Slashdot Mirror


Patch Maker -- Mozilla Hacking & Patching Made

A reader writes: " Mozillaquest.com has an article about Patch Maker which is a new Perl script that let's you hack the Mozilla UI using JS, CSS, and XUL. You do not have to download or compile the source code or pull CVS. It makes writing and submitting Mozilla UI patches easier."

96 comments

  1. WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by Hitokage_Nishino · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stop posting stuff from mozillaquest.com!

    Even if the stuff about scripting is true, mozillaquest exists solely to bash the efforts of those who spend their time working on the mozilla project. Don't vindicate that troll who runs it.

    1. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      exibit A:
      The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control.

      Mozquest is a load of shit, wht's this guy's motivation with giving bad information about the Mozilla project? is it personal? is there some kind of corporate interest involved? Patchmaker is a great project and should make things easier for developing Mozilla UI. how abolut this link to the project itself:

      patchmaker page
      or the discussion on mozilla zine site

    2. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by sohp · · Score: 1

      The Patch Maker story ran in mozillaZine on Sept 27 -- quite a long time ago and there was quite a lot of discussion there, why couldn't slashdot have posted that link then?

      I suggest if you want to follow Mozilla news, go to mozillaZine and along the right-hand navigation click on the "Add Sidebar Panel" item (I'd make a link here but it needs more than a URL to make it go). Or go to one of the newsgroups, or watch the top items on Bugzilla (a great source for what's on the developer's mind). There's also This RDF newsfeed for top newsgroup threads. Am I making my point? Don't waste your time at mozillaquest, go to the real deal.

    3. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      What is that? Open source way of requesting cencor?

      As I know, Mozillaquest was always critical about Mozilla project. Agree or not, for myself I agree some of them.

      This time, about yesterday when I checked that site, I saw the article... err.. I clicked like "Heh, now how he will flame them?" way of thinking. It was a positive one, real surprising.

      Here I open another RFE for Slashdot readers:

      a) Not to come as gang to Slashdot (count comment posters about "cencoring mozillaquest" via not linking them

      b) Check some Mozillazine comments. About actual Netscape developers (Corp. Ones) speaking about mailing "The Register guy" writing about Mozilla chief wrangler left article which mozillaquest uncovered first! They said publicly, so no problem to repeat here: "I will tell that guy about Mozillaquest" and check how Mozillaquest link WAS REPLACED with Mozillazine which cencored that story for 10 days!

      People, just because of Mozilla, I can loose all my respect for opensource. Not just killing my browser, PLEASE don't kill people's faith in Open Source way of understanding free speech!

      Stop it... Please!

    4. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Mozilla chief wrangler left article which mozillaquest uncovered first!

      The guy who runs MozillaZine works at Netscape one floor down from where Mitchell Baker used to work. Do you really think Mozillaquest knew about her being laid off before MozillaZine?

      Gerv

    5. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I guess my non native english is to blame.
      ---
      The guy who runs MozillaZine works at Netscape one floor down from where Mitchell Baker used to work. Do you really think Mozillaquest knew about her being laid off before MozillaZine?
      ---
      I knew Mozillazine is close to Netscape corp but not that much. Thanks for englighting me. That was the thing I tried to mean, Mozillazine knew the story but didn't release. I said "uncovered", not that they found a thing cosmically secret but somehow didn't get reported on "main", "semi offical" "fan" site.

      BTW, congrats on patch maker as I have a chance now.

    6. Re:WILL YOU SLASHDOT GUYS LEARN??? by Gerv · · Score: 2

      It didn't get reported because it has had no real effect on Mitchell's work for the Mozilla project. She still does all the stuff for Mozilla she used to do. So why is it news?

      In the middle of November, I'm going to stop being employed by Netscape. Will that be a big story too?

      Gerv

  2. Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by Kaio · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Here's the main text of the article:

    >

    Patch Maker -- Mozilla Hacking & Patching Made Easy

    Mike Angelo -- 6 October 2001 (c)

    The Mozilla Organization's newest toy for Mozilla hacking is Patch Maker. It let's almost anyone familiar with XUL, JS, or CSS create patches to the Mozilla user interface - without having to deal with CVS (Concurrent Versions System), source code, C++, and/or compiling.

    Patch Maker makes it easier to write and to submit Mozilla user interface (UI) patches. It was written by Mozilla developer Gervase Markham primarily for people who are not in to, or up to, dealing with CVS and compiling. Even people that are up to snuff skill-wise might not have sufficient computer resources to work with the Mozilla CVS and compiling Mozilla source code.

    The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control. So the Mozilla developers are hoping to get more bug-fixing help from the Mozilla and Open Source communities by making it easier for people to write and submit bug-fix patches.
    XUL (pronounced zuul) is Mozilla implementation of XML that is used to describe the interactive Web-like page faces of Mozilla-based applications. Think of XUL as the Mozilla developers' name for an XML-based language used to describe the UI (User Interface). Creating a Mozilla skin or UI is mostly a matter of hacking the XUL, XML, CSS, JS and so forth that define the chrome and skin, and/or redoing the graphic images and widgets they use.

    To be more precise, however, XUL is not exactly XML. A standard XML parser cannot interpret XUL. That is why you cannot display XUL as a Web page with Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.x, or other non-Mozilla-based browsers. Mozilla-based browsers have a special parser that can interpret XUL.

    Here is how it works. The Mozilla browser suite is built on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, which is written in C++. For the most part, the Mozilla browser-suite user-interface employs XUL, JS, and CSS. Patch Maker is a Perl script that let's you modify the user interface XUL, JS, or CSS and try your modification(s) without having to download, compile, or recompile the source code -- and without having to deal with CVS.

    More About the Mozilla Application Programming Framework

    Mozilla-based Web-browser suites, including the navigator, e-mail, news, and composer components, all are applications built to run upon the underlying Mozilla application programming framework. So what you see when you run such Mozilla-based Web-browser suites essentially are interactive Web-like pages defined and controlled by the XUL, JS, and CSS code, which is interpreted at run time.

    What you see when you open Mozilla or Netscape 6 (NS6) browser suites is not the Mozilla or NS6 program itself. What you see essentially is an interactive Web page generated by Mozilla and its Gecko layout engine.

    Web page is an oversimplification. The Mozilla Web-browser face is similar to a Web page in that it is laid out by Mozilla's Gecko engine much as the Gecko engine lays out a Web page. Mozilla-the-browser is a combination of text, images, widgets and so forth laid out by Gecko to form an interactive user interface. That interactive user interface is very much similar to a Web page. Something we will call a Web-like page here.

    Downloading & Using Patch Maker

    Patch Maker is limited to the XUL, JS, and CSS code that runs on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, It will not let you create patches for the underlying Mozilla framework.

    You can download the Patch Maker script from the Mozilla Organization Web site. You also should read the Patch Maker Web page on the Mozilla Organization Web site. Links for the Patch Maker script and Web page are in the Resources Section at the end of this article.

    Patch Maker is designed primarily for Linux. However, according to the PageMaker Web site, you should be able to use Page Maker with Windows if you also download ActivePerl and Cygwin.

    If you would like to hack the Mozilla or Netscape browser suites without using Patch Maker, please check our Mozilla-skinning articles, MozillaQuest the Series: Building Your Own Mozilla-Based Web Browser .

    For more information about Mozilla the organization, Mozilla the application programming framework, and Mozilla the Web browser suite, please see the series, Mozilla--A Lizard for All Seasons. (Please check the Resources Section at the end of this article for links.)

    >

    1. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control

      Wow. And the Republicans call Dan Rather biased! Could the impetus just be to make it easier to make changes? Does it have to be bugs raging out of control?

      Disgusting excuse for a "journalist".

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    2. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Here's the main text of the article:


      Although this is technically plagarism it does have the beneficial side-effect of denying Mike Angelo advertising revenue for his continuing hatchet job against Mozilla. Frankly I wonder what Netscape or mozilla.org did to him that he feels he must reel out one misinformed article after another.

    3. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by Gerv · · Score: 5, Informative

      The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control.

      In fact, the impetus for creating Patch Maker was to allow more people to contribute to Mozilla. Many UI designers are not able to manage the intricacies of our build process; many people do not want to purchase Code Warrior (on Mac) or MSVC++ 6 (on Windows) and are unable, for one reason or another, to install Linux. Many people do not have the bandwidth to continually download and update the CVS tree - even downloading a nightly is a major event which must happen at cheap telephone times.

      This software is for all of these people. For the first time, you can make a significant code contribution to a large open source project without the complexities of compiling.

      Note: Patch Maker is still in development; I would appreciate help porting it to Mac especially, and debugging it on Windows.

      Gerv

      --
      gerv@mozilla.org, author of Patch Maker

    4. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, MozillaQuest is once again making its anti-Mozilla bias known to the world, and Slashdot keeps lending them credibility.

    5. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Could the impetus just be to make it easier to make changes? Does it have to be bugs raging out of control?

      Yeah but when they say it that way, it brings to mind a large lizard trampling Tokyo ;-)

    6. Re:Just Incase some Slashdotting Occurs... by Surak · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And the Republicans call Dan Rather biased!

      So do Libertarians, FWIW. :-P

  3. Off Topic, but necessary by Wire+Tap · · Score: 0, Troll
    The worst terrorist attack ever just happened less than a month ago, and the start of WW3 is going on as I type this, and you people are talking about a Perl script for Mozilla?!?

    You are absolutely right, we should not worry about things that are "necessary" for our world to continue as it does, and instead just spend all our time and effort being concerned with the attacks/military action.

    WRONG. That is exactly what the terrorists want us to do - that will give them a higher degree of satisfaction. In order to give them the symbolic finger, we have to persist in our day-to-day activities. After all, there are people to whom our tax dollars go who work on the issues at large.

    To beat this horse just a little bit more, don't forget that the Slashdot community was perhaps the greatest beacon for information when the attacks took place. I am sure that it will continue to play an appropriate role as things unfold, but it's wheels will never stop turning. That's what makes it, and America so great, we never sit down and take it.

    --

    Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

  4. Mozilla is still poop by kastaverious · · Score: 0, Troll

    And everyone knows it

    --
    GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
    1. Re:Mozilla is still poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite true. It's really getting better with every milestone. The main prob are the memory requirements, but at the price of memory these days (unless you like paying for patents), new machines will soon come with 256-512 MB anyway, so the 64 MB Mozilla easily eats up should be no problem. Function-wise, it beats IE in almost every area.

    2. Re:Mozilla is still poop by kastaverious · · Score: 1
      But


      1. Cheap memory does not excuse spaghetti code


      2. Mozilla coders used to boast how mozilla would run well even on low end machines. Indeed mozilla developers used to bemoan IE's memory requirements.

      --
      GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
    3. Re:Mozilla is still poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. None of the browsers that uses less memory can achieve what Mozilla has done. Mozilla is still in development, if you know a way to optimize footprint without sacrificing Mozilla's level of standard compliance, by all means help out the developers.

      2. Mozilla runs on my 3 year old computer just as fast as any other browser (except Lynx, of course). It even runs respectably on my old Pentium 100. I would call those computers pretty low-end.

    4. Re:Mozilla is still poop by kastaverious · · Score: 1

      It may 'run' on you pentium 100, but it will be very, very, very slow.

      --
      GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
    5. Re:Mozilla is still poop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually todays computer is about 1.5Ghz, and if processor speed doubles each 18 months then that makes it about 375Mhz - which sounds reasonable for Mozilla.

    6. Re:Mozilla is still poop by kastaverious · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You mean 3.75Ghz

      --
      GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
  5. Window Maker by Red+Moose · · Score: 1

    It would be cool if Microsoft did something like this, and called it "Window Maker" for a laugh.

    --

    Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better

  6. Thoughts on MozillaQuest by XBL · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, even though in the article Mike says that the reason for this "toy" is to help fix the bugs that are "raging out of control", at least he makes the article respectible, and professional.

    Mike is a very experienced writer who will undoubtedly move on to higher journalism, like maybe ZDNet. Heck, ZDNet might even turn MozillaQuest into a full-blown print magazine.

    Just remember folks, in a couple years, Mike Angelo will have gone places you have never dreamed. Even though people call the stuff he writes now "crap", I believe in him.

    1. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by kastaverious · · Score: 1

      Mozillaquest has nothing to gain from dissing mozilla. However, mozillaquest works without rose tinted specs. If something is crap, they say so.

      --
      GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
    2. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a guy who doesn't like Mozilla. He gains by putting them down and making himself feel high and mighty. While I'm sure the community does have a rosier view of the situation, this guy is wearing feces-tinted glasses. Regardless, his track record for journalistic integrity should prevent Slashdot from linking to his garbage stories and generating him ad revenue. Slashdot does this from time to time -- link to known disreputable sources (such as MacOS Rumors) in the past. I can only guess that it is a way for them to settle an old debt with the proprietor of the garbage site via site traffic.

    3. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozillaquest has nothing to gain from dissing mozilla.

      How do you know? Do you have personal contact with them?

      However, mozillaquest works without rose tinted specs. If something is crap, they say so.

      That would be great if they actually understand the specs and facts. But clearly they don't. Remeber when MozillaQuest claimed Netscape denies using Mozilla code in Netscape6?

    4. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by kastaverious · · Score: 0, Troll
      I don't know for sure they have nothing to gain, but I find it unlikely that they do. Even if that was the case, quite a lot of what they say is true. Mozilla is a pretty piss-poor example of an open source project, I don't think anyone being honest could say development pace has been swift, and conducted in a well ordered, logical way.

      --
      GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
    5. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quite a lot of what they say is true

      Maybe, but a lot of what they say is misleading. For example, MozillaQuest is constantly obsessed with bug counts. You can do a query in bugzilla and probably come up with the same bug counts (I never verified), but they completely ignores the details of those bugs. If you've been a frequent visitors to bugzilla, you'll know that many "bugs" in bugzilla are not actually bugs, but design issues, discussions, request for enhancements, etc. MozillaQuest simply takes the bug count and claim it to be the buggiest project in the world, while many others haven't had crashes in months using Mozilla. Remember "lies, damn lies, and statistic"?

      I don't think anyone being honest could say development pace has been swift

      Let's compare. How long did IE take to go from the miserable being at version 2, to the market dominating version 5? And it only works on select platforms. Konqueror reached an impressive state in quite a short amount of time, but it doesn't have usable ports for Windows and Mac. Mozilla, developed from ground up almost 3 years ago, works on Windows, Mac, Unixes, BeOS, etc., and has support for XHTML, PNG, CSS 1&2, DOM 1&2 and many more. You might not think the development pace is swift, but that's because no other browsers have done what Mozilla aims to do.

    6. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with that mindless statements like that. I really want more detail. Please give examples of MozillaQuest articles and where they have been right/wrong.

    7. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure lots of code from old IE has been thrown out, that's why they didn't release IE5 quality browser from day 1; they write code, find out what's wrong, re-write a certain part, and throw away the old code. Mozilla also has a fair share of that. I'm not sure if IE3 is in fact a complete new product from IE2, but at least later versions are not built from ground up as a new product. And even now IE still has trouble supporting XHTML and CSS stuff.

      So to be honest, I haven't tried the BeOS port. But my point still stands. How many browsers in the market work consistently on 3 major platforms: Windows, Mac, and Unix? Very few. In addition to that, how many of those browsers can claim the same level of standard compliance as Mozilla? I can't think of any. Therefore, I think Mozilla developers have achieved a lot in 3 years of time.

    8. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can discount IE for Unix platforms too. Not to mention that it won't run on Linux and BSD.

    9. Re:Thoughts on MozillaQuest by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 2

      +3 insightful? hahaha, Maybe the mods should recognize humor better. :)

  7. Re:yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I iam sorry Fran :( I have watched you FP for a long time time now, and thought perhaps I could clain a FP for your Katy too. Alas I didn't. But I do hope you did well on your test and that you are enjoying it at home.

  8. MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Every time there's a story linked to MozillaQuest.com, somebody links to MozillaQuestQuest.com. So now I am. Why does Slashdot continue linking to this retard?

    1. Re:MozillaQuest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, it comes up as an XML tree in IE 5. Great!

    2. Re:MozillaQuest by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      IE5 seems to be rendering it as an XML tree because it's very choosy about exactly what namespaces it supports. Obviously, the namespace pointed to at MQQ is a perfectly valid XHTML namespace that's been around for two years as a final draft (or whatever the appropriate terminology is). Try looking at the page in Opera or Mozilla and it'll render just fine. I ran into similar problems while developing some XSLT stuff. IE5 doesn't support the much more functional version of XSLT that has string operators and whatnot. You have to dig through MSDN to find a patch that'll let IE deal with it correctly. Again, IIRC, Opera and Mozilla processed my XSLTs just fine; IE just didn't support the namespace.

      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
  9. Re:UGH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    doh, you almost got the catch phrase right. Try looking at somebody else's 'PRIORITIES' troll before posting one next time!

  10. STOP USING THAT WORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stop saying "hacking" and "hacker". Do you want the government to shut down Slashdot for christ's sake?

  11. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't love Raymond. So that part of your post is herewith refuted.

  12. Why go to MozillaQuest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MozillaZine had this story a week earlier than MozillaQuest. MozillaZine is also closer to the Mozilla developer community and has better understanding of what is going on. Please for once go to a respectable Mozilla news site for infomation on the project.

  13. Re:Get some PRIORITIES by kastaverious · · Score: 1

    put a sock in it.

    --
    GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
  14. I agree by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's why I sent him this email.
    Unfortunatly he must get so many requests from potential advertisers that he can't find time to reply to them all, as he didn't reply to mine.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  15. Could this be used against me? by b0z · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could their scripts be set up to run from a website? I remember the Netscape "Brown Orifice" crack that turned a browser into a trojan. Internet Explorer is already a laughingstock because of all the security flaws, would this make Mozilla just as bad?

    --
    Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
    1. Re:Could this be used against me? by Gerv · · Score: 2

      There is no danger to end users from Patch Maker. It's a development tool, like your C compiler or an editor.

      Gerv

    2. Re:Could this be used against me? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      You say that now, but wait until its included as an email attachment that patches Mozilla to look like IE.

      It'll be the first email virus Microsoft promotes and will send to you on request.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Could this be used against me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What, you mean the mozbilla theme?

      (I'd point you to a screenshot, but t.o is down ATM.)

    4. Re:Could this be used against me? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but wait until its included as an email attachment that patches Mozilla to look like IE.

      I don't think that Mozilla folks are too quick to include Perl interpreter to Mozilla... You know, the small little thing that's actually needed to run the script. =) Or, alternatively, I doubt Mozilla will suddently start allowing running random applications...

      It's just a script that is run entirely separate from Mozilla. It's not included to Mozilla itself in any way.

  16. Re:Jon Katz Sucks! by kastaverious · · Score: 1
    Congrats Sir on a excellent evasion of slashcode's attempts to stop our fun.

    --
    GiraffeSville, a place anyone can call home
  17. mozillaquest is a troll by augustz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Consider linking instead to mozillazine.com instead, which has discussed this in great depth as well, and is not simply a site for trolls. And what is wrong with the idiot moderators moderating this point down? I suspect a majority of them have no clue what they are moderating and moderate on tone alone. pathetic.

  18. I wrote this software by Gerv · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am the author of Patch Maker. Any questions about it may be directed to me :-)

    Gerv

    1. Re:I wrote this software by cymen · · Score: 1

      So can I easily patch in a home button on the main toolbar as god truely wishes it to be? The removal of the home button from the main toolbar was a horrible thing...

    2. Re:I wrote this software by Gerv · · Score: 2

      If you know the code to insert, sure :-) Or if someone else makes a patch which does that, you can easily apply it to your Mozilla installation, at the cost of a small speed penalty because you will be running with unjarred chrome. It's not really designed for this, but it could be used to do it.

      Gerv

    3. Re:I wrote this software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a question: Do you really have nothing better to do than to write a tool to help find countless bugs in a failed project that virtually nobody outside of an extremely tiny geek community uses? Perhaps, you should look into doing something more productive with your time, like digging holes, and filling them back in.

    4. Re:I wrote this software by Gerv · · Score: 1

      > Do you really have nothing better to do

      How can there be anything better to do than writing code? :-)

      Gerv

    5. Re:I wrote this software by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Jesus loves you too :-)

      Gerv

  19. Cool. I found something accurate in a MQ article!! by asa · · Score: 2, Informative

    So the Mozilla developers are hoping to get more bug-fixing help from the Mozilla and Open Source communities by making it easier for people to write and submit bug-fix patches.

    He actually got something right! It's not just developers hoping to get more bug-fixing help though. The Mozilla QA and testing community can use help as well. Gerv (creator of the Patch Maker) is also the maintainer of the Bugzilla Helper which, like the patch maker, was created to make it easier for people to contribute to the Mozilla project. If you're interested in helping to make Mozilla better and you've got DTML skills then you can probably help clean up the Mozilla UI with Gerv's Patch Maker. If you're interested in helping but aren't interested in development there are plenty of other ways to get involved.

    --Asa

  20. Don't mod this as a troll, please by EmilEifrem · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Please don't mod this guy as a troll. What he says is very true. I think it'd be a better idea to link mozilla-related project news to mozilla.org, mozdev or mozillazine rather than to the malevolent mozillaquest.com.

    I don't really know the story behind it, but I've noticed (during years of following the mozilla project as nothing but an end-user) that most "news" or info from mozillaquest.com have been very hostile to mozilla.org and the mozilla browser. Does anyone care to shed some light on the whole situation?

    1. Re:Don't mod this as a troll, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What seems to be missing from the discussion of MozillaQuest is that perhaps Mozilla deserves -- and would even benefit from -- criticism, and that perhaps the critical direction taken by mangelo is more accurate than not.

      I'll take MQ over the everything-is-rosy, who-cares-if-it's-years-late, bugs-what-bugs? sycophants at MZ any day.

    2. Re:Don't mod this as a troll, please by Gerv · · Score: 2

      Mozilla would benefit from constructive criticism appropriate to a not-yet-finished application. Mangelo's criticism is never constructive, and usually misleading and factually incorrect. You may claim that a view of Mozilla based on MozillaZine is rather rosy; a view of Mozilla based only on MozillaQuest would be wildy warped.

      For example, "Netscape denies Netscape 6.1 based on Mozilla code". Or how about "Mozilla is getting steadily buggier because there are more bugs in the bug database." By that measure, no code at all would be the ideal, as it would be bug-free. :-)

      MozillaZine has its fair share of dissenters as well. Strauss, for one. And macpeep.

      Gerv

    3. Re:Don't mod this as a troll, please by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Hey, no one in Mozilla is against criticism - otherwise we'd shut down Bugzilla and all the mailing lists - but criticism has to be informed and constructive to be beneficial.


      MQ is neither informed nor constructive. Mike Angelo (the only contributor to MQ) seems to make a point of not finding out all the facts, of leaping to the wrong conclusions, of concocting conspiracies to explain the mundane and of ignoring the facts even after he is corrected. All-in-all it make MQ an extremely unreliable, sensationalist and downright mean site.


      If you want criticism (independent and internal) you'll find plenty of it in the netscape.public.mozilla.* newgroups, and on mozillazine.org, and on mozillanews.org.

  21. Could you explain the second paragraph below? by los+furtive · · Score: 1
    XUL (pronounced zuul) is Mozilla implementation of XML that is used to describe the interactive Web-like page faces of Mozilla-based applications. Think of XUL as the Mozilla developers' name for an XML-based language used to describe the UI (User Interface). Creating a Mozilla skin or UI is mostly a matter of hacking the XUL, XML, CSS, JS and so forth that define the chrome and skin, and/or redoing the graphic images and widgets they use.
    To be more precise, however, XUL is not exactly XML. A standard XML parser cannot interpret XUL. That is why you cannot display XUL as a Web page with Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.x, or other non-Mozilla-based browsers. Mozilla-based browsers have a special parser that can interpret XUL.

    Would it have been too hard to make it so an XML parser can interpret it? Is it okay for other browsers to have this special parser?

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    1. Re:Could you explain the second paragraph below? by Gerv · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you read any other comments? Take everything you read at MozillaQuest with a very large pinch of salt.

      XUL is an XML-based language - just like XHTML, SVG or any of the others. The sentence "A standard XML parser cannot interpret XUL." is either wrong or extremely misleading. No XML parsers can _interpret_ what they read, but an XML parser can parse XUL perfectly. Mozilla uses expat for this purpose.

      That is why you cannot display XUL as a Web page with Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.x, or other non-Mozilla-based browsers.

      "Displaying XML as a web page" makes no sense. What happens is that you apply a style sheet to some XML (whether XHTML or something else) to display it. If you gave XUL a style sheet, it would display according to that style sheet. Essentially, this is what Mozilla does when it renders its UI.

      Gerv

    2. Re:Could you explain the second paragraph below? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. Having tried working with XUL outside of mozilla, I'll tell you that there are a couple of issues.

      Firstly, it's not valid without a DTD. There's no DTD for XUL, probably because we haven't reached XUL 1.0 yet. It's still obnoxious.

      But not nearly as obnoxious as the constant use of XML entities for localizing strings. I can disable the DTD requirement in my xml apps, but the missing entity definitions cause real problems.

    3. Re:Could you explain the second paragraph below? by Gerv · · Score: 3

      But not nearly as obnoxious as the constant use of XML entities for localizing strings.

      How would you like us to do localisation?

      Gerv

  22. Repost with working links (I hope) by asa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Darn, Slashdot doesn't like title attributes in links :( Repost with good links

    So the Mozilla developers are hoping to get more bug-fixing help from the Mozilla and Open Source communities by making it easier for people to write and submit bug-fix patches.

    He actually got something right! It's not just developers hoping to get more bug-fixing help though. The Mozilla QA and testing community can use help as well. Gerv (creator of the Patch Maker) is also the maintainer of the Bugzilla Helper which, like the patch maker, was created to make it easier for people to contribute to the Mozilla project. If you're interested in helping to make Mozilla better and you've got DTML skills then you can probably help clean up the Mozilla UI with Gerv's Patch Maker. If you're interested in helping but aren't interested in development there are plenty of other ways to get involved.

    --Asa

    1. Re:Repost with working links (I hope) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, folks, this guy is in charge of quality for Mozilla, but he doesn't have the sense to test his own URLs. That should tell you something right there. So should the bug chart.

    2. Re:Repost with working links (I hope) by Gerv · · Score: 2

      The number of bugs is not a good measure of the quality of the product. That graph has been going up since we started recording numbers - does that mean Mozilla is buggier now than in 1999?

      I just landed the links toolbar, which was one bug, and 20 people immediately filed bugs on it. That doesn't mean the product is "more buggy".

      Gerv

  23. Rather than reading about it from a dubious source by moof1138 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Take a look at the docs at Mozilla's site:

    http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/patch-maker/

    I have to say that with the Tab interface, support for the LINKS toolbar, and all of the other cool things Moz has been picking up lately, it is really becoming a brilliant application. I cringe when I am stuck using I.E. now.

    --

    Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
  24. Re:Rather than reading about it from a dubious sou by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 2

    Yes, with the tabs they've taken a lovely interface that I first saw in Konsole... it's my favoured form of MDI. (PWM does a similar thing as a window manager, but there would be a seperate instance of the program in each tab). I'd love to see this interface implemented in many more applications -- Konqueror for a start.

    Sadly, I didn't get to see the LINKS toolbar because it was only enabled for about half an hour, and I'm not downloading loads more 15 meg old nightly builds to see what it looks like. Does anyone have any screenshots?

  25. MozillaQuest by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Why the heck does /. keep posting stories at this site? MozillaQuest's content can be summed up as 1/3 FUD, 1/3 idiocy, and 1/3 plagiarism. At best it can can termed a "wannabe" site, and I'm more inclined simply to label it a travesty.

    This story was originally posted at MozillaZine on Thursday. For anybody who visits MozillaZine or who has the Mozilla Sidebar turned on in their /. preferences, this is both a bad joke and stale news. Get with it, /. editors! There's just no excuse for this kind of sloppiness.

    Don't give this poseur any more hits! Please!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  26. Why?? Why?? by GauteL · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Every time there is a mozilla-article posted on Slashdot, it is from MozillaQuest. This site is just pure trash, and should be treated as such. Editors: Please stop approving stories from MozillaQuest. MozillaZine postet this last week.
    Repeat after me, "MozillaQuest has no journalistic value whatsoever, and should be ignored".

  27. Re:Cool. I found something accurate in a MQ articl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right! EVERYBODY can help. Any maybe in another 3-5 years, they'll have a browser that will work according to 1999 standards! yaay!

  28. That's gotta be a pen name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean c'mon.. his name is *Michael Angelo*?? That's a pen name (pun name?) if I've ever heard one..

    :-)