Slashdot Mirror
mozilla.org Releases Mozilla 0.9.8
asa writes: "Today mozilla.org released the Mozilla 0.9.8 Milestone. New to this release are improved Address Book functionality, page setup(for printing), MNG/JNG support, native-style widgets on winXP and OS X, dynamic theme switching, improved BiDi support, speed, stability and footprint improvements, and much, much more. www.mozilla.org and www.mozillazine.org have the full scoop." The build I'm posting with (2002020305) is a little crashy, but most aspects are shaping up very nicely.
Come on!! Get to 1.0... this is taking forever!
Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
Wont let me upgrade past 0.9.6
it rocks!?
shouldnt that be something "moving-like-a-tortise-to-version-1.0"
I hope they fixed the annoying password manager dialog asking for the master password EVERY time a page with a stored password came up, AND when I press the page's Login button!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Mozilla 0.9.8 branched Tuesday 1/23, giving it more time to sit on a branch than most milestones get (I don't know if this was intentional). If you think you might report bugs, you should use a newer build, since 0.9.8 is effectively two weeks old. Also, 0.9.8 does not include a fix for a bug that caused porn sites to give 404 or 403 errors when users tried to open thumbnail links in separate windows.
Mozilla "nightly" builds always have the latest bug fixes and features, but they also have the latest regressions. For example, build 1/27 could not save files and some builds starting with the evening builds on 1/31 did not support cookies*. Builds after 1/31 use a new "wyciwyg" scheme to handle document.write(), leading to some problems that have not yet been ironed out.
I've been using a morning build from 1/31 for several days and it seems to be free of major regressions. Here are some of the 1/31 morning builds for various operating systems: Windows Mac MacOSX Linux.
* Don't get a broken build just to be free from cookies. You can turn off cookies in any build by selecting "disable cookies" in the security/privacy preferences.
So when is 1.0 going to come out? It's seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years... Eric
I am posting from it now. Unlike the current trunk builds mentioned in the story, the 0.9.8 branch doesn't seem crashy at all. Very quick and nice.
Mod this down if you will, but do we really need to know every tiny update to Mozilla? I mean, .01 is not much of an update. I am sure something is more newsworthy than this, it is sad that the slashdot editors have to post every tiny update to linux programs when ignoring lots of other newsworthy stuff.
About once I week I scan mozillazine's build comments and download the best of the latest nightlies. Helps me stay current to report new bugs, without risking too much. I recommend it for those that like bleeding edge, but still need to get Real Work (TM) done.
Of course, you can't have an announcement of Mozilla without a complaint about the slowness of Mozilla development, so here's something one up on that: a link to Joel on Software, so here it is.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
why god, why?
;-)
ok, seriously though, this browser has come a LONG WAY. i use it as my primary browser both at work and at home. i really think anyone who hasn't tried it out or tried it early on and stopped because it crashed too much should really try it out again. anyone who stopped because it was too slow might wanna wait till 1.0
Just kidding. Good job, guys!
Most secured sites lock me out with sockets errors.
When can I used Secured Servers again? What's up with RSA encrpytion?
It never fails. I just finished downloading and installing 0.9.7 yesterday :)
Sigh.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Posting this with IE 6.0. No crashes here, looks nice...
Yes, Mozilla rocks.
I have been using nightly downloads for a while now as my only browser. Every once in a while I'll get one that's unstable, but for the most part it is way stabler than Navigator ever was. Plus it has support for modern web standards and tabbed browsing.
The point releases are fun, but I really like the excitement of running the nighly builds.
Face it: Mozilla is an ok kind of buggy web browser.
Opera is freakin great! It is faster, more stable, and blocks popup ads. Also, for those that run Windows, unlike IE or Netscape, it does not support spyware and adware. It tests, it beats all other browsers in speed and stability. You can also get great skins with it! (^:
Opera is available for Linux/Solaris, BeOS, Symbian, Mac, QNX, and of course Windoze. Download it here
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
It's seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years
it seems like they've been in beta for 3-4 years because they have. and even now at 0.9.8 they are cramming in new features, breaking things in the process. and even now at 0.9.8 Mozilla is unstable ("crashy" as the Users would say) and definitely not ready for prime time.
Mozilla is a glaring example of why Open Sourcing a company project is no guarantee that anything good will come of it. mod me flamebait if you must, but i maintain that as long as OSS is not as featureful OR as stable as its propietary competition, no one, but NO ONE will use it.
When are these ass monkeys going to do one of the tiniest, simplest things that kept me from using Mozilla in the first place?
Highlight the link/element where the tab focus is (i.e. if I hit tab a bunch of times to navigate links on a page, show me where I'm at)...
The tabbing works, but there's no visual feedback like there was in Netscape 4.X and below (and is in IE)...
It's stubborn programmers who won't spend the 2 minutes it takes to implement something such as interface feedback that make me not want to use stuff like Mozilla...
Blah on Mozilla. And its little dog, too.
http://www.babysmasher.com
http://www.openingbands.com
I just grabbed 0.9.8, and already I've noticed one nice improvement - you can actually change sidebar tabs with less than a half an hour wait. :) It always annoyed me how, on the Windows boxes on campus, Mozilla could do little interface things like that much faster than in Linux.
:)
Everything in the GUI seems to be noticeably faster though, in 0.9.8. This alone makes it worth the upgrade.
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
This has improved alot since 0.9.7 however Mozilla's HTML parser is still way slower then IE.
However once the internal representation is built I can say it does render as fast as IE.
If they could only speed up the HTML parser Mozila would be perfect for me.
Internet Explorer - for OS X this is an excellent browser. It has many awesome features. A customizeable and cool look. Kudos to MS for making a great browsers. The major problem with it, is that it hangs for a long time whenever rendering a large page. For example, this slashdot story will cause IE to hang for ~30 seconds (on my 667MHz G4) after downloading and prior to displaying. Note that each IE window is frozen until after the hung one renders. This is unacceptable
OmniWeb - This browser seems light, fast, efficient, but why the heck does it keep crashing on my OS X.2 powerbook? Crashes appear to be caused at random and usually occur within 10 minutes of web browsing. Since this continues to happen, I haven't had a chance to try out the features of OmniWeb.
Opera - I was hoping that this would be as good on OS X as it is in Linux. The version seems to be a bit behind the Linux version and it lacks Mousewheel support and tabbed windows. Mousewheel support is neccessary to me and tabbed windows is a *very* nice feature.
Mozilla - This is my workhorse webbrowser. Although it is slower than the others and has too many features, IMHO, it doesn't hang like IE, doesn't crash like OmniWeb, and has tabbed windows/mousewheel support, unlike Opera). Still it is slow. I'm anxious to start using a galeon-ish OS X browser as soon as I hear about one. Mozilla wins by default.
Can anybody add anything to my list? I haven't heard of many other graphical OS X browsers. I figured that OS X would have plenty of great web browsers since the web designers tend to use it. Although Quicktime and Macromedia plug-ins are cool, they still don't seem as fast they do on my roommates P3. Especially under Mozilla. IE playes Quicktime movies fast, but only after it loads the pages.
Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
Mozilla .999999843 released!
Yet another wonderful Mozilla related site. We'll have a review up in the next day or two, so visit. :)
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
i use Mozilla when work on SourceForge, and right now (for daily use) im using Opera, the fact is as long as i saw on the link looks like many problems where solved.
;)
First of all the fast switch of themes is fixed again, so you dont need to reboot (zzz) mozilla everytime you feel like to dress it different
But one of the things i saw dont have others browsers is all the favicon stuff, man!, thats a simple small fast and real nice update, if anyone wants to use a custo ico just add a line to the html source, if not the browser wont search it, any other sysadmin like me who is tired of the stupid favicon.ico always on the top of your 404 file log?. I dont want that damn icon!
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
To save everyone some time in common questions and answers, there's a FAQ on Mozilla's spellchecker (or lack thereof).
However, there's a new development. As you may know, bug 56301 tracks the progress on the Mozilla spellchecker. And, for a while, progress had become stagnant. Then, David Einstein stepped up to the plate and started working on a spellchecker for Mozilla. His latest work is available at spellchecker.mozdev.org.
I feel that a spellchecker would bring much deserved respect to Mozilla, and I encourage you to lend a hand to David. Or, it would even help if you could vote for bug 56301 to show your support (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account to vote).Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Okay, maybe not.
I assume that the proprietary plugins, XML support and the odd XUL oddity are holding it back, but this is a friggin' great browser.
Still itching for when we can call it the IE killer. At this rate, though, it's totally possible that it'll be a superior browser at 1.0 than IE is in its sixth generation.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Whoohoo, we're back to where we were several months ago!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
... and then goes on to mention the 6 new bugs introduced with this.
Not meant as flamebait, but I think i'll wait for 1.0 all the same.
Blocks adware? It IS adware.
That is unless you pay for it, which makes it the only browser you actually have to pay for.
Mozilla is free (source+beer). That is why people like it.
The build hasn't made it to a lot of the mirrors yet. I checked about a half dozen before I went back to the main ftp server.
Fortunately, it is late at night, when nothing important usually happens.
;-)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I'm the only one in my office using Mozilla 0.9.7 mail. It seems every build of mozilla come close to most outlook express, except the address book maintenance.
Hopefully, I can replace all my colleages Outlook express mail after Mozilla go 1.0
Hey all you punks, don't /. mozilla.org yet!! I was downloading the file and my speed has decreased from 22k/s to 2k/s.... please please please don't /. it
For the love of god
Does anyone have a solution to this, or should I take this up with Macromedia? Whenever a page with flash attempts to load, it halts mozilla til the flash plugin can get a handle on the audio hardware, regardless of whether or not the plugin is actually going to play sound. I absolutely abhor flash, but the flash virus has spread so much that I can't use certain sites without it (and their admins refuse to present a flash-less page, or even understand that their programmers are using a non-standard method for their site design).
Michael
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
what. was that supposed to be a joke? not funny. good job?? it was a .01 upgrade. big fucking deal. what a freaking loser post.
I encourage all who experience this phenomenon to continuously download and install the latest versions of all software so that the next version will become immediately available. Please note that the slower the connection you use, the more likely you'll successfully push out new versions. Imagine how you could help in accellerating open source development! Keep the developers on their toes in their quest to keep your software obsolete!
Why bother.
When browsing slashdot, if you follow a link from far down in a long list of comments, when you follow the history back, your old scroll position will be remembered... No longer will it force a refresh and throw you back to the top of the thread.
Which version of OmniWeb are you running? I'm using 4.1sp36 on my iBook and very rarely does it crash on me. I'm going to take another look at this new Mozilla, but the thing that kills it for me is that the keyboard support sucks. If you have two windows or tabs open, switching between them using the keyboard doesn't take the focus with it, so you have to click the mouse somewhere in the pane before you can use the arrow keys to scroll. Little things like that make a big difference.
BTW, I agree with you about IE, it's pretty nice. The only things I don't like about it are the slow rendering of big tables that you mentioned, no popup-blocking, and the Carbon text doesn't look as good to me as the Cocoa text that OmniWeb uses (especially for serif fonts).
Anyway, get the latest OmniWeb and give it a spin. Be sure to clean out any junk in ~/Library/Application\ Support/OmniWeb/ first, corrupted history files have been known to cause problems.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
I just downloaded last night's build (20020204), and it seems noticeably faster than the previous version I was running (0.97). Haven't noticed any less stability with this version (yet). Good work guys. It's slowly getting there. I've been using it as my only browser for a number of months now, and it's getting less and less painful :) Actually, it's a pleasure to use, and would be my choice, even over ie for Linux, if there existed such a thing.
I ended with Netscape 4.x (which also performs quite poorly) but I'd love to run some lightweight version of Mozilla.
Any ideas? I suppose that as it's a free and open project that maybe someone has already thought about slower and older computers, it would be very nice.
(I've already tried Galeon, doesn't work for me)
Has the speed of mozilla increased much since 0.9.6? That's currently what I have and it isnt very expedient on a p166 with 64 MB ram, I'd like to get someones opinion before I took the time to download 0.9.8.
the 15 minutes i've spent browsing with this build has completely wiped any cynicism out of my mind. fuck i love this browser.
To get at the OmniWeb 4.1 prereleases, go to:
. sneakypeek/
http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/MacOSX/
and follow the instructions there.
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Using Mozilla Build 2002020208 to post this. Just gotta mention that the project is looking better and better by the day. Tabbed browsing is really one of the best features I've seen in a browser (at least on the Netscape or IE front--not sure what Opera or any other browsers have been up to). After suffering through Netscape 4.7, 6.0 (the newer releases are a lot better) and IE 5.5 at work, it's great to see that the Mozilla Builds are reaching an everyday usability level (I've found it be more stable that all of the aforementioned browsers)
For those who are complaining about the amount of time Mozilla is taking to reach 1.0.0, all I have to say is take a look at the original Netscape 6 release (gag).
On a side note, is anyone else planning to attend the Developer's Conference at CMU mentioned on the (mozilla.org) page? More info located here
--jwz, ex Netscape programmer.
Reference
Doesn't matter if it's 1.0. It'll just be another release.
I've been using it regularly since 0.95. I'm actually looking forward to: native widgets on XP/MacOS X; and they finally fixed the bug where where Mozilla/Communicator (since 4.5!) would remove downloaded helper documents when you quit the app.
$cat newmoz.sh
#!/bin/sh
cd
rm -rf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz mozilla;
wget -c -t 0 -T 40 ftp.mozilla.org//pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/mozil
tar xzf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz;
rm -rf mozilla/plugins/
ln -s
(I keep all my plugins in a seperate dir to make things easier.)
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Why do they put out RPMs but no DEBs? The ones that come with Woody are 0.9.5 I believe and are ancient compared to this. How about some updates guys? And no, I do not want to fuck around untarring it and installing it. That's what apt-get is supposed to be for!
New to this release is the fact that published APIs are now frozen. Mozilla has been really really annoying at changing their APIs, therefore breaking code from external developers because no backward compatibility and almost no turn around time was given from one release to another. Until 0.9.7 the Plugin API kept changing every time a dot build was made. Well, according to the cvs comments, not anymore. Developers will finally be able to release code which will work for more than 2 releases in a row? Great! This smells like Mozilla is going to be final pretty soon.
PPA, the girl next door.
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
I also think Opera is better for daily use than Mozilla, is blazing fast, is light, has great multiple windows support (in 6.0 you can even categorize your open windows, for example i have a in-task window with all the slashdot windows and another in-task window with MSNBC ones), and user/author mode (works great for old or half blind users).
Sigs are for morons... Wait a minute...
I *love* Mozilla: I love tabbed browsing, the beautiful rendering, popup control, and all the other goodies that come with it.
BUT I don't think I'll ever be able to use Mozilla as my primary browser. I tried multiple times to migrate to it, yet every single time my humble computer kindly let me know that it can't keep up.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I think Netscape is bloated as much as the next person, but at the same time I can't see why Mozilla is so slow and resource crazy either.
All in all, if Mozilla doesn't get *much* faster by 1.0, I won't be using it for a while.
---
galeon.
The build I use (1.0.2) hates https connections, so I have to fire up an [ancient] communicator to talk to my bank, but appart from that one caveat, galeon is fast, lean, tabbed (love it, thought I would hate it), and pretty.
Credit where due, galeon uses the mozilla rendering engine, so any working install of galeon gets you mozilla for free, but w/o all that outlookalike stuff.
And pretty themes!
Somewhere in the last half-dozen milestone releases, there were some critical bugs that were finally fixed. Some would get fixed and then seem to mysteriously reappear, but as a whole, the browser is really reaching solid stability.
Speed has improved, but still needs improvement, IMHO. Also, I still have to keep Netscape 4.7x around for a number of different sites and some Java support. (some of the "IE only" sites WILL work with NS 4.7x but not with Mozilla)
Overall, though...VERY good browser, and still improving significantly. I'll echo the sentiments of several others and say that we really don't need the entire feature set.
this might be a *little* offtopic, but it seems like with most browsers under linux have really crappy font support. is this a browser problem or a problem with your x configuration? Hopefully there can be a browser (maybe mozilla) that can render pages correctly and have quick loading times. Readable fonts would be good too.
I'm going to take another look at this new Mozilla, but the thing that kills it for me is that the keyboard support sucks. If you have two windows or tabs open, switching between them using the keyboard doesn't take the focus with it, so you have to click the mouse somewhere in the pane before you can use the arrow keys to scroll. Little things like that make a big difference.
I have this same problem in Windows, but pressing tab once brings focus back to the displayed tab. I'm wondering whether this was accidental or intentional -- but you oughta try it on OSX anyway.
Of course it's little things that keep me using OmniWeb 2.7.1b3... but that's because I think my NeXT would vomit if I tried to run Mozilla on it.
(Posting this with 0.9.8)... Loads a lot faster, although the last time I tried Mozilla (a few months ago) I had a 200mhz 64mb PC, now I have a 1.4ghz 512mb ram, so I can't really trust that. I noticed some minor rendering problems with the toolbar (arrows to mix/max the bars seem to get pixely).. It fails to load a few images on the main slashdot page (the corners for the table headers). Mozilla is using the most memory out of all the current running applications on my system (uses 4mb more than explorer, btw im on windowsxp). And I just noticed it is acting weird when typing in this box, if I press SPACE and im at the end of a line, it doesnt show the space/line break, not matter how many space chars I enter.
all those seem minor though, so it looks good so so far!
Now, I use mozilla as my regular browser, and have since M18 (before Netscape 6.0), but lets face it, it's still very much alpha-quality software. There are so many little annoyances and things that don't work, I find myself constantly making excuses to my co-workers. 0.9.7 is, IMO, pretty weak with constant crashes and freezes.
The problem, in my opinion, is lack of good leadership. What this project needs is a nearly complete feature freeze, only allowing things already in the UI to be added and any features (and there are a lot of them) still missing that exist in Netscape 4.7.
As an example, look at the recent dust-up with favicons. They were put in, caused regressions in the code that weren't fixed for weeks, and never really worked very well. Now, they are mostly turned off by default, but in the process wasted at least some effort that would have been placed elsewhere. All this for a feature, that as far as I can tell is mostly eye-candy with very little, if any useability benefits to the user.
Now in 0.9.8, we have the ability to get a mapquest map of people in your address book. Is this really the critical kind of feature needed for 1.0? Is this really something mozilla.org wants to start taking bug requests on at this point?
Another example. Tabbed browsing is cool, but there are bugs there too that make it look less than professional. Besides which, I'd give all that up to get a decent printout (shortly before 0.9.8 branched, several very old linux printing bugs were re-targeted for 1.1 or 1.2), a text edit widget that worked perfectly, or to be able to compose mail with an editor that works.
In positive news, it looks like a spell checker might actually be included in 0.9.9. Yet another example, the Mail/News people made things much faster for 0.9.7 but at the expense of introducing more bugs. Threading was broken even more, messages fail to show up. Mozilla has never been as good as 4.7 in the mail/news client department, so this is a major problem. In my brief look at the 0.9.8 pre-releases, it looks like it might be even buggier now than it was in 0.9.7. Another step down, and it might become unuseable.
So, back to management, the drivers should reject any patch that adds a new feature as they push towards mozilla 1.0. Or encourage people to split off an unstable, development branch for feature addition. Maybe they agree with me about a lack of good management since they've brought on Peter Bojanic of OEOne to do project management. Of course, if you look at the mozilla 1.0 manifesto, they've been saying the right words for a long time now:
But, they've pretty much ignored this. Let's hope this time its better and they really mean it.
Before I finish, I'll address the two arguments people are most likely to make against my complaint:
1. The majority, maybe the vast majority, of work on mozilla is still funded by Netscape and to a lesser extent other companies (RedHat, IBM, Sun). This should influence what bugs get fixed. Of course, this can't stop patches with lots of regressions from getting in if mozilla.org has as much autonomy as they say.
2. True, perhaps, but if the base has problems, its impossible or a waste of effort for several companies to run around fixing the same bugs. And then there are the linux distributors who will distribute mozilla as an end-user product.
So, I'm no longer as hopeful about mozilla's prospects as I once was. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm going to be waiting and trying mozilla 0.9.8 for myself before I install it for people on our systems.
Themes.org's mozilla section is practically empty. Mozillazine doesn't have a trace.
Did I not get the memo?
I've been using Mozilla 9.x for some time now, on and off, and I can tell you it's extremely unstable. It crashes - all the time -. However, I running Windows.
Which brings me to my next point. "Use Mozilla! Internet Exploror is made by Micro$oft! 0p3n s0urc3 is l337." Um, no. I'd like to just remind everyone that even though a product may be made by an evil corporation, it can still be good. You needn't support crappier products just on principle.
This is intended as a flame/troll.
PayPal $$ if you sign up for free offers (eBay, cred cards, e
As an example, look at the recent dust-up with favicons. They were put in, caused regressions in the code that weren't fixed for weeks, and never really worked very well. Now, they are mostly turned off by default, but in the process wasted at least some effort that would have been placed elsewhere. All this for a feature, that as far as I can tell is mostly eye-candy with very little, if any useability benefits to the user.
I think the favicon in the url is aesthetically pleasing only, but the favicons in tabs becomes really usefull when you have lots of the open. Almost to the point where I can't live without them.
And with favicons in the personal toolbar, you can rename your bookmarks to nothing, and you can cram about 30 or so of your favorite sites on one toolbar, each with their own icon. It makes my browsing easier, and it looks damn cool.
Truly small and fast enough for 133 with 32 megs
Think Mozilla's bloated? check out how much space you can save by wiping out IE 6. ...
There's a tiny and FREE FREE utility called the IEradicator can wipe out internet explorer from Win98/NT and 2000 if you run pre-SP2
Use Mozilla as your only browser (or, like me, use Opera too) if you like.
check out http://www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html
You've missed out on iCab, the German-engineered lightweight browser for Mac OS and Mac OS X. It's officially still in beta, but it's quite stable. It supports the usual assortment of standards, Netscape plug-ins, and a nice array of extra features such as image filtering and per-site JavaScript restriction.
I had that problem, too, but it turned out I had merely neglected to install the Mozilla PSM stuff. Installing that fixed all my HTTPS problems under Galeon.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
iCab is a browser that isn't on your list. You might want to give it a try. I prefer OmniWeb -- it's a shame you're having trouble getting it to work, because it really takes the MacOSX UI to heart. Try the latest nightly build (Omni calls them sneakypeaks). It might help.
I'm loving mozilla more and more with each milestone release... but I'm beginning to wonder if some of the promised performance tweaks will make it into 1.0...
On all of my machines (Linux/x86, Solaris/SPARC, and IRIX/MIPS) Mozilla seems to be significantly more sluggish than Communicator 4.79 in all areas, with the exception of actual rendering. I realize there are alternative GUIs to the gekko engine, but it would be nice to have one end-all app and engine bundle.
Any word on future (significant) speedups planned for 0.99 and 1.00?
wow now this is going to be competition for internet exploiter
Thats all I want. STABILITY.
Speed is not a big deal to me.
I hope they freeze code and just work on the crash bugs. And if they have time optimize for speed.
mozilla has all the features it needs at this point.
I'm anxious to start using a galeon-ish OS X browser as soon as I hear about one.
It appears that one is just on its way -- Chimera
I'm still waiting for CTRL+Enter.
Type yahoo in IE then hit CTRL+Enter and you will understand. Saves a lot of typing.
Hammer of Truth
NO KIDDING
Where is my Netscape 5?
Oh, by the the way where is IE 6.0 for the Mac????
Okay, better make this good, Where is WWW for Mac OS X?
Hmm, every time I try to run the installer, I get gtk_progress_set_percentage: assertion 'percentage>=0 && percentage<=1.0' failed, followed by a segfault. Wonderful, it just deleted my working Mozilla install. I'm posting this from *Lynx*.
I've tried lots of variations of options, nothing can convince it to install. Guess I have to do it the old-fashioned way...
I generally do all my dev stuff in linux, and only boot windows to play counter-strike.
To be able to use my hotmail.com account to download small files and attachments onto my home machine, I need to use Opera in linux, because msn always fucks up downloads for mozilla. I think it has something to do with operal impersonating IE5.
Problem with Opera is that it has issues understanding complex (i.e. nested table) page structures and dosn't render them the same as moz or IE. At least thats what i experienced from the linux adware version.
So I use mozilla all the time for my website development in linux, use opera to check some complex page structures and get hotmail attachments, and use IE6 to make sure stuff i design for viewing in mozilla, looks good in IE.
Geez, I wish it didn't take so long between the release of the new version and the .deb package update.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
the instant it has smime support in email I'll be there. I'm stuck using OE on windows or netscape 4.77 on linux for its s/mime support. mozzilla is so close its not even funny.
Am I the only person who looks at ads after clicking a link to another page? If a site screws with IE's back button, they get about 50% fewer clicks from me. Also, if I scroll down before leaving the page with the ad (and then hit Back), I won't see the double-counted ad because it is still scrolled off the screen.
Advertisers should penalize sites that use no-cache to increase ad impression counts. It slows down browsing, doesn't increase the total nubmer of times a user sees ads, and annoys users who are actually interested in the ads. And, now, the double-counting effect is harder for advertisers to account for because some browsers (eg Mozilla) correctly ignore no-cache for the Back button in most situations.
The shareholder is always right.
YYMV, but going from .9.7 -> .9.8, my startup times have gone from in the neighborhood of 10-15 seconds to 3-5 seconds. Also Flash seems to work without problems for the first time. I used to have strange audio problems, annoying clicking sounds. Not sure if this improvement is due to improvements in mozilla or in the emu10k1 driver though, either way I'm very happy with it.
:).
:P For now I'm quite content though.
The java plugin install did crash, but java works now, so it must have gotten far enough
Anyway, seems like a worthy upgrade. Once the spellchecker is up to snuff, I can't think of anything mozilla will be missing. Java/Flash/Real all work. Browser and Mail are are fast and stable and getting better all the time. I'll have to wait a bit to see how much the footprint has improved. This is one area that could stand to see some more work. It has come down about 40meg in the last couple releases, but 50 Meg is still a lot.
Well, maybe after a couple week use I'll find something really bad to say about it
Where can you get any new skins for mozilla? If I use [View->Apply Theme->Get New Themes] I only get 2 or 3 themes listed. Is that all that is available? Should we all start making some great mozilla skins? :)
And how are the projects for making skin creation a bit easier coming along?
... the MNG and JNG support.
MNG seems more complete and it certinaly nicer than animated GIFs for quality.
http://www.libmng.com/MNGsuite/
The shareholder is always right.
;-)
Your sig is just too funny in light of recent events surrounding everyone's favorite favorite corporate bankruptcy. Sorry, just couldn't resist that one.
.-.--
Am I the only one who's got the installer dumping core on them?
In today's news:
Mozilla come out with their 1.0 browser.
In other news:
Hell froze over, pigs are flying, and the south rose again.
I'm a sysadmin (yes, Windows :P ) and I've actually started rolling out Mozilla with new workstations instead of our standard Netscape 4.7x (I will never encourage our users to use I.E. for political and security reasons). I'm finding that Netscape 4.x is becoming a hassle to many users as they're often finding sites that it can no longer handle. Rather than drift into I.E., I'm trying to give them a solid alternative.
I've been impressed by the reception so far... only one user has rejected it wholesale, but the first question after I loaded on Netscape for him was, "Now how do I turn off pop-up ads in this one?". That seems to be the most-loved feature so far, as many websites now have pop-up ads (I wouldn't know, as I turned them off at 0.9.4!).
IMHO Netscape has made a very bad name for itself by releasing 6.x too early from buggy Mozilla builds, and loading them up with advertising and AOL stuff to boot. I've found that telling clients that Mozilla is a new browser based on Netscape is a good way to go.
I've actually found that the few problems users have had have been minor, and the mozilla bug tracking site almost always has workarounds for those show-stopper bugs...
Anyhow, just something to think about; this is a nice foothold that open source software can make in your office workplace. It's kind of the Apache of desktop software I suppose...
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
They've changed a few things in their 4.1 release, but for the most part, all of the sites that didn't work in 4.0.x are still broken.
I'm hoping some of the form errors I see when posting to slashdot have been done away with. I already see two which spring instantly to mind have been fixed in this 0.9.8 release. Too bad my fiancee is too scared of Linux still (but I'm working on her ;) ) to use Mozilla on it! :-p
"The build I'm posting with (2002020305) is a little crashy, but most aspects are shaping up very nicely"
If only Microsoft was as open an honest about such things on windowsupdate.com...
"This Version of Internet Exploder (6.0) is extremely buggy, has many features you won't like, and makes browsing the internet feel more like browsing the 2002 Toys R Us Christmas Catalog"
"This version of Windows (aka MacOS knockoff) is called WindowsXP. It stands for eXtremely Pissed off, which you'll be when you see that most of your software no longer works, but the boys in marketing thought up something about an experience or something."
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I don't mean this in a rude way, but if you're really concerned about how bad Mozilla is, get yourself a bugzilla account and try helping out a little! Just using Mozilla and posting your comments or problems to the appropriate bug page can help out a lot, and who knows, you might even find the answer to your question!
:)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
It's no use for us to stand around leaning on our shovels cursing that the hole isn't being dug fast enough.
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
Man I'm glad these functions got their loving. Sex-starved team members could be catastrophic this close to the 1.0 release...
Mozilla is a bit slow on OS X. But, Mozilla on Linux on my G4 Powerbook is much faster than IE on OS X on the same Powerbook.
FWIW mapquest is owned by AOL. I certainly haven't tracked the address book features, but it really sounds like AOL wanted that particular featurette in there, just cuz. I don't begrudge them a doodad or two like that seeing as how they are responsible for the largest chunk of funding on the project.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I do like the Aqua interface. Modern was nice, but it doesn't have the Aqua look. It looks good.
Some problems persist with the address book and saving images and docuaments in e-mail, but over all, it is fine.
photosMy Photostream
flashhack.c
I have a script ~/bin/mozilla that I use to run mozilla which has:
#!/bin/sh
export LD_PRELOAD=/whereever/it/is/flashhack.so
/usr/local/bin/mozilla $@
Compiling instructions are in the file.
It just makes sure to do a nonblocking open if you open the file /dev/dsp
Totally hacky, I take no resposibilty for any nasty side effects.
The printf ("foo!\n") is there purly for aesthetic reasons.:)
PM Dawn - Set Adrift on a Memory Bliss The camera pans the cocktail glass, behind a blind of plastic plants; I found the lady with the fat diamond ring. then you know I can't remember a damn thing. I think it's one of those de ja vu things, or a dream that's tryin' to tell me something. Or will I ever stop thinkin' about it. I don't know, I doubt it. Subterranean by design, I wonder what I would find if I met you, let my eyes caress you, until I meet the thought of Missess Princess Who? Often wonder what makes her work. I guess I'll leave that question to the experts, assuming that there are some out there. they're probably alone, solitaire. I can remember when I caught up with a pastime intimate friend. She said, "Bet you're probably gonna say I look lovely, but you probably don't think nothin' of me." She was right, though, I can't lie. She's just one of those corners in my mind, and I just put her right back with the rest. That's the way it goes, I guess. Baby you send me Set adrift on memory bliss of you Careless whisper from a careless man, a neutron dance for a neutron fan; marionette strings are dangerous things, I thought of all the trouble they bring. An eye for an eye, a spy for a spy, rubber bands expand in a frustrating sigh. Tell me that she's not dreaming. She's got an ace in the hole, it doesn't have meaning. Reality used to be a friend of mine, 'cause complete control, I don't take too kind. Christina Applegate, you gotta put me on. Guess who's piece of the cake was Jacc Bond She broke her wishbone and wished for a sign. I told her whispers in my heart were fine. what did she think she could do? I feel for her, I really do. And I stared at the ring finger on her hand, I wanted her to be a big PM Dawn fan, but I had to put her right back with the rest. That's the way it goes, I guess. Baby you send me... Set adrift on memory bliss of you
Hope this continues!
today is spelling optional day.
Does anyone ever test these things on something other than a beige box? Downloaded the disk image, started it up and no banana. If you're not going to test the 'release' on OS X, then here's a hint: Don't put a link to it on your site. It looks bad. Makes you look like a bunch of slackers. People who use Macs are quite used to not being supported by the latest software anyway, so not having the OS X port until someone actually runs it is much better than having a broken one.
As for OS X browsers, I use Netscape 6.2 and OmniWeb 4.1 beta 1 (v332). The 4.1 OmniWeb is a vast improvement over the previous version and is my prefered browser. There are still problems with JS-heavy sites, but it is generally OK, and although it does crash, nothing compared to Mozilla. Netscape 6.2 is the standby more standards-compliant browser, but it makes pages look decidedly crappier than OmniWeb. This version is completely dis-AOL-ified. I don't know if this is b/c of 6.2 or OS X. Oh yeah, MSIE. I've never used it regularly - only when testing my web apps. Incidentally, I'm always spending the most time working around MSIE's strange behavior even though they work on like 5 different browsers perfectly.
I just( like 3 hours ago) downloaded version 0.9.7 and installed it and was impressed greatly, I was using 0.9.6. I have very few crashes with 0.9.6, and none yet with 0.9.7, but I guess thats not to amazing given the three hours its been running. I guess its just my luck this day ;->
In fact, XUL would be a very good improvement for Glade/XML - if only GNOME's people would not so fail in love to M$.Net
"I shall explain this by waving my hands about in an appropriate manner." -- Cambridge University Math Dept.
its pretty cool that hey broke cookies on my birthday!
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
I'm sorry but Mozilla 0.9.7 under Win32 renders pages FASTER and IS more stable than IE 6.0.
irony_nazi wrote:
> Can anybody add anything to my list? I haven't heard of many other
> graphical OS X browsers. I figured that OS X would have plenty of
> great web browsers since the web designers tend to use it.
There's iCab. It is a Mac only browser (has an OS X native version), kind of shareware ($29 once it is released) that is currently under developement and nearing its first release. http://www.icab.de/info.html lists some of the features. It seems to work fine at Amazon and other eCommerce sites. It's a champ at stopping pop ups, pop unders, and other advertising nasties. It has a kiosk mode, the ability to read (aloud with voice synthesis) web pages to you, and can check web sites for errors. I used to love its printing capabilities because I could make it print pages the way I wanted them printed. Now it mostly just crashes instead of printing. Still, it is a pretty good browser, considering it is about where Mozilla is (pre-first release), only it is based on all new code, not on a browser that has been released before.
Please make sure that if you get iCab, you get Preview 2.7.1 or later. Preview 2.7 has a nasty habbit of chowing down on your bookmarks (and hiding them in other folders deeper in the tree). Preview 2.7.1 doesn't seem to have that problem.
BTW, is Mozilla fully OS X native (ie. Carbon or Cocoa), or are they just displaying an aquafied look in Classic?
OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.
And then maybe we could all stop saying stuff like "Mozilla rocks! I mean it isn't as fast as *such and such browser* but we'll get there eventually". I know I'm being impatient by saying I want it to be fast now! But is it so much to ask that they stop adding new features already and just concentrate on making it completely useable.. no I mean REALLY useable!
The 'y'-down thing only works if you've typed it before ;-)
(to put it another way, on my first-gen Pentium, no matter what version of mozilla I use, it'll take all day to load slashdot)
Hey Mr. Troll - wassup?
I'm running windows for various reasons I can't do anything about - but I always go with Mozilla. There are just too many reasons to name them all - but tabbed browsing and the little things (like middle-clicking...) mean that I like it better than IE. everytime I'm forced to use IE i groan cuz i can't open stuff up with one click. And I love the look of mozilla...there's something clean and good about it. Just MHO, but I don't notice Moz crashes and love its features.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Does Mozilla work on OpenBSD yet? I think the last version which didn't core dump was 0.9.2 or something...
I forgot to mention that those three necessary DLL's are left intact by the script; however, that information is made clear upon reading the documentation that accompanies it.
Peace out dude
As for OmniWeb, is is a little bit crashy. If you're using the 4.1 beta, as I am, then this is to be expected. However, I haven't had anywhere near the severe crashes that you report, and I use it as my primary web browser. The only real complaint I have about OmniWeb at this moment is that CSS support is still quite dodgy, and pages that use a lot of CSS rarely render correctly. Oh, and then there are websites that run a browser check on every damned page, but the Compatibility panel has helped iron out most of those.
Ahem, I just downloaded the OS X build of 0.9.8 an hour ago, and it hasn't crashed yet on my TiBook. It's a huge improvement over 0.9.7 in fact, at least in the user interface department (all Aqua widgets). What do you mean, "no banana?" Were you expecting a banana of some sort?
...on April 4th?!?
Mozilla suffers from excessive featurism. For example, putting in "themes", let alone dynamic theme switching, before achieving stability is truly lame. Mozilla should have been at 1.0 years ago, but with a smaller feature set.
And the thing is so slow. Huge performance degradation since Netscape 4. There are sometimes noticeable waits for pop-up menus, opening a blank page can be sluggish, and you can watch the windows close one by one on exit. This on a 1.3GHz machine with half a gig of RAM.
just to let u know, the first independent troll investigation is down to 350 mods!!!!! it used to be 800+!!!!! they did something
Woohoo! I can assure you all with perfect confidence that they will reach 1.0 some four years from now and the the program will be 4 times as large.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
Runs nice and smooooth. I'd say fix the "Get All Mail" an viola!
Get your Unix fortune now!
That is quite wild. It looks like the only nasty side effects would be to mozilla, as long as you're careful and don't export that LD_PRELOAD in a shell and then run some apps the resolve to this version of "open", which shouldn't be fatal, unless they're using the audio device and blah, blah... I'll take my chances, thanks :)
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
First install Moz 0.9.8, then gpg (or pgp) and generate keys. Then install enigmail from http://enigmail.mozdev.org/download.html . After some minor tinkering (mostly just trying to understand how it works) I figured it out.
This is what I did:
First I sent an email to myself with a signature attached (can be done automatically)
Then I fetched that email with Mozilla Email, which picked up the signature automatically, and didn't even display it (it looked like a plain vanilla email without a signature)
Then I sent a new email to myself, but this time Mozilla automatically encrypted it, since by then it knew the key to use for that address!
So, it all becomes pretty much transparent encryption.
Way cool!
Right. That's the sign of good software. Install a new version every night. Sure.
And I thought MS got bashed for having to release too many patches...
I'm a big fan of: download the software. Use the software. If I have to update it every damn day, I'm not interested. I really have other things to do than to download and install software constantly.
I mean the part:
Cards with addresses in the USA have a new Get Map button in the card preview pane which creates a map for that address at mapquest.com
Well, i'm not shure if i'm extremly lucky, but mapquest is doing just fine with any european address i can come up with!
Cool new stuff in Mozilla 0.9.8:
Fast, stable and smooth looking (with modern skin)
Disable popups, and other specific javascript annoyances. Great for Porn-surfing!
Improved bookmarks (icons and drag/drop)
BannerBlinds (plugin from mozdev.org) frmoves ALL unwanted ad-banners
Tabbed browsing (well, not new in this realease, but still)
The memoryimage of Mozilla is about 23 MB, which is nothing these days with cheap memory. I've not had a single crash in 2002. Keep up the good work Mozilla developers!
When, exactly, are Mozilla planning on making their application feel and work like every other app on every OS ever?
Little things like pressing return in the mail wizard should advance to the page. If someone can find me another wizard that doesn't do this, I'll be amazed.
Little UI things like buttons in web pages just don't feel right - the focus dots are drawn a few pixels out, and the buttons don't depress correctly (compared to Windows widgets).
Aren't these things to address before making the themes switch without restarting the browser...?
I have to say I am very impressed - I have been meaning to try it, never getting around to it - then saying "Well, maybe at 1.0". But, I kept hearing and reading good things about it, and so I decided, after seeing how simple the install was, to go ahead and give it a shot.
I love it - I suppose it will "compete" with my Netscape install now. I think I might install it on my Winders box at work (yeah, it sucks).
Wow - a new set of fun!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Day by day I struggle to maintain not only my strength but also my sanity. It's all a blur. I have no energy to write. I don't know what's right or wrong anymore. The morale of the men is low, a civil war in the platoon. Half the men with Elias, half with Barnes. There's a lot of suspicion and hate. I can't believe we're fighting each other, when we should be fighting them.
-Mighty-Troll
>Doesn't matter if it's 1.0. It'll just be another release.
That is a common mistake. However, lots of people are waiting for 1.0:
- End users who just want something stable. A 1.0 version label is a good indication that at least developers trust it to be stable and usable. And yes I know it has been usable pretty much since the 0.7x versions.
- 3rd party component developers/ plugin developers. They need stable APIs -> 1.0 will be a stable API.
- Gecko based browser developers who have been faced with a moving target for the past few years.
- The mozilla people. They've been criticized a lot for feature creep and not delivering a product. A 1.0 release will end that and allow them to focus on new features rather than producing a 1.0.
That in short is why a 1.0 is so important.
Jilles
MozillaZine is the most boring thing I have ever read.
Conspiracy theories are fun but remember that they use a database which values speed over getting correct answers. I wouldn't really be surprised if large chunks just kind of fell out on a regular basis. The server certainly seems to crash often enough for it to happen.
geez, there's not pleasing some folks
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 is faster. A lot faster. Just check it out. Open 50 browser windows quick on both of the browsers. Switch between them. Try to save a lot of documents fast. IE just simply rocks Mozilla on speed.
I know exactly what you mean. Most people have 10-15 sites that they visit, and thats it. Me included. The icons are great and really make my 'style' of browsing a bit easier.
Thats also my biggest grief with IE 6.0, it's favorites icons bar is so damn buggy. Half the time the status bar in the bottum disapears, and I keep having to re-turn it on, and the links bar will never stay open, ends up stuffing them by default into a little links dropdown next to the URL bar which is only visible from a pull down. *ugg*.
On OSX IE , it's not quite so bad.. but not wonderful.
It's little things like that can make the browsing experience better. I hope that the Moz team can continue to innovate new ways to make my navigation experience better and more efficient.
These are two addons which improve Mozilla a lot: abar.mozdev.org/ -> chose User Agent string bannerblind.mozdev.org/ -> kill add banners enigmail.mozdev.org/ -> add PGP support. Not all of them are already perfect, but I have now ecerything I need.
Who still uses Navigator 4.08 to browse? Call me old school, but I don't like lots of features in my browser, just something that won't crash too often and is not named *explorer. Oh, yeah I still use pine for mail too. Seriously, I'll never get a virus that way!
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
I'm using Mozilla on Mac OS X 10.1 on an iMac 400mhz,
and it's doing great. It's admittedly slower than IE, but not by much. OmniWeb takes a ridiculously long time to load. Opera 5 loads VERY fast, and browses pretty well, but I miss the tabbed windows from 6.0 on the Windows.
However, Mozilla feels quite a bit speedier on OS X than on my "faster" (500mhz) Windows system, and a little slower than my fast (633mhz) Linux system. So I don't really see that much of a speed problem compared to other systems.
I disagree. Mozilla has been out in "beta" for so long that reaching 1.0 won't matter any more. And if it reaches 1.0, there will be those who say "I ain't gonna run a .0 release and will await the next version." Netscape used to be synomous with Internet time where versions (1.x, 2.x, etc) rolled out very quickly; it's ironic how Mozilla has rolled revisions more often than versions.
Once Mozilla reaches 1.0, what will be next? That's right, 2.0. Stuff that didn't make it into 1.0 will be lumped into 1.x/2.0. Developers will wait for these features, and we're back where we are.
My guess is that Ximian didn't want to upgrade cause Mozilla 0.9.7 had some serious bugs, like big
problems with certain forms.
Now that 0.9.8 is out, and if it works well my guess is that they let you upgrade to it.
RFH: Scrolling Causes Crash
9 22
NOTE: Moderation for this Post Sacrificed to Post this important request!
Disclaimer:
I'm not a Mozilla developer, but a loyal user that knows how to use DDD. I just don't have the time to dig in. So if you're going to flame because of not fixing it myself, stop reading right now...
History:
In pre 0.9.7 there was a bug that caused a crash of Mozilla. However, it appears to be fixed in 0.9.7. However, just a few nightly builds later the crash was reintroduced into the system. It has been crashing in 0.9.7+.
This problem occurs when dealing with any lists in Mozilla. Like TO/CC Lists, Filters lists, etc. After creating a list that scrolls off the screen, it causes a memory leak that will lead to a crash of the program.
It has become such a problem, that dozens of duplicate bugs have been tacked on to the end of the bug.
Request:
It is my hope that this bug is fixed as it is the bane to all my use of Mozilla. I fill in people I want to Mail to and it nukes the program. I create a complex filter and it nukes the program.
I am sure that Eric Vaughan will get to it some time, but this is an RFH to those that this crash bothers. Please Vote for the bug below! This, according to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votehelp.html will enable the priority to be edged up on an issue.
I consider this crash to be a show stopper. However, if the issue Works for You, DO NOT VOTE FOR IT. Just if it doesn't...
Link:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108
Thanks for your help! And may the Gods bless you for your vote!
I like your enthusiasm, but making a quality piece of software takes time. There are many things on the list that developers want to accomplish before version 1.0, and features other people want to see. This is a big release for developers and for people involved in the project not only because its one dot zero, but because it has taken a lot of work to get here. So, its not just another release for us, even though it might seem like that to others. We, people who work on the Mozilla project - volunteers and staff, are hoping we can make it shine above all the rest of the releases.
The question is, do you want it to be a great release, or just some ordinary release? From your statement, it seems you want it to be special. If so, then why try to pressure us into releasing it too early? I realize you were joking, but there is a lot of pressure coming to freeze parts the code.
If we freeze too early, then people might not be happy with the way the code we freeze is laid out. If we freeze too late, we might anger a lot of people and also slow down development also because code changes too often. There has to be a balance that makes most people happy.
A lot of things are going on before the release of 1.0 including: increased modularization of the code, UI changes, functionality additions, build system enhancements, cleaning of the code, testing, feature additions, performance tuning, XUL/XPCOM etc documentation, stability improvements, and legal issues.
Some people want it to come out on time. Others want it held back until they are happy with it (including I). Some people have long lists of things they want finished and have to finish. Therefore, it is unrealistic to give any estimates on arrival time. All I can say is that we are going to try our best.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
I haven't upgraded yet, but one of the reasons I prefer Konqueror is that on my machine, Konqueror's font rendering looks much better than Mozilla's. Firstly, the fonts get antialiased very well in Konqueror. My installation of Mozilla doesn't seem to do antialiasing.
Secondly, and more importantly, Mozilla seems to have a terrible habit of replacing many of my truetype fonts with Adobe Helvetica, and of substituting characters from a different font when it thinks it can't find the right glyph in the selected font. I threw together a test page once that was supposed to display a line of text in each of all the truetype fonts installed on my system. Konqueror, while not perfect, had little difficulty. Mozilla rendered nearly half of them as Helvetica.
Is this just me, or have others experienced this problem?
Not so. Netscape pays people to write the features and fix bugs which are needed for a 1.0 release.
Only the external contributors could be said to be "scratching an itch".
The following bug fixes make it quite difficult to pitch Mozilla to other developers View source page bug Cookie Confirmation dialog should show all fields
This script nicely automates having an always-fresh testing build for me, while also letting me have a system-wide "safe" copy :)
Don't know why I didn't think of it myself.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I also know not everyone agrees with me. But, for whatever it's worth, I gave up on Mozilla along time ago. Why? Featuritis. God, no offense, but on this issue you guys are worse than MS. Every release has more and more features that I don't want or need, and takes the inevitable hit from that on speed and reliability and footprint.
I'll be happy to give it another try when I find out that you have a usable configure script that will let me simply compile all that stuff out (I've heard rumblings about that possibility on and off,) but I'm not holding my breath. You could throw at least half the code right out the door and I, and many others I know, wouldn't miss it at all. At the same time, the few features I do want never seem to be a priority.
For now I'm using Opera, and except for being closed source, I really like it. Fairly small footprint, very fast, the few features I want (like intelligent cookie handling) are pretty much there. Unlike Mozilla, it doesn't make my PII/128MBram system perform like a 486.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I haven't tried Mozilla for some months, so this information could be out of date - but I doubt it, it's been this way from when I first used Netscape up until the last Mozilla build I used, maybe 6 months ago.
Disabling cookies causes the browser to refuse them. This will break many websites, unfortunately. However, there is a little trick that avoids that problem, and still prevents cookie data from ever being saved. Your browser will still accept and return them, satisfying those pushy websites, but will never actually save them, so they all get erased whenever you close the browser, in effect. Well, actually they never even get written.
Netscape/Mozilla stores cookies in a file named cookies.txt, in plain text format. (I wish opera did that, why they have to store them in some wierdo formatted file I don't know, but I digress.) If you simply make that file a link to /dev/null (in *nix) or delete it and make a directory with the name cookies.txt in the same place (on dos systems, this is a minor hack to overcome the deficiency of not having a /dev/null) then everything works fine, except that the cookies never get saved. Since a copy is kept in memory as long as the session lasts, websites get what they want, but as soon as you close the browser, it's all gone, so you get what you want too.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I'm posting this on my freshly downloaded 0.9.8. This thing is blazing. The rendering is quick, and the rest of the GUI appears to be faster as well. Try it out!
On a side note: One of my coworkers has converted to the way of the mozilla after watching me use the tabbed interface on a web application. That alone was worth it for him.
Stop the brainwash
I know the mozilla people strive to make their web browser standards compliant. So, I Wonder if they will have a LSB rpm released for 0.9.8. If not, which milestone will they start with (if at all)? This would be very good for the promotion of standards in general if this could possibly happen. P.S. Good work Mozilla, 0.9.8 is excellent! it keeps getting better all the time.
$ telnet slashdot.org 80
Trying 64.28.67.150...
Connected to slashdot.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / http/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:31:19 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a
SLASH_LOG_DATA: shtml
X-Powered-By: Slash 2.003000
X-Bender: My life, and by extension everyone else's, is meaningless.
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
...
Connection closed by foreign host.
$
Now, *that*'s a REAL web browser.
The rendering is left to the surfer's imagination!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
ispell -l | fmt
Gahhh this is the crap that really turns me off from Mozilla. It seems like the project is dead set on reinventing everything. What is the point of writing a spellchecker when there are several very good ones already available, and open source even so if you need to you can tweak as needed to get them to work with your program properly? Just pipe the text to ispell (or any similar already existing program) in the background and all you have to write is a simple parser to handle the results.
While I'm on the subject, why write an email client? There are plenty of great email clients out there, all the browser needs to know is what program to invoke to handle mailto links. Why write an entire widget library just to make pretty buttons? So you can turn around and add "native-style widgets on winXP and OS X" - wow, you can get mozilla to look like it belongs on the box it's running, at a significant performance hit, and it took how many man hours of coding to do that? I'm sorry, I just don't understand why anyone would spend all this time on duplicating so much work unecessarily. It would seem to me that your time would be better spent actually writing a browser instead of, it appears, spending most of the coding time on anything and everything but the browser.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
1) Mozilla has only been development for a couple years, and for a project of this scale, that is an incredibly short amount of time to turn out something as [generally] stable and featureful as Mozilla is now.
2) Release Early, Release Often.
Cool :-) Have you reported this to the mozilla people ?
So true. Maybe they should just take a look at Konqueror, apparently the only web browser out there that produces a perfect printout. With every new Mozilla build I first try to print the /. page to see if anything has improved (only konq does it perfectly). And with every new Mozilla build I've been disappointed... this is not meant as a flame, I use Moz almost exclusively and I'm very happy with it, but can it be that hard to render the same html properly to PostScript?
The following is provided for you're amusement - I wouldn't get too hung up over it.
;-)
Release dates of previous versions:
Mozilla 0.6 - Completed December 6, 2000
Mozilla 0.7 - Completed January 9, 2001
Mozilla 0.8 - Completed February 14, 2001
Mozilla 0.8.1 - Completed March 26, 2001
Mozilla 0.9 - Completed May 7, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.1 - Completed June 7, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.2 - Completed June 28, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.3 - Completed August 2, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.4 - Completed September 14, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.5 - Completed October 12, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.6 - Completed November 20, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.7 - Completed December 21, 2001
Mozilla 0.9.8 - Completed February 4, 2002
I took the release dates of Mozilla and made a list
of version numbers in number form, and months where
the length of each month is averaged to 30 days.
Mth Ver
0.2 0.6
1.3 0.7
2.5 0.8
3.9 0.81
5.2 0.9
6.2 0.91
6.9 0.92
8.2 0.93
8.5 0.94
10.5 0.95
11.6 0.96
12.8 0.97
14.1 0.98
I graphed it and got what looks to be almost a logarithmic
curve (besides the large dip around month 4) with an asymptote
around 1.0 - Available at:
Graph Here
I'll try to remember not to get rid of this image or move it.
What does this graph mean about the release date of Mozilla? I'll
let you draw you're own conclusions.FWIW, I wouldn't take the implications of the numbers
too seriously, but thought you might be interested.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Using $@ instead of $* only makes sense if you put double quotes around it (and when you do that, it's better in general since it Does The Right Thing when you have command-line arguments with spaces in them). Replace that line with
Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
I the "View" menu, under "Apply Theme" simply pres "Get Theme"
I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you.
I'm on a P2/233.
Netscape 4.7 is fast for some long pages, but WAY to o slow when rendering some complex pages like intel.com. Compatibility is also bad.
Mozilla is not slow on most not-very-long page, however complex, but when visiting the Most popular slashdot page at threshold -1, it just hangs for minutes.
Speed is what IE is good at. If you can't make mozilla faster, at least give a progress bar for rendering. I really want to discard lynx, links, etc.
I don't like those horrendous scrollbars while using Galeon. I really prefer a native widget set for GTK and now I'm sad because they implemented the WinXP and MacOSX first...
This is mozilla built with a Carbon front end and BSD backend. You'll find it's noticeably faster than the CFM (pure carbon) version. I found mozilla much more impressive in this version (though it has some glitches.
Prebuilt versions are available ... somewhere. Try searching the mozilla macosx groups. OTOH it isn't hard to build. Just slow.
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
If you use Linux (or other *NIX for which it's available), try Galeon. The Gecko rendering engine is actually quite fast. It's just the slow-ass XUL GUI that Moz implements that slows it to a crawl. For a quick test, try scrolling down a long page by holding down the down-arrow key in both browsers if you want a graphic example of how slow Moz's GUI is. (Example works best on a slower machine, but even my Sun Blade 1000 at work chokes on that example.)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Yeah, I see this opinion all the time. Mozilla is too slow, Mozilla is too bloated, too many features.
Well, that's your opinion. I find that a lot of Linux users tend to have this opinion, perhaps because UNIX is more based around the idea of small reusable components than other platforms. Probably the reason they didn't use OpenSSL is due to limited support on other platforms, I don't know.
Usually posts like that one end up with something like "Yeah, but I love Konquerer or Galeon, it's so light!", which just shows that you prefer small and fast to not so small and not so fast (but with more features). Fine, I can understand that.
But you know what? I'd be willing to bet that I use about 80-90% of Mozillas features, both on Windows and Linux. I am glad everytime I see a new feature. So you like using Gecko, but not their front end. That's great, but please bear in mind this is purely a matter of personal taste - not everyone agrees, so constantly repeating your own opinion doesn't really add much to the debate.
Oh yeah, also I get sick of people talking out of their ASSES about how Mozilla is badly manged because OMG the latest nightly has a regression in it. This is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding about how the project works. You think - oh, until 1.0 is finished Mozilla won't be ready, it'll still be in beta. But nobody I've talked to who has used Netscape 6.2 thinks it's beta software.
They don't think it's perfect either, but the fact is that 1.0 is a number basically plucked out of the air. It's when the APIs will be guaranteed frozen, and other geeky targets like that. When you use Mozilla, you agreed that you were using TEST software, released for the purposes of TESTING. In the course of any large software engineering project, regressions will happen as the internals are rewritten to take advantage of the stuff the developers have learned. That's the same in any project.
So what I'm saying is, don't whine and bitch about how your favourite feature has been futured, or how the latest nightly has had a regression, or how it doesn't run perfectly on your ultra-obscure variant of UNIX or whatever, and BE GRATEFUL that you can even see the progress of this project! Be grateful that you can contribute, and that you CAN play with the latest features and influence whether they become a part of the project or not.
Show me the IE or Opera bug db and then I'll shut up. Until then, stop with the FUD
Remember the Moz 9.4, where rendering was at least normal??? Since then thousand of geeks all over the world have been going blind keeping up with Mozilla "improvements"..... If thay can't get a SIMPLE thing like rendering right, they are welcomed to KEEP their glitchy browser.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Does anyone knows if this bug is out?
I have the IHT frontpage as my homepage. Most of the times, 70-80%, mozilla will crash.
THe Mozilla ID:
Mozilla 0.9.7
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
"Is Opera Spyware?"
Galeon is like Mozilla with all the crap taken out and nicer features added. And it has that small memory footprint you so desire. And Galeon uses Mozilla so you have an up-to-date parser (/me thinks of Oprah and laughs) that looks good.
Galeon is by far the best web browser for linux IMO.
"Downloaded the disk image, started it up and no banana."
I had the same problems with 0.9.5 and 0.9.6, the disk image would be corrupted and would not mount on the OS X desktop, regardless of which method I used to download it with. Eventually 0.9.7 came out and that would unpack correctly and install. I never figured out what was wrong.
Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
What I'd like to see them fix is the )(!@#*& mail and news client automatically rendering HTML mail messages - you get a spam, and there is no way to prevent Mozilla from rendering it when you select it to forward to Spamcop.
d =2 8327
They are working on a pref to prevent Mozilla from hitting the network when rendering mail messages, but it's been pushed back.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showvotes.cgi?bug_i
If anyone cares, vote for it.
This unavoidable viewing of a message when it is selected is almost as much of a security hole under Linux as LookOut(TM) is for Windows.
www.eFax.com are spammers
The APIs are *not* frozen yet -- that's precisely what 1.0 is for. They are attempting to freeze them now, but don't be surprised if there's a couple more changes in the last two months of pre-1.0 development.
According to mozilla.org's Mozilla 1.0 Manifesto, there are three primary motives for 1.0, which basically are:
If you read that manifesto, you'll see that these issues, as well as nearly everything else about the browser, have been given some very serious thought. In fact, this is one of the most fascinating things for me about the Mozilla project -- the bug tracking system is wide open (for example, the list of most frequently reported bugs -- aka dupes). You can read how various decisions evolved based on everybody's input, study and debate. The evolution of every single feature is documented in that system -- so if there's something that annoys you about Moz, there's a 99% chance that there's already been a lot of handwringing over it, and either they've (we've!) decided not to "fix" the behavior, or it's being worked on.
One simple rule for its versus it's
Or at least a key part of it. See Bug #56301.
...increased modularization of the code, UI changes, functionality additions, build system enhancements, cleaning of the code, testing, feature additions, performance tuning, XUL/XPCOM etc documentation, stability improvements, and legal issues.
For me, I'd have to put performance as the #1 reason why I don't use Mozilla more often than I do. On my FreeBSD box it renders beautifully, handles Javascript issues without a hitch, and generally works pretty sweet.
With all that being said, I still mostly use Konqueror. Konq doesn't render as well and is awful at JS. Why do I go to it more often than Moz? Konq takes less than a 1/3'rd of the time to get started! I click on that little world icon and a browser will be on screen in a reasonable amount of time. Also, I find that it uses a lot less memory after extended use in comparison to Moz.
I have to imagine that a similar issue attracts folks to Opera. From what I've seen, Opera doesn't render nearly as well as Moz. What it does do is load up wicked quick.
One last disclaimer, I am seeing some really great speed improvements on the Windows side of the house. Fairly quick startups, and the widgets seem to react far closer to real time. Not sure if it's a fair comparison, as I mainly use FreeBSD on a P-II laptop where Windows is on an Athlon 1.2G. On the slower machine you can really see the speed diff between the browsers though.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
The graph
Posted that in IE and no link showed up <grins>
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Apologies to the original poster, I didn't read your post properly. But anyway, it's good to reiterate the point that Open Source doesn't have to be hobbyist software.
I hope that Mozilla 1.0 will have native widget support for Windows 2005.
If you want native widget support support on Linux now, with the added bonus of your web browser not being a flaming pile of shit (sorry, I truly believe that although gecko rocks, XUL is still unusable on every box I've tried) use Galeon. Version 1.03, which works with Mozilla 0.98 has just been released.
Linux RPM packages for both should be available soon.
Patch: An update to released software to fix problems that should not have been in the released software.
Nightly Build: Latest snapshot of the source code conveniently built for those wanting to test the latest features. Not release quality code.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
Fine, but you'd think they'd want a browser that could replace their other two products (NN 4.7 and AOL/IE client) first, then the doo-dads.
From the sounds of it, Opera 6.0 TP3 is a much more stable browser than Moz 0.9.8. It's also *much* faster. Jason
I can't wait until 0.9.8.1 comes out! I find myself constantly refreshing /. in anticipation!!
The only way to express your concern about this, is to vote! Just click on the bug below and do it...
bug 37685
Mozilla .999999843 released!
Are you implying that Mozilla will use an "asymptotic fraction of 1" version numbering system similar to TeX's "asymptotic fraction of " system?
Speaking of TeX, it appears that if a new bug pops up in TeX the day after Knuth dies, it won't get fixed for 70 years (or longer if Disney's Congress continues to extend the copyright term) because Knuth's last will and testament includes freezing TeX.
Will I retire or break 10K?
apt-get install mozilla-browser/unstable
apt-get install mozilla-browser -t unstable
But as I pointed out, the source is open, and there are in fact even binaries for most platforms available anyway. Ispell binaries are available for MS/DOS, Win32, OS/2, and even the Amiga, as well as *nix.
But not classic Mac. Classic Mac OS apps don't even have a concept of a "pipe" or a "command line," instead exposing local services through AppleScript; to my knowledge, nobody has made AppleScript bindings for Ispell. And under both Win32 and classic Mac OS, spawning a new process (any process) is very slow.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Mine likes to stall on downloads, and i know what your thinking, its not the speed of my connection....
I will bend your mind with my spoon
I was wondering along these lines too. Either the editors changed the value to eliminate some publicity or Slashdot's database setup is so fucked... well, I think you're right. There is probably a rollover taking place here. But I think I'd much rather blame the editors. :)
Why bother.
I just installed 0.9.8 under W2K. ...
It has a nice installer. It renders web pages nicely. I don't like the skin much and the new theme place doesn't have anything I like (it only has about 5 themes...)
Someone said that MailNews is looking nice. So, I tried it. Entered my email address & news server details as normal... And it hung up. It is still there, doing nothing. It doesn't render its client area. What is worse is that it is dragging my other browser windows down with it. It is as if they all share the same WndProc or something. This is even with starting a new instance of the browser. They are all either hung or responding extremely slowly.
I am a little disappointed, seeing as this is meant to be almost version 1.0
http://getmoz.mozdev.org/
"get bleeding edge Mozilla easily with getmoz"
Mozilla has been my primary browser ever since the anti-popup feature became a standard preference. There's only one bug left before I can declare it to be the "best" browser for OS X -- blocking images on a site-by-site basis gets hung up by Amazon ad banners.
Also, note that "native-looking" widgets are not the same as true native widgets. Mozilla's jellybeans are less responsive than real ones, and they don't "gray out" when you background the window. On the bright side, you can vote for it to be fixed.
Macromedia plug-ins are cool, they still don't seem as fast
That's because Macromedia's plugins aren't as fast on Mac as they are on Win. It gets discussed all the time on the forums.macromedia.com NNTP server. Macromedia doesn't bother to optimize their Mac code, and probably won't unless the cost/benefit ratio (for them, not for us) is good enough.
www.xulplanet.com
Mac OSIX support
I'm glad MacOS nine is still supported :)
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
What this project needs is a nearly complete feature freeze ... Tabbed browsing [is an unnecessary feature that should not have been added to Mozilla at this time] ... In positive news, it looks like a spell checker might actually be included in 0.9.9.
One man's gold is another man's crap. A spell checker is completely worthless to me, along with the entire Mail/News package. On the other hand, tabbed browsing is my life, my love, and my passion.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
The back button ignores no-cache settings on a page. In otherwords, going back should show you the state of the page as you left it without accessing the web server.
-Chris
Tabbed interface is easily explained. Rather than having to open a new browser window if you don't want to replace the page you're looking at, you can open a new tab. In windows, the tabbed interface is used in many preferences windows in regular applications and in control panel subsections.
Basically, you don't get a bunch of browser windows on your task bar mixed with windows for other apps. Instead, you have all open pages within the same window, only you look at one at a time.
BTW - binary distributions of mozilla are still under 10 megs. That would not take forever, even for a 56Ker. At about 5KBytes/sec, that would take about 34 minutes. At your full 7KBytes/sec, it would take 25 mins. Not bad, compared to IE?
Stop the brainwash
I'm often browsing via a slow modem, and in that case i don't want that reloads, if i want them i'll hit 'reload'. To avoid the reload i made it a habit to open new windows when following links from a page i still wanted to read (like /.'s frontpage), since opening a new browser window is faster than downloading the page again (tabbed browsing helped a lot). So the effect of 'no-cache' is that my desktop is even more cluttered with windows than necessary. I'm happy that mozilla now allows me to use the 'back' button again without having to wait for a reload (of a page that probably didn't change in the meantime) on some sites hungry for pagehits. If there are concerns about security, maybe make it optional, that's enough for me.
I think webdesigners should try and surf their site for a day via a modem-link, to see, how their design (like the decision to make pages uncacheable) affects a large part of their audience.
--
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
All mozilla windows share the same process, I'm not sure why but probably to make inter-window communication less difficult.
Also, if you launch mozilla/netscape while an existing instance is running it doesn't start a new process, it just attaches to the current one and opens a new window.
Oh well, it is only karma. Besides, I spoke my mind :)
Feel much better.
Cheers.
-Shaunak.
No-cache isn't used to increase ad impressions. In fact, most browsers ignore the tag when it comes to Forward/Back buttons; they cache in memory (i.e. for the session) but not to disk. This is, in fact, what browsers are supposed to do?
Why is it there, then? It's there for inherently dynamic content, messageboards being the best example. Even if you only look away from one of these for a minute, it could change as new posts are added. So when you load up an old copy, it's not very likely to accurately reflect the thread anymore. So caching such content would actually be harmful. This is the reason for the no-cache tag. It doesn't increase ad impressions at all, except possibly on OmniWeb, and that is because of a problem with that particular browser.
I remember in the days of Mxx milestones there was an Internet Explorer 5 skin. It looked fantastic, and the Browser was noticably faster when using it (no wise cracks... it was *really* Mozilla underneath, and I wasn't running IE ;-) ]
This used to be hosted on themes.org, but i guess the XUL specification changes mean it would be useless now. Anyone know of the whereabouts of a updated IE skin for Mozilla?
Check out the get involved page linked in my sig. Fire up Chatzilla or your favorite IRC client and lurk on moznet in #mozillazine or #mozilla. Dig into bugzilla and you will be amazed at how open the process is, and you will start to see how regular people like you and me are making a difference.
You, too can make a difference. Even if it's something as simple as finding duplicate bug reports, it saves precious time for the busy folks at mozilla.org (and elsewhere) who are doing to hard coding and bug fixing.
<minor rant>
I don't want to be locked into an MS-controlled web, and involvement in Moz is a great way to help build a viable alternative. On top of that, I think Moz has the potential to help dislodge Outlook. I think Outlook is a 'thin-edge' app for MS, since I see non-tech types being sucked in by it and gradually converting to an entire MS office environment.
</rant>
But I've rambled enough already...
Mozilla
Also, why is RedHat so far behind in terms of its adoption of Mozilla builds to its RedHat Network service?
-- Dave Aiello
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
I have the same PowerBook as you and Mozilla 0.9.8 is rock solid for me. As is IE 5.5... no 30 second pause ever.
I think your problem is that you are running a non-released beta OS (you did say 10.2, right?). Don't complain about the stability of one app if your entire system is unstable.
Also, OmniWeb, while a noble effort (I even paid for it), is *completely* crappy with JavaScript. Quite dissapointing.
AFAIK, Embedded Real won't work on linux!
You can't scroll with the touchpad.
You have to use the down arrow or click the scroll bar.
Sorry but going without scrolling is like going back to a 14.4 modem connection, not gonna happen.
Until they fix this Moz is worthless for anyone with a Dell Laptop.
Posting links to themes.org on /. is wrong! They'll be knocked off the face of the internet!
since mozilla 0.9.6, a gdkxft-mozilla package has been available that gives mozilla anti-aliased fonts (that look terrific, better than konqueror).
however, a newer gdkxft-mozilla package has not been released since, so i've stayed with an older mozilla and an older galeon.
does anyone know how to get gdkxft-mozilla working with moz0.9.8 and galeon1.0.3??
IE5 does that on Win95 too. It's apparently something to do with the image rendering or decompression engine (doesn't seem to like JPGs very much), tho it also has a problem with coughing up nested tables in a timely fashion.
And mind you, this is even for smallish local files, no download time involved.
(I only use the nasty thing to test my pages locally, never online. And until some browser gives me back all the speed and handiness of Netscape 3, I'll keep using that online.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I use IE 6.
People have though (and I used to) that Moz 1.0 would make some sort of difference. Well reality time. IE has like 90% market share and Netscape/Moz is only for anti-MS fanatics or linux desktop users. And we all know how big that market is(rolls eyes). Seriously its all good and well that they are making this slow bloated browser, but really its 2002, not 1998 and the war is over. Time to move on folks, nothing to see here.
Wow too bad you have -1 karma cause your post is actually what many people r saying. Don't worry I'll still browse at -1 for ya. ;)
Well, Mozilla 0.9.8 unexpectedly quits on me every time I launch it.
You see it goes in order of preference based on the actual number of active desktop users for any given platform. So people who browse from OpenBSD are in line right behind people who use punch cards. Then again there are probably more punch card computers up and running, then there are actually OpenBSD desktop users. So maybe it might be a long wait after all.
When I click on links in mIRC, Eudora, or other apps that load URLs, I always get a new window every time. Even if (like mIRC) I've asked for the existing window to be re-used. Is there a way to change this in prefs.js? I've looked, without success.
Hopefully, the fix will be crossplatform -- I use Moz in Windows, Mac, and Mac OS X.
I'm hoping another reader will know. When I asked a few days ago on another site, someone said 'You could fix that by downloading IE...' Ahem. No.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Microsoft has been developing this strategy in application development long before Netscape existed, being the primary method that they used to promote Microsoft's Office "Suite" over more popular applications such as Word Perfect and Lotus 1-2-3.
I, for one, am very please to see the Mozilla group taking a long-term, strategic approach to this as opposed to building an application which just fits the short term requirements of a "web browser". The fact that groups are already selling applications based upon the Mozilla codebase is a testament to Mozilla's open-source development model. Sure, it's just a beginning, but compared to what Microsoft had to offer not that long ago, it is amazing. Building a functional, open-source alternative to Microsoft's component model is a huge undertaking and well worth the wait.
No artist tolerates reality. -- Nietzsche
file a RRE.
If more people contributed an improvement instead of complaining, there would be less money flowing into the stockpiles of corps like MS and more money spent hiring people to solve NEW problems instead of paying a for a proprietary solution OVER and OVER and OVER...
Mozilla
If something slows down the Windows builds significantly, it's inappropriate for inclusion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Like what? Post nearly 800 comments on /.? Hypocrite.
So where's the Windows version of Galeon? Seriously, I'd like a smaller, faster browser based on Mozilla for Windows. Is there something out there like this?
.
load "linux",8,1
Please get a new icon for Moz. Anything with red color reminds me of Red China. It's communistic, insipid, uninspiring...
THANK YOU-----
it's funny y'all
The World is Yours.
One feature that MUST be added before 1.0 is vi keybindings in textareas! Seriously. I'd never go back.
.
load "linux",8,1
Yah, thats true. However you can still get real for linux and set it up as a handler for realplayer files and it'll then just pop up the player when you click on a link to one.
It's unfortunate Mozilla chose to write everything from scratch (don't know about the native widgets) for cross-platform. I understand the reason, but it's very frustrating given how buggy the mail editor is. Sometimes, pressing the return key does nothing, so I press it again. I find that Mozilla has added an extra line but the editor doesn't show it. Sometimes, when I reply and selecting something will cause every line to disappear. The good thing about this bug is it happens occassionally and not all the time. This behavior is bad because it's not easily reproduceable.
Let's say Mozilla uses native developer's environment and if so I would say it would be pretty simple to get a good editor under something like Mac OS X. Hell, it'll even support printing to PDFs with no extra work. 'Course it's not as simple as this statement. But I have reservations whenever I click on reply or compose fearing _this_ could be the time when some bug will bite me.
I've also submitted bug reports to bugzilla but I would say 99% of the time, they end up as dups and I have tried to find prior bug reports before my submission. The bug reporter has so many sections that it even makes searching for bug report dups a pain-in-the-butt.
Anybody else have this problem? I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but my last few connection attempts have timed out, while my IE gets in no problem...
Try K-Meleon. http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/
Also, why is RedHat so far behind in terms of its adoption of Mozilla builds to its RedHat Network service?
I recommend having a look at Red Hat's / Pennington's "Gnomehide" (ftp://people.redhat.com/hp/gnomehide/) which right now at least provides Mozilla 0.9.7 and Nautilus 1.0.6 packages working together.
Until I found out about Gnomehide I hated downloading the latest Moz builds from mozilla.org only to find out that they always broke Nautilus' HTML/man view. Now I always have a reasonably recent and working Mozilla/GNOME/Nautilus setup. OK, Nautilius in itself isn't working reasonably, it's still slower than a dead snail nailed to the bottom of a vat of molasses and it has a long way to go to deserve the 1.x version numbering, but you know what I mean...
Beware though: this stuff in unofficially released and not supported by Red Hat - don't bother filing bug reports in their Bugzilla system!
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
> Still it is slow. I'm anxious to start using a ;-)
> galeon-ish OS X browser as soon as I hear about
> one. Mozilla wins by default.
see http://chimera.mozdev.org/ for a cocoa based UI for mozilla. I've a feeling that it might soon work better than Galeon or Kmeleon as it is being developed by someone who knows the mozilla code very very well
Basic
Oh yea...Cause the average user needs to be reminded daily on how slow and shitty moz is.
/mbr then get a real OS going like XP.
I hope to God you are actually not running that script more than once every few months. If you are then you need some help. I suggest fdisk
I hate the Galeon trolls who come into every freakin moz conversation. You really think people en mass should move from a marginally accepted browser to an even more obscure one?
Course why not? AFter all, all of this "diversity" has really made the linux desktop market grow. That's why its important to have 50 semifunctional browsers and several competing desktop Gui's. This way everything is standardized and easy to use.
Does the mapquest thing detract? Did a core developer have to take more than ten minutes to work on it?
.DLLs from Netscape 4.7x, but the pluggins refuse to directly install because they check for versions and don't allow an override.
I'm a programmer by trade and I don't think that sort of thing would slow me down by much. I tend to work very quickly on one area when I have an idea for it, but in between I work on smaller pieces. Bug fixes, minor features, etc. Taking that time and simply staring at the main problem I'm tackling wouldn't produce the finished code any faster because when I stop working it's usually because I need a fresh view on it.
I don't think people should take time from fixing the text widget and spending it adding mapquest features, but likely they wouldn't spend that time on the tetx widget anyways. In fact, I doubt that much time was spent by the core developers on that feature.
As for Mozilla being ready for an end user or not, I feel that it is. Honestly IE crashes more for me (in terms of crashes per hour used) than Mozilla. I'll often have ten Mozilla windows open and up to thirty tabs in them open (various spots in O'Reilly's Perl bookshelf, etc) and Mozilla stays up for days (literally).
Mozilla doesn't work quite right for most pluggings, but I blame a large part of that on the pluggin writers. I've heard you can get all sorts of things working in Mozilla by simply copying the
Much the same as pages that don't work in Mozilla/Netscape 6. When you either fiddle with the browser ID tag (via Proximitron or Junkbuster, etc) and if needed, disable the Javascript browser checking, most of those pages load perfectly. It's just the developers not wanting to be responsible for making their pages to standards.
Mozilla has some weirdness (text entry, and horizontal lines through pictures when scrolling, are the two I see the most) but other than that, it seems able to compete with either NS4.7x or IE5.5 (the one that came with 2k).
What does it not do that your average user wants to do?
It sucks to use Windows at work because I only have one reason to use it - because we have an in-house legacy VB app that I am the main developer for. If I had my way, I would recode the thing in something more modern (ideally, Java) and portable. But I don't make those budgeting decisions! Everything else I do (Java coding and compiling) is done via a terminal program on a Solaris box, plus a text editor and browser on the Doze side.
./configure, make, make install - sometimes works, sometimes doesn't). Mozilla had great instructions, but most important of all (which most source distros of software seem to neglect to mention) was the "uninstall" procedure - just delete the directory! I thought that was excellent - actually, why couldn't all open source software be this easy? OK, I know that it isn't possible for everything, but there are so many packages out there that throw shit everywhere, that trying to cleanly uninstall them, if you ever have to, is a major pain - I try to avoid them, unless they seem to be exceptional.
All of this, aside from the VB dev, could be done under Linux (or any other *nix). Perhaps someday I'll get there (been thinking about building a cheesy VB dev box, and moving to Linux for everything else).
At home, do I "screw around" with Linux? OF COURSE I DO! THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING WITH COMPUTERS FOR THE PAST 18 YEARS! THAT IS WHY I LOVE COMPUTERS! I AM NOT INTO COMPUTERS FOR THE MONEY!
As far as why I thought installing Mozilla was difficult - a lot of times installing software can be a pain under Linux - especially when you go the route I prefer - tarballs. Sometimes they compile, sometimes they don't. And half the time they don't come with easy to use "instructions" on where to put things and what to do (assuming
Mandrake 8.1? Never tried it - currently I run SuSE 7.2 personal, over the top of a SuSE 6.4 pro version (kept my apache server, etc). I will always consider myself a Linux newbie - there is just too much to learn - but I am not new to Linux. I am definitely not new to the command line.
BTW - I have grown up - and realizes how much control some people and institutions want over MY PERSONAL LIFE. I feel that, as a free adult, and a citizen of the United States, that I have an inate right to CHOICE, and that I should exercise that right at all times, lest it be TAKEN AWAY FROM ME.
Go bother someone else, AC - you are not wanted here.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It figures. All the damn time mozilla is broken.
It has been broken since at least 0.17
They never fix it. All I have to do is load another site while loading one.
Then bang! Moxilla confuses links between the two sites and nothing works.
You think they would fix it in a WHOLE YEAR.
IE is better than this shit.
I tried to search at Google, but nothing related to the technique you are proposing (?) Can you elaborate a little bit more about how to handle embbeded real files?
Thanks
Mouse Gestures for Mozilla are available here:
http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures/
(It's about a 2 second download).
The bookmarking features are still pretty bad. Importing IE bookmarks seems to just create links to the IE favorites, and then nothing works properly. I don't want links, I want a copy so I don't have to worry about IE anymore.
0.98 is superb on my celeron 1100 w win98 (yuk). Nice, quick, pretty, stable, excellent. I just wish the email package fitted under one of the tabs (a special tab maybe fixed on LHS). Good work guys.
just wanted to say that I think mozilla rocks. I've been using it for quite a while now and am very impressed with all of the hard work going into making mozilla a worthy replacement for the all-powerful and muchly missed glory days of netscape.
... Just imagine how bad life would be with only one browser. *shudder*
it's SO nice not to have to scroll back to where I was anymore. way to go guys!
remote access CLI with tools is the only friend you'll ever need.
Seems it's always been there, just wondering if anyone else noticed that Mozilla on Windoze systems doesn't launch properly from .url files - I've always gotten the page _and_ two errors about "cannot find the file $URL" and "Unable to run this command" blah blah blah blah......
Am I alone on this one? (couldn't find anything on bugzilla)
K-meleon seems ok, except for viewing http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS - although the site displays correctly, attempting to scroll down is INCREDIBLY slow, this under win2k.. it might even work fine for you.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!