Mozilla 0.9.5

agotneja writes: "Check out mozilla.org for details :) Another fine (hopefully!) release." For whatever reason, 1.0 still seems really far off.

Comments

galeon

[staeci]

now I just have to wait a couple of days for the new galeon. ;-)

Mozilla blows - Gecko rules

When the homewoek is done

[benb]

Let's first implement the existing useful standards (of which the tag is certainly one) before we start to "innovate".

Worse is Better?

[marm]

Why is it that people always forget the Konqueror?

I don't think they do. Konqueror is my preferred browser by far. It's not perfect, there are areas where it needs a little work (Javascript and Netscape plugin handling for instance) but the overall feel of the browser UI and rendering engine is unmatched. It's quick, full of useful features, relatively light on resources and renders well. In short, everything I want out of a web browser.

There are a few reasons people have stopped making much noise over Konqueror recently:

• There hasn't been a major release of it recently, and there won't be for a little while either (not until KDE3 sometime early next year). This is due to Konqui's coupling to the KDE release schedules. Fair enough I think, given that Konqueror is a key component of KDE.
• The inevitability of Konqui becoming popular, maybe even the most common Linux browser - AKA the IE effect. KDE is the default desktop for most distros these days, and Konqueror is the default web browser for all those KDE desktops. It's a good browser and tightly integrated into KDE. Why bother switching to anything else?
• The fact that many users of Konqui are very happy indeed with its performance, and, perceiving the rapid success which Konqueror has had, feel no need to crow too much about it?

I think that the 'battle' between Konqueror and Mozilla to be the most successful *nix browser is a little like the 1970's 'battle' between UNIX and Lisp machines. Lisp machines (perhaps like Mozilla) were designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness above all else. If that meant a very large and complex system, then so be it. UNIX (perhaps a bit like Konqueror) was designed by people whose emphasis was on the 'right way' and completeness but ABSOLUTELY NOT at the expense of simplicity.

We all know now who won that 'battle'.

There's more about this subtle difference in design philosophy here. Yes, notice where this is hosted - Jamie Zawinski's site. Ironic? Perhaps not, given jwz's resignation from Netscape and Mozilla. You be the judge.

Re:* Mozilla has a new experimental Tabbed Browsin

[Bedouin X]

And Galeon only gets its entire browsing engine from these guys.

Because upgrading IE often hoses your machine.

[emil]

I have known many people who have stability problems after upgrading IE.

AFAIK, IE is integrated into the kernel and replaces the file manager. Swapping out portions of the kernel, especially for something as whimsical as a browser upgrade, is just insanity.

One has to hope that a shipped WinME/2000 is (somewhat) stable when the codebase goes on the shelves of the retailers. The service packs and browser upgrades have much lower standards; users can't return the OS to the reseller years after purchase because a Microsoft patch made the system unstable.

Remember this Windows Update mantra: critical updates yes, browser updates never! If you want the latest browser features, use Mozilla.

The problem is that you need a basic background in computer science to understand what I just said.

Re:Mozilla is the BEST browser!

[yesthatguy]

Think about the effects that pre-caching will have. Take September 11, for example. People could barely get to the major news sites, because of all the traffic. If every person who got through to the news sites had then tried to download every single link on the front page, the bandwidth requirements would have increased enormously for each user. Although the users who actually do get in and can successfully cache the site will perceive it as being faster, their multiple connections will cause maybe 50 people to be locked out of the site for every one who gets in. Precaching is really unnecessary, harmful, and even rude to the server operators.

Re:SSL?

[Gerv]

Does Mozilla include SSL

Yes, and TLS. And it has done so for months. The only time you don't get it is if you are silly enough to uncheck it in the installer.

Gerv

Re:i don't really understand you

[Gerv]

Can't we geeks have at least ONE fucking browser for ourselves?

What you mean is: "Waah! Why won't someone write the browser _I_ want?"

You're a geek. Go do a Mozilla distribution for geeks. Add in all the patches like gestures and PGP. Do a new, cool skin. People will love it. That's what the code is for. mozilla.org wants to see that happen.

Or quit whining.

Gerv

Re:Only people like us appreciate that.

[archen]

Average users dont see the internal, they see the features THEY can use.

And what "features" do most people use? Hardly any. Most people just use the basic functionality that has been provided by browsers for years. You want to see something cool, then use the 'tab' feature that was recently added. It lets you do things Opera style, or you can just use Mozilla as usuall like IE. Will regular people use this? No, because most people don't even use most of the features of IE.

Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch?

[hexix]

Although Netscape 6.1 is based on the same codebase as mozilla it is not mozilla. It's somewhat unfair to answer a question of why he should use mozilla instead of IE with information on why you use IE instead of Netscape 6.1. You should give mozilla a try, I think it'll be quite a bit faster. And there is also the quicklaunch option in the newer mozilla builds which will keep mozilla loaded in memory all the time so when you launch it it comes up super quick.

And I know what you're thinking, I don't want to have mozilla taking up my memory all the time. Well apparently you don't mind with IE, cause that's exactly what IE is doing. In fact I think part of the blame on Netscape 6.1 being slow on your system is because even if you don't have IE open it's still in memory, so you're really running both browsers at the same time.

With that said, your browser choice is fine, I'm not trying to convince you to use something else. Use what works for you.

Re:Not very portable

[SEE]

Let me know when it compiles out of the box on OpenBSD then I'll believe that it isn't a horrible product.

Not very portable? Consider the large numbers of basic architectural differences among Unix/X, Windows, MacOS, MacOS X, BeOS, and OS/2, and the fact that it compiles out of the box for all of them.

0.9.4 had released versions for Win32, Mac Classic, MacOS X, Linux, AIX, BeOS, Irix, OpenVMS, OS/2, HPUX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, Solaris, and Tru64 Unix. That's fifteen operating systems, including multiple BSD variants.

The reason it isn't around for OpenBSD is that no OpenBSD person or group has bothered to get involved with Mozilla. That's fine, but it isn't a defect of Mozilla.

Re:Not biased, just practical

[BZ]

> Please, be more specific on what is missing from
> Konqueror.

Decent support for the W3C DOM. Decent XML support. Good CSS2 support.

It renders brain-dead sites fine. It does not render sites using current technology fine.

Re:You arent a casual user

[Flower]

Hrmmm, Opera 5.12 on Windows does browsing, e-mail, news and IM plus does all the plugins I use. Currently, it's chugging away and using 34Meg on this Win2K box.

But, of course, Opera could never be bloatware. And it isn't. On Linux, where it doesn't have half the features and doesn't display anywhere near as well as the Windows client.

Opera is one of my primary browsers on Windows and Linux. I use it all the time. But please do not try to pass off that if you want "just a browser" you should be using Opera.

Oh, and why is it that nobody seems to include the concept of a Custom Install? I can get "just a browser" with IE and Mozilla that way.