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.
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.
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.)
According to the roadmap, Mozilla 1.0 will be released on or shortly after April 5.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
I'll answer the ? myself...From the Mozilla FAQ:
Have all the issues with Mozilla and crypto now been resolved?
Almost. Now that the RSA patent is in the public domain, Mozilla crypto development can proceed with minimal restrictions. In the near future the Mozilla code base will include a complete open source cryptographic library, and Mozilla will include SSL support as a standard feature.
Anybody have more (better) info?
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.
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
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
Whoohoo, we're back to where we were several months ago!
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No, it was a bug.
:-)
I finally fixed it by changing the master password and restarting Mozilla.
I recall trying this with 0.9.7 once, and failing, so I assume they did something to it after all.
Good job, guys!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
... 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.
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
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
Have you installed the mozilla-psm package yet? All the encryption goodness is kept in that package now. I do all my banking through the web using Mozilla 0.9.7 with no problem at all. So far I havn't found a secure site that bothers it.
actually, SSL typically uses both RSA or Diffie-Hellman and DES to secure a connection. The server's certificate is signed by the issuer's private key, verified by the browser having the public key built in (hard-coded usually). Upon verification, the cert contains the public key of the server, and the server sends over a DES session key encrypted using the server's private key. Browser decrypts the key, and all communications from there are encrypted using that DES session key.
Most sites use the DH algorithm because it's faster, but others use RSA because they need to maintain backward compatibility to older browsers. Those algs are only used for authentication and key exchange, DES is used for actual messages because it's faster than asymmetric cypto.
note that the above is for unverified clients (meaning the server does not check client certificates), and is simplifed to exclude finer details like message integrity.
so basically, Mozillas problems might be more than it's RSA implementation.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
$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))"
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 *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.
---
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.
Why don't they just use OpenSSL? Mozilla - reinventing the wheel, one spoke at a time.
Seriously, Mozilla's biggest problem is that they don't know how to narrow the scope of what they want to accomplish. They've written all these abstract libraries, widgets, and application frameworks just to write a browser. There are easier ways to build a cross platform browser than rewriting everything from scratch. How about using other open source libraries? Partnerships with or just taking over existing projects? These guys are almost as bad as the KDE guys. The other (related) thing they are fundamentaly wrong-headed about is staying with the integrated news-reader,mail-client,address-book,(internet-app -of-the-week), browser plan. Huge apps that do everything suck. Build a nice browser. Work with others on how to communicate between your browser any MUA out there, etc. Release 1.0 in 2 years instead of 5.
That said, I use mozilla or galeon (mozilla rendering engine) exclusively, it's really coming along - nice work guys.
XML causes global warming.
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.
This is normally a sign that psm didn't get installed. Please try reinstalling and make absolutely sure that you install psm. If that doesn't fix it hop on #mozillazine on irc.mozilla.org (you can even use the included chatzilla) and ask for help.
BTW, the latest nightly have a much better error message. I'm not sure if that made it into 0.9.8 or not though.
Brian Haskin
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 can usually get the latest version, as well as nightly cvs builds, from sid. And no, you don't have to upgrade to it to use the packages.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
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.
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?
Mozilla is now about as fast as IE in rendering pages. And I'm talking ~1-2 seconds. Small enough that I don't really care. It is at least as stable as Opera which, for myself at least, was annoyingly "crashy." Mozilla's mail client is light years ahead of what Opera has to offer. Even with the inability to run a newly created filter on your inbox. Btw, that's a damn useful feature which I hope they "cram" into 0.9.9.
The tabbed interface is more flexible than what Opera has to offer. I use a trackball at home and after toying with gestures in Opera found that feature not very useful. Memory usage, while still kinda high, keeps coming down but it isn't bad enough to bring this old PC down.
What is irritating is installing the Java plug-in still doesn't work right. And now, with version 1.3.1 you have to copy five dlls. I'm assuming their recent pow-wows with Sun have rectified this because the bug is considered a show-stopper. I'll have to see. OTOH, Mozilla had no problem picking up my Acrobat install and Shockwave wasn't too bad either.
Oh, and another thing that really irritated me about the latest version of Opera for Windows. They changed the way you put links into the personal toolbar. In earlier versions it was a piece of cake. Now the only way Opera would let me do it was through the sidebar.
I'm not going to reccommend that you try out the latest and greatest build. You have your opinion and are entitled to it. But, from my experience, I think you're wrong. Mozilla is coming along very well and I think version 1.0 will be competitive against the likes of IE and Opera.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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
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
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
Er...what is sid, other than a Final Fantasy character?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
... the MNG and JNG support.
MNG seems more complete and it certinaly nicer than animated GIFs for quality.
http://www.libmng.com/MNGsuite/
Said it before and I'll say it again. Lots of people, aka regular users, like a monolithic app. Ninety percent of the Mac users at work still use Netscape 4.7x just for the mail client. Since they use that, they also do a lot of browsing in Netscape. Opera, one of the darlings of the /. crowd, includes a mail and news browser in its Windows offering and will eventually in the linux version as well. People here may not like it but if Mozilla was "just a browser" I know a lot more people who would just pass and it is those users that Netscape is targeting.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
http://www.themes.org/skins/mozilla is the best place that I've found to get skins for mozilla.
it takes a while to load, so be patient.
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.
"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.
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.:)
its pretty cool that hey broke cookies on my birthday!
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The RPMs are daily and milestone build contributions from Chris Blizzard. If DEBs are important to you then make builds and contribute them or find someone that can.
--Asa
the instant it has smime support in email I'll be there.
You're there! Get 0.9.8
--Asa
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.
The 'y'-down thing only works if you've typed it before ;-)
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.
Well, it will be announced on April 1, but it won't ship until May. That's not insider info; just a guess.
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!
Whichever is correct, you are not. IE blows Mozilla away and will for quite some time. You don't have to like this fact, but you do have to live with it for the foreseeable future.
I can honestly say that Mozilla performs infinitely better on this Linux box than IE. ;) (Well, I think that some people actually have had success with running IE under Wine, but...)
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
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
>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
The themes preference box has a "click to get themes" link.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
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 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.
Hmm weird, i just installed a P150 (or isnt that first-gen ?, then what is) with 48MB of mem and it runs X and Mozilla like an charm, no not to fast, but nor to slow.
Quazion.
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.
Actually you can open multiple windows and pages in the new Opera6 just like in Mozilla.
No.
In Opera you're given the choice: multiple windows or a window with multiple children.
Mozilla permits a combination of these.
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
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".
There were a lot more, but mozilla's API's kept changing and breaking the older skins.
Now that (apparently) the API's have been frozen, expect to see a lot more skins appearing.
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
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.
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.
My bad.
It looks like this feature does not exist on Opera 6 linux (or I didn't found it).
Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
Both the milestones and daily builds are packaged by Debian. They naturally only appear in unstable (well, 0.9.5 made it to testing), but you can use the pinning feature of apt if you use testing to install mozilla from unstable.
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
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
I'm sure they could have used OpenSSL, but what is the point? Why throw away all that robust, mature, cross-platform, MPL/GPL licenced code (that does a lot more besides SSL) for something that does a subset of what is required and isn't very cross-platform either?
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.
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.
Mozilla is slow with a large Slashdot page probably because it's a large table, and Mozilla is slow on large tables. See bugs 74888 and 54542.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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?
Besides, Mozilla was critisized for looking "foreign" on Macs. Now it's fixed. The only problem is that it's hard to support native (actually pseudo-native) widgets on every OS. I would personally prefer Mozilla developers not to spend too much time on eye-candy, but I respect their job.
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?
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
If thay can't get a SIMPLE thing like rendering right
Exsqueeze me? Page rendering is probably the single most complex and difficult part of a browser. Come back after you've written something that handles BiDi text, graphics, bizarre forms of kerning and line spacing, overlapping text, and any of the other weird things people do with CSS. Heck, I'd be impressed just with something that can handle basic HTML... throw a graphic and some text that wraps around it. That ought to be really simple, right?
- fader
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.
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
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
Well, it doesn't. The reason why is Mozilla needs to find five dlls in its plugin directory to load java and the 1.3.1 install isn't doing it. Before it was just one dll. I remember because I used to do this over and over again when I was testing Milestone releases. But now it is really irritating. This definately should be a show-stopper for rolling out version 1.0.
I'm not saying what you do isn't a good workaround for now but once 1.0 becomes a reference platform this must be fixed. There is no way a regular user would accept a non-transparent install of Java. Copy and paste or manually adding a mime type won't cut it.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Mozilla simply does this better. An icon, or favicon, is displayed in the box right next to the url. A mouse over turns the cursor into a hand which gives me the clue that I can grab it.
Then when I put the cursor over the personal toolbar I get an arrow mit box to show I can drop it. Now this part is where I think Opera shines and does it better than Mozilla. In Opera, the cursor changes to a page icon with a plus sign on it. While I don't know if this would be internationally recognized I do see this as an obvious indicator of "add the page."
Drag and drop is the obvious way of doing it but it needs to be obvious from the beginning. Opera simply botched this in version 6.0.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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 agree. I never considered tabbed browsing as an important feature before checking all boxes on Edit-Properties-Tabbed Browsing. Now reading slashdot is much faster because I simply middle-click everything that seems interesting and read them later when loading has finished.
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
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
Ahh. Well, in that case, Sid (Unstable) is still giving me Mozilla 0.9.7-6. So that's not working either.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Also, why is RedHat so far behind in terms of its adoption of Mozilla builds to its RedHat Network service?
-- Dave Aiello
But work also signed me up for Sun's web learning center and though Opera worked fairly well (mozilla until 0.9.7 couldn't load the actual course) the MDI interface really messed it up. It was much easier to have multiple windows open and allow me to position them where I wanted. Worse was the fact that older versions of Opera would suddenly resize all of my windows if the webpage opened a pop-up.
Thankfully, Opera corrected that behavior but the browser is still either use MDI or use multiple windows. I want to be able to do both and Mozilla let's me do that. I can dedicate one window to network monitoring and another set of windows for my web class and another window with tabs for general browsing. It's a level of control I really appreciate.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Amen. And another nice little feature of Opera is that it's been ported to almost every major desktop OS out there, and lots of the minor ones too. So what if it doesn't use native widgets? At least it doesn't take up half my ram or take a minute to load up on an athlon.
If it doesn't display web pages properly, what's the point of all these additional niceties?
define properly please.
If you mean according to w3c and ietf standards then chances are mozilla already does unless you are in the real bleading edge of web development. I believe all HTML 4.01 transitional site should render correctly. Now if you are talking about correctly as how the braindead "web developer" or his wysiwyg tools think it should look like then that is another story. Actuall Mozilla has a quirks mode that often maked broken pages render correctly, or at least like they were intended. Actually Mozilla 0.9.6 renders a lot of broken sites closer to what IE 5.5 does than MS's own followup IE6 does! But this is a good thing as IE6 is much, much, much more standards compliant than 5.5.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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?
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
I didn't say anything about getting it the DAY OF RELEASE. Jesus, if you're that impatient, just apt-get install mozilla-cvs.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Just because the app is monolithic doesn't mean it can't be modular. For the longest time on my linux box, I only installed the Mozilla browser and used Evolution as my mail client. But on Windows I feel more comfortable running Mozilla as my browser and e-mail client. This is flexibility and is a good thing.
And since when did something that "linux is all about" have anything to do with Windows?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
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
And now everything in your life will have the dull aftertaste of anticlimax.
I remember the highpoint of my life. I was watching a movie (I don't remember which one) and I made some wisecrack and... PEOPLE IN THE THEATER ACTUALLY LAUGHED!
Nothing can ever live up to that, man... nothing!
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
"I Running Windows"
can someone make a T-Shirt out of that, please?
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
If something slows down the Windows builds significantly, it's inappropriate for inclusion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That would be no good, as it would mean that an eavesdropper could decrypt the session key too! I'm not sure how it's actually done, but one possible way is for the client to choose a session key and encrypt it with the server's public key - then only the server can decrypt it. (However, if a man-in-the-middle can substitute a different server key without the client noticing, he can still decrypt the contents of the session. Theoretically this won't happen because the man-in-the-middle shouldn't be able to get a certificate issuer to certify a key for an address that doesn't belong to him, but the CAs don't check all that thoroughly.)
oops. i had that grim feeling after posting that i goofed something. The symmetric session key is generated by the client (browser) side, sent to the server encrypted using it's private key, and ok'd by the server.
there's a heck of a lot more to SSL that what we discussed. Take a look at an intro i found that describes it more detail.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Try Skipstone, it only requires GTK. Which is an entirely reasonable requirement since writing direct Xlib calls is cumbersome and would make maintenance hell.
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?
Mozilla, in my experience, under most circumstances, is less than zippy on a first-gen Pentium (but why would anyone want to run it on one, when they could run it on a lightning-fast 486DX4/120?)