screens on me!
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
There might have been some internal API changes in Mozilla that galeon uses. You might want to recompile.
Yeah, it used to work, but then it broke around 0.9 or something. I guess there's a workaround but Mozilla is just so broken ...
Umm... no. I'm running 0.9.2 and it still sucks shit. And I have 128MB of RAM.
Is your company running tools written by ma
I cringe whenever someone says something like that.
1) Choice is a good thing.
2) Write your pages to W3c standards.
3) Last I heard MS wasn't building IE for Linux
Talkback data shows that recent 0.9.2 branch builds are more stable than Netscape 4.78
It is pretty sad that they are comparing their reliability to Netscape's reliability. When Mozilla has less issues than Internet Explorer, then we can talk...
Take care,
Brian
100% Linux Web Hosting - No Windows - No Code Red
Ignoring the fact that many Unix browsers pretend to be IE on Windows just to get into these other sites.
and should have been present from the very beginning is the lack of addressbook export support. Even though I use mozilla regularly, I maintain my addressbook in squirrelmail and import it into Mozilla. I wonder why they didn't put it in mozilla. Importing CSV files works just fine.
This is good news (and on the same day as beta 2 of Evolution - who said the Linux desktop was dead?)
:)
I use Galeon, but until there's a Moz 0.9.3 optimised release I've decided to use Moz again for a while, and I honestly can't get over how much faster this release is to start and to render than 0.9.2!
Also seems to be using less memory (based on my unscientific approach of looking at my bubblemon_applet) which has to be a good thing.
It's also nice to be able to upgrade version without it killing my chromes. Even skypilot is running fast.
So, the race is on - what'll reach 1.0 first, Mozilla or Evolution?
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
Has anybody gotten that to work yet?
BTW, in addition to everything they tell you to disable in javascript on the compenent security page, I've also disallowed the irritating window status changes (remove the space after 'status'):
user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.status ", "noAccess");
you can show me statistics all day. it doesn't make them ACCURATE.
i understand your catering to IE as it makes your job easier IF YOU USE MS tools.
code toward W3C standards and then you don't have to worry. because you don't exclude ANYone unless they are using SUBstandard products.
the web community (of which we are all members) needs to learn to embrace standards to promote the industry. Not just cater to those in power, whoever they may be. If those in power chose to embrace standards then the choice is easy. IBM (just one example) taught us long ago that trying to use market clout to force "standards" is BAD for business and the industry in general.
I haven't checked out 0.9.3 yet (posting from 0.9.2) but the biggest problem I've had on Windows is a major lag switching to Mozilla after it's been idle for some time and presumably paged out to memory. I'm talking about clicking on the taskbar and waiting 15-30 seconds for the window to refresh. Has anybody else had this problem? (I know I should check Bugzilla, but I just can't find shit using that search engine...)
Mozilla doesn't currently have spellchecking (it used to be that you could install Netscape 6's spellchecking into Mozilla, but that no longer works). So, if you're interested in spellchecking, please vote for bug 56301 (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Every new release of Mozilla fills me with both joy and dread. Joy because it genuinely gets better each time, dread because I'll have to fight with Ximian Redcarpet and Galeon RPMs to install it :-( Why does Mozilla have to be such a crucial part of Ximian? Mozilla's being developed much quicker than Ximian is, but those of us lazy folks who use packages have to wait for the Ximian distribution to catch up before we can try the latest Mozilla builds. Which sucks.
Yeah, on my P5@200MHz, Mozilla is *slow*. I don't have IE, but if you want a fast browser on UNIX, try Galeon or SkipStone; they both use Mozilla's embedded rendering component, and esp. the latter is nearly as fast as Lynx (really! ;)
The box model is more of huge glaring core part of CSS rather than a fine point. Maybe IE6 now has it right, but the beta didn't, and there is no fix for this other than detecting and loading separate stylesheets for different browsers.
There is also an obnoxious discrepency in css list margins that requires separate stylesheets for different browsers.
Cons:
The slower-bit is offset if you use Galeon as a frontend. Which buys you a lot of speed, and somewhat better desktop-integration, on the expense of portability and library-count.
Both Mozilla and Konqueror are good browsers, but Mozilla is more technologically advanced, and the portability issue means a lot for it's acceptance and possible market-share.
Because they use Bugzilla to track all issues with Mozilla. Since people complain daily about the symptoms that turn out to be glibc problems, it's best to include the info in the bug report and just point people there.
That's also the place to debate the issue.
There are plenty of "bugs" that aren't, including feature-requests, user error, bad HTML/websites (e.g. the TLS mess), et cetera.
One simple rule for its versus it's
I've been trying Mozilla on and off since it's first milestone builds, and holy schmekies this is the best and most stable one yet. I'm so totally impressed. Still trying sites to see about compatibility, but so far it seems really good with new standards.
am i alone here?
the win32 full installer is not available,
forcing me to use the other "try and download me if you can" version?.
that sucks
(pretend there's something witty here)
i'd call you an amatuer developer based on your very ignorant comments.
one of the most important goals of mozilla is to be 100% standards compliant. read: NOT ie broken compliant.
i'm not an MS hater. but i hate what ie has done to web development and i can't stand using it. i frankly just do not patronize sites that are broken in a standards compliant browser. If i can't see the page in mozilla in windows at least it's just not worth my time or money.
i think mozilla is still very broken, but i'll still use it over IE anyday. Opera on the other hand is the uber-browser right now i think (for win32)
Yeah, developing all kinds of computer stuff would be soooo easy if there was only one standard for hardware and software.
Ever since I've switched from NS to Mozilla, I've been missing the ability to set the window geometries. Netscape lets you do it with X resources and -geometry of course. Mozilla appears to support neither.
So, every time i pop open another window (button 2 - happens a lot...), I have to tell my WM where to put it, since the existing window is already eating most of the screen. If Mozilla told the WM the geometry, it would just pop open by itself with no interaction from me, just like Netscape.
So, am I missing something, or do they really have a problem supporting -geometry?
Netscape 4.78 is pretty much rock stable for me; meanwhile Mozilla crashes at the drop of a hat and even simple Java/Javascript code doesn't work or never renders (YES I have the plugin...) I am about to delete Mozilla as I'm sick of seeing the talkback client pop up every two minutes...
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
Untill these numbers change, Microsoft can do whatever it likes... and I don't need to worry about some 0.25% of average users using Mozilla.
Why don't you wake up? Did it ever occur to you that they compared it to 4.78 instead of 6.0 to make a point?!? They were comparing stability, not features. And 6.0 is about as stable as ununoctium! Except that we have proof that Netscape 6.0 was successfully created.
> Seriously though guys, what is the need for this program to exsist other than to cause new problems and incompatibilites?
... and who DO want to have a decent browser that DOES support todays W3C standards like CSS2 etc.
Ever considered the possibility (i know it must sound rediculous) that there actually ARE people out there that do NOT use Wintendo(TM) as their Operating System
How can post number 4 be redundant??
I tried to install the program on this win2k box at work using the download manager type program. The network blocked the port traffic, which I should've been ready for.. but now I can't finish the install of mozilla because it demands I do it that way. and I can't overwrite it with a new install, or uninstall the currently installed portion. This seems pretty basic to me, hope this can be fixed for others in the future.
The only real thing stopping me from using Mozilla as a primary browser is its lack of support for secure connections. It simply won't connect to some bank and credit card sites.
I'll give it some credit. It now works (more or less) with my my two most frequently accessed accounts. But still, one of my primary bank accounts won't let me log in
What annoyed me most was reading the comments on the related bugs. Developers saying that ABC Webserver doesn't support the exact SSL specification here or there. That's life! Slight incompatibilities exist all over the internet. You have to work around them. Emailing the webmaster and having them upgrade their software is NOT the bug fix. Patch, kludge and work around the problem, please! Then, I can start using Mozilla instead of dumbass NS 4.78746372...
Because, glibc sucks.
Just because a few of us can read write and do a little math, doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the universe
Yes, IE5 is standards-compliant... if you can consider MS' view of how the Internet "must" be, then yes, you have a point... but the fact is, it isn't MS who sets the official web standards, it's the W3C.
No, not everything MS says is true, ZxCv...
I used Netscape 4.x on Solaris (SPARC and x86) for ages, with no stability problems at all, even using Java. I move to Linux, and *bang* the thing is down every five minutes.
As a fellow web developer I TOTALLY AGREE. I ONLY design for IE--simply because when i am on a budget I can't take the time to write 3 FRIKKIN VERSIONS OF MY SCRIPTS... not to mention the HORRID css support in netscape--mozilla is SLIGHTLY better, but it still has a LONG LONG way to go before I am happy with its CSS rendering capabilites. For the time being anyone that doesn't use IE is screwed... lol. They need to make a STABLE version of IE for *NIX... if they did that and made dreamweaver for linux I wouldn't have to dual boot anymore.
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
The CSS box-model is of core importance to CSS compatibility, when it's incorrect as it was in IE 5, 5.5 and 6 beta (but not in MAC IE 5) then you need to load separate stylesheets to get the standard effect in different browsers. I haven't been following this too closely, but does IE6 support the correct box model now?
John.
While I have Mozilla 0.9 installed I've found myself dropping back to using Netscape 4.77 most of the time. So I jumped at the chance to try out the new 0.9.3 build, maybe it puts right all the things that make me uncomfortable with Mozilla!?
So I have a look at mozilla.org and see that there are some nice spiffy new binary RPMs available for RH7.x, excellent, don't even have to bother compiling it. Download and install, open a new window, rehash, and, err...
Oh well, I guess I'm going to have to compile it after all...
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
And F.O. to all the flamers writing here for the past two years that the browser war is over. The browser war is a media hyped expression, nothing else. Without competition zero progress.
I'm hoping that this version starts to work faster than previous versions. I've done some simple benchmarking of IE vs Netscape vs Mozilla on both Windows (2000 Advanced Server and 98) as well as Solaris 9 2/01 build. I click open up a new page in the browser that's not cached, and start the stopwatch. I do this for all 3 browsers for the same site. Not surprisingly IE spanks Netscape / Mozilla on both Microsoft platforms, but it also ourperforms them on Solaris. I really like a lot of the mozilla stuff, and if they can get the speed down, its going to be the premier web browser. As of right now, Lynx is the only browser faster than IE.
I'm going to download the new Mozilla build in the next few days, I still have my fingers crossed.
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
Please don't use such non-specific references as "the parent of this message". There may be one true parent message, but it may be difficult to find without browsing at lower thresholds, especially if it gets modded down. And it becomes almost impossible to determine after the thread is archived.
Anyhow, I didn't say Mozilla wasn't stable. I said NS 4.x was so unstable that it was meaningless to say Mozilla was more stable. Most of the Mozilla builds since around 0.8 or so have been very stable for me under W2K at work. (And I have a 90+ day uptime on that W2K box, too.) The only problem I have had was right after I installed 0.9.3 it crashed twice. So I uninstalled it and re-installed with talkback and it hasn't crashed since then. Note that I do NOT install Mail/News/Chat because I don't believe in using web browsers for anything but web browsing. (And I wish I had the option to disable the freaking HTML editor too!)
To the person who said "turn off everything including images and it's great!", I say at that point you might as well be running Lynx. To the other person who says NS 4.x is stable for him, I suppose he might still be a modem user. I gave up NS 4.x when I got DSL and could crash it every two minutes. And to the person who says "just learn how not to annoy Windows 98", I say get a real operating system!
But I wish they hadn't broken auto-completion of URLs. (in 0.9.2, I think) Sure, the menu pops up, but it doesn't complete the URL that you're typing into.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Does anyone know if there is a way to get Mozilla
to send ie's user agent code so that it can access those stupid ie only sites?
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
This does work! I could just kiss you!!
Flash works fine for me. Mozilla 0.9.3 (Build 2001080104), Shockwave Flash 5.0r47.
:-)
Macromedia said they'd never support Mozilla, they never said anything about not supporting Netscape 6, and Mozilla uses the same plugins
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The question is, why is this called a bug? It seems that requiring glibc 2.1 is fairly common in other programs. Library dependencies are normal, as later versions have APIs that earlier ones lacked, and expected. (Also, annoying if you are not warned, but here we are)
So, why is a dependency a bug?
Best Slashdot Co
I cringe every time I read one of these storys. We have already had a browser war, let us not have a second one... or god help me, I will take hostages this time. Seriously though guys, what is the need for this program to exsist other than to cause new problems and incompatibilites? I don't think Mozilla will ever be a widely accepted browser that I will have to write pages that are compatible with it, but if these attempts to make the "Uber-Browser" continue eventually someone will pull it off. Then we (web developers) will need to start supporting it, which will cause M$ to become even more aggressive in the browser market. Perhaps those of you so intent on making browsers could find something else to make that we don't need.
It works just fine. There were a few good links to it in the Yellow Links article, recently.
...Konqueror?
I run mozilla on Linux and Windows. I have no complaints about it's memory use. As a matter of fact IE can and will end up using just as much memory as Mozilla if it stays up long enough. So all I can say is: Memories cheap dude. Buy some today!
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
I've never been able to get the Java plugin for Mozilla to work. I start Mozilla as root, goto the plugins page, let it run the official plugin installer. Then one of two things will happen:
1) When I next try to start Mozilla, I will get an error "The previous installation needs to restart to complete. Please restart.". Clicking O.K just closes the window. No Mozilla.
2) The plugin plain doesn't register. That is, it isn't listed in the about:plugins, and every page with Java just says I need the plugin.
Upto version 0.9.2 (Havn't tried 0.9.3 yet, natch), and something like plugins are still a non-funtioning PITA? Uh, great....
I just installed 4.78 on my computer last night. I couldn't believe how fast it was after getting used to using IE. You are right, it's not the stablest thing, but it works FAST and it loads up fast.
That has been the Achilles heel of Netscape for a while on Linux now, even with the plugins from SUN. I liked Mozilla before but it was SLOW and I can deal with a killall netscape or three a day if it's faster than what mozilla has to offer.
Off to try it.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
I like it. It doesn't crash. It renders pages quickly and correctly. In Windows I can use the "-turbo" command line switch to get IE like startup speed (I hope this makes it to the Linux builds too). But the biggest improvement over 0.9.2 is in my opinion that a window that is done loading doesn't steal my focus any longer! Previously you couldn't really have a lot of browser windows open because they constantly kept stealing the focus from each other.
I also like that you can open a link in a new window with the middle button. It's always worked like that on Linux, but it now also works in Windows. It's definitely ready for daily use IMHO.
I'm currently running the new Mozilla under MacOS 9.1 and ist really rocks! No crashes until now and way faster surfing as in IE. Can't wait for the BeOS port...
How do I post a bug to Bugzilla complaining about Bugzilla. That is the most unusable seach engine I've ever seen! Some user interface classes might help.
I seriously hope this was sarcasm. I'd like to find the child who designed the Luna interface at some point, and teach him or her how to actually design interfaces, minus the crayola.
I do it this way so that I can do it conditionally depending on whether I am at home or at work with my laptop. My ROX app scripts simply look at my hostname and do the proper thing accordingly.
it's not geared to that. if you want to do that. just turn off javascript. although it's not always an option.
i use junkbuster and then at least the ad doesn't come up. the window still does, but only when javascript is on (which i leave off unless i'm talking to my bank or ordering stuff)
i have been consistantly getting a strange problem in NT 4.0 (work, no choice)
where if i go to google. and then click on a choice after searching, sometimes it'll try to access that page in the google.com domain. IOW: it'll just tack the path on the end of the present domain name.
it's uber weird and no one else seems to be having this trouble. i'm wondering if it's something weird with out firewall. but netscrape 4.7x works just fine.
i also get a strange "ho hum" on the front of the source sometimes (all the source is there, but ho hum only shows up rendered as it is before the html start tag).
anyone know anything about these occurances?
i reported them but heard no followups and can't even find the bugs i reported.
comments?
Could we please, just once, not have all the dull 'This is late posts'. I could understand them if in the time between Netscape 4 and 6 IE had leapt ahead, and left Netscape in the dust, but the fact is there have been minimal facelifts in that time. In fact, every time someone says 'But IE isn't stable!!!' and someone says 'IE5.5 / 6 is very stable' they just prove the point, that Mozilla is up to speed with the current iteration of browsers. And with the speed (and yes, it is there) of improvement recently of Mozilla, I have every confidence that built on these secure, stable foundations, whatever they come up with next (e.g. 2.0) will be way ahead.
So sit back, download, and enjoy!
I just wish LiveConnect would work properly - apparently it won't until Java 1.4 is released. This sucks, because it has a lot of potential - imagine just drag-n-dropping arbitrary JavaBeans like 3d-graphing JApplets and stock ticker readers onto a web page in Composer, and having them become part of the page - then just "wire them together" with javascript. !.3 /1.4 beans and Applets make all this possible, and are so far ahead of 1.1 it's not funny.
I wonder when I can add 1.0 to it. Great browser, though I would like mathML and SVG to be "turned on" by default and working properly.
that SOCKS support is finally working. That would be SOCKS4 and SOCKS5. I wish more linux browsers incorperated SOCKS support (read konq)
have never met "the giver". As a public service to these clueless individuals,
here is a link to The Giver.
Hope this helps.
I'm thinking of switching to Mozilla. I'm interested in the basics. How is it on blocking pop-over/pop-under ads?
You can't ride two horses with one ass
Maybe it's been resolved with this new release or maybe it's because the software is still beta... But could someone PLEASE reduce Mozilla's memory footprint? I just find it rediculous to have a browser start up and immediately suck up 30MB worth of memory.
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
That isn't saying much. It is my experience that nitroglycerin is more stable than any version of Netscape 4.xx.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
How much later does the Mac OS X port usually take? I had thought they would code in Carbon to release on both Mac OS 9 and X at the same time...
This may be the one enabling both my wife and I to chuck the famous IE/Outlook Express combo.
A lot of attention on this site has been on the Linux, etc. platforms, but Mozilla 9.2 on Windows is pretty good, too. Still not quite as fast as IE, but with the Enable Quick Launch feature checked, Mozilla is finally becoming competitive. Perhaps 9.3 will be about equal.
And the Modern theme is very nice and durable, which makes IE look very tired. Great work by all involved!
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
I assumed he was talking about MSIE 6.0.
where there's fish, there's cats
Hopefully this version allows me to
turn off the 'hide missing images' feature.
Anybody got a clue? Couldn't find it in 0.9.2.
This browser rocks!
Mozilla is more stable than Konqueror. I've been using KDE since the 1.x days and I've used every release between then and now. Right now I'm running KDE 2.2Beta and Mozilla 0.9.1, and I assure you Mozilla is MUCH more stable than Konqueror EVER was. I have never been able to browse in Konqueror for more than 1 hour without it crashing. When I tried Mozilla 0.9.1, I browsed non-stop for 4-5 hours without a single crash on sites that send Konqueror crying to it's metaphorical momma in 10 minutes or less(and which have sometimes even crashed my whole system with memory leaks which exhausted the VM). Needless to say, I was astounded, titillated and very impressed. The only legitimate complaints that I have experienced with Mozilla are window focus issues, startup speed, and a minor rendering issues. Compared to the problems with Konqueror, that's nothing.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
There hasn't been a binary build of mozilla for linux SPARC on mozilla.org since 0.7 What gives? I CAN'T be the only one using linux on a Sun box.
-=Mongr=-
And hell, thanks to a screwup on my part, I'd been running 0.8.1 for the last month or so on Linux and hadn't noticed any significant difference. Great job guys!
Yes you can access banks. Mozilla does 128 bit encryption, SSL, the whole 9 yards, and it even does it properly. (or at least as properly as any other browser...) I'm fairly confident reason you are having trouble with the banks is not because of the browser. It is because of the banks. I have been using Mozilla nearly 100% of the time for close to 5 months now on both a Windows 2000 box and an SGI Octane. (and a lesser percentage of the time since M16) Yes I've run into problems with some of my banks but since version 0.9 the problems were because of the bank. They didn't parse forms correctly, or they programmed circles around the Netscape 4.x oddities but never updated it when Mozilla/Netscape6 started doing it right or other issues.
Now granted I'm just one person but I have yet to be able to trace any problem with secure connections I've had to Mozilla since version 0.9. It has always been bad coding on the other end. YMMV obviously but it does work and works pretty well if the folks who designed the website have a clue.
And it supports ESD properly now too, so I don't have to disable my esound daemon just to go check out joe cartoon when I need a laugh.
I've been playing the joecartoon stuff on mozilla all day, no problems :)
http://www.joecartoon.com/
Can anyone get Mozilla 0.9.3 (or 0.9.2 for that matter) to render http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt? Mozilla seems to strip all formatting so it appears as just plain text...
Try Dillo instead. Simple, light and fast.
http://dillo.sourceforge.net
For the longest time, I couldn't stand looking at those crummy Netscape buttons. I like the themes option. Extremely customizable.(I realize this has been around for a while)
;)
:P Not sure my RAM-poor laptop can handle that.....
And it does seem to live up to the promise of "less crashes". (I've had it running a whole 15 minutes and it hasn't crashed yet
But there are drawbacks. On Win32, running Mozilla wants 33MB from my heap. That's almost 3 times what IE wants for rendering the same page
A nice surprise: Mozilla properly handles true alpha-masked PNGs.
But hey, kudos to the mozilla folk for making a stable build!
--
#include <malloc.h>
free(your.mind);
Considering the code for Netscape 5 was released on March 31, 1998, I do not think it's just him. It's me too.
.com's, but that's what I visit the most. Another is the ability to do practically anything in IE with the keyboard alone -- including giving particular frames focus, switching to the location bar without having to tab through all the links on a page.
Not only has this been under development for well over three years, but it still has many shortcomings. The most obvious is that it's ridiculously slow. I have a PII-233 running Linux and Mozilla is hardly usable on it. I have a PIII-450 running Win2k and it is much better, but still really slow.
It does have some nice new features, but it also lacks a lot. It seems like it will never have the polish of IE. I am not saying this to start a flamewar by the way... One of the many subtle things I like about IE is being able to type just the domain portion of a url, pressing CRTL+ENTER and having IE fill the "http://www." and the ".com"... it only works for
Now that I think about it, the mouse dependency may be one of my biggest personal annoyances with Mozilla. If that improves and the speed gets to the point where I can't type an address faster than Mozilla can display my typing (on the Linux box) then I may start to appreciate it.
For now it is too little, way, way, way too late.
I have a woman and money. Life is good.
Alright.. coo'. Thanks for the hand-holding :)
Does anyone know where I can find a higher resolution, or (hopefully) a vector based version of that pic? I think it would look so damned kick ass on a t-shirt, that and the commie-moz-star...
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
I've seen Talkback only about three times and 0.9.2 is up and doing something 24/7.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
1) No matter what I set my default search to, I always get that annoying netscape site when using "? keywords" in the address box.
2) <input type="file"> objects still have rendering problems when applying a style to it.
Still, I'm going to make a couple of tweaks to our Intranet in order to support this build, and try to get people at work to try it out.
Unfortunately, everyone I've talked to so far wouldn't even give it a try. They have no problems with using IE. I don't really either, but if me using it somehow supports their effort, then Im more than happy to.
I anyone able to browse http://localhost? I am not able to do so :-(. It just redirects me to Netscape search.
I'm running Suse 7.1 on Intel.
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
It take every browser (except IE) an eternity to startup.
And plugin support too ?
Why do we have to do hack jobs of installing plugins, copying them to the mozilla directory.
Cant there be a more elegant way ?
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.
Missing flash support would be a feature, not a bug :)
I've never had a successful display of a ftp:// page. The pulser (the "M") will stop, the status will say "Done", but nothing displays. The MSIE on the same box works fine, as does Netscape 4.7X.
Any know if there's a build for 68K Macs somewhere? Is there any work being done on a port? I'm dying to use something better than Netscape 4.0 on my old Quadra.
If it tries to run without the required libs being present, it is a bug.
Surely there is sonme way for the program to determine this at startup?
I do hope that you filed a bug for this, otherwise i am afraid you are the weakest link... goodbye!
My daughter goes to nick.com and cartoonnetwork.com (Ok, so do I :-)
.92 running on RH7.1 with a 2.4.3 SMP kernel from RH.
and at nick.com the flash will work once and either blow up the browser or completely kill the flash plugin.
usually you can get about 3 to 4 levels deep in nick.com before it eat's itsself.
this is
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Meaning it only crashes every FOURTH time you load it, instead of every THIRD time, and there's only a 33% chance that your settings will be trashed when that happens.
Sorry, waiting two years for a project this big and bloated wasn't worth it.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
I'll second that it's damned fast. All around, I'm quite impressed with this browser. I've pretty much used only IE on Windows and Konqueror under Linux, but for once I'm impressed with Mozilla.
:) No crashes, either, but I'll probably still disable it (and no doubt it won't pop up a box every time I hit a Flash site like IE does...)
As for Flash, personally I disabled ActiveX in IE anyway. Hm, just checked out a Flash site in Mozilla, seems the plugin is there (and working), must have carried over from some Netscape version I have lying around
I'm going to surf around for a while, see if this might be worth switching to...
- Jman
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
And yes, looks like it's paged out. Which is pretty normal. Also, some components may ge paged out, so you have to wait if you use certain features.
I have already seen problems with this version though. It's like the table formatting is different. Some sites (especially web forums) are rendering all broken. And they were just fine in 0.9.2.
I've been to other sites that render buttons as text fields. WTF?
Sometimes images arn't rendering at all.
Yes, I completely deleted the old version. This one is just buggy. This version seems much worse than 0.9.2, I'm switching back.
I've noticed this build doesn't include many new features, but I guess that's OK as long as it's stable (which it is!).
Anyhoo, here's my 'most wanted' improvements and features:
Soon: HTML compressor/validator for composer, Nicer icons (for favourites and navigation toolbar), (more) responsive GUI, java installed by default, dictionary.
The future: babelfish translator, voice/gesture control?, jabber built in.
What are yours?
A lot of Mozilla users have been complaining that my website isn't displaying links correctly, and my site is CSS heavy. So does the new version support CSS?
I haven't tried the 0.9.2/0.9.3 Mozilla releases yet, but the ones I tried were heavy as hell. How much has 0.9.3 improved with regard to load time/lightweight-ness?
So it's worth giving a try for those who had stability problems with it in previous releases. Is it also worth giving a try also those who were disappointed by Mozilla's bloatation in previous releases?
How the heck am I supposed to double click on your computer?
I'm not sure that Talkback reports are really a good measurement of stability. I get a lot of crashes where the Talkback module is not run. Or maybe it is just me?
Mozilla is taking 23MB of memory on a Win2000 machine and this is the only page I have up. Is there something I'm doing wrong? It was taking 35MB this morning. I agree the improvements are great but it'll be hard to get people to switch considering IE footprint is about 5MB. (Yeah I'm aware MS is cheating by implementing portions of IE in the OS but it's still valid.)
Don't read this sig cause it's not worth it.
Talkback data shows that recent 0.9.2 branch builds are more stable than Netscape 4.78 and we expect even better results for 0.9.3. Now is the time to try Mozilla again if you've been waiting for stability to improve." Translation: Mozilla is better than ever.
Translation: Mozilla still sucks compared to Internet Explorer, just slightly less than it did before.
Why are we comparing to Netscape 4.78? Netscape sucks! It crashes, it's slow, it doesn't support standards properly, and the user interface is clumbsy at best. This isn't news until Mozilla knocks the socks off IE 5.5 or IE 6.0.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
With all the improvements that Mozilla has made, Internet Explorer (5.5) is still about 2x faster at rendering nested tables than Mozilla 0.93. Try it for yourself: create a page with an absurdly large number of nested tables (you can use Mozilla's deeply nested tables debug page, save it as a .html file, and copy the tables about 100 times in a text editor), and then test it on Mozilla and Internet Explorer. Mozilla reported 16.42 seconds on my computer, IE only took about six (I don't have an exact number, I used a stopwatch).
However, Mozilla is finally becoming stable and usable. It may take more memory then IE, it may be slower, and it may use a nonstandard UI, but at least it's as stable as IE now.
By the way, I already saw the "IE Isn't Stable" replys coming. You're wrong. IE has crashed once this month (with 4-6 hours per day of use). Can you say that Mozilla can do better? I don't think so!
Compile it yourself, lazyass.
I'm trying out Moz on a PII-350, and the preformance is awesome. But, at home I have a K62-500, and the speed and stability are not there. Could it be because of i686 optimizations?
I have built the tree before on my box, (with slow performace at the time) and it may be time to do it again, to see if an i586 of K6 build would improve things.
If you think I should get a PIII, talk to my wife!
There are often tar.gz or zip or whatever other compression is available on your system. The catch is you might download more but hey you get it all in one...
Ok, I'm craxy, but that's just me.
.slt directory design I've seen - Why in this day and age can't they be in a directly like ~/mail? Instead, it creates a NEW directory for new mail. Why can't I just say "Use this directory for ALL my mail, and NONE OTHER". I have multiple folders for a reason, and I don't see the need to have additional folders elsewhere.
Every time I've tried to use to Mozilla mailer, it fscks up the existing folders I have, and has yet to index them properly.
I hate the extra
One stop mailing, I say.
The basic problem is that there aren't that many GeoCities sites in the test suites. Mozilla tends to be tested (and benchmarked, for that matter) on popular sites, and popular sites almost never have frames. They tend to be reserved for the same ghettos where Flash intros and Flash navigation live.
CSS has always been one of Mozilla's strengths. Almost every complaint I've seen on CSS has been due to a bug in the site rather than the browser.
Speaking as someone with experience unlike the parent of this message ... I can say that it is very stable.
I used Mozilla almost daily, and I do a lot of surfing. At the moment I have a grand total of four Mozilla windows open (as I happen to have just closed about five of them). In addition to that I'm always testing the latest whacked out design I can think of.
And yes, it is much more stable than Netscape 4.78. 4.7 would crash on nested margins (which I use a lot). It also came across as having quite a flaky interface.
Now if only they'd fix these TEXTAREAs ... (using the END key means you can't press the LEFT arrow, and skipping to the end of the text box means you get another line).
So get your head out of whatever it is currently in, and use a standards compliant browser.
Those lying Motorola bastards! :)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I think there's two important points here.
If there is an flaw in the implementation of a well documented protocol, then trying to be compatible with it by compromising your own product will lead to a justification of that flawed implementation. This then leads to 57 flavours of the standard existing since each vendor will know they can get away with being lazy, careless or devious. In turn it becomes almost impossible to create product which is compatible with all of them - unless the lowest common denomenator is used, reducing functionality. Developers will then need to decide which broken versions they want to interoperate with, usually a major vendors. This in turn allows the embrace-extend-extinguish methodology.
Second, is that (assuming) Mozilla's implementation of SSL is correct, and the banks is not, then there is a question of what this actually implies. If the SSL the bank uses is an incorrect or incomplete version what security holes exist? Is it compromised? And do you really trust an organisation who can't be bothered to keep their systems upto date and secure? What *else* have they got wrong?
To get back to topic: Mozilla is supporting the real standards in a real way. This is vital for the continuation of tools and applications on the Net - server and client side. The only way to ensure interoperability and a level playing field for all developers, commercial or otherwise.
How is mozilla for news? It appears that netscape has an O(n^2) algorithm for sorting messages in newsgroups, and very poor multipart support. Things like this are important in the post napster age.
- No alt text, even on mouse over
- No image placeholders or borders, so you can't even tell where an image is supposed to be if it doesn't load.
- You can't manually load an image. And if you "view" it with images disabled it won't load the image at all!
Even more of a joke if you try turning images off compared to Netscape 4.x or 3.x even.
For a poweruser who surfs without images on Mozilla is useless. Opera has any browser beaten in this department.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
Most of the info on this can be easily found on the web admittedly it's a hassle but NS is quite stable for me and has been for years.
Very good laugh.
I suppose it depends what you mean ... but possibly. It is known that many of the original Unix developers were gay. Also of course it is well known that Alan Turing was gay.
Bill Gates certainly looks like a hunk of burning hetersexual love and all that, but (and I mean this in the best a metaphorical sense) Linux is on the rise and all other OSes should bend over, lube up and prepare to be reamed ....
Well, I tried it [Moz] out for some time on my Mac, but I'm back to M$ IE and Entourage now. Mozilla is way better than "old" Netscape, very stable, but it's hardware demands and general responsiveness (or lack of same) is not only a limiting factor - it's an annoyance. In comparison, IE seems to zip along for most general tasks (not talking about raw HTML rendering here). Mozilla might be getting more and more stable, but I'm not going to use it until it gets *faster*.
You already have to write pages that are more or less compatible with Mozilla. Ever hear of the W3C? Do you have any idea what web standards are?
The thing that really pisses me off is not that you're so dumb, but that I can probably do your job ten times better than you can, but you're the one getting paid (assuming that you ARE, in fact, a professional web developer). Get the fuck out of my career field and into McDonalds where you belong.