Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Tree Closes for 1.0
fire-eyes writes "After many years, the Mozilla cvs tree just closed for 1.0. " It's been a long time coming. And I'm glad
that on Unix we still have a browser war since Konqueror and Mozilla are both
excellent browsers. Congratulations to every developer who committed a line
of code, but mostly to you guys in the middle who had to wrangle the whole
project.
Several airliners were hit by airborne pigs today, and ACME sweaters reports their largest order ever has come in from Hell.
They grow up so fast... it brings tears to my eyes
*snif*
its good to see how far mozilla has come. ive been using it for a long time in linux, and now i am ready to make this switch on all my win computers as well. my only complaint about that browser is that it doesnt support the ability to change the colour of the scroll bars found on certain webpages.
spend money here
As a diehard IE user who made the switch from netscape to IE 3.x, I am quite shocked at how well Mozilla performs in the .99 version.
.99 my view was changed completely. I don't use an integrated bookmark manager or email, but for browsing I find myself opening up Mozilla more and more during the day.
I've kept tabs on the performance and functionality as various betas came out and was always extremely disheartened that it just wasn't there. I was beginning to think that one of the most visible efforts by a community to really create a useful application was going to fail.
With
Congratulations to everyone involved in the development and testing. This is quite a success and one that I hope garners a ton of attention!
It seems interesting and maybe coincidental that AOL Timewarner starts testing Netscape, and Mozilla seems to quiken its pace to 1.0. Maybe I am just reading to much into this, and its probably all just coincidental, though, it is something for the conspiracy theorists to work out.
Jason Lotito
browser war between Mozilla and Konqueror?
yes, both are excellent browsers, but I was pretty sure that Opera has at least as large of a share as Konqueror on *n*x desktops.
Sure, the free version has ads, but it's still free, and it seems to render sloppily coded IE-compatible/W3C-incompatible pages with more flair than either of the other two. Opera recently released the TP3 of their version 6, and it is excellent.
just a note.
lysergically yours
It is the most standard compliant browser with some of the best features out there (popup killing, tabs etc). It's been a long road to 1.0 but it's been worth it. But remember 1.0 is not the end of the project, just the freezing of the API's there will continue to be improvements and enhancements made.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
for those that like to click: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:sSfdrcUvpF0C: www.mozillazine.org/+&hl=en
Jason Lotito
I always wondered whether we would see Duke Nukem Forever or Mozilla 1.0 first. Sort of a tortoise and tortoise race.
Until it approaches Opera for speed, it will still be not a preferred browser. Opera's mouse gestures are also an excellent feature which help improve browsing speed. I think that improving Mozilla's speed should be the developers main focus going forward.
i can't seem to get the mozilliane site up from the link. imagine that.
anyway. when can we get binaries of the 1.0 version? it's really my favorite browser, and hopefully some OEM's start to install it or a derivitive by default! most people dropped NS off their scope long ago.
"And I'm glad that on Unix we still have a browser war" Trolling in the news post?
.9.7 was already better than IE in almost every category. .9.9 just blows everything else out of the water. The browser war is alive and well on Windows.
The browser war on Windows is joined as well!
IE may come installed with all copies of Windows but that doesn't mean that Mozilla can't compete. In fact, Mozilla
Moz 1 will be a great breakthrough for open-source software. And there were a lot of people who thought we'd never see it. Now it looks inevitable. Moz already runs fast and load times are generally 2 secs, I can't wait to see what it does fully optimized.
So, hats off to the Mozilla crew. And bravo. Hoorah for OSS and openness, modularity and custizability in user software!
Sweat
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Don't assume that just because it's 1.0 means that it's perfect.
Many people will try Mozilla for the first time in 1.0. People more than ever need to go out there and download [linux, mac, win32], test, and give bug reports.
If you want to help open source but can't hack the code, this is your chance to help! :-)
Since Mozilla has had the best CSS 1 and 2 support among the currently available browsers for quite a few versions ... well, we all know why you can't get it to work, don't we ?
DTD did the job on me
It's great to see that they are on schedule (finally ;). I remember the "old times", when I downloaded my first mozilla build. I believe it was early '99. I didn't really know ehat exacty mozilla was back then and I completely freaked out after seeing how my homepage was rendered (not much worked back then). But that made me do some more reading about Moz and now I'm a proud user of this web lizard. :)
google cache:
"
Tree Closes for Mozilla 1.0
The tree just closed in preparation for Mozilla 1.0, and so far, it's looking promising. What does the tree close mean? This time around, as drivers have been in control of the tree for the entire milestone, the actual process won't change, but drivers approval will begin to get harder and harder to get for a checkin. As we approach 1.0, we'll keep you up to date on current status and other interesting news.
"
Incidentally, at the time Google cached that, it had zero comments. That was fast.
Anyway, I'm kind of disappointed. This is like the Year 2000. I always pictured some cool technological advance when we hit the y2k figure, but we didn't suddenly have anything special. In the same way, I always thought that when Mozilla finally hit 1.0, it would be this super-stable, killer ap with special competition-eradicating I-Need-Thats that make any other alternative simply laughable. Instead, 1.0 is just a glorified 0.9.9.998
Oh well.
(On a side note, when did we all stop saying Un*x for Unix. I think 'taco was one of the first people I heard saying this...)
--
m iso socially aware artistic geek pen-pal, m or f, in '1337 edu. jazz, poetry a must.
email me (click my user info for addy) if you're interested.
Is it me or does the ability to view the source of whatever your looking at seem to be something that even a 1.0 browser should do correctly?
IE6 and Mozilla both support w3c standard CSS V2 in that respect. If you would just stop using "document.all" and similar to refer to elements, instead using the getElementById() to get a reference to the element and then using the element's "style.visibility" attribute, you'd have no problems with cross-browser visibility (in the 6.x browsers and IE5.x).
:)
At least, that's probably what the problem is, based on my own experience trying to do the same thing...
But for anyone interested in the actual link posted in the story, here is the google cache version...
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
Use a CSS to set up a piece of text as small caps and render it in Mozilla, Opera, and IE and guess which browser fill screw it up? Well, IE of course. IE is OK, but Mozilla does a lot more with web standards. I routinely try to code pages to web standards and have Mozilla and Opera display them properly, only to have IE suddenly say to me "And now for something completely different!" If every browser besides IE becomes 100% standards compliant, then I would hope web designers would start putting little bugs on their page that says "Best viewed with something other that IE."
What I find most interesting about Mozilla is in how may ways it can be used. Just look at all the different projects using Moz engine, like text/programming editors, irc clients, media players, and others. A really interesting piece of work. You can find a lot of Moz-based projects at Mozdev.org
...since Konqueror and Mozilla are both excellent browsers.
The very first time I loaded up Slashdot in Konqueror, all the links were broken. When I tried in Mozilla, it segfaulted. I had to resort to Netscape for any useful browsing.
Of course that was when Linux would go through massive swapping storms every few hours leaving the system completly useless.
This is truly a testimate to how far we've come and how far we have to go! Now the important question: How long do we have to wait for 2.0?
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
While you're waiting, try the Tree Status and the Roadmap.
From these links, you can tell that 1.0 is scheduled for release in about 2 weeks, but from the current Tree status it looks like that might not be a realistic time frame...more like 4 weeks...
When MozillaZine is back up, make sure to check out the newest Build Comments...there's been alot of fixes recently...
It is both good and bad that AOL has decided to use Mozilla in the next AOL release. Unfortunately they are applying pressure to the Mozilla team to wrap it up and get the product out the door.
Case in point, bug 99344. The Mozilla team has known about this one for at least six months, yet the bug still lives. Now it is unlikely the fix will be made before 1.0. The project managers are being pressured to "back burner" bugs like this one to ship the product.
Why rush? AOL pushing them is a bad thing since bugs like this one are now getting out the door and tarnishing what *has* to be a near perfect product. Rushing out the door will NOT recover any market share, it is far too late for that unless AOL/others plan to show us why everyone *must* use Mozilla/Netscape 6.x. instead of IE. For your normal "Joe Sixpack" websurfer it is going to be difficult if not impossible to convince him to change since IE works for 99.9% of what he likes to do, regardless of security holes.
On the whole I am very happy with Mozilla, I use it as my primary browser on all platforms. Still, I can't totally hide my disappointment that some knowns issues are going on neglected, leaving web developers, yet again, to deal with the bugs. *sigh* nothing changes. Things have gotten MUCH better, yet...
We've got an internal web system thats supposed to be IE only. They only enforce the IE only stuff on the production site, not the development site. One of the developers was having an issue with cascading style sheets and kanji rendering properly. He came into my office and mozilla 0.9.9 rendered it perfectly while IE went to hell in a hand basket and was "generating an error log"
Needless to say, The developer went back and installed mozilla (though they still target IE) and I've been lobbying the manager of the project to widen the browser scope.
Three Cheers for the hard work put into the making of Mozilla. Its good to see what comes out of a development model thats based on quality, not time to ship.
Horray for a browser that at least makes an attempt at following standards (instead of trying to create ones!)
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
People more than ever need to go out there and download , test, and give bug reports.
I agree with your point, but why link to old builds? Asa says the -03-26 (linux and mac) and -03-27 (win32) builds are very good.
Don't just report bugs! Join the QA effort and help triage the bug reports!
Christopher
Mozilla
...that Mozilla 1.0 will be the default web browserin the GNU/Hurd OS.
I will say that I sure hope they've managed to get some bugs fixed. Last night, 3 times in less than a hour, Mozilla 0.9.9 crashed on me when trying to use two tabbed windows of cruisercustomizing.com. I just stumbled across another bug in this very slashdot comment window. When I scroll to the end of the text field, it wraps around and starts scrolling from the top. Weird. I also hope they get some javascript problems ironed out. I still can't administrate my PacketShaper 4545 with Mozilla because the popup menus don't work. Still kudos to the Zilla folks for their biggest milestone.
Nobody will want to use it now because web surfing has lost it's luster...
I really like Mozilla. It's got a lot of excellent features, it looks good, it's come a long way, etc. But unfortunately it (v. 0.9.9) brings my work computer (Linux, 128MB RAM) grinding to a halt. It takes over 30 seconds to load, and there's a several second delay between when I highlight text or try to type anything.
Opera, on the other hand, loads in a flash, now supports all the plugins I need, has tabbed browsing, renders things very well, and aside from the JavaScript console has everything I ever needed from Mozilla and more. In fact, I even paid for Opera and have had no regrets.
At work I mostly only use Mozilla when I get to a site that assumes I have a lame browser that supports nothing because it's not Netscape or IE. Unfortunately it's a painfully long process to get to a page. I'm not flaming it, I love the browser, but I just can't use it on my low end work system.
With faster page rendering there is now an improved chance at first post ;)
"...and generally behaved in a manner one can only describe as despicable." - February 27 2001, Michael Sims
A: i prefer larger text size on my browser because of a huge monitor and high resolution i run at. On IE, i can set the text size from smaller to larger and IE remembers that preference forever. Mozilla forgets my text size (i prefer 120%) as soon as i close the program. Any way to make that 120% permanent ?
B: I have a HUGE hosts file that i block crap like doubleclick.net, known spyware sites, porn sites, etc.....anything i dont like :) On some sites i visit a LOT, such as slashdot and cnn.com, i block the ad servers. Mozilla gives me an error of "connection refused when attempting to contact foobar.spyware.site.com". I know the connection was refused (grin), how do i keep mozilla from bitching about my blocked sites in my hosts file?
if i could solve those two issues, i'd almost never use IE again (dont get me wrong, i like IE6 a lot, but i dont like the idea of being trapped on one platform because of a browser, I want to be able to use win 32, linux, mac os X, etc, and have the same browser no matter what).
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
That's more or less what I do, except I'm trying to apply visibility to a
section. My understanding is that it should make the whole section invisible, which works in IE, but not in Mozilla.I'm kind of suspecting that I probably need to recursively set everything to invisible in the
section to work around the bug, but I haven't tried it (have had other priorities)Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
A coworker of mine was complaining the other day about how Netscape 4.7x was being disabled for most webpages. He knew that Netscape 6 "Sucked @ss" and absolutely refused to have anything to do with IE. His problem was that Netscape 4.7 had trouble displaying nested tables. They took forever to load and locked up all the browser functions until the page had finished. I have not used Mozilla, but knew that it was supposed to be very good, so I recommended it. He downloaded and installed it last night.
This morning he came in raving about how good it was. He loved how easy it installed, how it detected all his preferences from netscape and allowed him to access his netscape mail, and how many useful options there were, not to mention that it displayed the nested tables even faster than IE.
Looks like I'll be spending time downloading tonight.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
After just d/l and installing 0.9.9 on a home & work pc's I have to do it again? *sigh*
Well at least I can use secure documents with my bank now, and don;t have to use Netscape.
BTW the tar for the binaries is large- 12mg or so. The source is even larger. If you want to compilehave at least 600mg on a drive somewher.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Well, that's good. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Netscape 6 versions out there right now.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
actually, if it weren't for a certain multi-year agreement with MS to ship IE with AOL, they'd be using NS long ago. That contract will expire very soon (or be nullified?) and some version of NS will find it's way onto the (*shudder*) #1 ISP in America's main distribution.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Seriously, it's web developers like you who have totally and utterly ruined the web.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually defending Mozilla here, since I don't know if it's a bug or is properly following the standard. But, your attitude is really poor, and it's attitudes like yours that have made the web as lousy as it is today.
So, thanks, we all appreciate it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
So that you know, mozilla is extremely extensible architecture, and you use javascript to write modules for it.
That makes it quite easy to write addons.
Like Optimoz.
In general, www.mozdev.org has alot of good apps already.
Whenever there's a slashdot mozilla article, there's also the seemingly required collection of "It's too slow" comments.
However, if you haven't tried a nightly build recently, you aren't seeing the full picture. this graph shows the recent large performance gains that have recently gone into mozilla.
Personally, I find mozilla outrageously fast on Windows; faster than anything else I've tried. However, on Solaris and OSX, the performance isn't where I'd like it to be. (But as the graph above shows, it's getting better, and I've noticed it on OSX.). If you're a user of the Windows platform, and have heard the "slow performance" chatter that goes on, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
(In spite of the "I'd like it faster on Solaris" comment, that doesn't mean I don't like it. I still use mozilla exclusively on Solaris too; the tabbed browsing, integrated searching, and killing of popups would make it worthwhile at half the speed.)
There are also a large collection of performance bugs that probably won't make Moz 1.0, but do have a good chance of making 1.0.1. So there's even more good news just a little down the road.
And the biggest plugin annoyance of all time....installing a JRE. For the non-geek user this is just a pain. They don't want to have to download and install this as well as the browser. It makes things too complicated. I wonder if an open source JRE like Blackdown.org's JRE with the Mozilla could be included with Mozilla.
Also, Shockwave Flash has to be installed afterwards as well. IE on the other hand includes this in their browser. IE basically works out of the box, Mozilla doesn't. And the auto-plugin-installer crap doesn't work perfectly yet.
I'm a relative newbie to using mozilla. When using netscape, I often start more than one netscape process since if one process crashes it won't take down the unrelated netscape processes. Is this possible with mozilla? When I tried doing that it didn't seem to start a seperate process. Is their a way to force >1 mozilla process?
If you wanna track the progress, you can always go to the Make Mozilla 1.0 not suck metabug. This has been done for all releases since I can remember.
Take for instance the same bug for Mozilla 0.9.9...all bugs are tracked in here up until the final release.
var e = document.getElementById('fieldname');
e.style.display = 'none'; (or)
e.style.visibility = 'hidden';
The difference between display and visibility is that turning off display causes everything to reposition as if the object wasn't there, and turning off visibility just makes it invisible (while keeping the space reserved).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
according to the roadmap, we can expect the first branches of moz1.0 tomorrow (friday). this is rather unrealistic. based on the fact that the branch on 0.9.9 was 8 days late, I am guessing that we will see the first branches around the 4th of April (although, remember that the entire 0.9.9 build has essentially been a frozen branch towards 1.0, so perhaps they'll be on time).
If you see a release announcement for 1.0 on Monday, April Fools to you!
... no way will it be out that early; releases are scheduled for a week after the branching but have recently been 10-20 days, so expect Mozilla 1.0 sometime around 4/20 (I wonder what a release on that day would mean for the nature of the party?).
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Well, it is. I mean, it's from Norway. Right?
Best Slashdot Co
I'm on my way to spend my 10 bugzilla voting points on my favorite bugs.
You may want to do the same, I bet it matters more now then before. As a matter of fact, all bugs I have previously voted on have been resolved, so I have all 10 votes back.
bugzilla.mozilla.org
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
user_pref("font.minimum-size.fixed", 14);
user_pref("font.minimum-size.variable", 14);
WOA!!! THATS AWSOME!!!
That like, goes out and finds random ass and then kicks it to add to its collection of kicked asses.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
Geeeze. Next thing, people are gonna be telling me that Bill Gates went to Harvard for a while.
Best Slashdot Co
Read between the lines, moderators. The implication is that hell froze over, because 1.0 finally came out. The post is perfectly on topic.
slashdot!=valid HTML
If there are so many then why would you block them?
You can press Ctrl+N to get a new window, and Shift click links to open a navigate to the clicked URL in a new window. Yes, they are killer features.
Sure is. I do it myself, as I don't like to squint when browsing - I have a desktop resolution of 1600x1200. Add the following line to your prefs.js file - it's in ~/.mozilla/default/XXX.slt/, where XXX is something unique to the user:
You can replace 18 with whatever you like, of course. Enjoy!
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
It's very nice. I just found out about custom keywords today, and they rock.
You can set up a book mark that takes a parameter and has a shortcut keyword. So now when I type "g keyword" into the urlbar it searches Google for my keyword. Browsing will never be the same :-).
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. Keep that in mind at all times." Bill Hicks
We've still got a ways to go here. Check-ins to the tree are being tightly managed by the Mozilla "drivers" and we're working on getting it into shape for branching. When we get a handle on a few more bugs we'll create a Mozilla 1.0 branch and do a fairly quick Release Candidate 1. This will be a preview of what's to come with the final Mozilla 1.0 and an oportunity to gather feedback and TalkBack crash data that we will respond to over the following weeks as we approach the Mozilla 1.0 release.
--Asa
are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
This kind of attitude is intolerable. It's stupid. It's arrogant. It's wrong. It's no wonder web "developers" are the laughingstock of the software engineering world.
Imagine a gas station that blocked all Fords.
There are millions of web sites that render under Mozilla just as well, or better, then under the monopolist's client. They can do it, why can't you?
If your site won't render on 99.99% of your target audience's browsers, then you need to fix your site. You don't have to make a page under Mozilla look exactly like a page under IExploder. It would be nice, but it will never happen. Hell, you can't even make the page look identical under every IExploder browser, because the users will all have different monitors, desktop sizes, fonts, plugins, etc.
Let me hit you upside the head with a clue stick: the user is in charge. If you block them from your site they will go elsewhere, and they will take their money with them. That might only be 5% of your user base, but your user base is 10 million, that's half a million users you're insulting. You could be losing millions of dollars. This type of action may be commonplace in the software industry, but for every other industry in the world such behavior would be shocking.
The browser I use is Konqueror. Imagine if Konqueror was designed for only Linux. I couldn't use it because I'm not using Linux. But it still works. How can it work? Because it isn't designed for a particular platform, but for a particular set of *standards* instead. As long as I use a platform that minimally supports the POSIX and X11R6 standards, I can build and use Konqueror. But you can't adhere to standards too slavishly. If Konqueror required conformance to every POSIX standard, then not even Linux could run it.
In a nutshell, if a browser like Mozilla, which is more standards compliant than Internet Exploder, can't render your webpages, then the fault lies with your web pages.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Opera may load up faster but its slower at rendering pages.
IE is faster than Mozilla but not faster at rendering pages.
I dont really care how fast the browser loads, as long as it renders pages fast.
Theres no way anyone can convince me IE or Opera can load pages faster than mOzilla, in my own tests Mozilla beat both browsers on every site I go to.
Mozilla does have issues with javascript, thats one area IE and Opera win, but in all other Areas, Mozilla kicks ass.
I compared IE 6(or whatever the newest one is), Mozilla nightly, Opera6.
Mozilla is just fast as hell, pages render instantly no matter what page it is. Mozilla has never crashed, Konq has crashed, I admit Opera doesnt crash, but IE crashes more than Mozilla at this point.
Have fun with slow rendering fast loading Opera.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
But Opera's got awful DOM support. Come on, Konqueror's rendering engine has overtaken Opera's in terms of standards support with the advent of KDE3.
Yeah, I'm a zealot. Its why i submitted the story after all.
I could care less about Opera. Mozilla is special to me, being fully open source like this and its own rather large community backing it. Opera is closed source and.. and uh.. hrm. Not much else to say.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
When Netscape first released the source code *four* years ago...
/. user accounts/logins. One could post as a AC (as I used to do), or could post using any nick of your choosing. Linux stories on the web were rare (and newsworthy for a /. story). IIRC, beowulf cluster jokes were funny back then, and First Posts! were still the norm. Hot grits was something I would eat, not something that I would consider pouring down my pants. Thank You.
There were no
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Remove the Stone of Shame. Attach the Stone of Triumph!"
--Number 1
Stonecutter, Springfield Chapter
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Ctrl + N does the same thing.
Ctrl + Button1 opens the clicked link in a new window.
Button2 opens the clicked link in a new window, too.
None of these are "killer features."
ok lets benchmark the load of slashdot. Moz, Konq, Opera. I'm going to load the main page, everyone here can do it too and make sure its accurate. .9x nightly vs
Mozilla
Konq 2.2.1 vs
Opera 6 beta 1.
Slashdot mainpage Mozilla 1.06 seconds.
Reload
Slashdot mainpage Mozilla 1.25 seconds.
OSDN main page Mozilla 1.498 seconds.
Reload
OSDN main page Mozilla 3.4 seconds.
Slashdot main page Konqueror 3 seconds
Reload
Slashdot main page Konqueror 1 second
OSDN main page Konqueror 4 seconds
Reload
OSDN main page Konqueror 3 seconds
Slashdot main page Opera 2 seconds
Reload
Slashdot main page Opera 2 seconds
OSDN main page Opera 6 seconds
Reload
OSDN main page Opera 4 seconds.
This debate needs to be ended once and for all, I challenge ANYONE to host an official benchmarking test suite where thousands us at slashdot can go and benchmark Opera vs Mozilla vs Konq vs IE and once and for all prove Mozilla is fastest.
I know it wins at OSDN and Slashdot.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Our users are interested in the web site working, and working correctly.
If it is a true vertical market, where you have physical control over the client machines, then you can impose whatever damn browser you want on them. But as long as the user has a choice in their own browser, then it makes sense at this level of sensitivity to implement *fewer* CSS2 features rather than more.
Where I work we build an embedded device with an integrated webserver for remote access. The data served by this webserver is even more sensitive than credit reports (medical diagnostic images). The developer of the access page really wanted to use just Internet Explorer as the browser, since it handled the features he wanted to use. But Navigator didn't. But our clients are all physicians and predominantly Mac users, so Navigator was extremely common. So the access page had to be made to work with Navigator.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If you want a light browser for windows(noting "my linux boxes" probably means you use Windows somewhere), try K-Meleon. I find it renders pages much more nicely than Opera, and it's quite fast, even though I have no RAM to speak of. :)
kmeleon.sourceforge.net
It's been a long time.
Hold on a second.
This is "extremely sensitive data" and you're ensuring its security by... asking the browser not to display it???
(I could be misunderstanding your situation, but your original post was about making things invisible and now you're talking about sensitive data. Sorry if I put 2 and 2 together and got 5)
If I *didn't* misunderstand you, though, you've got WAY more serious issues than "Mozilla's broken". Like "view source". And "wget" (with a spoofed useragent if necessary). And "disable javascript and css". And "display: block !important" in a user stylesheet. All of these are *standard* ways that a user could completely bypass your "security", and most of them apply to IE just as much as to Mozilla.
Number 1 rule of security is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. Even if you think you know what the client is. You can never guarantee that the http request claiming an IE useragent isn't really a spoofing mozilla browser or a deliberately malicious wget command.
I seriously hope I'm wrong about what you are requesting here.
Mozilla is not a light browser, its a powerful one. Theres the Gecko engine, and theres Mozilla. Mozilla is the XUL based browser which is designed to be compatible with all OS's.
The Gecko engine however has been ported to NATIVE interfaces, and in these cases, it loads as fast as IE and Opera also coded for Native interfaces.
Opera seems to have the fastest load time and most efficient code (meaning no memory leaks and optimized)
Kmeleon is about as fast as IE and uses the same native interface as IE.
Galeon for Linux is as fast as things get for Linux.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That must really come in handy when you are trying to rob a bank or infiltrate the girl's dorm shower, eh?
What I want that's close to this, but not quite, is the ability to have macros as part of bookmarks.
Speecifially I dual boot between Windows & Linux, and like to use the same set of bookmarks on both OS's (I just copy then via a shared drive). The trouble is that my local links (to documention and locally cached websites - I wget them if they're slow) are file://c:\ in windows, and file:///mnt/c/ in Linux.
It seems the way to be able to use these bookmarks from either OS would be to define them as $(prefix)/ with some convenient way to set the macro $(prefix).
Or maybe there's already a way to do it?
Did you file a bug? Which version were you trying? Testcase? :)
I can name at least 3 bugs that could have fixed your problem that got fixed in the last 2 months. If you actually gave a specific description of the problem (what's a "field" here?) I would likely be able to point you to the exact bug on it....
I agree with you that Netscape 4.x was a bug ridden piece of shit and every web designer's nightmare back in the day, but in 2002 we've got this thing called Mozilla that actually works ninety percent of the time and that is practically nothing like Netscape, not even Netscape 6, which sucks almost as bad as its predecessor. Mozilla 0.9.99999999999 is a great browser and if you're not indulging on IE-centric JavaScript, you'll have no problems with it whatsoever. Well, a few, but nothing serious.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
> I'm wondering when they are going to put spell checking in.
:)
As soon as someone writes it.
Hmm...that sort of thing works correctly for me. For example, look at http://www.webreference.com/programming/javascript /trees/Example/example.htm
> But no one wants to port it to my OS. I won't do it because I am a parasite.
:)
There we have the crux of the matter.
Mac OS X has built-in spell checking, but Mozilla does not implement it, as it largely refuses to implement any platform-specific features (except for Linux ones).
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Mozilla is *not* exactly like IE, Opera or Konqueror. Yes, you can browse the web with all these products.
But Mozilla is more than a browser. Mozilla is a developpment framework. It's also a graphic toolkit, and a powerful language, whoose other components are based upon.
It means that Mozilla is far more flexible than other browsers. You can write games or word processors with Mozilla without any external library. And the result will be clean, based on fully documented standards, and portable across all platforms Mozilla can run on.
So when Mozilla 1.0 will be released, it will only be the _beginning_ of the story. The framework will be there and solid, and applications will show its true power.
{{.sig}}
Have you tried Galeon yet? I use it exclusively on Linux and would sell my soul for a Windows version. It takes much of the overhead from Mozilla out yet keeps the great rendering engine.
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
I went to a computer show slightly before Netscape got bought by AOL and right around the time when they released Mozilla and created mozilla.org.
I was talking to the Netscape reps there.. Netscape's view on this "browser war" is that there shouldn't be one.. that the browsers shoul follow the standards, that way no user is disallowed from the content on the internet. that's why mozilla is so promoted as standards compliant.. the reason for different browsers is choice.. nothing more.. some prefer mozilla, some opera, konqueror, or yes for some reason even M$ explorer. but as long as everyone follows a standard there's just a war on who has the better content...
I'm running Mozilla on all of my machines, even a PII-233 Linux workstation, and it's definately faster than anything else I've tried.
It absolutely flies on my dual-boot WinXP/Slackware 8.0 machines, in both Windows and Linux.
Long live Mozilla.
Before you label me a troll, go ahead and try it. Closely compare the IE and Mozilla on UNIX output and look at the size/quality of the generated PostScript. And god forbid the page uses a font other than the 12 builtin Adobe fonts (even if it does it has a problem distiquishing between Monospaced and variable width text on the same page). *Sigh*.
Why does mozillaZine.org feature the launching of the Hindenburg? Is there some deeper message here?
Put this code in bookmark URL (one line):
javascript:function htmlEscape(s){s=s.replace(/&/g,'&');s=s.replac e(/>/g,'>');s=s.replace(/' + htmlEscape('\n' +document.documentElement.innerHTML + '\n')); x.document.close();
Try K-Meleon - I think it's time to find satans phone number ;)
I would like to give a big thank you to the wonderful readers of slashdot who posted links to bugzilla pages.
Thanks to the traffic you generated, I can't do any work on bugzilla right now.
Slashdot should have a new article posted: "Slashdot impedes mozilla development"
--
Violators will be prosecuted and prosecutors will be violated.
This would effectively replace the W3C with Microsoft. Which do you think is more realistic to implement, a specific published standard or Microsoft's hack-of-the-week-to-break-the-competition? Show us where Microsoft's implementation of html rendering is FULLY documented and perhaps it will be considered.
Another fun story - I tried upgrading IE 5.5 to IE6 and it broke on a web-based bug tracking system (fairly horrible system, lots of Javascript). I eventually downgraded to IE5.5 (which was not easy) and then tried Mozilla 0.9.8, which worked perfectly...
Clearly Mozilla is the natural upgrade path for IE 5.5!
Keyboard shortcuts for everything. If you're into that, Opera beats anything else out there. Moz took its cue to implement mouse gestures from Opera. iCab is the only browser I've seen that has more preference options than Opera. Opera puts the user experience first, IMO.
Much like the Win-Mac dynamic, the little guy innovates. Opera is where you see the cool stuff first.
Sure, the UI is different than other browsers. Who cares? Who says the generally Mosaic-ish UI that IE and Moz have been using for years is the best/only one?
Constitutionally Correct
Another annoying one I discovered on a page I am writing. Have 3 password fields (common to have user type old password, then new one twice to confirm) and moz's password manager dialog comes up with the option to change the password FOR OTHER SITES, NOT THE ONE YOU ARE ON!...don't dare click OK, or your passwords for another site will be reset!
And it's also business when I go to another web site instead of yours because their site (like over 90% of sites out there) will work with my browser.
And tell all my friends to do likewise.
That can make that 1% go up pretty quickly, and do you really want to lose any customers?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Well...by that logic, WTF won't IE honor a BODY style that sets a width, instead forcing you to wrap everything in friggin' DIV tags??? Huh? Mozilla does it as expected, applying CSS style to the elements specified. IE doesn't allow it, forcing the use of DIV tags for almost everything.
What nonsense.
Browsers don't explode. Probably some semi-useful feature like colored scrollbars might not work or the worst that can happen is that the page is displayed inproperly.
And in the next version it might be fixed - do you try every browser version that is coming out and test it against your webpage?
This kind of attitude is very shortsighted and just plain stupid.
I think this is because spell-check is a Cocoa feature, and the mainstream Mozilla for OS X (fizilla) is Carbon.
Check out Chimera, on mozdev.org, for a true Cocoa port of Mozilla. It's very early, but very fast, and shows a lot of promise.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Well, no, not really. I can just view their competitor's site. Which is what I do.
So I guess that as long as your business doesn't have any competitors, you don't have to worry about it.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
*spoken by someone who basically gave up trying to get toggling of a field's visibility to work, and are probably going to be forced to block all Mozilla browsers.
Heh. Good luck trying to do that. If the method used to recognize browser is to use the user agent string, changing it to resemble IE is rather trivial and does not need anything like recompiling the software. But I'd rather recommend to first ensure 100% that it's really a fault in the standard compliance of Mozilla (of course perfectly possible). If it turns out to be so, file a bug into Bugzilla (takes about five minutes of your time), be happy with the knowledge that the bug will eventually be sorted out and perhaps meanwhile add a warning for those people who seem to be using Mozilla/NS6.x about the bug, something like "The browser you are currently using has potentially trouble displaying (whatever it can't display properly), proceed at your own risk".
Quite a bit more useful than trying to block everyone with Mozilla/NS6.x and does not take much time to do. Customers with M/NS6.x who see a nice little warning are also probably less annoyed by this approach, I think. Of course, I may miss something and be horribly wrong.
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
If that is your argument against mozilla, just use konqueror, which supports this. Oh, you use Windows.
Moritz
Actually, it looks like that option made it into the preferences dialog in the latest builds.
Web browsing has lost hits luster. Will Mozilla save this industry? Is it to blame? Is it just me who finds it ironic that the previous story was about web browsing becoming less enthralling.
;))
(Well, the description also said Web Trolling was less appealing. Presumably since both BSD and Linux have finally died thereby killing the two most common trolling topics
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm not advocating this policy for every site, but for my particular case (where we are handling extremely sensitive data, namely credit reports), it does make sense. It's a vertical market application. Our users are interested in the web site working, and working correctly.
Now you say that security is not an issue...which is it? You are undermining your own arguments considerably. And as for being a vertical market application, you may have considerably more freedom in setting compatibility req's such as specifying IE5/6, but as your original post didn't mention this...
There is a great browser based on IE's rendering engine called NetCaptor that has had tabbed browsing in Windows for quite a while. It is shareware, so that kinda sucks, but with the other features (popup blocking, url blocking, aliases, built-in translation, tons more) its worth it IMO. I would heartily recommend it to any Windows user who enjoys the tabbed browsing but can't take Mozilla for whatever reason. Check it out at www.netcaptor.com.
(and no, I don't work for NetCaptor.)
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
"slim pickins"?
"Bub"?
OH MY GOD! ANN LANDERS READS SLASHDOT!
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Mozilla Mail is a different story. Functional, but very unpolished and not ready for heavy use. I should know, I've been using it heavily for the past two weeks as a trial run. Basically it needs a UI guy to go over it and flesh out the bugs.
In short, works but definitely not ready for prime time.
I've been out of the Mozilla developer scene for some time, but as one of the perpetrators of making the thing work on BSD/OS I can say that changing compilers can be quite painful. 99.99% of the code will just compile fine, but debugging those few lines of code that get miscompiled is a daunting task.
./configure :-) of the developers.
There is also a (very small) piece of code in Mozilla that needs to know the exact memory layout of the C++ vtables. Took me a week to come up with a four line diff to make it work on my platform.
If it was as easy as
CC=ccc
make
someone would've done it by now. Performance has always been of prime concern (and fear
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
The plugin API is cast in concrete. Plugins for Netscape 6 ought to drop in to Mozilla just fine.
.swf animations called from spams and trying to call back home to mention that my e-mail address was alive and kicking and begging for more spam. God thing the firewall caught it.
I'm happy that Mozilla doesn't come with all the plugin crap that's part of Netscape 6 and IE.
I browse with paranoid settings, and I'm constantly amazed by the amount of crap that sails right through IE's settings. That bit is done much better by Mozilla (still far from perfect though). But plugins like Flash still give away your whole machine to the nasties.
On more than one occasion, I've seen
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
I don't think K-Meleon has been updated in a long time - it's being built on Mozilla 9.5, and a new version hasn't been released since October of last year.
And get this. My fiancee runs windows 2k on her 300 celeron and was getting really tired of IE crashing, being slow, etc. So, I installed Mozilla 0.9.9, setup tabbed browsing, and told her to try it out. She doesn't use IE anymore! She finds Mozilla to be faster, easier, and much much more stable. She also likes the tabbed browsing.
Mozilla may still lack in some areas where IE shines, I don't really know I don't use IE, but Mozilla sure has turned out to be a great contender.
That is all.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The bug was difficult to reproduce, and I just happened to find the conditions under which it would happen.
Anyway, it was only a small effort on my part but it was helpful.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It only it didn't crash on OpenBSD... :(
{{.sig}}
I think Mozilla's speed depends on a lot of factors, including platform.
In my experience, Mozilla is fast as hell on Windows and FreeBSD (XFree86 3.3.something). Under Linux (2.4.18 + low latency + preempt, XFree86 4.x, my primary system) it's not nearly as fast.
It's still faster than Opera and way way faster than Konqueror, but I often find myself running Moz on the BSD box (remotely) just to get the speed.
Galeon is a bit faster but I tend to upgrade Mozilla often, and Galeon doesn't keep up and often breaks. The only major Galeon feature is saving your session (URL for each tab you have open) in the event of a crash; but Moz hasn't crashed for me since 0.9.8 anyway...
Anyway I read somewhere once (wish I had a URL) that Mozilla's speed problems on Linux have a lot to do with the system libraries. Not sure if this is a cop-out response or not, but I have noticed major moz speed differences between Linux, Win2k and FreeBSD, even on the same physical box. My experience has been with RedHat 6.2 and 7.2, Win2k SP2, and FreeBSD 4.4-release.
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
My solution for problem B) was to run a local web server (Apache). I have a rewrite rule to redirect everything to 'index.html', which is a zero-byte file. My hosts file on each box I use simply points offending domains to my BSD box's IP, which runs the Apache web server (I used to run my own DNS cache which made this even easier, eg edit one place to affect all boxes on the network).
This way, those silly I-frame ads and banner images will simply (and instantly, no waiting for timeouts) show empty.
You could even do this using an external web site, if you have an extra IP laying around not being used on port 80, though that may be a bit wasteful depending on the circumstances...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
...I'm afraid to look, because filters for newsgroups may not have made it in.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Font tags are ugly, I never use em. However, what is the problem with CSS? If your browser can't handle them (The Nescape 3.0 and 2.0 hits I still get, maybe WebTV which is close to 1% on one site), it doesn't. No harm, no foul.
Given different pixel sizes? No biggie, I look at the user agent, Netscape and Mac users get different font sizes, not a big deal. We're not talking about a complicated switch statement. IE users get the default.
I mean, writing your pages as HTML 4.01 Transitional and CSS 1.0 isn't that hard. If you must do XHTML, CSS 2.0, or other "newer" technologies, just keep a Netscape 4.x browser with you. Look at the page, make sure it works.
Sure some of your CSS formatting won't be there, but the site should be usable and its content all gets across. The problem is you guys being lazy, this isn't rocket science.
If you have issues maintaining it, do XSLT or use a database to power the site. The "pages" can all be a collection of paragraphs with the occaisional class declaration, do everything else in your programming logic.
Alex