Slashdot Mirror
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..."
From the release note,
System requirement
* Intel Pentium-class 233 MHz (or faster) processor
So your hardware isn't even covered by the requirement. However, Mozilla runs fine if you have a lightly loaded system, e.g. a clean install of Windows 95. I was able to run Netscape 6.2 on a Pentium 100 with 32MB RAM in Win95, and it outperforms Netscape 4.79 (try fancier pages like www.msn.com; simple pages doesn't justify what Gecko is capable of).
Your hardware is pretty old. If you're thinking about running Mozilla on top of X in unix, well, you're pushing your computer too hard
on every first page visit to a site it requests favicon.ico
I wonder how long until all the stats programmers out there figure out why bookmarked visits spiked in December?
Hammer of Truth
Just my $.02 on why Mozilla is better:
- Mozilla is Open Source
Zealots aside, why is this better? Have you modified any of the source code? Have you contributed? Have you searched through it to make sure there are no back doors that mail out your keystrokes? Or are you karma whoring?
- Mozilla won't accept activeX or other such nonsense
Which limit's its use on heavily scripted, harmless, usefull sites. True, it saves you from mailicious porn webmasters who want to install their dialer programs, but that's not a problem if you know how to set up your internet security zones on IE.
- You can disable Mozilla's JS window.open()
A nice feature, true, but what happens when you go to click on a "help" icon and it can't open a new window?
- Mozilla has tabbled browsing
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
- Mozilla is standards compliant
Which is again nice, but means nothing if developers dont make their sites for standards, which they dont
- Mozilla doesn't redirect you to MSN (or AOL for that matter) and spill your privacy for all to see
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
- Mozilla has a development team that cares about the end product
More ramblings from a zealot. I'm sure the IE programmers care about IE. They just dont feel the need to sit around and pat each other on the back in public message boards.
- Mozilla has site-specific image and cookie management
Internet privacy zones. From your top menu in IE6: tools -> internet options -> privacy -> click the edit button. Yep, it works in IE on a site by site basis.
- Mozilla is stable (close to 100%) and won't bring down the OS when it crashes
Just like IE6 (which hasnt ever crashed on me, even though I use it roughly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past few months)
So.... yea, you like mozilla. that's cool. use what you like.... just realize that every one of my arguments is absolutely true, meaning IE is "better and better" too...
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
ha ha, that's funny. get a life.
heh, if i could run konqueror or galeon on my OSX or 2K/XP boxes i would never run/miss IE.
Instead of him getting a life, how about you get a clue and stop chokeing on whatever they ram down your throat.
konqueror
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
Here's where your post fails for the first time... It pretty much shows that you're only doing PR when you just throw out something as lovely as this.
1. Why does it make alt+tab slower? I sure hadn't noticed that.
2. You're perfectly allowed to use new browser windows instead if you want.
- Mozilla doesn't redirect you to MSN (or AOL for that matter) and spill your privacy for all to see
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
That's a bit besides the point. A good program should be secure by default. Almost any program can be secured by "configuring it correctly". This implies that it's secure for you and me, but not for Joe and Jane Normaluser.
It sounds like typical Microsoft-ish to me:h off. It's in File->Options->(click the lower right corner)->My Pictures->Settings->Fonts'
'- Oh, but you have to turn the "we-have-full-control-of-your-private-data"-switc
A browser is one of the programs where it's most important that the user's privacy is protected, from the beginning, for all users, not just for the know-how powerusers.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
1. ftp.mozilla.org is fast.
2. People that are serious about testing don't use/wait around for milestones, they use nightlies.
3. People who use KDE don't care about mozilla, they use Konq.
4. People who use Gnome don't upgrade because it may break programs that depend on it and are compiled against it. (Galeon, Nautilus) They wait til Ximian repackages it.
5. It hit Slashdot at 12:45, nerds gotta sleep too! (Even if the keyboard is the pillow)
6. 50-60 percent of slashdot users use and prefer IE (Even if they won't admit it in public)
7. For most people, Their current Mozilla is already good enough.
8.CmdrTaco says Konq is better, it must be true, so why bother with Mozilla?
9. Alot of people in the past few years that did nothing but slam Mozilla, call it every name in the book, And proclaimed it would never amount to anything, won't eat crow and admit its now a damn good browser and and use it.
I can answer that question with a firm NO. For every bug they fix, another pops up to replace it. I know this as I've been a major bug submitter since M8. While they are solving the bugs that cause major problems (and replacing them with many minor bugs) they are not cleaning up the code, making it more proper, portable, or reliable.
Netscape version 0.x-4.x were very simple, and effective. They all just got the HTML, and rendered it as the page said so.
With Mozilla, they are really reverse engineering open web standards. They go to a web page, impliment the code in mozilla that allows it to render the page properly, then move on to the next web page. In other words, instead of making a simple engine that handles the code in a systematic way, they will need to look at every different design possible in order to get mozilla to work properly with them all. This is obvioiusly the wrong way to do things. Nobody in the Mozilla crew wants to hear the fact that they are doing things ass-backwards and should look at other ways to do the same thing. They've got code, and just want to continue adding more work arounds till the code takes multiple Gigs of RAM, eats CPU power like candy, and bloats out of control.
I may use it to find bugs and submit many many bug reports, but I prefer not to use Mozilla.
On Windows, I stick with Netscape 4.x, on Mac I use iCab, and on Unix... Well, I've got high hopes for dillo but will be using Netscape 4.x on Unix until dillo gets better.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
This would be true if everyone was to stick firmly to the standards. However, due to the sloppy web page coding out there, today's browsers need error correction. It can't just stop loading a page because it finds an error in the HTML code.
In addition to this, the web is not only HTML anymore. You have other things like images - JPG, GIF, PNG, all of which need to be viewed correctly, and this requires an image viewer built in to the browser.
A browser today also needs a JavaScript interpreter, which also adds to the size of the code.
You also have plugins...
The web isn't just about HTML anymore. It's about displaying a page even if the code is sloppy, and it is about the new technologies that offer improved interactivity and even eye candy. A browser is a complex piece of software - imagine all the different things it has to do!
I don't think you've through the above comment through. If you look at what is actually going on, you'll see that a browser is a lot more than a HTML interpreter.
Clever signature text goes here.
Zealots aside, why is this better? Have you modified any of the source code? Have you contributed? Have you searched through it to make sure there are no back doors that mail out your keystrokes? Or are you karma whoring?
No, but I know that there won't be any backdoors or trojans in there. Can you say the same about closed-source? No, you can't.
- You can disable Mozilla's JS window.open()
A nice feature, true, but what happens when you go to click on a "help" icon and it can't open a new window?
Then enable it for that site only. Can this be done in IE? No. IE is shit.
- Mozilla has tabbled browsing
Which slows down the quick alt+tab everyone uses to switch between browser windows...
Have you ever heard of "Ctrl+tab"?
- Mozilla doesn't redirect you to MSN (or AOL for that matter) and spill your privacy for all to see
Nor does IE, if you configure it correctly.
You mean you actually have to delve into the slow, complex configuration just to stop it automatically sending you to sites you don't want to go to? Wow, I never realised IE was this bad.
- Mozilla has a development team that cares about the end product
More ramblings from a zealot. I'm sure the IE programmers care about IE. They just dont feel the need to sit around and pat each other on the back in public message boards.
In that case, why is IE so bare and featureless compared to Opera, Mozilla, Galeon etc? Why does it provide such a basic, lacking browsing experience? Does it even have tabbed windows?
- Mozilla has site-specific image and cookie management
Internet privacy zones. From your top menu in IE6: tools -> internet options -> privacy -> click the edit button. Yep, it works in IE on a site by site basis.
Unfortuanetly, IE's configation is slow and confusing. It really is the worst browser out there. With Galeon, I can turn off javascript via a single menu. With IE I'd be delving into countless menus and windows, trying to find elusive checkboxes.
When will you idiots realise that IE is literally the worst browser out there? Even Netscape is better.
I guess the thread thing explains why Mozilla sucks compared to the old Netscape when you open multiple windows. In Netscape 4.x, the OTHER windows are responsive while one page loads its content, but in Mozilla, all the windows become unresponsive. Both react equally when the name server doesn't come back immediately, though...
No, parsing HTML on the Web is not rocket science. It's much close to neurosurgery -- theoretically trivial (cut, cauterize, and close), really incredibly delicate.
You see, HTML has traditionally been interpreted by parsers that will accept lots of errors: missing cell closure, misplaced tags, heaven only knows what else. That means that every real HTML renderer contains a huge error recovery routine which watches what the parser is doing, then backs up and recovers from erroneous source. If parsing HTML meant the same thing that parsing C did, it would be easy. But parsing HTML means much more than that -- and that's why it's so hard.