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 "
--Asa
Ooh Wow, another Microsoft indentured servant!
It's obvious you haven't used Mozilla recently (like, the last three releases). Fantastic standards-compliant browser with excellent USER-FRIENDLY - as opposed to ADVERTISER-FRIENDLY - customization and privacy options.
And on my system, using Mozilla's quick start option, it loads FASTER than IE.
I'd love to chat, but I'm gonna rush off to get the new release!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
wow. now i can finally create one and avoid shtuff like /favicon.ico HTTP/1.0" 404 272
198.236.22.34 - - [21/Dec/2001:10:27:47 -0800] "GET
in my http logs, without feeling bad for catering only to windows ie users.
fav icons...man... i can't wait until we have magical talking paperclips, too!
Give it time, friend.
mozilla.org provies binaries for linux, mac (9 and X) and windows. Other builds (the dozen or so other platforms you're used to seeing at ftp.mozilla.org) are contributed by "platform champions" who take the time to make binaries so that you don't have to.
It's late in the week, christmas and the new year right around the corner. Give folks a little time (usually only a matter of days) to make those builds and send them in to mozilla.org.
Or you could do one better and make a build and contribute it to mozilla.org sooner. See Building a Mozilla distro for tips.
--Asa
For your information 1586 bugs were fixed between the 0.9.6 and the 0.9.7 releases. I actually think Mozilla has a slow development cycle. IMHO this cycle is well suited to Mozilla itself because it allows the people who want a stable build without blatent regressions to acutally be testing it for finer grained bugs. Mozilla still has a frozen period for about a week where the code to be released is branched and only outstanding issues are fixed.
> KARMA WHORE!
/. readers).
Um, that's my text. I'm the co-author of the release notes and the originator of the what's new section. I would think that I'm allowed to post that here and save a bit of load on our releases page (not to mention the added convenience for
--Asa
I know, it's beena round, but I'm happy to have this feature:
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla0.9.7/#new
Mozilla has a new advanced preference panel for fine-grained JavaScript control. For instance, you can disallow pop up and pop-under windows without turning off JavaScript altogether.
I'd still like to have site-by-site preferences wihtout having to edit the prefs.js file, but, what can you do? (i know... i know... write the damn code yourself...)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Copy the files from your "plugins" subdirectory for Netscape to the "plugins" subdirectory for Mozilla. They will work. I've been running Quicktime (under Windows) and Flash with no problems.
Well, I did have one problem ... where I forgot to copy the Quicktime 5 plugin over the Quicktime 4 plugin, and it would crash when the page was unloaded. That was fixed by getting the plugin version to match the DLLs it was linked against. Doh!
I bet they're releasing the software during the Pacific Ocean timezone to avoid the slashdot effect, cowards).
;-)
I'm sure you said that with a wink, but in case not I'll tell you why we release software late in the evening on Fridays. It's because we bust our butts all week trying to get it wrapped up before the weekend. If we work hard and luck is with us we get it out late in the day Friday. If we run into unexpected problems then it's sometime the following week. Fortune smiled on us this milestone cycle and I think we've got something really good to offer (and on time too
--Asa
Can you guess which one stops pop-ups?
Would a usability expert know what half these prefs mean?
Good job on the prefs, Moz-team, but please, hire Jakob Nielsen before 1.0 ships.
I am a mozilla developer, and I use both Netscape 6 and Mozilla. Most of the time, though, I use Netscape for browsing because there is a stability factor in the fact that I am not constantly changing it, editing the source, downloading new nightlies, etc. I have 4 versions of Mozilla on my disk usually at once, along with Netscape 6:
1) Source tree for hacking
2) Binary tree for hacking the chrome
3) Binary tree of a recent nightly to keep track of feature progress
4) Latest milestone release
I use Netscape 6 for browsing because I am not constantly editing, hacking, crashing, replacing, or deleting it. I started doing this last year when downloading a new version of Mozilla might mean that your profile doesn't work anymore.
I imagine for people who don't work on the Mozilla project and don't do what I do, it might be better just to get Mozilla and forget Netscape altogether.
There are some advantages to getting Netscape 6 instead though. It has better plugin support from companies such as Macromedia, integrated AIM, has been more thoroughly tested (as it comes from a milestone branch), has spell-checker, is made to be easier to use than Mozilla, has a better help system, is more polished and attractive, and should generally be more stable and functional - although this is not always the case.
Some disadvantages of Netscape 6 are that it is a much larger download, more bloated, always a couple months behind Mozilla in terms of features, doesn't have IRC Chat (though this may change in the future), has a somewhat quirky installation server (though this should change too), has a private bug database, and comes with a lot of bundled programs which people might not want.
Therefore, it all depends on your preferences which program you use. If you are an advanced user, then Mozilla might be all you need. For the average user, though, Netscape 6 would be what I would recommend. I might also recommend always having up-to-date copies of both programs, and using the one you like the best. Remember, as Mozilla has few users compared to Netscape, the web might not be always written with Mozilla in mind. Therefore, there might be sites that - for instance - sniff for Netscape 6 but not for Mozilla, or plugins that only work on Netscape 6.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
*Note, im talking about windows.
Ive been using mozilla for awhile now, and Im very very impressed with how it just gets better. It renders quicker the IE6 which is impressive, and the Tab feature (people call an Opera ripoff) is great. You can install it into a directory with an older version of mozilla, it doesnt create a new secure directory. That salt directory it made was rather annoying.
Using it as a daily browser for both work and home, I do have a few problems with it. Some javascripts dont work with internal business sites. (LiveLink and Eroom which we use for documents and communications) No spell checker yet. (But im told its coming.)
And at home, I cant use my online banking with it, but everything else seems to work fine.
Newsgroups reader seems to be work in progress, the nightly builds seem to have a few bugs. But I am downloading the daily builds and it could be me.
BTW, I could swear the 0.9.7 directory was on ftp.mozilla.org for the last couple days.
-
I'm too shy to express my sexual needs except over the phone to people I don't know. - Garry Shandling
Roadmap information:
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
On the Mozilla roadmap, it shows Mozilla 1.0 following the same start, freeze, release timeline as the rest of the builds. I personally feel it should be started, frozen for twice as long as usual with drivers@mozilla.org being the only ones who can approve changes, then submitted to longer-than-normal testing period.
I would also like to see better documentation, and improved features. I think this release stands for Mozilla, and it should be something Mozilla.org should be proud of. We shouldn't rush into it. I would be perfectly happy if it wasn't released until the end of summer, 2002.
What do you want to see in Mozilla 1.0? Do you agree it should follow an extended schedule compared to most milestones? What features would you like to see improved or added?
You can also talk on newsgroups like netscape.public.mozilla.general
Let's make Mozilla 1.0 fantastic!
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Um, since when did IE beat Mozilla here? IE doesn't even support <link>!
marotti.com
I just wanted to weigh in my thanks. I know it's reduntant and all, but I know the moz team reads the site (hi Asa!) and I just wanted to say thanks for the great browser. I use it in conjunction with Konqueror at home, and it's my browser of choice on my windows partition and at work. I've been amazed at how much it's progressed, and now my most waited for feature (javascript prefs panel) is in! Thanks you guys. I'm rooting for you!
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
steven-ehrbar@home.com said:
See the first line on the release page? It says: "We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!"
netdemonz AT yahoo DOT com said:
That article is old and out of date. Mozilla milestones are meant to be stable releases that can be used as a personal browser.
It is not old and out of date. Mozilla binaries are provided for testing purposes.
--Asa
o . . _.-_ .,,,' ._-_ ^^; .,}
o __.'..o."-.
o . . .
o. .
o _-\" . `""
o.
But is it ready? Mozilla is coming along nicely(I use it on some machines, not others) but it's not perfect yet. It's usable, but unfortunately it just isn't as stable/responsive as IE. If people have mozilla forced down their throats by The Powers That Be, they'll hate it if only for the reason that it's not what they're used to. I'm all for anyone who wants to adopting mozilla, but it's foolish to try and take over the world with a browser that hasn't reached a 1.0 release yet. I admit to useing Mozilla on windows for idealogical reasons, not because it's the best browser out there. (But it'd better damn well be soon)
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
Honestly, I want the core frozen absolutely solid. Then declare 1.0. While I love all the features that have been put in to the UI, what really needs to happen for 1.0 in my opinion is to stabilize that API so people can start coding around the platform.
The original vision is still critical, and I want to see more projects like the fantastic pubmed. These things are going to be what really kicks mozilla in to high gear. I really believe that third party stuff like this will make mozilla worth having.
1.0 is all about stability. The browser itself is certainly stable enough to go 1.0. You can add the UI enhancements for 1.1, but make the core solid so people have the platform. Then we'll start to get the plugins that we so desperately need too.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Reopen the bug. Include a nice little note: "This bug is still present in current builds" and don't let them close it till it's fixed.
You failed to include why the bug was closed, which makes me suspect they had a valid reason for closing it. And not verifying it with a build from the exact day you filed the bug is an acceptable reason.
Last I heard, 300+ bugs were getting fixed a week. That's a lot of changes - some of which fix other bugs, so it's only reasonable for you to go d/l the latest build (making sure to note it in your bug report, so they KNOW that it's a valid bug) when you comment on a bug.
Hi there. I designed the interface for Mozillas Javascript prefs back in September, and Doron Rosenberg has spent the past couple of months implementing it.
Well, if you have any suggestions, do share them.
None of them do. Thats why there isnt a checkbox labelled do pop-ups. Blocking pop-ups in toto would be pretty useless, because it would stop a large chunk of the Web from working properly.
Think about it. <a href="http://foo.bar/" target="_new">foo</a> is a pop-up, and none of these prefs prevent that from working, because then the link would break completely nothing at all would happen when you clicked on it. <a onclick="javascript:window.open(whatever)">foo& lt;/a> is a pop-up, and none of these checkboxes prevent that from working either, for the same reason. (In both cases it would be nice if you could get the link to open in the same window rather than opening in a new window, but we dont have the back end to allow that yet.)
What one of these checkboxes does let you do is stop windows from opening by themselves based on a timer, or when you navigate to or from a page. Thats the behavior that annoys people the most, since the new window is usually of no interest to them whatsoever. And whats the label for this checkbox? (Drum roll please ) Open windows by themselves.
If you have a better idea of what to label that checkbox, Id be glad to read it theres been a lot of suggestions so far, but theyve all been either too wordy, too obscure, or (as in your case) just plain wrong.
Hah. I wrote to Jakob Nielsen a year or so ago, asking if he was interested, and he didnt bother replying. I guess whining about sucky Web sites (or sucky mobile phones) is like shooting fish in a barrel, compared to coming up with Javascript prefs your mother would understand.
-- mpt
Current stats: 2 successful Slashdot submissions, 2 Slashdot comments.
Except for downloading attachments. This is a big one IMO since it appears to be a genuine cookie handling bug and not some quirk of hotmail.
Bug 105917. Target fix release, 0.9.9
I've been using nightly builds and home cvs builds of Mozilla on Linux for some time now. It's support for CSS and the W3C box model leads a great deal of people into believing that Mozilla has many bugs because IE5/6 renders there pages fine. They don't realise it's IE5/6 rendering it wrong because their code doesn't do what they mean it to do...
If there is one thing I'd like to see improved in the next release of IE it's CSS selector support. CSS Selectors level 3 is basically finished, Mozilla supports most level 2 selectors, and yet IE6 trails with very limited support. Yes, you can select an element that is within another element (descendant selectors) but IE6 lacks support for a huge array of other selectors such as child, sibling and selectors based on attribute value(s).
This selectors point may seem very trivial to web authors used to writing for IE because they merely give an element a class and write a new rule for it. But that bloats the HTML/XML significantly, and can give the programmer a headache, not forgetting the problems of handling inheritance propeties.
With CSS2 selectors, I can say, td[class ~= "body"] > p:first-child { font-weight: bolder; } and have the first paragraph child of a table cell who's class attribute contains a value "body" go bolder. I can't do that in IE6 as effectively.
C'mon Microsoft, you helped create the selectors standard, now let's see you implement it!
Oddly enough, Mozilla crashed and burned after I installed the 0.9.7 release (win32). It gave me an error when I first tried to launch it that "a device attached to the system is not functioning" and that there was a file missing "linked to export XPCOM.DLL."
So I installed Linux. Haha, no. I first searched the bug database and didn't find anything on either of the error messages. Uninstalled via Control Panel, which gave me another error, something about an uninstall log and the Registry. I said, screw it, and just deleted the c:\program files\mozilla.org folder. Wasn't ready to give up yet, so I went to mozilla.org and downloaded the latest nightly build.
Installed that and Mozilla has been working perfectly. It's fantastic, and my father-in-law, who was very fond of Netscape and has suffered the past year and a half with IE, absolutely loves it.
I'm not sure what the differences between the 0.9.7 release and the nightly build I downloaded are; I'm just happy I got the browser to work -- it's fantastic. If it's of any interest, when I was first downloading Mozilla, I used the 209kb net installer. It said it found CRC errors when it was verifying the files, but redownloaded them. Perhaps my problems stemmed from that... but the nightly is holding its own with IE right now (IMHO).
I tried looking for it in bugzilla but couldn't spot it - I suspect I'm probably searching for the wrong thing though. Maybe it's something wrong with my setup?
Apart from that, it's all coming along rather well and I use it as my main browser and mail client on my primary work machine. The only real thing left from my point of view is to trim down on the memory leakage (eg try switching between IMAP folders with the welcome page visible in the preview pane and watch Moz chew another 30-50k).
The strangest thing I noticed about the new Mozilla for the Mac is that it seems to be using some native widgets in the UI. Bring up Preferences and what ho, those are Macintosh buttons, check boxes, and radio buttons, not the clunky Mozilla ones. But look on a form page and you'll still see the boxy Mozilla controls.
Is there a partial adoption of native widgets in progress? Bug 112980 seems to imply so but details are scanty. The bug does not even have a description, only a title and comments.
If the Mozilla team has finally caught on to the importance of respecting platform UI standards, though, hats off to them.
Tim
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