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
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
> 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
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!
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.
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.
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
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."
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
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