Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla 0.9.7 Released!
Chezypewf writes: "The newest release from the Mozilla Dev team is out. This milestone features basic S/MIME support, favicon support and the Document Inspector, a tool to inspect and edit the live DOM of any web document or XUL application. You can grab it here: http://www.mozilla.org/releases "
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Okay, let me slam you around with a very short quote:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
Again,
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
See the first line on the release page? It says:
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
If you want a not-testing-purposes-only browser, go use Netscape 6.2. Binary versions of Mozilla are are available for testing purposes only.
New features AND less bloat. It loads up faster on my machine and it also appears to use less memory. I like this trend in development.
OK, this is just too cool! I hit all this sites I know have pop-ups... crack sites, free stuff, contests, etc, and nothing came up that shouldn't.
Mozilla team - You guys have a HUGE thank you coming from me! Thank god for software which is written by the people who use it.
kazaa.com has lame browser sniffing:
//redirect for people with a less than
//version 4 browser
var NS4 = (document.layers);
var IE4 = (document.all);
var ver4 = (NS4 || IE4);
if(!ver4)
location.href= "notsupported.htm";
and hotmail.com works just fine for me on mac, windows and linux mozilla 0.9.7 builds.
--Asa
Just an attempt:
/. user reading this should email that whiny bitch and tell him to put his efforts where his mouth is and contribute to Mozilla. (Don't get me wrong, I like Jakob and his site/opinions, but he IS a beeeatch.)
"Open windows by themselves"
could be
"Allow automatic pop-up windows"
26 characters Vs. 30... not bad.
The key is that 95% of the people would be looking for this option to stop "pop-ups", so there's little to no reason not to use that word. Yes it's not perfect, but that's why useability people freak out when programmers make dialog boxes, we're geeks. We think technically, not like a user. Give the users what they want.
As for Jakob Nielson, every
-Russ
Me
I am a Mozilla developer, but I must give credit where credit is due. IE is a nice piece of software from a usability, appearance and stability standpoint. On the other hand, it is lacking in terms of standards compliance and number of features. I don't think its fair to attack the programmers for Microsoft because you don't like the company. They are just doing their job and following orders.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
No. it's at version 0.97. Wait for 1.0. That will be ready. Will it be free of bugs? Probably not. Will those bugs be resolved more quickly than those on closed-source browsers? yes.
If you're talking ideology, why on earth are you running windows at all?
We have this problem (with too large windows) in many places of Mozilla's UI. The preferences window's too big window is a well-known problem, to something we don't really have a fix for so far. :-(
See: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86305
-Håkan
How about "Enable pop-ups/pop-unders"?
I think that would neatly capture the intent of this checkbox. In fact, what would be particularly nice about it is that, as time goes on, and other means are developed for defeating "pop-ups" (whatever people come to understand that to mean), it would be possible to roll that functionality into that pre-existing checkbox.
Actually, here's what I _really_ think. You should leave all that fine-grained JavaScript control stuff as it is, and where it is (under Advanced). What is needed is an "enable pop-ups/pop-unders" checkbox in, say, the main navigator preferences screen. This is a "digestified" function, i.e. it may do various things, which are not precisely-defined, but whose intent is to defeat what people commonly refer to as "pop-ups" or "pop-unders".
All of the entries after the first (I'm going by what the poster wrote; I haven't run 0.9.7 myself) can be read as if prefixed with "Scripts are allowed to ...". So make that the heading! "Scripts and Windows" makes
little sense, since most of the entries are unrelated to windows. This
change would require that "Enable Javascript" be moved to its own section,
which seems appropriate anyway.
(I guess someone wanted "windows" in the heading so that people looking to disable ad windows would see it; but this is "advanced" configuration, and I think anyone going here would know that it's really a script preference.)
On to the original matter: "Open windows by themselves" is gratuitously ambiguous. "by themselves" seems to go with "windows", which could either mean that windows open in a separate part of the screen ("by" as in location"); or that windows spontaneously open without external cause ("by" as in agent). Neither one is really right.
If you change the heading as I suggest, it reads, "Scripts are allowed to open windows by themselves". This is an improvement, because "by" as in agent clearly refers to "scripts". But the "by" as in location interpretation is still possible, so it remains confusing.
"Scripts are allowed to open windows automatically" reads with no ambiguity to me, and seems no worse in any way. So I would suggest "Open windows automatically" as the text for the checkbox. "Open windows without user input" isn't bad if you want to be more explicit.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
I don't like the options stated here:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
x Open Windows by themselves
x Move or resize existing windows
x Make windows flip over or under other windows
x Change status bar text
x Change Images
x Create or change cookies
x Read cookies
I propose instead:
Scripts and Windows
x Enable Javascript
Javascript code may:
x Open windows on page load/unload (pop-up and pop-under ads)
x Move and resize existing windows
x Change window ordering (pop-under ads)
x Change status bar text
x Change images (mouseover highlighting)
x Create and change cookies
x Read cookies
First, the other options definitely belong as a sub-item as the first one, disabled when it gets disabled. (If it's actually this way in the dialog, sorry, my Mozilla isn't quite new enough to have your feature. I'm going by the bug report.) There should be a little label to explain the wording of the subitems, since they are stated as what the code is doing ("open a window") rather than what you're doing ("allowing them to open a window").
Second, I really don't like the "by themselves". Obviously everything in Javascript happens because of some event firing. I think on page load/unload is more clear. (Or some other way of precisely stating what events you're talking about.)
Third, it has in parenthesis a common use of several features. This should give a better understanding of what you'll be breaking.
It *seems* that when I "view source", the browser hits the server to download another copy. I don't WANT *another* copy - I want to the see the source of what is being rendered in the browser. With many web-based apps, doing another request (especially without resending the proper POST info, etc) will give back different results.
The same behaviour was a huge problem for printing in Netscape. Rather than print what was in the browser's memory and on the screen, netscape would do a GET request on the URL. If it didn't come back with the right results - oh well! Too bad...
Why on earth can't we simply see what's in the browser's memory already? It seems this is the EASY thing to do and Netscape (and now Mozilla) are unnecessarily complicating the matter.
creation science book