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
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
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.
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.