Mozilla 0.9.6 Released

bluephone writes: "Yessireebob. mozilla.org has released the 0.9.6 milestone. Here are Release Notes and a link of files on the FTP server. For milestones 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, the focus is on performace enhancingment, and stability of the Mail/News end of the suite. And boy, is it getting good..."

Comments

Re:Mozilla is a great browser if...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure Gecko is a wonderful rendering engine and all that, but the performance gain is totally lost on us Pentium-120mhz users.

Yep - it's pretty slow on my C64 as well.

Export

[nexex]

Interesting line from export restrictions,
"This source code is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas) ...". And we all know that those areas will be non-exsistant :)

Re:Export

[matthayes]

currently Afghanistan (Taliban controlled areas)

Which, given the Taleban's advocacy of the Internet, is a crying shame.

AOL^H^H^HMozilla 0.9.6 is the best Mozilla *ever!*

[The_Messenger]

But that's not saying much, because Mozilla blows. It's pretty funny to see how Netscape managed to fall from the top of the crop to the laughing stock of the development community in only five years. Oh, wait, I remember now -- that's because they didn't fucking do anything for five years, and UNIX users were stuck with third-rate trash. (4.7 was lovely, by the way. No, don't bother writing a professional rendering engine, you hacks, just add a "Shop" button and we'll call it innovation!)

Thank God (or Gates) that Microsoft eventually ported IE to Solaris and HP-UX and gave UNIX users (as in real UNIX, of course, not ia32-optimized open-source garbage) hope for the future.

And Mozilla (NS6) is somehow even worse! Conclusive proof that open-source doesn't work.(TM) I didn't think it was possible to build a slower memory hog than 4.x, but never underestimate the mediocrity of Cheap Software, boys. Does 0.9.6 still use as much memory as five 4.x instances combined, and take six times as long to initially load? Please, someone explain to me how it is possible that fucking IE5.0 is the fastest, smallest, most standards-complaint browser on my Solaris boxes. I mean, that's just sad -- Microsoft, the bloatware behemoth with zero track record on modern UNIX is able to create a better browser than the "hackers" (pronounced "wannabes") in the Cheap Software "community?"

Mozilla development is unprofessional. Why bother implementing a mail/news client, when Mozilla doesn't correctly or completely implement CSS2, a standard from fucking 1998? We need a sense of priorities hear, boys -- it's a fucking web browser, people would much rather have an open-source browser that works (and I define "works" as "correctly implements all applicable modern W3C standards, including but not limited to XHTML1.0/1.1 and CSS2 and the latest DOM spec") instead of YASOHBWNA (Yet Anoter Suite of Half-finished Bloated Slow Netscape Applications). Maybe someone should open-source a book on project management and help these untalented Cheap Software fucktards out. Among employed software developers, there are a set of common practices -- such as determining and codifying user requirements, design specifications, and frequent reevaluation of project goals -- that help avoid these problems. I don't know, is it that Netscape has the "Fecal Midas touch" (everything it touches turns to shit), or is it that Mozilla is being "developed" by freshman CS (*snicker*) and IT (*snicker*snicker*) students between jacking off to Pokémon porn and pirating copyrighted music? I mean, that's what Cheap Software is, right?

You make me sick. How do you ever expect to attract us Real Developers(TM) to your lamer hobby projects when you can't even understand the basics of software design? When you don't understand the concept of sacrifice, that Cheap Software applications shouldn't include every possible feature that every developer wants? My guess is that Mozilla is a hacked-together dog because the project "leaders" (if they exist) don't know how to say "no." No, Bob, we aren't going to work on a mail client until the browser works. No, Sue, we don't need skins until we have a good basic product. No, Dave, there is no fucking reason to implement custom widgets.

I certainly hope that all of you Mozilla "developers" note your involvement in this project prominently on your resumé, so that it will be easy to identify you and deny you all possibility for employment as professionals. I curse you all!

0.9.5 in woody.

[jonestor]

Doh!! 0.9.5 just got into Debian Woody.

Re:huh?

[great throwdini]

I duel boot between linux ... and Windows...

Freudian slip?

Re:huh?

[Carmen Electron]

"duel"/"dual"

Sounds like a play on swords, not words!

Re:for speed...

[Cardhore]

I don't know about you but I use mozilla exclusively for the IRC chat program.

Re:Pornzilla 0.9.1 also released today

[onion2k]

What i want is a secret 'porn' button that i can press

There is one. But its secret.

Imagine....

[sebol]

Imagine if IE change it version number to IE 0.9.7 just to compete with mozilla

Re:Slashdot crashes mozilla ?

[wildwood]

Heh. I can see it now...

"Hello, Slashdot? This is the Mozilla QA team. Um, can we have 500 moderator points? We, um, need to test out this bug..."

-----

Re::-(

[the Man in Black]

:-D And the award for 'Most Clever way to get Site Traffic' goes to....