Slashdot Mirror
Netscape 6.2
lylonius writes: "Netscape today released version 6.2 of its browser based on Mozilla. Downloads for a variety of platforms and languages are available. You can also check out the release notes. This release comes off the Mozilla 0.9.4 branch, and is the third major release from Netscape using Mozilla." Kmeleon also has a release today, if you'd like your web with a little more browsing and little less AOL-promotion.
netscape 6.x browsers always seem slow...
The last time I used Netscape, it was version 4.x (?) on the Macintosh. Buggy.
So Microsoft can do whatever it wants now, because they learned that all you have to is throw money and lawyers at a problem and it just sort of goes away.......
ACutally I was stuck with Netscape because some pages just don't work properly with Konqerer.
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
I lost faith in Netscape after they stoped developing 4x. 6x has always seemed bloated and to slow and since it's based on Mozilla I might as well use mozilla. It seemes to be more up to date then netscape and runs just fine for me.
Snoozer.
Netscape 6.x, Galeon, Mozilla, etc. use the mozilla rendering engine. Is it because it's parsing poor html? If more people used the validator, would it be faster?
I hope it can pull up MSN.
:P
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Phoenix from the ashes anyone?
Netscapes/AOL/Time Warner/Jesus releases another version of it's slightly updated joy, Netscape.
Lets all huddle around our family CRT's and worship that which is holy. PRAISE CASE! PRAISE CASE!
At least I can remove the shop button after I install it...
Guttermouth is a really good band.
I use it on win32, it's really fast especially when loaded into memory in advance, regardless it's really fast. Almost comparable to IE, and unlike NS4 it's fairly stable in Win 9X.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
If this release of Netscape is based on Mozilla .94, ad Mozilla .95 is out, why should I use the Netscape release?
If I can't access MSN, why would I want it? :)
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
This is good for the user who doesn't know enough about Mozilla to go and download it often. This is for the person who likes to be able to go to Netscape's page, download their latest browser and just go with it. More people will get a newer Mozilla branch which is more stable and faster, which is good.
For the Slashdot community you're still better off downloading the Mozilla milestones instead of waiting for a Netscape branch every so often.
...however, Mozilla 0.9.5 and the nightlies afterward are already far ahead. Among other things, you get tabbed browsing, the Links toolbar, and (if you download the proper add-on) mouse gesture support.
Very, very cool.
I've been using KMeleon for a while, and become a fan... It pretty quick (not THE fastest) and the footprint is small. It's worth checking out.
There are a few quirks, sure, but for the most part It's replaced IE as my primary browser. I still have to use IE for the occasional page, but we'll see what 0.6 fixes...
I don't see anything on the release notes indicating that Composer gained the ability to actually upload a web page to the server after you edit it.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...and if you want your daily dose of factually-impaired pseudo-journalism, MozillaQuest has the usual commentary.
From the Release notes:
Known Problems
General
Mac OS: There is a known incompatibility between Netscape and WebFree, a Control Panel commonly used to block HTML-based ads. When using Netscape , disable WebFree.
Keyboard and Mouse Double right-clicking on a page can disable the keyboard.
Trying to visit a Microsoft owned web page may result in your computer's HCF (Halt and catch fire) instruction being called.
Ok, so I added the last one.
Everyone keeps pointing out that you're better off downloading the latest Mozilla instead. And while I tend to agree (I'm using the latest nightly build right now), my understanding is that the Netscape release adds in commercial features that aren't in Mozilla.
Does anyone care to comment on what features Netscape 6.2 offers that aren't in Mozilla?
I'd never heard of K-Meleon before today. I've looked around on its website, but can someone help me understand what's special about it? Is it basically a quick, small Mozilla-based browser? How does it compare to Netscape, Opera, Konqueror and IE in terms of speed, stability and features?
Ceci n'est pas une sig
I thought I'd give it a try. Especially when I saw how small the download file was (less than 4MB).
I guess what I was hoping for was the lightweight, fast, and standards based Netscape that NS 6.x was supposed to be. Well, what I found out was that it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it doesn't even really work.
It failed trying to import my IE favorites. (I have more than 512 - that is a no, no in K-meleon.) Then it refused to load any pages. Oh, and it cannot figure out how to work with a proxy config file either.
Stay away. Even NS 6.2 cannot be this bad...
Take care,
Brian
--
100% Linux Based Web Hosting
I haven't used Netscape in forever. I switched to iCab on my old computer and now, though it rubs me wrong, am using IE (iCab's a great little piece of software, but proper javascript support kicks ass.) Anyway, is Netscape worth the download? Is it still as huge and RAM-hungry as I remember it? What about Omniweb or Opera? I'd love to hear from other OS X users about what they use and why.
Too bad Netscape didn't wait a few more weeks. Mozilla 0.9.5 introduced support for <link>, which rocks. I'd hoped that people would start getting introduced to this sooner rather than later. OTOH, Mozilla's support of <link> still has a few quirks (that's why it's not enabled by default right now) so maybe it's OK to wait until 6.3/0.9.6 or whatever.
If you're using 0.9.5 and haven't enabled <link> yet, do it. It's under your View menu, called "Site Navigation Bar" or something. It's pretty slick when you get to a site that uses <link> tags consistently.
Constitutionally Correct
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed how bloodly slow it renders nested tables?
this is not freshmeat post
Ghosts of dead software companies haunt us again for a few hours on All Hallow's Eve, before returning to their graves.
Great job everyone!
already in Mozilla for a while.
Add user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true); to your prefs.js (while Netscape is not running) file and presto... no more popups.
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
It used to be that Netscape offered official builds of Netscape for anything from AIX to Solaris. Now it looks like they are switching gears and only offering official builds for Windows, MacOS, and Linux.
I would say that this speaks volumes about what sort of client platform most of their customers are using, and how the UNIX client landscape has changed recently. A few years ago, anti-Microsoft or pro-UNIX people (some one, some the other, some both) were seen running anything from HP-UX to OS/2. Netscape, accordingly, released versions of Netscape for nearly every OS. Now, these groups have condensed into the people running MacOS X and Linux. The people running something else as a client have slowly faded away, until these clients were considered a niche market. This is shown even by Slashdot, which has switched from "news for nerds" to an almost exclusively Linux-advocacy site.
This bodes well for Linux and MacOS, both of which have their markets. I am seeing more people use both of them not because they have an axe to grind with Microsoft, but purely for curiosity and learning's sake.
But what of the other client platforms? Obviously, Mozilla is still being released for them, but if official, "supported" browser/office software is no longer available, will anything but Linux/MacOS/Windows as a client go away? Or has it already?
Just an interesting trend, IMHO.
I went to the KMelon download site on Sourceforge, and all I found there were links to "exe" downloads. Does this only run under Windows, or do I have to build from source if I want to try it under Linux or any other OS???
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Question: Does it have support for switching between proxies more easily than 6.1? I hope so, because you're all going to need this ability. Here's why:
The complete story: The Slashdot Privacy Watch
An Open Letter to VA Linux Concerning Privacy on Slashdot
To whom it may concern,
It has come to our attention that Slashdot is building a detailed database of every visitor and user of Slashdot. This database includes, among other personal details, an address history which permanently records every IP address assosciated with every Slashdot user and comment for all time. We are concerned that this database is a signifigant Intellectual Property asset that may be abused in the event of a sale of Slashdot by VA Linux to a third party.
In addition, we feel that keeping a permanent and indelible record of every IP address used to post every Anonymous comment on Slashdot erases whatever hopes of anonymity that endangered or threatened users may have had. To name two examples, Chinese dissidents and corporate insiders can have no expectation of anonymously revealing civil rights violations and corporate abuse.
It is our hope that given these concerns, VA Linux or Slashdot may choose to provide an opt-out option to users, whereby users could choose not to be tracked and profiled if they so request. Some discussion has been made of a Slashdot subscription service; perhaps one revenue stream for Slashdot would be to sell Privacy Rights. For a low yearly fee, a user could purchase the right not to be tracked, profiled, and logged by IP address.
Whatever steps are taken, it is our hope that Slashdot will address the current privacy concerns in public to allay our fears and to promote open discussion.
Thanks again for creating one of the most popular sites on the Internet, and all the best.
-The Slashdot Privacy Watch Team.
They're still around!?
As far as I've been able to ascertain, the only changes netscape seems to make to this stupid thing is the inclusion of various tertiary elements, such as messanger, news, etc.
All I want is for Netscape to release a standalone friggin'browser based on the most recent mozilla engine. It would be both fast and useful, lacking all the excess crud AOL/Netscape attaches to it that slows it down.
Why is this so comnplicated?m Why do visits to Netscape's site always indicate that 4.08 was the last stand alone browser version?!?
Why doesn't someone with programming skills and cahones start a project to make a browser that includes the ability to directly update and download DTD's, making XML useful and the need to update the browser entirely a thing of the past?!? I want a component or object oriented (architecturally speaking) program that actually makes sense. Please!!!!!
-RT
In particular, the Netscape spell checker. That's the one thing I really miss using Mozilla. Unfortunately, I do not have either perfect spelling (or typing), so I still require such crutches... :-(
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Does anyone know if the spellchecker.xpi included with Netscape 6.2 works with Mozilla 0.9.5? I'd be using Mozilla full time for my mail client if it wasn't for the fact that I can't spel... ;-)
Hmmm, I had a lot of problems with .94; .93 was much better. Of course, .95 is better than both of them, but I understand how the pipeline must work on things like this. I'm running on Windows [ducks] and I really, honestly, like Moz better than IE 5. A long time ago I switched from NS to IE because it was better. Granted, I'm running IE 5, but I don't trust MS enough to upgrade; I crash enough as it is. While I have observed occaisional rendering problems (at espn) and occaisional slowness, I crash less often and suffer less system instability with Moz. And you know what's really weird? I actually look forward to each new release! The introduction of the tabbed interface in .95 is great; I use it exclusively now, saving RAM and window clutter. And I'm only just now learning about the customizations available--it's pretty extensive. For example, you can reskin ChatZilla with a simple CSS file, you can disable javascript pop-up windows, you can save "screensets," and much more that I haven't learned yet. By the time Moz hits 1.0, not only will it be faster, more stable, and more compliant than IE, it'll have a very competitive (or maybe even dominating) feature set. Well, kudos to the Mozilla team, and to Netscape!
Is the cache in Mozilla not optimal? If you compare Moz against Opera in regard to flipping pages back and then forward, there is a huge speed advantage for Opera. Is it because Mozilla caches entire pages, and re-renders them when you hit back? I think Mozilla is as fast as any other browser in regards to rendering complex pages, but the case of flippnig back and forward is rather slow. Anynone know why?
Mikael
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I personally stopped using Netscape after a series of bad expierences with the 4.x versions. However, it seem as if Netscape 6.2 on Win32 really isn't so bad. Its very slick looking, renders all webpages I frequent flawlessly and very fast. So far, though I've only been using it for a few minutes, it has proven to be very stable. I will not yet uninstall IE6 from my system, but I'm going to give Netscape another chance.
I miss my Netscape 3.0 Gold Edition Days =)
For those who do Mozilla builds pretty often, you can sometimes avoid a really bad crasher build by checking out the Build Comments page. Saved me from a couple bad builds, I use nightlies most days that it doens't give me a "thumbs down".
I can't seem to run the netscape installer binary for 6.2, or 6.1 for that manner. The file itself looks like it's compiled for an i686 architechture, so am I, running Yellow Dog Linux on a PPC, screwed? Thanks for any help...
For OSX I've had a great experience with Omniweb. Its fast (load time and render time), super-configurable (its config looks just like the System Prefs panel), and has a sleek UI. The slide-out bookmarks is great! The carbonized IE is TERRIBLE, and netscape x.x seams equally crash-prone. I'm gonna stick with one of the "other" guys.
This link toolbar is pretty cool and it's an HTML 2.0 specification. Any other browsers have it? I see the slashcoders have worked it into slashdot, looks good.
You missed that one.
If you tried K-Meleon 0.1 or 0.2 and thought "gee this would be great if it actually supported cookies and had some configurable options and felt like more than a toy" then check out 0.6. Actually, it's been quite usable for a couple of releases now, and 0.6 seems as good as ever. Yes, I still use IE sometimes, but unlike my repeated attempts to wean myself to Mozilla that inevitably end in me getting sick of the poor UI response times and rendering freezes in Mozilla, I can actually get used to the snappy K-Meleon look and feel.
No, it's not perfect or bugless, and it still isn't quite as pretty or slick looking as IE, but it is nice to see how fast and responsive a Gecko based browser can be when the entire UI isn't getting rendered from XUL, and it's nice to have a real native browser alternative on Windows.
My only access to a windows system is over Citrix at 256 colors, and at that color depth kmeleon/gecko looks terrible compared to IE. all the colors look washed out, and images are blurry.
Anyone know why this is? I haven't tried mozilla under windows, does it suffer from the same problem?
(mostly unrelated, gtk+ for windows doesn't work in 256 colors either, so no gtk/citrix/windows apps without paying Citrix for a 16bit color license.)
How do you add a spell checker, if you don't mind my asking?
Even IE uses it's own widget set (of course, in more recent versions of Windows, IE's widgets may now be the core widgets OS widgets). The widgets provided by the OS in 95/NT simply are not capable of being styled in the way CSS demands.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
With Netscape continuing to slip in mindshare, using 0.9.4 probably was the best move for them right now. They need some good press. I know all about the perf hit that <link> causes; I've been a frequent contributor to bug 2800 and successors. Best wishes to you guys actually doing the coding, and many thanks.
Constitutionally Correct
Actually, I would say that your management was right on. As mozilla.org says: We make binary versions of of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!. We provide no end user support.
This is something that's missed by the "Mozilla advocates" that hang on Slashdot and Mozillazine and other places. Mozilla is not an end-user browser. It's for voluntary developers and voluntary QA people only. No non-nerds even know what Mozilla is, so if you try to encourage people to use it, the funny looks they are giving you are well grounded.
So, if you are worried about a MS-dominated WWW, encourage people to try Netscape 6.2. Don't even mention Mozilla -- it detracts from the message. Unfortunately, lots of (normal) people took a look at the horrific 6.0PR releases and the terrible 6.0 final and need some encouragement to take another look at the releases that actually work.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
K-Meleon has come a long way. It seems pretty usable. Anybody else out there trying it?
It seems to use a lot less memory than mozilla.
proprietary development.....they can't wait until a 1.0 so they take it when its good enough and call it x.y no wonder windows sucked for so long...and now that it doesn't suck as much, MS makes a bad activation/icinsing /Want to own the internet move....oye. I hope Netscape can make ther kind look good again, but since it is owned by AOL...well that speaks for it self on software development
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Quick question/comment. On my win2k server any install of the 6 series of netscape causes the following things to happen (every single time)
1. part way through the install I will get some random error, usually "disk problem" or "virtual memory problem" (this with 512 mb of memory and 1 gig of pageing available and running almost nothing else during install!!) Disk check reveals no problems
2. Just before I reboot Zonealarm will beep about some winders program wanting to contact a microsoft site (which I allow, haven't hauled out the packet sniffer to see exactly what is being sent when server phones home)
3. Reboot and running netscape does NOTHING. I get a pretty icon and then it goes away. Not log file/event entry.
So anyone else have this expereince? Just curious before I goto check again and haul out the packet sniffer.....Is it me or does my Win2k server just not like netscape? Is Billy boy up to his old tricks again? Jesus, I just wanted to look at the new netscape for gosh sakes.
Oh well
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Wow! I hadn't even noticed that. (Kudos /. team!) I went back to using Opera after playing with 0.9.5 for a few days. With tabs, Mozilla is catching up on Opera in the MDI arena, but Opera still has an edge in keyboard navigation.
However, at home I still use iCab instead of Opera because of the <link> support. (I use OS 8.1, too old for Mozilla.)
Constitutionally Correct
<sarcasm>
Then why doesn't the Netscape/Moz team spend more time making their non-native widgets render CSS correctly?
</sarcasm>
Forgive my ignorance (I'm an app developer, not a web developer), what kinds of CSS things need non-native widgets?
Come on... that would be a terrible strain on the animators' wrists!
how to invest, a novice's guide
That was disturbing. Thanks for sharing!!!
Mouse Gestures work in Netscape 6.2 also.
Last I checked, the Links Toolbar was default off because it added 10% to the page load time!
The tabbed browsing on the other hand is way cool, especially for those of you that still "surf".
EOF
One of the daily releases caused my screen to go woogeda-woogeda a couple of times, so after rebooting, I backed outta that version. It seems to work fine.
I'm unable to run java applets, though, but I'm guessing that's because the java installer spots that I still have NS4 on the machine.
I won't be giving up NS4 until the NS6/ Mozillillilla mail reader works worth a damn.
Yup even 6.0 see here:
http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html
From the purveyors of Windows Lite.
Something anyone running windoze ought
to run anyways.
Were that I say, pancakes?
Which is no doubt as crappy and filled with bugs as the last 3 have been thus making it a waste of time to download it at all.
Wishing for a REAL alternative for the win platform (the first person to mention opera gets a punch in the face - its not an easy one to install all the plugins and tends to be a pain in the arse on most modern sites)
There are plenty of great browsers out there, Mozilla, Konquerer, IE, Opera, and sever others. Why would anyone stop using their browser of choice and use Netscape? I mean, it's not really that good anyway.
after they stoped
You missed that one (and you didn't catch the missing commas, lowercase 'm' in "Mozilla", etc.) so I have no faith in you, either.
WTF? Are the mods hitting the cheap crack again?
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
i just installed netscape 6.2 on my linux computer at work. so far it's a vast improvement over 6.0. i never installed 6.1, since 6.0 was so terrible, so i can't compare it to that. but 6.2 only takes 15 seconds (heh) to load whereas 6.0 took at least a minute. i also like that it loaded up for the first time without that annoying sidebar.
i hardly ever use netscape these days though. it's all about opera. especially now that the linux version supports plugins. and it takes under 2 seconds to load up.
Personally, I need binaries for:
* Solaris 8/x86 (!)
* Solaris 8/sparc
* NetBSD/i386
Please!
- Hubert
not another netscape release. i really really hate to give M$ credit for anything...but...they really do make a superior browser. as a web developer i know i have wasted countless hours trying to get pages to look decent on netscape...at least as decent as netscape will let it look.
I really don't know if Netscape is going to be salvaged as a browser, even if AOL uses it instead of IE for their service. Netscape had its loyal followers in the 2/3 and even 4.0 days. But with 6 being released over a year late, not to mention the overall slow speed & bugginess of the 6.0 final, and the HUGE push for AOL-EVERYTHING in it now, even the most hardcore Netscape fans I know dropped it. IMHO, AOL killed it, and I don't think they can bring it back now.
Hell, 6.x is supposed to be semi-up-to-date, and it still supports far less than Opera 5, which is rapidly becoming my favorite browser. Quick, stable, and supports a hell of a lot. Netscape 6 however remains buggy, bloated, and full of stuff that I just don't WANT (like the AOL icons everywhere!!), but doesn't give you an option to not put that crap everywhere.
I simply don't want to install a product that shoves icons all over my system without asking.
Man, is it a great piece of software or what?! Fast, small, efficient.
Just three things would make me dump IE for it:
* Support for my scroll mouse
* some sort of URL autocomplete function (If this is built in somehow, I haven't found it yet.)
* Something to replace the Google Toolbar for IE
But other than that, really nice browser.
My other sig is also a
I browse with the latest milestone of Moz. Have been for about six months now. Not quite as stable as IE on the same system, but it gives me a little more control over my browsing environment.
I download the new build of K-Meleon whenever it comes out, get really excited, and then go back to using Moz after a few days of crashes and inconsistent behavior. Frankly, I'm getting a little burnt on the cycle. Still, I bet K-Meleon will reach 1.0 before Mozilla does.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Incredibly correct advise, coming from a person using the handle "NutscrapeSucks". Maybe that refered to 4.x? :)
I was originally telling people to try Mozilla, but now, I encourage them to use Netscape 6.1/6.2 instead. 6.0 was indeed awful and unfortunatly probably turned off alot of people. 6.2 is pretty darn up-to-date, comes with flash and java (which can be a pain to install in Mozilla for mortal users), and doesn't have near as much AOL ad cruft as it used to. Plus it's been through a lot more testing (that's why it's slightly behind the mozilla trunk), which means you can depend on it for 4-6 months until 6.3, unlike Mozilla builds where who knows... last two days history has been broken, today, browser doesn't even come up unless it has mailnews installed too.
The IM and Netscape portal integration will hopefully keep MSN at bay a while longer. Remember guys, "The enemy of our enemy...".
I thought netscape said they weren't releasing anymore browsers after they released 6.0 and it sucked?
Did anyone else read this at the time? I hate developing for Netscape. Give me Opera, Konquerer or IE, but please kill netscape!!!
Hit Bridge.com in Netscape 4.7x and then hit it in any 6.x netscape... What happened?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Did they update 0.9.4 from the standard mozilla version? Something similar to the extra bug fixes in 0.9.2.1?
===> An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - MG
The widgets provided by the OS in 95/NT simply are not capable of being styled in the way CSS demands.
Can you name a single specific example of a CSS requirement that can't be met by native widgets on Windows and Mac?
If you can, you'll be the first since these discussions started, over two years ago IIRC.
Meanwhile, it is clearly a fact that Mozilla can't draw its widgets in the way that the platform standards on Mac OS (9 or X) and Windows XP demand.
Tim
Large corporates are conservative and slow in moving from one platform to another. They'll be running Netware and Notes for a very long time (and good on them) and they might have even stuck with their old standard Netscape browser apart from one minor detail:
Netscape isn't useable in most Terminal Services environments - essentially because large TS environments often use low (256) color displays and its dithering is piss poor. On a Windows box, view netscape.com in IE and Netscape. Its nearly unreadable in Netscape, as is most of the NS UI (even in classic mode). IE, on the other hand dithers extremely well, to the point where its possible to believe you were looking at a high color display.
There's enough people tired of running Windows based desktop but keen on the Win32 platform to make TS compatibility a big concern when selecting an SOE. Goodbye Netscape.
/me types this in IE on his Linux box using Rdesktop. Well recommended for non MS TS clients.
Galeon is a plain Gnome wrapper around Gecko and it's worked a treat for me. Stable, much lighter-weight than full-blown Mozilla, but full of crunchy Gecko goodness.
For general reference, the HTML4 LINK tags are defined here
You can add your own, but if you do, you should use a profile statement. See the Dublin Core for the usual example.
Hi!
Hmmm... How does Opera work under Linux? I do almost all my browsing in Opera on wintel boxes these days...
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
I find it amusing that if you use the K-Meleon launcher (Keeps the requisite dll's in memory, kinda like what IE does), it will open up a new window faster than IE. Not bad, considering IE is in the kernel.
You're right man! I think i downloaded the java plug in 5 times now and it still won't install :(
AFIAK, they all use the "Gecko" rendering engine, which, as far as I can see, seems to be the *best* renderer out there.
It's the rest of the app that's slow. The widgets are slow, interacting with the page is slow, etc...
The renderer itself is beautiful.
Running K-Meleon, under WinNT the Task Manager says it takes about 16Meg - that's 3 times what Nescape 4.7x takes.
What's the point of releasing the same program under two different names? Is this some sort of marketing gimmick?
Well, as an app developer (at least if you develop gui apps on Windows) you may be in a better position to tell me :) Can everything here be done with native widgets for example? On the whole Mozilla seems to render the widgets on that page better than IE. Opera, which does use native widgets, misses most of the CSS stuff, though you can see they've mapped colours etc to the native widgets where the native widgets allow.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I just changed my default search site to google from Netscape, and was quite annoyed to see my search still get sent through netscape before being redirected to google.
Spying assholes.
--jordan
Eye used spell checking on this massage butt, in genital, it don't find any thing wrong. Every word were spelled good accordian to the program. Do you no some thing that I donut?
(The above illustrates why spellcheckers are frequently of limited value without grammar checking software.)
Should be "You are not free because you are in America"
God bless America
Oh, I think I've made a mess in my pants
No doubt, coding for IE is cheaper. As I posted in another thread, one of our clients made that decision, and now we have to rebuild the site to be Netscape friendly? Why? 10% of his "unique visitors" are Netscape, and they can't even use the site with the latest version.
If a 10% increase in profits > cost of implementing a Netscape version... well, Netscape version is coming...
Its a business decision. The IE5 version of the page is the low hanging fruit. Netscape is more of a challenge... Now if I could figure out the random Mozilla rendering problem...
Not a business problem, I'd just like to see it work under Mozilla/Netscape 6.x.
Alex
No, try it, it might just work
Anyone know how to stop Netscape from sending you to www.localhost.com whenever you type localhost in the address bar?
When typing a URL, its slow as hell, when changing menus in mozilla its slow as hell, I guess XUL is to blame.
What stops you from taking the core and using a non xul version though? Nothing.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
IE doesn't really dither it's interface -- it uses different icons for low-color installs. As usual, Windows dithering still sucks -- browse the web on a low-color Mac if you want to see the difference.
Is there something in Bugzilla requesting a low-color theme?
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
IE doesn't really dither it's interface -- it uses different icons for low-color installs.
The first part's false, the second part's true. It does dither its interface - the HTML rendering part. View Slashdot, Netscape.com, etc side by side in IE and NS 6 on a 256 color Windows box to see what I mean.
Was this release assembed from the mozilla 0.9.4 source before or after the patch to fix linux plugins was installed?
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I am actually impressed by this release. It appears to render pages fast than konqueror, and it also look pretty good too.
Of course I have a few minor gripes.
1. Themes, they don't work. If I try to download 6.1 themes, I get an error saying that my browser isn't support which takes me to...
2. The user agent says Netscape 6.5. This just messes up Netscapes page (and is probably just a linux bug oh well)
Those are the only two gripes I have found, but over all this is the best commercial browser I have seen go any way in a long time (Yes that includes internet Explorer).
Congrats NS and Mozilla teams, you deserve a pat on the back.
Secondsun
-I am not violating the DMCA, my version of DeCSS has net nanny built in.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
"Trolled" cause he's not fighting your fight? NETSCAPE SUCK people! Don't like W3C? go back to your bloody amber screens sods...
Unfortunately, on OSX, this release is _MUCH_ worse then netscape 6.1
infact, i reate 6.2 in between poor and unusable...
For the large number of RedHat 7 users, here are the nightly RPMS (not always updated nightly):
- trunk/Red_Hat_7x_RPMS/
- trunk/
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest
For everyone else (MacOS, OSX, non-RPM Linux, Win32, source, etc):
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest
I just fired this up on my Mac under OS X and it is SO much better than 6.1. It's way more stable, runs faster, looks better (in terms of fitting in with the OS) and all 'round seems good enough that I'm going to switch to using it in place of 4.75.
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
Is this some new rap group or something?
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
When it comes to features, IE is lagging a long way behind Mozilla for things like the <link rel/rev="" />, longdesc on images, multiple stylesheets, and P3P.
I notice that recently MSN has included P3P headers, and that IE6 has a cookie manager that looks similiar to the one I first saw in Mozilla.
Time to add P3P headers to my website eh?
Out of curiosity, i ran a copy of Galeon which was installed by default on my box. I got a slick, fast GTK+-based browser with all the essentials, which also uses Gecko, Mozilla's rendering engine. After opening a few sites, including a few hard-to-render ones, i was convinced; personally, i think Gecko is the most accurate rendering engine out there, with Galeon as the perfect lightweight browser.
Oh, and my first complaint was that Galeon didn't have support for flash.. but when i remembered that it uses Gecko, i dropped in Netscape's flash plugin into the mozilla plugins directory, and voila.. flash support on Galeon. Now i've got flash, superb and accurate rendering, and a great, nifty browser.
OK -- I just put Netscape 6.2 on this Citrix box and I see what you mean. IE uses the normal (bad) Windows dithering, but something is just _wrong_ with Netscape.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
These are not correct interpretations of CSS. Background image and color are not the same as fill image and color, which is how these specifications are being interpreted in Mozilla. The background image of a button, for instance, is the image on which the button sits, not a fill image contained within a button. Widgets are not required to be transparent and to show their background image through them. A correct interpretation would show, for instance, a normal platform button sitting within its box surrounded by, not filled by, the background image or color. See the CSS2 spec on this point.
If you were to interpret the background properties consistently as meaning fill color or image, then the text areas shown would be inconsistent. The characters would need to be drawn in their background image or color (as the widgets are), rather than on top of their background image or color.
The things on the page that appear to be correct w.r.t. the spec are doable natively. Widget colors are controllable on both major platforms. Frames and backgrounds for text editing areas are also controllable with native widgets on both major platforms. (Couldn't speak to Linux.)
In addition, no user agent is required to render every possible combination of CSS properties. See the CSS2 spec: A computed value is in principle ready to be used, but a user agent may not be able to make use of the value in a given environment. For example, a user agent may only be able to render borders with integer pixel widths and may therefore have to approximate the computed width. The actual value is the computed value after any approximations have been applied. Sure, the more coverage the better, but does Mozilla render fractional border widths? Approximation of computed values in rendering still leaves a user agent conformant.
Tim
i've read reviews (forgot where) about how mozilla and the new netscape will be fast and stuff. i tried out the new netscape 6 and was suprised at how s-l-o-w it was, not to mention a tundra of website incompatibility problems. too much bloat is another thing. i stay away the netscape browser now.
This one is actually faster than IE6in a lot of ways.
On the other hand, what's up with the themes, seems like none of thoes old themes work here. Not a good idea when user support is still at its infant stage.
kawai
the slowdowns can be determined by a profiling program.
too bad the 'open source community' is about 10 years behind on
computer aided software engineering tools like profilers.
particularly with something like mozilla, you would have to measure
not only cpu usage but also memory usage, page faults, etc, which
undoubtedly take up a major portion of the 'wall clock' time the poor
user has to sit through.
I'm no IE zealot, but I have been doing web development with DHTML and JavaScript for the last year, and I can say that Netscape 4 vs. IE is the problem most people are referring to when they say "Netscape isn't (as) standards-compliant (as IE)." Netscape 4 is a bloody dog for anything above DOM-level-zero -- <LAYER>, <ILAYER>, etc... Brrr... I'll pass.
Netscape 6, on the other hand, has greatly impressed me. I'm so glad the Netscape crew has acknowledged the problems of Netscape 4.x and is making a concerted effort to be standards-compliant in version 6.
If my pages look good and operate well in IE but badly in Netscape 4, it's Netscape's fault. But if they look good and operate well in IE and badly in Netscape 6, it's my fault or IE's fault.
I just wish Netscape 6 could load faster and didn't use so much much memory (both in Windows; don't know about other platforms). Someone mentioned that Mozilla 0.94 had a "turbo" option which loaded it into memory when Windows starts to give it the same speed advantage as IE. I hope that's in Netscape 6.2 and can be easily turned on by the user. That would certainly help. Can you believe that for all my complaints about it, I'm using Netscape 4.x to post this? Why? Because it's fast, and for me, it's faster than IE. I'll have to try Netscape 6.2 so I can get this clunker off the web and reduce (if only slightly) the headaches it causes developers everywhere.
I also wish Netscape hadn't changed the plug-in architecture, too, but that's not as relevant to the problems of Netscape 4.x, which largely concern its "DHTML".
...the faithful?
I actually shelled out the 20 USD for a CD of Netscape 6.1. I even registered it.
Now 6.2 is released and (a) I get no notification (b) there is no "Netscape Update" menu pick to _find_ the update (c) it appears that instead of a differential upgrade, I have to download the whole 20 MB again.
I have been using Netscape since 1994. I _want_ to keep using Netscape. Am I missing something, or are they _trying_ to drive me to IE?
sPh
Am I the only one with this problem? It crashes consistently on pages that have a flash plugin in a popup javascript window. Just go to the IBM web page, for example, click on products, laptops, and try to view any of the product descriptions which open a javascript window and use flash. It also crashes on flash in the main window, such as the macromedia page. But I had a few crashes also on CNN, on links that pop up a javascript window without flash, such as the one showing poll results. Later this one was working, and I am not sure what I did differently. What's going on? This behavior is so consistent I can't believe I am the only one to notice. /opt and I am running it from there. Does anybody have any hints? Do I have to uninstall the old version? In fact I am back using it (4.77, under Red Hat 6.1), since 6.2 is virtually unusable - you never know when a page you visit will pop a javascript window on you, over or under. Of course 4.77 keeps crashing on pages with java, but I am used to that - since 1996 in fact.
I installed it on an empty directory in
=====
<button>hello</button>
=====
or
=====
<div>hello</div>
=====
except that user agents are more than likely to have default style rules that make a button look like a button (ie have borders that make it look raised normally or depressed when active and have a predefined background colour rather than being transparent as a div would be by default.)
Similarly an: <input type=text value=hello> is just a container that has a default style rule similar to:
======
input[type=text]{
content(content: attr(value);
background-color: etc;
border-top : etc etc
etc
}
======
The elements are just containers like any other, they are not inherantly special because they are "buttons". It may look like a button but to CSS it's just a box. Having said all that, current CSS recomendations may not be able to adequatly describe the visual rendering of all form elements but that is where we are heading. Ultimatly while form elements may normally look like they've been rendered with this style sheet there's nothing to stop the web author or end user modifying those attributes as they can any other attributes on any other element.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Before you post comments indicating that you haven't tried anything since Bill Gates told you not to, download the thing and try it. Our tests show that the new Netscape 6.2 renders pages as fast as IE 6 (and 5.5), and loads within tenths of a second as fast. The problem with gripers like you is that you want something all new in the box, fresh from Microsoft, that works just like "the old way." If that attitude prevails, your choices will soon be reduced to one. Pull your head out of the sand and work with the new stuff every once in a while, just for fun. You'll be surprised at what you find.
This is something that's missed by the "Mozilla advocates" that hang on Slashdot and Mozillazine and other places. Mozilla is not an end-user browser. It's for voluntary developers and voluntary QA people only . No non-nerds even know what Mozilla is, so if you try to encourage people to use it, the funny looks they are giving you are well grounded.
:-) You're also wrong about non-nerds. My wife uses Mozilla and is perfectly happy. People use what you give them, so long as it does the job.
I think you're lagged by 3 months or so. Mozilla is in fact now perfectly capable of being your primary browser, it delivers in all departments and seldom crashes. (The only time I don't use Mozilla now is on small memory/slow machines, and there I use Opera, except when Opera can't render the page, then I go to Mozilla, damm the speed
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Been browsing everything2.com have we? :P
Ah...e2. No other web-site has caused me to open up so many windows at the same time.
Either that or you browsing porn.
There is no difference to CSS whether I have: <button>hello</button> or <div>hello</div>
No offense, but that's just not true. An interactive element is not an empty DIV. It has a content area. That content area contains a button.
Also please note that the CSS2 spec explicitly says that backgrounds should not be set for HTML items: The background of the box generated by the root element covers the entire canvas. For HTML documents, however, we recommend that authors specify the background for the BODY element rather than the HTML element. User agents should observe the following precedence rules to fill in the background: if the value of the 'background' property for the HTML element is different from 'transparent' then use it, else use the value of the 'background' property for the BODY element.
For those of you with trouble reading spec-ese, this means a couple of things. First, the allegedly required functionality (widget background setting) is actually recommended against in the specification.
Second, the Mozilla implementation misinterprets the spec. Having a button on a BODY that has a background image or background color would create the same visual effect within the button's bounding box as setting the button's own background image or background color -- which is to say, a surround effect, not a fill effect.
The supposedly required functionality is not required, and Mozilla is interpreting the functionality in a clearly incorrect way.
Having said all that, current CSS recomendations may not be able to adequatly describe the visual rendering of all form elements but that is where we are heading [w3.org]. Ultimatly while form elements may normally look like they've been rendered with this style sheet [w3.org] there's nothing to stop the web author or end user modifying those attributes as they can any other attributes on any other element.
Nope, sorry, you're reading that wrong too. The goal there is to be able to use system default appearances, not to get away from system default appearances. Search for the string "system standard rendering" -- it appears many times -- and note statements like:
Section 2.1 of CSS1 and Chapter 18 of CSS2 introduced several user interface related pseudo-classes, properties and values. This proposal extends them to provide the ability, through CSS, to style elements based upon their various user interface related states, and to make an arbitrary structural element take on the dynamic presentation, or system default look and feel, of various standard user interface widgets.
The exact rendering of check and diamond depends on the user agent, but it is suggested that the same glyph which is used on the platform to render a "checked" menu item be used for "check", and similarly for those platforms which support rendering of a "diamond" next to a menu item. Conformant user agents may render 'diamond' the same as 'check'. The radio- and checkbox- values are rendered as they are by default on the platform.
Again, for those who have trouble reading spec language, that says that CSS3 is meant to use default system widget appearances, and that Mozilla is not going to be able to support CSS3 because it uses its own non-standard widget appearances.
Tim
Widget colors are controllable on both major platforms.
Tell me Tim, what are you trying to infer here? Easy on the Chomnsky-ian constructs..
Just a few thought on 6.2 on OS X.1. (I am running a Dual 533 with 768MB RAM).
First I am wondering is does anyone know if 6.2 for OS X is based on the Fizilla build (OS X native) or the OS 9.X carbon build?
One of the things that I have noticed is that it does not respect the Mac standards. For example the 'preferences' menu item is in the wrong place. Also it does not seem to read the Mac network settings to get its proxy info.
I have tried to build Fizilla on OS X but so far have been out of luck. Still working on it tho..
As far as it goes compaired with IE on OS X - both pretty much are the same once running. IE loads alot faster. The web pages render in the same time on both. Both looked hacked and non-OS X like in fonts and the look and feel is not right. Omniweb is the cleanest and fastest browser for OS X at this point. I just wish it was alittle more stable.
I am downloading 6.2 for a Windows 98 (P133, 64MB) right now. I will see how it is. IE is dog slow on it (5.5). I will post a follow up with the results.
I've always found Internet Exploder to be dreadfully slow. Every so often I would get angry with Netscape, and try IE, only to go back to Netscape. Various browser versions, various Win OSes. IE is just a big slug.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Die die die Netscape. Thanks to Nutscrape's nasty engine I have to run around in circles to make web sites look descent in it. Go to hell and never come back. I hate Netscape. Ever since Aol took over, Netscape has turned into nothing but a marketing tool. Everything you touch has a link to Netscape.
eTrade SUCKS
I agree that the CSS spec certainly does not require that any form widgets be stylable. The CSS2 model is not sufficient to describe the rendering of even the simplest form widgets (mainly due to the weakness of its anonymous content generation and lack of some concepts in the box model). Therefore the CSS spec doesn't define how form widgets should respond to CSS styles. I think (although some others disagree) that this implies that a user-agent that applies any CSS styles to form controls is extending CSS.
Proposals such as XBL would add to CSS a model that is sufficient to describe the behavior of form controls. With that or a similar proposal one could have styling of form controls within the CSS spec.
Even then, I doubt the CSS spec would ever require that user-agents avoid native form controls in favor of stylable ones. (It is possible that user agents with native form controls would not be able to implement all modules of CSS since they would not be able to implement the module describing the styling of form controls.) After all, native form controls give the user a more consistent and usually better user interface.
-David
If you're addicted to text browsers but aren't just being difficult and whining about lynx, I highly suggest links. If your resolution is high enough (I use a console at 135x60), then links is *sweet*. And it does a decent job of msn.com FWIW.
HTML (in it's modern form) defines structural functionality.
CSS defines presentational possibilities.
The User Agents default stylesheet provides default CSS presentational definitions for HTML.
These defaults are overridable by the author and user (in that order) in accordance with the possibilities that CSS allows. Er, that div wasn't empty, it had exactly the same content as the button. That content was the text "hello". To suggest that the content of a <button> element is the visual rendering of a button demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. The content of a <button> element is what lies between the two tags, as the html 4.01 specification shows quite plainly by placing some text and an image in there.
You seem to be fundamentally unaware of the evolution that this media has and is going through. Everything is being generalised. The presentational details (ie what it looks like) are being seperated from the structural functionality. That a button performs an action when clicked on is to do with it's structural functionality. That it looks like you'd expect a button to look is a presentational detail.
With CSS, in a CSS compliant browser, an author (or user) can modify that look from the default look provided by the user agents default stylesheet in any way they like.
In the same way it is possible to make a normally inline <span> element have a "display:block;" I can make a normally "inline-block" <button> element display with "inline", "block" , "table", "table-cell", "hidden" etc etc. Whether it makes sense for me to do so is another matter entirely, but it is possible and ultimatly required by the specs.
Everything is being generalised. Presentation is being seperated from structural functionality. We're moving from html whatever to xhtml 1.1 (and beyond). Odd things (such as form widget rendering) that just "worked" in older HTML versions are being redefined in terms of generic CSS language (this is the goal of the CSS3 page I linked to if you read it). This generalisation opens a whole world of possibilities. If you are building a browser today and you want it to be able to grow into these possibilities you need to embrace the genericism from the ground up.
The whole bit you quoted after "explicitly says that backgrounds should not be set for HTML items" simply means that if you want to set a background for an HTML page (as opposed to a non-HTML XML page) they recommend you do it on the <body> element rather than the <html>. If you were styling an arbitrary XML page you'd set the background for the whole page on the root element. They are simply saying that for html you should do it on the <body> tag instead, largely for historical reasons. It's got absolutely nothing to do with buttons or widgets.
"system standard rendering" is not defined anywhere that I could find.
Those keywords only give you access to system standard renderings. It would be a good idea for a user agent to make use of these definitions in it UA stylesheet. You are certainly not forced to use them as an author or as a user. As either a conforming browser would enable me to make a checkbox look like a radio button and vice versa, or stick something that looks like a radio button at the beginning of every paragraph.
Even if you accept that "system standard rendering" means using the default OS widgets and also accept that those widgets may not be capable of fulfilling other (potential) CSS aspects (z-index, opacity) then the specs are at odds with themselves and need to be fixed or priorities given. If I were allocating priorities I'd opt for consistancy within the browser window, rather than between the browser window and the OS.
I guess that depends on what you mean by platform. Mozilla could well be described as the platform. In any case people who don't have trouble reading W3 spec language are well aware that anything that is merely "suggested" has no impact on conformity to the standard.
.
Some thoughts on the whole widget thing from the Mozilla folk are here.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Sorry, you remain mistaken.
The HTML 4.01 spec does not define buttons as generic containers; in fact, it refers explictly to their extra rendering requirements.
You have ignored the clearly defined meaning of "background," which is, in fact, "background."
When I pointed out that CSS3 is explicitly heading in the direction of "system standard renderings", you feigned ignorance of what "system standard renderings" meant. That's just sad.
The Mozilla page you cited does not note anything that could not be done with native widgets. There are no unsupportable requirements for "transparency and z-ordering" that either you or anyone at Mozilla has been able to find. Native widgets on both Windows and Mac have transparent backgrounds and draw in a z-ordered way.
In short, there is not a word of support for your position in any W3C spec, and there are plenty of words that say the opposite. The fact that CSS3 advocates "system standard rendering" is the smoking gun, but the situation was clear enough even without that.
Tim
When Netscape 6.0 was released, it was pretty much agreed that Netscape pulled from the Mozilla source too early (at least from a coding standpoint...marketing is another matter...). I'd recommend trying at least 6.1 if not 6.2 (really, why try 6.1 when 6.2 out? :-) ) to get a much better view of it.
Has anyone seriously considered using Grail as their browser of choice? Mere curiosity, you understand...
user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+L ucky&q=");
This uses Google's I'm Feeling Lucky for Internet Keywords.
BTW: This is the default in Beonex Communicator.
Today, most vendors of small OSes are themselves involved in (or lead) porting Mozilla to their platform. Consequently, they make their own releases. E.g. OpenVMS, OS/2 and Sun all have their own "branded" Mozilla release. No need for another "Netscape" release.
In the old, proprietary Netscape world, I think those vendors haven't been let near the source code and had to pay license costs to include Navigator in their OS releases.
So, the change is more a direct consequence of Mozilla being Open-Source now than of Linux replacing commercial Unix.
From here:
So there you are. If you are building a browser that hopes to be and continue to be "state of the art" you better treat your standard form elements as you would any other element, because while buttons etc may look like they did previously they can also be made to look completely different using standard CSS terminology as with any other element.
How nice. What a pity that the CSS3 proposal covering opacity doesn't just call for transparent backgrounds but for whole elements (including content) to be transparent. To my knowledge the windows widgets don't support that natively. I'm happy to be proved wrong though, show me some source code that I can compile and run on win98 or an msdn page that says otherwise.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I just poured hot grits down my pants. Oh, that feeels soo good!
> Mozilla is not an end-user browser.
Exactly. That's what Beonex Communicator is for.
Opera 5.12 rocks when it comes to surfing. You can decide to d/l graphics that comes with the web page or not with a click of the button. It will definitely speed up your surfing, esp. if you're on a dial up connection. Opera will handle about 95% of the web pages fine. I use IE6 as a backup for those remaining "uncompromising sites."
I have tried IE X, Netscape X, 1X Browser, Mozilla,and a host of other browsers, but I keep coming back to Opera because it is, in my opinion, one of the fastest browsers available out there. The best thing is that I can use Opera in windows and as well as in linux too. Also, I would recommend using it with Guidescope ( a free web proxy filtering software.) You can filter out unwanted graphics and cookies from your favorite sites, thus speeding up your browsing.
Let's see if we can clear a few things up made by two posts.
It was not supported in the sense Navigator/Communicator was/is a port to OS/2. It was supported in that Navigator/Communicator was/is steadily updated/upgraded on the OS/2 platform. What you are commenting on is the program not being carried on Netscape's servers. Instead they are on IBM's.
OS/2's invisibilty to home users was a move by IBM to focus on businesses - specifically networks. One need only ask/inquire as to the status of a browser (Navigator) with respect to OS/2, if one wanted to know.
Contrary to strong belief, the Netscape browsers have been maintained on OS/2 since Navigator 2.02 by a joint effort, IBM and Netscape.
See above as well as care to explain the availability of Communicator Suite from IBM's Software Choice for OS/2 Warp of which I have several CD's?
'til dawn...
I have an IBM Thinkpad with that red scrollpoint, which functions as a mouse pointer usually, nad as a scrolling device when you press a blue botton on the laptop. Anyway, if you have a Thinkpad, you know what I'm talking about. Scrolling is not working for me, in Netsape 6.2. What should I do to enable it?
Sigged!
I'm doing l10n for mozilla, (for Bahasa Melayu)
although i also kan do l10n to netscape, there is no way for netscape publishing my langpack on it website. they just support popular language.
I'm still advocating mozilla even for home user, just because of the existance of our language UI.
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
As you mentioned several posts back:
And it shows in your uninformed comments. The fact is that it's not only possible to support CSS correctly (as defined by the spec) with native widgets, there are a number of browsers available on different platforms that do it. IE on Windows XP, IE & OmniWeb on MacOS, Galeon on UNIX/GNOME, and Konqueror on UNIX/KDE come to mind, and I'm sure there are others.
hrm you agree to censorship in the user creation i believe anyway, you're certainly not the brightest bulb in the box. hrm...I bet you work for microshaft or something. Although maybe you're not smart enough for that, either...
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
If that comes to your mind it's clear your mind isn't quite where it should be. I can't speak definitively to the other platforms but if your information is as accurate as that for Galeon we can only wonder.
I like opera
But no matter what you say, this [www.tucows.com] is scary
"Who am I" and "Why are we here" are not the problems.
The problem is when someone asks "Why are they here."
I've been attempting to do some research as to where LINK tags are currently in use, and where it make sense to use them.
W3C gives me a good technical understanding, but where do they really belong? If I were to add them to an existing informational site, we dont have much forward/reverse, but I would like to use them in a way that makes sense.
sorry for the off topic
Everyone talks about how great the rendering engine is. But, as a user of IE, I've almost never run into a problem with IE's rendering of HTML. And when I have, it's usually some pretty amateurish web page about people f*cking donkeys or something.
The point is - WHY? Mozilla should try a new line of software beyond the browser. Hey, maybe I should coin that term - "Beyond the Browser" has a marketing ring to it.... you heard it here first!!
Oh, just to claim ownership of this A.C. post later on - only I can explain the number 1409124223192.
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such. It doesn't do mozilla.org any good if they aren't getting QA back from the user. (If people ask me what browser I'm using, I just tell them that it's the latest "Netscape 6 beta", because the development arrangements are really irrelevant to them.)
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I think you completely missed my argument -- I agree that Mozilla is technically a fine browser, just that it's not supposed to be an end-user browser, so don't push it as such.
That's nonsense. Mozilla is a perfectly fine end-user browser, and I feel perfectly comfortable recommending it to whoever. You're on some kind of drugs.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Galeon uses the Gecko component of Mozilla, which is the basic HTML rendering and networking engine and is not dependent on XUL at all. The widgets are GTK+.
Syntax errors? Pseudocode? That's perfectly acceptable VBscript. It ran fine on my server. Maybe you don't know how to run a server?
The abovementioned K-Meleon lets you specify UserAgent strings from the Preferences menu. At the level on which Microsoft is working, that should baffle them.
Haven't checked the color issue with KMeleon, but does it do tabbed browsing?
No way, tabbed browsing is only added bloat. You have a taskbar, you know.
> This is shown even by Slashdot, which has
/. story when I started reading was "someone mentioned Linux somewhere! We are getting maintstream recogniztion now!".
> switched from "news for nerds" to an almost
> exclusively Linux-advocacy site.
Actually, it is the other way around. It has switched from an almost exclusively Linux-advocacy site, to a general "news from nerds" site. The prototypical
At least that is the development in the time I have read it. I'm willing to be corrected about even earlier times by someone with a lower user-id.
Yeah, actually reading the propaganda up at mozilla.org has been highly mind-altering. You should try it.
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
(9.0)
At home I'm on a very low bandwidth connection (typically only 28.8k), so the only way I can use the web is to leave auto image loading turned off, and to manually load individual images if they look relevant.
I can't find any way to do this with Netscape 6.2. Is there a way? If there isn't, this program is useless.
Wow, after many many time we have a Spanish version the same day that the English version is out.
Great!!
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
Like I said, enjoy the funny looks people give you when you try to push Mozilla on them. Of course, that's assuming you ever leave your mom's basement -- I have a feeling that you're the sort who fights for the cause with little messageboard trolls and don't have any infuluence over web dev test plans, desktop rollouts, or any other effective way to improve non-IE browser support.
Read my user info, asshole.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Unfortunately, I don't see anything but standard slashdot banter. But, I'm ready to stop the insults and go off and enjoy the weekend. Later.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.